Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03152016 - Comp Min PktCALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AGENCIES, AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNED BY THE BOARD BOARD CHAMBERS ROOM 107, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 651 PINE STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 CANDACE ANDERSEN, CHAIR, 2ND DISTRICT MARY N. PIEPHO, VICE CHAIR, 3RD DISTRICT JOHN GIOIA, 1ST DISTRICT KAREN MITCHOFF, 4TH DISTRICT FEDERAL D. GLOVER, 5TH DISTRICT DAVID J. TWA, CLERK OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, (925) 335-1900 PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES. A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR. The Board of Supervisors respects your time, and every attempt is made to accurately estimate when an item may be heard by the Board. All times specified for items on the Board of Supervisors agenda are approximate. Items may be heard later than indicated depending on the business of the day. Your patience is appreciated. ANNOTATED AGENDA & MINUTES March 15, 2016                  9:00 A.M. Convene and announce adjournment to closed session in Room 101. Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS 1. Agency Negotiators: David Twa and Bruce Heid. Employee Organizations: Contra Costa County Employees’ Assn., Local No. 1; Am. Fed., State, County, & Mun. Empl., Locals 512 and 2700; Calif. Nurses Assn.; Service Empl. Int’l Union, Local1021; District Attorney’s Investigators Assn.; Deputy Sheriffs Assn.; United Prof. Firefighters, Local 1230; Physicians’ & Dentists’ Org. of Contra Costa; Western Council of Engineers; United Chief Officers Assn.; Service Empl. Int’l Union United Health Care Workers West; Contra Costa County Defenders Assn.; Probation Peace Officers Assn. of Contra Costa County; Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorneys’ Assn.; and Prof. & Tech. Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO; Teamsters Local 856. 2. Agency Negotiators: David Twa. Unrepresented Employees: All unrepresented employees. B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov. Code, § 54956.9(d)(1)) Lynda Tavares v. Gerard Schmit, M.D., et al.; Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No. C14-02187 C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov. Code, § 54956.9(d)(2): one potential case 9:30 a.m. Call to order and opening ceremonies. Inspirational Thought- “Leadership is for those who love the public good and are endowed and trained to administer it.” ~Thornton Wilder, The Ides of March March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 1 Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor; Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor; Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Staff Present:David Twa, County Administrator CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.60 on the following agenda) – Items are subject to removal from Consent Calendar by request of any Supervisor or on request for discussion by a member of the public. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be considered with the Discussion Items.   PRESENTATIONS (5 Minutes Each)   PRESENTATION recognizing the Regional Center of the East Bay. (Supervisor Andersen)     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover PRESENTATION recognizing National Social Workers Month. (Supervisor Andersen)    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover PRESENTATION to recognize March 20-26, 2016 as Environmental Health Recognition Week in Contra Costa County. (William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director)    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover DISCUSSION ITEMS   D. 1 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    Consent Item C.9 was removed to allow for public comment, and subsequently relisted for consideration on July 12, 2016. Consent Item C.14 was removed to allow for public comment and adopted as presented.   D. 2 PUBLIC COMMENT (3 Minutes/Speaker)    Catja C. de Neergaard, Kensington Green Quaker Earthcall Witness, requested the Board seek greater diversity of representation on boards and commissions, and noted that a longer application period might be helpful in recruitment efforts; Eli D., resident of Martinez, spoke on pollution at the docks in Contra Costa County, noting that less marine vehicles on the waterways might not only help with pollution but encourage recovery of fish populations. He was also concerned that documentation kept by hospital in tracking patient visits may not be accurate.   D. 3 HEARING to consider an appeal of the County Planning Commission decision to sustain the Zoning Administrator's approval of a residential addition at 148 Highland Boulevard in the Kensington area; and to consider related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, County File #DP15-3011. (Catherine De Neergaard, Appellant) (Wade Skeels, Applicant) (Dean Williams and Daryle Morgan, Owners) (Aruna Bhat and Francisco Avila, Conservation and Development Department)       Speakers: Catherine de Neergaard, Appellant (handout attached); Daryle Morgan, Property Owner. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 2  Speakers: Catherine de Neergaard, Appellant (handout attached); Daryle Morgan, Property Owner. CLOSED the hearing; FOUND that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; DENIED the appeal of Catherine de Neergaard; SUSTAINED the decision of the County Planning Commission; APPROVED County File No. DP15-3011, a development plan to add conditioned living space to the basement level of an existing single-family residence; ADOPTED the findings and conditions of approval for County File No. DP15-3011; ADDED a Condition of Approval " Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit photographic evidence confirming the installation of a muffler or equivalent noise reduction device on the exhaust vent located on the southern side of the subject residence"; and DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 4 HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-10, which would extend the previous Urgency Interim Ordinance (Ord. No. 2016-04) prohibiting the cultivation of medical marijuana and delivery of medical marijuana in the unincorporated areas of the County for an additional 10 months and 15 days. (John Kopchik, Conservation and Development Director)       Speakers: Youth Leadership for a Healthier Richmond: Jacky F., Jacqueline G., Ronvey S.; Roger Morgan, founder Take Back America Campaign (handouts attached). Jaime Rich and Danielle Butler from the Center for Human Developmet left written commentary for the Board's consideration (attached). CLOSED the hearing; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2016-10, extending for a period of 10 months and 15 days (January 30, 2017), an urgency interim ordinance prohibiting the cultivation of medical marijuana and the delivery of medical marijuana, as amended today to remove the exemption for personal medical marijuana cultivation by qualified patients and caregivers; FOUND that the adoption of the interim ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15061(b)(3) of CEQA guidelines; DIRECTED staff to prepare a permanent ordinance regulating medical marijuana activities; and DIRECTED the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development to file the Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Clerk.     AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover NO: District I Supervisor John Gioia D. 5 CONSIDER options for potential implementation of Community Choice Energy, a program to aggregate consumer electricity demand within a jurisdiction or region for purposes of procuring energy for the benefit of county residents, within the unincorporated area of the County. (Jason Crapo, Conservation and Development Department)       Speakers: Charles Davidsen, Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance; Susan Junfish, parents for a Safer March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 3  Speakers: Charles Davidsen, Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance; Susan Junfish, parents for a Safer Environment; Salvatore Evola, City of Pittsburg; Nancy Rieser, Crockett-Rodeo United to Defend the Environment, and Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition; Rebecca Band, IBEW 1245 and Contra Costa Labor Council; Albert Lopez, Alameda County; Alexandra McGee, MCE; Alex Digiorgio, MCE; Dawn Weisz, MCE; Bill Pinkham, resident of Richmond; C. DeNeergaard, Kensington Green Group; Harry Thurston, Contra Costa Clan Energy Allicance;Carol Weed, Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance; Ann Puntch, resident of Rodeo; Ratha Cai, Sierra Club Bay Chapter; Wendy Lack. Rebecca Band, IBEW 1245 and Contra Costa Labor Council, left written comments for the Board's consideration (attached). The Board Chose Option 1: Work with interested cities in Contra Costa County to obtain electrical load data from PG&E and conduct a technical study of the following three CCE alternatives: · Form a new joint powers authority of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County for the purpose of implementing Community Choice Energy · Join Marin Clean Energy (MCE) · Form a new joint powers authority with Alameda County and the interested group of cities in the two-county region     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 6 CONSIDER a position of Support for the California Public Vote on Bonds Initiative, qualified to appear on the November 8, 2016 ballot as an initiated state statue, as recommended by Supervisors Mitchoff and Piepho.        AYE: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover NO: District I Supervisor John Gioia D. 7 CONSIDER a position of "Support" for AB 1713 (Eggman): Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: Peripheral Canal, a bill that would prohibit the construction of a peripheral canal in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta unless expressly authorized by an initiative voted on by the voters of California, and would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to complete a prescribed economic feasibility analysis prior to a vote authorizing the construction of a peripheral canal, as recommended by Supervisors Mitchoff and Piepho.       Written comments provided by Ann Puntch (attached).     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 8 CONSIDER adopting Resolution No. 2016/104 to approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority and SEIU Local 2015, as recommended by the County Administrator. (David Twa, County Administrator)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 9 CONSIDER accepting written acknowledgment by the County Administrator (Chief Executive Officer) that he understands the current and future costs of the health benefit changes for retirees affected by the potential settlement agreement in Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County v. Contra Costa County, as provided by the County's actuary in letter of February 17, 2016. (David Twa, County Administrator)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 4  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.10 CONSIDER adopting Resolution No. 2016/124 to approve an agreement to settle Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County et al v. Contra Costa County, No. C12-00944, litigation concerning retiree health care benefits, and AUTHORIZE County Administrator to execute the settlement agreement. (David Twa, County Administrator)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 11 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   Closed Session   ADJOURN   CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise for the 2016 on-call concrete services contract(s) for various road and flood control maintenance work, for routine maintenance and repair of existing road pavement and flood control facilities, Countywide. (100% Local Road and Flood Control Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 2 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute two construction contracts with GradeTech, Inc., and Hess Concrete Construction Co., Inc., in the amount of $400,000 each, for the 2016 On-Call Contract(s) for Various Road and Flood Control Maintenance Work, Countywide. (100% Local Road and Flood Control Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 3 RESCIND Traffic Resolution No. 2013/4378, and ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4437 to establish speed limits on Bailey Road (Road 4961), as recommended by the Public Works Director, Concord, Pittsburg, and Bay Point areas. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 4 ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4438 to establish speed limits on San Pablo Avenue (Road No. 0971C), as recommended by the Public Works Director, Rodeo and Crockett areas. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 5 ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4439 to prohibit parking at all times on the north side of    March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 5 C. 5 ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4439 to prohibit parking at all times on the north side of Boulevard Way (Road No. 3851D), as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Engineering Services   C. 6 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/115 approving a substitute Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty for subdivision SD13-09325, a project being developed by Western Pacific Housing., as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 7 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/116 approving a substitute Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty for subdivision SD13-09303, a project being developed by Western Pacific Housing, Inc., as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Special Districts & County Airports   C. 8 APPROVE the Mogas Fueling Station at Buchanan Field Airport Project and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, Concord area, as recommended by the Public Works Director. (100% Developer Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 9 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports to terminate a month-to-month license agreement dated July 1, 2015, between the County and the OverWatch Flight & Conditioning (dba, OverWatch F/C and The Hangar/CrossFit OverWatch) (Tenant) for real property located at 101 John Glenn Drive, Concord; AUTHORIZE County Counsel to pursue legal action to regain possession of the real property if Tenant fails to vacate the premises within the time allowed. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)       Speaker: James Greninger, OverWatch Flight & Conditioning School. This matter is RELISTED to July 12, 2016, with the understanding that it is expected that a minimum of 6 students will have successfully completed the course.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 10 DENY claims filed by Ranee Chaloeicheep, Diane Fidelibus, Shaen Gresham, Charlene Harris, Joel Mangiaracina, Gennifer Mountain, Kara O’Neil and Douglas & Traci Stokes.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III SupervisorMarch 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 6  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 11 RECEIVE public report of litigation settlement agreements that became final during the period of February 1-29, 2016.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Statutory Actions   C. 12 ACCEPT Board members' meeting reports for February 2016.      AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Ordinances   C. 13 ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-05, establishing online or electronic filing requirements for campaign disclosure documents filed with the County Clerk-Elections Division, as recommended by the Clerk-Recorder.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 14 ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-08, establishing an environmental health color-coded placard program for food facilities, as recommended by the Health Services Director.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Honors & Proclamations   C. 15 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/83 recognizing the Regional Center of the East Bay for coordinating services for people with developmental disabilities and their families, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 16 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/101 recognizing Social Workers, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 17 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/117 recognizing the contributions of Cathy Lueders on the occasion of her retirement from the Public Works Department, as recommended by the Public Works Director. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 18 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/118 recognizing March 20-26, 2016 as Environmental Health    March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 7 C. 18 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/118 recognizing March 20-26, 2016 as Environmental Health Recognition Week in Contra Costa County, as recommended by the Health Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 19 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/121 recognizing Tom Steuber as Lafayette's Citizen of the Year, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 20 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/130 recognizing Emily Purvis for 23 years of service to Contra Costa County, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 21 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/132 recognizing John Wyro as the Orinda Citizen of the Year, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 22 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/133 urging the State to provide new sustainable funding for State and Local Transportation Infrastructure, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff and Supervisor Glover.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 23 ADOPT Resolution No. 2015/446 honoring the West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer's Respite Center for its dedicated service to the community, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia.       RELISTED to a future date undetermined.   Appointments & Resignations   C. 24 APPOINT Robert Sarmiento to the Contra Costa County seat and Jerry Fahy to the Contra Costa County Alternate seat on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 25 APPROVE the medical staff appointments, additional privileges, medical staff advancement, and voluntary resignations as recommend by the Medical Staff Executive Committee at its February 22, 2016 meeting, and by the Health Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 26 APPOINT Bonnie McCreary to the At Large #5 seat, Patricia Ramirez to the At Large #6 seat, and Natalie Oleas to the At Large #10 seat on the Contra Costa Commission for Women, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.      March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 8    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 27 APPOINT Dr. Elizabeth Sutherland to the At Large 2 seat on the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 28 APPOINT Toya Thomas-Cruz to the Member At Large #2 seat, Jeffrey Kalin to the Member At Large #5 seat, Henry Tyson to the Member At Large #6 seat, Andi Li to the Member At Large #9 seat, and Joan Lautenberger to the Other Provider seat, on the Managed Care Commission, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 29 REAPPOINT Rachel Etherington to the Youth Representative Seat oN the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appropriation Adjustments   C. 30 Health Services Department (0463 - Behavioral Health Homeless Program): APPROVE Appropriation Adjustment No. 5052 authorizing the transfer of $28,816 from the Behavioral Health Homeless Program fund to the General Services fund for the purchase of one (1) Ford CMAX Hybrid to expand services within the Homeless Housing and Shelter program.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Intergovernmental Relations   C. 31 ADOPT an "Oppose Unless Amended" position on AB 45 (Mullins), as amended: Household Hazardous Waste, a bill that would require the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to adopt one or more model ordinances for a comprehensive program for the collection of household hazardous waste, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 32 ADOPT a "Support" position on AB 1642 (Obernolte), as introduced: State Responsibility Areas: Fire Prevention Fees, a bill that would increase the deadline for paying fire prevention fees from 30 days to 60 days, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Personnel Actions   C. 33 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21674 to establish the classification of Principal    March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 9 C. 33 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21674 to establish the classification of Principal Environmental Analyst (represented); and reclassify one Environmental Analyst III (represented) position and its incumbent to Principal Environmental Analyst (represented) in the Public Works Department. (Road, Flood Control and Special Revenue funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 34 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21837 to add one Accidental Release Prevention (ARP) Engineer - Entry Level position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (100% Chevron Refinery Fee Ordinance)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 35 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21838 to add one Health Services Administrator – Level C position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (100% Reimbursable Affordable Care Act Revenue)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 36 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in the amount of $5,000 from East Bay Community Foundation, administered by the Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council, for Rodeo Library services pursuant to the local refinery Good Neighbor Agreement, for the period July 1 through December 31, 2016. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in the amount of $1,400 from the City of Brentwood to provide funding for a workshop by social media expert Justin Lafferty, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (No Library Fund match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 38 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Director, a purchase order with CDW Government, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $195,226 to procure user-based licensing for SAP's Business Objects software, for the period March 31, 2016 through March 30, 2017. (20% County; 40% State; 40% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 39    March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 10 C. 39 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc., effective January 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $70,000 to a new payment limit of $305,284 to provide additional residential board and care services for Patch Program post-surgery participants, with no change in the original term of April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016. (100% County General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 40 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Crowne Plaza Concord Hotel, requiring the County’s assumption of liability for damages or injury, in an amount not to exceed $6,000, for the Foster Parent Recruitment Retention Support Program, Caregiver Appreciation Recognition event scheduled for May 18, 2016. (100% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 41 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Embassy Suites Hotels Walnut Creek, requiring the County’s assumption of liability for damages or injury, in an amount not to exceed $8,778 for the Heritage Protect Options for Recovery Program, Caregivers Retreat Training event scheduled for June 2, 2016. (7.5% County; 17.5% State; 75% Federal)       Corrected to Read: APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Embassy Suites Hotels Walnut Creek, requiring the County’s assumption of liability for damages or injury, in an amount not to exceed $8,778 $9, 309 for the Heritage Protect Options for Recovery Program, Caregivers Retreat Training event scheduled for June 2, 2016.     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 42 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to pay Tiburon, Inc., an amount not to exceed $205,236 for system support for the Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management System, and CopLogic systems under the Agreement for Extended Service between Tiburon and the County for the period September 10, 2015 to September 9, 2016. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with Johnson & Johnson, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $350,000 for surgical supplies and implants for the Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers for the period February 15, 2016 through February 14, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order in the amount of $102,000 for AT&T Network Integration Hardware and Services for the period March 21, 2016 through March 20, 2017. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 45    March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 11 C. 45 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Stand! For Families Free of Violence, effective March 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $35,000 to a new payment limit of $135,000 to provide additional mental health services, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, and to increase the automatic extension payment limit by $17,500 to a new payment limit of $67,500 through December 31, 2016. (100% CalWORKs)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Per Diem Staffing Systems, Inc., effective April 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $200,000 to a new payment limit of $1,200,000 to provide additional temporary help services at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, with no change in the original term of February 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 47 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contact with Sherpa Government Solutions, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $482,000 to provide the software and professional services for an upgrade to the County budget preparation system, for the period April 1, 2016 through March 21, 2021. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 48 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Robin Asher, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $133,120 to provide outpatient psychiatric care services to children and adults in East County for the period April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. (50% Federal Financial Participation, 50% Mental Health Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Contra Costa ARC, effective January 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $21,866 to a new payment limit of $169,509 to provide additional outreach and education services for the Department’s California Children’s Services (CCS) Program, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016. (22% Federal CCS Funds, 36% State CCS Funds, 5% County General Funds, 37% Packard/Kaiser Grant)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with John Muir Health (dba John Muir Medical Center-Walnut Creek), including modified indemnification language, in an amount not to exceed $40,000 to provide laboratory testing services for Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, for the period January 1, 2016 through December 1, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with    March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 12 C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Ronald L. Leon, M.D., Inc., in an amount not to exceed $174,720 to provide outpatient psychiatric services for mentally ill adults in East County, for the period April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. (100% Mental Health Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 52 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Jeffrey T. Bortz, M.D. (dba East Bay Skin Cancer Center), in an amount not to exceed $480,000 to provide dermatology services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members, for the period April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2018. (100% CCHP Enterprise Fund II)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 53 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the County of Plumas, effective December 1, 2015, to increase the payment limit by $41,519 to a new payment limit of $241,519 to provide additional Medi-Cal administrative activities and targeted case management participation, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016. (100% Medi-Cal Administrative Activities/Targeted Case Management funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the County Administrator, a purchase order with R-Computer in an amount not to exceed $214,138 for servers and related hardware and maintenance support for the County budget system upgrade. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other Actions   C. 55 CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16, 1999 regarding the issue of homelessness in Contra Costa County, as recommended by the Health Services Director. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 56 APPROVE policy governing County expenditures to plan and conduct annual Board of Supervisors-hosted commemorative celebrations, as recommended by the County Administrator. (Various funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 57 ACCEPT a revision to the fiscal year 2014/15 Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund Year-End Report, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (100% Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract amendment    March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 13 C. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Muir Diablo Occupational Medical Group Inc., recognizing the acquisition and name change of the corporation from Muir Diablo Occupational Medical Group Inc. to U.S. HealthWorks Medical Group P.C., with no change to the contract term or payment limit. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 59 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director to execute a non- financial agreement with the California Department of Social Services to allow the use of The Work Number, to verify employment and wage information, for the period April 1, 2016 through September 17, 2017. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 60 APPROVE the list of providers recommended by Contra Costa Health Plan's Medical Director on February 24, 2016, and by the Health Services Director, as required by the State Departments of Health Care Services and Managed Health Care, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover   GENERAL INFORMATION The Board meets in all its capacities pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 24-2.402, including as the Housing Authority and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. Persons who wish to address the Board should complete the form provided for that purpose and furnish a copy of any written statement to the Clerk. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the Clerk of the Board to a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, First Floor, Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553, during normal business hours. All matters listed under CONSENT ITEMS are considered by the Board to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Board or a member of the public prior to the time the Board votes on the motion to adopt. Persons who wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARINGS will be heard when the Chair calls for comments from those persons who are in support thereof or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and the matter is subject to discussion and action by the Board. Comments on matters listed on the agenda or otherwise within the purview of the Board of Supervisors can be submitted to the office of the Clerk of the Board via mail: Board of Supervisors, 651 Pine Street Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553; by fax: 925-335-1913. The County will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Board meetings who contact the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours before the meeting, at (925) 335-1900; TDD (925) 335-1915. An assistive listening device is available from the Clerk, Room 106. Copies of recordings of all or portions of a Board meeting may be purchased from the Clerk of the Board. Please telephone the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900, to make the necessary arrangements. Forms are available to anyone desiring to submit an inspirational thought nomination for inclusion on the Board Agenda. Forms may be obtained at the Office of the County Administrator or Office of the Clerk of the Board, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 14 Applications for personal subscriptions to the weekly Board Agenda may be obtained by calling the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900. The weekly agenda may also be viewed on the County’s Internet Web Page: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us STANDING COMMITTEES The Airport Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Mary N. Piepho) meets quarterly on the fourth Monday of the month at 12:30 p.m. at Director of Airports Office, 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord. The Family and Human Services Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Federal D. Glover) meets on the first Monday of the month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Finance Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets on the second Monday of the month at 1:30 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Federal Glover) To be determined The Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the second Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Legislation Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Mary N. Piepho) meets on the first Thursday of the month at 11:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Public Protection Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Federal D. Glover) meets on the second Monday of the month at 11:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Mary N. Piepho) meets on the first Thursday of the month at 1:30 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. Airports Committee See above Family & Human Services Committee See above Finance Committee See above Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee See above Internal Operations Committee See above Legislation Committee See above Public Protection Committee See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee See above PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR AGENDA DEADLINE: Thursday, 12 noon, 12 days before the Tuesday Board meetings. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 15 Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and written materials associated with Board meetings: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees AICP American Institute of Certified Planners AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOD Alcohol and Other Drugs ARRA American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BayRICS Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications System BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BGO Better Government Ordinance BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCCPFD (ConFire) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CCHP Contra Costa Health Plan CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCRMC Contra Costa Regional Medical Center CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIO Chief Information Officer COLA Cost of living adjustment ConFire (CCCFPD) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CPA Certified Public Accountant CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission dba doing business as DSRIP Delivery System Reform Incentive Program EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District ECCFPD East Contra Costa Fire Protection District EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee EMS Emergency Medical Services EPSDT Early State Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (Mental Health) et al. et alii (and others) FAA Federal Aviation Administration March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 16 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency F&HS Family and Human Services Committee First 5 First Five Children and Families Commission (Proposition 10) FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HCD (State Dept of) Housing & Community Development HHS (State Dept of ) Health and Human Services HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act HIV Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HR Human Resources HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IHSS In-Home Supportive Services Inc. Incorporated IOC Internal Operations Committee ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA Joint (exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LLC Limited Liability Company LLP Limited Liability Partnership Local 1 Public Employees Union Local 1 LVN Licensed Vocational Nurse MAC Municipal Advisory Council MBE Minority Business Enterprise M.D. Medical Doctor M.F.T. Marriage and Family Therapist MIS Management Information System MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OB-GYN Obstetrics and Gynecology O.D. Doctor of Optometry OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center OPEB Other Post Employment Benefits OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PARS Public Agencies Retirement Services PEPRA Public Employees Pension Reform Act Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology RDA Redevelopment Agency RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposal RFQ Request For Qualifications RN Registered Nurse SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SEIU Service Employees International Union SUASI Super Urban Area Security Initiative SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 17 TRE or TTE Trustee TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee UASI Urban Area Security Initiative VA Department of Veterans Affairs vs. versus (against) WAN Wide Area Network WBE Women Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 18 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1.) OPEN the hearing, ACCEPT public testimony, and CLOSE the hearing. 2.) FIND that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act - Class 1 (CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (e)(1)). 3.) DENY the appeal of Catherine de Neergaard. 4.) SUSTAIN the decision of the County Planning Commission. 5.) APPROVE County File No. DP15-3011, a development plan to add conditioned living space to the basement level of an existing single-family residence. 6.) ADOPT the attached findings and conditions of approval for County File No. DP15-3011. 7.) DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant has paid the initial deposit, and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to cover any and all additional staff time and materials costs associated with the application processing. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Adrian Veliz, (925) 674-7798 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appeal of the County Planning Commission's approval of County File #DP15-3011, for a residential addition at 148 Highland Boulevard in Kensington. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 19 BACKGROUND: This is an appeal of the County Planning Commission's (CPC) decision to approve County File #DP15-3011. The proposal includes a master bedroom addition at the lower level of the residence which consists of 154 square feet of new space at the rear of the residence and the conversion of 599 square feet of basement to conditioned living area. Below is a timeline of the processing of this application: May 26, 2015 -Application submittal June 26, 2015 - Application deemed incomplete July 28, 2015 - Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC) recommends approval, 4 to 0 August 11, 2015 - Revised plans submitted/ application deemed complete September 21, 2015 - Zoning Administrator hearing #1 September 29, 2015 - KMAC recommends approval of the project, 4 to 0 October 5, 2015 - Zoning Administrator hearing #2 October 19, 2015 - Zoning Administrator approves application October 29, 2015 - Appeal filed by Catherine de Neergaard January 12, 2016 - County Planning Commission denies appeal and approves project January 29, 2016 - Appeal filed by Catherine de Neergaard A detailed description of each hearing is listed below. General Discussion: 1. Project Description: The project is a request to add a total of 753 square feet of conditioned living space to the basement level of an existing single-family residence. 599 square feet will consist of a basement conversion and the remaining 154 square feet will consist of an addition to the rear of the residence. The combined space will include a master bedroom, mud room and laundry room. The entire project will be beneath the existing footprint of the floor above (proposed plans attached). The applicant is Wade Skeels. The property owners are Dean Williams and Daryle Morgan. 2. Area and Site: The project is located at 148 Highland Blvd. within the Berkeley Highlands Terrace subdivision of Kensington. The maps for this subdivision were recorded in the very early 1900s. The neighborhood consists primarily of custom built homes on rectangular lots 40- to 50-feet in width. Numerous mature trees and landscaping are located in the area. Most homes in the vicinity are two-stories tall to maximize views. The topography of the neighborhood generally slopes downward in a western direction. The subject site is rectangular in shape and is 4,160 square feet in area (approximately 40 feet wide and 105 feet in depth). One single-family residence was constructed on the property in 1953. The residence consists of 1,325 square feet of living space. A 370 square-foot carport provides vehicular parking for the site. The appellant lives at 152 Highland Blvd. 3. General Plan and Zoning: The property is designated Single-Family Residential High-Density (SH) in the Contra Costa County 2005-2020 General Plan. The designation allows for the construction of single-family homes and the ancillary structures/uses normally associated with single-family developments. The County’s 2005-2020 General Plan also includes specific policies for the Kensington area which are applicable to the review of this project. The Board of Supervisors adopted these policies to support adoption of the Kensington Combining District Ordinance (K-Ordinance; attached). The overarching purpose of these policies and K-Ordinance is to minimize impacts on neighboring properties through preservation of views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, and residential noise levels. The policies which are applicable to the project are enumerated as 3-205 through 3-207, which state: 3-205 – Allow for the review of new residential development that provides reasonable protection for existing residences in the Kensington Community with regards to: views, design compatibility (including building bulk, size, and height), adequate parking, privacy, and access to sunlight. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 20 3-206 – Preservation of views of scenic natural features (e.g. bay, mountains) and the developed environment (e.g. bridges, city skyline) should be incorporated into the review of development applications. 3-207 – Review proposed residential development for design compatibility with nearby development (e.g. building mass, height, mechanical devices) and provisions for adequate parking. The project is consistent with these policies as the lower level addition/conversion preserves views, maximizes the existing space within the residence, and has negligible effects on the solar access to surrounding properties, in part because the entire project will be beneath the existing footprint of the floor above. In addition, the proposed square-footage for the residence will remain comparable to other homes in the immediate vicinity (residential square-footage comparison attached). Kensington Combining District Ordinance: As mentioned above, the purpose of the K-Ordinance is to provide specific regulation to fairly and efficiently implement the Contra Costa County General Plan policies for Kensington. As the project does not qualify for any exemptions outlined in Code Section 84-74.604 (churches, one story accessory buildings with an area of less than 120 square feet, repair of damaged property, etc.), submittal of this Development Plan application and a public hearing are required for the project. PROCESSING OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION 1. Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC) Meeting and Recommendation (Minutes Attached): This project was initially heard by KMAC at their July 28, 2015, meeting where according to the KMAC minutes, the property owner indicated that the project will convert an existing basement to a master bedroom and will add structural stability to an area of the residence currently being supported by stilts. The owner of 144 Highland Boulevard (adjacent property to the north) also appeared and offered support for the project indicating that the project will have no impact on his property. KMAC members unanimously voted (4 to 0) to recommend approval of the project as proposed. Notwithstanding that fact, the project was re-routed to the KMAC and heard once again at their September 29, 2015, KMAC meeting to ensure that all community feedback was received regarding the project. At the September 29, 2015, KMAC meeting, the applicant spoke once again offering that the project meets current zoning standards and will add to the structural stability of the home. Knute Fischer/Robin Burns, property owners of 144 Highland Boulevard appeared a second time indicating that they believe the project will improve the neighborhood and increase property values. Ms. Burns also added that she received all public notifications regarding the project. Catherine de Neergaard (appellant) appeared and strongly objected to the project based on the overall size and potential for a second unit at the lower level of the residence. David Bergen (670 Oberlin), spoke in opposition to the project based on the project’s bulk and water runoff. Wade Skeels, the project architect spoke briefly and indicated that the project will increase the usability of the property and safety of the property/neighborhood (seismically). After taking public comments, KMAC voted unanimously (4 to 0) to recommend approval of the project as proposed. 2. County Zoning Administrator (ZA) Hearings and Decision: This project was initially heard by the ZA on September 21, 2015. At that hearing, the ZA took testimony from the project sponsor who reiterated that KMAC unanimously recommended approval of the project and offered general support for the project. Ms. De Neergaard appeared and indicated that she was concerned with the project description language and permitting history of the site. At the conclusion of public testimony, the ZA continued the matter to October 5, 2015, in order to consider the testimony and visit the property of Ms. De Neergaard. Due to scheduling conflicts, the ZA continued the matter a second time from October 5, 2015, to October 19, 2015. At the continued October 19, 2015, public hearing, the ZA took additional testimony from the property owner and the appellant. The property owner indicated that since the purchase of the residence in 2005, upgrades to the windows, kitchen, furnace, insulation and roof have been made to increase the efficiency of the home. Additionally, the property owner informed the ZA that the replacement of a deteriorating deck and seismic upgrades (related to this project) are a few of the remaining improvements to the residence. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 21 The appellant, Ms. De Neergaard expressed concerns regarding the subject property in terms of: property values, unpermitted improvements, and geological stability within the footprint of the residence. Ms. De Neergaard also requested that the ZA require a soil study for the project, require the property owners to redesign the previously approved roof, gutter, and furnace/exhaust and remove the existing carport. Additionally, Ms. De Neergaard requested that the project proponents be required to install a 6-foot tall fence between the two properties. In response, the property owner indicated that he has offered to install a hood on the furnace exhaust at Ms. De Neergaard’s expense with no meaningful response. After considering all testimony and visiting the site, the ZA indicated that time was allowed for two KMAC meetings where they unanimously approved the project on each occasion and confirmed that each public hearing was lawfully noticed (noticing attached). Additionally, the ZA indicated that the project meets the required findings, does not include a second unit, is not increasing the footprint and does not require a grading permit. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the ZA approved the project and determined the addition will have a negligible impact on Ms. De Neergaard’s property (ZA staff reports attached). An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision was received on October 29, 2015 (attached). 3. County Planning Commission (CPC) Hearing and Decision: On January 12, 2016, the CPC held a public hearing on the appeal of the ZA’s decision to approve this Development Plan application. The hearing included staff’s presentation, as well as testimony from the applicant and appellant (CPC staff report attached). Staff’s presentation included a brief description of the project, a summary of the appeal and staff’s response. At the conclusion of staff’s presentation, the CPC requested clarification regarding the K-Ordinance’s floor area threshold and Development Plan application requirement. Staff informed the Commission that the K-Ordinance’s floor area threshold is not a maximum, but rather a trigger point which requires a development plan application to be submitted. The development plan application then allows staff to review a project’s compatibility with the County’s General Plan Policies and K-Ordinance’s objectives which are intended to preserve neighborhood views, privacy and solar access, etc. The applicant provided a brief permitting history of the site and informed the Commission that the project is in part, an attempt to improve the structural stability of the residence as recommended by a structural engineer. The appellant contended that the incremental expansion of the home has resulted in a massive wall along the southern elevation which negatively impacts her property values, quiet enjoyment, views and solar access. At the conclusion of testimony and a brief discussion, the Commission voted unanimously to deny the appeal and uphold the ZA’s decision to approve the project. APPEAL OF COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION On January 22, 2016, the County received an appeal of the CPC’s decision to approve the proposed residential development. The appeal cited multiple points of opposition. Staff has summarized and provided a response to each appeal point below. Review of Points Raised in Appellant’s Appeal Letter: 1. Summary of Appeal Point: The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Current Planning Division did not provide adequate public noticing for the project. The staff report contained material misrepresentations of the approved project. Staff Response: The attached affidavits confirm that public notification for the September 21, 2015, County Zoning Administrator hearing was timely mailed to the appellant and 64 other recipients on September 4, 2015. Furthermore, on September 22, 2015, the County circulated an additional public notification for the continued public hearing to be held on October 19, 2015 (though the County was not legally obligated to do so). Each staff report has been made publically available and has contained the development plans for review and comment. By signing each application form, an applicant is attesting to the correctness of each plan submittal. No evidence has been provided to staff indicating that the plans submitted with this application are a misrepresentation of the proposed size, location or use of the area to be expanded. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 22 2. Summary of Appeal Point: The plans ignore the spirit and the letter of the Kensington Combining District. The findings for the Kensington Combining Ordinance were underemphasized and glossed over. Staff Response: The intent of the Kensington Combining District is to recognize the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their property while minimizing the impacts upon surrounding neighbors and not substantially impairing the value and enjoyment of their neighbors’ properties. The K-Ordinance is meant to promote the preservation of views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, residential noise levels and compatibility with the neighborhood. The KMAC, ZA and CPC have all reviewed the project and determined it is meeting each of these goals as described below: - Minimizing Impact: The approved project minimizes its impact on neighboring properties by maximizing the use of interior space. 80% of the new square-footage is obtained by converting an existing unconditioned basement to livable area. The remaining 20% will be located beneath an existing cantilevered section of the residence, which does not expand the footprint of the residence. Furthermore, the entire addition is below the existing footprint of the floor above, resulting in negligible impact to surrounding neighbors. - Views: Section 84-74.404(r) of the K-Ordinance defines a “view” as skylines, bridges, distant cities and bodies of water, etc. No views as defined by the K-Ordinance are available from the ground level of the appellant’s residence. All views as seen from the appellant’s residence are from the second story of that home. As proposed, the subject addition will be located at the lower level of the subject residence. Therefore, no portion of the proposed addition will conflict with the direct line-of-sight of any views currently had by the appellant. - Parking: One off-street parking space is required for the subject property. An existing two-stall carport provides adequate vehicular parking for the site at the Highland Boulevard frontage. - Solar Access: The solar access of 152 Highland Boulevard will also be negligibly affected by the approved addition. The appellants property is south of the subject property, the path of the sun at this location generally remains in the southern sky. Due to this fact, the subject property has virtually no potential to affect light and solar access for the appellants’ property. - Health and Public Safety: The project promotes the general welfare, public health and safety by providing increased structural stability to the western end of the existing residence. Improving the existing cantilever supports with sheer wall, as recommended by a consulting structural engineer, will result in a seismically strengthened residence and will provide added security for residents surrounding the subject property in the event of an earthquake. - Privacy: Privacy is not expected to be an issue with this development as there are no new windows facing any adjacent residences except for a glossed opaque bathroom window on the southern face of the subject residence. - Residential Noise Levels: It is anticipated that residential noise levels may increase temporarily as a result of construction activities. The project has been conditioned to limit the time and days that this construction activity may occur. Following the completion of construction, this addition is not expected to substantially increase residential noise levels. No new uses are proposed with this application that will change the residential nature of the home located on this property. - Neighborhood Compatibility: The attached comparison of home sizes in the area demonstrates that the subject residence is not uncharacteristically large for the area. The design of the addition will be consistent with the current architecture of the residence in terms of type of siding and materials. 3. Summary of Appeal Point: The residence at 148 Highland has undergone multiple additions, which have negatively affected my property value and the quiet enjoyment of my home. It is unfair and unequal under March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 23 the law to “give” so much to one property owner at the expense of neighboring properties. Staff response: There is no County ordinance limiting how many additions can be performed on a residence. The KMAC, ZA and CPC have all determined that the subject project complies with the applicable K-Ordinance development standards. The specific criteria used to make that assessment has been outlined in staff’s response to Appeal Point #2 above. There has been no evidence provided to the KMAC, County Zoning Administrator or County Planning Commission that substantiates claims that any aspect of County File #DP15-3011 will negatively affect the value or quiet enjoyment of properties in the immediate vicinity. 4. Summary of Appeal Point: The proposed addition may be converted into a residential second unit in the future. Staff Response: This appeal point has been discussed at length throughout the ZA and CPC hearing processes. To reiterate, according to code section 82-24.012 (Residential Second Units Ordinance), the subject lot does not meet the minimum 6,000 square-foot area requirement to apply for a residential second unit. Nothing in the plans indicates that the intent of County File #DP15-3011 is to establish a second unit (e.g., no refrigerator, stove or counter top). No evidence has been provided by the appellant that substantiates claims that the subject addition will be converted into a second unit in the future. Conclusion: The appeal points are similar to testimony offered to the KMAC, ZA and CPC and do not provide support for overturning the CPC’s decision. The project is consistent with review criteria outlined in the Kensington Combining Ordinance as well as General Plan Policies for the Kensington area. Considering these facts, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal and sustain the County Planning Commission’s approval of County File #DP15-3011, subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval for County File No. DP15-3011. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board of Supervisors grants the appeal, the County Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the County Zoning Administrators approval of a residential addition at 148 Highland Boulevard will be overturned. The owners of 148 Highland Boulevard will be unable to construct their proposed addition. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers:  Catherine de Neergaard, Appellant (handout attached); Daryle Morgan, Property Owner.  CLOSED the hearing;  FOUND that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; DENIED the appeal of Catherine de Neergaard; SUSTAINED the decision of the County Planning Commission; APPROVED County File No. DP15-3011, a development plan to add conditioned living space to the basement level of an existing single-family residence;   ADOPTED the findings and conditions of approval for County File No. DP15-3011; ADDED a Condition of Approval " Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit photographic evidence confirming the installation of a muffler or equivalent noise reduction device on the exhaust vent located on the southern side of the subject residence"; and DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. ATTACHMENTS Maps CPC Resolution #5-2016 CPC approved Findings & COA's De Neergaard CPC Appeal De Neergaard ZA Appeal CPC Staff Report March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 24 ZA Staff Reports KMAC Meeting Minutes Agency Comments BOS Notification List County Noticing for ZA and CPC Public Hearings Reduced Plans Neighborhood Comparison Site Photographs with Index Additional Public Comments BOS Powerpoint Presentation GP Policies for Kensington Kensington Ordinance March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 25 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 26 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 27 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 28 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 29 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 30 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 31 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 32 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 33 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 34 Page 1 of 5 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP15-3011; WADE SKEELS (Applicant), DEAN WILLIAMS (Owner) I. FINDINGS A. KENSINGTON COMBINING DISTRICT FINDINGS Kensington Combining District (-K) requires that the proposed addition and alterations satisfy seven criteria before a project is approved: 1) Recognizing the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their property; Finding: This project will add 753 square-feet of living space by converting 599 square-feet of unfinished basement into conditioned space and to construct a 154 square-foot residential addition adjacent to the converted basement. The increase of habitable floor area on the lower level will accommodate a new master bedroom and bathroom. The project enhances the livability of the property, and thereby improves the value and enjoyment of the residence. 2) Recognizing the rights of property owners of vacant lots to establish a residence that is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of bulk, scale and design; Finding: The subject property is not vacant, so this criterion does not apply. 3) Minimizing impacts upon surrounding neighbors; Finding: The addition has no significant impact to surrounding neighbors. The addition meets all required standards for the zoning district where the subject property is located. The addition does not expand the footprint of the residence, limiting the perception of added bulk. The subject property is on a hillside, sloping downward from Highland Boulevard. The addition is located on the western portion of the property. As a result, the proposed addition will not be visible as viewed from the property’s frontage on Highland Boulevard, or any other properties at a higher elevation to the East. The additions’ southern elevation is partially blocked from view by existing fencing and landscaping. The footprint of the addition will be located further west than the adjacent residence to the south’s westernmost point, with no windows facing that direction other than a frosted bathroom window. This orientation and design minimizes the potential privacy impact to the maximum extent practicable March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 35 2 given the close proximity of the two existing homes. The residence adjacent to the northern property line will be minimally impacted because the portion of southern elevation that is visible over the shared fence will only be extending downward toward the ground and behind the fence. The addition itself is not visually obtrusive, is not blocking views, and is not impacting solar access. The project has minimal influence on the surrounding neighbors. 4) Protecting the value and enjoyment of the neighbors' property; Finding: As previously stated, the addition is not visually obtrusive and does not impede on valuable views. The addition is compliant with all requirements of the area’s zoning district. The addition minimally extends the residence s envelope, and does not change its existing height. Therefore, the project as designed preserves the value and enjoyment of neighboring properties. 5) Maintaining the community's property values; Finding: The addition has negligible impacts on views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, and residential noise levels. As a result, existing community’s property values will be preserved. Furthermore, the addition of habitable floor area on the subject property improves the overall value of the residence, which typically has a buoyant effect on average property values in the area. 6) Maximizing the use of existing interior space; Finding: Roughly 80% of the 753 square-feet this project adds to the gross floor area is gained through conditioning existing interior space. The main purpose of the addition is to make full use of the existing footprint of the building by converting storage space to habitable space. The existing unfinished basement area will be converted into conditioned space that, combined with the modest addition, dramatically increase the homes livable area without expanding on the existing footprint. Therefore, the overall scope of the project maximizes the use of existing interior space. 7) Promoting the general welfare, public health, and safety. Finding: The current use of the subject property is a single-family residence and the scope of the proposed work does not change the residential nature of the property. Therefore, there is nothing being proposed that would adversely affect the general welfare, public health, and safety of the Kensington community. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 36 3 II. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Condition #3 has been added by the Zoning Administrator at the public hearing on October 19, 2015. Project Approval 1. Development is approved as generally described in the application materials received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) on May 26, 2015 (revised plans dated August 11, 2015), and subject to the conditions listed below. General Provisions 2. Any development or expansion beyond the limits of this permit approved under this application may require the review and approval of CDD and may require the filing of an application for modification to the Development Plan and a public hearing, if deemed necessary. The following is approved with this permit: a) The construction of a 154 square-foot addition to the existing single- family residence as well as conversion of 599 square-feet of basement space, resulting in a total gross floor area of 2,448 square-feet (where the threshold is 2,100 square-feet). 3. 15-days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an updated floorplan for the upper level illustrating the current bedroom configuration in the residence. Payment of Fees 4. This application is subject to an initial application deposit of $1000.00, which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial deposit. Any additional costs due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit, whichever occurs first. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 37 4 Construction Period Restrictions and Requirements 4. The applicant shall comply with the following restrictions and requirements: A. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and are prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: New Year’s Day (state and federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (state and federal) Washington’s Birthday (federal) Lincoln’s Birthday (state) President’s Day (state and federal) Cesar Chavez Day (state) Memorial Day (state and federal) Independence Day (state and federal) Labor Day (state and federal) Columbus Day (state and federal) Veterans Day (state and federal) Thanksgiving Day (state and federal) Day after Thanksgiving (state) Christmas Day (state and federal) For information on the calendar dates that these holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal Holidays: http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2015.asp California Holidays: http://www.sos.ca.gov/holidays.htm B. Transportation of large trucks and heavy equipment is subject to the same restrictions that are imposed on construction activities, except that the hours are limited to 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM. C. A good faith effort shall be made to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. D. All internal combustion engines shall be fitted with mufflers that are in good condition and stationary noise-generating equipment such as air March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 38 5 compressors shall be located as far away from existing residences as possible. E. Construction equipment and materials shall be stored onsite. F. The construction site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Litter and debris shall be contained in appropriate receptacles and shall be disposed of as necessary. G. Any debris found outside the site shall immediately be collected and deposited in appropriate receptacles. ADVISORY NOTES ADVISORY NOTES ARE NOT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; THEY ARE PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO ADDITIONAL ORDINANCES, STATUTES, AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. A. NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, ASSESSMENTS, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations or exactions required as part of this project approval. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and must be delivered to the Community Development Division within a 90- day period that begins on the date that this project is approved. If the 90th day falls on a day that the Community Development Division is closed, then the protest must be submitted by the end of the next business day. B. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the following agencies to determine if additional requirements and/or additional permits are required as part of the proposed project:  Contra Costa County Building Inspection Division  Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division  East Bay Municipal Utility District  Stege Sanitary District  Kensington Fire Protection District  El Cerrito Fire Department March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 39 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 40 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 41 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 42 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 43 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 44 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 45 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 46 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 47 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 48 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 49 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 50 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 51 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 52 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 53 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 54 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 55 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 56 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 57 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 58 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 59 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 60 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 61 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 62 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 63 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 64 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 65 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 66 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 67 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 68 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 69 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 70 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 71 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 72 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 73 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 74 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 75 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 76 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 77 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 78 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 79 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 80 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 81 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 82 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 83 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 84 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 85 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 86 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 87 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 88 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 89 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 90 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 91 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 92 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 93 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 94 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 95 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 96 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 97 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 98 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 99 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 100 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 101 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 102 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes103 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes104 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes105 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes106 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes107 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes108 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 109 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 110 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 111 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 112 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 113 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 114 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 115 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 116 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 117 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 118 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 119 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 120 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 121 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 122 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 123 Williams Development Plan Application/ Residential Addition County File: #DP15 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors March 15, 2016 9:30 3/15/2016 Williams Development Plan Application/ Residential Addition County File: #DP15-3011 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors March 15, 2016 9:30 AM March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 124 Subject Property and Vicinity 3/15/2016 Subject Property and Vicinity March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 125 Proposed Addition 3/15/2016 Proposed Addition LEGEND = Existing Footprint = Proposed Expansion March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 126 Proposed Floor Plan 3/15/2016 Proposed Floor Plan March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 127 Southern Elevations 3/15/2016 Southern Elevations March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 128 3/15/2016 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 129 Site viewed from 144 Highland 3/15/2016 Site viewed from 144 Highland March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 130 Site Viewed From 152 Highland (1/2) 3/15/2016 Site Viewed From 152 Highland (1/2) March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 131 Site Viewed from 152 Highland (2/2) 3/15/2016 Site Viewed from 152 Highland (2/2) March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 132 Appeal Points •The County did not provide adequate •The staff report contained material •The findings for the Kensington underemphasized and glossed over •Multiple additions to the subject property values and quiet enjoyment •The addition may be converted future. 3/15/2016 Appeal Points adequate public noticing for the project. material misrepresentations of the project. Kensington Combining ordinance were over. subject property have negatively affected the enjoyment of nearby properties. converted into a residential second unit in the 10 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 133 Summary 3/15/2016 •Consistent with General Plan and Kensington Ordinance •Negligible impact on appellants’ property •Recommendation: Deny the appeal of Catherine de Neergaard; Sustain the decision of the County Planning Commission. Questions? Summary 11 Consistent with General Plan and Kensington Ordinance Negligible impact on appellants’ property Recommendation: Deny the appeal of Catherine de Neergaard; Sustain the decision of the County Planning Commission. Questions? March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 134 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 135 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 136 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 137 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 138 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 139 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 140 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 141 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the hearing, ACCEPT public testimony, and CLOSE the hearing. 2. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-10, extending for a period of 10 months and 15 days, an urgency interim ordinance prohibiting the cultivation of medical marijuana and the delivery of medical marijuana, with a possible exemption for personal medical marijuana cultivation by qualified patients and caregivers. 3. FIND that the adoption of the interim ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15061(b)(3) of CEQA guidelines. 4. DIRECT staff to prepare a permanent ordinance regulating medical marijuana activities. 5. DIRECT the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development to file the Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of preparing a permanent ordinance regarding the regulation of medical marijuana is estimated to be $20,000 to $30,000. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor NO:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Ruben Hernandez, (925) 674-7785 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Hearing on Adoption of Interim Ordinance No. 2016-10 Extending the Prohibition of the Cultivation and Delivery of Medical Marijuana March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 142 BACKGROUND: On December 15, 2015, the Department of Conservation and Development provided the Board with an update on the approval of the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) which was signed into law by the Governor on October 9, 2015. At that hearing, the Board directed the Department of Conservation and Development to prepare an urgency interim ordinance prohibiting the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana in order to provide staff time to study the impacts of permanent prohibition or regulation relating to the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana. Adoption of the interim urgency ordinance was also required in order to prevent the possibility of the County relinquishing licensing authority to the state, as provided for in the Health and Safety Code, Section 11372.777(c)(4), which would have given the state sole licensing authority for marijuana cultivation if a local jurisdiction had not adopted regulations or expressly prohibited marijuana cultivation by March 1, 2016. (The March 1, 2016 deadline of the MMRSA was removed from the MMRSA with approval of Assembly Bill 21 (2016), which was signed by the Governor on February 3, 2016, the day after the Board approved the urgency interim ordinance.) At the direction of the Board, on February 2, 2016, the Department of Conservation and Development presented for adoption Ordinance No. 2016-04, an Urgency Interim Ordinance prohibiting the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana in the unincorporated area of the County. At that hearing, public testimony was provided in support of an ordinance banning the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana as well as testimony in opposition to the ban. After accepting public testimony, the Board members discussed the urgency ordinance, the issue of medical marijuana regulation or prohibition, and identified various areas of concern. The issues raised by the Board included concerns regarding the amount of time needed for preparation of a permanent ordinance, the impact of County regulation on cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use, and the need for additional information on how other jurisdictions are dealing with the approval of MMRSA. After discussing the proposed urgency interim ordinance, and other issues related to the prohibition and regulation of medical marijuana, the Board members provided staff with direction and approved the 45 day urgency interim ordinance (Ordinance No. 2016-04) prohibiting the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana in the unincorporated area of the County. Extension of Urgency Ordinance At the February 2, 2016 hearing on adoption of the 45 day urgency interim ordinance (Ordinance No. 2016-04), Board members expressed concerns regarding adoption of a future ordinance extending the urgency ordinance an additional 10 months and 15 days. Staff explained to the Board that the 10 month 15 day extension is the amount of time provided by statute for extension of an urgency interim ordinance (Government Code Section 65858) and that the 10 month 15 day extension can be repealed prior to the expiration of the urgency ordinance. Therefore, if the Board were to approve the current ordinance (Ordinance No. 2016-10) extending the urgency ordinance 10 months, 15 days to January 30, 2017, the urgency ordinance could be repealed any time prior to the January 30, 2017 expiration date, for instance, upon the adoption of a permanent ordinance addressing the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana. Inter-Departmental Meeting on MMRSA On March 3, 2016, an inter-departmental meeting was held among various County Departments and agencies who may have a stake in the prohibition or regulation of the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana. The invitees to the meeting were based on the members of the 2006 Medical Marijuana Dispensary Task Force which was created to provide the Board with input on the issue of medical marijuana dispensaries in 2006. Staff from the Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, Health Services (Behavioral Health, Environmental Health and Public Health), County Administrator’s Office, Agricultural Department, County Counsel and Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) attended the meeting. A copy of the Proposed Work-Program for a Permanent Ordinance on Medical Marijuana, information on what other jurisdictions are doing and the February 2, 2016 Board Order were provided to attendees. The Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, urgency interim ordinance, local response to passage of MMRSA and the Board’s direction as provided at the February 2, 2016 hearing were discussed at the meeting. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 143 DCD staff appreciates the time and expertise contributed by these departments and recommends including additional input from them as a permanent ordinance is formulated. Below please find a brief summary of some helpful information gathered by DCD staff at the March 3, 2016 Inter-Departmental meeting on medical marijuana cultivation and delivery: Emerging issues related to marijuana abuse, including: New studies in Colorado indicate significant impacts; Marketing of edible marijuana products to children; Increase in popularity of concentrated, more harmful marijuana products, especially among teens; Illegal processing of concentrated marijuana products resulting in safety hazards (eg. Walnut Creek condominium explosion) Participants from the Health Department indicated that medical marijuana can play a meaningful role in the treatment of certain conditions. A ballot measure to legalize recreational use of marijuana is likely to be on November Ballot and early polling indicates a measure is likely to pass. Impacts of the legalization of marijuana for recreational use on current medical marijuana regulation unknown. There is some rationale for delaying detailed, comprehensive work on regulations until other results are known. Current legal structure not prepared or equipped to address issues related to marijuana use, such as smoking in public, driving under the influence, etc.. Aspects of marijuana cultivation could trigger various permitting requirements for County Department of Agriculture, Weights & Measures. With respect to the urgency interim ordinance some participants felt a partial exemption to prohibition on cultivation for personal use was reasonable and appropriate while others felt the current prohibition should remain in effect through the November election. Following the meeting, DCD staff invited representatives from the Sheriff and District Attorney to provide a short summary of their thoughts and the following information was received. Comments Provided by the Office of Sheriff David O. Livingston The Sheriff’s Office indicated that they would support a continuation of the urgency interim ordinance as adopted by the Board on February 2, where all cultivation and delivery are prohibited. This would extend the ban past November, when legalization of the recreational use of medical marijuana will likely be on the ballot, which could result in significant changes on the status of marijuana in the state. Comments provided by Mark Peterson, District Attorney The Contra Costa County Office of the District Attorney supports the urgency interim ordinance continuing the county’s well-reasoned ban on the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana and requests that the urgency interim ordinance remain in effect through the November, 2016, election without exception. The anticipated ballot initiatives to legalize recreational marijuana, which have the majority of voter support in polling, will significantly reduce the need for regulations specific to medical marijuana and will legalize the cultivation of marijuana for personal use with varying restrictions. Given that sweeping reforms may take place within months with restrictions that cannot be anticipated, modifications or exceptions to the ban on cultivation or delivery at this time will result in the needless utilization of resources within multiple County agencies to implement and enforce those short-lived modifications. Local Regulation and State Laws At the February 2, 2016 hearing on the adoption of the urgency interim ordinance, the Board requested that staff provide a survey of how other jurisdictions are dealing with MMRSA as well as examples of model ordinances. A chart identifying current regulation of medical marijuana for all cities within Contra Costa County, in addition to the adjacent counties of Alameda, Solano and San Joaquin, is attached. MMRSA and AB 21 affirmed the authority of counties and cities to regulate or ban all categories of cultivation, dispensing, manufacturing, distribution, and transportation of medical marijuana. MMRSA also established two broad categories of state licenses for medical marijuana: commercial licenses and Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program licenses. Commercial licenses will regulate commercial cultivation, ↵ March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 144 dispensing, manufacturing, distribution, and transportation of medical marijuana. Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program licenses will apply to some qualified patients or primary caregivers. Under MMRSA, if a qualified patient or primary caregiver intends to cultivate medical marijuana but is exempt from the State’s commercial licensing requirements, the qualified patient or primary caregiver will be required to obtain a State license under the State’s Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program. Under the MMRSA, in order to obtain a State license under the Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program, a person must also have a local license, permit, or other entitlement. If a person does not obtain a local license, permit, or other entitlement, the person may not cultivate medical marijuana. The Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program licensing requirement will not apply to a qualified patient if the area he or she uses to cultivate medical marijuana for his or her personal medical use does not exceed 100 square feet, and does not apply to a primary caregiver if the area he or she uses to cultivate medical marijuana for the personal medical use of no more than five specified qualified patients does not exceed 500 square feet. Under the MMRSA, if a person is exempt from the Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program licensing requirement, the person is also exempt from the requirement to obtain a local license, permit, or other entitlement. MMRSA is separate from the Compassionate Care Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program of 2003. The Compassionate Care Act established a limited defense for qualified patients and primary caregivers to the crimes of possessing or cultivating marijuana. The Medical Marijuana Program established regulations and procedures regarding the issuance of identification cards, and clarifies what is a “reasonable” amount of marijuana for personal medical use. Under the Medical Marijuana Program, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient, and may also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient, unless a doctor recommends a greater amount necessary for the patient’s medical needs As the chart shows, most jurisdictions have adopted urgency ordinances or permanent ordinances banning the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana, while others have indicated that the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana is not a permitted use within their jurisdiction. In terms of cultivation for personal medical use, there is some variety in how jurisdictions have dealt with this issue. Many jurisdictions, have indicated that all cultivation is prohibited, including cultivation for personal use. Some jurisdictions have exempted the cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use. Some jurisdictions, such as the cities of Concord and Pleasant Hill, have adopted ordinances that place restrictions on personal cultivation including limiting cultivation to enclosed areas not visible to the general public (Concord), restricting the number of plants (3) that can be grown outdoors and requiring that any plants grown outdoors meet a minimum setback from the property line (5-feet), and not be visible from a public right-of-way, or adjacent parcels (Pleasant Hill). Section V of Ordinance No. 2016-10. Personal Medical Marijuana Cultivation Exemption The issue of personal cultivation of medical marijuana was a topic of discussion by the Board members at the February 2, 2016 hearing. At that hearing, the Board members had questions regarding the status of personal cultivation and expressed concern regarding future prohibition of cultivation for personal use. Staff informed the Board that based on recent changes in state law, and federal enforcement of marijuana law, the status of cultivation of medical marijuana by qualified patients or caregivers in Contra Costa County was unsettled, but that upon adoption of the urgency interim ordinance all cultivation would be prohibited. Some of the Board members expressed concern with the prohibition of medical marijuana cultivation for personal use and directed staff to include an option for exempting the cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use in the next extension of the urgency interim ordinance. To provide the Board with the requested option, the urgency ordinance currently being considered (Ordinance No. 2016-10), prohibiting the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana, includes an exemption (Section V) for the cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use. The exemption would allow qualified patients and caregivers to March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 145 cultivate up to 6 plants within a maximum area of 100 square feet of growing area on a legal parcel on which the qualified patients or caregiver resides and requires that the plants are not visible to the public, or from neighboring properties, and do not result in any negative impact to neighboring properties such as noise, heat, dust, glare, noxious gases, odor, smoke, traffic, loitering, or other impacts, or result in hazardous conditions due to the use or storage of materials, processes, products, or wastes.The proposed exemption is based on similar exemptions used by other jurisdictions throughout the State, and is based on plant and square footage thresholds contained in the different State laws discussed above. The proposed exemption in the ordinance for qualified patients matches the 6 plant/100 square foot thresholds in State laws for qualified patients. The proposed exemption in the ordinance for primary caregivers is lower than the 30 plant/500 square foot thresholds in State laws for primary caregivers. The proposed urgency ordinance establishes the same limits for qualified patients and primary caregivers (6 plants/100 square feet) in order to keep the exemption small until the issue can be studied further to determine limits and safeguards appropriate for a permanent ordinance. If the Board determines that the exemption for patients or caregivers is premature at this point, Section V of the urgency ordinance can be removed completely or modified in a manner that the Board deems acceptable. Schedule and Steps for Preparation of Permanent Ordinance In order to provide the Board with an idea of the schedule and steps for preparation of a permanent ordinance addressing the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana, staff prepared a 2016 MMRSA Work Program. The Work Program identifies the timing of the steps that need to be taken prior to presenting the Board with a permanent ordinance including meeting with staff from other departments, meeting with stakeholders and community groups, presenting the ordinance to the County Planning Commission, etc. The Work Program could be compressed or extended based on the Board's direction, but it provides a general idea of the timing for adoption of a permanent ordinance. The work program is attached. Conclusion Ordinance No. 2016-10 would extend the previous urgency interim ordinance prohibiting the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana in the unincorporated area of the County an additional ten months and 15 days, to January 30, 2017. Per the direction of the Board, the ordinance also includes an exemption for personal cultivation of medical marijuana by qualified patients and caregivers. Adoption of this ordinance would not prevent the Board from approving a permanent ordinance addressing the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana prior to the expiration of the urgency ordinance, which could be presented to the Board by this summer based on the attached work plan and based on the Board's direction at the conclusion of today's hearing. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not adopt the interim ordinance, the previous urgency interim ordinance prohibiting the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana would expire and applications for the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana could potentially be submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers:  Youth Leadership for a Healthier Richmond: Jacky F., Jacqueline G., Ronvey S.; Roger Morgan, founder Take Back America Campaign (handouts attached).  Jaime Rich and Danielle Butler from the Center for Human Developmet left written commentary for the Board's consideration (attached). CLOSED the hearing; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2016-10, extending for a period of 10 months and 15 days (January 30, 2017), an urgency interim ordinance prohibiting the cultivation of medical marijuana and the delivery of medical marijuana, as amended today to remove the exemption for personal medical marijuana cultivation by qualified patients and caregivers;    FOUND that the adoption of the interim ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15061(b)(3) of CEQA guidelines;  DIRECTED staff to prepare a permanent ordinance regulating medical marijuana activities;     and DIRECTED the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development to file the Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Clerk.  March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 146 Clerk.   ATTACHMENTS Ordinance 2016-10 MMRSA Work Program March 2016 Comparison of Marijuana Regulations in Neighboring Jurisdictions Comparison of Marijuana Regulations in Neighboring Counties March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 147 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 148 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 149 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 150 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 151 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 152 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 153 Department of Conservation and Development March 2016 Draft 2016 Medical Marijuana Ordinance Work Program Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 2017 Adoption of Urgency Interim Ord. #2016-4 2/2/16 to 3/17/16 1st Inter-Dept. Staff Group Meeting 3/3/16 BoS Report Due (DCD) 3/7/16 Board Hearing to Adopt 1st Extension (DCD) 3/15/16 10 Month, 15 Day Extension 1/30/17 Expiration of Urgency Ordinance #2016-4 3/17/16 Meeting w/ Interested Stakeholders (DCD) Week of 4/11 2nd Inter-Dept. Staff Meeting Week of 4/18 Prepare Draft Ord. (DCD/County Counsel) 4/1/16 5/30/16 Input from Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Committee/ MACs/Community Groups 30 days 3rd Inter-Dept. Staff Meeting Week of 6/13 CEQA Review (DCD) 45 Days (est.) Prepare for CPC Hearing (DCD) Staff Rpt. To CPC BoS Hearing on Adoption (DCD) Ordinance To BoS March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 154 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 155 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 156 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 157 RECOMMENDATION(S): Consider the following options regarding potential implementation of Community Choice Energy (CCE) within the unincorporated area of the County: Option 1: Work with interested cities in Contra Costa County to obtain electrical load data from PG&E and conduct a technical study of the following three CCE alternatives: Form a new joint powers authority of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County for the purpose of implementing Community Choice Energy Join Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Form a new joint powers authority with Alameda County and the interested group of cities in the two-county region Option 2: Proceed with the steps necessary to join Marin Clean Energy (MCE). Option 3: Undertake an abbreviated technical study summarizing technical studies recently completed by other Bay Area cities and counties and including a comparison of tradeoffs between CCE alternatives available to the County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:SELECTED OPTION 1 VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 925-674-7722 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Consider options for potential implementation of Community Choice Energy within the unincorporated area of the County. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 158 FISCAL IMPACT: Option 1: Technical Study The estimated cost of the activities associated with partnering with cities within the County to conduct a technical study of Community Choice Energy is $400,000. This includes an estimated $225,000 in consulting services and $175,000 in County staff costs to manage the project. Staff recommends that the cities be proposed to share in the cost of the technical study consultant, which would reduce the County's overall cost to $300,000. These costs would include an amendment to the County's current consulting services contact with LEAN Energy to increase the contract limit by $75,000 to assist DCD with obtaining electrical load data from PG&E, refining the scope of the technical study and developing the RFP, evaluating proposals from consultants for conducting the technical study, interpreting the results of the technical study and reporting the findings of the technical study to cities, the IOC and the Board of Supervisors. LEAN Energy would also assist County staff in conducting community outreach activities to provide information and education to the public and to gather public input to assist decision-makers in evaluating the results of the technical study. The cost of the actions associated with Option 1 also includes an estimated $50,000 for the County's share of cost for conducting a technical study. The total cost of the technical study is estimated to be up to $150,000. The balance of the cost not paid by the County is proposed to be paid by participating cities proportionate to their share of the total population of the jurisdictions covered by the study. The estimated $175,000 cost of County staff time for management of the activities associated with Option 1 includes DCD staff time until the end of 2016 at a cost of approximately $150,000 plus the cost of County Counsel staff time, estimated to be $25,000 during 2016. If a technical study resulted in the County taking additional steps to implement a CCE program, such steps would involve additional time and expense. The cost of these aditional steps would depend on the outcome of the study. The estimated schedule and budget following completion of a technical study is described in more detail in Attachment E to this report. The greatest expense would be associated with a scenario involving the formation of a new joint powers authority of the County and cities within Contra Costa County. The cost of forming such a JPA and launching a program is estimated to be approximately $2 million. These costs would likely be reimbursed by the JPA to the County from CCE program revenues. Option 2: Take Steps to Join MCE The estimated cost of activities associated with studying membership in MCE that would be comparable to a full technical study is minimal. There may be some research required of County staff and consultants to answer questions the Board may have regarding MCE, but the estimated cost of addressing these issues would be no more than $10,000. If the Board reaches a decision to join MCE and directs staff to take the actions necessary to do so, there would would be additional costs of approximately $50,000 associated with County staff time in DCD and County Counsel related to preparing an ordinance and resolution for adoption by the Board, assisting MCE with program launch activities, and coordinating with Contra Costa cities regarding MCE membership. These costs could be described as "back-end" costs and are not comparable to the "front-end" costs associated with the costs of a technical study as described in Option 1 above. The back-end costs of $50,000 are more comparable to the back-end costs associated with JPA formation and program launch activities that might follow a technical study, as described more fully in Attachment E. Option 3: Abbreviated Technical Study The cost of this option is estimated to be approximately $65,000. This would include $50,000 in consulting services to perform the study and $15,000 in County staff time for project management. The cost of next steps would depend on the approach selected, similar to Option 1, however a portion of a full technical study could be necessary if the abbreviated technical study prompted selection of the option to form a new JPA. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 159 Summary Overall, the cost of Option 1 (Technical Study) is by far the greatest, and the cost of Option 2 (Join MCE) is the least. Option 3 (Abbreviated Technical Study) represents a middle ground that would provide some of the benefits of a full technical study at a reduced cost and in a shorter time period. Reimbursement and Potential Source of County Funds The County would seek to have its costs associated with this project reimbursed in the future from the revenues of a new CCE program should a new JPA be created for this purpose. If a new JPA is not established, the County's costs are unlikely to be reimbursed. DCD's costs related to this project in the current fiscal year, including the cost of consulting services, can be offset by the unspent portion of the $200,000 in General Fund revenues budgeted in DCD for FY 2015-2016 for the newly created position of County Sustainability Coordinator, which has not yet been filled. Depending on the direction chosen by the Board, it is anticipated that most, if not all, costs associated with this project in FY 2015-2016 can be paid for from this funding source. BACKGROUND: Community Choice Energy (CCE) is described in State law as Community Choice Aggregation. CCE involves cities and counties, or a joint powers authority (JPA) composed of cities and/or counties, pooling (“aggregating”) retail electricity customers for the purpose of procuring and selling electricity. Under a CCE program, the CCE entity would become the default electricity provider to all electricity customers within the service area. Customers would have the ability to opt out of service from the CCE and return to service from the incumbent electrical utility. In Contra Costa County, the incumbent electrical utility is Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Following the successful launch of CCE programs in Marin County in 2010 and Sonoma County in 2014, most other counties in the Bay Area and many counties throughout California are now in the process of implementing or studying the creation of CCE programs. The City and County of San Francisco and San Mateo County are planning to launch CCE programs in 2016. Alameda County and Santa Clara County are both in the process of establishing JPAs for this purpose and plan to launch programs in 2017. On October 13, 2015, the Board of Supervisors (Board) accepted the recommendations of the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) and directed County staff to initiate outreach to cities within Contra Costa County to determine the level of interest cities have in joining with the County to investigate three alternatives for potentially implementing CCE in Contra Costa County. These three alternatives are: Form a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA) of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County for the purpose of CCE; 1. Form a new JPA in partnership with Alameda County, and interested cities in both counties; and2. Join the existing CCE program initiated in Marin County known as Marin Clean Energy, or MCE3. At its meeting on February 29, 2016, the IOC considered a status report from the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) concerning CCE and heard from numerous members of the public. The IOC directed DCD to prepare a report to the Board of Supervisors (Board) presenting options for proceeding with potential implementation of CCE in the County’s jurisdiction, including continuing work with cities to complete a technical study of the three CCE alternatives mentioned above, or proceeding with steps to join the CCE program known as Marin Clean Energy (MCE). Subsequent to the IOC meeting, staff identified an additional option not discussed at the IOC meeting, which is for the County to conduct an abbreviated technical study summarizing other technical studies that have been recently released by Bay Area cities and counties, and including a comparison of tradeoffs between CCE alternatives. Results of Outreach to Contra Costa Cities Between November 2015 and January 2016, County staff conducted a variety of outreach activities to engage cities on the topic of CCE. These activities included meetings with City Managers and other city staff, attendance at the December 3, 2015 Mayors Conference, three public workshops in mid-December held in different regions March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 160 of the County, and presentations provided by County staff and consultants at five City Council meetings during the month of January. On November 13, 2015, the County Administrator sent a letter (Attachment A) to all City Managers in Contra Costa County asking for responses back from cities by January 31, 2016 indicating the level of interest cities have in partnering with the County to study CCE. This letter specifically asked if cities would authorize the County to obtain electrical load data from PG&E for the purpose of potentially conducting a technical study of CCE in Contra Costa County, and if the cities would be willing to contribute financially towards the cost of such a study if one were conducted. To facilitate greater public understanding of CCE and assist cities in their deliberations on the subject, DCD staff and consultants hosted three public workshops in December 2015: the first on December 10 at Walnut Creek City Hall, the second on December 14 at the Hercules Public Library and the third on December 16 at the Brentwood Community Center. Average attendance at these workshops was approximately 20 people, and several cities sent representatives to attend the workshops. During the month of January 2016, many City Councils throughout the County placed items on their agendas to discuss their interest in partnering with the County to further study implementation of CCE. County staff and consultants were invited to attend and make presentations at the Concord, Clayton, Pinole, Lafayette and Brentwood City Council meetings. The workshops and city council meetings held in December and January generated several press articles, which can be viewed at the following links: East Bay Express: (10/12/15) Contra Costa Times: (1/8/16) The Press: (10/29/15) Yodeler (Sierra Club): (1/28/16) East Bay Express: (1/29/16) MarinIJ: (2/16/16) The Press: (2/18/16) Responses from Cities By the end of January, all 16 cities in Contra Costa County not currently enrolled in a CCE program (Richmond, El Cerrito and San Pablo are currently enrolled in Marin Clean Energy) provided written responses to the County (Attachment B) authorizing the County to request electrical load data from PG&E necessary for a technical study of CCE in Contra Costa County. Approximately half of these cities indicated varying degrees of willingness to participate in the cost of a technical study of this data, should such a study proceed. These responses are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1. City Responses to County City Load Data Authorization Cost Sharing for Tech Study Antioch Yes No indication Brentwood Yes Yes, not to exceed $30,000 Clayton Yes Yes, pending more details Concord Yes Yes, not to exceed $25,000 Danville Yes Yes, not to exceed $18,000 Hercules Yes No indication Lafayette Yes No indication Martinez Yes No indication Moraga Yes No indication March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 161 Oakley Yes No indication Orinda Yes Need more information Pinole Yes Need more information Pittsburg Yes Yes, pending more details Pleasant Hill Yes Yes, not to exceed $15,000 San Ramon Yes Maybe, pending more details Walnut Creek Yes Yes, not to exceed $20,000 Internal Operations Committee Discussion and Direction At its meeting on February 29, 2016, the Internal Operations Committee directed staff to present the Board with information concerning two options for consideration. One option is to proceed to work with cities in Contra Costa County to conduct a technical study of alternatives for implementing CCE. The other option is to forego such a technical study and proceed immediately to apply for membership in the CCE program called Marin Clean Energy, or MCE. MCE was created in Marin County, and has now expanded to serve jurisdictions in the Counties of Marin, Napa, Solano and Contra Costa, including the cities of Richmond, El Cerrito and San Pablo. Subsequent to the IOC meeting, staff conceived an alternative not discussed at the IOC meeting, which is for the County to conduct an abbreviated technical study summarizing other technical studies that have been recently released by Bay Area cities and counties, and including a comparison of tradeoffs between CCE alternatives. Each of these three options has advantages and disadvantages, summarized as follows: Option 1 – Proceed with Technical Study: If the County proceeds to conduct a technical study of CCE with a group of interested Contra Costa cities, the advantages are that County and the cities will receive additional information regarding projected CCE revenues and electricity rates under various renewable energy portfolio scenarios and a comparative analysis of the three CCE alternatives under consideration. The technical study would provide information about revenues that could be generated for new local programs and initiatives to promote energy efficiency and economic development through renewable energy generation projects. The technical study would inform decisions by the Board and city councils to either implement one of the three options studied, or to take no additional action. The disadvantages of conducting a technical study are the time and expense associated with conducting the study. The immediate next step in performing a technical study would be for the County to obtain electrical load data from PG&E on behalf of the County and the 16 cities that have authorized the County to do so. This would provide the County with detailed information regarding electrical usage within the covered jurisdictions, and would constitute the raw data necessary to conduct a technical study of potential CCE implementation within the County. Based on prior Board direction, a technical study of CCE in Contra Costa County would evaluate three options: a program including only interested jurisdictions within Contra Costa County; a program that is a partnership with Alameda County and interested cities in the two-county region; and joining the existing CCE program originated in Marin County known as Marin Clean Energy, or MCE. Such a technical study would be conducted by a qualified consultant selected through a competitive process. The technical study would evaluate electrical load data to determine the amount of electricity a CCE program would need to procure in order to serve electricity consumers in the participating communities, and would estimate the billing rates that a CCE program would need to charge electricity customers in order to pay for program operations. The study would analyze how rates might vary under scenarios in which the CCE program offered customers different levels of electricity originating from renewable sources (for example, rates associated with 50% renewable or 100% renewable options). Electricity rates for these scenarios would be compared to products offered by the incumbent utility, PG&E (Attachment C). The technical study would also include a risk analysis of March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 162 factors that could potentially interfere with successful operation of a CCE program within the County, such as risks associated with price volatility in energy markets and risks stemming from legal or regulatory changes. CCE technical studies performed in other Bay Area counties have included additional components, including analysis of the impact a CCE program might have on local renewable power generation and local job creation. As stated in Table 1 above, roughly half of the cities in Contra Costa County have indicated some degree of willingness to contribute financially towards the cost of a technical study. Staff recommends that if the Board directs DCD to work with cities to finalize payment arrangement and initiate the technical study, the County and each participating city pay for a portion of the cost of the technical study similar to its proportion of the total population covered under the study. If the Board directs staff to proceed with a technical study, staff would work with the cities to finalize the scope of the technical study, develop and issue a Request for Proposals (RFP), and select a consultant to perform the technical study. The County would then enter into a contract with the selected consultant. The results of the technical study would be reported to the cities and the Board of Supervisors, and staff would seek further direction. Option 2 – Join MCE: The advantages of the County proceeding to take steps now to join MCE are substantially lower start-up costs and a faster time to CCE program launch within the area served. The County would be able to leverage the considerable success MCE has achieved in creating a high-quality CCE program and would not need to go through the time and expense of recreating a similar program. A disadvantage of the County proceeding to join MCE without performing a technical study is that the County will not have access to information about the revenues projected to be generated from CCE electricity sales within the County and the potential to use such revenues to reduce consumer electricity rates, procure greater amounts of renewable energy, incentivize increased local renewable energy generation, or other purposes. If the County joins MCE, the revenues generated from electricity sales in Contra Costa County will be contolled by MCE's Board of Directors, who would represent jurisdictions covering portions or all of four counties, meaning that investments in initiatives such as additional renewable energy production would be spread over a larger area and controlled by a broader group of board members than a Contra Costa JPA . The County would also forego an opportunity to more thoroughly consider the tradeoffs between the three CCE alternatives the Board has previously expressed interest in evaluating through a technical study. MCE is now comprised of 17 member jurisdictions. These include Marin County, all 11 cities in Marin County, the County of Napa, the City of Benecia, and the cities of Richmond, El Cerrito and San Pablo. MCE is presently accepting applications for new membership from jurisdiction within the four counties currently being served. MCE staff has indicated that all of the cities in Napa County are seeking membership during MCE's current inclusion period, which closes on March 31, 2016. Several additional cities in Contra Costa County are giving consideration to joining MCE as well, including Lafayette, Moraga, Oakley and Walnut Creek. If additional jurisdictions within the Counties of Contra Costa and Solano join MCE, the number of MCE's member jurisdictions could grow to 40 or more. MCE has weighted vote system that is 50% dependent on proportion of electrical load. Were Contra Costa Couty to join, it would likely have athe largest vote of any single member. If the County directs staff to take steps necessary to join MCE, the technical steps involved would include the County sending a letter of interest to MCE and subsequently adopting an ordinance and entering into a joint powers agreement to join MCE. MCE staff has indicated that the County could submit a letter of interest to MCE after the current MCE inclusion period closes on March 31, 2016, and that cities could join the County in its request for membership. Opening a new inclusion period for the County and Contra Costa cities, and approval of the County’s membership in MCE, would be subject to approval by MCE’s Board of Directors. County staff would work with MCE staff to complete other necessary technical and operational steps, and to conduct marketing activities within the unincorporated area as part of MCE’s program launch in the new service area. The Board of Supervisors would need to designate one of its members as the County’s representative on the MCE Board of Directors. Should the Board wish to further contemplate joining MCE in the near term, staff recommends the County March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 163 consider several uncertainties, the outcome of which will likely have an impact on the County. These include: Policy and organizational changes MCE may make as it continues to evolve into a regional agency rather than one originally formed solely to serve Marin County, such as Change of name from MCE to a new name reflecting regional identity Rotate the location of MCE Board meetings and add an office in Contra Costa County Change Board membership and voting structure as MCE membership grows Limits on geography area served and related limits on membership Comparison between MCE and PG&E billing rates for Contra Costa customers Policies to promote economic development and renewable energy generation in Contra Costa County MCE is aware that such issues may be of concern to the County and other jurisdictions considering membership in MCE. MCE is evaluating these issues, but decisions have not yet been made (see Attachment D for information from MCE concerning these and other issues). Option 3: Abbreviated Technical Study: Instead of conducting a full technical study, an alternative the Board may wish to consider is to conduct an abbreviated technical study that would summarize recently released technical studies conducted by other Bay Area cities and counties and would analyze tradeoffs between CCE options; for example, forming a new JPA versus joining an existing CCE program, such as MCE. The advantages of this alternative are that the Board would receive additional information regarding projected electricity rates under varying renewable energy scenarios, risk analysis, and economic development and renewable generation opportunities for jurisdictions that are similar to the County. Another advantage of this alternative is that it could be done at a lower cost and in a shorter amount of time than a full technical study, which would involve obtaining load data from PG&E and performing a detailed analysis of that data. A disadvantage of this alternative is that the analysis would not be specific to the County electricity load data and therefore some of the findings may not be as precise or reliable as a full technical study. Also, if the eventual outcome is to form a new JPA, portions of a full technical study, including analysis of electrical load data specific to Contra Costa County, would need to be subsequently completed. This alternative has been identified by staff following the February 29, 2016 IOC meeting, and was not discussed at the IOC meeting. Public Involvement If the Board directs staff to proceed with one of the three CCE options described in this report, staff recommends that the County's activities include a public involvement component. The recommended public involvement activites for each of the three options are as follows: Option 1: Full Technical Study Public workshops to obtain public input Focused outreach to key stakeholder groups Web-based educational materials Presentations at Mayors Conference, city councils and other venues Option 2: Join MCE Coordinate with cities in Contra Costa County to provide information concerning MCE Option 3: Abbreviated Technical Study Public workshop prior to consultant preparing study, and a second public workshop to review a draft of the study Additional public involvement actions could be considered upon completion of the abbreviated study Staff is aware that some members of the public have expressed an interest in creating an Advisory Committee to advise the Board and city councils on this topic. Staff is not recommending the creation of an Advisory Committee due to the added cost and time this would involve, and because staff believes the steps described above will allow for effective public input concerning the development of a CCE program without the significant March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 164 effort involved in recruiting for and selecting members. However, if a more structured involvement program is desired, staff could suggest approches for forming and structuring such a committee process. Project Schedule and Budget If the Board directs staff to proceed with a technical study of CCE (either a full study or an abbreviated one), this would represent the first phase of activity related to potential implementation of CCE within Contra Costa County. Following a technical study, additional steps would be required to launch a CCE program, should the Board decide to proceed with implementation. An estimated schedule and budget for fully implementing CCE within the County is attached to this report (Attachment E). The time and expense associated with implementing CCE within the County would depend heavily on the outcome of the technical study and the resulting direction selected by the Board and participating cities. The CCE option likely to require the greatest commitment of time and resources would be the option to form a new JPA comprised of the County and cities within Contra Costa County. Following the technical study, such an option would involve two additional phases of activity: JPA Formation and Program Launch. The activities associated with these additional project phases and the estimated time and expense to complete these activities are described in greater detail in Attachment D. Staff estimates the total time needed to implement the Contra Costa JPA option and begin providing electricity to customers would be in the range of two to three years and would cost approximately $2 million. These costs would likely be recovered if a new JPA becomes operational. If the Board directs staff to proceeds with steps necessary to join MCE, either immediately or following a technical study, the cost and time associated with joining MCE are expected to be substantially less than creating a new JPA. The organizational start-up activities and costs associated with creating a new public agency would not be required. However, a financial tradeoff associated with joining MCE is that jurisdictions in Contra Costa County would not have exclusive control over the revenues generated from a CCE program. If the County and several more cities in Contra Costa County decide the join MCE, Contra Costa jurisdictions would represent the majority of the population served by MCE. Therefore, Contra Costa jurisdictions would have a strong collective voice within MCE. Nevertheless, the majority of seats on the MCE Board of Directors would continue to be held be jurisdictions in Marin, Napa and Solano Counties. Extrapolating from the experience of the existing CCE programs, CCE revenues generated from the sale of electricity within jurisdictions in Contra Costa County not currently in MCE would likely be in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Most of these revenues would be used to pay for energy procurement, with smaller portions used to pay for administrative costs, reserves, and local economic development and energy efficiency programs. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If no action is taken, the County will not proceed with implementation of a Community Choice Energy program. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Charles Davidsen, Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance; Susan Junfish, parents for a Safer Environment; Salvatore Evola, City of Pittsburg; Nancy Rieser, Crockett-Rodeo United to Defend the Environment, and Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition; Rebecca Band, IBEW 1245 and Contra Costa Labor Council; Albert Lopez, Alameda County; Alexandra McGee, MCE; Alex Digiorgio, MCE; Dawn Weisz, MCE; Bill Pinkham, resident of Richmond; C. DeNeergaard, Kensington Green Group; Harry Thurston, Contra Costa Clan Energy Allicance;Carol Weed, Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance; Ann Puntch, resident of Rodeo; Ratha Cai, Sierra Club Bay Chapter; Wendy Lack. Rebecca Band, IBEW 1245 and Contra Costa Labor Council, left written comments for the Board's consideration (attached). The Board Chose Option 1: Work with interested cities in Contra Costa County to obtain electrical load data from PG&E and conduct a technical study of the following three CCE alternatives: March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 165 · Form a new joint powers authority of the County and interested cities within Contra Costa County for the purpose of implementing Community Choice Energy · Join Marin Clean Energy (MCE) · Form a new joint powers authority with Alameda County and the interested group of cities in the two-county region AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: CAO Letter to Cities re CCE Attachment B: City Responses to CAO Letter re CCE Attachment C: PG&E's New Solar Choice Offering Attachment D: Marin Clean Energy Documents Attachment E: Option 1 Technical Study Schedule and Budget PowerPoint Presentation MINUTES ATTACHMENTS lLetter Received from Alameda Board of Supervisors Correspondence Received March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 166 Attachment ASAMPLEMarch 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes167 SAMPLEMarch 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes168 SAMPLEMarch 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes169 Attachment B March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 170 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 171 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 172 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 173 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 174 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 175 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 176 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 177 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 178 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 179 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 180 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 181 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 182 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 183 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 184 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 185 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 186 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 187 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 188 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 189 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 190 中文 Search Solar Choice | Residential | PG&E http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/solar/choice/index.page 1 of 2 2/23/2016 3:20 PM March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 191 中文 Search Frequently Asked Questions | Solar Choice | Residential | PG&E http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/solar/choice/faq/inde... 1 of 2 2/23/2016 3:21 PM March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 192 Frequently Asked Questions | Solar Choice | Residential | PG&E http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/solar/choice/faq/inde... 2 of 2 2/23/2016 3:21 PM March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 193 Attachment D Documents Received from Marin Clean Energy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 194 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes195 9.17.15               POLICY  NO.  007  –  NEW  CUSTOMER  COMMUNITIES   Whereas MCE’s founding mission is to address climate change by using a wide range of renewable energy sources, reducing energy related greenhouse gas emissions and promoting the development of energy efficiency programs; and Whereas creating opportunities for customer electric service in new communities may allow MCE to further progress towards its founding mission; and Whereas MCE currently provides a minimum 50% renewable energy supply to all MCE customers (through its default Light Green retail service option), which substantially exceeds similar renewable energy supply percentages provided by California’s investor-owned utilities (IOUs); and Whereas the inclusion of new communities to MCE’s membership will increase state-wide renewable energy percentages due to 1) MCE’s specified minimum renewable energy supply percentage of 50%, and 2) access to its 100% renewable option; and Whereas the inclusion of new communities to MCE’s membership will also decrease greenhouse gas emissions within the Western United States as a result of minimum renewable energy supply percentages exceeding such percentages provided by California’s IOUs; and Whereas the inclusion of new communities reaffirms the viability of community choice aggregation, and provides an incentive for other cities and counties to pursue more renewable energy options within their own jurisdictions. Therefore, it is MCE’s policy to explore and support customer electric service in new communities to further agency goals. In consideration of the above MCE may allow access to service in new communities through two channels, affiliate membership or special-consideration membership, as applicable. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 196 9.17.15         Affiliate membership considered if: 1. All applicable membership criteria are satisfied, 2. New community is located in a county that is not more than 30 miles from MCE existing county jurisdiction, and 3. Customer base in new community is 40,000 or less or is within a County already served by MCE. Special-consideration membership considered if: 1. All applicable membership criteria are satisfied, 2. New community is located in a county that is more than 30 miles from MCE existing jurisdiction and/or the customer-base in the new community is greater than 40,000. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 197               MCE  Affiliate  Membership  Process       Step  1:  Governing  body  submits  letter  to  MCE  from  new  community  jurisdiction,  requesting   consideration  as  a  member.     Step  2:  Staff  evaluates  request  to  determine:  (a)  if  internal  resources  are  available  to  consider  new   membership,  and  (b)  if  a  formal  ‘inclusion  period'  should  be  offered  to  create  staff  efficiencies.   Step  3:  MCE  Staff  request  Membership  Application  from  new  community  governing  body.   Step  4:  Membership  Application  submitted  to  MCE.  Request  submitted  to  MCE  Board  to  consider   adherence  to  criteria  D,  E,  F  and  G  below,  and  to  authorize  membership  of  new  community,  subject  to   a  net  positive  result  in  quantitative  membership  analysis  by  staff.   Step  4:  Following  MCE  Board  approval,  staff  executes  agreement  with  governing  body  of  new   jurisdiction  to  fund  costs  of  membership  analysis  (cost  waived  under  inclusion  period).    Staff   undertakes  and  completes  analysis,  with  primary  focus  on  quantitative  criteria  A,  B  and  C  below.  If   needed,  re-­‐analysis  may  be  conducted  over  time  to  account  for  varying  market  conditions.   Step  5:  Results  of  membership  analysis  presented  to  MCE  Board.  1).  If  quantitative  affiliate   membership  criteria  are  met,  MCE  Board  adopts  resolution  to  include  municipality  in  MCE  Joint   Powers  Authority  membership.    2).  If  qualitative  criteria  are  not  met  but  other  compelling  criteria  are   present,  Board  may  consider  approval  of  membership.     Step  6:  Mayor/Board  President  of  new  jurisdiction  executes  JPA  Agreement.     Step  7:  MCE  submits  updated  Implementation  Plan  to  CPUC.   Membership  Criteria:   A. Including  new  community  will  result  in  a  projected  net  rate  reduction  for  existing  customer  base.   B. Including  new  community  will  enhance  strength  of  local  programs,  including  an  increase  in  distributed   generation,  and  will  accelerate  greenhouse  gas  reductions  on  a  larger  scale.   C. Including  new  community  will  increase  the  amount  of  renewable  energy  being  used  in  California’s   energy  market.   D. There  will  be  an  increase  in  opportunities  to  launch  and  operate  MCE  energy  efficiency  programs  to   reduce  energy  consumption  and  reliance  on  fossil  fuels.   E. New  opportunities  are  available  to  deploy  local  solar  and  other  distributed  renewable  generation   through  the  MCE  Net  Energy  Metering  Tariff  and  Feed  in  Tariff.   F. Greater  demand  for  jobs  and  economic  activity  is  likely  to  result  from  service  in  new  community.   G. Inclusion  of  new  community  is  likely  to  create  stronger  voice  for  MCE  at  the  State  and  regulatory  level.   March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 198 MCE Membership Application Checklist  Request for load data for PG&E signed by Mayor, City Manager, Board president or Chief County Administrator  County assessor data for all building stock in jurisdiction  Adoption of a resolution requesting membership in MCE  Adoption of the ordinance required by the Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c) (10) to join MCE’s CCA program, adopted governing Board, subject to MCE Board approval  Executed ‘Agreement for Services’ or ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ (if during inclusion period) to cover:  Community agrees to publicize and share information about MCE with community during the 6 month enrollment period. Options to publicize include but are not limited to website, social media, public events, community workshops, and newsletter announcements (where feasible), as well as distribution of flyers and handouts provided by MCE at community offices.  Community agrees to provide desk space for up to 2 MCE staff during the 6 month enrollment period, and agrees to consider ongoing desk space availability if needed for effective and efficient outreach.  Community agrees to assign staff member as primary point of contact with MCE. Assigned staff member will support and facilitate communication with other community staff and officials, as well as provide input and high-level assistance on community outreach.  Community agrees to cover of quantitative analysis cost, not to exceed $10,000; waived under inclusion period. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 199 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 200 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 201 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 202 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 203 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 204 Memorandum of Understanding between MCE and [City/County] Exploring Inclusion in MCE This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), regarding MCE membership consideration is entered into by and between MCE and [City/County]. WHEREAS, the [City/County] has expressed interest in exploring membership in MCE, and WHEREAS, MCE has a Policy to consider new community inclusion, subject to receipt of a complete application and subject to MCE analysis and approval, and WHEREAS, MCE and [City/County] are collaborating to determine the feasibility of including [City/County] within MCE’s Service area and approving the [City/County] application for membership; and WHEREAS, MCE and [City/County] have a mutual interest in following the guidelines below, NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. [City/County] agrees to assign one staff member as primary point of contact with MCE. Assigned staff member will support and facilitate communication with other [City/County] staff and officials, as well as provide input and high-level assistance on community outreach. 2. [City/County] will work with MCE to conduct public outreach about the MCE program to aid in outreach and education and to collect feedback from the community. Options to publicize include, but are not limited to, website, social media, public events, community workshops, and newsletter announcements, as well as distribution of flyers and handouts provided by MCE. 3. [City/County] will complete and submit ‘MCE Membership Application’ to MCE. 4. After receipt of complete Membership Application MCE will conduct a quantitative analysis to determine feasibly of adding [City/County] to the MCE Service Area, and approve membership if analysis results are positive. 5. Subject to membership approval by the MCE Board, [City/County] agrees to publicize and share information about MCE within its community during the 6 month enrollment period. Options to publicize include, but are not limited to, website, social media, public March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 205 events, community workshops, and newsletter announcements (where feasible), as well as distribution of flyers and handouts provided by MCE at [City/County] offices. 6. Subject to membership approval by the MCE Board, [City/County] agrees to provide desk space for up to 2 MCE staff during the 6 month enrollment period, and agrees to consider ongoing desk space availability if needed for effective and efficient outreach. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this MOU. MCE: By: ____________________________ ______________________ Dawn Weisz, CEO Date MCE [CITY/COUNTY]: By: ____________________________ ______________________ [REPRESENTATIVE NAME, TITLE] Date [CITY/COUNTY NAME] March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 206 Marin Energy Authority - Joint Powers Agreement - Effective December 19, 2008 As amended by Amendment No. 1 dated December 3, 2009 As further amended by Amendment No. 2 dated March 4, 2010 As further amended by Amendment No. 3 dated May 6, 2010 As further amended by Amendment No. 4 dated December 1, 2011 As further amended by Amendment No. 5 dated July 5, 2012 As further amended by Amendment No. 6 dated September 5, 2013 As further amended by Amendment No. 7 dated December 5, 2013 As further amended by Amendment No. 8 dated September 4, 2014 As further amended by Amendment No. 9 dated December 4, 2014 Among The Following Parties: City of Belvedere City of Benicia Town of Corte Madera City of El Cerrito Town of Fairfax City of Larkspur City of Mill Valley City of Novato City of Richmond Town of Ross Town of San Anselmo City of San Pablo City of San Rafael City of Sausalito Town of Tiburon County of Marin County of Napa March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 207 MARIN ENERGY AUTHORITY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT This Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”), effective as of December 19, 2008, is made and entered into pursuant to the provisions of Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1 (Section 6500 et seq.) of the California Government Code relating to the joint exercise of powers among the parties set forth in Exhibit B (“Parties”). The term “Parties” shall also include an incorporated municipality or county added to this Agreement in accordance with Section 3.1. RECITALS 1. The Parties are either incorporated municipalities or counties sharing various powers under California law, including but not limited to the power to purchase, supply, and aggregate electricity for themselves and their inhabitants. 2. In 2006, the State Legislature adopted AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which mandates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 to 1990 levels. The California Air Resources Board is promulgating regulations to implement AB 32 which will require local government to develop programs to reduce greenhouse emissions. 3. The purposes for the Initial Participants (as such term is defined in Section 2.2 below) entering into this Agreement include addressing climate change by reducing energy related greenhouse gas emissions and securing energy supply and price stability, energy efficiencies and local economic benefits. It is the intent of this Agreement to promote the development and use of a wide range of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programs, including but not limited to solar and wind energy production. 4. The Parties desire to establish a separate public agency, known as the Marin Energy Authority (“Authority”), under the provisions of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.) (“Act”) in order to collectively study, promote, develop, conduct, operate, and manage energy programs. 5. The Initial Participants have each adopted an ordinance electing to implement through the Authority Community Choice Aggregation, an electric service enterprise agency available to cities and counties pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 (“CCA Program”). The first priority of the Authority will be the consideration of those actions necessary to implement the CCA Program. Regardless of whether or not Program Agreement 1 is approved and the CCA Program becomes operational, the parties intend for the Authority to continue to study, promote, develop, conduct, operate and manage other energy programs. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 208 AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions hereinafter set forth, it is agreed by and among the Parties as follows: ARTICLE 1 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 1.1 Definitions. Capitalized terms used in the Agreement shall have the meanings specified in Exhibit A, unless the context requires otherwise. 1.2 Documents Included. This Agreement consists of this document and the following exhibits, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. Exhibit A: Definitions Exhibit B: List of the Parties Exhibit C: Annual Energy Use Exhibit D: Voting Shares 1.3 Revision of Exhibits. The Parties agree that Exhibits B, C and D to this Agreement describe certain administrative matters that may be revised upon the approval of the Board, without such revision constituting an amendment to this Agreement, as described in Section 8.4. The Authority shall provide written notice to the Parties of the revision of any such exhibit. ARTICLE 2 FORMATION OF MARIN ENERGY AUTHORITY 2.1 Effective Date and Term. This Agreement shall become effective and Marin Energy Authority shall exist as a separate public agency on the date this Agreement is executed by at least two Initial Participants after the adoption of the ordinances required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(10). The Authority shall provide notice to the Parties of the Effective Date. The Authority shall continue to exist, and this Agreement shall be effective, until this Agreement is terminated in accordance with Section 7.4, subject to the rights of the Parties to withdraw from the Authority. 2.2 Initial Participants. During the first 180 days after the Effective Date, all other Initial Participants may become a Party by executing this Agreement and delivering an executed copy of this Agreement and a copy of the adopted ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(10) to the Authority. Additional conditions, described in Section 3.1, may apply (i) to either an incorporated municipality or county desiring to become a Party and is not an Initial Participant and (ii) to Initial Participants that have not executed and delivered this Agreement within the time period described above. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 209 2.3 Formation. There is formed as of the Effective Date a public agency named the Marin Energy Authority. Pursuant to Sections 6506 and 6507 of the Act, the Authority is a public agency separate from the Parties. The debts, liabilities or obligations of the Authority shall not be debts, liabilities or obligations of the individual Parties unless the governing board of a Party agrees in writing to assume any of the debts, liabilities or obligations of the Authority. A Party who has not agreed to assume an Authority debt, liability or obligation shall not be responsible in any way for such debt, liability or obligation even if a majority of the Parties agree to assume the debt, liability or obligation of the Authority. Notwithstanding Section 8.4 of this Agreement, this Section 2.3 may not be amended unless such amendment is approved by the governing board of each Party. 2.4 Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish an independent public agency in order to exercise powers common to each Party to study, promote, develop, conduct, operate, and manage energy and energy-related climate change programs, and to exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to accomplishing this purpose. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Parties intend for this Agreement to be used as a contractual mechanism by which the Parties are authorized to participate as a group in the CCA Program, as further described in Section 5.1. The Parties intend that subsequent agreements shall define the terms and conditions associated with the actual implementation of the CCA Program and any other energy programs approved by the Authority. 2.5 Powers. The Authority shall have all powers common to the Parties and such additional powers accorded to it by law. The Authority is authorized, in its own name, to exercise all powers and do all acts necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this Agreement and fulfill its purposes, including, but not limited to, each of the following: 2.5.1 make and enter into contracts; 2.5.2 employ agents and employees, including but not limited to an Executive Director; 2.5.3 acquire, contract, manage, maintain, and operate any buildings, works or improvements; 2.5.4 acquire by eminent domain, or otherwise, except as limited under Section 6508 of the Act, and to hold or dispose of any property; 2.5.5 lease any property; 2.5.6 sue and be sued in its own name; 2.5.7 incur debts, liabilities, and obligations, including but not limited to loans from private lending sources pursuant to its temporary borrowing powers such as Government Code Section 53850 et seq. and authority under the Act; 2.5.8 issue revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness; 2.5.9 apply for, accept, and receive all licenses, permits, grants, loans or other aids from any federal, state or local public agency; March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 210 2.5.10 submit documentation and notices, register, and comply with orders, tariffs and agreements for the establishment and implementation of the CCA Program and other energy programs; 2.5.11 adopt rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures governing the operation of the Authority (“Operating Rules and Regulations”); and 2.5.12 make and enter into service agreements relating to the provision of services necessary to plan, implement, operate and administer the CCA Program and other energy programs, including the acquisition of electric power supply and the provision of retail and regulatory support services. 2.6 Limitation on Powers. As required by Government Code Section 6509, the power of the Authority is subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising power possessed by the County of Marin. 2.7 Compliance with Local Zoning and Building Laws. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement or state law, any facilities, buildings or structures located, constructed or caused to be constructed by the Authority within the territory of the Authority shall comply with the General Plan, zoning and building laws of the local jurisdiction within which the facilities, buildings or structures are constructed. ARTICLE 3 AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION 3.1 Addition of Parties. Subject to Section 2.2, relating to certain rights of Initial Participants, other incorporated municipalities and counties may become Parties upon (a) the adoption of a resolution by the governing body of such incorporated municipality or such county requesting that the incorporated municipality or county, as the case may be, become a member of the Authority, (b) the adoption, by an affirmative vote of the Board satisfying the requirements described in Section 4.9.1, of a resolution authorizing membership of the additional incorporated municipality or county, specifying the membership payment, if any, to be made by the additional incorporated municipality or county to reflect its pro rata share of organizational, planning and other pre-existing expenditures, and describing additional conditions, if any, associated with membership, (c) the adoption of an ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(10) and execution of this Agreement and other necessary program agreements by the incorporated municipality or county, (d) payment of the membership payment, if any, and (e) satisfaction of any conditions established by the Board. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the Authority decides to not implement a CCA Program, the requirement that an additional party adopt the ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(10) shall not apply. Under such circumstance, the Board resolution authorizing membership of an additional incorporated municipality or county shall be adopted in accordance with the voting requirements of Section 4.10. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 211 3.2 Continuing Participation. The Parties acknowledge that membership in the Authority may change by the addition and/or withdrawal or termination of Parties. The Parties agree to participate with such other Parties as may later be added, as described in Section 3.1. The Parties also agree that the withdrawal or termination of a Party shall not affect this Agreement or the remaining Parties’ continuing obligations under this Agreement. ARTICLE 4 GOVERNANCE AND INTERNAL ORGANIZATION 4.1 Board of Directors. The governing body of the Authority shall be a Board of Directors (“Board”) consisting of one director for each Party appointed in accordance with Section 4.2. 4.2 Appointment and Removal of Directors. The Directors shall be appointed and may be removed as follows: 4.2.1 The governing body of each Party shall appoint and designate in writing one regular Director who shall be authorized to act for and on behalf of the Party on matters within the powers of the Authority. The governing body of each Party also shall appoint and designate in writing one alternate Director who may vote on matters when the regular Director is absent from a Board meeting. The person appointed and designated as the Director or the alternate Director shall be a member of the governing body of the Party. 4.2.2 The Operating Rules and Regulations, to be developed and approved by the Board in accordance with Section 2.5.11, shall specify the reasons for and process associated with the removal of an individual Director for cause. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Party shall be deprived of its right to seat a Director on the Board and any such Party for which its Director and/or alternate Director has been removed may appoint a replacement. 4.3 Terms of Office. Each Director shall serve at the pleasure of the governing body of the Party that the Director represents, and may be removed as Director by such governing body at any time. If at any time a vacancy occurs on the Board, a replacement shall be appointed to fill the position of the previous Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.2 within 90 days of the date that such position becomes vacant. 4.4 Quorum. A majority of the Directors shall constitute a quorum, except that less than a quorum may adjourn from time to time in accordance with law. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 212 4.5 Powers and Function of the Board. The Board shall conduct or authorize to be conducted all business and activities of the Authority, consistent with this Agreement, the Authority Documents, the Operating Rules and Regulations, and applicable law. 4.6 Executive Committee. The Board may establish an executive committee consisting of a smaller number of Directors. The Board may delegate to the executive committee such authority as the Board might otherwise exercise, subject to limitations placed on the Board’s authority to delegate certain essential functions, as described in the Operating Rules and Regulations. The Board may not delegate to the Executive Committee or any other committee its authority under Section 2.5.11 to adopt and amend the Operating Rules and Regulations. 4.7 Commissions, Boards and Committees. The Board may establish any advisory commissions, boards and committees as the Board deems appropriate to assist the Board in carrying out its functions and implementing the CCA Program, other energy programs and the provisions of this Agreement. 4.8 Director Compensation. Compensation for work performed by Directors on behalf of the Authority shall be borne by the Party that appointed the Director. The Board, however, may adopt by resolution a policy relating to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by Directors. 4.9 Board Voting Related to the CCA Program. 4.9.1. To be effective, on all matters specifically related to the CCA Program, a vote of the Board shall consist of the following: (1) a majority of all Directors shall vote in the affirmative or such higher voting percentage expressly set forth in Sections 7.2 and 8.4 (the “percentage vote”) and (2) the corresponding voting shares (as described in Section 4.9.2 and Exhibit D) of all such Directors voting in the affirmative shall exceed 50%, or such other higher voting shares percentage expressly set forth in Sections 7.2 and 8.4 (the “percentage voting shares”), provided that, in instances in which such other higher voting share percentage would result in any one Director having a voting share that equals or exceeds that which is necessary to disapprove the matter being voted on by the Board, at least one other Director shall be required to vote in the negative in order to disapprove such matter. 4.9.2. Unless otherwise stated herein, voting shares of the Directors shall be determined by combining the following: (1) an equal voting share for each Director determined in accordance with the formula detailed in Section 4.9.2.1, below; and (2) an additional voting share determined in accordance with the formula detailed in Section 4.9.2.2, below. 4.9.2.1 Pro Rata Voting Share. Each Director shall have an equal voting share as determined by the following formula: (1/total number of March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 213 Directors) multiplied by 50, and 4.9.2.2 Annual Energy Use Voting Share. Each Director shall have an additional voting share as determined by the following formula: (Annual Energy Use/Total Annual Energy) multiplied by 50, where (a) “Annual Energy Use” means, (i) with respect to the first 5 years following the Effective Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in kilowatt hours (“kWhs”), within the Party’s respective jurisdiction and (ii) with respect to the period after the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in kWhs, of accounts within a Party’s respective jurisdiction that are served by the Authority and (b) “Total Annual Energy” means the sum of all Parties’ Annual Energy Use. The initial values for Annual Energy use are designated in Exhibit C, and shall be adjusted annually as soon as reasonably practicable after January 1, but no later than March 1 of each year 4.9.2.3 The voting shares are set forth in Exhibit D. Exhibit D may be updated to reflect revised annual energy use amounts and any changes in the parties to the Agreement without amending the Agreement provided that the Board is provided a copy of the updated Exhibit D. 4.10 Board Voting on General Administrative Matters and Programs Not Involving CCA. Except as otherwise provided by this Agreement or the Operating Rules and Regulations, each member shall have one vote on general administrative matters, including but not limited to the adoption and amendment of the Operating Rules and Regulations, and energy programs not involving CCA. Action on these items shall be determined by a majority vote of the quorum present and voting on the item or such higher voting percentage expressly set forth in Sections 7.2 and 8.4. 4.11 Board Voting on CCA Programs Not Involving CCA That Require Financial Contributions. The approval of any program or other activity not involving CCA that requires financial contributions by individual Parties shall be approved only by a majority vote of the full membership of the Board subject to the right of any Party who votes against the program or activity to opt-out of such program or activity pursuant to this section. The Board shall provide at least 45 days prior written notice to each Party before it considers the program or activity for adoption at a Board meeting. Such notice shall be provided to the governing body and the chief administrative officer, city manager or town manager of each Party. The Board also shall provide written notice of such program or activity adoption to the above-described officials of each Party within 5 days after the Board adopts the program or activity. Any Party voting against the approval of a program or other activity of the Authority requiring financial contributions by individual Parties may elect to opt-out of participation in such program or activity by March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 214 providing written notice of this election to the Board within 30 days after the program or activity is approved by the Board. Upon timely exercising its opt-out election, a Party shall not have any financial obligation or any liability whatsoever for the conduct or operation of such program or activity. 4.12 Meetings and Special Meetings of the Board. The Board shall hold at least four regular meetings per year, but the Board may provide for the holding of regular meetings at more frequent intervals. The date, hour and place of each regular meeting shall be fixed by resolution or ordinance of the Board. Regular meetings may be adjourned to another meeting time. Special meetings of the Board may be called in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 54956. Directors may participate in meetings telephonically, with full voting rights, only to the extent permitted by law. All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.). 4.13 Selection of Board Officers. 4.13.1 Chair and Vice Chair. The Directors shall select, from among themselves, a Chair, who shall be the presiding officer of all Board meetings, and a Vice Chair, who shall serve in the absence of the Chair. The term of office of the Chair and Vice Chair shall continue for one year, but there shall be no limit on the number of terms held by either the Chair or Vice Chair. The office of either the Chair or Vice Chair shall be declared vacant and a new selection shall be made if: (a) the person serving dies, resigns, or the Party that the person represents removes the person as its representative on the Board or (b) the Party that he or she represents withdraws form the Authority pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 4.13.2 Secretary. The Board shall appoint a Secretary, who need not be a member of the Board, who shall be responsible for keeping the minutes of all meetings of the Board and all other official records of the Authority. 4.13.3 Treasurer and Auditor. The Board shall appoint a qualified person to act as the Treasurer and a qualified person to act as the Auditor, neither of whom needs to be a member of the Board. If the Board so designates, and in accordance with the provisions of applicable law, a qualified person may hold both the office of Treasurer and the office of Auditor of the Authority. Unless otherwise exempted from such requirement, the Authority shall cause an independent audit to be made by a certified public accountant, or public accountant, in compliance with Section 6505 of the Act. The Treasurer shall act as the depositary of the Authority and have custody of all the money of the Authority, from whatever source, and as such, shall have all of the duties and responsibilities specified in Section 6505.5 of the Act. The Board may require the Treasurer and/or Auditor to March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 215 file with the Authority an official bond in an amount to be fixed by the Board, and if so requested the Authority shall pay the cost of premiums associated with the bond. The Treasurer shall report directly to the Board and shall comply with the requirements of treasurers of incorporated municipalities. The Board may transfer the responsibilities of Treasurer to any person or entity as the law may provide at the time. The duties and obligations of the Treasurer are further specified in Article 6. 4.14 Administrative Services Provider. The Board may appoint one or more administrative services providers to serve as the Authority’s agent for planning, implementing, operating and administering the CCA Program, and any other program approved by the Board, in accordance with the provisions of a written agreement between the Authority and the appointed administrative services provider or providers that will be known as an Administrative Services Agreement. The Administrative Services Agreement shall set forth the terms and conditions by which the appointed administrative services provider shall perform or cause to be performed all tasks necessary for planning, implementing, operating and administering the CCA Program and other approved programs. The Administrative Services Agreement shall set forth the term of the Agreement and the circumstances under which the Administrative Services Agreement may be terminated by the Authority. This section shall not in any way be construed to limit the discretion of the Authority to hire its own employees to administer the CCA Program or any other program. ARTICLE 5 IMPLEMENTATION ACTION AND AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS 5.1 Preliminary Implementation of the CCA Program. 5.1.1 Enabling Ordinance. Except as otherwise provided by Section 3.1, prior to the execution of this Agreement, each Party shall adopt an ordinance in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(10) for the purpose of specifying that the Party intends to implement a CCA Program by and through its participation in the Authority. 5.1.2 Implementation Plan. The Authority shall cause to be prepared an Implementation Plan meeting the requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 and any applicable Public Utilities Commission regulations as soon after the Effective Date as reasonably practicable. The Implementation Plan shall not be filed with the Public Utilities Commission until it is approved by the Board in the manner provided by Section 4.9. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 216 5.1.3 Effect of Vote On Required Implementation Action. In the event that two or more Parties vote to approve Program Agreement 1 or any earlier action required for the implementation of the CCA Program (“Required Implementation Action”), but such vote is insufficient to approve the Required Implementation Action under Section 4.9, the following will occur: 5.1.3.1 The Parties voting against the Required Implementation Action shall no longer be a Party to this Agreement and this Agreement shall be terminated, without further notice, with respect to each of the Parties voting against the Required Implementation Action at the time this vote is final. The Board may take a provisional vote on a Required Implementation Action in order to initially determine the position of the Parties on the Required Implementation Action. A vote, specifically stated in the record of the Board meeting to be a provisional vote, shall not be considered a final vote with the consequences stated above. A Party who is terminated from this Agreement pursuant to this section shall be considered the same as a Party that voluntarily withdrew from the Agreement under Section 7.1.1.1. 5.1.3.2 After the termination of any Parties pursuant to Section 5.1.3.1, the remaining Parties to this Agreement shall be only the Parties who voted in favor of the Required Implementation Action. 5.1.4 Termination of CCA Program. Nothing contained in this Article or this Agreement shall be construed to limit the discretion of the Authority to terminate the implementation or operation of the CCA Program at any time in accordance with any applicable requirements of state law. 5.2 Authority Documents. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the affairs of the Authority will be implemented through various documents duly adopted by the Board through Board resolution, including but not necessarily limited to the Operating Rules and Regulations, the annual budget, and specified plans and policies defined as the Authority Documents by this Agreement. The Parties agree to abide by and comply with the terms and conditions of all such Authority Documents that may be adopted by the Board, subject to the Parties’ right to withdraw from the Authority as described in Article 7. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 217 ARTICLE 6 FINANCIAL PROVISIONS 6.1 Fiscal Year. The Authority’s fiscal year shall be 12 months commencing July 1 and ending June 30. The fiscal year may be changed by Board resolution. 6.2 Depository. 6.2.1 All funds of the Authority shall be held in separate accounts in the name of the Authority and not commingled with funds of any Party or any other person or entity. 6.2.2 All funds of the Authority shall be strictly and separately accounted for, and regular reports shall be rendered of all receipts and disbursements, at least quarterly during the fiscal year. The books and records of the Authority shall be open to inspection by the Parties at all reasonable times. The Board shall contract with a certified public accountant or public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of the Authority, which shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 6505 of the Act. 6.2.3 All expenditures shall be made in accordance with the approved budget and upon the approval of any officer so authorized by the Board in accordance with its Operating Rules and Regulations. The Treasurer shall draw checks or warrants or make payments by other means for claims or disbursements not within an applicable budget only upon the prior approval of the Board. 6.3 Budget and Recovery Costs. 6.3.1 Budget. The initial budget shall be approved by the Board. The Board may revise the budget from time to time through an Authority Document as may be reasonably necessary to address contingencies and unexpected expenses. All subsequent budgets of the Authority shall be prepared and approved by the Board in accordance with the Operating Rules and Regulations. 6.3.2 County Funding of Initial Costs. The County of Marin shall fund the Initial Costs of the Authority in implementing the CCA Program in an amount not to exceed $500,000 unless a larger amount of funding is approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County. This funding shall be paid by the County at the times and in the amounts required by the Authority. In the event that the CCA Program becomes operational, these Initial Costs paid by the County of Marin shall be included in the customer charges for electric services as provided by Section 6.3.4 to the extent permitted by law, and the County of Marin shall be reimbursed from the March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 218 payment of such charges by customers of the Authority. The Authority may establish a reasonable time period over which such costs are recovered. In the event that the CCA Program does not become operational, the County of Marin shall not be entitled to any reimbursement of the Initial Costs it has paid from the Authority or any Party. 6.3.3 CCA Program Costs. The Parties desire that, to the extent reasonably practicable, all costs incurred by the Authority that are directly or indirectly attributable to the provision of electric services under the CCA Program, including the establishment and maintenance of various reserve and performance funds, shall be recovered through charges to CCA customers receiving such electric services. 6.3.4 General Costs. Costs that are not directly or indirectly attributable to the provision of electric services under the CCA Program, as determined by the Board, shall be defined as general costs. General costs shall be shared among the Parties on such basis as the Board shall determine pursuant to an Authority Document. 6.3.5 Other Energy Program Costs. Costs that are directly or indirectly attributable to energy programs approved by the Authority other than the CCA Program shall be shared among the Parties on such basis as the Board shall determine pursuant to an Authority Document. ARTICLE 7 WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION 7.1 Withdrawal. 7.1.1 General. 7.1.1.1 Prior to the Authority’s execution of Program Agreement 1, any Party may withdraw its membership in the Authority by giving no less than 30 days advance written notice of its election to do so, which notice shall be given to the Authority and each Party. To permit consideration by the governing body of each Party, the Authority shall provide a copy of the proposed Program Agreement 1 to each Party at least 90 days prior to the consideration of such agreement by the Board. 7.1.1.2 Subsequent to the Authority’s execution of Program Agreement 1, a Party may withdraw its membership in the Authority, effective as of the beginning of the Authority’s fiscal year, by giving no less than 6 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 219 months advance written notice of its election to do so, which notice shall be given to the Authority and each Party, and upon such other conditions as may be prescribed in Program Agreement 1. 7.1.2 Amendment. Notwithstanding Section 7.1.1, a Party may withdraw its membership in the Authority following an amendment to this Agreement in the manner provided by Section 8.4. 7.1.3 Continuing Liability; Further Assurances. A Party that withdraws its membership in the Authority may be subject to certain continuing liabilities, as described in Section 7.3. The withdrawing Party and the Authority shall execute and deliver all further instruments and documents, and take any further action that may be reasonably necessary, as determined by the Board, to effectuate the orderly withdrawal of such Party from membership in the Authority. The Operating Rules and Regulations shall prescribe the rights if any of a withdrawn Party to continue to participate in those Board discussions and decisions affecting customers of the CCA Program that reside or do business within the jurisdiction of the Party. 7.2 Involuntary Termination of a Party. This Agreement may be terminated with respect to a Party for material non-compliance with provisions of this Agreement or the Authority Documents upon an affirmative vote of the Board in which the minimum percentage vote and percentage voting shares, as described in Section 4.9.1, shall be no less than 67%, excluding the vote and voting shares of the Party subject to possible termination. Prior to any vote to terminate this Agreement with respect to a Party, written notice of the proposed termination and the reason(s) for such termination shall be delivered to the Party whose termination is proposed at least 30 days prior to the regular Board meeting at which such matter shall first be discussed as an agenda item. The written notice of proposed termination shall specify the particular provisions of this Agreement or the Authority Documents that the Party has allegedly violated. The Party subject to possible termination shall have the opportunity at the next regular Board meeting to respond to any reasons and allegations that may be cited as a basis for termination prior to a vote regarding termination. A Party that has had its membership in the Authority terminated may be subject to certain continuing liabilities, as described in Section 7.3. In the event that the Authority decides to not implement the CCA Program, the minimum percentage vote of 67% shall be conducted in accordance with Section 4.10 rather than Section 4.9.1. 7.3 Continuing Liability; Refund. Upon a withdrawal or involuntary termination of a Party, the Party shall remain responsible for any claims, demands, damages, or liabilities arising from the Party’s membership in the Authority through the date of its withdrawal or involuntary termination, it being agreed that the Party shall not be responsible for any claims, demands, damages, or liabilities arising after the date of the Party’s withdrawal or involuntary termination. In addition, such March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 220 Party also shall be responsible for any costs or obligations associated with the Party’s participation in any program in accordance with the provisions of any agreements relating to such program provided such costs or obligations were incurred prior to the withdrawal of the Party. The Authority may withhold funds otherwise owing to the Party or may require the Party to deposit sufficient funds with the Authority, as reasonably determined by the Authority, to cover the Party’s liability for the costs described above. Any amount of the Party’s funds held on deposit with the Authority above that which is required to pay any liabilities or obligations shall be returned to the Party. 7.4 Mutual Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of all the Parties; provided, however, the foregoing shall not be construed as limiting the rights of a Party to withdraw its membership in the Authority, and thus terminate this Agreement with respect to such withdrawing Party, as described in Section 7.1. 7.5 Disposition of Property upon Termination of Authority. Upon termination of this Agreement as to all Parties, any surplus money or assets in possession of the Authority for use under this Agreement, after payment of all liabilities, costs, expenses, and charges incurred under this Agreement and under any program documents, shall be returned to the then-existing Parties in proportion to the contributions made by each. ARTICLE 8 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 8.1 Dispute Resolution. The Parties and the Authority shall make reasonable efforts to settle all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement. Should such efforts to settle a dispute, after reasonable efforts, fail, the dispute shall be settled by binding arbitration in accordance with policies and procedures established by the Board. 8.2 Liability of Directors, Officers, and Employees. The Directors, officers, and employees of the Authority shall use ordinary care and reasonable diligence in the exercise of their powers and in the performance of their duties pursuant to this Agreement. No current or former Director, officer, or employee will be responsible for any act or omission by another Director, officer, or employee. The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the individual current and former Directors, officers, and employees for any acts or omissions in the scope of their employment or duties in the manner provided by Government Code Section 995 et seq. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the defenses March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 221 available under the law, to the Parties, the Authority, or its Directors, officers, or employees. 8.3 Indemnification of Parties. The Authority shall acquire such insurance coverage as is necessary to protect the interests of the Authority, the Parties and the public. The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Parties and each of their respective Board or Council members, officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, losses, damages, costs, injuries and liabilities of every kind arising directly or indirectly from the conduct, activities, operations, acts, and omissions of the Authority under this Agreement. 8.4 Amendment of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended by an affirmative vote of the Board in which the minimum percentage vote and percentage voting shares, as described in Section 4.9.1, shall be no less than 67%. The Authority shall provide written notice to all Parties of amendments to this Agreement, including the effective date of such amendments. A Party shall be deemed to have withdrawn its membership in the Authority effective immediately upon the vote of the Board approving an amendment to this Agreement if the Director representing such Party has provided notice to the other Directors immediately preceding the Board’s vote of the Party’s intention to withdraw its membership in the Authority should the amendment be approved by the Board. As described in Section 7.3, a Party that withdraws its membership in the Authority in accordance with the above-described procedure may be subject to continuing liabilities incurred prior to the Party’s withdrawal. In the event that the Authority decides to not implement the CCA Program, the minimum percentage vote of 67% shall be conducted in accordance with Section 4.10 rather than Section 4.9.1. 8.5 Assignment. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, the rights and duties of the Parties may not be assigned or delegated without the advance written consent of all of the other Parties, and any attempt to assign or delegate such rights or duties in contravention of this Section 8.5 shall be null and void. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the successors and assigns of the Parties. This Section 8.5 does not prohibit a Party from entering into an independent agreement with another agency, person, or entity regarding the financing of that Party’s contributions to the Authority, or the disposition of proceeds which that Party receives under this Agreement, so long as such independent agreement does not affect, or purport to affect, the rights and duties of the Authority or the Parties under this Agreement. 8.6 Severability. If one or more clauses, sentences, paragraphs or provisions of this Agreement shall be held to be unlawful, invalid or unenforceable, it is hereby agreed by the Parties, that the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby. Such clauses, sentences, paragraphs or provision shall be deemed reformed so as to be lawful, valid and enforced to the maximum extent possible. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 222 8.7 Further Assurances. Each Party agrees to execute and deliver all further instruments and documents, and take any further action that may be reasonably necessary, to effectuate the purposes and intent of this Agreement. 8.8 Execution by Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and upon execution by all Parties, each executed counterpart shall have the same force and effect as an original instrument and as if all Parties had signed the same instrument. Any signature page of this Agreement may be detached from any counterpart of this Agreement without impairing the legal effect of any signatures thereon, and may be attached to another counterpart of this Agreement identical in form hereto but having attached to it one or more signature pages. 8.9 Parties to be Served Notice. Any notice authorized or required to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be validly given if served in writing either personally, by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid with return receipt requested, or by a recognized courier service. Notices given (a) personally or by courier service shall be conclusively deemed received at the time of delivery and receipt and (b) by mail shall be conclusively deemed given 48 hours after the deposit thereof (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) if the sender receives the return receipt. All notices shall be addressed to the office of the clerk or secretary of the Authority or Party, as the case may be, or such other person designated in writing by the Authority or Party. Notices given to one Party shall be copied to all other Parties. Notices given to the Authority shall be copied to all Parties. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 223 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes224 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes225 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 226 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes227 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes228 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 229 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes230 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes231 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes232 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes233 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes234 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes235 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes236 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes237 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes238 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes239 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes240 Exhibit A To the Joint Powers Agreement Marin Energy Authority -Definitions- “AB 117” means Assembly Bill 117 (Stat. 2002, ch. 838, codified at Public Utilities Code Section 366.2), which created CCA. “Act” means the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.) “Administrative Services Agreement” means an agreement or agreements entered into after the Effective Date by the Authority with an entity that will perform tasks necessary for planning, implementing, operating and administering the CCA Program or any other energy programs adopted by the Authority. “Agreement” means this Joint Powers Agreement. “Annual Energy Use” has the meaning given in Section 4.9.2.2. “Authority” means the Marin Energy Authority. “Authority Document(s)” means document(s) duly adopted by the Board by resolution or motion implementing the powers, functions and activities of the Authority, including but not limited to the Operating Rules and Regulations, the annual budget, and plans and policies. “Board” means the Board of Directors of the Authority. “CCA” or “Community Choice Aggregation” means an electric service option available to cities and counties pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 366.2. “CCA Program” means the Authority’s program relating to CCA that is principally described in Sections 2.4 and 5.1. “Director” means a member of the Board of Directors representing a Party. “Effective Date” means the date on which this Agreement shall become effective and the Marin Energy Authority shall exist as a separate public agency, as further described in Section 2.1. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 241 “Implementation Plan” means the plan generally described in Section 5.1.2 of this Agreement that is required under Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 to be filed with the California Public Utilities Commission for the purpose of describing a proposed CCA Program. “Initial Costs” means all costs incurred by the Authority relating to the establishment and initial operation of the Authority, such as the hiring of an Executive Director and any administrative staff, any required accounting, administrative, technical and legal services in support of the Authority’s initial activities or in support of the negotiation, preparation and approval of one or more Administrative Services Provider Agreements and Program Agreement 1. Administrative and operational costs incurred after the approval of Program Agreement 1 shall not be considered Initial Costs. “Initial Participants” means, for the purpose of this Agreement, the signatories to this JPA as of May 5, 2010 including City of Belvedere, Town of Fairfax, City of Mill Valley, Town of San Anselmo, City of San Rafael, City of Sausalito, Town of Tiburon and County of Marin. “Operating Rules and Regulations” means the rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures governing the operation of the Authority. “Parties” means, collectively, the signatories to this Agreement that have satisfied the conditions in Sections 2.2 or 3.2 such that it is considered a member of the Authority. “Party” means, singularly, a signatory to this Agreement that has satisfied the conditions in Sections 2.2 or 3.2 such that it is considered a member of the Authority. “Program Agreement 1” means the agreement that the Authority will enter into with an energy service provider that will provide the electricity to be distributed to customers participating in the CCA Program. “Total Annual Energy” has the meaning given in Section 4.9.2.2. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 242 Exhibit B To the Joint Powers Agreement Marin Energy Authority -List of the Parties- City of Belvedere City of Benicia Town of Corte Madera City of El Cerrito Town of Fairfax City of Larkspur City of Mill Valley City of Novato City of Richmond Town of Ross Town of San Anselmo City of San Pablo City of San Rafael City of Sausalito Town of Tiburon County of Marin County of Napa March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 243 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 244 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 245 1 POLICY 013: Reserve Policy Policy Statement MCE will adopt budgets and establish rates that provide for a growing Reserve until target funding levels are met. The Reserve will grow to and be maintained at the following funding levels: • Available Cash: equal to 90 days of operating expenditures; and • Contingency/Rate Stabilization: equal to 15% of projected annual revenues. The MCE Board will adopt budgets and establish rates for MCE with the goal of building up the Reserve by March 2019, subject to MCE’s ability to meet operational expenditures and maintain competitive rates. Policy Purpose MCE will prudently manage its operations in a manner that supports its long-term financial independence and stability while providing sufficient financial capacity to meet short term obligations. This Reserve Policy (or “Policy”) is important in meeting MCE’s strategic objectives, securing favorable commercial terms from both third-party service providers and lenders and in the development of a future stand-alone MCE credit rating. The Reserve Policy will govern the accumulation of reserves in the enterprise fund. The Reserve will be accounted for as the Net Position in MCE’s financial statements. Adequate Reserves will enable MCE to satisfy working capital requirements, procure energy at competitive rates, adhere to loan covenants, cover unanticipated expenditures, and support rate stability. Relationship to the Budget and Periodic Review Authority to spend from reserves must align with Board approved Budgets. Staff will review the Reserve Policy annually to ensure it meets the needs of the agency. The future development of MCE may require the expansion of reserve requirements to support new activities such as major expansion of MCE activities or the acquisition of generating assets. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 246 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Years Ended March 31, 2015 & 2014 with Report of Independent Auditors March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 247 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 AND 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Independent Auditors’ Report 1 Management’s Discussion and Analysis 3 Financial Statements: Statements of Net Position 7 Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position 8 Statements of Cash Flows 9 Notes to the Financial Statements 11 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 248 1 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 335 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Tel: 925.734.6600 Fax: 925.734.6611 www.vtdcpa.com FRESNO LAGUNA HILLS PALO ALTO PLEASANTON RANCHO CUCAMONGA RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT Board of Directors Marin Clean Energy San Rafael, California We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Marin Clean Energy (“MCE”), as of and for the years ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, which collectively comprise MCE’s basic financial statements, including the related notes to the financial statements,as listed in the table of contents. Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditors'Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 249 2 Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of Marin Clean Energy, as of March 31, 2015 and 2014, and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows for the years then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Other Matters Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s discussion and analysis,as listed in the table of contents,be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Pleasanton, California July 27, 2015 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 250 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY 3 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The Management’s Discussion and Analysis provides an overview of Marin Clean Energy’s (MCE) financial activities for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2015 and 2014. The information presented here should be considered in conjunction with the audited financial statements. FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS MCE began providing electrical power to customers in May 2010 and continues to experience increases in its number of customers. In 2014-15, the County of Napa, and the cities of Benicia, El Cerrito, and San Pablo joined MCE. MCE began servicing customers in the County of Napa in late 2014-15. Service to the cities of Benicia, El Cerrito, and San Pablo began in May 2015. Despite the growing volume of sales, MCE continues to put a priority on the efficient use of financial resources to meet the goal of providing competitive pricing to its entire customer base. During the year we were able to align our costs closely with revenues. This enabled us to keep margins at reasonably low levels as demonstrated by a change in net position from the prior year of $3,698,000, or approximately 3.7% of revenues. This increase caused net position to climb from approximately $9,558,000 to $13,256,000, providing reserves to weather future uncertainties. OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to MCE’s basic financial statements. MCE’s basic financial statements comprise two components: (1) government-wide financial statements and (2) notes to the financial statements. MCE is a single-purpose entity that reports as an enterprise fund under governmental accounting standards. The financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of MCE’s finances, similar to a private-sector business. The Statements of Net Position present information on all of MCE’s assets and liabilities, with the difference between assets and liabilities reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of MCE is improving or deteriorating. The Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position present information showing how MCE’s net position changed during the fiscal period. All changes in net position are recognized at the date the underlying event that gives rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. The Statements of Cash Flows present information about MCE’s cash receipts, cash payments, and net changes in cash resulting from operations, investing, and financing activities. These statements show the sources and uses of cash, as well as the change in the cash balances during the fiscal years. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 251 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (Continued) 4 The following table is a summary of MCE’s assets, liabilities, and net position. 2015 2014 2013 Current and other assets 27,579,728$ 22,433,441$ 18,007,926$ Capital assets 407,626 58,807 68,679 Total assets 27,987,354 22,492,248 18,076,605 Current liabilities 13,742,408 10,909,904 7,079,985 Noncurrent liabilities 988,627 2,024,308 3,083,746 Total liabilities 14,731,035 12,934,212 10,163,731 Net position: Net investment in capital assets 407,626 58,807 68,679 Restricted 598,200 598,200 598,200 Unrestricted 12,250,493 8,901,029 7,245,995 Total net position 13,256,319$ 9,558,036$ 7,912,874$ During 2014-2015, MCE continued to expand its territory beyond Marin County and the City of Richmond when it began servicing the County of Napa in February 2015. The number of active customer accounts grew from approximately 130,000 to 143,000 during the year. This increased customer base resulted in a growing level of accounts receivable and accrued revenue over the prior year. Related to this rise in demand for electricity from our customers, we have procured additional energy, resulting in the increase in trade liabilities. The increase in capital assets from 2014 seen above is largely the result of capital improvements made at MCE’s office. Long term debt from two promissory notes decreased from 2014 as a result of scheduled payments. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 252 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (Continued) 5 MCE’s results of operations are summarized as follows: 2015 2014 2013 Operating revenues 100,654,696$ 85,561,759$ 52,579,310$ Contributions received - - 20,000 Interest income 3,716 8,965 900 Total income 100,658,412 85,570,724 52,600,210 Operating expenses 96,835,644 83,749,875 48,429,076 Interest expense 124,485 175,687 176,185 Total expenses 96,960,129 83,925,562 48,605,261 Increase in net position 3,698,283$ 1,645,162$ 3,994,949$ MCE’s expansion into the County of Napa, combined with servicing the City of Richmond for its first full fiscal year, resulted in an increase in electricity sales, which was accompanied by increases in costs directly related to acquiring energy and servicing customer accounts. Despite the growing customer base and the associated costs of serving them, MCE experienced a greater increase in net position in 2015 than the prior year. DEBT AND CAPITAL ASSET ADMINISTRATION MCE continued to make payments on its existing debt. No new debt was incurred by MCE in 2014-15. Shortly after the fiscal year, MCE retired all of its debt ahead of schedule. Note 6 to the financial statements provides details on debt activity. MCE relocated its office during 2014-15, and capitalized costs to furnish and make leasehold improvements. Note 4 to the financial statements provides details on capital asset activity. ECONOMIC OUTLOOK Since commencing service to customers in 2010, MCE has entered into multiple power purchase agreements with various providers to serve MCE’s projected power supply need. This process allows for price certainty as MCE continues to serve customers. In addition to increasing its customer base from approximately 130,000 to 143,000 in 2014-15, MCE will be serving several new territories in early 2015-16. Management intends to continue its conservative use of financial resources and expects ongoing operating surpluses. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 253 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (Continued) 6 REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION This financial report is designed to provide MCE’s customers and creditors with a general overview of the Organization’s finances and to demonstrate MCE’s accountability for the funds under its stewardship. Please address any questions about this report or requests for additional financial information to 1125 Tamalpais Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 254 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 255 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY 7 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION AS OF MARCH 31, 2015 AND 2014 2015 2014 Current assets Cash and cash equivalents 10,173,815$ 8,248,488$ Accounts receivable, net of allowance 10,528,880 9,096,571 Other receivables 583,185 55,916 Accrued revenue 4,502,232 3,722,283 Prepaid expenses 368,152 31,485 Total current assets 26,156,264 21,154,743 Noncurrent assets Capital assets, net of depreciation 407,626 58,807 Restricted cash 1,145,700 1,145,700 Other assets 277,764 132,998 Total noncurrent assets 1,831,090 1,337,505 Total assets 27,987,354 22,492,248 Current liabilities Accounts payable 878,967 615,131 Accrued cost of electricity 8,403,170 6,409,847 Other accrued liabilities 604,541 515,618 User taxes and energy surcharges due to other governments 611,230 566,962 Advances from grantor 2,209,091 1,733,221 Notes payable to bank 1,035,409 1,069,125 Total current liabilities 13,742,408 10,909,904 Noncurrent liabilities Notes payable to bank 988,627 2,024,308 Total liabilities 14,731,035 12,934,212 Net position Net investment in capital assets 407,626 58,807 Restricted for debt service 598,200 598,200 Unrestricted 12,250,493 8,901,029 Total net position 13,256,319$ 9,558,036$ ASSETS NET POSITION LIABILITIES March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 256 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY 8 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 AND 2014 2015 2014 Operating revenues Electricity sales 98,840,861$ 84,605,751$ Grant revenue for Energy Efficiency Program 1,125,344 917,947 Other revenue 688,491 38,061 Total operating revenues 100,654,696 85,561,759 Operating expenses Cost of electricity 87,996,399 76,088,268 Contract services 5,769,008 5,533,964 Staff compensation 2,216,199 1,660,945 General and administration 854,038 466,698 Total operating expenses 96,835,644 83,749,875 Operating income 3,819,052 1,811,884 Nonoperating revenues (expenses) Interest income 3,716 8,965 Interest expense (124,485) (175,687) Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)(120,769) (166,722) Changes in net position 3,698,283 1,645,162 Net position at beginning of period 9,558,036 7,912,874 Net position at end of period 13,256,319$ 9,558,036$ March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 257 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY 9 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 AND 2014 2015 2014 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Receipts from customers 96,757,280$ 79,507,265$ Grant received from Energy Efficiency Program 1,505,702 2,007,602 Cash received from other revenue sources 142,297 35,283 Cash payments to purchase electricity (86,282,436) (73,790,444) Cash payments for contract services (5,864,212) (5,462,356) Cash payments for staff compensation (2,179,654) (1,642,623) Cash payments for general and administration (795,836) (428,344) Net cash provided by operating activities 3,283,141 226,383 CASH FLOWS FROM NON-CAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES Deposit for financing reserve - (547,500) Principal payments of notes payable to bank (1,069,397) (1,063,407) Interest expense (124,485) (186,097) Net cash provided (used) by non-capital financing activities (1,193,882) (1,797,004) CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Acquisition of capital assets (167,648) (7,015) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Investment income 3,716 8,965 Net change in cash and cash equivalents 1,925,327 (1,568,671) Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 8,248,488 9,817,159 Cash and cash equivalents at end of year 10,173,815$ 8,248,488$ March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 258 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY 10 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (CONTINUED) YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 AND 2014 2015 2014 Operating income 3,819,052$ 1,811,884$ Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net cash provided (used) by operating activities Depreciation expense 28,528 16,887 (Increase) decrease in net accounts receivable (1,432,309) (4,523,775) (Increase) decrease in other receivables (527,269) (55,916) (Increase) decrease in accrued revenue (779,949) (865,071) (Increase) decrease in prepaid expenses (336,667) (1,924) (Increase) decrease in deposits (144,766) - Increase (decrease) in accounts payable 54,137 83,386 Increase (decrease) in accrued cost of electricity 1,993,323 1,735,828 Increase (decrease) in other accrued liabilities 88,923 373,433 Increase (decrease) in user taxes due to other governments 44,268 561,996 Increase (decrease) in advances from grantor 475,870 1,089,655 Net cash provided by operating activities 3,283,141$ 226,383$ RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME TO NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 259 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 AND 2014 11 1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES REPORTING ENTITY Marin Clean Energy (MCE) is a California joint powers authority created on December 19, 2008 and its members consist of the following parties: the Counties of Marin and Napa, the cities of Belvedere, Benicia, El Cerrito, Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, Richmond, San Pablo, San Rafael, and Sausalito and the towns of Corte Madera, Fairfax, Ross, San Anselmo, and Tiburon (collectively, “the parties”). It is governed by a seventeen member Board of Directors appointed by each of the parties. MCE was formed to reduce energy related greenhouse gas emissions and promote the development and use of a wide range of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programs, and to exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to accomplishing these objectives. A core function of MCE is to provide electric service that includes the use of renewable sources under the Community Choice Aggregation Program under California Public Utilities Code Section 366.2. MCE began its energy delivery operations in May 2010. Electricity is acquired from commercial suppliers and delivered through existing physical infrastructure and equipment managed by the California Independent System Operator and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. ACCOUNTING POLICIES MCE’s financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments through its pronouncements (Statements and Interpretations). March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 260 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 AND 2014 12 1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) BASIS OF ACCOUNTING The Organization’s operations are accounted for as a governmental enterprise fund, and are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting – similar to business enterprises. Accordingly, revenues are recognized when they are earned and expenses are recognized at the time liabilities are incurred. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the Organization’s policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS For purpose of the statement of cash flows, MCE has defined cash and cash equivalents to include cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term investments. Amounts restricted for debt service and collateral for energy efficiency loan program are not included. These restricted balances are presented separately in the statement of net position. CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION MCE’s policy is to capitalize furniture and equipment valued over $500 that is expected to be in service for over one year. Depreciation is computed according to the straight-line method over estimated useful lives of three years for electronic equipment and seven years for furniture. Leasehold improvements are depreciated over 10 years. OPERATING AND NON-OPERATING REVENUE Revenue from the sale of electricity to customers and grant revenue related to the Energy Efficiency Program (EE) are considered “operating” revenue. The EE program supports the development, implementation and coordination of energy efficiency activities in and around MCE’s service area. Other revenues predominately consist of consideration from the cancellation of an operating lease and damages revenue from energy suppliers. Investment income is classified as “non-operating revenue. REVENUE RECOGNITION MCE recognizes revenue on the accrual basis. This includes invoices issued to customers during the period and electricity estimated to have been delivered but not yet billed. Management estimates that a portion of the billed amounts will not be collected. Accordingly, an allowance has been recorded. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 261 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 AND 2014 13 1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) ELECTRICAL POWER PURCHASED Electrical power sold to customers was purchased through numerous suppliers, with the primary supplier being Shell Energy North America. As part of the agreement with Shell Energy, MCE is required to maintain a cash balance of $1,350,000 to ensure funds are available to purchase electrical power. This cash balance is included in cash and cash equivalents as presented in the statement of net position. MCE has been steadily increasing its energy purchases from other sources to reduce its market exposure. The cost of power and related delivery costs have been recognized as “cost of electricity” in the statement of revenues, expenses and changes in net position. MCE purchases Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) from a variety of sources to comply with external mandates and self-imposed benchmarks. MCE procures RECs with the intent to retire them, and neither engages in the activity of selling RECs or building a surplus of RECs. An expense is recognized at the point that the cost of the REC is due and payable to the supplier. MCE is in compliance with external mandates and self-imposed benchmarks. STAFFING COSTS MCE pays employees semi-monthly and fully pays its obligation for health benefits and contributions to its defined contribution retirement plan each month. MCE is not obligated to provide post-employment healthcare or other fringe benefits and, accordingly, no related liability is recorded in these financial statements. INCOME TAXES MCE is a joint powers authority under the provision of the California Government Code. As such it is not subject to federal or state income or franchise taxes. ESTIMATES The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. RECLASSIFICATIONS Certain amounts in the prior-year financial statements have been reclassified for comparative purposes to conform to the presentation of the current-year financial statements. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 262 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 AND 2014 14 2. CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS MCE maintains its cash in both interest and non-interest-bearing accounts at River City Bank of Sacramento, California. MCE has no other investments. MCE complies with California Government Code Section 16521. This code section requires that River City Bank collateralize amounts of public funds in excess of the FDIC limit of $250,000 by 110%. Accordingly, balances are not considered to be at risk. Risk is monitored on an ongoing basis. 3. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Changes in accounts receivable were as follows: 2015 2014 2013 Accounts receivable from customers 12,888,880$ 10,126,845$ 5,413,646$ Allowance for uncollectible accounts (2,360,000) (1,030,274) (840,850) Net accounts receivable 10,528,880$ 9,096,571$ 4,572,796$ The majority of account collections occur within the first few months following customer invoicing. MCE estimates that a portion of the billed accounts will not be collected. MCE continues collection efforts on accounts in excess of de minimis balances regardless of the age of the account. Although collection success generally decreases with the age of the receivable, MCE continues to have some success collecting older accounts. Accordingly, accounts above de minimis balances are not written off. The result is that the allowance for uncollectible accounts at the end of a period includes both current and prior period allowances. 4. CAPITAL ASSETS Changes in capital assets were as follows: Furniture & Leasehold Accumulated Equipment Improvements Depreciation Net Balances at March 31, 2013 93,401$ 5,881$ (30,603)$ 68,679$ Additions 7,015 - (16,887) (9,872) Balances at March 31, 2014 100,416 5,881 (47,490) 58,807 Additions 51,836 325,511 (28,528) 348,819 Balances at March 31, 2015 152,252$ 331,392$ (76,018)$ 407,626$ Depreciable capital assets: March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 263 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 AND 2014 15 5. ADVANCES FROM GRANTOR MCE receives grant funding through the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) for its Energy Efficiency Program. Funds are received on a quarterly schedule and are not recognized as revenue until they are expended for the designated purpose. Total grant funding received for the fiscal year 2015 was $1,505,702, and $1,029,832 was spent and earned. In 2014, grant funding was $2,007,602 with $917,947 being spent and earned. The Energy Efficiency Program receives additional grant funding under the Gas Public Purpose Program that is not received in advance. Revenue of $95,512 was recognized under this grant in fiscal year 2015, the first year of this funding. 6. DEBT NOTES PAYABLE TO RIVER CITY BANK Note A Note B Date of note January 2011 July 2012 Original note amount 2,300,000$ 3,000,000$ Approximate monthly payment 44,000 56,000 Reserve requirements 263,200 335,000 Maturity date January 2016 October 2017 Interest rate 5.25% 4.50% Balance at March 31, 2015 427,481$ 1,596,555$ Note A is subject to a fixed interest rate of 5.25%. The Note B is subject to the Federal Home Loan Bank Five Year Fixed Rate plus 1.25%. MCE has agreed to maintain revenues in excess of maintenance and operating costs of 125% of the sum of annual debt service payments. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 264 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 AND 2014 16 6. DEBT (continued) Changes in notes payable were as follows: Beginning Payments Ending Year ended March 31, 2014 Note A 1,380,712$ (463,948)$ 916,764$ Note B 2,776,128 (599,459) 2,176,669 Totals 4,156,840$ (1,063,407)$ 3,093,433 Amounts due within one year (1,069,125) Amounts due after one year 2,024,308$ Year ended March 31, 2015 Note A 916,764$ (489,283)$ 427,481$ Note B 2,176,669 (580,114) 1,596,555 Totals 3,093,433$ (1,069,397)$ 2,024,036 Amounts due within one year (1,035,409) Amounts due after one year 988,627$ Future minimum debt service requirements were as follows: Principal Interest Total For the years ending March 31: 2016 1,035,409$ 69,954$ 1,105,363$ 2017 635,992 31,515 667,507 2018 352,635 4,965 357,600 Total 2,024,036$ 106,434$ 2,130,470$ Both notes were retired ahead of schedule in April, 2015. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 265 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 AND 2014 17 7. DEFINED CONTRIBUTION RETIREMENT PLAN The Marin Clean Energy Plan (Plan) is a defined contribution retirement plan established by MCE to provide benefits at retirement to its employees. The Plan is administered by Nationwide Retirement Solutions. At March 31, 2015, there were 20 plan members. MCE is required to contribute 10% of annual covered payroll and contributed $177,000 and $128,000 during the years ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Plan provisions and contribution requirements are established and may be amended by the Board of Directors. 8. RISK MANAGEMENT MCE is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; and errors and omissions. During the year, MCE purchased liability and property insurance from a commercial carrier. Coverage for property general liability, errors and omissions and non-owned automobile was $2,000,000 with a $1,000 deductible. 9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES MCE has entered into multiple power purchase agreements to meet its near and long term needs. MCE had outstanding non-cancelable power purchase commitments of approximately $886.5 million for energy and related services through October 31, 2041 that have not yet been provided. The following table is the approximated obligations on existing contracts: Year ended March 31, 2016 118,056,805$ 2017 123,846,908 2018 103,491,169 2019 46,421,789 2020 32,657,163 2021-42 461,995,114 886,468,948$ As of March 31, 2015, MCE had outstanding non-cancelable commitments to professional service providers for services yet to be performed of $12.8 million that continue through December 31, 2017. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 266 MARIN CLEAN ENERGY NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 2015 AND 2014 18 10. OPERATING LEASE Marin Clean Energy rents office space. Rental expense was $190,000 and $186,000 for the years ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. In 2014-15, MCE entered into a ten year non-cancelable lease for its office premises until March 8, 2025. The rental agreement includes an option to renew the lease for five additional years. Future minimum lease payments under the lease are as follows: Year ended March 31, 2016 185,910$ 2017 329,458 2018 418,260 2019 430,818 2020 444,107 2021-25 2,499,840 4,308,393$ March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 267 Community Choice Energy Estimated Schedule and Budget* *Note: Time and cost estimates for Phases 2 and 3 are based forming a Contra Costa JPA and are subject to change if another CCE option is selected for implementation Phase 1 – Technical Study Schedule Summary: 10 months (time remaining to completion) Budget Summary: $300,000 Schedule Detail: 10 months to completion Outreach to Cities (November ‘15 – January ‘16) PG&E Data Request (March – to May ’16) Convene Cities and Scope Tech Study (March – May ’16) Develop Web Site, Increase Stakeholder Engagement (March – ongoing) Tech Study RFP and Consultant Selection (June – August ’16) Complete Tech Study (September – October’16) Report Findings and Receive Direction (November – December ’16) Budget Detail: LEAN Energy: $75,000 Technical Study: $50,000 (County Share of $150,000 estimated total cost) County Staff: $175,000 Phase 2 – JPA Formation or Inclusion Schedule Summary: 8 – 12 months Budget Summary: $750,000 – $1 million Schedule Detail: If joining MCE, costs and schedule to be negotiated with MCE, but costs expected to be considerably lower and schedule to program launch shorter that with other options. If creating new JPA with Alameda County, costs will be negotiated and shared. Schedule unknown. If creating a new Contra Costa JPA, tasks will include the following: JPA legal documents and Approvals Finalize Program Design Adopt Local Ordinances Submit Implementation Plan to CPUC Attachment E March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 268  Initiate bidding for electricity procurement  Secure source of operating capital/credit  Community Outreach and Engagement Budget Detail:  Phase 2 costs will depend heavily on the CCE option selected from Technical Study, but if the option of creating a Contra Costa JPA is selected, costs for Phase 2 would likely be $750,000 or greater. These costs would include consulting services for assistance with regulatory compliance, energy procurement and community outreach activities, plus County staff time in DCD and County Counsel. Phase 3 – Program Launch Schedule Summary: 8 – 12 months Budget Summary: $500,000 – $1 million Schedule Detail:  Schedule for program launch will depend on CCE option selected from Technical Study  A new Contra Costa JPA will require the most time and expense  Phase 3 tasks associated with a new Contra Costa JPA would include:  Hire JPA staff and securing office space  Energy Procurement  Comply with CPUC Regulatory Requirements  Increase marketing and public engagement,  Secure working capital/credit Budget Detail:  Phase 3 costs are difficult to estimate but could be in the range of $500,000 to $1 million if a new Contra Costa JPA is formed. Such costs would include JPA staffing and facilities, and consulting services for assistance with regulatory compliance, energy procurement and marketing activities. Funding during this phase could come from sponsoring jurisdictions, or from third-party sources, such as banks and other financial institutions. Following JPA formation, a transition would occur whereby the new agency would become responsible for program costs. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 269 Community Choice Energy (CCE) In Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors March 15, 2016 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 270 What is Community Choice Energy? CCE enables local governments to procure and/or develop power on behalf of their public facilities, residents and businesses. It creates a functional partnership between municipalities and existing utilities. It has proven to increase renewable energy and lower greenhouse gases while providing competitive electricity rates. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 271 Basic Program Mechanics 1. Form or join a Joint Powers Agency: Local governments participate by passing an ordinance and entering into a JPA Agreement 2. Utility (PG&E) continues to provide consolidated billing, customer service, grid and line maintenance. 3. PG&E programs for low income/CARE customers remain the same 4. CCE electric generation charges (including exit fee) appear as new line items on the customer bill; all other charges remain the same 5. CPUC certifies CCE Plan; oversees utility/ CCE service agreement and other requirements. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 272 3 Programs in California… so far Launch Year Avg. Customer Rate Savings Power Options (current) 2010 2-5% below PG&E 56% Renewable 100% Renewable 100% Local Solar 2014 6-14% below PG&E 36% Renewable 100% Renewable 2015 3-4% below SCE 35% Renewable 100% Renewable March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 273 Financial Highlights MCE and SCP are fiscally sound CCE Financial Performance March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 274 CCE & Local Climate Action Plans Excerpt from City of San Mateo Climate Action Plan TCO2 Reduced Note that CCE programs do not impose additional costs to property owners/developers -5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 CCE Other RE Energy Efficiency Alternative Fuels Alternative Transport Composting Other CAP Program Options March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 275 Renewable Energy Product Options Provider Program Power Options Average Premium for Residential Customers Added charge on monthly bill (assume 500 kwh/month) PG&E Default Solar Choice 30% Renewable 50% Solar 100% Solar No premium 3.58 cents/kWh 3.58 cents/kWh None $8.96/month (assume 250 kWh from solar) $17.91/month (assume all 500 kWh from solar) Marin Clean Energy Light Green Deep Green Local Sol* 56% Renewable 100% Renewable 100% Local Solar No premium 1 cent/kWh 6 cents/kWh None $5.00/month $30.00/month Sonoma Clean Power CleanStart EverGreen** 36% Renewable 100% Renewable No premium 3.5 cents/kWh None $18.00/month *100% from local solar project in Novato **100% sourced from the Geysers geothermal facility in Sonoma County March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 276 What are the Risks… And how are they mitigated? Rate Competition/Market Fluctuation: Rates will vary with market conditions. Power market expertise and well crafted power RFPs are essential; Diversified supply portfolio and “value add” programs. Customer Opt-Out: Competitive rates are a must; Articulate additional consumer and community benefits. Political: Align CCA to local policy objectives; Appeal to both progressive and conservative minds by making the environmental AND business case. Regulatory/Legislative: PUC decisions may adversely affect CCA; also example of AB 2145; Participate in the regulatory and legislative process. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 277 Potential CCE Advantages •CCE is responsive to local environmental and economic goals •Offers consumers a choice where none currently exists •Revenue supported, not taxpayer subsidized •Stable, often cheaper, electricity rates •Allows for rapid switch to cleaner power supply and significant GHG reductions; achievement of local CAP goals •Provides a funding source for energy efficiency and other energy programs like energy storage and EV charging stations March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 278 Outreach Activities Since Last BOS Meeting •County staff sent letters to all 16 eligible cities (Richmond, San Pablo and El Cerrito are already members of MCE) to authorize load data collection and assess interest in a technical study. •Announced regional workshops at Dec. 3 Mayors Conference •Three Regional Workshops a) Walnut Creek (Dec. 10) b) Hercules (Dec. 14) c) Brentwood (Dec. 16) •Presentations to City Councils: Concord, Clayton, Pinole, Lafayette and Brentwood March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 279 City Load Data Authorization Cost Sharing for Tech Study Antioch Yes No indication Brentwood Yes Yes, not to exceed $30,000 Clayton Yes Yes, pending more details Concord Yes Yes, not to exceed $25,000 Danville Yes Yes, not to exceed $18,000 Hercules Yes No indication Lafayette Yes No indication Martinez Yes No indication Moraga Yes No indication Oakley Yes No indication Orinda Yes Need more information Pinole Yes Need more information Pittsburg Yes Yes, pending more details Pleasant Hill Yes Yes, not to exceed $15,000 San Ramon Yes Maybe, pending more details Walnut Creek Yes Yes, not to exceed $20,000 City Responses March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 280 Internal Operations Committee •IOC directed staff to present the Board with options for further consideration: Option 1: Conduct a Technical Study of the following 3 potential alternatives for implementing Community Choice Energy: 1. A new JPA of the County and Contra Costa cities 2.Join MCE 3. Partner with Alameda County on joint CCE program Option 2: Proceed with necessary steps to join Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Option 3: Undertake an abbreviated technical study summarizing similar studies recently completed in the Bay Area and comparing tradeoffs among CCE alternatives (this option identified by staff after the Feb. 29 IOC meeting) March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 281 Option 1: Elements of a Technical Study •Evaluate load data to determine electricity procurement requirements for a CCE •Estimate electricity rates for different resource scenarios (50% renewable, 100% renewable option, etc.) •Compare rates with PG&E product options •Assess risks, such as price volatility and legal/regulatory risks •Estimate CCE revenues and potential reserves •Discuss opportunities for economic development, such as local renewable generation projects •Compare tradeoffs of 3 CCE alternatives: Contra Costa JPA; partnering with Alameda Co.; joining MCE March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 282 How would a Tech Study Compare CCE Alternatives? •Conduct a rate analysis – looking at current MCE rates (taking into account MCE’s portfolio of long-term contracts and prices MCE is paying for them) compared to current wholesale market rates •Develop a scoring matrix for the pros and cons of each option (local governance/control, rate competitiveness, overall risk, community benefits) •Ability to meet local goals related to rates, renewable energy procurement, economic development, etc. •Develop comparison of environmental benefits (GHG reductions of each option compared to PG&E baseline), rate savings and surplus revenues generated under each option March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 283 Comparative Criteria Weight 1 Rate Competitiveness Score - Rate Competitiveness 50% •Level of rate payer savings based on a range of future scenarios •Accretion of financial reserves for energy investment, financial and risk management 2 Governance & Local Control Score - Governance & Local Control 30% •Weight of individual vote in governing board decisions •Complexity of governance structure •Ability of community to interact with governing board •Directing energy investments to meet local objectives •Adoption of planning, management and business practices consistent with local objectives •Flexibility to adopt to evolving market, regulatory, legislative conditions 3 Risks & Mitigation Score - Risks & Mitigation 20% •Start-up risk •Customer opt-out risk •Operating risk •Market and counterparty risk •Management of unwinding partnerships and/or shutting down CCA •Utility opposition risk •Host entity risk 4 Overall Rating Total Weighted Score 100% Scoring the Different Options: Case of Davis March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 284 Community Outreach for Tech Study •Community Outreach has two objectives: Inform the public about CCE Gather public input to assist decision-makers evaluate tech study •Community Outreach activities could include: Public workshops Focused stakeholder engagement Web-based educational materials Presentations at Mayors Conference and other venues March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 285 Schedule and Budget for Tech Study •10 months to work with cities to develop and complete study, and present to Board and City Councils for further direction •Estimated cost to County: $300,000 $75,000 for consulting services to obtain load data, develop and evaluate technical study, and community outreach activities (LEAN Energy) $50,000 for County share of costs for technical study (additional $100,000 proposed to come from participating cities) $175,000 for County project management and legal expenses •The County would seek to recover its costs if a new CCE JPA is formed. Costs will not be reimbursed if the County does not create a new JPA. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 286 Option 2: Join MCE - Mechanics •County sends Letter of Interest to MCE; not subject to March 31 deadline •County (and possibly) cities authorize load data collection •MCE conducts load analysis (determine MW demand and MWH requirements) •Jurisdiction(s) pass ordinance/resolution to join MCE JPA •Timeline laid out for commencement of service and customer enrollment (including possible phasing if overall enrollment is particularly large). •Opt-out notices sent at least 60 days prior to initial service •Service to customers could begin when rates are at or below PG&E’s •MCE would likely allow cities to join at the same time as the County March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 287 Questions Regarding MCE •What policy and organizational changes will MCE make as it becomes a regional agency rather than a Marin County agency? Name Change? Location of Board meetings and MCE offices? Board membership/voting structure? Limits on geographic boundary/number of potential members? •If the County joins MCE, how would electricity costs for Contra Costa customers compare to current PG&E rates? •What policies would MCE consider to promote economic development and encourage local renewable energy generation in Contra Costa County? •What are the implications for Contra Costa cities if the County pursues membership in MCE? March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 288 Possible Next Steps for Considering MCE •More fully develop questions the County has about MCE membership and obtain additional responses from MCE •Follow-up with Contra Costa cities to inform them of possibility to join MCE if County sends Letter of Interest and MCE opens new inclusion period March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 289 Option 3: Abbreviated Technical Study •An alternative to a full technical study would be an abbreviated technical study that would summarize studies recently released by other Bay Area jurisdictions and compare tradeoffs of CCE options available to the County •Advantages of this approach would be additional information regarding projected CCE electricity rates and revenues, economic development opportunities, risks and tradeoffs between forming a new JPA vs. joining MCE •Such a study would likely be less expensive and require less time than a full technical study of the County’s load data •A disadvantage is that the study would not be specific to the County and therefore some of the findings would not be as precise or reliable as a full technical study March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 290 Option 3: Abbreviated Study – Next Steps •Conduct a Request for Proposal and select a consultant •Hold a public workshop to gather input to help inform issues to be addressed in the study •Hold a second public workshop to present the draft study and receive public comment •Present study and comments to Board of Supervisors •Time to complete: 3 – 4 months •Cost estimate: $65,000 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 291 Thank You For More Information: Jason Crapo, Deputy DirectorDepartment of Conservation and DevelopmentCounty of Contra Costajason.crapo@dcd.cccounty.us(925) 674-7722 LEAN Energy USShawn Marshall Seth Baruch (Carbonomics) Tom Kelly (KyotoUSA)shawnmarshall@leanenergyus.org(415) 888-8007 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 292 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 293 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 294 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes295 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes296 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes297 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes298 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes299 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes300 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes301 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes302 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes303 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes304 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes305 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes306 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes307 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes308 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes309 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes310 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes311 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes312 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes313 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes314 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes315 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes316 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes317 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes318 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes319 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes320 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes321 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes322 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes323 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes324 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes325 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes326 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONSIDER a position of "Support" for the California Public Vote on Bonds Initiative, qualified to appear on the November 8, 2016 ballot as an initiated state statue, as recommended by Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Mary N. Piepho. FISCAL IMPACT: Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The fiscal effect on state and local governments is unknown and would vary by project. It would depend on (1) the outcome of projects brought before voters, (2) the extent to which the state relied on alternative approaches to the projects or alternative financing methods for affected projects, and (3) whether those methods have higher or lower costs than revenue bonds BACKGROUND: Requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued or sold by the state for projects that are financed, owned, operated, or managed by the state or any joint agency created by or including the state, if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion. Prohibits dividing projects into multiple separate projects to avoid statewide voter approval requirement. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor NO:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Ryan Hernandez, 925-674-7824 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Supervisor Mary N. Piepho and Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Support for the California Public Vote on Bonds Initiative (2016) March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 327 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) From the Legislative Analyst's Office: Bonds Are One Source of Funding for Government Projects. Bonds are a way the state and local governments borrow money. Governments sell bonds to investors to provide “up-front” funding for projects (such as infrastructure projects) and then commit to repay the investors, with interest, over a period of time. Governments use bonds to fund projects for a variety of reasons. For instance, bonds are sometimes used to help pay for costly projects that may be difficult to pay for all at once. Bonds spread the costs of projects over time, which may make sense when projects provide services over many years. In addition to bonds, governments in California often use a variety of other funding sources (such as grants, taxes, and fees) to help pay for projects. Voters Must Approve Some Types of Bonds. General obligation bonds and revenue bonds are two types of bonds issued by state and local governments in California. State general obligation bonds are guaranteed by the state government’s full faith and credit and are generally repaid using the state’s general tax revenues. Local general obligation bonds are typically funded by increased property taxes. The California Constitution requires voter approval of state and local general obligation bonds. Unlike general obligation bonds, revenue bonds are not guaranteed directly by state or local government taxing powers. Instead, revenue bonds are repaid using designated funding streams generally associated with the projects they finance. For example, funding generated by fees or other charges paid by users of a project (such as bridge tolls) are used to repay the project’s revenue bonds. In addition, in some cases, governments pay for a type of revenue bond called a “lease revenue bond,” often through a lease or rent paid from a government’s general tax or special fund revenues. Unlike general obligation bonds, revenue bonds do not require voter approval under existing state law. Some examples of projects that are often funded by revenue bonds include public office buildings, bridges, and water treatment facilities. Proposal Requires Voter Approval for Certain Revenue Bonds. The measure requires statewide voter approval for revenue bonds for projects that meet all of the following conditions: The total amount of revenue bonds sold for the project exceeds $2 billion. The measure specifies that the $2 billion threshold be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index. The project funded by the revenue bonds would be funded, owned, operated, or managed by the state, including any joint powers agency or similar body created by the state or in which the state is a member. ATTACHMENTS Initiative Text Attachment B: Initiative Material March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 328 1 5 - 0 0 0 January __ /_;___ __ , 2015 ~CEIVfb JAN 0 1 2015 INITIATIVE COORDINATOR VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE The Honorable Kamala D. Harris Attorney General 1300 I Street, 17th Floor, P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention: Ashley Johansson, Initiative Coordinator Re: Request for Title and Summary for Proposed Initiative Constitutional Amendment Dear Ms. Harris: Pursuant to Article II, Section 10(d) of the California Constitution, I hereby submit the attached proposed Initiative Constitutional Amendment, entitled the "No Blank Checks Initiative," to your office and request that you prepare a title and summary of the measure as provided by law. Included with this submission is the required proponent affidavit signed by the proponent of this measure pursuant to Section 9608 of the California Elections Code. My address as a registered voter is attached to this letter, along with a check for $200.00. 3 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 329 All inquires or correspondence relative to this initiative should be directed to Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni, LLP, 1415 L Street, Suite 1200, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 446-6752, Attention: Kurt Oneto (telephone: 916/446- 6752 ). Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Dean Cortopassi, Proponent Enclosure: Proposed Initiative Constitutional Amendment March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 330 1 5 - 0 0 0 3 Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the No Blank Checks Initiative. Section 2. Findings and Declarations. The People of the State of California find and declare as follows: (a) The politicians in Sacramento have mortgaged our future with long-term bond debt obligations that will take taxpayers, our children, and future generations decades to pay off. (b) Under current rules, the sale of state bonds only needs to be approved by voters if they will be repaid out of the state's general revenues. But state politicians can sell billions of dollars of additional bond debt without ever getting the voters' approval if the bonds will be repaid with specific revenue streams or charges imposed directly on Californians like taxes, fees, rates, tolls, or rents. The politicians should not be allowed to issue blank checks Californians have to pay for. Voters must provide prior approval for all major state bond sale decisions, because voters are the ones who ultimately pay the bill. (c) According to a 2014 report from California's independent, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, the State of California is carrying $340 billion in public debt. (Legislative Analyst's Office, "Addressing California's Key Liabilities," Mar. 7, 2014.) Interest and principal payments on our long-term debt obligations will cripple the state if we keep spending the way we do now-reducing cash available for public safety, schools, and other vital state programs. (d) Moreover, voters are rarely told the true costs ofbond-funded projects. We were originally told that the bullet train would cost $9 billion. But now the estimated cost has ballooned to nearly $7p billion. (Los Angeles Times, "The Hazy Future of California's Bullet Train," Jan. 14, 2014.) (e) This measure puts the brakes on our state's public debt crisis by giving the voters a say in all major state bond debt proposals that must be repaid through specific revenue streams or charges imposed directly on Californians like taxes, fees, rates, tolls, or rents. Page 1 of 4 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 331 Section 3. Statement of Purpose. The purpose of this measure is to bring the state's public debt crisis under control by giving the voters a say in all major state bond-funded projects that will be paid off through specific revenues streams or higher taxes, fees, rates, tolls, or rents collected from Californians, their children, and future generations. Section 4. Section 1.6 is added to Article XVI of the California Constitution, to read: Section 1.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, all revenue bonds issued or sold by the State in an amount either singly or in the aggregate over two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) for any single project financed, owned, operated, or managed by the State must first be approved by the voters at a statewide election. "State" means the State of California, any agency or department thereof, and any joint powers agency or similar body created by the State or in which the State is a member. "State" as used herein does not include a city, county, city and county, school district, community college district, or special district. For purposes of this section, "special district" refers only to public entities formed for the perfonnance of local governmental functions within limited boundaries. (b) A single project for which state revenue bonds are issued or sold in an amount over two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) may not be divided into, or deemed to be, multiple separate projects in order to avoid the voter approval requirements contained in this section. For purposes of this section, multiple allegedly separate projects shall be deemed to constitute a single project including, but not limited to, in the following circumstances: (1) where the allegedly separate projects will be physically or geographically proximate to each other; or (2) where the allegedly separate projects will be physically joined or connected to each other; or (3) where one allegedly separate project cannot accomplish its stated purpose without the completion of another allegedly separate project. (c) The two billion dollar ($2,000,000,000) threshold contained in this section shall be adjusted annually to reflect any increase or decrease in inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Treasurer's Office shall calculate and publish the adjustments required by this subdivision. Page 2 of 4 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 332 Section 5. Liberal Construction. This act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes. Section 6. Conflicting Measures. (a) In the event that this measure and another measure or measures relating to voter approval requirements for state bonds shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void. (b) If this measure is approved by the voters but superseded in whole or in part by any other conflicting initiative approved by the voters at the same election, and such conflicting initiative is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given full force and effect. Section 7. Severability. The provisions of this Act are severable. If any portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, or application of this Act is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Act. The People of the State of California hereby declare that they would have adopted this Act and each and every portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, and application not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Act or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid. Section 8. Legal Defense. If this Act is approved by the voters of the State of California and thereafter subjected to a legal challenge alleging a violation of federal law, and both the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend this Act, then the following actions shall be taken: (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter 6 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code or any other law, the Attorney General shall appoint Page 3 of 4 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 333 independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. (b) Before appointing or thereafter substituting independent counsel, the Attorney General shall exercise due diligence in determining the qualifications of independent counsel and shall obtain written affirmation from independent counsel that independent counsel will faithfully and vigorously defend this Act. The written affirmation shall be made publicly available upon request. (c) A continuous appropriation is hereby made from the General Fund to the Controller, without regard to fiscal years, in an amount necessary to cover the costs of retaining independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. Page 4 of 4 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 334 1 M Y T H : California Voters won’t Approve Bond Projects Located in Distant Parts of the State or that only Benefit a Particular segment of California. F A C T : History proves that statewide voters will vote for bond projects located in faraway parts of the state or that will only benefit other Californians if the projects are worthwhile. Even if a bond project only benefits a particular area, a particular group of people, or a particular facility, statewide voters have a history of approving such projects if they are meritorious. For example since 1900: n The Legislature has placed bonds measures providing financing for veterans to purchase homes and farms on the ballot 27 times. Statewide voters approved every one of them despite the fact that only veterans are eligible to benefit from the program. n The Legislature has placed bond measures providing financing for the improvement of San Francisco Harbor on the ballot 3 separate times. Statewide voters approved all 3 of them despite the fact that the bonds were dedicated to a specific project located in the San Francisco Bay Area. n The Legislature has placed bond measures providing housing relief to battered women and the elderly, handicapped, homeless, and mentally ill 8 separate times. Statewide voters approved 6 of them (75%) despite the fact that very few voters would actually qualify for the projects being funded. n The Legislature has placed bond measures on the ballot at least 4 other times which only benefitted a specific project in one part of the state, such as buildings on the UC Berkeley campus, buildings on the UCLA campus, buildings on the Sacramento State campus, buildings on the San Francisco State campus, and preservation of lands around Lake Tahoe. Statewide voters approved all 4 measures despite the fact that the bonds only went to particular projects in specified areas of the state. 2 MYTH: The Stop Blank Checks Initiative Applies to the University of California. F A C T : The University of California is Not Covered by the Stop Blank Checks Initiative. The Stop Blank Checks (SBC) Initiative declares that the “State” must obtain voter approval prior to issuing or selling more than $2 billion in revenue bonds for any single project financed, owned, operated, or managed by the “State”. “State” is defined as “the State of California, any agency or department thereof, and any joint powers agency or similar body created by the State or in which the State is a member”. Under California Constitution, Article IX, section 9, subdivision (a), the University of California (UC) constitutes “a public trust, to be administered by the existing corporation known as ‘The Regents of the University of California,’ with full powers of organization and government…” (Underscoring added.) The Regents and the University of California are not the “State of California or any agency or department thereof.” This principle is demonstrated in the recent case People v. Lofchie (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 240. In Lofchie, a criminal action was brought under Gov. Code § 1090 against a UC faculty employee. (Id. at 245.) Paid for by No Blank Checks Alliance with Major Funding from Dean and Joan Cortopassi MYTH VS FACT March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 335 Section 1090 prohibits officers and employees of the “state” from being financially interested in a contract. The Court of Appeal agreed with the defense that UC was not the “state” as that term is contemplated in section 1090, citing previous cases in which Article IX § 9 of the California Constitution was construed as according UC “virtual autonomy in self-governance.” (Id. at 249.) The Court of Appeal further explained that “the University of California is not a political subdivision of the state invested with a portion of the state’s governmental power—it is a public trust.” (Id. at 254, underscoring added.) Because the UC is a public trust governed by a corporation rather than an agency or department of the State of California, it is not covered by the SBC Initiative. 3 M YTH: The Stop Blank Checks Initiative Applies to the School Districts and Community College Districts. FACT: School Districts and Community College Districts are Not Covered by the Stop Blank Checks Initiative. The Stop Blank Checks (SBC) Initiative declares that the “State” must obtain voter approval prior to issuing or selling more than $2 billion in revenue bonds for any single project financed, owned, operated, or managed by the “State”. “State” is defined as excluding “a city, county, city and county, school district, community college district, or special district.” (Underscoring added.) The SBC Initiative only applies to the “State.” Local governments, including cities, counties, and special districts, are explicitly excluded from the definition of “State.” The SBC Initiative does not apply to cities, counties, or special districts. 4 MYTH: The Stop Blank Checks Initiative Applies to Local Governments like Cities, Counties, and Special Districts. FACT: Local Governments like Cities, Counties, and Special Districts are Not Covered by the Stop Blank Checks Initiative. The Stop Blank Checks (SBC) Initiative declares that the “State” must obtain voter approval prior to issuing or selling more than $2 billion in revenue bonds for any single project financed, owned, operated, or managed by the “State”. “State” is defined as excluding “a city, county, city and county, school district, community college district, or special district.” (Underscoring added.) The SBC Initiative only applies to the “State.” Local governments, including cities, counties, and special districts, are explicitly excluded from the definition of “State.” The SBC Initiative does not apply to cities, counties, or special districts. 5 MYTH: Revenue Bonds Are Only Repaid with Funds Generated by the Projects they Finance. FACT: Billions in Revenue Bonds are Repaid from the State General Fund; and ALL Revenue Bond Projects are Paid off by California Voters. Opponents claim that revenue bonds are only repaid with funds generated by the projects they finance. That is completely false. Tens of billions in lease revenue bonds are repaid out of the State General Fund. In fact, according to the State Treasurer’s Office, as of February 1, 2015, the State General Fund is liable for the repayment of $17,611,931,565.54 worth of lease revenue bond debt.1 The General Fund is made up of tax dollars paid by ALL Californians. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 336 Moreover, ALL revenue bond projects are ultimately paid off by California voters, either through taxes paid to the State General Fund or through higher water rates, electricity rates, toll rates, admission fees, or other charges imposed by the project. However, California voters currently have NO right to vote on whether these higher charges should be imposed upon them. 1. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/bonds/debt/201502/summary.pdf. (Accessed July 14, 2015.) 6 MYTH: Revenue Bond Projects Only Affect Those that Use the Project. FACT: Major Revenue Bond Projects Have Statewide Impacts. Because it only applies to revenue bond projects over $2 billion, the Stop Blank Checks Initiative will not apply to each and every regional revenue bond project the State is involved in. To the contrary, it will only apply to the handful of major infrastructure projects that have statewide significance. Typically, state participation in projects of this magnitude requires ongoing participation and monitoring by state employees and the projects are at least partially owned and/or operated by the state or a state agency. In these circumstances, voter approval is appropriate because if the State is going to pay, the State’s voters should have a say. 7 MYTH: Requiring a Vote will add an Unnecessary Level of Bureaucracy and Delay to Projects. FACT: Voter Approval Will Increase Accountability by Reducing Costs Overruns, Delays, and Construction Defects. Large-scale infrastructure projects have an extremely poor record of going substantially over-budget. Independent studies have proven that such projects go over-budget by an average of 28%, with the worst offenders being rail projects (average cost overruns is 45%) and bridges and tunnels (average cost overrun is 34%). The good news is that the same studies found that more public awareness and participation is the best way to improve cost estimates and project outcomes.2 The Stop Blank Checks Initiative will increase public participation and help avoid these well-documented pitfalls by requiring voter approval for large-scale infrastructure projects. 2. New York Times, “Study Finds Steady Overruns in Public Projects,” Jul. 11, 2002; B. Flyvbjerg et al., “Cost Underestimation in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?” Journal of American Planning Assn., vol. 68, no. 3, Summer 2002, pp. 279-295. 8 MYTH: Statewide public elections happen only every two years. FACT: The Legislature can call a statewide election at ANY time. The Legislature has the authority to adopt a bill calling a special election at any time. This happened most recently in 2009, when the Legislature passed a bill calling for a special election in May of 2009 to consider six initiatives that were related to that year’s state budget.3 California Constitution, Article IV, Section 8(c)(3) states that “Statutes calling elections…shall go into effect immediately upon their enactment.” (Underscoring added.) So the Legislature can hold an election for a large revenue bond project whenever it wants to; not just every two years. 3. Stats. 2009, ch. 7 (3d Ex. Sess.) was authored by Senator D. Ducheny as Senate Bill 19 and signed by the Governor on Feb. 20, 2009. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 337 9 MYTH: Getting Voter Approval on Any Statewide Measure is Costly and Difficult. FACT: Requiring Voter Approval Forces the Legislature to Put Forward High Quality Bond Proposals, Which the Voters Approve the Vast Majority of the Time. Getting voter approval for bad ideas and bad projects is costly and difficult because California voters are not easily fooled. This has forced the Legislature to typically put forward high quality general obligation bond proposals, which already must be approved by the voters. And the voters have responded by approving 81% of the bond measures placed on the ballot by the Legislature since 1900 (131 of 162). If the Legislature only submits meritorious revenue bond proposals, there is no reason to believe that voters will not approve them at the same rate. An 81% approval rate is not “costly” or “difficult”. 10 MYTH: The Stop Blank Checks Initiative Will Cripple Infrastructure Spending. FACT: The Stop Blank Checks Initiative Will Lead to Smarter, Better Planned Infrastructure Spending. There is no data supporting the notion that requiring voter approval will cripple infrastructure funding. Since 1900, the Legislature has placed 100 general obligation bonds on the ballot dedicated to funding infrastructure projects (construction, maintenance, and repair of schools, colleges, highways, harbors, state office buildings, jails, prisons, railways, public transit, libraries, bridges, water resources development, water pollution control, safe drinking water facilities, crime labs, levees, etc.) The voters approved 78% of those measures (78 of 100). Requiring voter approval for large infrastructure projects will not “cripple” infrastructure funding when voters have approved 78% of such measures since 1900. Instead, it will make sure the Legislature only puts forward smart, well-planned projects and will act as a check against the minority of problematic infrastructure proposals—just as it has done for general obligation bond projects for well over a century. 11 MYTH: The Stop Blank Checks Initiative Will Result in Litigation. FACT: Voter Approval for Revenue Bonds Will Not Create Any More Litigation Than Voter Approval for General Obligation Bonds—Which Has Created Very Little. Since 1849, the California Constitution has required general obligation bonds to be approved by the voters for a “single object or work”. (1849 Cal. Const., art. VIII.4) Over the past 166 years, very little litigation has been created by this requirement, and in the very few cases that have arisen the courts have had no problem articulating what constitutes a “single object or work.” (See, e.g., Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Marquardt (1963) 59 Cal.2d 159; Pooled Money Inv. Bd. v. Unruh (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 155, 165 n. 8.) There is no reason to believe the courts will have any more trouble explaining what a “project” is under the Stop Blank Checks Initiative. 4. http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/constitutions/1849/full-text/. (Accessed Jul. 16, 2015.) 12 MYTH: The Stop Blank Checks Initiative will Hinder Transportation Funding. FACT: Transportation Funding Comes Mostly From Gas Taxes and Auto Fees. When the State does Use Bonds to Finance Transportation, it Almost Always Uses General Obligation Bonds, Which Already Require Voter Approval. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 338 Most transportation infrastructure funding comes from taxes paid on gasoline and fees paid on motor vehicles. To the extent the State does fund transportation projects with bonds, it almost always uses general obligation bonds, not revenue bonds. Revenue bonds have only been used for a very small handful of toll roads and bridges—almost all of which cost less than $2 billion so they would be below the threshold requiring voter approval anyway. General obligation bonds already require voter approval under California Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1. Local governments are not covered by the Stop Blank Checks Initiative, so local transportation projects funded with revenue bonds would not be affected. 13 MYTH: The Stop Blank Checks Initiative Will Hinder State Funding for School Construction. FACT: Revenue Bonds are Not Used for State School Construction Funding. The State Provides Funding for School Construction with General Obligation Bonds, Which Already Require Voter Approval. Schools do not produce any “revenue” so it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to fund school construction with revenue bonds. School construction bond funding provided by the State comes almost exclusively from general obligation bonds, which already require voter approval. This is proven by the fact that, since 1900, the Legislature has placed 28 school construction general obligation bond proposals on the ballot. The voters approved 86% of them (24 of 28). 14 MYTH: The Stop Blank Checks Initiative Interferes with Disaster Response. FACT: Revenue Bonds are Not used to Fund Disaster Responses, which are typically financed with Federal Disaster Relief Funds. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) own website, FEMA’s Public Assistance Grant Program provides supplemental federal assistance for “debris removal, emergency protective measures, and the repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly-owned facilities and the facilities of certain private non-profit organizations.”5 Further, FEMA’s Public Assistance Program “even encourages protection of these damaged facilities from future events by providing assistance for hazard mitigation measures during the recovery process.”6 Most importantly, the federal share of assistance “is not less than 75% of the eligible cost for emergency measures and permanent restoration.”7 With respect to highways damaged in natural disasters, the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) provides 100% of the funding within the first 180 days to restore essential travel, minimize damage, and protect remaining facilities.8 Beyond that, the FHA provides 90% of the funds to repair damaged Interstate highways and 80% of the funding to repair all other highways.9 The bottom line is that nearly all disaster recovery aid is provided by the Federal government. 5. https://www.fema.gov/public-assistance-local-state-tribal-and-non-profit. (Accessed Jul. 15, 2015.) 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. Emphasis added. 8. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/erelief.cfm. (Accessed Jul. 15, 2015.) 9. Ibid. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 339 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONSIDER a position of "Support" for AB 1713 (Eggman): Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: Peripheral Canal, as recommended by Supervisors Mitchoff and Piepho. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact associated with supporting AB 1713. BACKGROUND: AB 1713 (Eggman) would require Californians to vote on a ballot initiative for any infrastructure project that conveys water directly from a diversion point in the Sacramento River to State Water Project pumps or the federal Central Valley Project south of the Delta and is aimed at blocking the "twin tunnels" project. The Delta Counties Coalition (DCC), represented by Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano and Yolo Counties, has taken a position to support AB 1713. The DCC calls the Governor’s tunnel plan insufficient, contending it will not add new water to alleviate California’s drought and will irreparably harm the historic Delta – the largest estuary west APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ryan Hernandez, 925-674-7824 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:Supervisor Mary N. Piepho and Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Support for AB 1713 (Eggman): Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: Peripheral Canal March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 340 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of the Mississippi. The DCC notes that despite the project’s $15+ billion dollar price tag, unsuspecting rate-payers and taxpayers will be on the hook for far more as the cost is projected by independent sources to reach as high as $25+ billion. In its support letter, the DCC notes that "The permitting process for a major infrastructure project, such as the twin tunnels, should be transparent. Its ultimate approval or denial should rest with those directly impacted by its construction and the ratepayers and taxpayers who may be required to pay for the project. The tunnels project will irreparably harm the Delta, provide no new water, and will only benefit one part of the state at the expense of another. Furthermore, voters rejected a similar concept 30 years ago. The people most impacted by the twin tunnels project must have the right to vote to approve or disapprove the project. The DCC supports AB 1713 because it would not only force a public vote on the ill-fated project but would also require the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to complete an economic feasibility analysis prior to a vote authoring the tunnels’ construction." AB 1713 is pending in the Assembly committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife. It was introduced on 01/26/16. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without an official position on the bill, the County cannot advocate for it. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Written comments provided by Ann Puntch (attached). AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Bill Text AB 1713 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Correspondence Received March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 341 california legislature—2015–16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1713 Introduced by Assembly Member Eggman (Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Baker, Bonilla, Cooley, Cooper, Frazier, McCarty, and Olsen) (Principal coauthor: Senator Wolk) January 26, 2016 An act to add Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 115) to Division 1 of the Water Code, relating to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. legislative counsel’s digest AB 1713, as introduced, Eggman. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: peripheral canal. Existing law requires various state agencies to administer programs relating to water supply, water quality, and flood management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The bill would prohibit the construction of a peripheral canal, as defined, unless expressly authorized by an initiative voted on by the voters of California on or after January 1, 2017, and would require the Legislative Analyst’s Office to complete a prescribed economic feasibility analysis prior to a vote authorizing the construction of a peripheral canal. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 115) is line 2 added to Division 1 of the Water Code, to read: 99 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 342 line 1 Chapter 1.5. Peripheral Canal line 2 line 3 115. As used in this chapter, the following terms have the line 4 following meanings: line 5 (a)  “Delta” means the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as defined line 6 in Section 12220. line 7 (b)  “Peripheral canal” means a facility or structure that conveys line 8 water directly from a diversion point in the Sacramento River to line 9 pumping facilities of the State Water Project or the federal Central line 10 Valley Project south of the Delta. line 11 116. (a)  Notwithstanding any other law, a peripheral canal line 12 shall not be constructed unless expressly authorized by an initiative line 13 voted on by the voters of California on or after January 1, 2017. line 14 (b)  If an initiative described in subdivision (a) is placed on the line 15 ballot, prior to the election, the Legislative Analyst’s Office shall line 16 complete an economic feasibility analysis that includes both of line 17 the following: line 18 (1)  The total cost of the project. line 19 (2)  Expected impacts of the project on taxpayers, water line 20 ratepayers, and the General Fund. line 21 117. Notwithstanding any other law, the construction and line 22 operation of a peripheral canal shall not diminish or otherwise line 23 negatively affect the water supply, water rights, or water quality line 24 for water users within the Delta watershed. O 99 — 2 —AB 1713 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 343 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes344 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/104 to approve the Memorandum of Understanding between In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Public Authority and SEIU Local 2015 providing for wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment for the period of November 1, 2015 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: The County share of the negotiated contract increases will be added to the current FY 2015/16 Maintenance of Effort (MOE). The MOE is subject to an annual 3.5% statutory increase. The estimated general fund cost of a $0.50 increase is $404,000 for approximately three months in FY 2015/16, and $1.6 million for FY 2016/17. The cost of the $0.25 increase effective January 1, 2017 is $404,000 for FY 2016/17 and $807,000 for FY 2017/18. The total negotiated increases, excluding the MOE, are $404,000 for FY 2015/16, $2.0 million in FY 2016/17, and $2.4 million for FY 2017/18. BACKGROUND: The Public Authority began bargaining with SEIU, United Healthcare Workers -West on March 11, 2014. Since that time, the contract was extended three times, and the unit transitioned to SEIU, Local 2015. A tentative agreement was finally reached on February 12, 2016. The resulting Memorandum of Understanding is attached. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller, Kathy Gallagher, Director of Employment and Human Services D. 8 To:In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution No. 2016/104 Memorandum of Understanding between IHSS Public Authority and SEIU Local 2015 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 345 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > In summary, the significant changes are: Term of Agreement The term of agreement is from November 1, 2015, through June 30, 2018. Union Recognition - Section 2 Union recognition was changed in this section, and the reference was changed throughout the agreement, from SEIU, United Healthcare Workers West to SEIU, Local 2015. Payroll - Section 5 Deleted language regarding the Authority maintaining an additional drop box for Providers to deposit their timesheets in the lobby of the Public Authority, in addition to the drop box located at 500 Ellinwood Way in Pleasant Hill. Union Rights - Section 6 The MOU section on Union Rights was completely updated to reflect current practice. Wages - Section 7 Effective upon Public Authority adoption, and state approval of rate change, the hourly rate will be increased from $11.50 to $12.00. Effective January 1, 2017, the hourly rate will be increased from $12.00 to $12.25. Orientation and Training - Section 11 The training section of the MOU was updated to include new provider orientation language and specifies that time will be set aside at the beginning of each orientation for the Union to talk to new providers about the Union. Health/Dental Plan - Section 14 The section was updated to include current premium contributions, specified the end date for specified CCHP Plan A-2 premium contributions, and removed Federal Medical Assistant Percentage language. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve this MOU will result in the providers continuing to work out of contract and not benefiting from the negotiated wage increases. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/104 SEIU Local 2015 MOU 11/1/15 thru 6/30/18 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/104 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 346 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 03/15/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/104 In the Matter of Approving the Memorandum of Understanding between In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Public Authority and SEIU Local 2015. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors acting solely in its capacity as governing board of the In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority RESOLVES THAT: The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Public Authority and SEIU Local 2015 providing for wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment for the period of November 1, 2015 through June 30, 2018 is ADOPTED. A copy of the MOU is attached. Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller, Kathy Gallagher, Director of Employment and Human Services 5 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 347 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes348 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES AUTHORITY AND SEIU LOCAL 2015 NOVEMBER 1, 2015 – JUNE 30, 2018 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 349 SEIU LOCAL 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS ................................................................... 2 SECTION 2 UNION RECOGNITION .................................................... 2 SECTION 3 MUTUAL RESPECT ......................................................... 2 SECTION 4 NO DISCRIMINATION ...................................................... 2 SECTION 5 PAYROLL ......................................................................... 2 SECTION 6 UNION RIGHTS 6.1 Information ........................................................................ 3 6.2 Dues Deduction ................................................................ 3 6.3 Payroll Deductions and Payover ....................................... 3 SECTION 7 WAGES 7.1 Wages ............................................................................... 4 7.2 Wage Contingency ............................................................ 4 SECTION 8 CONSUMER RIGHTS 8.1 Consumer as Employer ..................................................... 4 8.2 Confidentiality-Right to Privacy ......................................... 5 SECTION 9 REGISTRY ........................................................................ 5 SECTION 10 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 10.1 Definition and Procedural Steps ........................................ 5 10.2 Scope of Arbitration Decisions .......................................... 6 10.3 Time Limits ........................................................................ 7 10.4 Union Notification .............................................................. 7 SECTION 11 TRAINING ......................................................................... 7 SECTION 12 HEALTH AND SAFETY .................................................... 8 SECTION 13 PENSION FUND PARTICIPATION .................................. 8 SECTION 14 HEALTH/DENTAL PLAN ............................................... 10 SECTION 15 OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES, STEWARDS 15.1 Official Representatives .................................................. 11 15.2 Stewards ......................................................................... 11 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 350 SECTION 16 NO STRIKE/NO LOCKOUT ........................................... 11 SECTION 17 TRANSPORTATION ....................................................... 12 SECTION 18 LABOR-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE .......................... 12 SECTION 19 SCOPE OF AGREEMENT AND SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS 19.1 Scope of Agreement ....................................................... 12 19.2 Separability of Provisions ................................................ 12 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 351 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES AUTHORITY AND SEIU LOCAL 2015 This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into pursuant to the authority contained in Division 34 of Board of Supervisors’ Resolution 81/1165 and Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 98-14 and has been jointly prepared by the parties. The Director of Human Resources is the manager of labor relations for the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Public Authority in authority-provider relations matters as provided in Board of Supervisors' Resolution 81/1165 and Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 98-14. The parties have met and conferred in good faith regarding wages and other terms and conditions of employment as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 12301.6 and Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 98-14 for the providers in the unit in which the Union is the recognized representative, have freely exchanged information, opinions and proposals and have endeavored to reach agreement on all matters relating to the authority-provider relations covering such providers. This MOU shall be presented to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, as the governing board of the IHSS Public Authority, as the joint recommendations of the undersigned for salary and other adjustments for the period commencing November 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2018. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 352 SECTION 1 - DEFINITIONS Days – Means calendar days unless otherwise specified. SECTION 2 - UNION RECOGNITION SEIU Local 2015 (Union) is the formally recognized employee organization for the representation unit listed below, and has been certified as such pursuant to Board of Supervisors’ Resolution 81/1165 and Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 98-14. In-Home Supportive Services Provider Unit SECTION 3 - MUTUAL RESPECT The IHSS Public Authority and the Union agree that all workers and administrators involved in the IHSS program regardless of position, profession, or rank, will treat each other with courtesy, dignity and respect. The foregoing shall also apply in providing services to the public, specifically including IHSS consumers. The Public Authority and the Union will meet, in a timely manner, from time to time, at the request of either party, to discuss issues regarding the application of this section. SECTION 4 - NO DISCRIMINATION There shall be no discrimination because of sex, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation or union activities against any provider by the IHSS Public Authority or by anyone employed by the Authority; and to the extent prohibited by applicable State and Federal law there shall be no discrimination because of age. There shall be no discrimination against any disabled person seeking to be listed on the IHSS registry solely because of such disability unless that disability prevents the person from performing the essential functions established for the position or from carrying out the duties of the position safely. SECTION 5 - PAYROLL To promote a timely and accurate payroll system, the Authority and the Union shall work together to identify causes and solutions to problems resulting in late, lost or inaccurate paychecks and similar issues. When the causes of problems are outside the Authority’s direct control, the Authority and Union shall work cooperatively to create solutions by bringing the problems to the attention of the responsible agencies (this may include the State’s payroll department, for example). March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 353 The Authority shall provide all home care workers with direct clerical and local access phone numbers at the Public Authority to call for timely answers to payroll questions and resolutions to problems. The Authority shall address resolutions to payroll problems in a timely manner. The Authority and the Union shall share information on the causes and potential solutions for payroll issues in good faith and in a spirit of cooperative problem solving. SECTION 6 - UNION RIGHTS 6.1 Information. The State provides, on a monthly basis, to the Union a list of all current providers including name, address, telephone number, social security number and hours worked. The Union shall defend, indemnify, save, protect and hold harmless Contra Costa County and Contra Costa County In-Home Supportive Services Authority and their respective boards, directors, officers and employees from any and all claims, costs and liabilities for any damages and/or injury arising from disclosure to SEIU of IHSS provider names, social security numbers, addresses and phone numbers. The County’s and/or Contra Costa County In-Home Supportive Services Authority’s right to be defended, indemnified, saved, protected and held harmless hereunder shall be unaffected by the concurrent negligence of the County, the Contra Costa County In-Home Supportive Services Authority or any other person. The IHSS Public Authority will provide a bulletin board in its office for use by the Union provided the communications displayed have to do with official organization business including, but not limited to, times and places of meetings and further provided that the employee organization appropriately posts and removes the information. The Executive Director reserves the right to remove objectionable materials after notification to and discussion with the Union. 6.2 Dues Deduction. Pursuant to Board of Supervisors’ Resolution 81/1165, only a majority representative may have dues deduction and as such the Union has the exclusive privilege of dues deduction for all employees in its unit. 6.3 Payroll Deductions and Payover. The Union shall instruct the State to commence and continue a monthly payroll deduction of Union dues from the regular pay warrants of Providers authorizing such deduction. The Union shall instruct the State of the dollar amount to deduct for Union dues or other authorized Union deductions, including voluntary COPE contributions, specifying the purpose(s) of the deduction. The Provider’s earnings must be sufficient after other legal and required deductions are made to cover the amount of the dues or other deductions that have been approved by the Provider. When a Provider is in a non-pay status for an entire pay period, no withholding will be made to cover the pay period from future earnings. In the case of a Provider who is in a non-pay status during only part of the pay period, and the salary is March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 354 not sufficient to cover the full withholding, no deduction shall be made. In this connection, all other legal and required deductions (including health care deductions) have priority over Union dues or other authorized Union deductions. SECTION 7- WAGE S 7.1 Wages. A. Except as provided in Section 7.2 below, the wages of all represented providers shall be as follows: Effective January 1, 2009: $11.50 per hour Upon Board of Supervisor’s ratification, and state approval of rate change: $12.00 per hour Effective January 1, 2017: $12.25 per hour 7.2 Wage Contingency. If, during the term of this Agreement, either state or federal participation levels are reduced or, either the state or federal sharing formula is modified in any manner that would result in an increased cost to the County and/or the Public Authority, wages will be reduced by an amount necessary to keep the total cost to the County and/or the Public Authority the same as such cost existed on the day prior to the effective date of such reduction or modification. The Public Authority shall provide to the Union a detailed written description of any adjustments to be made pursuant to Section 7, Wages, thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such adjustments. Upon receipt of a written request from the Union to do so, the Public authority will meet and confer to discuss the impact of the above- described loss of funding, but in no case shall the Public Authority be required to increase its contribution toward wages. If, the state authorizes an increase in participation that exceeds $12.10 per hour, the union may request in writing to meet and confer on the subject of wages only, at a time which is mutually agreeable to both parties. SECTION 8 - CONSUMER RIGHTS 8.1 Consumer as Employer. Under State Law and County Ordinance establishing the IHSS Public Authority, Consumers have the sole and undisputed right to: 1) hire Providers of their choice; 2) remove Providers from their service at will; March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 355 3) determine in advance and under all circumstances who can and cannot enter their home; and 4) supervise the work of Providers providing services to them. 8.2 Confidentiality-Right to Privacy. The Union shall neither seek nor receive information regarding the name, address, phone number, or any other personal information regarding consumers. Union representatives and IHSS providers shall maintain strict standards of confidentiality regarding consumers and shall not disclose personal information obtained, from whatever source, pertaining to consumers, unless disclosure is compelled by legal process or otherwise authorized by law. SECTION 9 - REGISTRY In accordance with Welfare and Institutions Code Section 12301.6 and Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 98-14, the Authority shall operate a registry for the purpose of assisting Consumers in finding Providers. The parties agree to meet and confer regarding registry matters which impact provider wages, hours and working conditions including, but not limited to, possible respite and emergency referrals. SECTION 10 - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 10.1 Definition and Procedural Steps. A grievance is any dispute which involves the interpretation or application of any provision of this MOU excluding, however, those provisions of this MOU which specifically provide that the decision of any Authority official or consumer shall be final, the interpretation or application of those provisions not being subject to the grievance procedure. The Union may represent the grievant at any stage of the process. Grievances must be filed within thirty (30) days of the incident or occurrence about which the grievant claims to have a grievance and shall be processed in the following manner: Step 1. Any provider who believes that a provision of this MOU has been misinterpreted or misapplied to his or her detriment shall discuss the complaint with the Authority’s Executive Director or such representative as the Director may designate. Step 2. If a grievance is not satisfactorily resolved in Step 1 above, the grievant, or the Union on the grievant’s behalf, may submit the grievance in writing within fifteen (15) days to the IHSS Public Authority Director or his/her designated labor relations representative. The grievance shall state which provision of the MOU has been March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 356 misinterpreted or misapplied, how misapplication or misinterpretation has affected the grievant to the grievant's detriment, and the redress he or she seeks. The Public Authority Director or his designee shall have twenty (20) days in which to respond to the grievance in writing. If the grievant requests a meeting with the IHSS Public Authority Director or his/her designee at this step, such a meeting will be held. Step 3. If a grievance is not satisfactorily resolved in Step 2 above, either party may request in writing within twenty (20) days that the matter be referred to non-binding confidential mediation. Mediation will only occur upon the parties’ mutual agreement. The parties will mutually select a mediator, or if agreement cannot be reached, the parties may request that a mediator be assigned by the State Mediation and Conciliation Service. Anything discussed during the mediation will remain confidential and cannot be used or referenced during any subsequent proceedings (i.e. arbitration, a different grievance, etc.) Step 4. No grievance may be processed under this Section, which has not first been filed and investigated in accordance with Step 1 and 2 above and filed within fifteen (15) days of the written response of the IHSS Public Authority Director or the completion of mediation. If the parties are unable to reach a mutually satisfactory accord on any grievance which arises and is presented during the term of this MOU, either the grievant, or the Union on the grievant’s behalf, or the IHSS Public Authority may require that the grievance be referred to an impartial arbitrator who shall be designated by mutual agreement between the grievant, or the Union of the grievant’s behalf, and the IHSS Public Authority Director. Within twenty-five (25) days of the request for arbitration, the parties shall mutually select an arbitrator who shall render a decision within forty-five (45) days from the date of final submission of the grievance including receipt of the court reporter's transcript and post hearing briefs, if any. The fees and expenses of the arbitrator and of the Court Reporter shall be shared equally by the grievant or the Union on the grievant’s behalf, and the IHSS Public Authority. Each party, however, shall bear the costs of its own presentation, including preparation and post-hearing briefs, if any. 10.2 Scope of Arbitration Decisions. A. Decisions of arbitrators on matters properly before them shall be final and binding on the parties hereto, to the extent permitted by law. B. No arbitrator shall entertain, hear, decide or make recommendations on any dispute unless such dispute involves a position in a unit represented by the Union which has been certified as the recognized employee organization for such unit and such dispute falls within the definition of a grievance as set forth in Subsection 1 above. C. Proposals to add to or change this MOU or to change written agreements supplementary hereto shall not be arbitrable and no proposal to modify, amend, or terminate this MOU, nor any matter or subject arising out of or in connection with such proposals, may be referred to arbitration under this Section. No arbitrator shall have the power to amend or modify this March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 357 MOU or written agreements supplementary hereto or to establish any new terms or conditions of employment. D. No change in this MOU or interpretations thereof (except interpretations resulting from arbitration proceedings hereunder) will be recognized unless agreed to by the Authority and the Union. 10.3 Time Limits. The time limits specified above may be waived by mutual agreement of the parties to the grievance. If the Authority fails to meet the time limits specified in Steps 1 through 3 above, the grievance will automatically move to the next step. If a grievant fails to meet the time limits specified in Steps 1 through 5 above, the grievance will be deemed to have been settled and withdrawn. 10.4 Union Notification. An official, with whom a formal grievance is filed by a grievant who is included in a unit represented by the Union, but is not represented by the Union in the grievance, shall give the Union a copy of the formal presentation. SECTION 11 - ORIENTATION AND TRAINING The Public Authority shall seek and give full consideration to the Union’s input for the purpose of developing and implementing training programs for Providers. Training materials and the curriculum will be developed in conjunction with the Advisory Committee, giving full consideration to the Union’s input. The Public Authority shall provide reasonable notice to the Union of group orientations of Providers and Provider training classes. The Public Authority shall provide an opportunity for Union representatives to make presentations at such gatherings. The Public Authority will provide the Union with an annual calendar of New Provider Orientations, indicating the location and designated language for the orientation. Whenever feasible, the Public Authority will give no less than one week’s notice of any changes to orientations. The Union will be given a maximum of thirty (30) minutes at or about the beginning of each orientation to talk to new providers about the Union. Upon request and with proper notice, the Union may be allowed to use available audio-visual equipment. The Public Authority will provide the Union with a copy of the attendance list including names and telephone numbers after each new provider orientation. The Public Authority shall have the sole discretion regarding the scheduling of group orientations of Providers and Provider training classes. In the event that the Union is unable to attend a Provider orientation, the Public Authority shall inform Providers that they are represented by the Union and will distribute Union authorization forms and related printed Union information provided by the Union, at orientations of Providers and at Provider training classes. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 358 SECTION 12 - HEALTH AND SAFETY The Authority staff will meet with Advisory Committee members, social workers, Public Health staff, the Union and other interested parties to explore/study this issue; and, if needed, develop a policy and procedure to address the issue. SECTION 13 – PENSION FUND PARTICIPATION A. Coverage: The IHSS Public Authority agrees to make contributions on behalf of eligible IHSS providers as defined and covered by this MOU to the Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund, hereinafter referred to as the “Fund” in the amounts specified in Section C below. B. Term: The IHSS Public Authority agrees to become and remain a participating Employer in the Fund beginning on July 1, 2001 through the end of the term of this MOU, including any extension thereof, provided that the IHSS Public Authority’s contributions are eligible for Federal matching funds. C. Contributions: 1. The IHSS Public Authority will contribute to the Fund in the amount of $0.15 for each hour worked by eligible IHSS providers covered by this MOU. 2. Contributions required by this provision shall be paid to the Fund on or before the last day of the month following the period for which contributions are due, or before such other date as the Trustees may hereafter determine. 3. Contributions shall be transmitted together with a remittance report containing such information, in such manner, and on such form as may be required by the Trustees of the Fund or their designee. 4. Contributions for an IHSS provider shall begin once an IHSS provider has worked one thousand (1,000) hours after July 1, 2001. Contributions shall be made for such IHSS provider irrespective of the number of hours worked, in subsequent years. Until contributions are required to be made on behalf of an IHSS provider pursuant to the terms of this provision, the IHSS provider shall not be deemed to be a covered IHSS provider in covered employment within the meaning of the SEIU National Industry Pension Plan. 5. In the event that the Fund imposes any surcharges upon the Public Authority after September 30, 2011, the parties agree that the wages of the providers will be reduced to offset the total cost of any and all March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 359 surcharges. This means the provider hourly rate, set forth in Section 7 – Wages, will be reduced by an amount per hour, to be determined, until the total of all surcharges imposed by the Fund has been recouped by the Public Authority. The parties understand and agree that the full cost of any and all surcharges imposed upon the Public Authority by the Fund after September 30, 2011, are to be paid in full by the providers. 6. Both parties acknowledge that there may be other ways to provide a retirement benefit for the providers and agree to work cooperatively over the course of this agreement to identify other options that are both economically sound and fulfill the purpose of creating an appropriate retirement benefit. D. Trust Agreement: The IHSS Public Authority hereby agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Agreement and Declaration of Trust establishing the Fund, as it may, from time to time, be amended, and by all resolutions and rules adopted by the Trustees pursuant to the powers delegated to them by that Agreement, including collection policies, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. The IHSS Public Authority hereby designates the Employer members of the Fund’s Board of Trustees, or their duly selected successor(s), as its representatives on the Board. E. Cooperation: The IHSS Public Authority and Union agree to cooperate with the Trustees of the Fund in distributing Plan booklets, literature and other documents supplied by the Fund Administrator and in obtaining and providing such census and other data as may be required by the Fund’s Administrator or Trustees to enable them to comply with the applicable provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In any case, there shall be no mailing or other costs incurred by the IHSS Public Authority. The parties acknowledge that the provisions of this Section and the participation of the IHSS providers covered by it are subject to approval by the Trustees of the Fund and that the Trustees reserve the right to terminate, at their sole and unreviewable discretion, the participation of the IHSS providers covered by this MOU and to establish the level(s) of benefits to be provided. Termination may be directed by the Trustees for reasons including, but not limited to, failure of the IHSS Public Authority to timely pay contributions and expiration of the MOU. In the event the Trust ceases or otherwise terminates coverage of IHSS providers, the IHSS Public Authority shall have no other pension obligation to the IHSS providers. The parties further acknowledge that the Trustees’ acceptance for participation in the Fund of the IHSS providers covered by the MOU is limited only to the categories of employment covered by the MOU at the time application for acceptance occurs and the admission of other categories for employment to participate in the Fund will require specific acceptance by the Trustees. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 360 SECTION 14 - HEALTH/DENTAL PLAN The following benefit programs shall be offered to IHSS providers (providers): A. Program. The IHSS Public Authority shall offer CCHP Plan A-2 single coverage including single dental coverage to eligible IHSS providers. 1. Effective September 1, 2010, the IHSS Public Authority’s CCHP Plan A-2 premium contribution shall be $305.60 per month for eligible IHSS providers. 2. Effective January 1, 2015, the IHSS Public Authority’s CCHP Plan A-2 premium contribution shall be $352.00 per month for eligible IHSS providers. 3. Effective January 1, 2016, the IHSS Public Authority’s CCHP Plan A-2 premium contribution shall be $381.38 per month for eligible IHSS providers. B. 1. Effective September 1, 2010, the eligible IHSS provider’s CCHP Plan A-2 premium contribution shall be twenty-four ($24.00) dollars per month. Effective January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2016, the IHSS provider’s CCHP Plan A-2 premium contribution shall be twenty four dollars and eighty six cents ($24.86) per month. 2. Should CCHP Plan A-2 premiums increase over the course of this agreement the Public Authority shall provide the Union a written notice of the amount of such premium increase at least sixty (60) days before the premium increase takes effect. Either the Union or the IHSS Public Authority may request in writing, prior to the effective date of the premium increase, an MOU re-opener for the limited purpose of discussing allocation of those additional premium costs. C. Eligibility for CCHP Plan A-2 Coverage. 1. Initial eligibility shall be achieved when an IHSS provider has two (2) consecutive months of service at an average of forty-five (45) paid hours per month. In order to maintain eligibility, an IHSS provider shall continue to have at least forty-five (45) paid hours during each successive month. In the first (1st) month in which an IHSS provider is paid for forty-five (45) or more hours, as verified by CMIPS data, the IHSS Public Authority will forward the provider’s name to CCHP by the 15th of the following (2nd) month. CCHP will prepare and mail enrollment packets to the eligible providers by the 25th of that (2nd) month. An IHSS provider must return the completed packet to CCHP accompanied by one (1) month’s premium contribution, by the last business day of the enrollment (3rd) month for health coverage to be effective on the first day of the fifth (5th) month. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 361 2. Any applications received by CCHP after the last business day of the enrollment (3rd) month will not be accepted, but an eligible IHSS provider will be eligible to enroll during the next open enrollment period. 3. Providers, previously granted eligibility, who work and are paid thirty-five (35) hours or more per month and who, since January 1, 2004, have been enrolled in CCHP Plan A-2 including single dental coverage, will continue to be eligible for CCHP A-2 including single dental coverage. If a provider does not have at least thirty-five (35) or more paid hours for sixty (60) or more days, the provider will be required to reestablish initial eligibility as outlined in Section 14.C of this MOU. D. Pre-Pay. IHSS providers who have achieved eligibility under the terms of subsection 14.C “Eligibility” will pre-pay the provider’s portion of the premium cost so that the effective date of enrollment begins on the first day of the fifth (5th) month. IHSS providers must continue to pre-pay their portion of the health insurance premium in order to continue benefits. E. Implementation. Open Enrollment periods shall be for thirty (30) days and be held in November of each year. F. IHSS providers who are temporarily ineligible for any IHSS Public Authority CCHP Plan A-2 premium contribution may purchase, at their own cost coverage under CCHP Plan A-2, in accordance with the procedures set forth by the Contra Costa County Health Plan. SECTION 15 - OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES, STEWARDS 15.1 Official Representatives. The Union shall notify the IHSS Public Authority of their Official Representatives and changes in such Representatives. The list shall be sent to the Labor Relations Unit and a copy will be sent to the Executive Director of the IHSS Public Authority. 15.2 Stewards. The Union shall notify the IHSS Public Authority of the names of their Stewards at the beginning of the contract year and update the names as changes occur. SECTION 16 - NO STRIKE/NO LOCKOUT During the term of this MOU, the Union, its members and representatives, agree not to engage in, authorize, sanction or support any strike, slowdown, stoppage of work, curtailment of production, or refusal to perform customary duties. The IHSS Public Authority agrees not to lockout members during the term of this MOU. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 362 SECTION 17 – TRANSPORTATION For the duration of this Agreement, no payments will be made from the Transportation Fund ($75,000.00 fund). The parties understand and agree that the funds from the Transportation Fund ($75,000.00) will be used to offset these increased pension costs to the Public Authority. During the term of this Agreement, if the additional payments demanded by the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund exceed $75,000.00, or if additional funding becomes available to the Public Authority so that payments from the Transportation Fund could be restored, the parties will meet and confer at their earliest availability. SECTION 18 – LABOR-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE In order to encourage open communications, promote harmonious relations and resolve matters of mutual concern, the parties agree to create a labor-management committee. The committee will be governed by the following: 1. The committee will meet every month or as mutually agreed to by the parties. 2. The topics for such meetings may include, but are not limited to, mutual respect, payroll problems, paid time off (P.T.O.) and administrative issues associated therewith, health and safety issues and training and education. SECTION 19 - SCOPE OF AGREEMENT AND SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS 19.1 Scope of Agreement. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, this MOU fully and completely incorporates the understanding of the parties hereto and constitutes the sole and entire agreement between the parties in any and all matters subject to meet and confer. Neither party shall, during the term of this MOU demand any change herein, provided that nothing herein shall prohibit the parties from changing the terms of this MOU by mutual agreement. 19.2 Separability of Provisions. Should any section, clause or provision of this MOU be declared illegal, unlawful or unenforceable, by final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidation of such section, clause or provision shall not invalidate the remaining portions hereof, and such remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of this MOU. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 363 SEIU Local 2015 MOU November 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2018. Dated: Contra Costa County: SEIU Local 2015: (Signature / Printed Name) (Signature / Printed Name) / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 364 SEIU LOCAL 2015 SUBJECT INDEX Confidentiality-Right to Privacy .......................................................................... 5 Consumer as Employer ..................................................................................... 4 Consumer Rights ............................................................................................... 4 Definition and Procedural Steps (Grievance Procedure) ................................... 5 Definitions .......................................................................................................... 2 Dues Deduction ................................................................................................. 3 Duration (MOU)................................................................................................ 13 Grievance Procedure ......................................................................................... 5 Grievance Procedure Time Limits ...................................................................... 7 Health and Safety .............................................................................................. 8 Health/Dental Plan ........................................................................................... 10 Information (Union Rights) ................................................................................. 3 Labor-Management Committee ....................................................................... 12 Mutual Respect .................................................................................................. 2 No Discrimination ............................................................................................... 2 No Strike/No Lockout ....................................................................................... 11 Official Representatives ................................................................................... 11 Orientation and Training .................................................................................... 7 Payroll ................................................................................................................ 2 Payroll Deductions and Payover ........................................................................ 3 Pension Fund Participation ................................................................................ 8 Registry .............................................................................................................. 5 Scope of Agreement ........................................................................................ 12 Scope of Arbitration Decisions ........................................................................... 6 Separability of Provisions ................................................................................. 12 Stewards .......................................................................................................... 11 Time Limits (Grievance Procedure) ................................................................... 7 Transportation .................................................................................................. 12 Union Notification ............................................................................................... 7 Union Recognition .............................................................................................. 2 Union Rights ...................................................................................................... 3 Wage Contingency ............................................................................................. 4 Wages ................................................................................................................ 4 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 365 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT that this Board Order serves as written acknowledgment by the County Administrator (chief executive officer) that he understands the current and future cost of health benefit changes retirees affected by the potential settlement agreement in Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County v. Contra Costa County, as provided by the County's actuary in letter of February 17, 2016 (Attached). FISCAL IMPACT: As shown in the valuation, the result of the health plan changes described herein, if implemented for all current retirees affected by the potential Retiree Support Group settlement agreement I (from affected bargaining groups SEIU Local 1021, AFSCME Local 2700, Western Council of Engineers, AFSCME Local 512, CCC Defenders Association, CCC Deputy District Attorneys, Probation Peach Officers of CCC, Employees' Association Local 1, IFPTE/AFL-CIO Local 21 and Management Classified & Exempt) and future retirees from those groups will create a $1.4 million increase in the Annual Required Contribution, a $346,000 increase in the Normal Cost, and a $13.2 million increase in the total Actuarial Accrued Liability. BACKGROUND: At its meeting on March 1, 2016, the Board of Supervisors accepted an actuarial valuation of future annual costs of negotiated and proposed changes to Other Post Employment Benefits, as provided by the County Actuary in a letter dated February 17, 2016. The Board of Supervisors was informed that Government Code, Section 7507 requires with regard to local legislative boards, that the future costs of changes in retirement benefits or other post employment APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director, 335-1023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Ann Elliott, Employee Benefits Manager, Mary Ann Mason, Assistant County Counsel D. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Government Code 7507 - Chief Executive Acknowledgement of Future Costs of Benefits - Proposed Changes for Specific Retirees March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 366 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > benefits as determined by the actuary, shall be made public at a public meeting at least two weeks prior to the adoption of any changes in public retirement plan benefits or other post employment benefits. The February 17, 2016 report fulfilled that requirement. Government Code, Section 7507 also requires that if the future costs (or savings) of the changes exceed one-half of 1 percent of the future annual costs of the existing benefits for the body, an actuary shall be present to provide information as needed at the public meeting at which the adoption of a benefit change shall be considered. And finally, Section 7507 requires that upon the adoption of any benefit change to which the section applies, the person with responsibilities of a chief executive officer in an entity providing the benefit, however that person is denominated, shall acknowledge in writing that he or she understands the current and future cost of the benefit as determined by the actuary. As the County Administrator (chief executive officer) and by approving this Board Order, I acknowledge in writing that I understand the current and future cost of the benefit changes presented to you today, as determined by the actuary and contained in the actuary's letter of February 17, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delayed implementation of changes to health benefits. ATTACHMENTS 7507 Report dated 2/17/16 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 367 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman 650 California Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2702 USA Tel +1 415 403 1333 Fax +1 415 403 1334 milliman.com February 17, 2016 Ms. Lisa Driscoll County Finance Director County Administrator’s Office 651 Pine Street, 10th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Contra Costa County Retiree Health Plan Analysis of Potential Retiree Health Benefit Changes Dear Ms. Driscoll: As requested, we have estimated the cost impact of a proposed change to retiree health benefits for participants in the Contra Costa County Retiree Health Plan. This change would impact all non- PEMHCA covered current and future retirees except those who retire from classifications represented by CNA and PDOCC. Only groups affected by the proposed changes are included in this analysis; employees and retirees represented by CNA, PDOCC, DAIA, DSA, L1230, and UCOA are excluded from this analysis. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the change in the County’s long-term other postemployment liability under GASB 45 (comparison of the present value of benefits, actuarial accrued liability, normal cost, annual required contribution, and projected benefit payments is shown before and after the proposed change) to comply with California Government Code Section 7507. Current Plan Provisions Currently, for eligible retirees from the following bargaining units (SEIU Local 1021, AFSCME Local 2700, Western Council of Engineers, AFSCME Local 512, CCC Defenders Association, CCC Deputy District Attorneys, Probation Peace Officers, Employees’ Association Local 1, IFPTE/AFL-CIO Local 21 and Management Classified & Exempt), the County subsidizes a portion of the monthly premium up to a specified cap. The cap varies depending on the medical plan elected and has not changed since 2011. The attached appendix contains a summary of the current plan provisions that were valued in the January 1, 2014 actuarial valuation for the affected bargaining groups along with the subsidy caps for each medical plan option. Proposed Plan The bargaining groups affected are as follows (SEIU Local 1021, AFSCME Local 2700, Western Council of Engineers, AFSCME Local 512, CCC Defenders Association, CCC Deputy District Attorneys, Probation Peace Officers, Employees’ Association Local 1, IFPTE/AFL-CIO Local 21 and Management Classified & Exempt). The proposed changes are as follows: 1. Effective January 1, 2017, the medical premium tier structure will change from two tiers (retiree only, retiree plus one or more dependents) to three tiers (retiree only, retiree plus one dependent, and retiree plus two or more dependents) for Non-Medicare Retirees. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 368 Lisa Driscoll February 17, 2016 Page 2 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman 2. Effective when the three tier system goes into effect for Non-Medicare retirees, the County’s premium caps established in 2011 will continue to apply: “retiree only” cap for single coverage and retiree plus one or more dependent cap applies for the retiree plus one dependent tier. Effective January 1, 2017, the County will increase the monthly medical plan premium subsidies for the new Retiree Plus Two or More Dependents tier (defined as Tier III) by $150. 3. Effective January 1, 2021, the amount of the County monthly medical plan premium subsidy will increase by $25 for the Medicare retiree only tier and for the Medicare retiree plus one or more dependents on Medicare tier. Non-Medicare Retirees would remain blended and pooled with active employees for purposes of establishing premium rates, and there would be no change to dental benefits. Results The results are estimated as of January 1, 2016. The estimated costs are based on valuation results as of January 1, 2014, projected to January 1, 2016, and reflect actual health premiums for 2016. Only the liabilities for active and retired members of the affected bargaining groups are shown in the comparison below. Note that the proposed plan costs assume no change in the value of the implicit premium rate subsidy for retirees not yet eligible for Medicare. Under the proposed plan, the active and non-Medicare retiree premium rates would remain pooled and blended meaning an implicit rate subsidy would continue under the proposed plan. However, the liability associated with the implicit rate subsidy could increase, decrease, or stay approximately the same depending on the relative premium costs by rate tier for the new three tier premium structure. Since new relative costs by tier for the proposed three tier structure are not yet known, we could not value the effect the proposed three tier structure would have on the implicit rate subsidy liability. Current Plan Proposal Plan Est. at 1/1/2016 Est. at 1/1/2016 Difference Present Value of Benefits Active Employees $376,570,000 $384,360,000 $7,790,000 Retirees $294,988,000 $302,240,000 $7,252,000 Total $671,558,000 $686,600,000 $15,042,000 Actuarial Accrued Liability Active Employees $272,959,000 $278,857,000 $5,898,000 Retirees $294,988,000 $302,240,000 $7,252,000 Total $567,947,000 $581,097,000 $13,150,000 Normal Cost Est. at June 30, 2016 $17,555,000 $17,901,000 $346,000 Annual Required Contribution (ARC) Est. at 6/30/16 $55,399,000 $56,779,000 $1,380,000 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 369 Lisa Driscoll February 17, 2016 Page 3 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman The enclosed Exhibits 1 and 2 show a breakdown for each affected bargaining group of the above comparison of liabilities under the current and proposed plans. The items shown above are defined as follows: The Present Value of Benefits is the present value of projected benefits (projected claims less retiree contributions) discounted at the valuation interest rate (5.70%). The Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) is the present value of benefits that are attributed to past service only. The portion attributed to future employee service is excluded. For retirees, this is equal to the present value of benefits. For active employees, this is equal to the present value of benefits prorated by service to date over service at the expected retirement age. The Normal Cost is that portion of the County provided benefit attributable to employee service in the current year. Employees are assumed to have an equal portion of the present value of benefits attributed to each year of service from date of hire to expected retirement age. The Allocated Assets is the assets we allocated to calculate the Annual Required Contribution for each bargaining unit based on their AAL relative to the total AAL. The Allocated Assets remain unchanged between the various scenarios. The Annual Required Contribution (ARC) is equal to the Normal Cost plus an amount to amortize the unfunded AAL as a level dollar amount over a period of 30 years on a “closed” basis starting January 1, 2008. There are 22 years remaining as of January 1, 2016. The Annual Expected County Explicit Subsidy is equal to the expected County contributions for the 2016 calendar year. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 370 Lisa Driscoll February 17, 2016 Page 4 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman The table below contains a 20 year projection of projected benefit payments under the current and proposed benefit plans. The projected benefit payments are net of required retiree contributions, but include the value of the implicit premium rate subsidy for non-Medicare retirees for whom the same premium rate is charged as for actives. The estimated projected benefit payments are based on employees and retirees as of the valuation date. Future employees are not reflected in the table below. Calendar Projected Benefit Payments Year Current Plan Proposed Plan Difference 2016 $ 40,958,000 $ 40,958,000 $ 0 2017 42,554,000 42,972,000 418,000 2018 43,724,000 44,096,000 372,000 2019 45,045,000 45,395,000 350,000 2020 46,271,000 46,587,000 316,000 2021 46,837,000 48,069,000 1,232,000 2022 47,504,000 48,790,000 1,286,000 2023 48,074,000 49,363,000 1,289,000 2024 48,739,000 50,045,000 1,306,000 2025 49,286,000 50,635,000 1,349,000 2026 49,459,000 50,809,000 1,350,000 2027 49,243,000 50,591,000 1,348,000 2028 48,722,000 50,054,000 1,332,000 2029 47,795,000 49,123,000 1,328,000 2030 47,271,000 48,587,000 1,316,000 2031 46,228,000 47,522,000 1,294,000 2032 45,019,000 46,289,000 1,270,000 2033 44,355,000 45,598,000 1,243,000 2034 43,408,000 44,624,000 1,216,000 2035 41,667,000 42,852,000 1,185,000 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 371 Lisa Driscoll February 17, 2016 Page 5 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman Important Notes Except where noted above, the results in this letter are based on the same data, methods, assumptions, and plan provisions that are used in the January 1, 2014 actuarial valuation report, dated August 8, 2014. Appendices A through C contain a description of the provisions, assumptions and data used in the January 1, 2014 valuation for the affected bargaining groups. In preparing our report, we relied, without audit, on information (some oral and some in writing) supplied by Contra Costa County’s staff. This information includes but not limited to employee census data, financial information and plan provisions. While Milliman has not audited the financial and census data, they have been reviewed for reasonableness and are, in our opinion, sufficient and reliable for the purposes of our calculations. If any of this information as summarized in this report is inaccurate or incomplete, the results shown could be materially affected and this report may need to be revised. All costs, liabilities, rates of interest, and other factors for the County have been determined on the basis of actuarial assumptions and methods which are individually reasonable (taking into account the experience of the County and reasonable expectations); and which, in combination, offer our best estimate of anticipated experience affecting the County. Further, in our opinion, each actuarial assumption used is reasonably related to the experience of the Plan and to reasonable expectations which, in combination, represent our best estimate of anticipated experience for the County. This analysis is only an estimate of the Plan’s financial condition as of a single date. It can neither predict the Plan’s future condition nor guarantee future financial soundness. Actuarial valuations do not affect the ultimate cost of Plan benefits, only the timing of County contributions. While the valuation is based on an array of individually reasonable assumptions, other assumption sets may also be reasonable and valuation results based on those assumptions would be different. No one set of assumptions is uniquely correct. Determining results using alternative assumptions is outside the scope of our engagement. The estimates as of January 1, 2016, are based on actual health plan premiums for 2016, but are based on census data and assumptions specified in the January 1, 2014 actuarial valuation. Furthermore, future actuarial measurements may differ significantly from the current measurements presented in this report due to such factors as the following: plan experience differing from that anticipated by the economic or demographic assumptions; changes in economic or demographic assumptions; increases or decreases expected as part of the natural operation of the methodology used for these measurements (such as the end of an amortization period); and changes in plan provisions or applicable law. Due to the limited scope of our assignment, we did not perform an analysis of the potential range of future measurements. The County has the final decision regarding the appropriateness of the assumptions and actuarial cost methods. This letter is prepared solely for the internal business use of Contra Costa County. To the extent that Milliman's work is not subject to disclosure under applicable public records laws, Milliman’s work may not be provided to third parties without Milliman's prior written consent. Milliman does not intend to benefit or create a legal duty to any third party recipient of its work product. Milliman’s consent to release its work product to any third party may be conditioned on the third party signing a Release, subject to the following exceptions: a) Contra Costa County may provide a copy of Milliman’s work, in its entirety, to the County's professional service advisors who are subject to a duty of confidentiality and who agree to not use Milliman’s work for any purpose other than to benefit the County. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 372 Lisa Driscoll February 17, 2016 Page 6 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman b) Contra Costa County may provide a copy of Milliman’s work, in its entirety, to other governmental entities, as required by law. No third party recipient of Milliman's work product should rely upon Milliman's work product. Such recipients should engage qualified professionals for advice appropriate to their own specific needs. The consultants who worked on this assignment are actuaries. Milliman’s advice is not intended to be a substitute for qualified legal or accounting counsel. The signing actuary is independent of the plan sponsor. We are not aware of any relationship that would impair the objectivity of our work. On the basis of the foregoing, we hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, the report is complete and accurate and has been prepared in accordance with generally recognized and accepted actuarial principles and practices which are consistent with the applicable Actuarial Standards of Practice of the American Academy of Actuaries. The undersigned is a member of the American Academy of Actuaries and meets the Qualification Standards of the American Academy of Actuaries to render the actuarial opinion contained herein. Sincerely, John R. Botsford, FSA, MAAA Principal and Consulting Actuary JRB:dy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 373 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman Milliman Client Report Analysis of Potential Retiree Health Benefit Changes EXHIBITS Exhibit 1. Valuation Results by County’s Bargaining Units – Current Plan Provisions The following table shows the breakdown of valuation results rolled forward to 1/1/2016 by various bargaining units within the County affected by the proposed changes. The results shown excluded groups not affected by the change (CNA, PDOCC, DSA, DAIA, L1230, and UCOA). Bargaining Unit Total PVB Current Active AAL Current Retiree AAL Total AAL Allocated Assets Normal Cost 22-Year Amortization Annual Required Contribution (all amounts shown below are in thousands) SEIU, Local 1021 $78,638 $31,321 $33,173 $64,494 $9,731 $2,062 $4,309 $6,371 AFSCME, Local 2700 144,516 60,888 61,249 122,137 18,375 3,942 8,164 12,106 Western Council of Engineers 1,714 867 371 1,238 174 60 84 144 CCC Defenders Association 5,744 1,916 2,510 4,426 666 131 296 427 AFSCME, Local 512 41,149 15,717 20,609 36,326 5,677 855 2,411 3,266 CCC Deputy District Attorneys 5,717 2,814 1,180 3,994 547 161 271 432 Probation Peace Officers CCC 26,494 14,507 5,928 20,435 2,807 931 1,387 2,318 CCC Employees' Association Local 1 208,837 87,602 86,687 174,289 25,994 5,884 11,668 17,552 IFPTE/AFL-CIO, Local 21 78,588 41,571 23,973 65,544 9,528 2,552 4,407 6,959 Management Classified & Exempt 80,161 15,756 59,308 75,064 13,459 977 4,847 5,824 Total $671,558 $272,959 $294,988 $567,947 $86,958 $17,555 $37,844 $55,399 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 374 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman Milliman Client Report Analysis of Potential Retiree Health Benefit Changes EXHIBITS Exhibit 2. Proposed Changes - Results by County’s Bargaining Units The following table shows the breakdown of results for the proposed changes by various bargaining units within the County as of January 1, 2016. Bargaining Unit Total PVB Current Active AAL Current Retiree AAL Total AAL Allocated Assets Normal Cost 22-Year Amortization Annual Required Contribution (all amounts shown below are in thousands) SEIU, Local 1021 $80,411 $31,967 $34,078 $66,045 $9,731 $2,100 $4,431 $6,531 AFSCME, Local 2700 147,841 62,203 62,855 125,058 18,375 4,022 8,394 12,416 Western Council of Engineers 1,742 884 374 1,258 174 61 85 146 CCC Defenders Association 5,849 1,951 2,558 4,509 666 133 302 435 AFSCME, Local 512 42,145 16,070 21,151 37,221 5,677 873 2,482 3,355 CCC Deputy District Attorneys 5,821 2,867 1,206 4,073 547 163 277 440 Probation Peace Officers CCC 26,979 14,750 6,047 20,797 2,807 939 1,415 2,354 CCC Employees' Association Local 1 213,459 89,528 88,755 178,283 25,994 6,005 11,982 17,987 IFPTE/AFL-CIO, Local 21 80,359 42,477 24,585 67,062 9,528 2,605 4,527 7,132 Management Classified & Exempt 81,994 16,160 60,631 76,791 13,459 1,000 4,983 5,983 Total $686,600 $278,857 $302,240 $581,097 $86,958 $17,901 $38,878 $56,779 Increase / (decrease) from Current Plan Provisions SEIU, Local 1021 $1,773 $646 $905 $1,551 $0 $38 $122 $160 AFSCME, Local 2700 3,325 1,315 1,606 2,921 0 80 230 310 Western Council of Engineers 28 17 3 20 0 1 1 2 CCC Defenders Association 105 35 48 83 0 2 6 8 AFSCME, Local 512 996 353 542 895 0 18 71 89 CCC Deputy District Attorneys 104 53 26 79 0 2 6 8 Probation Peace Officers CCC 485 243 119 362 0 8 28 36 CCC Employees' Association Local 1 4,622 1,926 2,068 3,994 0 121 314 435 IFPTE/AFL-CIO, Local 21 1,771 906 612 1,518 0 53 120 173 Management Classified & Exempt 1,833 404 1,323 1,727 0 23 136 159 Total $15,042 $5,898 $7,252 $13,150 $0 $346 $1,034 $1,380 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 375 1 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman Milliman Client Report Analysis of Potential Retiree Health Benefit Changes APPENDICES Appendix A. Summary of Benefits under Current Plan before Proposed Changes The following description of retiree health benefits is intended to be only a brief summary. For details, reference should be made to labor agreements. Eligibility Currently, employees may receive retiree health benefits if they retire from the County, are receiving a pension, and meet certain eligibility requirements as follows: General employees - age 50 with 10 years of pension service or age 70 with a vested pension, or after 30 years of pension service with no age requirement. Safety employees - age 50 with 10 years of pension service or age 70 with a vested pension, or after 20 years of pension service with no age requirement. Employees hired after December 31, 2006 and represented by the following bargaining groups (AFSCME, Deputy District Attorneys’ Association, Public Defenders Association, IFPTE, Western Council of Engineers, SEIU, PEU, Probation Peace Officers Association, and Unrepresented) also must have 15 years of County service. Health Benefits Currently, eligible retirees and their dependents are covered under the Contra Costa Health Plans, Health Net plans and Kaiser plans. Coverage may be provided for a retiree and surviving spouse as long as retiree and surviving spouse monthly premium contributions are paid. The County may pay a subsidy toward eligible retirees’ monthly medical and dental premiums. This subsidy may vary by bargaining unit and date of hire as described in this appendix. Employees hired on or after dates described in the table below and represented by the following bargaining groups must pay the entire cost of premiums to maintain coverage. Bargaining Unit Name Hire Date on or after which eligible retirees must pay entire cost of premiums IFPTE, Unrepresented January 1, 2009 AFSCME, Western Council of Engineers, SEIU, and PEU January 1, 2010 Deputy District Attorneys Association December 14, 2010 Probation Peace Officers Association of CCC January 1, 2011 CCC Public Defenders Association March 1, 2011 All surviving spouses must pay the entire cost of premiums to maintain coverage, March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 376 2 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman Milliman Client Report Analysis of Potential Retiree Health Benefit Changes APPENDICES All other Bargaining Units - County Subsidy Frozen at the 2011 Level Currently, eligible retirees from the following bargaining units listed receive County subsidies at the same amount agreed upon between the County and the Bargaining Units in 2011 towards the medical and dental premiums with no future increases to this subsidy amount. Bargaining Unit Code Bargaining Unit Name General / Safety Bargaining Unit Code Bargaining Unit Name General / Safety 1X Phys & Dnts & Optometrist Unit General JF CCC Defenders/Investigators General 2I* General K2 Property Appraisers Unit General 25 Social Services Unit General K5 Court Professional Svcs Unit General 51 Professional Engineers Unit General K6 Supervisory Clerical Unit General 99 DEFAULT BARGAINING UNIT General KK Income Maintence Program Unit General 2D Community Aide Unit General KL Engineering Technician Unit General 2I Service Line Supervisors Unit General KM Sheriff's Non-Sworn Mgmt Unit General 2R Superior Court Reporters-Ex General KU Probation Supervisors Unit Safety 3A Superior Court Clerical Unit General KZ Social Svcs Staff Special Unit General 3B Superior Court Barg Unit-Loc1 General MA District Attorneys' Unit General 3G Deputy Clerks Unit General N2 Property Appraisers Unit General 3R General Clerical Unit General PP Probation Unit of CCC Safety A8 Elected Department Heads General QA Agriculture & Animal Ctrl Unit General AJ Elected Superior Court Judges General QB LVN/Aide Unit General AM Elected Municipal Court Judges General QC Fam/Chld Svs Site Supv Unit General AS Elected Board of Supvs Members General QE Building Trades Unit General B8 Mgmt Classes-Classified & Exem General QF Deputy Public Defender Unit/At General BA General QG Deputy Public Defender Unit-In General BC Superior Court Exempt Mgmt Gen General QH Family and Children Services General BD Mgmt Classified & Ex Dept Head General QM Engineering Unit General BF Fire District (MS) Safety Mgmt Safety QP General BH Superior Ct Exempt Mgmt-DH General QS General Services & Mtce Unit General BJ Sup Ct Judicial Ofcrs Ex-Mgmt General QT Health Services Unit General BS Sheriff's Sworn Executive Mgmt Safety QV Investigative Unit General C8 Management Project-Other General QW Legal & Court Clerk Unit General CH CS Head Start Mgmt-Project General QX Library Unit General D8 Unrepresented Proj Class-Other General QY Probation Unit General F8 Unrep Classified & Exempt-Other General S2 General FC Unrep Superior Ct Clerical Exempt General Z1 Supervisory Project General FD Unrep Superior Ct Other Exempt General Z2 Non-Supervisory Project General FM Unrep Muni Ct Reporter-Exempt General ZA Supervisory Management General FR Unrep Superior Ct Reptrs-Exempt General ZB Non-Supervisory Management General FS Unrep Cl & Ex Student Workers General ZL Supervisory Nurse General FX Unrep Exempt Medical Staff General ZN Non-Supervisory Nurse General JD CCC Defenders/Attorneys General  Coded as “21” in census data. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 377 3 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman Milliman Client Report Analysis of Potential Retiree Health Benefit Changes APPENDICES Health Insurance Premium Rates (non-PEMHCA) The following table shows monthly retiree health insurance premiums for the 2016 calendar year for coverage under various health plans sponsored by Contra Costa County, and the County’s subsidies as frozen at the 2011 level for the specified bargaining groups. Medical Plan County’s Subsidy (Frozen in 2011) 2016 Premium Rate County’s Subsidy for 2016 Retiree’s Share for 2016 Contra Costa Health Plan A Retiree on Basic Plan $509.92 $709.06 $509.92 $199.14 Retiree & 1 or more dependents on Basic Plan 1,214.90 1,689.37 1,214.90 474.47 Retiree on Medicare COB Plan 420.27 326.13 326.12 0.01 Retiree & 1 dependent on Medicare COB Plan 1,035.60 652.26 652.25 0.01 Family, 1 on Medicare COB Plan, and 1 or more on Basic Plan 1,125.25 978.40 978.39 0.01 Contra Costa Health Plan B Retiree on Basic Plan 528.50 786.01 528.50 257.51 Retiree & 1 or more dependents on Basic Plan 1,255.79 1,867.68 1,255.79 611.89 Retiree on Medicare COB Plan 444.63 335.91 335.90 0.01 Retiree & 1 dependent on Medicare COB Plan 1,088.06 671.82 671.81 0.01 Family, 1 on Medicare COB Plan, and 1 or more on Basic Plan 1,171.93 1,007.72 1,007.71 0.01 Kaiser Permanente – Plan A Retiree on Basic Plan 478.91 819.43 478.91 340.52 Retiree & 1 or more dependents on Basic Plan 1,115.84 1,910.33 1,115.84 794.49 Retiree on Medicare COB Plan 263.94 296.97 263.94 33.03 Retiree & 1 dependent on Medicare COB Plan 712.79 802.02 712.79 89.23 Retiree & 2 dependents on Medicare COB Plan 1,161.65 1,305.13 1,161.65 143.48 Kaiser Permanente – Plan B Retiree on Basic Plan 478.91 656.63 478.91 177.72 Retiree & 1 or more dependents on Basic Plan 1,115.84 1,529.95 1,115.84 414.11 Retiree on Medicare COB Plan 263.94 225.18 225.17 0.01 Retiree & 1 dependent on Medicare COB Plan 712.79 608.00 607.99 0.01 Retiree & 2 dependents on Medicare COB Plan 1,161.65 988.89 988.88 0.01 Health Net HMO – Plan A Retiree on Basic Plan 627.79 1,294.30 627.79 666.51 Retiree & 1 or more dependents on Basic Plan 1,540.02 3,175.02 1,540.02 1,635.00 Retiree on Medicare Seniority Plus Plan 409.69 545.59 409.69 135.90 Retiree & 1 dependent on Medicare Seniority Plus Plan 819.38 1,091.18 819.38 271.80 Retiree & 2 dependents on Medicare Seniority Plus Plan 1,229.07 1,636.76 1,229.07 407.69 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 378 4 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman Milliman Client Report Analysis of Potential Retiree Health Benefit Changes APPENDICES Health Insurance Premium Rates (continued) Medical Plan County’s Subsidy (Frozen in 2011) 2016 Premium Rate County’s Subsidy for 2016 Retiree’s Share for 2016 Health Net HMO – Plan B Retiree on Basic Plan $627.79 $900.03 $627.79 $272.24 Retiree & 1 or more dependents on Basic Plan 1,540.02 2,207.86 1,540.02 667.84 Retiree on Medicare Seniority Plus Plan 409.69 458.02 409.69 48.33 Retiree & 1 dependent on Medicare Seniority Plus Plan 819.38 916.04 819.38 96.66 Retiree & 2 dependents on Medicare Seniority Plus Plan 1,229.07 1,374.06 1,229.07 144.99 Health Net Medicare COB Retiree only 467.13 659.04 467.13 191.91 Retiree & spouse 934.29 1,318.08 934.29 383.79 Health Net CA & Nat’l PPO – Basic Plan A Retiree on PPO 604.60 1,699.52 604.60 1094.92 Retiree & 1 or more dependents on PPO Basic Plan 1,436.25 4,037.34 1,436.25 2,601.09 Retiree on PPO Medicare Plan with Medicare Part A & B 563.17 987.65 563.17 424.48 Retiree & 1 or more dependents on PPO Medicare Plan with Medicare Part A & B 1,126.24 1,975.31 1,126.24 849.07 Health Net CA & Nat’l PPO – Basic Plan B Retiree on PPO 604.60 1,529.99 604.60 925.39 Retiree & 1 or more dependents on PPO Basic Plan 1,436.25 3,634.58 1,436.25 2,198.33 Retiree on PPO Medicare Plan with Medicare Part A & B 563.17 897.02 563.17 333.85 Retiree & 1 or more dependents on PPO Medicare Plan with Medicare Part A & B 1,126.24 1,794.04 1,126.24 667.80 Dental Plan Premiums The following table shows monthly retiree dental insurance premiums for the 2016 calendar year. County subsidies vary based on retiree’s medical plan enrollment election and bargaining unit upon retirement. Plan Monthly Premiums Delta Dental - $1,800 Annual Maximum Retiree $ 44.27 Family 100.00 Delta Care (PMI) Retiree $ 29.06 Family 62.81 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 379 5 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman Milliman Client Report Analysis of Potential Retiree Health Benefit Changes APPENDICES Appendix B. Actuarial Cost Method and Assumptions The actuarial cost method used for determining the benefit obligations is the Projected Unit Credit Cost Method. Under this method, the actuarial present value of projected benefits is the value of benefits expected to be paid for current actives and eligible retirees and is calculated based on the assumptions and census data described in this report. The Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) is the actuarial present value of benefits attributed to employee service rendered prior to the valuation date. The AAL equals the present value of benefits multiplied by a fraction equal to service to date over service at expected retirement. The Normal Cost is the actuarial present value of benefits attributed to one year of service. This equals the present value of benefits divided by service at expected retirement. Since retirees are not accruing any more service, their normal cost is zero. The actuarial value of assets is equal to the market value of assets as of the valuation date. In determining the Annual Required Contribution, the Unfunded AAL is amortized as a level dollar amount over 30 years on a “closed” basis. There are 22 years remaining in the amortization period as of January 1, 2016. The actuarial assumptions are summarized below. Economic Assumptions Discount Rate (Liabilities) 5.70% We have used a discount rate of 5.70% in this valuation to reflect the County’s current policy of partially funding its OPEB liabilities. This rate is derived based on the fund’s investment policy, level of partial funding, and includes a 2.50% long-term inflation assumption. County OPEB Irrevocable Trust assets are invested in the Public Agency Retirement Services’ Highmark Portfolio. Based on the portfolio’s target allocation (shown below), the average return of Trust assets over the next 30 years is expected to be 6.25%, which would be an appropriate discount rate if the County’s annual contribution is equal to the ARC. If the County were to elect not to fund any amount to a Trust, the discount rate would be based on the expected return of the County’s general fund (we have assumed a long term return of 3.50% for the County’s general fund). Since the County is partially funding the Trust with a contribution of $20 million per year, we used a blended discount rate of 5.70%. Asset Class Expected 1-Year Nominal Return Targeted Asset Allocation Domestic Equity Large Cap 8.14% 17.0% Domestic Equity Mid Cap 8.92% 6.0% Domestic Equity Small Cap 9.90% 8.0% U.S. Fixed Income 4.69% 38.0% International / Global Equity (Developed) 8.56% 16.0% Real Estate 8.12% 4.0% Cash 3.01% 1.0% Alternatives 5.71% 10.0% Expected Geometric Median Annual Return (30 years) 6.25% March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 380 6 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman Milliman Client Report Analysis of Potential Retiree Health Benefit Changes APPENDICES Demographic Assumptions Below is a summary of the assumed rates for mortality, retirement, disability and withdrawal, which are consistent with assumptions used in the December 31, 2012 CCCERA Actuarial Valuation. Pre / Post Retirement Mortality Healthy: For General Members: RP-2000 Combined Healthy Mortality Table projected to 2030 with Scale AA, set back one year. For Safety Member: RP-2000 Combined Healthy Mortality Table projected to 2030 with Scale AA, set back two years. Disabled: For General Members: RP-2000 Combined Healthy Mortality Table projected to 2030 with Scale AA, set forward six years for males and set forward seven years for females. For Safety Member: RP-2000 Combined Healthy Mortality Table projected to 2030 with Scale AA, set forward three years. Beneficiaries: Beneficiaries are assumed to have the same mortality as a General Member of the opposite sex who had taken a service (non-disability) retirement. Disability Age General Tier 3 Safety (All Tiers) 20 0.01% 0.02% 25 0.02% 0.22% 30 0.03% 0.42% 35 0.05% 0.56% 40 0.08% 0.66% 45 0.13% 0.94% 50 0.17% 2.54% Withdrawal – Sample probabilities of terminating employment with the County are shown below for selected years of County service. Years of Service General Safety Less than 1 13.50% 11.50% 1 9.00% 6.50% 2 9.00% 5.00% 3 6.00% 4.00% 4 4.50% 3.50% 5 4.00% 3.00% 10 2.75% 1.90% 15 2.10% 1.40% 20 or more 2.00% 1.00% March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 381 7 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman Milliman Client Report Analysis of Potential Retiree Health Benefit Changes APPENDICES Retirement – For this valuation, we have applied the Tier 3 rates for all General employees and Tier A rates for all Safety employees since nearly all current employees are in these two pension tiers. Age General Tier 3 Safety Tier A Age General Tier 3 Safety Tier A 45 0% 2% 60 15% 40% 46 0% 2% 61 20% 40% 47 0% 7% 62 27% 40% 48 0% 7% 63 27% 40% 49 0% 20% 64 30% 40% 50 4% 25% 65 40% 100% 51 3% 25% 66 40%100% 52 3% 25% 67 40%100% 53 5% 25% 68 40%100% 54 5% 25% 69 40%100% 55 10% 30% 70 40%100% 56 10% 25% 72 40%100% 57 10% 25% 73 40%100% 58 12% 35% 74 40%100% 59 12% 35% 75 100% 100% Coverage Election Assumptions Retiree Coverage – We have assumed 90% of new retirees will elect medical and dental coverage at retirement. For new retirees who were members of certain bargaining units indicated in appendix A and hired after a certain date indicated (eligible retirees must pay entire cost of premium to maintain coverage), we have assumed 50% will elect medical and dental coverage at retirement. Spouse Coverage – We have assumed 50% of new retirees electing coverage will elect spouse medical and dental coverage at retirement. Spouse Age – Female spouses are assumed to be three years younger than male spouses. Dependent Coverage – We have assumed 30% of retirees with no spouse coverage will elect coverage for a dependent child until age 65, and 50% of retirees with spouse coverage will elect coverage for a dependent child until age 65. Health Plan Election – We have assumed that new retirees will remain enrolled in the same plan they were enrolled in as actives. For actives who waived coverage, we have assumed that they will elect Kaiser plan coverage. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 382 8 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman Milliman Client Report Analysis of Potential Retiree Health Benefit Changes APPENDICES Valuation of Retiree Premium Subsidy Due to Active Health Costs The County health plans charge the same premiums for retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare as for active employees. Therefore, the retiree premium rates are being subsidized by the inclusion of active lives in setting rates. (Premiums calculated only based on retiree health claims experience would have resulted in higher retiree premiums.) GASB 45 requires that the value of this subsidy be recognized as a liability in valuations of OPEB costs. To account for the fact that per member health costs vary depending on age (higher health costs at older ages), we calculated equivalent per member per month (PMPM) costs that vary by age based on the age distribution of covered members, and based on relative cost factors by age. The relative cost factors were developed from the Milliman Health Cost GuidelinesTM. Based on the carrier premium rates and relative age cost factors assumptions, we developed age adjusted monthly PMPM health costs for 2016 to be used in valuing the implicit rate subsidy. The following tables show the age adjusted expected monthly claims cost for a male participant at age 64 for each health plan and relative age factors compared to a male age 64. Plan Monthly Age Adjusted Claims Cost for Age 64 Male Dependent Child Cost Load CCHP A $ 1,347 $ 182 CCHP B 1,656 381 Kaiser A 1,478 263 Kaiser B 1,241 256 Health Net HMO A 2,277 478 Health Net HMO B 1,745 397 Health Net PPO 2,369 393 Relative Claims Cost Factor Compared to Male age 64 Age Male Female 50 0.458 0.572 55 0.604 0.668 60 0.786 0.789 64 1.000 0.915 Since retirees eligible for Medicare (age 65 and beyond) are enrolled in Medicare supplemental plans, the premiums for retirees with Medicare are determined without regard to active employee claims experience and no such subsidy exists for this group for medical cost. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 383 9 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman Milliman Client Report Analysis of Potential Retiree Health Benefit Changes APPENDICES Medical Cost Inflation Assumption We assumed future increases to the health costs and premiums are based on the “Getzen” model published by the Society of Actuaries for purposes of evaluating long term medical trend. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, a Federal excise tax will apply for high cost health plans beginning in 2018. A margin to reflect the impact of the excise tax in future years is reflected in the assumed trend. The following table shows the assumed rate increases in future years for Medical premiums. Calendar Calendar Year Pre 65 Year Post 65 2016 5.75% 2016 6.50% 2017 6.50% 2017 – 2025 6.00% 2018 – 2020 5.75% 2026 – 2032 5.75% 2021 – 2023 6.50% 2033 6.00% 2024 – 2028 6.25% 2034 6.75% 2029 6.50% 2035 6.50% 2030 – 2035 6.25% 2036 – 2042 6.25% 2036 6.00% 2043 – 2045 6.00% 2037 – 2040 5.75% 2046 – 2051 5.75% 2041 – 2048 5.50% 2052 – 2059 5.50% 2049 – 2063 5.25% 2060 – 2070 5.25% 2064 – 2074 5.00% 2071 – 2076 5.00% 2075 – 2079 4.75% 2077 – 2081 4.75% 2080 + 4.50% 2082 + 4.50% Dental Cost We assumed Dental costs will increase 4.0% annually. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 384 10 This work product was prepared solely for the Contra Costa County for the purposes described herein and may not be appropriate to use for other purposes. Milliman does not intend to benefit and assumes no duty or liability to other parties who receive this work. Milliman recommends that third parties hire their own actuary or other qualified professional when reviewing Milliman work product. Milliman Milliman Client Report Analysis of Potential Retiree Health Benefit Changes SECTION III. APPENDICESAppendix C. Summary of Participant Data The following census of participants was used in the actuarial valuation and provided by Contra Costa County. Active Employees Age SEIU, Local 1021 AFSCME, Local 2700 Western Council of Engineers CCC Defenders Association AFSCME, Local 512 CCC Deputy District Attorneys Probation Peace Officers CCC CCC Employees' Association Local 1 IFPTE/AFL-CIO, Local 21Management Classified & Exempt Total Under 25 11 9 0 0 0 0 1 14 2 0 37 25 – 29 65 89 0 1 6 9 20 105 11 4 310 30 – 34 114 129 7 13 19 30 27 218 52 25 634 35 – 39 150 153 1 17 28 13 44 220 77 27 730 40 – 44 133 172 3 9 39 6 50 243 108 42 805 45 – 49 152 205 1 6 49 11 36 304 121 65 950 50 – 54 119 244 4 8 56 7 20 371 154 70 1053 55 – 59 98 236 1 3 38 6 8 303 149 48 890 60 – 64 75 149 1 0 20 0 4 207 91 31 578 65 & Over 27 75 0 0 4 0 3 92 32 13 246 Total 944 1,461 18 57 259 82 213 2,077 797 325 6,233 Current Retirees Age SEIU, Local 1021 AFSCME, Local 2700 Western Council of Engineers CCC Defenders Association AFSCME, Local 512 CCC Deputy District Attorneys Probation Peace Officers CCC CCC Employees' Association Local 1 IFPTE/AFL-CIO, Local 21Management Classified & Exempt Total Under 50 2 2 0 0 1 0 6 12 0 4 27 50 – 54 11 23 0 1 9 0 8 28 9 15 104 55 – 59 33 65 0 9 20 3 12 112 54 48 356 60 – 64 96 168 0 5 66 1 9 201 93 124 763 65 – 69 139 244 1 3 91 2 10 301 73 236 1100 70 – 74 112 201 2 2 48 0 6 240 16 201 828 75 – 79 69 147 1 1 38 0 3 147 5 186 597 80 – 84 46 74 2 0 37 0 0 126 0 154 439 85 & Over 65 121 3 0 28 0 0 148 0 216 581 Total 573 1,045 9 21 338 6 54 1,315 250 1,184 4,795 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes385 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/124 to approve an agreement to settle Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County et al v. Contra Costa County, No. C12-00944, litigation concerning retiree health care benefits, and AUTHORIZE County Administrator to execute the settlement agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: If the settlement is implemented, this will create a $676,000 increase in the Annual Required Contribution and a $8,593,000 increase in the total Actuarial Accrued Liability. The settlement group is entirely made up of retirees, there is no Normal Cost. BACKGROUND: Beginning in 2006, the Board approved a series of health care changes that significantly reduced the County’s liability for Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB.) In 2009, the Board approved Resolution 2009/344, which implemented certain health care changes for eligible retirees participating in the County’s health plans, other than those formerly represented by CNA or PDOCC or those participating in CalPERS health plans. These changes included, among other things, freezing the County monthly premium subsidies for retirees for all of the County medical and dental plans, not including CalPERS plans, effective June 29, 2011, at the May 2011 dollar amount. On February 24, 2012, the Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County (“RSG”) filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the County’s ability to make changes to health care for retirees. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Mary Ann Mason, Assistant County Counsel, Ann Elliott, Employee Benefits Manager, Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller D.10 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution No. 2016/124 to Approve an Agreement to Settle Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County et al v. Contra Costa County March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 386 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > Following mediation before retired Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ron Sabraw, RSG and the County have now reached a proposed settlement of the case. The RSG Board of Directors and the RSG membership have approved the Settlement Agreement. (Certification of Election Results, attached.) If the Board of Supervisors adopts Resolution 2016/124, approving the proposed settlement agreement, RSG and individually named plaintiffs will file a third amended complaint on behalf of a class of over 4,000 retirees to seek the Federal court’s approval of the settlement agreement. It is anticipated that the settlement would be finally approved in September 2016, and the lawsuit would be dismissed with prejudice in advance of the County’s open enrollment for health and dental plans for 2017. The proposed settlement agreement is attached to Resolution 2016/124. Some key aspects of the settlement agreement are summarized below, with numeric reference to the provision of the proposed agreement. Affected retirees: the class of eligible retirees receiving County retiree health benefits who retired on or before December 31, 2015. These retirees do not include retirees participating in CalPERS health plans or retirees who were represented by either the California Nurses Association or the Physicians and Dentists Organization of Contra Costa at the time of retirement. (§ 3.3, 3.14) Health Care Benefits: The County will provide the health care benefits described below to the affected retirees in the class. Pursuant to the agreement, benefits for retirees and dependents eligible to participate in Medicare differ from benefits for those retirees and dependents who are not yet eligible to participate, to acknowledge the separate health plans and lower premiums available to Medicare eligible retirees. The settlement also addresses benefits for a retiree’s survivors, that is, the retiree’s eligible dependents enrolled in County health plans at the time of the retiree’s death. (§ 3.37) Retirees Not Yet Eligible to Participate in Medicare (§ 6.1) Until they become Medicare- eligible, retirees and non-Medicare eligible dependents will continue to have access to the same County medical plan providers and plans as County employees at any point in time, with the same co-pays, premiums, and deductibles. These retirees and dependents will remain blended with County employees for purposes of medical and dental rate setting. These retirees and dependents will be placed in a three tier medical plan premium system with County employees. If the settlement agreement is finally approved by the court prior to Open Enrollment for 2017, this change would occur effective 1/1/2017. The 2011 fixed medical plan premium subsidy caps will continue to apply. Once the three tier system is implemented, the retiree only cap will apply for single coverage; the retiree plus one or more dependent cap will apply to the new Retiree Plus One Dependent tier; for the new Retiree Plus Two or More Dependents Tier, the monthly fixed medical plan premium subsidy will be increased by $ 150. The 2011 fixed dental plan premium subsidy caps will continue to apply to this group. When these retirees are eligible to participate in Medicare, they will be covered under the provisions applicable to Medicare-eligible retirees. Retirees Eligible to Participate in Medicare (§ 6.2) Retirees, for their lifetimes, and Medicare-eligible dependents will continue to have access to the same health providers as County employees at any point in time, but through the providers’ Medicare related plans. The 2011 fixed medical plan premium subsidy caps will continue to apply for the lifetimes of the retirees; effective 1/1/21, the amount of the County monthly medical plan premium subsidy cap will increase by $25 for the Medicare Retiree Only tier and for the Medicare Retiree Plus all Dependents on Medicare tier. These retirees and dependents will remain blended with County employees for purposes of dental rate setting. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 387 The 2011 dental plan premium subsidies will continue to apply. Survivors (§6.3) Those survivors not eligible to participate in Medicare will continue to have access to the same County health plan providers and plans, with the same premiums, co-pays, and deductibles as County employees at any point in time. They will remain blended with County employees for purposes of rate setting. Once eligible to enroll in Medicare, survivors will have access for their lifetimes to the same health plan providers as County employees at any point in time, but through the providers’ Medicare related plans. Such access will continue to be at the sole cost of the survivor, and the County will not pay any premium subsidies for survivors. Other Provisions All members of the class will receive notice and an opportunity to opt out of the class. (§ 7) The Retiree Support Group and Class Members will release the County from all claims alleged in the complaint and the lawsuit, and from any and all other claims that could have been brought based on the facts alleged in the third amended complaint. (§ 12) RSG will dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. The court will retain jurisdiction until June 24, 2024, to enforce the express terms of the agreement. (§ 10) Each party will bear its own costs and attorney fees. (§ 26) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not adopt Resolution No. 2016/124 approving the settlement agreement, the parties will continue to incur litigation costs. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Certification of Election Results Resolution No. 2016/124 Settlement Agreement MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/124 Correspondence Received March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 388 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 389 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 390 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 391 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 03/15/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/124 In The Matter Of: Approving Settlement Agreement in Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County et al v. Contra Costa County , No. C12-00944, litigation concerning retiree health care benefits The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors acting in its capacities as the Governing Board of the County of Contra Costa and all districts of which it is the ex-officio governing Board RESOLVES THAT: The Settlement Agreement to resolve Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County et al v. Contra Costa County, No. C12-00944, litigation concerning retiree health benefits, is approved. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached hereto. 1. The County Administrator is authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the County.2. Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Mary Ann Mason, Assistant County Counsel, Ann Elliott, Employee Benefits Manager, Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller 5 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 392 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes393 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 24 25 26 27 28 KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P. JEFFREY LEWIS, SBN 066587 j lewis@kellerohrback.com 300 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 463-3900 Facsimile: (510) 463-3901 Attorneys for Plaintiff RETIREE SUPPORT GROUP OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and the PUTATIVE CLASS HANSON BRIDGETT LLP RAYMOND F. LYNCH, SBN 119065 rlynch@hansonbridgett.com LAWRENCE M. CIRELLI, SBN 114710 lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com STEPHEN B. PECK, SBN 72214 speck@hansonbridgett.com MATTHEW J. PECK, SBN 287934 mpeck@hansonbridgett.com 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3204 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 SHARON L. ANDERSON, SBN 94814 County Counsel sharon.anderson@cc.cccounty.us MARY ANN McNF,TT MASON, SBN 115089 Assistant County Counsel Contra Costa County maryann.mason@cc.cccounty.us 651 Pine St., 9t" Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: (925) 335-1800 Facsimile: (925) 646-1078 Attorneys for Defendant CONTRA COSTA COUNTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RETIREE SUPPORT GROUP OF CONTRA CASE NO. C 12-00944 JST COSTA COUNTY, Plaintiff, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Defendant. Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT C 12-00944 JSTMarch 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 394 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i~ 18 19 20 21' 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction...........................................................................................................................1 No Admission of Liability .....................................................................................................1 Definitions.............................................................................................................................2 Conditions Precedent .............................................................................................................5 Plaintiffs' Obligations ............................................................................................................6 County's Obligations Once Agreement is Final ....................................................................7 Opt-Out Right ........................................................................................................................ 9 Preliminary Approval, Objections, and Fairness Hearing ...................................................10 Notice..................................................................................................................................10 Order, Final Approval and Dismissal ..................................................................................11 Mediation and Settlement Statements and Communications ..............................................11 Re1 eases ...............................................................................................................................12 No Third Party Beneficiaries ...............................................................................................13 Enforcement of the Agreement ...........................................................................................13 Entire Agreement ................................................................................................................15 Communications to County and RSG/Class Counsel .........................................................15 Modification........................................................................................................................16 Drafting of this Agreement .................................................................................................16 Execution in Counterparts ...................................................................................................16 Duty to Support and Defend Agreement .............................................................................16 Amounts Paid Not Penalty ..................................................................................................16 Receipt of Advice of Counsel .............................................................................................16 Power and Authority ...........................................................................................................16 Deadlines.............................................................................................................................17 Time Is Of The Essence ......................................................................................................17 Attorneys' Fees And Costs ..................................................................................................17 i ~ss~oia.~_i_ C 12-00944 JST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 395 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16~~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27. Claims Administrator .......................................................................................................... 17 28. Effective Date of the Agreement ......................................................................................... 17 <<'87012 ~ II -il- C 12-00944 JST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 396 1. Introduction. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 12. 24 25 26 27 28 11587012.7 1.1 This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by and between Plaintiff Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County ("RSG"), the Plaintiff Class Representatives to be named in a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on behalf of the Class ("Plaintiff Class Representatives"), and Defendant Contra Costa County (the "County"). County, RSG and the Plaintiff Class Representatives shall each be referred to as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties." 1.2 This Agreement applies to all eligible County retired employees receiving County retiree health benefits who retired on or before December 31, 2015 except for Excluded Retirees as defined herein ("County Retirees"). The retirees who do not opt out of the Class and receive health benefits from the County pursuant to this Agreement will be referred to herein as the "Settling Retiree Class." 1.3 This Agreement does not apply to any retirees from the County who were represented at the time they retired by the California Nurses Association ("CNA"), or by the Physicians' and Dentists' Organization of Contra Costa ("PDOCC"), or to the retirees from the County who are receiving health care coverage under the Public Employees' Medical and Health Care Act, Government Code § 22751, et. seq., ("PEMHCA"). These retirees will be referred to collectively as the "Excluded Retirees." 1.4 RSG brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court"), Civil Action No. C 12-00944 JST in which it, based on its alleged associational standing, on behalf of its members, alleged that the County promised to fund 80% or more of the cost of retiree health care benefits for at least one health plan provided by the County for the lifetime of retirees from the County and their dependents, and sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as set forth more fully in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). 1.5 The Parties now wish to effect a complete resolution and settlement of all claims, disputes and controversies that were alleged or that could have been alleged in or otherwise relate without limitation to the allegations in the SAC and TAC (hereafter collectively the "Lawsuit") by RSG and by the Class concerning the County's Health Plans and subsidies paid for such plans, as provided herein. 1.6 To effect a complete resolution and settlement of all such claims, disputes, and controversies, the Parties have agreed to stipulate to the filing of a TAC by RSG and Plaintiff Class Representatives on behalf of the Class alleging damage claims by the Class. The Parties also have agreed to a process for approving the Parties' Agreement, Certifying and Notifying the Class, and obtaining the Court's Final Approval of the Agreement, as set forth fully herein. No Admission of Liability. By agreeing to and voluntarily entering into this Agreement, County makes no admission or concession to RSG, the Plaintiff Class Representatives, or any member of the Class, direct or indirect, express or implied, as to any claims that were alleged or could have been alleged in the Lawsuit, that it promised, represented or agreed to provide County retirees lifetime or vested health care benefits of any kind whatsoever including without limitation under any Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") or County Board of Supervisors Resolution or otherwise, that it promised, represented or agreed to fund any percentage or dollar level of health care subsidy, that it promised, represented or agreed to any particular health plan structure or plan design, that it promised, represented or agreed to blend retiree -~- SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT C 12-00944 JSTMarch 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 397 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i ~ss~oiz.~ groups for rate setting purposes with County employees, or otherwise violated any contract, promises, representation, obligation, or any other federal, state, or local law, constitution, code, statute or regulation of any kind. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute or operate as an admission by County in any context that the County is required to provide lifetime or vested health care benefits, to fund any percentage or dollar level of health care subsidy, or to provide any particular health plan structure or plan designs under any MOU or County Board of Supervisor Resolution of action or in any other manner. Nor shall any Party, or its counsel, make reference to this Agreement as support for any prior or future claim against the County except as provided in Section 8 and provided that RSG may provide such information to its Board and members as is needed for approval and County may provide such information to its Board, its employees, and others as necessary for the approval. 3. Definitions. In addition to the terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: 3.1 "Agreement" or "Settlement" means this Settlement Agreement. 3.2 "Claims Administrator" means the third party administrator selected pursuant to the procedure set forth in this Agreement and approved by the Court to provide notice to the Class and process any objections and/or requests to opt out of the Settlement as provided herein. 3.3 "Class" is defined as all eligible retirees from the County receiving County retiree health benefits who have retired and eligible County employees who retire on or before December 31, 2015 except for Excluded Retirees. The Class also includes a) eligible retirees of Board of Supervisors governed special districts who are in County Health Plans and do not receive health care coverage under PEMHCA and b) eligible retirees from the Contra Costa County Superior Court who were County employees at the time of retirement and who are in County Health Plans and do not receive health care coverage under PEMHCA. "Class Member" means any member of the Class. 3.4 "Class Counsel" means the law firm of Keller Rohrback, L.L.P. 3.5 "Class Notice" means the Court- approved notice informing the Class of: (1) the terms of the Agreement; and (2) their right to object to or Opt-Out of the Agreement. 3.6 "County Health Plans" means health plans offered by the County at any point in time, excluding PEMHCA health plans. 3.7 "County Retiree" means eligible County retired employees receiving County retiree health benefits who retired on or before December 31, 2015 except for Excluded Retirees. County Retirees also includes a) eligible retirees of Board of Supervisors governed special districts who are in County Health Plans and do not receive health care coverage under PEMHCA and b) eligible retirees from the Contra Costa County Superior Court who were County employees at the time of retirement and who are in County Health Plans and do not receive health care coverage under PEMHCA. 3.8 "CNA" means the California Nurses Association. 'L' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT C 12-00944 JSTMarch 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 398 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3.9 "County" means Defendant Contra Costa County. 3.10 "Costs" means all out-of-pocket expenses in this Lawsuit and in enforcement proceedings under Section 14 of this Agreement and shall include (but not be limited to) amounts paid and payable to the Court, experts and mediators. 3.11 "County's Counsel" means Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel, and the Office of County Counsel of Contra Costa County, and Raymond F. Lynch and his firm, Hanson Bridgett LLP. 3.12 "Court" means the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 3.13 "Dispute Resolution" means the process described in Section 14 herein 3.14 "Excluded Retirees" means all retirees from the County who were represented at the time they retired by the CNA, or by the PDOCC, and the retirees who are receiving health care coverage under PEMHCA. 3.15 "Fairness Hearing" is the hearing held under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(e)(2) to determine whether the Agreement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." 3.16 "Final Approval Order" means the Order approving this Agreement by a United States District Judge after the Fairness Hearing by signature of a Court Order in a form substantially similar to that submitted by the Parties that, among other things, finally resolves all claims and causes of action alleged or that could have been alleged in the Lawsuit, attaches this Agreement as an exhibit, and has become final and for which the appeal period has expired. 3.17 "Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies" means the maximum specific dollar amount of monthly premium subsidies the County will pay by health plan provider, plan and Tier, which are listed in the column of Exhibit 2 titled "MAXIMUM FIXED MONTHLY PREMIUM SUBSIDIES" by health care provider, plan, and Tier. In the event the monthly plan premium as determined by and between the County and its health care providers for a plan year is less than the specific dollar amount of the respective Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidy, the subsidy the County will pay as the Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidy for that plan year will be one hundred percent of the monthly plan premium as determined by and between the County and its health care providers less one cent. 3.18 "Lawsuit" means Northern District of California Case No. C 12-00944 JST entitled Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County v. Contra Costa County, including without limitation the claims alleged or which could have been alleged in the Complaint, First Amended Complaint, SAC and TAC. 3.19 "Medicare Retiree Dependents" are defined as dependents of living County Retirees who are eligible for enrollment in County Health Plans and who are either participating in or eligible to participate in Medicare. 3.20 "Medicare Retirees" are defined as County Retirees who maintain continuous enrollment in County Health Plans and who are either participating in or eligible to participate in Medicare and who have retired on or before December 31, 2015, EXCLUDING all retirees represented by CNA and PDOCC at the time of retirement AND EXCLUDING all retirees who participate in Ca1PERS/PEMHCA u587o12.7 ~~ _3_ C 12-00944 JST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 399 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 l isa~oia.~ health plans. All persons listed in Exhibit 1 are also excluded from this definition unless they enroll in Medicare. 3.21 "Medicare Survivors" are def ned as a County Retiree's dependents who are enrolled in County Health Plans at the time of the Retiree's death who either participate in, or are eligible to participate in Medicare. 3.22 "MOU" means a Memorandum of Understanding between a labor organization and County. 3.23 "Non-Medicare Retiree Dependents" are defined as dependents of living County Retirees who are eligible for enrollment in County Health Plans, but are not yet eligible to participate in Medicare. A dependent child ceases to be allon-Medicare Retiree Dependent and is no longer eligible to enroll in County Health Plans at the time that he/she would be ineligible to enroll in County ~-Iealth Plans if the retiree were still a County employee. When allon-Medicare Retiree Dependent becomes eligible to participate in Medicare, he/she will cease to be allon-Medicare Retiree Dependent and will become a Medicare Retiree Dependent. Non-Medicare Retiree Dependents who are over 65 and are the spouses/domestic partners of persons listed in Exhibit 1 who were not required to enroll in Medicare will be deemed ineligible to participate in Medicare for purposes of this Agreement, unless they enroll in Medicare. 3.24 "Non-Medicare Retirees" are defined as County Retirees who maintain continuous enrollment in County Health Plans and who are not yet eligible to participate in Medicare and who have retired on or before December 31, 2015 and the persons listed on Exhibit 1, attached hereto, (which lists the roughly 90 plus retirees who were never required to and did not enroll in Medicare), EXCLUDING ALL retirees represented by CNA or PDOCC at the time of retirement, AND EXCLUDING ALL retirees who participate in Ca1PERS/PEMHCA health plans. Excepting persons listed on Exhibit 1, when allon-Medicare Retiree becomes eligible to participate in Medicare, he/she will cease to be allon-Medicare Retiree and will be a Medicare Retiree. Persons listed in Exhibit 1 are deemed ineligible to participate in Medicare for purposes of this Agreement, unless they enroll in Medicare. 3.25 "Non-Medicare Survivors" are defined as a County Retiree's dependents who are enrolled in County Health Plans at the time of the Retiree's death and who are not yet eligible to participate in Medicare. A surviving child will cease to be a Non- Medicare Survivor and will no longer be eligible to enroll in County Health Plans at the time that he/she would be ineligible to enroll in County Health Plans if the Retiree were still alive. When allon-Medicare Survivor becomes eligible to participate in Medicare, he/she will cease to be allon-Medicare Survivor and will become a Medicare Survivor. ANon-Medicare Survivor who is over age 65 and was the spouse or domestic partner of a person listed in Exhibit 1 and who was not required to enroll in Medicare will be deemed ineligible to participate in Medicare for purposes of this Agreement, unless he/she enrolls in Medicare. 3.26 "Notice Deadline" means the deadline for mailing notice as ordered by the Court as part of the Preliminary Approval process of this Agreement as provided in Section 9. 3.27 "Opt-Out" means the process by which a Class Member chooses not to be part of the "Retiree Settling Class" as provided in Section 7. 3.28 "Party" means RSG, County or Plaintiff Class Representative(s). SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT C 12-00944 JSTMarch 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 400 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 4. 23 24 25 26 27 28 3.29 "Parties" means RSG, County and Plaintiff Class Representatives(s). 3.30 "PEMHCA" means Public Employees' Medical and Health Care Act, Government Code § 22751, et. seq. 3.31 "PDOCC" means Physicians' and Dentists' Organization of Contra Costa. 3.32 "Preliminary Approval" means the initial approval by the Court of the terms of this Agreement, which shall occur prior to any notice being provided in accordance with Section 8 of this Agreement. 3.33 "Plaintiff Class Representatives" means the class representatives named in the TAC. 3.34 "RSG" means Plaintiff Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County. 3.35 "RSG Counsel" and "Class Counsel" means Jeffrey Lewis and his firm, Keller Rohrback, L.L.P. 3.36 "Settling Retiree Class" is defined as the Class or all Class Members minus the County Retirees who opt out of the Class as provided in Section 7. "Settling Retiree Class Member" means any member of the Settling Retiree Class. 3.37 "Survivor" means a retiree's eligible dependent who is enrolled in County Health Plans at the time the retiree dies. A person ceases to be a "Survivor" at such time as he/she would not be eligible to enroll in County Health Plans if the retiree were still alive. 3.38 "SAC" means the Second Amended Complaint in this Lawsuit. 3.39 "TAC" means the Third Amended Class Complaint to be filed by RSG, and by Plaintiff Class Representatives on behalf of the Class, the filing of which is stipulated to for settlement purposes only, which seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint herein and additionally alleges damages on behalf of the Class referred to in Paragraphs 4.3 and 5.1.2. 3.40 "Tier" refers to grouping of health care recipients which health plan providers utilize to determine health care premium rates for their health care plans. County's health care plans currently utilize a Two Tier structure for Non-Medicare Retirees: Retiree and Retiree Plus Family. County is in the process of attempting to implement a Three Tier structure for Non-Medicare Retirees: Retiree; Retiree Plus One Dependent; and Retiree Plus Two Or More Dependents. Conditions Precedent. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, each of County's Obligations under Section 6 are prospective only and conditioned upon and do not become operative until the occurrence of all of the following condition precedent events: 4.1 The Agreement is approved by the RSG Board and membership of RSG in conformity with RSG's Bylaws, is executed on behalf of RSG, and RSG provides to the County a notarized certification under penalty of perjury from an authorized officer of RSG that the RSG membership vote on the Agreement is in compliance with RSG's Bylaws and that the officer of RSG signing the Agreement and certification has the authority to execute them on behalf of RSG. i ~ss~o~z.~-5- C 12-00944 JST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 401 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4.2 The Agreement is approved by the County's Board of Supervisors after RSG's Board and membership approval. 4.3 The filing and service of the TAC. A draft of the TAC shall be provided to County's Counsel for input before filing. 4.4 The filing by Class Counsel of a motion with the Court ("the Preliminary Approval Motion") seeking an order approving the filing of the TAC, preliminarily approving the TAC, setting a date for the Final approval hearing, approving the Class Notice (in the form agreed by the Parties) and setting out the procedure for objecting to or opting out of the Settlement. The motion shall provide that if the settlement fails to be approved by the Court, then the County retains all rights to object to the maintenance of an action as a class action and the Lawsuit shall resume based on the SAC as of July 30, 2015 as provided in Paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4. 4.5 The obtaining of Preliminary approval of this Agreement, Certification of the Class and approval of the Class Notice and the procedures for providing that notice to the Class, and the sending of notice to the Class in accordance with the procedures for providing notice approved by the Court. 4.6 A Fairness Hearing is held by the Court to grant Final Approval of the Agreement in accordance with Section 10 below. 4.7 The Court approves the Agreement after a Fairness Hearing has been conducted, and enters a Final Approval Order which finally resolves and releases all claims and causes of action alleged or that could have been alleged in the Lawsuit in accordance with the terms set forth in Sections 10 and 12, the Final Approval Order has become final, no appeal of the Final Approval Order or other order relating to the Parties' settlement has been filed or is pending, and the time for appeal has expired. 5. Plaintiffs' Obligations. 5.1 RSG, the Plaintiff Class Representatives, and RSG and Class Counsel shall: 5.1.1 Cooperate with County and County's Counsel and use their best efforts to achieve a complete settlement of all claims by the Class and RSG in accordance with this Agreement. 5.1.2 Prepare and seek leave to file the TAC by Plaintiff RSG and Plaintiff Class Representatives on behalf of the Class which seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as alleged in the SAC and additionally alleges damages on behalf of the Class, and submit it to County's Counsel for review and stipulation for filing for settlement purposes only. 5.1.3 Move for the certification of the Class, preliminary approval of the Settlement, and approval of the Class Notice as provided in Sections 8 and 9. 5.1.4 Seek a Fairness Hearing and Final Approval Order as provided in Sections 8, 9 and 10. 5.1.5 Provide releases by RSG and by the Settling Retiree Class of all claims, disputes and controversies that were alleged or that could have been alleged in or otherwise relating to the allegations in the Lawsuit and concerning the 1 ~587012.~ II _6_ C 12-00944 JST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 402 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11~87012J County's Health plans and subsidies paid for such plans, as provided in Sections 10.2 and 12. 6. County's Obligations Once Agreement is Final. Subject to its right to void the Agreement under Section 7, and subject to the Conditions Precedent in Section 4, County agrees to the following obligations to the Settling Retiree Class: 6.1 To Non-Medicare Retirees Eligible to Participate: 6.1.1 Provide Non-Medicare Retirees and Non-Medicare Retiree Dependents, until such time as they are eligible to participate in Medicare, access to the same health plan providers and the same health plans that County provides for County employees. 6.1.2 Non-Medicare Retirees, and their Non-Medicare Dependents shall remain blended with County employees not participating in Ca1PERS/PEMHCA health plans for purposes of rate setting. The respective plan premiums, co- pays, and deductibles shall be the same for these groups as set forth in County's Health Plans For its employees at any point in time, until such time as the Non-Medicare Retirees have become eligible to participate in Medicare. 6.1.3 Pay the Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies for health plans by provider and plan until such time as the Non-Medicare Retirees are eligible to participate in Medicare and subject to Paragraph 6.2. For the limited number of retirees not required to enroll in Medicare, listed on Exhibit 1, pay such Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies for the lifetimes of these retirees, unless they enroll in Medicare. Each of the Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies are fixed and shall not increase, except as provided in Paragraph 6.1.6 herein. 6.1.4 Effective on January 1, 2017, if and only if all of the conditions precedent in Section 4 are met, and if and only if a Three Tier health premium system is in effect for the majority of County employees in County Health Plans, implement a Three Tier premium structure for all of the Non-Medicare Retirees: Retiree, Retiree Plus One Dependent, and Retiree Plus Two Or More Dependents, until such time as all of the Non-Medicare Retirees have become eligible to participate in Medicare. 6.1.5 Effective January 1, 2017, if and only if all of the conditions precedent in Section 4 are met, and if and only if a Three Tier system is in effect for the majority of County employees in County Health Plans, for all of Non- Medicare Retirees, pay the various Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies for "retiree only" by plan; for Retiree Plus One Dependent pay the various Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies for "retiree and one or more dependents" by plan; for Retiree Plus Two Or More Dependents pay the various Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies for "retiree and one or more dependents" by plan, as increased by Paragraph 6.1.6 herein. 6.1.6 After all conditions precedent in Section 4 are met, County shall increase the Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidy amount for the Retiree Plus Two or More Dependents Tier (defined as Tier III) by $150 on the first day -7_ C 12-00944 JST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTMarch 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 403 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~ us~oiz.~ of the plan year in which a three Tier premium structure is implemented, following County's Open Enrollment, for all of the Non-Medicare Retirees in County Health Plans. This will not increase the Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidy for any dental plan provided to any such retiree. 6.1.7 Retirees shall remain blended with County employees for purposes of setting dental plan rates and the respective plan premiums, and County will continue to pay the Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidy amount for dental plans by provider and plan as shown on Exhibit 2. 6.1.8 If County replaces an existing health plan provider or an existing health plan with a new health plan provider and/or health plan for active County employees, Non-Medicare Retirees and Non-Medicare Retiree Dependents shall have access to such new providers and/or plans. The County subsidy for new medical plans shall be the same as the Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidy amount for Kaiser Permanente Basic Plan B subsidies shown on Exhibit 2, except that the subsidy for the Retiree Plus Two or More Dependents Tier will be increased as provided in Paragraph 6.1.6 herein. The County subsidies for new dental plans shall be the same as the Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidy amounts for dental plans with Kaiser Permanente Plans shown on Exhibit 2. 6.2 To Medicare Retirees Eligible To Participate: 6.2.1 Provide Medicare Retirees and their Medicare Retiree Dependents access to the same health providers that County provides for County employees for the lifetimes of the Medicare Retirees, but to those providers' Medicare supplemental and Coordination of Benefits ("COB") plans offered by the County, such as the Kaiser-Senior Advantage Plan. 6.2.2 Provide the same Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies for the Medicare supplemental and COB plans for the lifetimes of the Medicare Retirees, except as provided in paragraph 6.2.3 6.2.3 Effective January 1, 2021, and continuing for the lifetimes of the Medicare Retirees increase the amount of the County monthly Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidy shown on Exhibit 2 for medical plans by $25 for Medicare Retirees with no dependents and for Medicare Retirees with all dependents on Medicare. 6.2.4 Retirees shall remain blended with County employees for purposes of setting dental plan rates and the respective plan premiums, and County shall continue to pay the Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidy for dental plans by provider and plan shown on Exhibit 2. 6.2.5 If County replaces an existing health plan provider or an existing Medicare supplemental or COB plan with a new provider and/or plan for Medicare Retirees, then Medicare Retirees and Medicare Retiree Dependents shall have access to such new providers and/or plans. The subsidies for new Medicare supplemental and COB plans shall be the same as the current Kaiser B subsidies shown on Exhibit 2 for Kaiser Senior Advantage Plan B and combination plans, except that these subsidies shall be increased as provided in Paragraph 6.2.3. The subsidies for new dental plans shall be the same as the Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidy amounts for dental plans with the Kaiser Permanente Plan shown on Exhibit 2. -R- C 12-00944 JST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 404 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6.3 To Survivors: 6.3.1 County shall not pay a premium subsidy for any health plan for any Medicare or Non-Medicare Survivor of any deceased retiree. 6.3.2 Provided that the Non-Medicare Survivors maintain continuous enrollment in County Health Plans, County shall provide the Non-Medicare Survivors of a deceased retiree access, until the Survivors are eligible to participate in Medicare, to the same County Health Plan providers and blended rates referenced in Paragraphs 6.1.1 and 6.1.2. Such access will be at the sole cost of the Survivor. 6.3.3 Provided that the Medicare Survivors maintain continuous enrollment in County Health Plans, the County will provide the Medicare Survivors of a deceased retiree access, for their lifetimes, to the same health plan providers and Medicare supplemental and COB plans offered to Medicare Retirees referenced in Paragraph 6.2.1. Such access will be at the sole cost of the Survivor. 7. Opt-Out Right. 7.1 Any Class Member may request exclusion from the Class for purposes of settlement. Class Members who wish to opt-out of the Class for purposes of the Settlement must submit a written and signed request for exclusion from the Settlement ("Opt-Out Statement") to the Claims Administrator. Opt-Out Statements must be postmarked and mailed to the Claims Administrator not later than sixty (60) calendar days after the Notice Deadline set by the Court, must include the Class Member's name and current contact information, and must affirmatively state that the Class Member does not want to be covered by the Settlement. 7.2 The Claims Administrator shall stamp the date received on the original of any Opt- Out Statement it receives and serve copies of the Opt-Out Statement on Class Counsel and County's Counsel not later than five (5) business days after receipt thereof and shall file the date-stamped originals of any Opt-Out Statements with the Court not later than ten (10) business days prior to the date set for the Fairness Hearing. The Claims Administrator shall retain copies of all Opt-Out Statements in its files until such time as the Claims Administrator is relieved of its duties and responsibilities under this Agreement. 7.3 If the number of Class Members opting out of the Agreement in the manner provided in this Agreement exceeds five percent (5%) of the total number of eligible Class Members, then County, at its sole option and discretion, shall have the right to void this Agreement by electronically filing a Notice of its decision to void the Agreement in the Lawsuit until the thirtieth (30th) day after the Court requires individuals to return all Opt-Out Statements. 7.4 If County exercises its option to void the Agreement, all of the Parties' obligations under this Agreement shall cease to be of any force and effect, and the Agreement and any orders entered in connection therewith shall be vacated, rescinded, cancelled, and annulled, and the Parties shall return to the status quo in the Lawsuit as if the Parties had not entered into the Agreement, including resumption of the case based on the SAC as of July 30, 2015. In addition, the Agreement and all negotiations, Court orders and proceedings relating thereto shall be without prejudice to the rights of any and all Parties hereto, and evidence relating to the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT C 12-00944 JSTMarch 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 405 2 3 4 8. 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Agreement and all negotiations shall be protected in accordance with Federal Rules of Evidence 408 and shall not be admissible, discoverable or used in any manner in the Lawsuit. Preliminary Approval, Objections, and Fairness Hearing. 8.1 Promptly after execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall cooperate to file by March 17, 2016, a motion seeking orders Granting Preliminary Approval of this Agreement, Authorizing the Filing of the Third Amended Complaint, Preliminarily Certifying the Class for Settlement Purposes Only, and Approving the Proposed Form of Notice and Plan for Providing Notice Submitted by the Parties. 8.2 Any Class Member may object to the proposed Agreement by filing, within sixty (60) days after the Notice Deadline set by the Court, written objections with the Court as provided by the Court's Order of Preliminary Approval of Settlement. 8.3 Responses by County Counsel and Class Counsel to any timely-filed objections shall be made no less than five (5) business days before the Fairness Hearing as provided by the Court's Order. 8.4 The Parties shall use their best efforts to schedule a Fairness Hearing, and to request the Court to issue a Final Approval Order as provided in Section 10. 9. Notice. After the Court enters its order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement, all Class Members shall be provided with the Class Notice (updated to reflect the order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement and any dates and deadlines set by the Court) by the Claims Administrator as follows: 9.1 Within fifteen (15) calendar days after the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement, County shall provide to the Claims Administrator a list of Class Members, and their then-current or last known addresses. 9.2 On or before the Notice Deadline, the Claims Administrator shall mail the Class Notice to all Class Members via first-class regular U.S. Mail, using the address information provided by the County. 9.3 If any Class Notice is returned as undeliverable within thirty (30) calendar days of the mailing of the Class Notice with a forwarding address, the Claims Administrator shall have seven (7) calendar days to re-mail a Class Notice to the forwarding address. If any Class Notices are returned as undeliverable within thirty (30) calendar days of the mailing of the Class Notice without a forwarding address, the Settlement Administrator shall have seven (7) calendar days from receipt of the returned Class Notice to conduct a search for a more current address for the Class Member and to re-mail a Class Notice to the Class Member. The Claims Administrator shall be responsible for taking all reasonable steps to trace the mailing address of any Class Member for whom a Class Notice is returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. These reasonable steps will include, at a minimum, the tracking of all undelivered mail, performing an address search for all mail returned without a forwarding address, and promptly re-mailing the Class Notice to Class Members for whom new addresses are found. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT C 12-00944 JSTMarch 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 406 O C~ 7 8 9 10 11 12 10. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 11. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9.4 The Claims Administrator shall provide weekly status reports to counsel for the Parties, including: (a) the number of Class Notices mailed; and (b) the number of Opt-Out Statements received. 9.5 No later than fourteen (14) calendar days before the Final Approval Hearing, the Claims Administrator shall serve on Class Counsel and the County's counsel, for filing with the Court in support of Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the Settlement, a declaration setting forth its compliance with this section of this Agreement, and attaching all Opt-Out forms that it has received, together with envelopes showing the date on which each Opt-Out form was postmarked. 9.6 The Class Settlement Notice, and the Plan for Providing Notice must satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and must be approved by the Court. In Plaintiff Class Representatives' motion for preliminary approval of the Agreement, the Plaintiff Class Representatives shall propose a deadline for the Class Administrator to send the Class Settlement Notice ("Notice Deadline") and the proposed Notice Deadline shall be as soon as reasonably practicable. Order, Final Approval and Dismissal. 10.1 At the time of the Fairness Hearing, the Parties shall ask the Court to enter the Final Approval Order in a form agreeable to the Parties granting Final Approval of this Agreement and Finally Certifying the Class for Settlement Purposes Only. 102 The Final Approval Order shall attach this Agreement as an exhibit, and shall provide for the Releases of All Claims by RSG and the Settling Retiree Class pursuant to Section 12, and shall dismiss with prejudice any claims alleged by RSG for or on behalf of retired County employees represented by CNA and PDOCC at the time of retirement and retired County employees who participate in Ca1PERS/PEMHCA health plans. 10.3 The Lawsuit shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the Final Approval Order is filed; provided, however, without affecting the finality of the terms of this Agreement or the Final Approval Order, the Court shall retain jurisdiction only until June 30, 2024 for the sole and limited purpose of enforcing the express terms of this Agreement by the Parties as set forth in Section 14. The continuing jurisdiction provided by this Paragraph does not extend to any obligation not expressly created by this Agreement. Mediation and Settlement Statements and Communications. 11.1 The parties, Counsel for RSG and Counsel for the County agree that all oral or written statements and communications made since July 23, 2015 by the parties or their counsel in the mediation or after the mediation, related to the mediation or to the implementation of the mediated settlement, are neither admissible nor discoverable in any action, nor may they be used in any way in the Lawsuit in the event the settlement is not fully implemented, is not approved by RSG, the County, or the Court, or is rejected by the County as provided in Section 7. The agreement in this paragraph shall terminate when and if the settlement is not fully implemented, is not approved by RSG, the County, or the Court, or is rejected by the County as provided in Section 7; provided, however, that statements and communications made after July 23, 2015 and before such termination are neither admissible or discoverable, nor may they be used in any way in the Lawsuit. i iss~ola.~-1 1- C 12-00944 JST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 407 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i iss~oiz.~ 11.2 If this Agreement is approved by the Court in the Final Approval Order, this Agreement will be admissible in evidence in any civil action or proceeding to enforce the terms of this Agreement. 12. Releases. 12.1 Release of All Claims. 12.1.1 Effective on the date of the Final Approval Order, RSG, its predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, officers, directors, and employees and Plaintiff Class Representatives, on behalf of the Settling Retiree Class, and each of their respective spouses, dependents, survivors, executors, successors, heirs, assigns, administrators, agents and representatives (collectively, the "Releasing Parties") in consideration of the relief set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, unconditionally and forever do fully and finally release, acquit, and forever discharge County, including but not limited to its Board of Supervisors, departments, officials, officers, agents, attorneys, insurers, and employees, their predecessors, successors, and assigns, and any other person or persons, entity or entities of any kind whatsoever for whose actions, representations, or omissions County may be legally responsible and/or who were involved with the County's health plan in the provision of health care to its retirees in any way whatsoever from the Released Claims as defined in Paragraph 12.1.2 ("Released Parties"); provided, however, that Released Parties do not include any County Health Plan providers with which County contracts to provide health care at any point in time, as distinct from the County. 12.1.2 The "Released Claims" are all claims that were alleged or could have been alleged in the Lawsuit by the Releasing Parties, including without limitation, any and all claims, rights, demands, charges, complaints, obligations, actions, debts, suits and causes of action, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, for past or future injuries or damages, including without limitation, injunctive, declaratory or equitable relief, or monetary damages of any kind, including without limitation, statutory, actual, compensatory, consequential, special, or punitive however described, based on actions, representations, or omissions preceding Final Approval of this Agreement arising out of or relating in any way to any of the legal, factual, or other allegations made in the Lawsuit, or any legal theories that could have been raised based on the allegations of the Lawsuit that relate in any way to the health care provided by the County to the Releasing Parties under law, contract, policy, practice, legislation or statute, including without limitation claims under federal, state, or local constitutions, statutes, codes, regulations, or resolutions, any claims that the County promised or guaranteed to pay a certain percentage of subsidy for retiree health care, or to treat retirees the same as current County employees with respect to health care subsidies. and any claims under any MOU, contract, tort or common law of any kind, or otherwise. 12.1.3 The Parties agree that the releases described in Section 12 shall be construed broadly and to the fullest extent permitted by law, and that the Final Approval Order will be fully binding and effective for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel upon the Releasing Parties with respect to claims described in Paragraph 12.1.2. 12.1.4 Section 1542 Waiver of Known or Unknown Claims. The Releasing Parties SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT C 12-00944 JSTMarch 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 408 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 understand and expressly agree that this Agreement extends to all Released Claims of every nature and kind, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, past, present, or future, arising from or attributable to any act, conduct, policy, practice, contract of County, whether known by the Releasing Parties or whether or not any Releasing Party believes he or she may have any claims, and that any and all rights granted to the Releasing Party under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code or any analogous state law or federal law or regulations, are hereby expressly WAIVED. Said Section 1542 of the California Civil Code reads as follows: A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. 13. No Third Party Beneficiaries. 13.1 Each of the Parties' intent is to confer only the rights, benefits and remedies expressly provided in this Agreement upon the Retiree Settlement Class, RSG, the Plaintiff Class Representatives, County, any Survivors, or any person specified in a valid Court approved Qualified Medical Child Support Order ("QMCSO Beneficiary") only. Each of the Parties specifically decline to provide any rights, benefits or remedies, of any kind whatsoever, to any other persons or entities, whatsoever, under either this Agreement or the Final Approval Order. 13.2 Only the Parties, members of the Settling Retiree Class, Survivors, or a QMCSO Beneficiary may seek to enforce the terms of this Agreement through the process provided for in Section 14 of this Agreement. 14. Enforcement of the Agreement. Any proceedings to enforce the express terms of this Agreement by the Parties, Settling Retiree Class members, Survivors or a QMCSO Beneficiary as approved in the Final Approval Order shall be brought under the procedures described in Section 14 only until June 30, 2024. Such proceedings shall follow the procedure described in Paragraph 14.1 and if no resolution is reached, the procedure described in Paragraph 14.2 shall be followed: 14.1 Informal Resolution: 14.1.1 Any Party seeking enforcement of the express terms of this Agreement shall notify the other Parties and provide a written statement identifying the express term of the Agreement allegedly not complied with, the factual and legal basis upon which enforcement is sought, and the specific relief sought (the "Party Notice"). The other Parties shall respond in writing to the Party Notice within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of the Party Notice ("Response To Party Notice"). 14.1.2 Any Settling Retiree Class member, Survivor, or QMCSO Beneficiary seeking enforcement of the express terms of this Agreement shall first provide RSG and the other Parties with a written statement identifying the express term of the Agreement allegedly not complied with, the factual and legal basis upon which enforcement is sought, and the specific relief sought ~ ~~8~~t2.~ (I -13_ C 12-00944 JST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 409 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ("Non-Party Notice To RSG"). RSG shall decide whether it will pursue enforcement within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of the Non-Party Notice To RSG. If RSG decides it will pursue enforcement, it will notify the other Parties and provide them with a Party Notice as described in Paragraph 14.1.1. The other Parties will each provide their response to the Party Notice within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of the Party Notice. If RSG declines to pursue enforcement of the Non-Party Notice To RSG, or has taken no action to pursue enforcement of the Non-Party Notice To RSG within forty-five (45) calendar days of the receipt of the Non-Party Notice To RSG, the Settling Retiree Class member, Survivor, or QMCSO Beneficiary may seek enforcement by providing all Parties with a written statement identifying the express term of the Agreement allegedly not complied with, the factual and legal basis upon which enforcement is sought, the specific relief sought, and a statement that RSG has been asked to seek enforcement and has either declined or has not timely acted to seek enforcement (the "Non-Party Notice"). Any Party desiring to respond shall do so in writing within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of the Non-Party Notice (Response To Non-Party Notice"). 14.1.3 Within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of a Response To Party Notice under Paragraph 14.1.1 or a Response To Non-Party Notice under Paragraph 14.1.2, counsel for the Parties, and any Settling Retiree Class Member, Survivor or QMCSO Beneficiary providing allon-Party Notice shall meet and confer by telephone or in person and attempt to resolve the enforcement issue informally. 14.1.4 If the meet and confer under Paragraph 14.1.3 has been completed and does not result in resolution of the alleged enforcement issue, any Party may request mediation. The other Parties shall in good faith consider whether a mediation should be conducted using an agreed neutral of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services. The Parties shall participate in a mediation only if all Parties agree to participate in a mediation. 14.1.5 Any Party, Survivor, Settling Retiree Class member, or QMCSO Beneficiary who invokes the procedures set forth in this Section 14 shall be responsible for their own attorney's fees and costs at all stages of such procedures, including without limitation all attorney's fees and Costs in any mediation. No Party shall be required to pay any attorney's fees or Costs of any other Party or of any Survivor, Class Member, or QMSCO Beneficiary. 142 Submission to the Court: 14.2.1 If the Informal Resolution process pursuant to Paragraph 14.1 of this Agreement has been completed and does not result in a resolution of the alleged enforcement issue within a reasonable time not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days, any Party, Settling Retiree Class member, Survivor or QMCSO Beneficiary may make a motion in this Lawsuit seeking resolution of the dispute over the enforcement of the express terms of this Agreement by Judge Jon S. Tigar or any other United States District Judge in the Northern District who may be assigned to the Lawsuit ("Enforcement ~ ~ss7o~2.~ II _14_ C 12-009441ST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 410 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 'I 15. 15 16 16. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Motion"). Such an Enforcement Motion shall be the sole means of enforcement of any claim based on the express terms of-this Agreement through the period ending June 30, 2024. 14.2.2 Unless a different time or schedule is agreed to by the Parties and the Court, an Enforcement Motion shall provide the Parties and any other persons responding to it at least sixty (60) calendar days notice in advance of the hearing date. The Parties and any persons responding to the Enforcement Motion shall file their response to the Enforcement Motion at least fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the hearing date. 14.2.3 In the event a Party, Settling Retiree Class member, Survivor, or QMCSO Beneficiary seeks enforcement by the Court of the express terms of this Agreement, each Party, Settling Retiree Class member, Survivor or QMCSO Beneficiary shall each be responsible for their own attorney's fees and Costs at all stages of any such enforcement proceeding, including without limitation all attorney's fees and Costs in any Court proceeding No Party shall be required to pay any attorney's fees or Costs of any other Party or of any Settling Retiree Class member, Survivor or QMCSO Beneficiary. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the full agreement of the Parties and supersedes any and all other prior agreements and all negotiations leading up to the execution of this Agreement, whether oral or in writing, between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of the present Agreement, including without limitation the Interim Mediated Settlement Agreement In Principle. No additional promises or representations, express or implied, not contained in this Agreement have been made by any of the Parties, or any agent or employee of any of the Parties, other than what is expressly contained in this Agreement. Communications to County and RSG/Class Counsel. All notices or communications required by this Agreement shall be in writing by facsimile and U.S. Mail or overnight delivery service addressed as follows: 16.1 To Named Class Plaintiffs, RSG and Class Counsel or the Class: Jeffrey Lewis Keller Rohrback, L.L.P. 300 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 463-3900 Fax: (510) 463-3901 To County: Raymond F. Lynch Hanson Bridgett LLP 525 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Fax: (415) 541-9366 u 587012.7 ( -15- C 12-00944 JST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTMarch 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 411 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. 8 9 10 18. 12 13 14 19. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11587012.7 20. ~I 21. 22. 23. and Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: (925) 335-1800 Fax: (925)646-1078 Each of the Parties may change the individuals to whom notices and communications required by this Agreement shall be sent by providing the other Party with written notification that it wishes to do so. Modification. Prior to the Court's entry of the Final Approval Order, this Agreement can only be amended by written agreement of each the Parties hereto. Following entry of the Final Approval Order, no modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless agreed to in a written agreement by each of the Parties and approved by Court Order. Drafting of this Agreement. This Agreement is deemed to have been drafted by each of the Parties hereto, as a result of arm's length negotiations among the Parties. Whereas each of the Parties has contributed to the preparation of this Agreement, it shall not be construed more strictly against one Party than another. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by each of the Parties hereto in separate counterparts, and all such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same agreement. Duty to Support and Defend Agreement. Each of the Parties agrees to abide by all of the terms of this Agreement in good faith and to support it fully, and each shall use their best efforts to defend this Agreement from any legal challenge, whether by appeal or collateral attack. Amounts Paid Not Penalty. It is understood that no amount paid or expended by County in its performance of this Agreement constitutes a penalty, fine, punitive damages, or other form of assessment for any alleged claim or offense. Receipt of Advice of Counsel. Each of the Parties acknowledges and warrants to each other that they have fully read this Agreement, have received independent legal advice from their respective counsel regarding the advisability of entering into this Agreement, and fully understand its effect. Power and Authority. Each of the Parties represents that they have the power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and to perform the obligations hereunder, and that each person executing SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT C 12-00944 JSTMarch 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 412 24. 8 25. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 26. 20 21 22 27. 23 24 25 26 28. 27 28 i 1sa~oi2.~ this Agreement on each Party's behalf has been authorized to sign on behalf of the respective Party and to bind each to the terms of this Agreement. Deadlines. With regard to the provisions of this Agreement that require that certain acts be taken within specified periods, each of the Parties understands and agrees that Court approval shall not be required for reasonable extensions of deadlines. In the event that any Party determines that an action required by this Agreement cannot be taken within the specified time period, that Party shall promptly notify each of the other Parties that it anticipates a delay, the reasons for the delay and a proposed alternative deadline. Each of the Parties shall endeavor to cooperate in reasonably rescheduling such deadlines. However, if each of the other Parties does not agree to the proposed delay, the Parties shall submit the matter to Dispute Resolution. Time Is Of The Essence. Each of the Parties agrees that time is of the essence in the implementation of this Agreement. To that end, the Parties agree to use best efforts as follows: 25.1 RSG and Plaintiff Class Representatives shall provide to the County, by March 8. 2016 or as soon thereafter as possible, a notarized certification under penalty of perjury from an authorized RSG officer that the RSG membership vote to approve the Agreement is in compliance with RSG's Bylaws, and the officer of RSG signing the Agreement and certification has the authority to execute them on behalf of RSG. 25.2 The County, by March 15, 2016, or as soon thereafter as possible, shall obtain Board of Supervisors approval of the Agreement. 25.3 The Parties, by April 7, 2016, or as soon thereafter as possible, shall obtain Court orders (1) preliminarily approving the Agreement, (2) authorizing the filing of the TAC, (3) certifying the Class, and (4) approving a Class Notice. 25.4 The Parties, by September 30, 2016, or as soon thereafter as possible, shall obtain the Court's Final Approval Order. Attorneys' Fees And Costs. Each Party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs incurred in or otherwise related to the Lawsuit, including without limitation all attorney's fees and costs in connection with the mediation, negotiation, preparation, implementation and approval of the Agreement. Claims Administrator. County will pay all fees and costs of the Claims Administrator, including without limitation the cost of preparing and mailing the Class Notice. County will select the Claims Administrator subject to the approval of RSG and Class Counsel provided such approval will not be unreasonably withheld. Effective Date of the Agreement. This Agreement will be effective on the date the last Party executes it. For Plaintiff Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County: -~ ~- SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT C 12-00944 JSTMarch 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 413 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 1l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18'' 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 f 7 I i%' ~ ^) Dated: ~~ f ~_ ~ 1 , , 2016 t - ~- ~ ~ .~ . Ellis R. Patterson. Chair of Retiree Support CTroup of Contra Costa County 1 i ~8~~ i2.~ ( I _ 1 g_ C 12-00944 JST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 414 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 24 25 26 ~~ ~g Dated: March , ?016 Dated: March , 2016 Dated: March , 2016 Dated: March , ?016 Dated: Mareh , 2016 ~ Dated: March _, X016 Dated: Approved~As To Form Only: ~ ~ ,~ ' ,,~..,y,,.d., For Plaintiff Class: __._ Michael Sloan, Plaintiff Class Representative On Behalf Of the Class Alyn D. Goldsmith, Plaintiff Cass Representative On Behalf Of the Class Deborah F.lite, Plaintiff Class Representative On Behalf Of the Class Billie Jo Wilson Elkin, Plaintiff Class Representative On Behalf Of the Class Susanne Beadle, Plaintiff Class Representative On Behalf Of the Class Plaintiff Class Representative On Behalf Of the Class F'or Contra Costa County: ?016 David Twa, Chief Administrative Officer Countv of Contra Costa Jeffr~~ Lewis ,_~ Keller R~hrback, L.L.P. Attorneys for Ketiree Support Uroup of Contra Costa County and Class Counsel ~ ~sx~o>>.~ ~ _ -19- c 12-oo9aa ~s~r SL'TTLEMENT AGREEMENT March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 415 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Approved As To Form Only: Raymond F. Lynch Hanson Bridgett LLP Attorneys for Contra Costa County Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel By: Mary Ann McNett Mason Assistant County Counsel, Contra Costa County t X587012.7 I) _20_ C 12-00944 JST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 416 EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 1 Non-Medicare Retirees Not Required To Participate In Medicare ~ z ramie ~.~~ sa~~ese ~ y~e Ica ..O Ga•~fY1~.4.s2tl~~'"a'GSa3 19f3?~ ,y ~::nie~~ n.__~m~8voker~~~ -aT~E?a_._~ ~q ~ -...~ -c 6~mrr±~an 19~s'4 ~3 -.gym, ...«,......~FC1Nt1 ~E. ~E4f •3 S~`~°........ ~ 9~-S':i r ''33R Cy'C,I Ri:;''LS ~SCi~`Sdu J .3attts r'~'.~.z~y ~`'S~1 9 3 ~ab~a~SSS Cc~~.an ' "a~ ~.. a3 ~c nr,G~~ tl~auux Sa t'._~-~'a~ecso €}~C7c~naYo ;t ~5 - - ~ ~~~ C1~8e:1~>~$7 t~,t_ y J~do~an t3~~J ____~,sacax~~>nz~j ..._z5~~~s H~maent3vtyn G~tvrsr~..3J5.~'.2 lre^.e ~F-r_~...~_5313 25 ~`~o~rt~.s'.d ~a'I~re '1877 ~i; ;7 ~ ~^~~.e ~ - :.4:Arw s~zanf?r ~rrco t45~4 ~3:3a~3 -._ 2$b'; ~ ~--i Gr~tt~10=~2.'~. 29 La crta Gay ~.-3~~ 3L7 ~'i .Ch h'1 ~:f yfl. iv ..,_........._._..._....m.. R .w,m Fes. aR~ ............. 55 t,? 33 N~~~23~i91 3S R.lth m Mf~~w'3st7 .........~....SSL~{i9 ,~,y.... ~~i HCYt x7052 3i H ~~o6r3 Huffrr3:~n a:~09 3Q a0._.._._._........ 4>, r~~~ri -. --:.. .. ~.3..~~t~~s .Ja~ksor,a5G-:7 .1.: ek~ra._.v ___v. u,r~-~ ~Y 17...._.~...... ~4~s4 ... 4~~a~~'~~.tai,.-r-~~r,4~„iFyi ~s3 s4 ~a' ~'hy ~,._r - K~.?rt 32~3+~ ~-.."~-3 ._.~______ss .-._—._....._.._,._......,... i~~e h:~ _._...n...,... - - ~i Ez~ ~-Keen _ of --=-r'h~KrraM - S~J (~~il::Od3C.'fl MC .1 .i kJy ~2S'~`'-~ 5~P~u~--,_„.~ ~.T”7',387 ~sr~t 33~e~'se Lam# FFi~seaae E.mPia7tce k~} S~~J~asegrh A9~,~^rz~4 ~D~'.~a ~a'~i.1F&~)tt ~4 F:~It ~t~i~ ~ J 5g 9ssa~M3c fv~~i 37~a~1 Sn _~~. :3ryt~e~ ~MtY,rur 3932" 57 Ct~r?~t~ns tr9~a%~d~r 2+27 'a.~. $tJ L4s~' FCCf: Ttx'GY1 L?~c3nt;70 G15CSG`(t A+1 t 1 fJ T F7-.':SS ~,~h4~ns.~Oza .~(N.r'37 ~^.tu€~3 Pac~eee~3t~3~r'. b2 Da~n~Pa ~~~s 5 1 ~d ~S ~Ykztrigw ~ Nlarf ._...~ P~a"Y P~i~r~on x'5729 µ»72~3 6~.koh~Rin:kstan 37~'~:4 ...fir..4b+F;~rie... _PGA -s."2 S 51 ~~6~tt'i ~'o~.vr~l 5`i~'77 89 ~.; eronca M ~ Re e9:~t~3e 3.:.~~6 ?C3 ,.te~rtn~Re•Ly 57.3~~ ??A4arre~3 R _hart£2~s~~n 7~ t-:ete~ K~27r?~sane R~:~~n .. ~ ~-:~r~~ S3t3v3 231Es~ 74 PAarv~n...mans 35~: "i7 75 ~3~a~~-3t?97" 7'~a I.. sAinf~R ~'!i ~7."~' ?7 ter.-.dx~' 'ark .: -; 3'15 T~.loi+'C~Vin,-.7 :aQ PJ6m:5urdanc~'~tl5-'. ~a C~~ r~,Tit vsr;~d~~~~3 n3 Jo~~T~rnes ?5{y~?2 5s..Edx.~rtlo VtS9~irc:~l 473^s5 ~~7txerese `heir-~.i:.~,a-~:-:t Sdfi~3 gE Ro~~_ttana 'Ncatk»r 2~2~' q~S~nn~~'Mee.t~:~.•o4k d'323 99 Jim e~ ~ .~........._.._.`Nh t~~243~3 ~?Cams~e `N eidcinso~f;474~ 32 J~artr~ette W :,~rnw 21~~$ 9~L:Y~'14 ..Ssaa .291?t~4 ~5 5~ AsiC~ B~tc 6ti~l -otfro ~v[3 ,h`~. d21dE3 sTr'sg9 3 EXHIBIT 1March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 417 2016 CONTRA COSTA CCUNTYexH~ai~ 2M C7NTNLY MEDfCAL AND DENTAL P~'Ftvt~itMtEXHIBIT 2Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies For Health Plans By Provider and PlanPLAN/COVERAGE DESCRIPTION BY HEALTH PLAN PROVICIER, PLAN ANG TIfR2016 TOTALtv70NTHLY PLANPREMIUM2016 COUP)TYMONTHIVSUBSIDYCONTRA COSTA HEALTH PLAN -BASIC PLAN ARetiree on Basic Dian A$709.06$St~4.92Retirez & 1 ~r more dependents on Basic Plan ,1$1,b29.37$1,214.40CONTRA COSTA HEALTH PLAN - h7EDICARE COORDINATION OF BENEFITS iC08) PLAN A'Retirze on Medicare COB ?fan A'$326.13$326.12Retiree & 1 dependent on Medicare COB Plan A -NEW COVERAGE LEVEL`$652.26$65225EOMBINATION OF CONTRA COSTA HEALTH PLAN - BASfC PLAFV A &MEDICARE COB PLAN A'Retiree on Medicarz COB Plan A, and, i or more dzpend<nts on basic Plan A*$1,043.62$1,041.6=Retirez & 1 deyendent on Medicarz COB A(ais A ,and, 1 or more dzperrdenis on Basic Plan A'$978.40$978.39Retiree on Basic Pian A, and, 1 dependent on Med;care COB Pian A '$1,043.62$1,043.51Ret=.rez on Basic Plan A, and, 2 or more dependents on Medicare COB Plan A'5978.40$978.39Retfsez & 1 dependent on Basic FEan A, and, 1 or more dependents on Medicare COB ?!an A'$1,04;,62$1,043.512016RETIREEPv10NTNlYSHAREMAHINIUM FIXEDNION iFILYAFEMIUfvISUBSIDIESAgreement (3.17]`195.14~~ $503.92j474.47( $1.214.3Q~$0.01542027$0.61$540.54S~~V'151,125.25$O.t71$1,035.00$OA151.125-25$0. V'1j1,03i6Q$0.01$1,125.25'The inonthfy plan premiums far the plans rden tified by an asterisk an fxhibif 2 (("Asier7sked Plans") ore currently less ±hen [he MAXfMUM FtX£D MONTHLY PREMIUM SUHSfD1ES listed in Exhr6it 2 If, fur anyplan year, the maximum specific dollar ainourt of ~northfy premium subsidy listed by health plan provider, plan and Tier in the cUlumn in Exhibit 2 t:sled '"MAXIMUM PlXED MGNTH LY FREPdiUM SU BSI63ES"Ss greater than one hundred Gercent of the rzspective monthly plan prcmiurn as determined by and betwzzn the i:o~nty and its hzalth care providers, zhc subsiay the County ~rliil pay for That yzar wls rotzxczed and wsif be onz hundred percent of the monthly plan preir:ium as dEtern~in ed by and between the County and its neaRh care providers minus one ceni [sez, Agreement Paragraph 3.17]. (Thus, furexampiz, for 2016, the spzcific dollar amount of monthly premium subsidies listed by health plan provider, Plan and Tier iii the cclumn tilled "MAXIMUM FIXED MONTHLY PREMIiiM SUBSIDIES" in Exhibit2 zxceeds the respective monthly plan przmium by health flan provsder, play. a~~d Tier for the Astzrisked Glans. Acco r~ingty, the County will pay one hundred percent cf the inurthly plan premiurtt minusene cent. The Rztirez's sharz will be are cent). The specific dollar ain~unt of monthly gremiE~m subsidizs listed [n Lhc column Citizd "ThAXitvSUM FIXED MONTHLY ?^nEMiUNt SUBSIDIES" ~n Exhibit 2 byheaitfi plan provider, plan and Tier are the maximum subsidy the county will pay in 2hz event m~ nthly plan premiums as csetzrmined by and bete✓een the County and itr health care providers subseyue~tlymcrzase io ~r exceed the level of the maximum spzci£ir dollar amounts of munthiy prc~nium subsicsics listed by healtfi alert provSder, plan ana Tier in the colwnn titled "tvfAX7MUM PaXED MJNTH LVPREMIUM SUBS301ES"' in Exhihtt 2. .i+~nsba._EXHIBIT 2March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 418 EXHIBIT 2zole corvrRa cosra courvry Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies For Health Plans By Provider and PlanEXHIBIT 2MGNTHLY MEDICAL AND DENTAL PREMIUMSPLAN/fOVERAGE DESCRIPTfON2016 TOTALMONTHLY PLANPREMIUM2Q16 COUNTYSUBSIDYCONTRA COSTA HEALTH PLAN -BASIC PLAN BRetiree on Bssi~ Aian B$7Sb.01$523.50Rztirez & 1 or more dzpendznts or Basic Plan 353,8fi7.bS$1,255.79CONTRA COSTA HEALTH PLAN -MEDICARE COORDINATION OF BENEFITS (COB) PLAN B°Retiree on Mzdicare COB Pian B'$335.91$335.9DReYsree & 1 depzndent on Mzdicare COB Plan B -NEW COVERAGE LEVEL`$671.52$671.81COMBINATION OF CONTRA COSTA HEALTH PLAN -BASIC PLAN 8 &MEDICARE C08 PLAN 6°Retiree on Mzdicare CUB Plan 8, and, 1 or more dependents oa 3asic Plan B'51,074.91$1,074.90RetiFee & 1 ~7cpzndeat on Medicare CGB PEan B ,and, 1 ur n~~re depzndents on Basic Plan B'$1,Q07.72$1,007J1Retirez on Basic Alan B, and, 1 depzndzn2 an Medicare COB Plan B`$5,07491$1,074.90Refirez on Basic Plan B, and, 2 or more dependents on Medicare GOB Fian B'$3,C07J2$1,007J1Rztiree & 1 depzndent on Basic s~lan B, and, 1 or more dependents on Mzd7care C08 Plan B`$1,C74.91$1,07490NIAXIMUM FIXED2016PV10iV TFILYRETIREEPREfN1UMMONTHLYSUBSIDIESSHAREAgreemznt [3.17]5?s~siSszs.su$611.54$1,255.79$0.01$444.6350.01....~.~$859.26S0.01$1,171.9350.01S1.C3S.06$0.01$1,171.93y0.01j1,088-06$O.OY51,171.43'The monthly plan prem/ums for the plans identified by an asterisk in Exbib+t 2 /1'asterisked Plans'} ore currently less than the MAX/MUM PfXED MOAtTHLY PREMIUM SUBSIDIES listed in Exhibit 2 If, fcr anyplan yzar, the max[mum specific dollar amount of monthly Gtemium subs"sdy (fisted by health plan provider, plan and Tier in the column in Exhibit 2 ti{IEd "MAXIMUM PiXEG MONTii LY PREMIUM SU Bs"IDiES"=.s greater than one hundred percent of the respective inonihly plan przmium as determined by and beRveen thz County and its hea4th care providers, the subsidy the County vrill pay far that yzar w~3~ aotzxceed and wif! be one hurxdred percznt of thz monthly plan przmium as determined by and bebuzzn the County and its neafth care providers minus one cent [see, Agreement Garagraph 3.17j_ (Thus, ferzxample, for 2016, the suzcific dollar amount of monthly premium subsidizs listzd by heath plan providzr, plan and Tizr in the column tEUzd "MAXIMUM PIXED tvtONTHIY PREMIilM SUBSIDIES" in Exhibit2 exceeds the respectivz monthly plan premium by health plan provider, plan and Tier for the Asterisked Plans. Accordi ngiy, thz County will pay anz hundrzd percent of thz monthly plan premium m;nuscne cznt. The Retiree"s share lviil be one cenc). The specific dollar amount of monthly przmium subsidies listzd in the column titled "MAXIM UM1h FIXED MONTHLY PREMIUM SU BSIDItS" fn Exhib+t 2 byheath plan provider, play: and Tizr a c the maximum subsidy the Cow~ty will pay in the event monthly plan premiums as detenr.incd by and bztween the County and "s#s health cart providers wbsequentiy=ncrease to ur zxczed thz lzvzi of thz maximum specrfsc dollar amounts of monthly premium subsidies lisizd by health clan prov[der, plan and Tier in [he colwnn titled ~`MAXiMUM FIXED MC;NTH LVPREMIUM SUBSIDIES" in Exhibit 2. .x,?sveozzEXHIBIT 2March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 419 2016 CONTRA COSTA COU NTVEXHIBIT 2MONTHLY MEDICAL ANn nF NTa~ Pc cA,e i~:nncEXHIBIT 2Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies For Health Plans By Provider and PlanPLAN/COVERAGE DESC ftIPTION2016 TOTALN70P1THLY PLANPREMIUM2016 COUNTYSUBSIDYKAISER PERMANElJ7E -BASIC PLAN ARetiree on Basic Pian A$S19.a3~47S ofRetdree & 1 or more .izpendzntz on Basic Plan A°,1,910.33$1,115.StKAISER PERMANENTE SENIOR ADVAtJ 7AGE (KPSA} PLAN ARztiree on KPSA Pian A$?9c_975263.94Retiree & 1 dependent on KPSA Pian ASS02-G2$71_'.79Retirze & 2 dependents cn KPSA Flan A$1,305 13Si,; b1.65COMBINATION OF KAISER BASIC PLAN A AND KPSA ALAN ARetiree on KPSA Pian A, and, Y or mere d<penden[s on Basic Pram A51,sS7.8J$945.58Retiree & 1 or more dzpzndents or Basic Plan A, and, 1 oependzni on KSFA Plan A$1,324.485945.SSKAISER PERMANENTE -BASK PIAIJ BRetiree on Basic Plan B$650.63547S.91Retiree & 1 or more dependents or. Basic Pia~~ 3$1,5_>9955.,115.34KAISER PERMANENTE SENIOR ADVANTAGE (KPSA) PLAN B"Rztirez on KPSA Plan 8'jZ2513$225.17Retiree & 1 dependent on KPSA Pian 6'$ti08.00$607.94Retirzz & 2 ~epzndents on KPSA %an B'j438.89$985.8&COMBINATION OF KAISER BASIC PLAtJ B AND KPSA PLAN 8MA%IMUM FIXED201tiMUNTFIIYRETIREEPREMIUMMONTHLYSUBSIDIESSHAREAgreemznt (3.17]$340.525475.91$794.49j1,li5.S4533A3$2c3.94$59.23$71279y1A3.48$1,161.65$442.29$945.SS~537390 ~$445.SSSll7J25475.915414.11j1,115.84;,Qu3$263.94$O.Oi$7-i~.75$~.~3$1,Ib1.OrJRetiree on KPSA Pian 8, anq 1 0: more dzpendznts on 3asic Plan 3 $1,09850 $94553 5152.92 $94558Retiree & 1 or nyore dzpzndents on Basic Plan 3, and, i dependent un KS?A Plan B $1,039.45 $945.55 I 593.57 I $~C5.58"The monthly plan premiums for the pions identified by on asterisk rn Exhibit Z (('"Aste~iiked Plans"J ore currently less thor, the MAXIMUA4 FIXED MOPI7FtLY PREA~IIUM SUt3SfDlfS listtd in Exhibit 2 If, for anyplan year, the mazimui~i spzcific dollar amocnt of monthly premium subsidy listetl by health plan provider, plan and Tier in the c~ lumn 4n Exhibit 2 titled "MAXIMUM FiXEC tv£ONTH LY PRE4vtiUM SU 651D3E5'~is greofer than onz hundred percent of the rzspzctive monthly plan premium as determined by and between thz bounty and its ?~eafrh care providers, the subsidy the County v~ill pay for that year wVil notexceed and will bz one hard: ed Uercent of the monihly plan U~~miwt: as determined by and between the County and its health care providers minus orzc cent [see, Agrzement Paragraph 3.17]. (Thus, forexample, for 2016, the specific dollar amount of monthly premiun-: subsidies listed by heaEth plan pra~~icer, plan and Tier ir. thz column titled "MIAXIM UM FIXED MONTHLY PREMIUM SUBSI61E5" in Eahi6 it2 exceeds the respective month fy pdan premium 6y health plan providzr, plan and Tizr far the A,terisked Plans. Acco rdingiy, tnz County will pay une huntlred percent of tnz monthly plan premium minusenz wnt. Thz Reti~zz's share tivill be onE cen:). The spc[inc dollar amount of monthly orzmlmn subsidize listed in thz cc,lumn titled "MAXiMUPdf RXED MONTHiY PREMIUM SUBSIDIES" In Exhibit 2 byneaiih plan provider, plan and Tier are :lie maximum subsiCy the County ~viil pay in the event mo~ithly plan premiums as determined Cy and beiwzen the County and its health care providers subsevuentiyincrease to or zxceed the I<vel of the maximum spzcefic dollar amounts of monthly premium subsiQies listed by hzait~ Akan providzr, plan ar.~ Tier ;n thz column !hied "NiAXiMUM R%ED MONTHLYPFEMiUM SUBSIDIES" in Exhib][ 2. .EXHIBIT 2March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 420 2~ § 6 CONTRA L'OoTA COUNTYEXHIBIT 2MONTHLY Iv4E~'JICAL AND DENTAL PREMIl1M5EXHIBIT 2Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies for Health Plans By Provider and PlanPLAN/COVERAGE DESCRIPTION2016 TOTALMONTHLY PLANPREMIUM2(116 COUNTYSUBSIDYHEALTH NET HMO PLAN - BA51C PLAN ARetirez on Basic Plan A$1,294.30°,527.79Rztirce & 1 ~r more dependznts on Basic Pian A$3,175A2$1,5~1C.02HEALTH NET SENIORITY PLUS (HNSP) Pi.AN ARetirez on HNSP plan A$545.59$409.69Retiree & 1 dependent on HNSF Plan A$i,Q91.18$819.38Retiree & 2 dccendEns on HNSF Plan A$1,636.76$1,229.07COh181NATiON OF HEALTH NET BASK PLAN A A(+iD HEALTH NET SENIORITY PLUS PLAN A (HNSP)Retiree on HNSP Plan A, and, 1 dependent un Basic Plan A$1,339.54X1,058.49Retiree on HNSP Plan A, and, 2 or mare depzndent; on Basic Pian A$3,720.b1$1,449. 1retiree & 1 dzpendent on HNSP Plan A, and,- 1 depen~znt on Basic Plan A$2,~~5.4551,504.13Retircz on Easic Plai: A; and, 1 dependent on HNSP Plan A$I,839.54$1,OoH.49Retiree 3z 1 or more ciepcndents on Esa,ic Plan A, any, 1 depenc~cnt on HNSP Flan A$3,720.61$1,349.71HEALTH NET HMO PLAN -BASIC PLAN 6Retiree on Basit Pian B$900.3$627J9Retirez & 1 or more dependents ar, 3a~ic Plan 3$2,237.8651,540.02HEALTH WET SENiOftiTY PLUS ~HNSP~ PLAN BRetirze on HNSP Plan B$ 45II.02$409.69Retiree & 1 dzpendent on HNsP Plan B$916.04Stii9.3SRetiree & ? dependent on HNSF Pian B$1,374.05$1,22~J.0?COMBINATION OF HEALTH NET BASfC PLAN B AND HEAiTH NET SENIORITY PLUS PLAN B (HNSP~Retiree on HNSP Plan B, and, 1 dependent on Basic Plan 8$1,35SA5$1,058 49Retiree on HNSP Plan B, and, 2 or m~rc dzpendents on Basic Plan S$2,065.88$1,549.71Retiree & 1 ~cpzndent on NNSP Plan B, and, 1 dependent on Basic Pian B$1;3?b.07$1,5 9.13Retiree on Basic Plan B, and, 1 depen~ent o~i HNSP Fran B$i,35S.05$1,06E.49Retiree & 1 or more dependens ~n Basic Plan 3, and, ~ dependent on tlNSP Plan B$2,665.85$1,349.71MAXIMUM FIXED2016MONTHLYRETIREEPREMIUfviMONTHLYSUBSIDIESSHAREAgreement [3.17j$ab6.52 $527.79Si,o35.Ut; $1,540.02$135.9QX409.69yzn.so,s~s.~s$G07.o9j1,229.07$771.90$1,OES.49$i,770.yC$1,49.715&76.35$1,509.235771.40,~,1,065.~'9$I,770.90$1,?49J13272.24 °,627.79jb67.84 $1,540.02,48.33X409.69$9fi.b5$819.38,~i144.99$1,229.07$289.56$1,OfiS.49$715.17$1,949J1$305.94$1.569.t3S28S.56$1,00849;,716.17$1,949.71EXHIBIT 2March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 421 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 422 EXHIBIT 2zoi6lONTRA CCSTA COON?V Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies For Health Plans By Provider and PlanEXtiiBiT 2MONTii LY MEDICAL ANU DENTAL PkEMIUMSMAXIMUM FIXED2016MONTHLYPLAPJ(EOVERA6E DEJ<RIPTION2016 TOTALRETIREEPREN9tUMMONTHLY PLAN2016 COUNTYMONTHLYSUBSIDIESPREMIUMSUBSIDYSHAREAgreement (3.17jHEALTH NET MEDICf1RE EOOROINATION OF BEN EFlTS PLAN (HNCOB)Retiree on HNC08 PlartX559 04$467 ~ 35191.91___$4b7.73Retirez & 1 or more dependents, 2 or, HNCGB$1 328 4SX934 ~9~ $383J9I $93429COMBINATION OF HEALTH NET BASIC PLAN A AND Hf AITFt NET C04ROINATION OF BENEFITSo~ nni ~tini~nnikztiree on HNC06, ai~.d, 1 dzpend~nt on Basic Gla~z Ay1,953.34$1,0S3.1bRetiree on &asfc P!ar. A, and, 1 dependent on HNC~iBj1,953.34$1,083.16ketircz on HNCOB, and, ? or more depcndznU on HN Basf[ Plan A53,834.06$1 007.35Rztirzz & 1 dependzni on HNCil6, ar:d, 1 depcnoeni on Basic Plan A$Z,61?.3S$S,Sb2.OSRztirez on Baste P€air A, ano 2 depzndents on HNLGB$2.bi_.3S$1,552.08................~,.. ..,~,...,.~.~~...., ~tr.~v~~i~r r~.»ruarvr~nrv~r~Hrvt]I,UUt(UlNH1~UIV OFBENEFITS (COBj PLANS~etircz on HNSP Flan A, aad, dependent on HeaKh Net Coo: dinatiun of Benefits (COB) PlanR etirze on Heath Nzt Coordination of 8zn2fcts (COB) Plate, and, dzpe~3de nt or. HNSP Pta r. ACOMBINATION OF HEALTH NET BASIC PLAN B AND IiERLiH NEi CCIORDINATION OF BENEGI AN IHNf lIRISE70.18$i3OS3-165370.1$1,083.16$1,526.91}2,G0715$1050.3051.562A8$1,OSD.30S?.62.0851,204.b3 $S7o.82 X327.51 587b.b2$1,2Q9.63 $376.32 $327.81 5876.32Retirez on HNGOB, and, 1 dependene> on Basic Plan 8$1,559.07$1,083.16~.etiree on Easic Fian B, and. 1 dependen[ on HNC08$1,559.07$1,OS3.lbRetife2 on HN~OB, anct, 2 or ir,ofe depcndent5 On nN Basit P:an B$2:So6.9052.007.15ketiree & 1 dzpzndenc on HNCOB, ana, 1 dzpendeni or. Basic Plan 3$2,213.1151,552.05ketiree on Basic Pia~s B, ai3~ 2 dependents er, HNCOB$2,21fli.11$1,562.68..........,.., ...,.. ,.....~.,.., ,, ,.~, ~~,.,.~~.~, , o ~~w ~. ~. ~~~ ..rvv a.vvnv~rv..~ i~ry yr ocrvcr~ ~>(COB) PLANSRetiree on HtJSP Plan B, and, dependent un iizalth Net Loor~inatlon ~f denzfits [COB) Plan $1,117.t1b $876.82Retiree on Hza4th Net Coi+rdination of Benzfits (COB) Plan, and, depen<3ent or. HNSP Piar. 3 51.11?.66 5876.82$47591$2,OS3.16$475.91j1,OS3.165359J552,07.15$b5b.03$i,So2.08$o56A3Si,~62.Ot'~5-A0.24 $876.52$240.24 $876.52EXHIBIT 2March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 423 EXHIBIT 2joie corvrRa ec~sra couNry Maximum Fixed Monthly Premium Subsidies For Health Pians By Provider and PianEXHIBIT 2(V1~NTi1 LY MEDILAI_ ANl~ f]F iJTilI GRFMII I#hGPLAN/COVERAGE DESCRIPTION2016 T07ALMONTHLYPLAN PREMIUM2016 COUNTYSUBSIDYHEALTH NET CA & NAT'L PPO PLAN -BASK PLAN ARetiree on PPO 3asic Pian A$1,69 .52jfiO4.b0Retiree & 1 or more depzn~ents on PPO 8ssic pian A$4,03734$?,435.25HEALTH tJ ET EA & NAT'L PPO PLAN A WITii Pv9EDICARE PARTS A & 6Retiree on PPO Medicare Flan A$957.55$563.17Retiree 3~ 1 or more depzndents on PPO Medicare Plan A$-1,975-31$1,526.24COMBINATION OF HEALTH NET CA & NAT'L PPO PLAN A -BASIC PLAN & PPO MEDICARE PLANARetiree on PPO Medicare Fian A, and, 1 depzndznt on PPO Basic Flan Ag2,6S7.17$1,?6~J8Retiree on PPO Basic Plan A, and, 1 dependent on PPG Mzdicare P!an AS2.fiSZ 17$1,3b7JfiRetircz & 1 de~znden[ on FFO tvfedicare Plan A, and, 1 dependznt on PPO Basic Plan A$3,674.83$1,730.84Retirzz on PP6 3asit Plan A, and, 2 dependents on PPO tvtedkare Plan A~3,E74.83$2,730.SaHEALTH NET CA & NAT'l PPO PLAN -BASIC PLAN BRetiree on PPt~ $asic Plan B$1,529.49$604.b0Retirze & 1 or more dependents on PPO Basic Plan B$3,634.58$2,43b?5HEALTH NET CA & NAT'L PPO PLAN B WITH MEDICARE PARTS A & BRetiree on PPO Medicare Ptan Es$897.02$563.Y7Retiree & 1 ar more dependents on PPO Medicare Plan S$_,794.04y1,226.?4GOMBWATtON OF HEALTH NET CA & NATL PPO PLAN B -BASIC PLAN 6 & PPO MEDICAREPLAN BRetiree on PPO Medicare P3an B, and, 1 dependent on PP6 Baskc Flan B$2,427.01$3,3b7J8Retiree on PPO BssEc Plan 8, and, I dependznt on PPO Medica~z Plan 8$2,427.01$1,1b7.78Retiree & 1 dey^endent on PPO Mc~iicare Plan B, and, 1 dependent on PPC~ 3asic Plan B$3,324.c~3$1,730.84ketiree on PPO 3aslc Plan B, and, 2 depzndents en ?PO Medicare Plan B$3,324.03$2,73Q842016RETIREEMONTHLYSHAREMAXI(NUlvt FI%EOMONTHLYPREMIUMSUBSIDIESAgreement (3.17]51,094.92$604.60l $2,601.C9...I$1,43b.25$424.48$553.17$549.07( $1.126.24$1,519.39$1,107.78$1,519.39$1,107.78$1.943.99$1.730.84$1,943.99$1,730.&4$925.39 $604 bx~$2,19S.33 (.. 51,430.25$333_SS $Sb3.27$b67.8G I $Y,126.24$1.259.2351,167.7841,259.2351,167JS$Y,593.19$1,73Q.84$1,593.19$1,730.84ii?sssoz.~EXHIBIT 2March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 424 EXHIBIT 22a to CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Maximum Fixed 1l/lonthly Premium Subsidies For Health Plans By Provider and PlanEXHIBIT 2MON r HAY MEpICAL ANU DE?~1TAl. PkEtv11UMSPLAN/COVERAGE DESCRIPTION2016 TOTALMONTtf LV PLAN2016 COUNTYPREMIUMSUBSIDYDE~TR DEN7s~l PREMIER - 51,800 AfHN UAL N1AXIfv9UMFor CCHP PiansRetiree$44.27$41.17FamilyS1a0.00593.D0For Hzalth Nz! P1ansRetiree544.27534A:Familys;00.00$76.77For Kaicc~ Perman ente PlansRetiree$44.T7$34.172Fan-d lyS10000$70.77Without a Health PlanRetiree$4A.27$43.35Family$100.0059~-a1DELTA Cs1RE (PMI}For CCHP PlansRetiree>?~.Ob525.41Family$o2.S1$5491For tlealttl hEt PIanSRztSree$2S_Ob521.31~a~l' y$62.51$46.u'SFor Kaiser ~ermanente PlansRetsre2St4 A5$21.31Familyy62.S1$4e.65Without a Health PlanRettrce?29.Do$27.31Family$62.81559-032016 MAXIMUM FIXEDR£71REE PREMIUMMONTHLY SUBSIDIESSHARE Agreemznt [3.17]$3.1U$41.17$7.00$93.00:.10-25$34.02$23.23$76.77$10.25$3.02$23.23y7b JJ$U 92$43-35$2.19$97.8153.b5 '.._ $5.41579c}$54.9157.75$21.31$16.7b$4b.Q5;,7 J5521.31$10.765'jti.05$3 J5$27.31$3.78559.03+i:..seoz.aEXHIBIT 2March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 425 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes426 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes427 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes428 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes429 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes430 RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise for the 2016 On-Call Concrete Services contract(s) for various Road and Flood Control Maintenance work, for routine maintenance and repair of existing road pavement and flood control facilities, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: The On-Call Concrete Services Contract(s) for Various Road and Flood Control Maintenance Work is to be funded by 100% Local Road and Flood Control Funds. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department will use the On-Call Concrete Services Contract(s) for Various Road and Flood Control Maintenance Work to provide supplemental concrete services as needed to Public Works Maintenance crews for routine road and flood control maintenance repairs in various locations throughout Contra Costa County. The Public Works Department intends to award at least one $150,000 contract, but not more than three $150,000 contracts, to the responsible bidder(s). Each contract will have a term of one-year with the option of two one-year extensions, and used as needed with no minimum amount that has to be spent. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Paul Clifton, 925-313-7003 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Advertise the On-Call Concrete Services Contract(s) for Various Road and Flood Control Maintenance Work March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 431 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Where concrete services are required, the Public Works Department may be unable to complete routine road and flood control maintenance work in a timely manner. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 432 RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE the specifications for the 2016 On-Call Contract(s) for Various Road and Flood Control Maintenance Work project. Project No. 0672-6U2009 (2) DETERMINE that GradeTech, Inc. (GradeTech), the lowest monetary bidder, has complied with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program for this project, as provided in the project specifications, and FURTHER DETERMINE that GradeTech has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the contract. (3) DETERMINE that Redgwick Construction Company (Redgwick), the second lowest monetary bidder, submitted a non-responsive bid by failing to comply with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program for this project, as provided in the project specifications; and REJECT the bid on that basis. (4) DETERMINE that Carone and Company, Inc. (Carone), the third lowest monetary bidder, submitted a non-responsive bid by failing to comply with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program for this project, as provided in the project specifications; and REJECT the bid on that basis. (5) DETERMINE that Hess Concrete Construction Co., Inc. (Hess), the fourth lowest monetary bidder, has complied with the requirements APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Emigh, 925-313-2233 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:AWARD two construction contracts for the 2016 On-Call Contract(s) for Various Road and Flood Control Maintenance Work, Countywide. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 433 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) of the County’s Outreach Program for this project, as provided in the project specifications, and FURTHER DETERMINE that Hess has submitted the second lowest responsive and responsible bid for the contract. (6) AWARD on-call contracts to the following two contractors in the following priority for Job Orders, as provided in the project specifications: (A) GradeTech, in a not to exceed amount ($400,000.00) and the unit prices submitted in the bid ($1,254.51 Total Unit Price). (B) Hess, in a not to exceed amount ($400,000.00) and the unit prices submitted in the bid ($1,511.50 Total Unit Price). (7) DIRECT that the Public Works Director, or designee, to prepare the contracts. (8) ORDER that after the contractors have signed the contracts and returned them, together with any required certificates of insurance and other required documents, and the Public Works Director has reviewed and found them to be sufficient; the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign the contracts for this Board. (9) ORDER that, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign any escrow agreements prepared for this project to permit the direct payment of retentions into escrow or the substitution of securities for moneys withheld by the County to ensure performance under the contract, pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 22300. (10) DELEGATE, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, to the Public Works Director, or designee, the Board’s functions under Public Contract Code Sections 4107 and 4110. (11) DELEGATE, pursuant to Labor Code Section 6705, to the Public Works Director or to any registered civil or structural engineer employed by the County, the authority to accept detailed plans showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection during trench excavation covered by that section. (12) DECLARE that, should the award of the contract to GradeTech or Hess be invalidated for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contracts to any other bidder, but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received. Nothing in this Board Order shall prevent the Board from re-awarding the contract to another bidder in cases where the successful bidder establishes a mistake, refuses to sign the contract, or fails to furnish required bonds or insurance (see Public Contract Code Sections 5100-5107). FISCAL IMPACT: The contracts, for a maximum amount of $400,000 each, will be funded by 100% Local Road and Flood Control funds. BACKGROUND: The above project was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, specifications were filed with and approved by the Board, and bids were invited by the Public Works Director. On January 5, 2016, the Public Works Department received bids from the following contractors: BIDDER, TOTAL UNIT AMOUNT GradeTech, Inc.: $1,254.51 Total Unit Price Redgwick Construction Co.: $1,398.50 Total Unit Price Carone and Company, Inc.: $1,441.00 Total Unit Price Hess Concrete Construction Co., Inc.: $1,511.50 Total Unit Price March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 434 A-S Pipelines, Inc.: $1,989.65 Total Unit Price Innovative Construction Solutions: $2,028.00 Total Unit Price G & S Paving: $6,139.92 Total Unit Price The Public Works Director has reported that Redgwick and Carone, the second and third lowest monetary bidders, respectively, submitted non-responsive bids by failing to document an adequate good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program, as provided in the project specifications and the Public Works Director has recommended rejection of the bids submitted by Redgwick and Carone. On March 1, 2016, Redgwick and Carone were notified in writing of the Public Works Director's determination. Copies of the various letters are attached to this Board Order. GradeTech submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $143.99 less (Total Unit Price) less than the next lowest bid. Hess submitted the second lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $478.15 less (Total Unit Price) less than the next lowest bid. The Public Works Director has reported that the bids submitted by GradeTech and Hess documented an adequate good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program, as provided in the project specifications, and recommends that contracts be awarded to GradeTech and Hess in that order. The Public Works Director recommends that the bids submitted by GradeTech and Hess are the lowest responsive and responsible bids, and this Board so concurs and finds. As provided in the project specifications, the two on-call contracts would be awarded in the following priority for Job Orders: (1) GradeTech; and (2) Hess. The general prevailing rates of wages, which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project, have been filed with the Clerk of the Board, with copies to be made available to any party upon request. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Public Works Department may be unable to complete routine road and flood control maintenance work in a timely manner. ATTACHMENTS Carone Letter Redgewick Letter March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 435 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 436 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 437 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 438 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 439 RECOMMENDATION(S): RESCIND Traffic Resolution No. 2013/4378, and ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4437 to establish speed limits on Bailey Road (Road 4961), as recommended by the Public Works Director, Concord, Pittsburg, and Bay Point areas. (Districts IV and V) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Bailey Road is classified as a minor arterial roadway by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This classification requires that the speed limit be set according to standards established in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22358, if the speed limit is to be set lower than the prima facie speed limit of 55 mph. This requires an Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) to be conducted to establish a speed limit that could be enforced by law enforcement. In November 2015, several E&TSs were conducted according to established traffic engineering standards, along all County sections of Bailey Road, beginning in Concord and continuing north APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Monish Sen, 925-313-2187 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Establish speed limits on Bailey Road (Road 4961), Concord, Pittsburg, and Bay Point areas. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 440 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) into Pittsburg and ending in Bay Point. Based on the results of the Engineering & Traffic Surveys, the Traffic Engineer recommends the establishment of the following speed limits on Bailey Road: 35 miles per hour for the entire length of Bailey Road in the unincorporated area of Concord, between the city limits of Concord at Myrtle Drive south to 150 feet east of Tobi Drive (approximately one-quarter mile), and 45 miles per hour along the rural sections of Bailey Road between Concord and Pittsburg, and 35 miles per hour from West Leland Road to Willow Pass Road in Bay Point. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Local law enforcement would not be unable to enforce speed limit violations on County sections of Bailey Road. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Traffic Reso Bailey Rd. MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Traffic Resolution No.2016/4437 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 441 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Traffic Resolution on March 15, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4437 Supervisorial Districts IV and V TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4437 SUBJECT: Establish speed limits on Bailey Road (Road 4961), Concord, Pittsburg, and Bay Point areas. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: On the basis of Engineering and Traffic Surveys and recommendations by the County Public Works Department’s Transportation Engineering Division and pursuant to County Ordinance Code Sections 46-2.002 – 46-2.012, the following traffic regulation is established (and other action taken, as indicated): Pursuant to Section 22358(a) of the California Vehicle Code, no vehicle shall travel in excess of 35 miles per hour on Bailey Road (Road No. 4961), from 150’ east of Tobi Drive in Concord to Myrtle Drive (Road 5264B), thence no vehicle shall travel in excess of 45 miles per hour on that portion of Bailey Road, beginning at the northeast Concord City Limit to the southern Pittsburg City Limit, thence no vehicle shall travel in excess of 35 miles per hour on that portion of Bailey Road, beginning at West Leland Drive to Willow Pass Road (Road 5181). Traffic Resolution 2013/4378 pertaining to speed limits on Bailey Road is hereby rescinded. MS:mbt Orig. Dept.: Public Works (Traffic) Contact: Monish Sen (925-313-2187) c: California Highway Patrol Sheriff’s Department G:\transeng\2016\BO - TR\Traffic Reso Bailey Rd.doc I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of t he Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: DAVID TWA, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By , Deputy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 442 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes443 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4438 to establish speed limits on San Pablo Avenue (Road No. 0971C), as recommended by the Public Works Director, Rodeo and Crockett areas. (District V) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: San Pablo Avenue is classified as a minor arterial roadway by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This classification requires that speed limits be set according to standards established in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22358, if the speed limit is to be set lower than the prima facie speed limit of 55 mph. This requires an Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) to be conducted to establish a speed limit that can be enforced by law enforcement. In November of 2015, an E&TS was conducted according to established traffic engineering standards on two sections of San Pablo Avenue. Based on the results of the E&TS, the Traffic Engineer recommends the establishment of the following speed limits: 35 miles per APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Monish Sen 925-313-2187 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Establish speed limits on San Pablo Avenue (Road No. 0971C) Rodeo and Crockett area. (District V) March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 444 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) hour for the portion of San Pablo Avenue between Parker Avenue and California Street in Rodeo; and thence 45 miles per hour from California Street to Merchant Street in Crockett. The 35 miles per hour portion is a two lane, primarily residential and business area divided by a raised center median. The 45 miles per hour section is a 4 lane, undivided, low volume roadway that serves primarily as industrial refinery access. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Law enforcement would not be able to enforce speed limits on San Pablo Avenue. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Traffic Reso San Pablo Ave Crocket 2016.4438 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4438 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 445 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Traffic Resolution on March 15, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4438 Supervisorial District V TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4438 SUBJECT: Establish speed limits on San Pablo Avenue (Road 0971C), Rodeo and Crockett areas. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: On the basis of an Engineering and Traffic Survey and recommendations by the County Public Works Department’s Transportation Engineering Division and pursuant to County Ordinance Code Sections 46-2.002 – 46-2.012, the following traffic regulation is established: Pursuant to Section 22358(a) of the California Vehicle Code, no vehicle shall travel in excess of 35 miles per hour on San Pablo Avenue (Road 0971C) between the intersections of Parker Avenue (also Road 0971C) and California Street (Road 1794A), thence no vehicle shall travel in excess of 45 miles per hour between California Street (Road 1794A) and Merchant Street (Road 2295D), Rodeo and Crockett areas. MS:mbt Orig. Dept.: Public Works (Traffic) Contact: Monish Sen (925-313-2187) c: California Highway Patrol Sheriff’s Department G:\transeng\2016\BO - TR\Traffic Reso San Pablo Ave Crockett 2016.4438.doc I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: DAVID TWA, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By , Deputy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 446 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes447 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4439 to prohibit parking at all times on the north side of Boulevard Way (Road No. 3851D), from a point 32 feet south of the centerline of Whyte Park Avenue (Road No. 3845AZ), and continuing southerly for a distance of 68 feet, Walnut Creek area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Upon receiving multiple requests to restrict parking from residents living in the Whyte Park neighborhood, Public Works Traffic investigated in October 2015. It was concluded that restricting parking on the northeast corner of the intersection would improve sightlines and traffic safety. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Vehicles will continue to be found parked at this location, with no enforcement ability by local law enforcement. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Monish Sen 925-313-2187 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Prohibit parking on a portion of Boulevard Way (Road No. 3851D), Walnut Creek area. (District II) March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 448 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Traffic Reso Boulevard way 2016.4439 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4439 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 449 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Traffic Resolution on March 15, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4439 Supervisorial District II TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4439 SUBJECT: Prohibit parking at all times on a portion of Boulevard Way, Walnut Creek area. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: Based on the recommendations by the County Public Works Department’s Transportation Engineering Division and pursuant to County Ordinance Code Sections 46-2.002 – 46-2.012, the following traffic regulation is established: Pursuant to Section 22506 of the California Vehicle Code parking is hereby declared to be prohibited at all times on the east side of Boulevard Way (Road No. 3851D), beginning at a point 32 feet south of the centerline of Whyte Park Avenue (Road No. 3845AZ) and extending southerly a distance of 68 feet, Walnut Creek area. MS:mbt Orig. Dept.: Public Works (Traffic) Contact: Monish Sen (925-313-2187) c: California Highway Patrol Sheriff’s Department G:\transeng\2016\BO - TR\BO TR Boulevard Way 2016.4439.doc I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: DAVID TWA, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By , Deputy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 450 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes451 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution 2016/116 approving a substitute Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty for subdivision SD13-09303, a project being developed by Western Pacific Housing Inc., as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The property has been sold and a new Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty is required. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty will not be in the name of the current owner, and the previous owner will not have their agreement and bonds exonerated. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925-313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Originator: Public Works (ES) , Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque (313-2315), Public Works - Finance, Public Works - Design/Construction, Public Works - Engineering Services, Current Planning, Community Development, C. Low, City of San Ramon, 2222 Camino Ramon, San Ramon, CA 94583 C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approving a substitute Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty for subdivision SD13-09303, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 452 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/116 Attachments for BO 24863 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/116 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 453 Recorded at the request of:BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Return To:PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ENGINEERING SERVICES THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 03/15/2016 by the following vote: AYE:John Gioia, District I SupervisorCandace Andersen, District II SupervisorMary N. Piepho, District III SupervisorKaren Mitchoff, District IV SupervisorFederal D. Glover, District V Supervisor NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/116 IN THE MATTER OF approving a substitute Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty, subdivision SD13-09303, for a project being developed by Western Pacific Housing Inc., as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) WHEREAS On February 2, 2015, this Board resolved that the improvements in subdivision SD13-09303 were completed as provided in the Subdivision Agreement with Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation AND the warranty period established, now on the recommendation of the Public Works Director; The following document was presented for Board approval this date: A substitute Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty with Western Pacific Housing Inc., subdivider, whereby said subdivider agrees to warrant all improvements as required in said Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty for one year from the date of said agreement or until released by this Board; Said document was accompanied by the following: Security to guarantee the road and drainage improvements, as required by Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code, as follows: a. Cash deposit (Auditor's Deposit Permit No. 647438, dated December 12, 2013) in the amount of $7,000.00, made by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc. b. Additional security in the form of a corporate surety bond dated August 6, 2015, and issued by Arch Insurance Company (Bond No. SU113521) with Western Pacific Housing Inc., as principal, in the amount of $92,700.00 for faithful performance and $0.00 for labor and materials. All deposit permits are on file with the Public Works Department. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that said substitute Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty is APPROVED. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Subdivision Agreement with Shapell Homes, a division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as approved the the Board on May 6, 2014, is TERMINATED, the improvement security bonds, Bond No. 929 582 282, issued by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company are EXONERATED and the $7,000.00 cash deposit (Auditor's Deposit Permit No. 647438, dated December 12, 2014) made by Shapell Homes, A Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation be RETAINED during the warranty period pursuant to the requirements of Section 94-4.406 of the March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 454 Ordinance code until released by this Board. Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925-313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Originator: Public Works (ES) , Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque (313-2315), Public Works - Finance, Public Works - Design/Construction, Public Works - Engineering Services, Current Planning, Community Development, C. Low, City of San Ramon, 2222 Camino Ramon, San Ramon, CA 94583 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 455 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 456 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 457 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 458 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 459 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 460 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 461 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 462 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 463 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes464 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution 2016/115 approving a substitute Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty for subdivision SD13-09325, for a project being developed by Western Pacific Housing Inc., as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact BACKGROUND: The property has been sold and a new Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty is required. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty will not be in the name of the current owner, and the previous owner will not have their agreement and bonds exonerated. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925-313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Originator: Public Works (ES), Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque (313-2315), Public Works - Finance, Public Works - Design/Construction, Public Works - Engineering Services, Current Planning, Community Development , C. Low, City of San Ramon, 2222 Camino Ramon, San Ramon, CA 94583 C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approving a substitute Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty for subdivision SD13-09325, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 465 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/115 Attachments for BO 24861 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/115 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 466 Recorded at the request of:BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Return To:PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ENGINEERING SERVICES THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 03/15/2016 by the following vote: AYE:John Gioia, District I SupervisorCandace Andersen, District II SupervisorMary N. Piepho, District III SupervisorKaren Mitchoff, District IV SupervisorFederal D. Glover, District V Supervisor NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/115 IN THE MATTER OF approving a substitute Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty for subdivision SD13-09325, a project being developed by Western Pacific Housing Inc., as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) WHEREAS On February 2, 2015, this Board resolved that the improvements in subdivision SD13-09325 were completed as provided in the Subdivision Agreement with Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation AND the warranty period established, now on the recommendation of the Public Works Director; The following document was presented for Board approval this date: A substitute Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty with Western Pacific Housing Inc., subdivider, whereby said subdivider agrees to warrant all improvements as required in said Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty for one year from the date of said agreement or until released by this Board; Said document was accompanied by the following: Security to guarantee the road and drainage improvements, as required by Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code, as follows: a. Cash deposit (Auditor's Deposit Permit No. 654114, dated March 13, 2014) in the amount of $18,000.00, made by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc. b. Additional security in the form of a corporate surety bond dated August 6, 2015, and issued by Arch Insurance Company (Bond No. SU113522) with Western Pacific Housing Inc., as principal, in the amount of $256,650.00 for faithful performance and $0.00 for labor and materials. All deposit permits are on file with the Public Works Department. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that said substitute Subdivision Agreement for Improvement Warranty is APPROVED. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Subdivision Agreement with Shapell Homes, a division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as approved the the Board on July 29, 2014, is TERMINATED, the improvement security bonds, Bond No. PB00579800022 issued by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company are EXONERATED and the $18,000.00 cash deposit (Auditor's Deposit Permit No. 654114, dated March 13,2014) made by Shapell Homes, A Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation be RETAINED during the warranty period pursuant to the requirements of Section 94-4.406 of the March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 467 Ordinance code until released by this Board. Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925-313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Originator: Public Works (ES), Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque (313-2315), Public Works - Finance, Public Works - Design/Construction, Public Works - Engineering Services, Current Planning, Community Development , C. Low, City of San Ramon, 2222 Camino Ramon, San Ramon, CA 94583 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 468 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 469 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 470 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 471 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 472 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 473 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 474 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 475 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 476 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes477 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the Mogas Fueling Station at Buchanan Field Airport Project (Project), Concord area. [County Project No. 4841-6X5319, DCD-CP#15-34] (District IV). DETERMINE the Project is a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 3(d) Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Article 19, Section 15303(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, and DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk, and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of a $25 fee to Conservation and Development for processing, and a $50 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Exemption. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Developer Funds APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Alex Nattkemper, (925) 313-2364 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Public Works: L. Mangabay, Finance, L. Chavez, Environmental Services, B. Lee. Airports C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Mogas Fueling Station at Buchanan Field Airport Project and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 478 BACKGROUND: The purpose of this project is to allow Clear Gas, Inc. to park a fuel truck at Buchanan Field Airport that will sell E0 unleaded Mogas (motor gasoline) to aircraft 24 hours a day. The fuel truck will be a temporary facility to test the demand for Mogas, an alternative, more environmentally-friendly fuel type than standard aircraft fuel. If demand is sufficient, a future permanent facility subject to all development requirements and CEQA review will be considered CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delay in approving the project may result in a delay of design and construction, and may jeopardize funding. ATTACHMENTS CEQA documents March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 479 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 480 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 481 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 482 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 483 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 484 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports to terminate a month-to-month license agreement dated July 1, 2015, between the County and the OverWatch Flight & Conditioning (dba, OverWatch F/C and The Hangar/CrossFit OverWatch) (Tenant) for real property located at 101 John Glenn Drive, Concord; AUTHORIZE County Counsel to pursue legal action to regain possession of the real property if Tenant fails to vacate the premises within the time allowed. FISCAL IMPACT: The Airport Enterprise Fund will cover the cost of any legal action. BACKGROUND: In July 2015, the Airport entered into a license agreement for hangar APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:Continued to July 12, 2016 VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Lee, (925) 681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:AUTHORIZE TERMINATION OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT; AUTHORIZE LEGAL ACTION TO REGAIN POSSESSION March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 485 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and office space at Buchanan Field Airport with a company known as OverWatch Flight & Conditioning, dba OverWatch F/C. Under the license agreement, OverWatch F/C is permitted to operate a flight education and training business, with a limited fitness component, on the Airport. The license requires the business to be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) definition of an aeronautical activity. To ensure that the business being conducted is an aeronautical activity, the license requires OverWatch F/C to provide detailed quarterly reports to the Airport. The Airport received the second of the required reports on January 11, 2016. The report lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate satisfactorily, or to show substantial advancement toward demonstrating, that OverWatch F/C is complying with the use and purpose permitted under the license agreement. As a result, Airport staff requested additional information, which OverWatch F/C has declined to fully provide. Under the license agreement, the County may terminate the license “at any time, for any reason, or for no reason, with or without cause, on fourteen (14) days written notice.” To ensure compliance with FAA requirements and to meet the needs of the aviation community, Airport staff is requesting authority to terminate OverWatch F/C’s occupancy of the subject property and to pursue legal action to regain possession of the real property if the tenant fails to vacate the premises within the time allowed. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to terminate OverWatch F/C’s occupancy could result in noncompliance with FAA requirements and diminish the hangar space available to the County’s aviation community. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speaker: James Greninger, OverWatch Flight & Conditioning School. This matter is RELISTED to July 12, 2016, with the understanding that it is expected that a minimum of 6 students will have successfully completed the course. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 486 RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by Ranee Chaloeicheep, Diane Fidelibus, Shaen Gresham, Charlene Harris, Joel Mangiaracina, Gennifer Mountain, Kara O’Neil and Douglas & Traci Stokes. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: * APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: j I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:claims March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 487 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE public report of litigation settlement agreements that became final during the period of February 1, 2016, through February 29, 2016, as recommended by County Counsel. FISCAL IMPACT: Settlement amounts are listed below. BACKGROUND: One agreement to settle pending litigation, as defined in Government Code section 54956.9, became final during the period of February 1, 2016, through February 29, 2016. John Walsh and Richard Strand as Guardians Ad Litem for Persephone Marilyn Walsh, a minor, v. Contra Costa Health Services, et al., CCC Superior Court Case No. C14-00016. On December 8, 2015, the Board approved settlement of this medical malpractice lawsuit. Settlement in the amount of $77,500, inclusive of attorneys fees and costs, was authorized in closed session by unanimous vote of all five members present. The settlement agreement was fully executed on February 24, 2016. The funding source is the Risk Management Medical Malpractice Internal Service Fund. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Thomas Geiger, 335-1800 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Thomas Geiger, Assistant County Counsel, Sharon Hymes-Offord, Risk Manager C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Public report of litigation settlement agreements that became final during the period of February 1, 2016, through February 29, 2016. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 488 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) This report includes final settlements of litigation matters handled by the Office of the County Counsel. This report does not include litigation settlements that were reported by the Risk Management Division of the County Administrator’s Office as a consent item on the Board’s open session agenda. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The report would not be accepted. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: N.A. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 489 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for February 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Government Code section 53232.3(d) requires that members of legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging ex cetera). The attached reports were submitted by the Board of Supervisors members in satisfaction of this requirement. District V has nothing to report. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board of Supervisors will not be in compliance with Government Code 53232.3(d). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Joellen Balbas 925.335.1906 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT Board Members meeting reports for February 2016 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 490 ATTACHMENTS District II February 2016 Report District IV February 2016 Report District I February 2016 report District III February 2016 Report March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 491 Supervisor Candace Andersen – Monthly Meeting Report February 2016 Date Meeting Location 1 SWAT Danville 2 Board of Supervisors Martinez 3 CAO interviews Martinez 3 Mental Health Comm. Concord 4 East Bay EDA Pleasant Hill 5 County Connection O & S Danville 8 Public Protection Martinez 8 Family & Human Services Martinez 8 Transportation Meeting San Ramon 9 Board of Supervisors Martinez 10 LAFCO Martinez 10 CCCERA Concord 11 Street Smarts Danville 11 TWIC Martinez 12 Citizen Corps San Ramon 12 Orinda Chamber event Orinda 16 SWAT Danville 17 Fix our Roads Press Conf. Concord 17 Antioch Healthcare Opening Antioch 17 CCTA Walnut Creek 18 CCCTA Concord 18 Danville Chamber event Danville 21 Orinda Association event Orinda 22 Alamo Liaison Danville 23 Moraga Businessperson event Moraga 24 TVTC San Ramon 25 CCCERA Concord 25 CCCSWA Walnut Creek 25 East Bay Innovation Awards Oakland 28 Dose of Awareness Walk San Ramon March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 492 Supervisor Karen Mitchoff February 2016 DATE MEETING NAME LOCATION PURPOSE 2/1/2016 Pleasant Hill Oversight Board Meeting Pleasant Hill Decisions on agenda items 2/2/2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 2/3/2016 ABAG Regional Planning Committee Oakland Decisions on agenda items 2/3/2016 CCTA Special Board Meeting Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items 2/8/2016 Hiring Outreach and Oversight Committee Martinez Decisions on agenda items 2/8/2016 Legislation Committee Martinez Decisions on agenda items 2/9/2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 2/11/2016 TRANSPAC Pleasant Hill Decisions on agenda items 2/17/2016 BAAQMD Board Meeting San Francisco Decisions on agenda items 2/17/2016 Antioch Health Center Grand Opening Antioch Community Outreach 2/17/2016 CCTA Authority Board Meeting Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items 2/19/2016 Delta Counties Coalition In-Person Meeting Sacramento Water Advocacy 2/25/2016 BAAQMD Mobile Source Meeting San FranciscoDecisions on agenda items 2/25/2016 CCCSWA Board Meeting Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 493 Supervisor Gioia February – 2016 Monthly Meeting Report Government Code section 53232.3 (d) requires that members of legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc.). Supervisor Gioia sought reimbursement from the County for the meetings listed in this report. It is not a complete list of meetings that he attended. 1. February 10 – February 12: CSAC (California State Assn. of Counties) Leadership Forum/San Diego 2. February 20 – February 23: NACo (National Assn of Counties) Conference/Washington DC March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 494 Date Meeting Name Location Purpose 1-Feb Meeting with Human Resources Brentwood Business Meeting 2-Feb Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 3-Feb Meeting with County Administrator, David Twa and Supervisor Candace Andersen Martinez Business Meeting 4-Feb Meeting with Executive Director, Erik Vink, Delta Protection Commission Brentwood Business Meeting 4-Feb Tour of Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area Tracy Business Meeting 4-Feb Constituent Meeting Brentwood Business Meeting 4-Feb Meeting with Public Works Brentwood Business Meeting 4-Feb Mayors' Conference Oakley Community Outreach 5-Feb Phone Meeting with Delta Counties Coalition Brentwood Business Meeting 9-Feb Phone Meeting with Senator Lois Wolk Brentwood Business Meeting 9-Feb Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 9-Feb Housing Authority Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 9-Feb Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 10-Feb Meeting with Conservation and Development Department Martinez Business Meeting 10-Feb Meeting with County Administrator, David Twa Martinez Business Meeting 10-Feb LAFCO Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 10-Feb Meeting with San Joaquin County Supervisor Bob Elliott Brentwood Business Meeting 11-Feb San Joaquin County LAFCO Meeting Stockton Business Meeting 11-Feb Finance Committee Meeting Martinez Business Meeting Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho – February 2016 AB1234 Report (Government Code Section 53232.3(d) requires that members of legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc). March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 495 11-Feb Meeting with Barry Luboviski, Public Employees Union Local 1 Martinez Business Meeting 11-Feb Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 11-Feb * Meeting with Randy Fiorini & Jessica Pearson, Delta Stewardship Council Byron Business Meeting 11-Feb * Meeting with Randy Fiorini & Jessica Pearson from Delta Stewardship Council, Richard Denton and Ryan Hernandez Byron Business Meeting 11-Feb Tour of Byron Hot Springs Byron Business Meeting 11-Feb State Route 4 Bypass Authority Antioch Business Meeting 11-Feb Transplan Meeting Antioch Business Meeting 12-Feb Phone Meeting with Delta Counties Coalition Brentwood Business Meeting 22-Feb Phone Meeting with Executive Director, Erik Vink, Delta Protection Commission and Richard Denton and Ryan Hernandez Brentwood Business Meeting 24-Feb * Phone Meeting with Jessica Pearson, Delta Stewardship Council Brentwood Business Meeting 25-Feb * Delta Stewardship Council Meeting Sacramento Business Meeting 29-Feb Speaking engagement at the Highway 4/Highway 160 Connector Ramps Ribbon Cutting Celebration Antioch Community Outreach 29-Feb Meeting with Heidi Sanborn, California Stewardship Council and Lois Courchaine, Recycle Smart Martinez Business Meeting 29-Feb Meeting with County Administrator, David Twa, Fire Chief Carman, Brentwood City Manager, Gus Vina and Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Martinez Business Meeting * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 496 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-08, establishing an environmental health color-coded placard program for food facilities. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs to administer the food facility placard program will be covered by existing permit fees. There will be no impact to the county’s general fund, as the Environmental Health Division is fully cost covered by fees. BACKGROUND: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there are over 47 million food-borne illness outbreaks every year in the United States. And it is estimated that forty percent of the food-borne illness outbreaks are associated with retail food establishments. Environmental Health is proposing amendments to the county code to implement the Green Yellow Red Food Placarding program. Placarding programs have been shown in other jurisdictions to reduce reportable food-borne illness. The placarding program is part of Environmental Health’s goal to improve food handling practices and protect public safety in Contra Costa food establishments. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Marilyn Underwood, (925) 692-2521 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, M Wilhelm, Marilyn Underwood C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Adopt ordinance establishing an environmental health color-coded placard program for food facilities March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 497 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The public is very interested in easily accessible information, and this placard system will provide easy access about food safety for that food facility. Food facility operators also have an interest because evidence of safe food handling practices tends to increase customers’ trust and thus is good for business. The proposed placard program will supplement the online and smartphone app posting of food facility inspection results with a posting of the facility’s food safety rating at its entrance. In developing the placard program, Environmental Health considered food rating models that have been implemented, and chose to be consistent with other Bay Area counties in choosing the Green Yellow Red placard system. Currently, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Marin, and Sonoma are using the Green Yellow Red placarding system. Environmental Health discussed and received feedback about the program details with 25 food facility operators at two focus groups held in October 2015. Additionally, a letter was sent in early December to 8,000 postal addresses and 2,300 email addresses associated with the 4,000 food facilities in the county reminding them of the proposed plan, inviting them to five meetings held in December, and referring them to the website where a video and other materials describe the placarding program (cchealth.org/placard). The Green Yellow Red Program would visually inform the public of the compliance record of food establishments with a colored placard posted near the entrance to the facility. The colors will mimic a traffic light with green for “go” or “pass”; yellow for “conditional pass”; or red for “stop” or “closed”. The color code placard is intended to: • be easy to understand; • increase public awareness; • lead to increased compliance and food safety; and • reduce food-borne illness factors. The provisions of the ordinance are explained in more detail below: The proposed ordinance adds Article 413-3.18 to the County Ordinance Code to establish a program consisting of color-coded placards and official inspection reports. A placard indicates that Environmental Health has inspected a food facility to determine whether the food facility is in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws pertaining to the protection of public health. The placard color is based upon inspection results. Green is used to indicate that a food facility has passed an inspection. Yellow is used to indicate that a food facility has conditionally passed an inspection. A yellow placard signifies that two or more violations exist at a food facility, and that the food facility must meet certain conditions to receive a green placard. Red is used to indicate that a food facility has not passed an inspection, its environmental health permit is suspended, and it is closed. When Environmental Health issues a placard, it will also issue an official inspection report. The report is a notice that documents whether the food facility complies with all applicable federal, state, and local laws pertaining to the protection of public health, and describes all actions necessary to correct all violations noted in the report. After a food facility is inspected and issued a placard, it is unlawful to operate a food facility unless the placard is posted so as to be clearly visible to the general public and to patrons entering the food facility. The ordinance makes it illegal to deface, mar, camouflage, hide, or remove a placard. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance 2016-08 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 498 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 499 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 500 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 501 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes502 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes503 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes504 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-05, establishing online or electronic filing requirements for campaign disclosure documents filed with the County Clerk-Elections Division. FISCAL IMPACT: On-line electronic filing will reduce staff labor in receiving, handling, and posting campaign finance reports. BACKGROUND: On January 1, 2013, Assembly Bill 2452 went into effect adding Government Code section 84615, which allows a local government agency to require an elected officer, candidate, committee, or other person required to file statements, reports, or other documents to file those statements, reports, or other documents online or electronically with a local filing officer. The new law also prescribes criteria that must be satisfied by a local government agency that requires online or electronic filing of statements, reports, or other documents, as specified; including, among others, that the system be available free of charge to filers and to the public for viewing filings, and that the system include a procedure for filers to comply with the requirement that they sign statements and reports under penalty of perjury. The electronic reporting requirement applies to existing filers who are on-file in the County Clerk-Recorder Elections Division and who will be notified via email and in writing of the new requirements. Accounts will be established for, and training provided to, all filers covered by this requirement. Provision will be made for an in-office kiosk for filers who lack easy access to the on-line filing system. The goal of the proposed ordinance is to APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 925-335-7808 Scott Konopasek I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:Joseph E. Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-05 Establishing Requirements for Electronic Filing Requirement for Campaign March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 505 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) supplement the Political Reform Act by requiring electronic reporting of contributions and expenditures, regarding elections for all candidates and committees currently required to file campaign disclosure reports with the County Clerk-Recorder Elections Division. The purpose is to streamline the filing process, to increase timeliness and transparency, and to reduce expenses. The electronic filing system will operate securely and effectively and will not unduly burden filers. This ordinance does not impose any new or additional reporting requirements. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Should the Board elect not to adopt the ordinance, the paper filing processes for campaign finance reports will continue and the efficiencies of the online filing process will be forgone. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance 2016-05 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance 2016-05 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 506 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 507 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 508 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes509 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes510 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Kate Rauch 510-231-8691 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Honoring the West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer's Respite Center March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 511 CLERK'S ADDENDUM RELISTED to a future date undetermined. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2015/446 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 512 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2015/446 Honoring the West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer's Respite Center for Dedicated and Compassionate Service to the Community. WHEREAS, in April 1985, the West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer’s Respite Center was established to support and assist low-income West Contra Costa families caring for at-risk elders at home; and WHEREAS, this program provides comprehensive adult day services to frail elders and those with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias so that their family caregivers may work outside the home, have time to manage other responsibilities, and enjoy much-needed respite; and WHEREAS, this program, originally sponsored by Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP) and Contra Costa County Aging and Adult Services, became its own 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in1998; and WHEREAS, West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer’s Respite Center is the only West Contra Costa adult day center open ten hours a day, five days a week; and WHEREAS, the program continues to flourish under the direction of Executive Director, Deborah Price Janke, M.A. for these 30 years. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby honor the West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer's Respite Center on its compassionate and dedicated service to seniors, their families, and their caregivers. Let It Be Further Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa honors Deborah Price Janke, M.A., Executive Director of West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer's Respite Center, for her 30 years of devoted leadership. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA MARY N. PIEPHO District I Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: January 19, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 513 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lauri Byers (925) 957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:John Wyro is named Orinda Citizen of the Year March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 514 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/132 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/132 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 515 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/132 recognizing John Wyro as the Orinda Citizen of the year. Whereas, John Wyro was appointed to the Orinda Fire District Board in 1995, after applying for a job the Contra Costa County Supervisors ran looking to replace board members at the Orinda Fire District; and Whereas, John was not on the Board very long before he figured out that the citizens of Orinda would be better served by a merger between Orinda and Moraga Fire Districts; and Whereas, John talked with fire officials in Moraga and orchestrated the creation of the Moraga-Orinda Fire District in 1997, as a result, paramedics were brought to Orinda; and Whereas, John has always been involved in community service; since moving to Orinda in the early 1980’s, John served on the Orinda Union School District Board from 1985 until 1989, he coached girls soccer for the Orinda Youth Association, and he served as a representative to the General Plan Committee when Orinda incorporated; and Whereas, John and his wife of 47 years continue to live in Orinda, and John continues to volunteer. Now, therefore be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby honor John Wyro for his dedication to the Moraga-Orinda Fire District and Contra Costa County. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA MARY N. PIEPHO District I Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 516 C.21 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 517 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Marilyn Underwood, 692-2521 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, M Wilhelm, Marilyn Underwood C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:March 20-26, 2016 as Environmental Health Recognition Week March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 518 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/118 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/118 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 519 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/118 In the matter of recognizing March 20-26, 2016 as Environmental Health Recognition Week in Contra Costa County. WHEREAS, Contra Costa County considers the health and well-being of its residents to be its highest priority; and WHEREAS, public education and responsible enforcement of regulations related to public health and environment are critical in this regard; and WHEREAS, Registered Environmental Health Specialists and other environmental health professionals are dedicated to protecting public health and the environment for the benefit of local residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Health Association is a professional organization which supports Registered Environmental Health Specialists in their commitment to improving the quality of life and health for all members of the community through education and responsible enforcement of regulations; and WHEREAS, during the week of March 21-25, 2016, the Northern Chapter of the California Environmental Health Association will be hosting the 65th Annual Educational Symposium in Oakland entitled, Lighting Your Way to the Future; and WHEREAS, Registered Environmental Health Specialists and professionals in the field of Environmental Health will gather in Oakland to participate in the sharing of information so as to positively shape and influence the future of public health in their respective communities. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County do hereby proclaim the week of March 20-26, 2016, as Environmental Health Recognition Week in Contra Costa County to honor employees in the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department and the members of the California Environmental Health Association and to express appreciation for the critical role these dedicated professionals play in protecting public health. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA MARY N. PIEPHO District I Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 520 PR.3, C.18 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 521 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Carrie Ricci, 925-313-2235 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Recognizing Cathy Lueders on the occasion of her retirement from the Public Works Department March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 522 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/117 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/117 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 523 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/117 IN THE MATTER OF the contributions of Cathy Lueders on the occasion of her Retirement from Contra Costa County. WHEREAS Cathy Lueders began her career with Contra Costa County in August 1992, as an Experienced Level Clerk for the Contra Costa County Public Works Department; and promoted up the ranks from Clerk, to Secretary, to Clerical Supervisor and to Office Manager, a position she has held since 2009; and WHEREAS in 1995 Cathy received the Public Works Department Award of Excellence for her fantastic work supporting the Engineering Services Division, her positive attitude and going the extra mile to get work accomplished; and WHEREAS in 1998 Cathy was recognized for her work on the Public Work’s Department Charity Drive which included a 23% increase in the amount donated from the previous year; and WHEREAS in 1999 Cathy was a team member of the Public Works Newsletter Editorial Board which received the Award of Excellence for providing a quality newsletter to Public Work employees; and WHEREAS in 2004 Cathy was a team member of the Public Works Newsletter Editorial Board which was nominated for the Department’s Walford Award for the team’s contribution for continuing to provide a newsletter to Public Works employees. WHEREAS in 2007 Cathy worked on an interdepartmental team to develop customer services standards and provide training to front line staff that answer calls from the public; and WHEREAS Cathy participated on a team to develop a Style Guide for the Public Works Department to maintain a professional, consistent appearance for documents; and WHEREAS Cathy has organized and scheduled hundreds of training courses for staff since she assumed training responsibilities in 2001; and WHEREAS Cathy’s positive attitude, cheerful demeanor and customer service skills make her an asset to the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS Cathy has maintained many relationships both within and outside the Public Works Department that allow her to be effective in her work for Contra Costa County; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Cathy Lueders be recognized upon her retirement for 23 years of dedicated service to Contra Costa County and for the high quality of work performed by her during her career. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA MARY N. PIEPHO District I Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 524 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 525 C.17 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 526 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: John Kopc I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Recognizing Emily Purvis on Her 23 Years of Service to Contra Costa County March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 527 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/130 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/130 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 528 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/130 RECOGNIZING the contributions of Emily Purvis on her 23 years of service to Contra Costa County. WHEREAS in April of 1994, Emily Purvis started her career as a temporary Clerk-Experienced Level Typist with the former Building Inspection Department; and WHEREAS in January 1995, Emily was promoted to a permanent position with Contra Costa County in the former Building Inspection Department as a Experienced Level Clerk; and WHEREAS in September 1999 she was promoted to Senior Clerk; and WHEREAS in 2004 she promoted again to become a Building Plan Checker I with the Building Inspection Department; and WHEREAS in 2008, when Building Inspection Department merged with Community Development to form the Department of Conservation and Development, Emily served the residents of Contra Costa County by playing an integral part of the Application and Permit team; and WHEREAS she performed various functions during her tenure with the Department; such as Records Librarian, Subpoena Documentation Clerk and Custodian of Records; and WHEREAS throughout her career with the Department, has been an ambassador of excellent public service, with her warm welcoming manner, to the citizens of Contra Costa County; and WHEREAS her kind and generous acknowledgement and organization of milestone celebrations and gatherings for staff within the Department throughout the years has contributed significantly to morale and camaraderie; and WHEREAS Emily actively serves her community through faith-based organizations, holding the positions of Deaconess Missionary, Outreach President at the Church of God in Christ, Registration Coordinator for the Vallejo Outreach Community that serves over 10,000 people yearly; and WHEREAS Emily continues to devote her time and energy to uplifting the young women within the community at public speaking events as a motivational speaker and has done outreach from New York to Los Angeles; and WHEREAS Emily still finds time to teach Sunday School, summer Vacation Bible Study and is part of Prayer Partners; and WHEREAS graduated from the Fashion Institute of New York with a degree in Fashion Construction and has been a Dressmaker for more than forty years; designing and sewing all of her own clothing; and WHEREAS she is proud to be the mother of three children, three grandchildren and three adopted grandchildren; and WHEREAS she proclaims her greatest inspiration and motivation to be her faith. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Emily Purvis be recognized upon her retirement for her 23 years of dedicated service to Contra Costa County and for the high quality of work performed during her career. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA MARY N. PIEPHO District I Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 529 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 530 C.20 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 531 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lauri Byers (925) 957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution recognizing Social Workers March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 532 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/101 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/101 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 533 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/101 recognizing Social Workers. Whereas, Child Welfare Social Workers strive to protect children from abuse and neglect; and Whereas, Child Welfare Social Workers find loving foster and adoptive homes for children; and Whereas, Child Welfare Social Workers help families solve problems and reunite children with their families; and Whereas, Child Welfare Social Workers work closely with the community to help families find resources in their community to help families address their children’s needs; and Whereas, In Home Supportive Services Social Workers provide comprehensive assessment and intervention activities to recipients so they can remain in the community and in the least restrictive level of care; and Whereas, In Home Supportive Services Social Workers also provide support to the care providers of these recipients to ensure the recipient receives the necessary care and supervision at home; and Whereas, General Assistance Supplemental Security Income Social Workers provide assessment and advocacy on behalf of disabled clients in order for them to apply and obtain Social Security Disability Benefits which contributes to the improvement of their lives; and Whereas, Adult Protective Services Social Workers investigate emotional abuse, sexual abuse, financial exploitation, neglect and isolation of the elderly and disabled adults which helps them remain safe and independent in the community; and Whereas, Information and Assistance Social Workers provide valuable information, make referrals to resources and support problem solving to seniors age 60 and older, adults with disabilities and caregivers so they can remain independent and safe at home; and Whereas, Assessment and Intensive Services Social Workers determine job readiness, assess barriers to employment for clients in a variety of services programs and assist clients in finding resources to overcome barriers; and Whereas, Medical Social Workers within Contra Costa Health Services care for and improve the health of those who are most vulnerable to health problems in Contra Costa County, through all stages of the life span; and Whereas, Medical Social Workers in the hospital, clinics and Contra Costa Health Plan provide Clinical Assessment and Assist in helping the patients obtain needed Medical Services throughout the entire healthcare system, addressing both the Medical and Psychosocial needs of the patients, serving as liaisons to other needed community services, working in partnership with health, education and human service agencies. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recognizes and honors the hard work of all social workers. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA MARY N. PIEPHO District I Supervisor District III Supervisor March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 534 ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 535 PR.2, C.16 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 536 RECOMMENDATION(S): Resolution recognizing the Regional Center of the East Bay. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recognizes the Regional Center of the East Bay as it celebrates 40 years of providing essential, supportive services to people with developmental disabilities and their families. The Regional Center of the East Bay serves 18,500 residents from Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and is the fifth largest regional center in California. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jennifer Quallick (925) 957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution Recognizing the Regional Center of the East Bay March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 537 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/83 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/83 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 538 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/83 Recognizing the Regional Center of the East Bay. WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recognizes the Regional Center of the East Bay as it celebrates 40 years of providing essential and supportive services to people with developmental disabilities and their families. The Regional Center of the East Bay serves 18,500 residents from Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and is the fifth largest regional center in California; and WHEREAS, due to the advocacy of people with developmental disabilities and their families, the Regional Center system was first created 50 years ago. The passage of the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act guaranteed that people with developmental disabilities have the right to receive services and support that enable them to live more independent and productive lives in their local communities. The Regional Center of the East Bay has been responsible for coordinating such services since its founding; and WHEREAS, the Regional Center of the East Bay is one of California's twenty-one Regional Centers that have a mandate to ensure that people with developmental disabilities can access services that are critical to maintaining their quality of life. This mandate has been confirmed numerous times by the California Supreme Court; and WHEREAS, since the passage of the Lanterman Act, the mission of Regional Centers has been refined and expanded to better meet the needs of people with developmental disabilities. The Regional Center of the East Bay serves adults and children with developmental disabilities, as well as individuals with a high risk of parenting a child with developmental disabilities; and WHEREAS, the Regional Center of the East Bay coordinates many services to meet the unique needs of people with developmental disabilities and their families. These include, but are not limited to, the provision of adaptive equipment, counseling, early intervention and prevention services, independent and supportive living services, mobility training, parental training, residential services, and specialized medical care; and WHEREAS, Regional Centers require sufficient funding to carry out their missions as mandated by the State of California. Public investment in California Regional Centers, such as the Regional Center of the East Bay, is necessary in order to ensure quality service coordination to clients, to provide adequate provider reimbursement rates, to retain quality employees, and most importantly, to ensure the ongoing quality of care. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize and honor the Regional Center of the East Bay for decades of coordinating services for people with developmental disabilities and their families. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA MARY N. PIEPHO District I Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 539 By: ____________________________________, Deputy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 540 PR.1, C.15 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 541 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lauri Byers (925) 957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution recognizing Tom Steuber as Lafayette's Citizen of the Year March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 542 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/121 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/121 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 543 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/121 recognizing Tom Steuber as Lafayette's Citizen of the Year. Whereas, Tom Steuber has presided as Scoutmaster for Lafayette’s Boy Scout Troop 204 for twelve years; and Whereas, Tom has guided hundreds of boys through their scouting journey including an unprecedented 100 scouts that have earned the rank of Eagle Scout; and Whereas, Tom has taught boys to be leaders and to work together on common goals, he has guided them in their service to the community, serving as a wonderful role model, always patient and thoughtful; and Whereas, Toms’ company Associated Services, has reached out and supported underprivileged teachers, schools and classrooms throughout the Bay Area, encouraging his employees to reach out to every teacher they know, no requests are denied; and Whereas, Tom is a remarkable humanitarian and a hard working, dedicated community member. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby honor Tom Steuber as Lafayette's Citizen of the Year in Contra Costa County. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA MARY N. PIEPHO District I Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 544 C.19 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 545 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lia Bristol, (925) 521-7100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:URGING THE STATE TO PROVIDE NEW SUSTAINABLE FUNDING FOR STATE AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 546 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/133 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/133 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 547 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/133 Urging the State to provide new sustainable funding for State and Local transportation infrastructure WHEREAS, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. has called an extraordinary session to address the immense underfunding of California’s transportation infrastructure; and WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81% of streets and roads in California, and from the moment we open our front door to drive to work, bike to school, or walk to the bus station, people are dependent upon a safe, reliable local transportation network; and WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has participated in efforts with the California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, and California’s Regional Transportation Planning Agencies to study unmet funding needs for local roads and bridges, including sidewalks and other essential components; and WHEREAS, the resulting 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, which provides critical analysis and information on the local transportation network’s condition and funding needs, indicates that the condition of the local transportation network is deteriorating as predicted in the initial 2008 study; and WHEREAS, the results show that California’s local streets and roads are on a path of significant decline. On a scale of zero (failed) to 100 (excellent), the statewide average pavement condition index (PCI) is 66, placing it in the “at risk” category where pavements will begin to deteriorate much more rapidly and require rehabilitation or rebuilding rather than more cost-effective preventative maintenance if funding is not increased; and WHEREAS, if funding remains at the current levels, in 10 years, 25% of local streets and roads in California will be in “failed” condition; and WHEREAS, cities and counties need an additional $1.7 billion just to maintain a status quo pavement condition of 66, and much more revenue to operate the system with Best Management Practices, which would reduce the total amount of funding needed for maintenance in the future; and WHEREAS, models show that an additional $3 billion annual investment in the local streets and roads system is expected to improve pavement conditions statewide from an average “at risk” condition to an average “good” condition; and WHEREAS, if additional funding isn’t secured now, it will cost taxpayers twice as much to fix the local system in the future, as failure to act this year will increase unmet funding needs for local transportation facilities by $11 billion in five years and $21 billion in ten years; and WHEREAS, modernizing the local street and road system provides well-paying construction jobs and boosts local economies; and WHEREAS, the local street and road system is also critical for farm to market needs, interconnectivity, multimodal needs, and commerce; and WHEREAS, police, fire, and emergency medical services all need safe reliable roads to react quickly to emergency calls and a few minutes of delay can be a matter of life and death; and WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving the local street and road system in good condition will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make the pedestrian experience safer and more appealing, which leads to reduce vehicle emissions helping the State achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals; and WHEREAS, restoring roads before they fail also reduces construction time which results in less air pollution from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run-off; and WHEREAS, in addition to the local system, the state highway system needs an additional $5.7 billion March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 548 annually to address the state’s deferred maintenance; and WHEREAS, in order to bring the local system back into a cost-effective condition, at least $7.3 billion annually in new money going directly to cities and counties; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors strongly urges the Governor and Legislature to identity a sufficient and stable funding source for local street and road and state highway maintenance and rehabilitation to ensure the safe and efficient mobility of the traveling public and the economic vitality of California. RESOLVED FURTHER RESOLVED FURTHER, that Contra Costa County strongly urges the Governor and Legislature to adopt the following priorities for funding California’s streets and roads: 1. Make a significant new investment in transportation infrastructure. Any package should seek to raise at least $6 billion annually and should remain in place for at least 10 years or until an alternative method of funding our transportation system is agreed upon. 2. Focus on maintaining and rehabilitating the current system. Repairing California’s streets and highways involves much more than fixing potholes. It requires major road pavement overlays, fixing unsafe bridges, providing safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians, replacing storm water culverts, as well as operational improvements that necessitate the construction of auxiliary lanes to relieve traffic congestion choke points and fixing design deficiencies that have created unsafe merging and other traffic hazards. Efforts to supply funding for transit in addition to funding for roads should also focus on fixing the system first. 3. Equal split between state and local projects. We support sharing revenue for roadway maintenance equally (50/50) between the state and cities and counties, given the equally-pressing funding needs of both systems, as well as the longstanding historical precedent for collecting transportation user fees through a centralized system and sharing the revenues across the entire network through direct subventions. Ensuring that funding to local governments is provided directly, without intermediaries, will accelerate project delivery and ensure maximum accountability. 4. Raise revenues across a broad range of options. Research by the California Alliance for Jobs and Transportation California shows that voters strongly support increased funding for transportation improvements. They are much more open to a package that spreads potential tax or fee increases across a broad range of options, including fuel taxes, license fees, and registration fees, rather than just one source. Additionally, any package should move California toward an all-users pay structure, in which everyone who benefits from the system contributes to maintaining it – from traditional gasoline-fueled vehicles, to new hybrids or electric vehicles, to commercial vehicles. 5. Invest a portion of diesel tax and/or cap & trade revenue to high-priority goods movement projects. While the focus of a transportation funding package should be on maintaining and rehabilitating the existing system, California has a critical need to upgrade the goods movement infrastructure that is essential to our economic well-being. Establishing a framework to make appropriate investments in major goods movement arteries can lay the groundwork for greater investments in the future that will also improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 6. Strong accountability requirements to protect the taxpayers’ investment. Voters and taxpayers must be assured that all transportation revenues are spent responsibly. Local governments are accustomed to employing transparent processes for selecting road maintenance projects aided by pavement management systems, as well as reporting on the expenditure of transportation funds through the State Controller’s Local Streets and Roads Annual Report. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA MARY N. PIEPHO District I Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 549 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 550 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 551 RECOMMENDATION(S): Reappoint the following person to the Youth Representative Seat on the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council for a one-year term, with an expiration date of December 31, 2016, as recommended by Supervisor Candace Andersen: Rachel Etherington 2716 Miranda Avenue Alamo, CA 94507 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Alamo MAC may advise the Board of Supervisors on services that are or may be provided to the Alamo community by Contra Costa County or other local government agencies. Such services include, but are not limited to, parks and recreation, lighting and landscaping, public health, safety, welfare, public works, code enforcement, land use and planning, transportation and other infrastructure. The Council may also provide input and reports to the District Supervisor, Board of Supervisors, County staff or any County hearing body on issues of concern to the community. The Council may represent the Alamo community before the Board of Supervisors, County Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jill Ray, 925-957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: District 2 Supervisor, Maddy Book, Alamo MAC, Appointee C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO THE ALAMO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 552 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Council may also represent the Alamo community before the Local Agency Formation Commission on proposed boundary changes effecting the community. The Council may advocate on parks and recreation issues to the Town of Danville and the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. In December 2012, the Board of Supervisors authorized the addition of a Youth Representative seat for the Alamo MAC to allow the youth of Alamo an opportunity to participate in local government The Board set the term for office for the Youth Representative seat to one year, expiring annually on December 31. On January 14, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved a general modification to the countywide MAC policy providing the option for a District Supervisor to add, upon Board approval, one youth seat to any MAC and one alternate seat to any 7-member MAC. Miss Etherington has been a positive addition to the AMAC over the past year and Supervisor Andersen would like her to continue for another term. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Youth Representative seat will become vacant. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 553 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Dr. Elizabeth Sutherland to the At Large 2 Seat on the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board, with a term expiring June 30, 2018 as recommend by the Family and Human Services Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The mission of the Contra Costa County Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board is to assess family and community needs regarding treatment and prevention of alcohol and drug abuse problems. They report their findings and recommendations to the Contra Costa Health Services Department, the Board of Supervisors, and the communities they serve. The Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board works in collaboration with the Alcohol and Other Drugs Services Division of Contra Costa Health Services. They provide input and recommendations as they pertain to alcohol and other drugs prevention, intervention, and treatment services. On February 8, 2016, the Family and Human Services Committee approved the recommendation to appoint Dr. Sutherland to the At-Large 2 Seat on the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Enid Mendoza, (925) 335-1039 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appointment to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 554 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Body, and is therefore forwarding on the recommendation to the full board for approval. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The At Large seat on the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board will remain vacant. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. ATTACHMENTS AOD Memo and Application March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 555 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes556 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 557 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 558 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 559 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 560 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 561 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 562 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 563 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 564 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT the following candidates to the Contra Costa Commission for Women: Bonnie McCreary to the At Large Seat 5, with a term expiring February 28, 2019 Patricia Ramirez to the At Large Seat 6, with a term expiring February 28, 2018 Natalie Oleas to the At Large Seat 10, with a term expiring February 28, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa Commission for Women was formed to educate the community and advise the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and other entities on the issues relating to the changing social and economic conditions of women in the County, with particular emphasis on the economically disadvantaged. The Committee consists of 20 members and one alternate, including: Five district representatives; (one from each supervisorial; districts) Fifteen at large members; and One at large alternate APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Enid Mendoza; 925-335-1039 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appointments to Contra Costa Commission on Women March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 565 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) >The five district representatives are nominated for a three year term by each of the five members of the Board of Supervisors. The fifteen at large members and one at large alternate are nominated by the CCCW membership committee and forwarded to the full CCCW. On February 8, 2016, the Family and Human Services Committee approved the recommended appointments of Ms. McCreary, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Oleas, and are therefore recommending the full board's approval of these appointments. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Candidates will not be appointed to the Commission. ATTACHMENTS Women's Commission Appointments Memo and Applications March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 566 CONTRA COSTA COMMISSION FOR WOMEN P.O. Box 6695 Concord, CA 94520 E-Mail: womenscommission@gmail.com DATE: January 19.2016 TO: Family and Human Services Committee FROM: Phyllis L. Gordon, Membership Chair, Contra Costa Commission for Women SUBJECT: Recommended Appointments to the Contra Costa Commission for Women The purpose of this memorandum is to forward to you the following recommendation from the Contra Costa Commission for Women (CCCW):  Appoint Bonnie McCreary to At Large Seat 5 on the CCCW  Appoint Patricia Ramirez to At Large Seat 6 on the CCCW Background The Contra Costa Commission for Women was formed to educate the community and advise the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and other entities on the issues relating to the changing social and economic conditions of women in the County, with particular emphasis on the economically disadvantaged. The Committee consists of 25 members and one alternate, including:  Five district representatives; (one from each supervisorial; districts)  Twenty at large members; and  One at large alternate. The five district representatives are nominated for a three year term by each of the five members of the Board of Supervisors. The twenty at large members and one at large alternate are nominated by the CCCW membership committee and forwarded to the full CCCW. All nominated appointments to the CCCW are reviewed by the Family and Human Services Committee (IOC) and referred to the Board of Supervisors for approval. CCCW terms are for three years and they are staggered across the membership. A current CCCW roster, as of May 22, 2013, is attached for your information (Attachment A). Current Status of Appointments The CCCW have been actively recruiting applicants on an ongoing basis to fill the vacant seats. The membership committee unanimously approved the above recommendations. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 567 S:\Committees\FHS\2016 FHS\1 January 2016\Appointments\Women's Commission\Women'sCommissionAppointmentMemo B.McCreary and P.Ramirez.doc 2 As of January19, 2016 there are 14 at large vacancies and a District 3 appointee opening . The At Large Alternate seat is also vacant. If the appointment recommended in this memorandum is ultimately approved, two at large seats will be filled. The vacancies remaining after approval would be 12 at large seats and one alternate. With three others applicants in process (interviews) as of January1, 2016. Since May 2004, the CCCW has had extremely limited staff support and no budget provided by the County. However, the CCCW membership committee is continuing its recruiting efforts and plans to fill the remaining vacancies within the next few months. cc without attachment : CCCW Membership Committee/Gordon,Chair Enid Mendoza, CAO March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 568 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 569 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 570 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 571 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 572 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes573 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes574 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes575 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes576 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes577 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes578 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes579 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes580 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes581 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes582 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes583 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes584 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes585 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes586 CONTRA COSTA COMMISSION FOR WOMEN P.O. Box 6695 Concord, CA 94520 E-Mail: womenscommission@gmail.com DATE: January 26.2016 TO: Family and Human Services Committee FROM: Phyllis L. Gordon, Membership Chair, Contra Costa Commission for Women SUBJECT: Recommended Appointments to the Contra Costa Commission for Women The purpose of this memorandum is to forward to you the following recommendation from the Contra Costa Commission for Women (CCCW):  Appoint Natalie Oleas to At Large Seat 10 on the CCCW Background The Contra Costa Commission for Women was formed to educate the community and advise the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and other entities on the issues relating to the changing social and economic conditions of women in the County, with particular emphasis on the economically disadvantaged. The Committee consists of 25 members and one alternate, including:  Five district representatives; (one from each supervisorial; districts)  Twenty at large members; and  One at large alternate. The five district representatives are nominated for a three year term by each of the five members of the Board of Supervisors. The twenty at large members and one at large alternate are nominated by the CCCW membership committee and forwarded to the full CCCW. All nominated appointments to the CCCW are reviewed by the Family and Human Services Committee (IOC) and referred to the Board of Supervisors for approval. CCCW terms are for three years and they are staggered across the membership. A current CCCW roster, as of May 22, 2013, is attached for your information (Attachment A). Current Status of Appointments The CCCW have been actively recruiting applicants on an ongoing basis to fill the vacant seats. The membership committee unanimously approved the above recommendations. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 587 S:\Committees\FHS\2016 FHS\1 January 2016\Appointments\Women's Commission\Women'sCommissionAppointmentMemo N.Oleas.doc 2 As of January26, 2016 there are 14 at large vacancies and a District 3 appointee opening . The At Large Alternate seat is also vacant. If the appointment recommended in this memorandum is ultimately approved, another at large seat will be filled. The vacancies remaining after approval would be 11 at large seats and one alternate. With two others applicants in process (interviews) as of January1, 2016. Since May 2004, the CCCW has had extremely limited staff support and no budget provided by the County. However, the CCCW membership committee is continuing its recruiting efforts and plans to fill the remaining vacancies within the next few months. cc without attachment : CCCW Membership Committee/Gordon,Chair Enid Mendoza, CAO March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 588 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes589 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes590 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes591 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes592 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT the following staff to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, with a term expiring December 31, 2017: Contra Costa County seat: Robert Sarmiento, Department of Conservation and Development. Term Expiration- December 31, 2017 Contra Costa County seat-Alternate: Jerry Fahy, Public Works Department. Term Expiration- December 31, 2017 FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the General Fund. Staff time for this effort has been incorporated into the Departments' budgets. BACKGROUND: In 2001, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) initiated preparation of their first Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Plan). In 2009, the Plan was updated. At the outset of both of these efforts, the Board of Supervisors made appointments to the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CBPAC), at the request of the CCTA. Recognizing the continuing role the CBPAC has in implementing bicycle and pedestrian policies and advising on related funding decisions, the CCTA has adopted a formal structure, procedures, and bylaws for the CBPAC (see Exhibit A). With the formalization of the CBPAC, the CCTA is requesting that member agencies reappoint representatives or appoint new staff representatives (see Exhibit B). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Robert Sarmiento (925) 674-7822 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appointments to the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 593 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Citizen members are included in the CBPAC; those appointments are being made by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees. The structure of the CBPAC is as follows (from the CBPAC bylaws): 1. One citizen and one staff person plus one alternate appointed by each of the four Regional Transportation Planning Committees 2. One staff person plus one alternate appointed by the County of Contra Costa 3. One representative plus one alternate appointed by the East Bay Regional Park District 4. One citizen representative plus one alternate appointed by the East Bay Bicycle Coalition 5. Two citizens appointed by the Authority, one of whom is familiar with issues of youth walking and bicycling and one of whom is familiar with issues of seniors and disabled non-motorized transportation Staff from the Department of Conservation and Development and the Public Works Department discussed and developed the recommendation presented here. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the recommended action is not taken, the County will not be represented on the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and the County's position will not be represented during the development of recommendations on planning and funding issues related to walking and bicycling policies in Contra Costa County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee reviews policies and projects that support safe routes to schools. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - CCTA CBPAC Bylaws Exhibit B - October 15, 2015 Letter from CCTA to CCC re: CBPAC Appointment March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 594 B Y -L AWS Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Adopted October 19, 2011 These by-laws outline the purpose, membership, responsibilities, and operating procedures of the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (herein “CBPAC”) of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (the “Authority”). 1. Name and Authorization The name of this organization shall be the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CBPAC). 2. Purpose 2.1. The purpose of the CBPAC is to advise the Authority on bicycle and pedestrian issues and to help the Authority carry out its responsi- bilities as a sales tax and congestion management agency. 2.2. The CBPAC shall have the responsibility to: 2.2.1. Oversee updates to the CBPP and other Authority policy documents and help implement the policies established therein 2.2.2. Review and provide recommendations on applications for funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs 2.2.3. Review and comment on “complete streets” checklists re- quired of proposed projects 2.2.4. Address other bicycle or pedestrian issues facing the Au- thority, Contra Costa and the region March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 595 3. Membership 3.1. The CBPAC shall be comprised of 13 members, plus alternates as noted, appointed from the following agencies: 3.1.1. One citizen and one staff person plus one alternate ap- pointed by each of the four Regional Transportation Plan- ning Committees 3.1.2. One staff person plus one alternate appointed by the Coun- ty of Contra Costa 3.1.3. One representative plus one alternate appointed by the East Bay Regional Park District 3.1.4. One citizen representative plus one alternate appointed by the East Bay Bicycle Coalition 3.1.5. Two citizens appointed by the Authority, one of which fa- miliar with issues of youth walking and bicycling and one of which familiar with issues of seniors and disabled non- motorized transportation 3.2. Citizen members shall be residents of Contra Costa. 3.3. Members shall represent the general countywide interest and not solely the interest of their appointing authorities or any specific or- ganization. 3.4. At the discretion of the respective appointing body, CBPAC mem- bers are subject to recall at anytime. 3.5. Members shall be appointed for two year terms. There shall be no limit on the number of consecutive terms which a member may serve. 3.6. If a member fails to attend three consecutive meetings, whether regularly scheduled or special, the position to which that member was appointed shall be considered vacant. Attendance by an alter- nate for that position shall be considered attendance by the mem- ber. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 596 3.7. A vacancy in a position shall be filled for the remainder of the term by the alternate assigned to that position, if any, or until the ap- pointing agency appoints another person to fill that position. 4. Officers 4.1. The Officers of the CBPAC shall be a Chair and a Vice-Chair. Their duties shall be as follows: 4.1.1. Chair: Presides over CBPAC meetings; reviews the meeting agenda; appoints subcommittees and subcommittee chairs; and reports the CBPAC's actions and decisions to the Au- thority as appropriate. 4.1.2. Vice-Chair: Presides over the CBPAC meetings in the ab- sence of the Chair; conducts the other duties of the Chair in his/her absence. 4.2. Election of Officers shall be made as follows: 4.2.1. Chair: The Chair’s term of office shall be for one calendar year. The Chair shall be elected each year at the last meet- ing of the calendar year by a majority of the CBPAC mem- bers present and voting, and shall serve until replaced by a newly-elected chair. If the term of appointment of the Chair expires before the year is out, and that member does not seek or accept reappointment, the Vice-Chair will serve as Chair until the following January. 4.2.2. Vice-Chair: This officer shall be elected by a majority of the CBPAC members present and voting at the last meeting of the calendar year. The term of office shall be for one year. If the term of appointment of the Vice-Chair expires before the year is out and that member does not seek or accept reappointment, the Committee will hold an election for a Vice-Chair to serve out the remainder of the term. 4.3. In the event of a vacancy in the office of the Chair, the Vice-chair shall be elevated to the office of Chair for the remainder of the ca- lendar year term, and the CBPAC shall nominate and elect a new Vice-chair. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 597 5. Voting 5.1. Decision-making by the CBPAC shall be by consensus. The CBPAC shall use formal voting only where consensus among members, and alternates attending in place of a member, cannot be reached. 5.2. Each member shall have one vote. Alternates are eligible to vote when seated in place of their regular committee member. 5.3. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the then-appointed CBPAC members. Vacant positions shall not be considered in calculating whether a quorum has been achieved. Alternates attending instead of regularly-appointed members shall be considered as members in determining whether a quorum has been achieved. 5.4. Actions taken by the CBPAC must be approved by a majority of those members or alternates eligible to vote at a meeting at which a quorum has been achieved. 6. Meetings 6.1. All CBPAC meetings shall be posted public meetings conducted in compliance with the Brown Act. 6.2. The regular meetings of the CBPAC are generally scheduled for the fourth Monday of every other month beginning in January of every year at 11:00 a.m. in the Authority offices at 2999 Oak Road, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, California 94597. Additional or alternative meetings may be scheduled to address issues requiring more im- mediate consideration. 6.3. The rules contained within the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order (Newly Revised) shall govern the CBPAC in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws, the Authority’s Administrative Code, the Authority’s Office Procedures Guide, and any special rules of order the CBPAC may adopt. 7. Subcommittees 7.1. The Chair may establish subcommittees and ad hoc committees as necessary. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 598 7.2. Each subcommittee shall consist of at least three (3) CBPAC mem- bers. Members shall be reappointed annually. 8. Amendment of By-Laws Amendment of these bylaws may be initiated either by the CBPAC or the Authori- ty directly. Amendment by the CBPAC requires a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the CBPAC members present and voting at any regular meeting of the CBPAC, and subsequent approval by the full Authority Board. Amendment by the Authority would be made consistent with the Authority’s adopted procedures. 9. Communications and Reporting 9.1. The primary channel of communication for the CBPAC shall be through written and oral reports from the CBPAC to the Technical Coordinating Committee, and through that committee to the Plan- ning Committee and Authority board. 9.2. Reports from the CBPAC should reflect the consensus of the CBPAC. If consensus has not been achieved, the Chair shall convey to the Authority that the CBPAC position reflects a majority vote, and the Chair shall acknowledge and convey minority opinions. 9.3. CBPAC members are encouraged to report back to their appointing Councils or boards on at least an annual basis and more frequently if warranted. 10. Conflict of Interest 10.1. There shall be no monetary gain by members of the CBPAC as a re- sult of their membership and actions on the CBPAC. 10.2. CBPAC members shall recuse themselves from discussion and vot- ing on issues in which they might have a personal financial interest or benefit. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 599 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 600 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 601 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT the following candidates to the Managed Care Commission as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee: Toya Thomas-Cruz to the Member At Large Seat #2, with a term expiring August 31, 2018 Jeffrey Kalin to the Member At Large Seat #5, with a term expiring August 31, 2018 Henry Tyson to the Member At Large Seat #6, with a term expiring August 31, 2018 Andi Li to the Member At Large Seat #9, with a term expiring August 31, 2018 Joan Lautenberger to the Other Provider Seat, with a term expiring August 31, 2018 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Managed Care Commission was established in May 1995 and replaced the Contra Costa Health Plan Advisory Board and the APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Enid Mendoza, (925) 335-1039 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appointments to the Managed Care Commission March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 602 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Medi-Cal Advisory Planning Commission. The purpose of the Commission is to: • Study health care concerns for the Medi-Cal, Medicare, Commercial, and Medically Indigent persons served by the County. • Assure provider, consumer, and community, as well as gender, ethnic, cultural, and geographically diverse population input to deliberations and decision making. • Do long-range planning and policy formulation and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, County Health Services Director and Chief Executive Officer of CCHP/Local Initiative. • Study and make recommendations to the Chief Executive Officer of CCHP on operational objectives, policies and procedures and recommend changes as well as revised service, product development, marketing, and data-gathering priorities. • Assure effectiveness, quality (including good outcomes), efficiency, access, acceptability of CCHP services by ongoing as well as periodic formal reviews of information produced by an up-to-date Management Information System and other sources. • Regularly review the CCHP operational budget and amendments thereto. • Review, analyze, and advise the Board of Supervisors, Health Services Director, and Chief Executive Officer of CCHP of the overall progress, constraining, or threatening needs and special problems of CCHP. • Encourage public understanding of CCHP and provide support throughout the County for its development. Prioritize and assign to appropriate committees. On February 8, 2016 the Family and Human Services Committee approved the recommendations to appoint Toya Thomas-Cruz, Jeffery Kalin, Henry Tyson, Andi Li and Joan Lautenberger to the Managed Care Commission and is therefore forwarding the recommendation to the full board for approval. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Five seats will remain vacant on the Managed Care Commission. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. ATTACHMENTS MCC Memo and Appointments March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 603 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes604 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes605 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes606 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes607 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes608 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes609 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes610 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes611 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes612 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes613 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes614 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes615 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes616 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes617 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes618 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes619 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes620 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes621 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes622 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes623 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes624 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes625 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes626 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes627 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes628 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes629 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes630 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes631 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes632 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the medical staff appointments, additional privileges, medical staff advancement, and voluntary resignations as recommend by the Medical Staff Executive Committee, at their February 22nd meeting, and by the Health Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has requested that evidence of Board of Supervisors approval for each Medical Staff member will be placed in his or her Credentials File. The above recommendations for appointment/reappointment were reviewed by the Credentials Committee and approved by the Medical Executive Committee. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, Contra Costa Regional Medical and Contra Costa Health Centers' medical staff would not be appropriately credentialed and not be in compliance with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, M Wilhelm, Sana Salma C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Medical Staff Appointments and Reappointments – February 2016 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 633 ATTACHMENTS Attachment March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 634 MEC Recommendations – February Definitions: A=Active C=Courtesy Aff=Affliate P/A= Provisional Active P/C= Provisional Courtesy Page 1 A. New Medical Staff Members Robin Asher, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Byron Young, MD Psychiatry/Psychology B. New Teleradiologist Staff Members Michael Braaton, MD Kiran Jain, MD Sergey Shkurovich, MD C. Application for Affiliation Maria Gallego, FNP Family Medicine D. Request for Additional Privileges Department Requesting In George Meyer, MD Internal Medicine Internal Medicine Chere Sealey, NP Family Medicine Family Medicine Takenori Watanabe, MD Family Medicine Internal Medicine E. Medical Staff Membership Category Change Requested by Current Category Requested Category William Berlingieri, MD Courtesy Active F. Advance to Non-Provisional Brigitte Apfel, MD Psychiatry/Psychology C Dayana Carcamo-Molina, MD Internal Medicine A Linda Copeland, MD Pediatrics C Christina Gomez-Mira, MD Family Medicine A Jenika Hatcher, DDS Dental A Suneil Koliwad, MD Internal Medicine C Margaret Miller, MD Psychiatry/Psychology A Minh Nguyen, MD Psychiatry/Psychology C Irina Pyrkova-Corotan, MD Internal Medicine A Jason Sun, MD Internal Medicine C Victor Truong, DDS Dental A Michelle Wong, MD Family Medicine A G. Biennial Reappointments Kimberly Butler, MD Family Medicine A Kate Colwell, MD Hospitalist C John Froyd, MD Hospitalist P Eric Fulkerson, MD Surgery C Sunthara Hay, DO OB/GYN A Charlotte Hsieh, MD Pediatrics C Naduvathusery Jacob, MD Psychiatry/Psychology P Denis Mahar, MD Internal Medicine A March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 635 MEC Recommendations – February Definitions: A=Active C=Courtesy Aff=Affliate P/A= Provisional Active P/C= Provisional Courtesy Page 2 Abid Majid, MD Internal Medicine P Nick Mickas, MD Pediatrics C Elizabeth Murphy, MD Internal Medicine P Daniel Moring-Parris, MD Family Medicine P Simret Nanda, MD Psychiatry/Psychology A Jeffrey Pierce, MD OB/GYN A Neil Sachs, MD Psychiatry/Psychology A Michel Sam, MD Family Medicine A Sukhwant Singh, MD Internal Medicine A Mark Smith, MD Family Medicine A Keith White, MD Pediatrics A H. Biennial Renew of Privileges Christina Berger, NP Family Medicine I. Voluntary Resignations Katharine Ballinger, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Silvia Colmenares, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Ahmed Farrag, MD Family Medicine Sarah Kuhl, MD Internal Medicine Rebecca Menashe, CNM Family Medicine Karen Peterson, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Summer Savon, MD, PHD Psychiatry/Psychology Glynda (Kay) Severson, NP Family Medicine J. Not Eligible to Reappoint *Srikanth Reddy, MD Internal Medicine A * Two years with no clinical activity March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 636 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve Appropriation Adjustment No.5052 authorizing the transfer of $28,816 from the Behavioral Health Homeless Program fund to the General Services fund for the purchase of one (1) Ford CMAX Hybrid to expand services within the Homeless Housing and Shelter program. FISCAL IMPACT: The purchase of this automobile will be funded by HUD grant Permanent Connections and Homeless Program Administration. Allocation adjustments through a T/C 24 will facilitate the fund transfer to the proper disbursement account. BACKGROUND: Vehicle required as part of the Homeless Program operations. Additional capacity is required to support the growing need for expanded services offered to consumers in the Homeless Housing and Shelter Program. This vehicle will be used by case managers to deliver counseling and support services to APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, Rick Berbano C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approval to Purchase one vehicle for the Homeless Housing and Shelter Program March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 637 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) consumers living in permanent supportive housing that is scattered throughout Contra Costa County. Additionally they can transport consumers to appointments such as medical and behavioral health appointments, as well to activities such as grocery shopping that teach life skills. This car will be used at the shelters to transport multiple consumers to their medical or housing appointments. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Vehicle required to coordinate the consumer’s system of care, and transportation is a part of their case plans. Homeless consumers have a lack of resources and a complexity of need that often require counseling and transportation support to meet their activities of daily living. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No Impact. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TC 24/27 No. 5052 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: TC 24/27 No. 5052 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 638 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes639 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes640 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes641 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes642 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT a "Support" position on AB 1642 (Obernolte), as introduced: State Responsibility Areas: Fire Prevention Fees, a bill that would increase the deadline for paying fire prevention fees from 30 days to 60 days, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Assemblymember Obernolte recently introduced AB 1642, legislation that would increase the deadline for paying fire prevention fees from 30 days to 60 days. His office is currently looking for letters of support for this bill. AB 1642 is similar to a previous bill that Assemblymember Obernolte sponsored last year, AB 203, which Contra Costa County supported. At its February 8, 2016 meeting, the Legislation Committee voted unanimously to forward the recommendation of a position of "Support" for AB 1642 to the Board of Supervisors. Assembly Bill 1642 extends the deadline to pay or dispute a fire prevention fee to 60 days, rather than the 30 days allowed APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Support position on AB 1642 (Obernolte): State Responsibility Areas: Fire Prevention Fees, as introduced March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 643 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) under existing law. Created by the Legislature and Governor as part of the 2011 Budget, the Fire Prevention Fee charges property owners $152.33 for each habitable structure located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA), with a $35 reduction if they live within the boundaries of a local fire protection district. About 700,000 rural Californians receive a yearly Fire Prevention Fee bill, due 30 days from the date on the notice. Due to the rural nature of those being billed, many individuals do not receive their bills in a timely manner. Additionally, many of these individuals are on fixed incomes, making it difficult for them to pay their Fire Prevention Fee by the 30-day deadline. The fire prevention fee affects residents in communities throughout California, and AB 1642 has received bipartisan support. According to the California Board of Equalization (BOE), many property owners have expressed concern that the 30-day deadline does not allow them sufficient time to either pay or file a petition. If a taxpayer misses the filing deadline to appeal the assessment, they must first pay the fee in full and file a claim for a refund. California would join 20 other states that give homeowners at least 60 days to file a petition. Attachment A is the text of the bill. Attachment B is the bill's Fact Sheet, provided by the author's office. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contra Costa County would not have a position on the bill. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - AB 1642 bill text Attachment B - Fact Sheet March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 644 california legislature—2015–16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1642 Introduced by Assembly Member Obernolte (Coauthors: Assembly Members Bigelow, Dodd, Gallagher, Gordon, Lackey, Levine, Mayes, Melendez, Olsen, Waldron, Wilk, and Wood) (Coauthors: Senators Hill, Liu, McGuire, Morrell, Nielsen, and Roth) January 11, 2016 An act to amend Sections 4213, 4220, and 4222 of the Public Resources Code, relating to forestry and fire prevention. legislative counsel’s digest AB 1642, as introduced, Obernolte. State responsibility areas: fire prevention fees. Existing law requires the state to have the primary financial responsibility for preventing and suppressing fires in areas that the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has determined are state responsibility areas, as defined. Existing law requires that a fire prevention fee be charged on each habitable structure on a parcel that is within a state responsibility area, collected annually by the State Board of Equalization, in accordance with specified procedures, and specifies that the annual fee shall be due and payable 30 days from the date of assessment by the state board. Existing law authorizes a petition for redetermination of the fee to be filed within 30 days after service of a notice of determination, as specified. This bill would extend the time when the fire prevention fee is due and payable from 30 to 60 days from the date of assessment by the State Board of Equalization and would authorize the petition for March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 645 redetermination to be filed within 60 days after service of the notice of determination, as specified. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 4213 of the Public Resources Code is line 2 amended to read: line 3 4213. (a)  (1)  Commencing with the 2011–12 fiscal year, the line 4 The fire prevention fee imposed pursuant to Section 4212 shall be line 5 collected annually by the State Board of Equalization in accordance line 6 with the Fee Collection Procedures Law (Part 30 (commencing line 7 with Section 55001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation line 8 Code). line 9 (2)  Notwithstanding the appeal provisions in the Fee Collection line 10 Procedures Law, a determination by the department that a person line 11 is required to pay a fire prevention fee, or a determination by the line 12 department regarding the amount of that fee, is subject to review line 13 under Article 2 (commencing with Section 4220) and is not subject line 14 to a petition for redetermination by the State Board of Equalization. line 15 (3)  (A)  Notwithstanding the refund provisions in the Fee line 16 Collection Procedures Law, the State Board of Equalization shall line 17 not accept any a claim for refund that is based on the assertion that line 18 a determination by the department improperly or erroneously line 19 calculated the amount of the fire prevention fee, or incorrectly line 20 determined that the person is subject to that fee, unless that line 21 determination has been set aside by the department or a court line 22 reviewing the determination of the department. line 23 (B)  If it is determined by the department or a reviewing court line 24 determines that a person is entitled to a refund of all or part of the line 25 fire prevention fee, the person shall make a claim to the State Board line 26 of Equalization pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section line 27 55221) of Part 30 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. line 28 (b)  The annual fire prevention fee shall be due and payable 30 line 29 60 days from the date of assessment by the State Board of line 30 Equalization. line 31 (c)  On or before each January 1, the department shall annually line 32 transmit to the State Board of Equalization the appropriate name line 33 and address of each person who is liable for the fire prevention 2 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 646 line 1 fee and the amount of the fee to be assessed, as authorized by this line 2 article, and at the same time the department shall provide to the line 3 State Board of Equalization a contact telephone number for the line 4 board to be printed on the bill to respond to questions about the line 5 fee. line 6 (d)  Commencing with the 2012–13 fiscal year, if If in any given line 7 a fiscal year there are sufficient amounts of money in the State line 8 Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund created pursuant to line 9 Section 4214 to finance the costs of the programs under subdivision line 10 (d) of Section 4214 for that fiscal year, the fee may not be collected line 11 that fiscal year. line 12 SEC. 2. Section 4220 of the Public Resources Code is amended line 13 to read: line 14 4220. A person from whom the fire prevention fee is line 15 determined to be due under this chapter may petition for a line 16 redetermination of whether this chapter applies to that person line 17 within 30 60 days after service upon him or her of a notice of the line 18 determination. If a petition for redetermination is not filed within line 19 the 30-day 60-day period, the amount determined to be due line 20 becomes final at the expiration of the 30-day 60-day period. line 21 SEC. 3. Section 4222 of the Public Resources Code is amended line 22 to read: line 23 4222. If a petition for redetermination of the application of this line 24 chapter is filed within the 30-day 60-day period, the department line 25 shall reconsider whether the fee is due and make a determination line 26 in writing. The department may eliminate the fee based on a line 27 determination that this chapter does not apply to the person who line 28 filed the petition. O 3 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 647 As Introduced on January 11, 2016 FACT SHEET JAY OBERNOLTE Assemblyman, 33rd District Assembly Bill 1642 – Fire Prevention Fee Due Dates SUMMARY AB 1642 (Obernolte) would extend the period for paying or disputing a fire prevention fee from 30 days to 60 days from the date of assessment. BACKGROUND The fire prevention fee is assessed annually on owners of habitable structures located on a parcel within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The SRA does not include lands within city boundaries or in federal ownership. Generally speaking, the SRA is comprised of rural areas, including the state’s wildlands and watersheds. Under Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 4213, the annual fire prevention fee is due and payable to the Board of Equalization (BOE) 30 days from the date of assessment. Additionally, PRC Section 4220 provides a 30-day period to dispute the fee by filing a petition for redetermination. If a taxpayer misses the 30 day filing deadline to appeal the assessed liability, the determined fee is final and must be paid. However, if a taxpayer files a timely petition they are not required to pay the fee until BOE makes a final ruling in regard to the dispute. PROBLEM Despite the efforts of BOE and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) to clarify the fire fee billings, improve communications and publications, and educate fee payers about the petition process, many homeowners have expressed concern that the 30-day period does not allow them sufficient time to pay or dispute the fee. The reasons given generally include mail delays in rural areas, difficulty understanding fire fee bills, financial stress on fixed-income property owners, and a lack of time to obtain assistance and documentation. SOLUTION AB 1642 would give property owners 60 days to pay or dispute the fire prevention fee, rather than the 30 days allowed under existing law. This would allow sufficient time for those residents to review their assessments and account for any delays. STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION John Thompson (916) 319-2033 john.thompson@asm.ca.gov March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 648 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT an "Oppose Unless Amended" position on AB 45 (Mullins), as amended: Household Hazardous Waste, a bill that would require the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to adopt one or more model ordinances for a comprehensive program for the collection of household hazardous waste, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill contains increased annual costs to CalRecycle in the range of $200,000 to $300,000 (special fund). BACKGROUND: At its February 8, 2016 meeting, the Legislation Committee considered the recommendation from CSAC and Conservation Programs Manager Deidra Dingman to recommend a position of "Oppose Unless Amended" to the Board of Supervisors on AB 45 (Mullins): Household Hazardous Waste. The Committee voted unanimously to forward the recommendation of a position of "Oppose Unless Amended" to the Board of Supervisors. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:"Oppose Unless Amended" position AB 45 (Mullins): Household Hazardous Waste, as amended March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 649 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) AB 45 (Mullins) is a bill that is of concern to CSAC and the Urban Counties Caucus (UCC). CSAC has requested that counties consider taking action on this bill. The California Products Stewardship Council is also opposing this bill because they are concerned it will prevent local jurisdictions from enacting EPR-type pharmaceutical collection programs. As amended on January 21st, AB 45 would now require Cal Recycle to develop one or more general household hazardous waste (HHW) model ordinances in consultation with affected industry and stakeholders; defines home generated pharmaceutical waste as HHW; allows for the creation of a nonprofit agency to make grants to local governments to assist with outreach and educations and other costs, and deems five million dollars as sufficient funding for these purposes. The bill would be repealed in 2019 if Cal Recycle determines that there is no nonprofit willing or able to meet parameters in the bill and deemed adequate by Cal Recycle. The bill also includes intent language that states that the role for manufacturers in the end-of-life management of their products should be based on the ability of manufactures and distributors to communicate with consumers. CSAC opposes the role outlined for manufactures in this bill. They believe that industries that profit from these hard to manage products should have a significant stake in their proper management and disposal. The bill outlines the role for manufacturers as communicating with consumers and making grants to local governments. While an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) model may not be appropriate for all products, EPR is an excellent tool to employ for the producers of toxic and expensive-to-manage products, and those that pose additional health and safety risks such as sharps and pharmaceuticals. AB 45 also defines home generated pharmaceutical waste as HHW. We object to home generated pharmaceutical waste being included in the proposed comprehensive hazardous waste program, as neither our state nor federal regulating agencies currently regulate it as such. Attached are a copy of the bill (Attachment A) and CSAC’s letter to the author (Attachment B ). Status: 02/04/2016 To SENATE Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. Bill Analysis: SUMMARY : Requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to adopt one or more model ordinances for a comprehensive program for the collection of household hazardous waste (HHW), and allows a local jurisdiction to adopt one of the model ordinances. Specifically, this bill: 1) Requires CalRecycle, in consultation with affected industries and stakeholders, to adopt one or more model ordinances for a comprehensive program for the collection of HHW for adoption by any local jurisdiction that provides for the residential collection and disposal of solid waste. 2) Requires CalRecycle, upon adoption of the model ordinance or ordinances, to notify the public by positing the ordinances on their Internet Web site. 3) Allows, after CalRecycle complies with the posting requirements in 2) above, a local jurisdiction that proposes to enact an ordinance governing the collection and diversion of HHW to adopt one of the model ordinances. 4) Requires CalRecycle to determine whether an appropriate nonprofit organization has been created and funded for the purpose of making grants to local governments to assist with both of the following activities: a) Educate residents of communities on the existence of HHW disposal programs and how to use them; and, b) Defray the cost of components of local government HHW programs. 5) Requires CalRecycle, in making the determination in 4) above, to consider the following: a) If the nonprofit organization has, at the time of the determination, a minimum of $5 million dedicated to grantsMarch 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 650 a) If the nonprofit organization has, at the time of the determination, a minimum of $5 million dedicated to grants to local governments for the purposes described in 4) above. b) If the nonprofit organization will have sufficient funding to allocate grants to local governments throughout the state for five years; c) If the composition of the nonprofit's board of directors is sufficiently diverse and experienced to appropriately consider grant applications that will positively impact efforts to improve the disposal of HHW; and, d) If the nonprofit organization has appropriate criteria for considering grant applications. 6) Provides that this bill is applicable only to local jurisdictions that provide for the residential collection and disposal of solid waste. 7) Repeals the provisions of this bill on January 1, 2019, if CalRecycle does not make the determination that an appropriate nonprofit organization exists, as specified in 4) and 5) above, by December 31, 2018. 8) Defines the following terms: a) "Comprehensive program for the collection of HHW" to mean a local program that may include, but is not limited to, the following components: i) Utilization of locally sponsored collection sites; ii) Scheduled and publicly advertised drop off days; iii) Door-to-door collection programs; iv) Mobile collection programs; v) Dissemination of information about how consumers should dispose of the various types of HHW; and, vi) Education programs to promote consumer understanding and use of the local components of a comprehensive program. b) "HHW" includes, but is not limited to, the following: i) Automotive products, including, but not limited to, antifreeze, batteries, brake fluid, motor oil, oil filters, fuels, wax, and polish; ii) Garden chemicals, including, but not limited to, fertilizers, herbicides, insect spray, pesticides, and weed killers; iii) Household chemicals, including, but not limited to, ammonia, cleaners, strippers, and rust removers; iv) Paint products, including, but not limited to, paint, caulk, glue, stripper, thinner, and wood preservatives and stain; v) Consumer electronics, including, but not limited to, televisions, computers, laptops, monitors, keyboards, DVD and CD players, VCRs, MP3 players, cell phones, desktop printers, scanners, fax machines, computer mice, microwaves, and related cords; vi) Swimming pool chemicals, including, but not limited to, chlorine tablets and liquids, pool acids, and stabilizers; vii) Household batteries, defined as batteries that individually weigh two kilograms or less of mercury, alkaline, carbon-zinc, or nickel-cadmium, and any other batteries typically generated as household waste, including, but not March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 651 limited to, batteries used to provide power for consumer electronic and personal goods often found in a household; viii) Fluorescent tubes and compact fluorescent lamps; ix) Mercury-containing items, including, but not limited to, thermometers, thermostats, and switches; x) Home-generated sharps waste, as defined in existing law; and, xi) Home-generated pharmaceutical waste, defined as a prescription or nonprescription drug, as specified, that is a waste generated by a household or households. "Home-generated pharmaceutical waste" shall not include drugs for which producers provide a take-back program as a part of a United States Food and Drug Administration managed risk evaluation and mitigation strategy pursuant to Section 355-1 of Title 21 of the United States Code, or waste generated by a business, corporation, limited partnership, or an entity involved in a wholesale transaction between a distributer and a retailer. 9) Makes a number of findings and declarations. EXISTING LAW: 1) Requires cities and counties to prepare, adopt, and submit to CalRecycle an HHW Element plan which identifies a program for the safe collection, recycling, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes that are generated by households within the jurisdiction and provides a specific time frame for achieving these objectives. 2) Requires, under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, each city or county to divert 50% of solid waste from landfill disposal or transformation on and after January 1, 2000. Establishes a statewide policy goal that not less than 75% of solid waste be source reduced, recycled, or composted on and after January 1, 2020. 3) Requires CalRecycle and the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) to jointly maintain a database of all HHW collection events, facilities, and programs within the state and make that information available to the public upon request. 4) Requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board to coordinate with DTSC to develop and implement a public information program to provide uniform and consistent information on the proper disposal of hazardous substances found in and around homes, and to assist the efforts of counties required to provide HHW collection, recycling, and disposal programs. 5) Requires CalRecycle, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to distribute grants to cities, counties, or other local agencies with the responsibility for solid waste management, and for local programs to help prevent the disposal of hazardous wastes at disposal sites, which include but are not limited to programs that expand or implement HHW programs. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill contains increased annual costs to CalRecycle in the range of $200,000 to $300,000 (special fund). COMMENTS: 1) Bill Summary. This bill requires CalRecycle, in consultation with affected industries, to adopt one or more model ordinances for a comprehensive program for the collection of HHW for adoption by a local jurisdiction that provides for the residential collection and disposal of solid waste. Local jurisdictions proposing to enact an ordinance to govern the collection and diversion of HHW may adopt one of the model ordinances after CalRecycle has posted the model ordinances on its Web site. Additionally, this bill requires CalRecycle to determine if an appropriate nonprofit organization has been created and funded to make grants to local governments for specified activities relating to HHW programs. This bill requires CalRecycle to consider a list of factors in making the determination about the nonprofit organization. The provisions of this bill will be repealed on January 1, 2019, if CalRecycle does not make the determination that an appropriate nonprofit organization March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 652 exists by December 31, 2018. This bill is an author-sponsored measure. 2) Background on HHW . HHW is hazardous waste commonly generated by households and includes such ubiquitous items as batteries, pesticides, electronics, fluorescent lamps, used oil, solvents, and cleaners. If these products are handled or disposed of incorrectly, they can pose a threat to health and safety and the environment. When these products are discarded, they become "household hazardous waste." In California, it is illegal to dispose of HHW in the trash, down the drain, or by abandonment. HHW needs to be disposed of through a HHW program. Cities and counties are required to prepare, adopt, and submit to CalRecycle, a HHW Management Element Plan, which identifies a program for the safe collection, recycling, treatment, and disposal of HHW. The Element Plan specifies how HHW generated within the jurisdiction must be collected, treated, and disposed. Each jurisdiction is required to prepare and implement plans to reduce and safely collect, recycle, treat, and dispose of HHW and provides a specific time frame for achieving these objectives. While there are many different approaches for the collection and management of HHW, all are permitted by DTSC and most are operated by local jurisdictions. Some private operators operate programs under contract with local jurisdictions, including curbside and door-to-door collection. 3) Author's Statement. According to the author, "State law has loosely regulated HHWs for approximately 25 years. AB 45 aims to coordinate with affected industries like local governments, producers of HHW products, and CalRecycle to adopt model ordinances for a comprehensive program for the collection of HHW. Local governments have the option to choose whether or not to use the model ordinances listed by CalRecycle. In addition, CalRecycle will determine whether or not an appropriate nonprofit organization has been created and funded for the purpose of making grants to local governments. This non-profit will be created to assist in educating residents about HHW disposal programs and how to use them. In addition, the Department will ensure that product manufacturers contribute a minimum of five million dollars to the non-profit for defraying the cost of components of local government HHW programs." 4) Related Legislation. AB 2371 (Mullin) of 2014, as heard by the Assembly Local Government Committee, would have required each jurisdiction, no later than January 1, 2016, to review its HHW Element to determine its effectiveness in the collection, recycling, treatment, and disposal of HHW, and would have required CalRecycle, on or before January 1, 2017, to submit a report to the Legislature that analyzes the effectiveness of the state's HHW management system. AB 2371 was later amended to deal with a different subject matter. AB 1159 (Gordon) of 2015 would have established a limited-term product stewardship program for home-generated medical sharps and household batteries. AB 1159 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. 5) Policy Considerations. The Legislature may wish to consider the following: a) Nonprofit Organization . This bill is contingent on a determination made by CalRecycle on whether an appropriate nonprofit organization has been created and funded for the purpose of making grants to local governments. Under this bill, CalRecycle is required to consider a list of factors in making this determination, which includes whether the nonprofit organization has $5 million and if the nonprofit organization has sufficient funding to allocate to local governments for five years. The Legislature may wish to consider that, while CalRecycle must consider certain factors, there are no requirements in this bill to require that a specified amount of funding is distributed. The California State Association of Counties (CSAC), opposed unless amended, argues that "there is a lack of criteria, specific qualifications, or process as to how these non-profits would operate. The bill arbitrarily identifies the amount of five million dollars as a sufficient amount for grants to local governments. HHW management is a very expensive process as those toxic products require very specific handling. We question how this number was deemed sufficient." In a letter to the author, the Advanced Medical Technology Association, Biotechnology Industry Organization, March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 653 Consumer Healthcare Products Association, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America state "the undersigned associations commit that following the enactment of AB 45 in a form that our member companies believe will ensure a strong commitment by local government to a comprehensive state-wide approach to disposal of (HHW), we will facilitate the establishment and funding of an appropriate non-profit entity dedicated to providing education to California consumers about the appropriate handling and disposal of our industries' products. This entity, which we propose to be funded by the industry participants represented by the signatories of this letter, as well as other impacted groups, would be funded at the amount of $5 million over a 5-year period." b) Current Programs and Definitions. The Legislature may wish to consider how current programs and definitions pertaining to the management of HHW will interact with the provisions in this bill. i) Grant Funding. CSAC states, "CalRecycle currently runs a HHW grant program. There are no findings in the bill indicating why such a move could, or would be an improvement over the current system." ii) HHW Element Plan. According to CSAC, "jurisdictions across the state have developed comprehensive ordinances to collect and manage HHW, each tailored to the needs of their respective community. We question the need for a general HHW model ordinance when locals are required to have them in place already. In addition, there is little guidance within the legislation to indicate the types of ordinances that might be developed." iii) Definitions. CSAC argues that "the bill includes a new, broader definition of HHW, which includes home-generated pharmaceutical waste, such as prescription or non-prescription drugs. This would ban the disposal of these drugs without a comprehensive plan in place to collect this material. We believe that a specific collection model is necessary for these types of materials, as a typical local collection event, or curbside program is not appropriate for dangerous substances. CSAC supports a product stewardship model for pharmaceutical waste, which incentivizes the industries that profit from these products to have a significant stake in their proper management and disposal." iv) Shared Responsibility. Product Stewardship and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) refers to a policy model that includes manufacturers in the end-of-life management for products that they produce. The California Product Stewardship Council states that EPR is a strategy to place a shared responsibility for end-of-life product management on all entities involved in the product chain, instead of the local governments and taxpayers, while encouraging product design changes that minimize a negative impact on human health and the environment at every stage of a product's lifecycle." CSAC argues that "the role of industry, or other stakeholder participation outlined in the bill lacks critical detail." 6) Arguments in Support. Supporters argue that industry is considering approaches that would support consumer education and local governments in the implementation of comprehensive programs with the goal to increase compliance with the State's goals of diverting HHW from the waste stream. Supporters believe such approaches complement this bill's intent to build on the residential collection system to ensure consumer convenience and enhance participation rates without mandates on local governments. 7) Arguments in Opposition. Santa Barbara County, in opposition, states "We believe that retailers and manufacturers should participate in the end-of-life management of the products they put on the market. We are disappointed that AB 45 moves away from this shared responsibility approach and instead continues to make local jurisdictions solely responsible for collecting HHW. The recent amendments mention a non-profit organization that will provide grants to jurisdictions for HHW programs, but we are not clear how this non-profit organization will be formed or how the funds will be generated." CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contra Costa County would not have a position on the bill. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - AB 45 bill text March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 654 Attachment B - CSAC Letter March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 655 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 21, 2016 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 30, 2015 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 23, 2015 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 13, 2015 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 19, 2015 california legislature—2015–16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 45 Introduced by Assembly Member Mullin December 1, 2014 An act to add and repeal Article 3.4 (commencing with Section 47120) to of Chapter 1 of Part 7 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, relating to hazardous waste. legislative counsel’s digest AB 45, as amended, Mullin. Household hazardous waste. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which is administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, requires, among other things, each city and each county to prepare a household hazardous waste element containing specified components, and to submit that element to the department for approval. Existing law requires the department to approve the element if the local agency demonstrates that it will comply with specified requirements. A city or county is required to submit an annual report to the department summarizing its progress in reducing solid waste, including an update of the jurisdiction’s household hazardous waste element. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 656 This bill would require each jurisdiction that provides for the residential collection and disposal of solid waste to increase the collection and diversion of household hazardous waste in its service area, on or before July 1, 2020, by 15% over a baseline amount, to be determined in accordance with department regulations. The bill would authorize the department to adopt a model ordinance for a comprehensive program for the collection of household hazardous waste to facilitate compliance with those provisions, and would require each jurisdiction to annually report to the department on progress achieved in complying with those provisions. By imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would require the department to adopt one or more model ordinances for a comprehensive program for the collection of household hazardous waste and would authorize a local jurisdiction that provides for the residential collection and disposal of solid waste that proposes to enact an ordinance governing the collection and diversion of household hazardous waste to adopt one of the model ordinances adopted by the department. The bill would require the department to determine whether a nonprofit organization has been created and funded to make grants to local jurisdictions for specified purposes relating to household hazardous waste disposal and would specify that if the department does not determine that such a nonprofit organization exists by December 31, 2018, then the bill’s provisions would be repealed on January 1, 2019. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. (a)  The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 2 following: line 3 (1) line 4 (a)  Household hazardous waste is creating environmental, line 5 health, and workplace safety issues. Whether due to unused line 6 pharmaceuticals, batteries, medical devices, or other disposable 2 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 657 line 1 consumer items, effective and efficient disposal remains an line 2 extraordinary challenge. line 3 (2) line 4 (b)  State and local efforts to address disposal of these items line 5 have been well intended and, in some cases, effective. However, line 6 even the most effective programs have very low consumer line 7 participation. Other approaches being promoted throughout the line 8 state would fragment the collection of household hazardous waste line 9 and move collection away from consumer convenience. line 10 (3) line 11 (c)  In addition to other programs for the collection of household line 12 hazardous waste, a number of cities in California are already using line 13 curbside household hazardous waste collection programs, line 14 door-to-door household hazardous waste collection programs, and line 15 household hazardous waste residential pickup services as line 16 mechanisms for collecting and disposing of many commonly used line 17 household items for which disposal has been the subject of state line 18 legislation or and local ordinances. The waste disposal companies line 19 and local governments that have implemented these programs have line 20 found them to be valuable components of a comprehensive line 21 approach to the management of household hazardous waste. line 22 (4) line 23 (d)  There is also an appropriate role for manufacturers and line 24 distributors of these products in comprehensive efforts to more line 25 effectively manage household hazardous waste. That role should line 26 be based on the ability of manufacturers and distributors to line 27 communicate with consumers. line 28 (b)  It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that line 29 would establish curbside household hazardous waste collection line 30 programs, door-to-door household hazardous waste collection line 31 programs, and household hazardous waste residential pickup line 32 services as the principal means of collecting household hazardous line 33 waste and diverting it from California’s landfills and waterways. line 34 SEC. 2. Article 3.4 (commencing with Section 47120) is added line 35 to Chapter 1 of Part 7 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, line 36 to read: 3 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 658 line 1 Article 3.4. Household Hazardous Waste Collection and line 2 Reduction line 3 line 4 47120. For purposes of this article, the following terms have line 5 the following meanings: line 6 (a)  “Comprehensive program for the collection of household line 7 hazardous waste” means a local program that may include, but is line 8 not limited to, the following components: line 9 (1)  Utilization of locally sponsored collection sites. line 10 (2)  Scheduled and publicly advertised drop off drop-off days. line 11 (3)  Door-to-door collection programs. line 12 (4)  Mobile collection programs. line 13 (5)  Dissemination of information about how consumers should line 14 dispose of the various types of household hazardous waste. line 15 (6)  Education programs to promote consumer understanding line 16 and use of the local components of a comprehensive program. line 17 (b)  “Household hazardous waste” includes, but is not limited line 18 to, the following: line 19 (1)  Automotive products, including, but not limited to, line 20 antifreeze, batteries, brake fluid, motor oil, oil filters, fuels, wax, line 21 and polish. line 22 (2)  Garden chemicals, including, but not limited to, fertilizers, line 23 herbicides, insect sprays, pesticides, and weed killers. line 24 (3)  Household chemicals, including, but not limited to, ammonia, line 25 cleaners, strippers, and rust removers. line 26 (4)  Paint products, including, but not limited to, paint, caulk, line 27 glue, stripper, thinner, and wood preservatives and stain. line 28 (5)  Consumer electronics, including, but not limited to, line 29 televisions, computers, laptops, monitors, keyboards, DVD and line 30 CD players, VCRs, MP3 players, cell phones, desktop printers, line 31 scanners, fax machines, mouses, computer mice, microwaves, and line 32 related cords. line 33 (6)  Swimming pool chemicals, including, but not limited to, line 34 chlorine tablets and liquids, pool acids, and stabilizers. line 35 (7)  Household batteries. For purposes of this section, “household line 36 batteries” means batteries that individually weigh two kilograms line 37 or less of mercury, alkaline, carbon-zinc, or nickel-cadmium, and line 38 any other batteries typically generated as household waste, line 39 including, but not limited to, batteries used to provide power for line 40 consumer electronic and personal goods often found in a household. 4 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 659 line 1 (8)  Fluorescent tubes and compact florescent fluorescent lamps. line 2 (9)  Mercury-containing items, including, but not limited to, line 3 thermometers, thermostats, and switches. line 4 (10)  Home-generated sharps waste, as defined in Section 117671 line 5 of the Health and Safety Code. line 6 (11)  Home-generated pharmaceutical waste. For purposes of line 7 this section, “home-generated pharmaceutical waste” means a line 8 prescription or nonprescription drug, as specified in Section 4022 line 9 or 4025.1 of the Business and Professions Code, that is a waste line 10 generated by a household or households. “Home-generated line 11 pharmaceutical waste” shall not include drugs for which producers line 12 provide a take-back program as a part of a United States Food and line 13 Drug Administration managed Administration-managed risk line 14 evaluation and mitigation strategy pursuant to Section 355-1 of line 15 Title 21 of the United States Code, or waste generated by a line 16 business, corporation, limited partnership, or an entity involved line 17 in a wholesale transaction between a distributor and a retailer. line 18 47121. (a)  (1)  On or before July 1, 2020, each jurisdiction line 19 shall increase its collection and diversion of household hazardous line 20 waste in its service area by 15 percent over its baseline amount, line 21 as established pursuant to subdivision (b). line 22 (2)  Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a jurisdiction that has in line 23 place or adopts an ordinance implementing a comprehensive line 24 program for the collection of household hazardous waste shall line 25 have an additional two years to meet the collection and diversion line 26 objective in paragraph (1). line 27 (b)  No later than July 1, 2016, each jurisdiction shall inform the line 28 department of its baseline amount of collection and diversion of line 29 hazardous waste in accordance with regulations adopted by the line 30 department. The baseline amount may be expressed in tonnage or line 31 by the number of households participating, and may focus on line 32 particular types of household hazardous waste. line 33 47122. (a)  The department shall adopt regulations to implement line 34 this article. line 35 (b)  The department may adopt a model ordinance for a line 36 comprehensive program for the collection of household hazardous line 37 waste to facilitate compliance with this article. line 38 47123. Commencing July 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, line 39 each jurisdiction shall report to the department on progress line 40 achieved in complying with this section. A jurisdiction shall make 5 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 660 line 1 a good faith effort to comply with this section, and the department line 2 may determine whether a jurisdiction has made a good faith effort line 3 for purposes of this program. To the maximum extent practicable, line 4 it is the intent of the Legislature that reporting requirements under line 5 this section be satisfied by submission of similar reports currently line 6 required by law. line 7 47124. This article does not apply to a jurisdiction that does line 8 not provide for the residential collection and disposal of solid line 9 waste. line 10 47121. (a)  The department, in consultation with affected line 11 industries and stakeholders, shall adopt one or more model line 12 ordinances for a comprehensive program for the collection of line 13 household hazardous waste for adoption by any local jurisdiction line 14 that provides for the residential collection and disposal of solid line 15 waste. line 16 (b)  Upon adoption of the model ordinance or ordinances by the line 17 department, the department shall notify the public by posting the line 18 model ordinance or ordinances on the department’s Internet Web line 19 site. line 20 (c)  After the department posts the model ordinance or line 21 ordinances on its Internet Web site, a local jurisdiction that line 22 proposes to enact an ordinance governing the collection and line 23 diversion of household hazardous waste may adopt one of the line 24 department’s model ordinances. line 25 47122. (a)  The department shall determine whether an line 26 appropriate nonprofit organization has been created and funded line 27 for the purpose of making grants to local governments to assist line 28 with both of the following activities: line 29 (1)  Educating residents of communities on the existence of line 30 household hazardous waste disposal programs and how to use line 31 them. line 32 (2)  Defraying the cost of components of local government line 33 household hazardous waste programs. line 34 (b)  In making the determination set forth in subdivision (a), the line 35 department shall take all of the following into consideration: line 36 (1)  Whether the nonprofit organization has, at the time of the line 37 determination, a minimum of five million dollars ($5,000,000) line 38 dedicated to grants to local governments for the purposes set forth line 39 in subdivision (a). 6 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 661 line 1 (2)  Whether the nonprofit organization will have sufficient line 2 funding to allocate grants to local governments throughout the line 3 state for five years. line 4 (3)  Whether the composition of the nonprofit’s board of directors line 5 is sufficiently diverse and experienced to appropriately consider line 6 grant applications that will positively impact efforts to improve line 7 disposal of household hazardous waste. line 8 (4)  Whether the nonprofit organization has appropriate criteria line 9 for considering grant applications. line 10 (c)  Upon making a determination that an appropriate nonprofit line 11 organization exists as set forth in subdivision (a), the department line 12 shall post the fact that the department has made this determination line 13 on the department’s Internet Web site. line 14 47123. This article is applicable only to local jurisdictions that line 15 provide for the residential collection and disposal of solid waste. line 16 47124. If the department does not make the determination that line 17 there exists an appropriate nonprofit organization, as specified in line 18 subdivision (a) of Section 47122, by December 31, 2018, this line 19 article shall be repealed on January 1, 2019. line 20 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 21 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because line 22 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 23 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or line 24 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 25 17556 of the Government Code. O 7 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 662 January 22, 2016 The Honorable Kevin Mullin State Capitol Building, Room 3160 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: AB 45 (Mullin) – Household Hazardous Waste As Amended on January 21, 2016– OPPOSE –UNLESS- AMENDED Dear Assembly Member Mullin: On behalf of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), I write to regrettably express our oppose-unless-amended position on your AB 45. CSAC appreciates the striking of the household hazardous waste (HHW) diversion mandate on local government that was included in the April 30th version of the bill. However, we have several remaining concerns with the approach outlined in this measure. First, this bill would require the Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (Cal Recycle) to create one or more model ordinances for HHW collection programs for adoption by local governments, if they so choose. Current law already requires cities and counties to prepare, adopt, and submit to Cal Recycle a Household Hazardous Waste Element, which identifies a program for the safe collection, recycling, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes that are generated by households. The Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) specifies how HHW must be collected, treated, and disposed. In addition, local jurisdictions are required to report to Cal Recycle how much HHW they collect annually. Thus, jurisdictions across the state have developed comprehensive ordinances to collect and manage HHW, each tailored to the needs of their respective community. We question the need for a general HHW model ordinance when locals are required to have them in place already. In addition, there is little guidance within the legislation to indicate the types of ordinances that might be developed. Second, the bill includes a new, broader definition of HHW, which includes home-generated pharmaceutical waste (HGPW), such as prescription or non-prescription drugs. This would ban the disposal of these drugs without a comprehensive plan in place to collect this material. Counties recognize the additional public health and safety hazard posed by pharmaceutical waste. We believe that a specific collection model is necessary for these types of materials, as a typical local collection event, or curbside program is not appropriate for dangerous substances. CSAC supports a product stewardship model for pharmaceutical waste, which incentivizes the industries that profit from these products to have a significant stake in their proper management and disposal. Third, the role of industry, or other stakeholder participation outlined in the bill lacks critical detail. AB 45 requires the department to determine whether an “appropriate non-profit organization has been created and funded for the purpose of making grants to local governments.” Cal Recycle currently runs an HHW grant program. There are no findings in the bill indicating why such a move could, or would be an improvement over the current system. In addition, there is lack of criteria, specific qualifications, or process as to how these non-profits would operate. Finally, the bill arbitrarily identifies the amount of five million dollars as a sufficient amount for grants to local governments. HHW management is a very March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 663 expensive process as these toxic products require very specific handling. We question how this number was deemed sufficient. Local governments currently bear the burden of managing HHW, and we welcome the opportunity to work with you to develop a workable solution that will aid in the safe collection and disposal of household hazardous waste. Should you have any questions regarding our position, please feel free to contact me at 916-327-7500, ext. 504, or cmartinson@counties.org. Sincerely, Cara B. Martinson Legislative Representative March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 664 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21838 to add one (1) permanent full-time Health Services Administrator – Level C (VANH) (represented) position at salary level ZB2-1723 ($6,315.00 - $7,694.22) in the Health Services Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in an approximate annual increased costs of $149,880, including estimated pension cost of $32,777. Funding is 100% reimbursable from Affordable Care Act Revenue. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) has added approximately 40,000 new members since January 1, 2014, and continues to grow at a rate of 3,000 to 5,000 new members each month. This expansion resulted in the need to rapidly increase the CCHP provider network in order to provide timely healthcare services to these new members. To accommodate this rapid growth, the Health Services Finance Administration Unit restructured the Contracts and Grants Unit managing and administering all activity APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Melissa Carofanello - melissa.carofanello@hsd.cccounty.us - 925-957-5248 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ADD One (1) Health Services Administrator – Level C in the Health Services Department March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 665 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) related to the provider network expansion. This position would manage and oversee all contract-related activity associated with the provider network expansion including being able to effectively communicate with health care providers, the County Administrator’s Office, and County Counsel to facilitate the execution of numerous network provider contracts in a manner that will allow CCHP to maintain its ability to address the needs of its membership in a timely manner. The incumbent would report directly to the Health Services Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Health Services Finance Division will not be able to manage and monitor its contractual agreements, budgets and service plans effectively. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21838 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21838 signed March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 666 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21838 DATE 3/3/2016 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES - Finance Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. 6546 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one (1) permanent full-time Health Services Administrator - Level C (VANH) (Represented) at salary level ZN2-1723 ($6,315.00 - $7,694.22) in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 3/16/2016 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $149,880.04 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $49,960.01 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT ACA Revenue Offset Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melissa Carofanello ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 3/9/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 3/9/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 667 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 3/9/2016 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 668 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes669 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21837 to add one (1) Accidental Release Prevention (ARP) Engineer - Entry Level (VLWB) position ($6,247-$7,593) in the Hazardous Materials division of the Health Services Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, the costs associated with this action will be approximately $147,081 annually with benefits including $32,347 in pension costs. Costs will be 100% funded by a County-imposed fee ordinance to Chevron's Richmond Refinery. BACKGROUND: In June 2014, the Richmond City Council revised their Industrial Safety Ordinance to be consistent with the County’s Industrial Safety Ordinance. In addition, the City Council members included an additional requirement to have a full-time Accidental Release Prevention Engineering position at the Chevron Richmond Refinery that will be funded by the refinery. The Hazardous Materials Program implements the City’s ordinance and this requirement is expected to be filled by the County’s Accidental Release APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kristen Cunningham, 925.957.5267 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Accidental Release Prevention Engineer - Entry Level in the Health Services Department March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 670 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Prevention staff. Chevron will be invoiced to pay for this position when the new engineer is trained to a level that will allow for an experienced engineer to fill the Chevron Richmond Refinery position. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved and without additional staff, the Hazardous Materials Program will not have adequate staffing set forth by both the Richmond City Council and Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21837 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21837 signed March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 671 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21837 DATE 3/1/2016 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES-Hazmat Budget Unit No. 0452 Org No. 5873 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one Accidental Release Prevention (ARP) Engineer - Entry Level (VLWB) position in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 3/16/2016 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $147,081.58 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $49,027.19 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Hazardous Materials Imposed Fee Ordinance to Chevron Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Kristen Cunningham ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 3/9/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 3/8/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the Department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 672 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 3/9/2016 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 673 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes674 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21674 to establish the class of Principal Environmental Analyst (5RHA) (represented) at salary plan and grade ZA2-1990 ($8,465-$9,344); and reclassify one Environmental Analyst III (5RTA) (represented) position number 1739 at salary plan and grade ZA5 1695 ($5,961-$7,246) and its incumbent to Principal Environmental Analyst (5RHA) (represented) in the Public Works Department. FISCAL IMPACT: If approved, this action will result in an annual cost of $20,352 ($4,776 due to pension) and will be covered by road, flood control and special revenue funds. BACKGROUND: In 2012, the Public Works Department created the Environmental Services Division which took over all aspects of the Environmental Policy planning from the Engineering Services Division. Since then, the incumbent in the class of Environmental Analyst III has assumed many of the specialized duties and responsibilities previously performed by the Supervising Civil Engineer of the Engineering Services Division. Thus, after thorough evaluation of the incumbents Position Description Questionnaire (PDQ), it has been determined that the incumbent performs duties that are more appropriately categorized by the new classification of Principal Environmental Analyst. The Principal Environmental Analyst is a single first level supervisory classification and key leadership position in the APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kelli Zen 925.313.2108 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Lisa Lopez, Assistant Director of Human Resources, Human Resources/Transactions, Kelli Zenn, Administrative Services Officer C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Establish the Principal Environmental Analyst Classification March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 675 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > Environmental Services Division in Public Works. This position reports directly to a Deputy Public Works Director. Primary duties of this classification include the management, administration, supervision, direction and coordination of the Environmental Services programs in compliance with local, state and federal laws and regulatory guidelines. In addition, this classification is also responsible for planning, developing and maintaining public works infrastructure and negotiating multi-year programmatic permits with regulatory agency stakeholders. Customarily and regularly directs and supervises Environmental Analysts and contractors in the Environmental Services Division. This Supervisor has the authority and given particular weight when providing suggestions and recommendations on interviewing/selecting, hiring, firing, disciplining, promoting, training, appraising and recommending other changes on subordinate’s status. After reviewing the job tasks and the development of a job analysis, the preponderance of duties have been found to fall within the new classification of Principal Environmental Analyst. Thus, in the effort to properly classify and compensate the current Environment Analyst III incumbent, this personnel action is requesting to establish the Principal Environmental Analyst classification and reclassify current incumbent and its position. In accordance with Section 14.4.E - Promotion via Reclassification Without Examination of the MOU between the County and IFPTE, Local 21, the Union agrees with the action. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not carried out, the incumbent will not be assigned specialized tasks, which will impede the daily functions of the County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 21674 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21674 signed March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 676 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21674 DATE 5/29/15 Department No./ Department: Public Works Budget Unit No. 0650 Org No. 4523 Agency No. 65 Action Requested: Establish the Principal Environmental Analyst classification (5RHA) (represented) at salary plan and grade ZA2-1990 ($8,465-$9,344); and reclassify one Environmental Analyst III (5RTA) (represented) position number 1739 at salary plan and grade ZA5 1695 ($5,961-$7,246) and its incumbent to Principal Environmental Analyst (5RHA) (represented) at salary plan and grade ZA2-1990 ($8,465-$9,344) in the Public Works Department. Proposed Effective Date: 2/1/16 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: 0 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $20,352 Net County Cost 0 Total this FY $1,696 N.C.C. this FY 0 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Special Revenue Funds Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Julia R. Bueren ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT L.Driscoll 5/29/15 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 2/10/2016 Establish the class of Principal Environmental Analyst (5RHA) (represented) at salary plan and grade ZA2-1990 ($8,465-$9,344); and reclassify one Environmental Analyst III (5RTA) (represented) position number 1739 at salary plan and grade ZA5 1695 ($5,961-$7,246) and its incumbent to Principal Environmental Analyst (5RHA) (represented) at salary plan and grade ZA2-1990 ($8,465-$9,344) in the Public Works Department. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. 2/1/2016(Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 677 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 3/8/2016 No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 678 March 15, 2016Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes679 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in the amount of $5,000 from East Bay Community Foundation, administered by the Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council, for Rodeo Library services pursuant to the local refinery Good Neighbor Agreement, for the period July 1 through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: No Library Fund match. BACKGROUND: The County currently funds 19 hours of library service at the Rodeo Library. If granted, the $5,000 received from Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council will be used by the Contra Costa County Library to fund four additional hours of library service from July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, which will provide one extra hour of service on Saturdays and evening hours on two weekdays for a total of four additional open hours per week. These extended hours offer Rodeo residents more opportunities to make use of the educational and recreational resources available in the library. The Rodeo Municipal Advisory Committee is a strong supporter of the Rodeo Library and consistently grants funds to the Library for extended open hours. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gail McPartland, 925-927-3204 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:Jessica Hudson, County Librarian Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Apply for and Accept a Grant from Rodeo Municipal Advisory Council in the amount of $5,000 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 680 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the grant proposal is not approved, the Rodeo Library will be open 19 hours per week instead of 23 hours per week. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Extending hours at the Rodeo Library will meet all five community outcomes established in the Children’s Report Card. Research shows that early and positive experiences with books set the stage for a child’s success in learning to read. Additionally, literacy skills are a strong predictor of health and employment status. Extending hours at the Rodeo Library will draw more families to the library and encourage regular exposure to reading and books, thus improving the quality of life for children and families in Rodeo. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 681 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in the amount of $1,400 from the City of Brentwood to provide funding for a workshop by social media expert Justin Lafferty, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: No Library Fund match. BACKGROUND: The City of Brentwood will fund a presentation by social media expert, Justin Lafferty. His presentation “Facebook, Twitter and Beyond” will provide practical, current and relevant information to small businesses, demonstrating the ability to grow their businesses through the use of social media. The Library, in partnership with the City of Brentwood, the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Brentwood Coalition and other civic organizations will bring the business community together and provide useful information that will help small business owners succeed in improving their marketing skills. Funds will be used to fly the guest speaker from San Diego to the Bay Area, to pay the guest speaker an honorarium, pay for three ads in the Brentwood Press prior to the event, and to pay for printing costs for both marketing and handouts distributed at the event. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: No presentation will be made by social media expert, Justin Lafferty if the grant is not funded. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Alison McKee, 925-927-3290 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:Jessica Hudson, County Librarian Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Grant in the Amount of $1,400 from the City of Brentwood March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 682 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #24-959-28 with Stand! For Families Free of Violence, a non-profit corporation, effective March 1, 2016, to amend Novation Contract #24-959-27 , to increase the payment limit by $35,000, from $100,00 to a new payment limit of $135,000, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, and to increase the automatic extension payment limit by $17,500, from $50,000 to $67,500, through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% CalWORKs (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: In January 2016, the County Administrator approved and Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #24-959-27 with Stand! For Families Free of Violence for the provision of mental health services, including individual, group and family collateral counseling, case management, and medication management services to CalWORKs participants to reduce barriers to employment, for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon 957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-959-28 with Stand! For Families Free of Violence March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 683 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #24-959-28, will allow the Contractor to provide additional services through June 30, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, CalWORKs participants will not receive mental health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 684 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #26-306-25 with Per Diem Staffing Systems, Inc., a corporation, effective April 1, 2016, to amend Contract #26-306-24, to increase the payment limit by $200,000, from $1,000,000 to a new payment limit of $1,200,000, with no change in the original term of February 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On February 10, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-306-24 with Per Diem Staffing Systems, Inc. for the provision of temporary help services including, but not limited to; respiratory therapist, specialty nursing, electrocardiogram technician, pharmacist, and speech and occupational therapist positions at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from February 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. At the time of negotiations, the payment limit was based on target levels of utilization. However, the utilization during the term of the agreement was higher than originally anticipated. Approval of Contract Amendment #26-306-25 will allow the Contractor to provide additional temporary help services through June 30, 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-306-25 with Per Diem Staffing Systems, Inc. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 685 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the Contractor will not be paid for additional hours of temporary help services provided to CCRMC in good faith. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 686 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #26-742-4 with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc., a corporation, effective January 1, 2016, to amend Contract #26-742-3, to increase the payment limit by $70,000, from $235,284 to a new payment limit of $305,284, with no change in the original term of April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% County General Fund. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On April 14, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-742-3 with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc. for the provision of residential board and care services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) patients in the Patch Program, for the period from April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016. At the request of the County, Contractor has agreed to provide additional services to Patch Program participants for the remainder of the contract term. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-742-4 will allow the Contractor to provide additional residential board and care services through March 31, 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-742-4 with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 687 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, CCRMC patients requiring post-surgery Patch program services will not have access to Contractor’s services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 688 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #72-070-1 with the County of Plumas, a government agency, effective December 1, 2015, to amend Contract #72-070, to increase the payment limit by $41,519, from $200,000 to a new payment limit of $241,519, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Medi-Cal Administrative Activities/Targeted Case Management funds. BACKGROUND: On December 2, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #72-070 with the County of Pulmas for the provision of Medi-Cal Administrative Activities/Targeted Case Management host county services through June 30, 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M WILHELM C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #72-070-1 with the County of Plumas March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 689 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #72-070-1 will allow the Contractor to provide additional Medi-Cal Administrative Activities/Targeted Case Management participations through June 30, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, additional Medi-Cal Administrative Activities/Targeted Case Management participation will not be covered. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 690 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Department, Information Technology Unit, a purchase order with CDW Government LLC, in the amount not to exceed $195,226, to procure user based licensing for SAP's Business Objects software over the period of March 31, 2016 through March 30, 2017. (20% County; 40% State; 40% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $195,226: 100% Administrative Overhead (20% County; 40% State; 40% Federal) BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD), Information Technology Unit (IT), has upgraded their server based licensing to user based licensing for SAP's Business Objects software. Business Object software is used to generate over 800 management reports on all aspects of EHSD's business in the course of a month. It is essential for the department to be current on the product to ensure proper security updates and software support. The latest versions require user based support instead of CPU based support. EHSD IT requires tech support and software patches APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, 3-1514 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Authorize Purchasing Agent to Issue Purchase Order March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 691 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to optimize the product's reliability and address complex issues associated with the department's reporting needs. In accordance with Administrative Bulletin No. 611.0, County Departments are required to get Board approval for single item purchases greater than $100,000. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Employment and Human Services Department will not be current on licensing for SAP's Business Objects software to ensure proper security updates and software support. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 692 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Crowne Plaza Concord Hotel, requiring the County’s assumption of liability for damages or injury, in an amount not to exceed $6,000, for the Foster Parent Recruitment Retention Support Program, Caregiver Appreciation Recognition event scheduled for May 18, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: $6,000: 100% State BACKGROUND: In response to the FY 2015-2016 Foster Parent Recruitment Retention Support (FPRRS) Program plan award, authorized by the Budget Act of 2015, Contra Costa County was awarded $210,872. As specified, funds are to be used for the following administrative activities: non-emergency mental health support services to caregivers, hire and train a county respite coordinator, expanded family funding, direct financial support to relatives, secure Independent Living Sills Program (ILSP) young people to speak at recruitment events, and provide caregiver appreciation activities. Because Contra Costa County was awarded preliminary State allocation funds under FPRRS, funds must APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 313-1717 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Caregiver Appreciation Recognition Event March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 693 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) be used by June 30, 2016. On May 18, 2016, the Employment and Human Services Department, Children and Family Services Bureau, will host a caregiver appreciation recognition brunch to kin and non-kin caregivers (foster parents and caregivers). The provision of food and beverages during the recognition events is allowable under CDSS State allocation funds set for "caregiver appreciation" activities. The contract for this event includes language that would require the County to indemnify the hotel at which the event is held in the event of any injuries or damages caused by the County during this event, including attorney’s fees. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: County would not meet Foster Parent Recruitment Retention Support Program funding requirements. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 694 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #22-817-21 with Contra Costa ARC, a non-profit corporation, effective January 1, 2016, to amend Contract #22-817-19 (as amended by Contract Amendment Agreement #22-817-20), to increase the payment limit by $21,866, from $147,643 to a new payment limit of $169,509, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 22% Federal California Children’s Services Funds, 36% State California Children’s Services Funds, 5% County Required Funds and 37% Packard/Kaiser Grant. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: In September 2014, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #22-817-19 (as amended by Contract Amendment Agreement #22-817-20), with Contra Costa ARC, for the period from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016, for the provision of outreach and education services for the Department’s California Children’s Services (CCS) Program. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #22-817-21 will allow the Contractor to provide additional outreach and education services for the Department’s California Children’s Services (CCS) Program through June 30, 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord 313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: A Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment Agreement #22-817-21 with Contra Costa ARC March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 695 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, clients may not receive California Children’s Services as needed. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: NOT APPLICABLE March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 696 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contact with Sherpa Government Solutions, LLC in an amount not to exceed $482,000, to provide the software and professional service for an upgrade to the County budget preparation system for the period of April 1, 2016 through March 21, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost over the period of sixty (60) months will be $481,323 and will be funded 100% by the General Fund. BACKGROUND: The County's current budget software was purchased and installed in 1993. For the last 23 years, the County has been working with the original software with very few upgrades along the way. Sherpa Government Solutions has provided budgeting consulting and project oversight to Contra Costa and various other public sector clients, specifically those with the same budgeting software that Contra Costa County has currently in place. The new software is web based and supports recent changes to mandated State Budget Schedules. If approved, the conversion of the current system Budget Reporting and Analysis Software (BRASS) to the new Budget Formulation and Management (BFM) system is expected to be completed in the Fall of 2016 and in place for fiscal year 2017-2018 budget development. The term of the contract will enable the County to pay for the maintenance, support and licensing through 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County Administrator's Office will be unable to move forward with the upgrade to the County budget system, which is not only out of date but contains a hard coded end date of 12/31/2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Driscoll, (925) 335-1023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Sherpa Government Solutions, LLC March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 697 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-361 with John Muir Health (dba John Muir Medical Center-Walnut Creek), a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $40,000, to provide laboratory testing service coverage for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC) for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: Under Contract #26-361, the Contractor will provide laboratory testing service coverage for scheduled and non-scheduled down time for CCRMC for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018. This contract includes mutual indemnification. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring laboratory testing services during scheduled and non-scheduled downtime will not have access to Contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-361 with John Muir Health (dba John Muir Medical Center-Walnut Creek) March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 698 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 699 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #74-394-7 with Ronald L. Leon, M.D, Inc. a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $174,720, to provide outpatient psychiatric services to mentally ill adults in East County, for the period from April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Mental Health Realignment Fund. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On March 3, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-394-6 with Ronald L. Leon, M.D., for the period from April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 for the provision of outpatient psychiatric services for mentally ill adults in East County. This contract includes changes to County Standard General Conditions, Paragraph 19, “Insurance”. Approval of Contract #74-394-7 will allow Contractor to continue providing outpatient psychiatric services to mentally ill adults in East County, through March 31, 2017; including changes to County Standard General Conditions, Paragraph 19, “Insurance”. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-394-7 with Ronald L. Leon, M.D., Inc. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 700 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, adult patients in East County requiring outpatient psychiatric services will not have access to Contractor’s services, which may result in a reduction in the overall levels of service to the community. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 701 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #74-514 with Robin Asher, MD, an individual, in an amount not to exceed $133,120, to provide outpatient psychiatric care services for the period from April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 50% Federal Financial Participation and 50% by Mental Health Realignment. BACKGROUND: Under Contract #74-514, Contractor will provide outpatient psychiatric care services in East and West County through March 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon 957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M WILHELM C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-514 with Robin Asher, MD March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 702 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: (CONT'D) If this contract is not approved, County’s clients will not have access to Contractor’s psychiatric care services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 703 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #77-015 with Jeffrey T. Bortz, M.D. (dba East Bay Skin Cancer Center), a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $480,000, to provide dermatology services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members, for the period from April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. BACKGROUND: The Health Plan has an obligation to provide certain specialized health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. Under Contract #77-015, the Contractor will provide dermatology services to CCHP members through March 31, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary 313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-015 with Jeffrey T. Bortz, M.D. (dba East Bay Skin Cancer Center) March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 704 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: NOT APPLICABLE March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 705 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Embassy Suites Hotels Walnut Creek, requiring the County’s assumption of liability for damages or injury, in an amount not to exceed $9309 for the Heritage Protect Options for Recovery Program, Caregivers Retreat Training event scheduled for June 2, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: $9,309: 7.5% County; 17.5% State; 75% Federal. BACKGROUND: In response to issues related to peri-natal exposure to alcohol and drugs, a collaboration was formed with California Department of Alcohol and Drugs programs, Developmental Services, Mental Health Department services, Health Services Department, and Social Service agencies. The collaboration was entitled Options for Recovery. The mission is to promote recovery of pregnant, postpartum, and parenting chemically dependent women and enhance the health of children. On June 2, 2016, the Employment and Human Services Department, Children and Family Services Bureau will provide Heritage Project foster parents and relative caregivers with intensive training, Provision APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 313-1717 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Options for Recovery Retreat and Training Event March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 706 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of food and beverages during the training event is allowable under the Heritage Project funding and is consistent with County Administration Bulletin No. 614, paragraph IV B. "appropriated funds are not available to provide food and/or beverages to county employees or members of county committees." The contract between the County and the hotel for this event includes language that would require the County to assume liability for any injuries or damages caused by attendees at the event, including attorney’s fees. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: County would not meet program training requirements. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Corrected to Read: APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Embassy Suites Hotels Walnut Creek, requiring the County’s assumption of liability for damages or injury, in an amount not to exceed $8,778 $9, 309 for the Heritage Protect Options for Recovery Program, Caregivers Retreat Training event scheduled for June 2, 2016. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 707 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to pay Tiburon, Inc., an amount not to exceed $205,236 for system support for the Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management System, and CopLogic systems under the Agreement for Extended Service between Tiburon and the County for the period September 10, 2015 to September 9, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: $205,236, FY 2015/16 budgeted expenditure. (100% County General Fund) BACKGROUND: Tiburon is our CAD/RMS/Mobiles (dispatch and record-keeping system) vendor. This is the annual renewal for support of this system and the CopLogic reporting system that is integrated with CAD/RMS. The CAD/RMS system is used by dispatch to document calls for service and dispatch police and Sheriff's units to those calls. The system is also used by Records to collect data required by the State. The support allows our system to be up and running 24/7 and to provide emergency assistance if the system fails. CAD/RMS APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown, (925)335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order for Software - Tiburon March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 708 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and Mobiles are mission critical applications to Public Safety. Without Tiburon support of their products the Office of the Sheriff runs the risk of crashing these systems without the ability to fix it. In May 2000, the Board of Supervisors approved an Agreement with Tiburon, Inc., to purchase a license and services to upgrade the software for the Sheriff’s Office 9-1-1 Dispatch and Records Management systems. The 9-1-1 Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system is used by the Office of the Sheriffs Dispatch Center, and the Records Management System (RMS) is used by the entire Office of the Sheriff and the agencies that contract with the Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement services. Tiburon, Inc., provides the County with the software for the CAD system and RMS. This request will provide for systems maintenance and support for an additional year. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negative action on this item would not allow the Office of the Sheriff to provide emergency assistance if the system fails. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 709 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order in the amount of $102,000 for AT&T Network Integration Hardware and Services for the period March 21, 2016 through March 20, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I budget. BACKGROUND: Health Services Data Center sites in Martinez and Pittsburg experienced extended network outages by cuts of the fiber optic lines. This equipment and these services will improve redundancy and fault tolerance to preclude future network outages. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to improve network redundancy will result in county wide outages including CCRMC and Data Centers. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Runt, 313-6228 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, Renee Nunez C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with AT&T Corp. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 710 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order with Johnson & Johnson, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $350,00000, for the purchase of surgical supplies and implants for the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and the Contra Costa Health Centers for the period February 15, 2016 through February 14, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I budget. BACKGROUND: Johnson & Johnson, Inc. manufactures and distributes medical and pharmaceutical supplies for various surgical specialties used by the CCRMC Surgery Department. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved the CCRMC will not be able to take care of the surgical needs of the general population of Contra Costa County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, Margaret Harris C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with Johnson & Johnson, Inc. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 711 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the County Administrator, a purchase order with R-Computer in an amount not to exceed $214,138 for servers and related hardware and maintenance support for the County budget system upgrade. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund BACKGROUND: The County Administrator's Office is requesting to purchase new servers and related hardware and maintenance support for the upgrade to the County Budget System. In accordance with Administrative Bulletin No 611.0, County Departments are required to obtain Board approval for single item purchases over $100,000. The Department of Information Technology has reviewed this request and recommends approval. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will proceed with an upgrade to the budget system without replacing existing hardware. Without the new servers the full benefit of the new software will not be realized. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Driscoll, (925) 335-1023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with R-Computer March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 712 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the list of providers recommended by Contra Costa Health Plan's Medical Director on February 24, 2016, and by the Health Services Director, as required by the State Departments of Health Care Services and Managed Health Care, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) has requested evidence of Board Approval for each CCHP provider be contained within the provider’s credentials file. The recommendations were made by CCHP’s Peer Review and Credentialing Committee. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, Contra Costa Health Plan’s Providers would not be appropriately credentialed and not be in compliance with the NCQA. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary, 313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: T Scott, Heather Wong, M Wilhelm C. 60 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve New and Recredentialing Providers and New and Recredentialing Organizational Providers in Contra Costa Health Plan’s Community Provider Networ March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 713 ATTACHMENTS Attachments March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 714 Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director February 24, 2016 CREDENTIALING PROVIDERS FEBRUARY 2016 Name Specialty Beatts, Samantha, BCBA Behavior Analysis Blaylock, Wei-Shing Cynthia, OD Optometry Delaney, Margaret, BCBA Behavior Analysis Drury, Bernard, M,D. Otolaryngology Fu, Shu-Wing, BCBA Behavior Analysis Githua, Josephine, NP Primary Care Family Medicine Grasso, Erik, BCBA Behavior Analysis Kilcorse, Melanie, BCBA Behavior Analysis Kircher, Debra, BCBA Behavior Analysis Kopf, Ryan, BCBA Behavior Analysis Langeliers, Ashley, BCBA-D, PhD Behavior Analysis Ma, Felicia, PA Primary Care Family Medicine Maeyama, Kelly, BCBA Behavior Analysis Malik, Bhavna, M.D. Infectious Disease Mazolewski, Peter, M.D. Surgery - General Niemi, Erica, BCBA Behavior Analysis Passey, Linda, LCSW Mental Health Services Peace, Elizabeth, BCBA Behavior Analysis Plony, Brittany, MS Behavior Analysis Rhodes, Lexy, MA Behavior Analysis Ryazantseva, Mariya, NP Primary Care Family Medicine Symmes, Zachary, PA Mid-Level - Orthopaedic Surgery Assistant Tang, Michele, M.D. HIV/AIDS Welborn, John, M.D. Surgery - Orthopaedic Wirengard, Yana, M.D. Surgery - General CREDENTIALING ORGANIZATIONAL PROVIDERS FEBRUARY 2016 Provider Name Provide the Following Services Location AtHome Healthcare Team, LLC Home Health American Canyon Bay Area Surgical Specialist Services, LLC Ambulatory Surgery Center Walnut Creek March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 715 Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director February 24, 2016 Page 2 of 3 CREDENTIALING ORGANIZATIONAL PROVIDERS FEBRUARY 2016 Provider Name Provide the Following Services Location Continuum Care Hospice, LLC, dba: Continuum Care Hospice, LLC Hospice Oakland RECREDENTIALING PROVIDERS FEBRUARY 2016 Name Specialty Arora, Ravinder, M.D Medical Oncology Blaufarb, Alexandra, NP Primary Care Family Medicine Chan, Debbie, PA Mid-Level Cardiology Chin, Stephanie, PA Mid-Level Cardiology Connolly, Edward, M.D. Primary Care Pediatrician Duckett, Stacey, DC Chiropractic Medicine Eldridge, Cheryl, PA Mid-Level Cardiology Gee, Doris, PA Primary Care Pediatrics/ Mid-Level Allergy & Immunology Horowitz, Joel, DC Chiropractic Medicine Jones, Sharon, M.D. Primary Care Internal Medicine Ketcham, Adryon, BCBA Behavior Analysis Ludmer, Paul, M.D. Cardiovascular Disease Maher, Terry, M.D. Nephrology Melnyk, Ostap, M.D. Hematology/ Oncology Moats Mead, Alexandra, PA Mid-Level Cardiology Sanchez-Salazar, Javier, OD Optometry Sieu, Katherine, NP Mid-Level Hematology/ Oncology Tsai, Clark, M.D. Ophthalmology March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 716 Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director February 24, 2016 Page 3 of 3 RECREDENTIALING PROVIDERS FEBRUARY 2016 Name Specialty Woo, Sandi, PA Mid-Level Cardiology RECREDENTIALING ORGANIZATIONAL PROVIDERS FEBRUARY 2016 Provider Name Provide the Following Services Location Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. dba: Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. Home Health Emeryville Rheem Valley Healthcare, LLC dba Grace Healthcare of Moraga Skilled Nursing Facility Moraga bopl-February 24, 2016 March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 717 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Department Director to enter into a non-financial Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to allow the use of The Work Number, to verify employment and wage information for the period April 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) invited County Welfare Departments (CWDs) to participate in an online employment and wage verification service agreement. CDSS entered into an agreement with Equifax/TALX Corporation aka The Work Number to provide participating counties with online employment and wage verification services. That agreement allows CDSS to provide an online employment and wage verification system based on client social security numbers to all 58 CWDs. The service is at no cost to the CWDs. CWDs must enter a non-financial Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with CDSS for Equifax/TALX provision of the service w/ a copy of the local governing board order or resolution authorizing execution of the MOU. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 313-1717 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 59 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:California Department of Social Services On-line Wage and Verification Service March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 718 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department, representative of one of the 58 California Welfare Departments would not be able to access the California Department of social Services online employment and wage verification system. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 719 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16, 1999 regarding the issue of homelessness in Contra Costa County. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Government Code Section 8630 required that, for a body that meets weekly, the need to continue the emergency declaration be reviewed at least every 14 days until the local emergency is terminated. In no event is the review to take place more than 21 days after the previous review. On November 16, 1999, the Board of Supervisors declared a local emergency, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 8630 on homelessness in Contra Costa County. With the continuing high number of homeless individuals and insufficient funding available to assist in sheltering all homeless individuals and families, it is appropriate for APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Enid Mendoza, (925) 335-1039 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Continue Extension of Emergency Declaration Regarding Homelessness March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 720 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the Board to continue the declaration of a local emergency regarding homelessness. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 721 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Muir Diablo Occupational Medical Group Inc., recognizing the acquisition and name change of the corporation from Muir Diablo Occupational Medical Group Inc. to U.S. HealthWorks Medical Group P.C., with no change to the contract term or payment limit. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no additional fiscal impact from this action. BACKGROUND: The Office of the Sheriff contracts Muir Diablo Occupational Medicine Medical Group Inc., for background pre-employment screening services for Deputy Sheriff Recruits, Deputy Sheriff Laterals and Sheriff's Dispatchers. Muir Diablo Occupational Medicine Medical Group Inc. provides most of the Office of the Sheriff's pre-employment screening services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Consequence of a negative action would be a backup of pre-employment screening services for the Office of the Sheriff which would result in a much slower hiring process. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown, 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 58 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Corporation Name Change March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 722 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 723 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE County Department Heads to donate, and those County Department Heads who are serving as Event Committee Chairpersons to accept voluntary contributions of, County appropriations and/or in-kind services in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per County department, annually, for the planning and conduct of the following Board of Supervisors-hosted commemorative celebrations: 1. Martin Luther King Jr. Commemorative Celebration Cesar Chavez Commemorative Celebration 9-11 Remembrance Ceremony Veteran’s Day Recognition APPROVE and AUTHORIZE those County Department Heads who are serving as Event Committee Chairpersons to accept County department donations up to $3,000 per event and expend up to $5,000 per event annually for expenses incurred in planning and conducting the Board of Supervisors-hosted commemorative celebrations. 2. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to pay up to $5,000 per event for event expenses that generally include promotional posters, food, decorations, keynote speakers, music, and custodial that are incurred by the staff committees convened by the County Administrator to organize these events. Reimbursement for keynote speaker’s honorarium will not exceed $595 for service and travel. 3. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Barbara Riveira, 925-335-1018 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller, All County Departments (via County Administration) C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Policy on Expenditure and Payment Authorization for Annual Board of Supervisors-Hosted Commemorative Events March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 724 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) > APPROVE and AUTHORIZE reimbursement to employee committee members for expenses incurred in the planning and conducting of Board of Supervisors-hosted commemorative celebrations as authorized by the Department Head/Acting Committee Chair and in accordance with the County’s expense reimbursement policy and procedures. 4. FISCAL IMPACT: Costs are covered by private donations, various County appropriations and in-kind services, and the County General Fund. BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors has for many years scheduled and hosted annual public celebrations for special events including the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Celebration, the Cesar Chavez Commemorative Celebration, the 9-11 Day of Remembrance, and the Veteran’s Day Recognition. The County Administrator convenes committees of staff volunteers to plan and organize these events. These committees are chaired by Department Heads, who coordinate the planning effort and commitment of County and private resources. Expenses associated with these events generally include promotional posters, food, decorations, keynote speakers, music, and custodial (set-up and clean-up) services, and typically do not exceed $5,000 per event. Authorization is requested for those County Department Heads who are acting as Committee Chairs to accept voluntary department appropriations and private donations towards these events; for each County department to voluntarily transfer up to $1,000 in appropriations and/or in-kind services to these events up to a maximum of $3,000 per event; and for the Auditor-Controller to pay such expenses authorized by the designated Department Head/Acting Committee Chair. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Department Head/Acting Committee Chair for these events will not be able to secure items for the events, and the Auditor-Controller will not be able to pay expenses incurred by these annual special events authorized by the Board of Supervisors. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 725 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT revision to the fiscal year 2014/15 Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund (KCMF) Year-End Report. FISCAL IMPACT: The fund balance in the KCMF account at the end of FY 2014/15 was $688,553. That amount will be carried forward to FY 2015/16. BACKGROUND: On September 22, 2015, the Board of Supervisors accepted the fiscal year 2014/15 Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund (KCMF) Year-End Report. On November 19, 2015, the Department of Conservation and Development received a report from the Auditor Controller’s Office that examined the Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund for the period of July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2015. An error was found in the FY 2014/15 available fund balance. The correct balance is $688,553, which is a difference of $99,967 in favor of the KCMF. Below is an updated FY 2014/15 Revenue & Expenses table that was presented in the September 22, 2015 board order. The County Administrator’s Office will correct the error in fund balance during the FY 2015/16 year end close. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/15/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kristen Lackey (925) 674-7888 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: March 15, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Revision to FY 2014/15 Year-End Report on the Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 726 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > Revised FY 2014/15 Revenue & Expenses FY 2013/14 Year End Fund Balance $ 478,859 FY 2014/15 Actual Revenue 1,375,602 Total Available $ 1,854,461 FY 2014/15 Actual Expenses (1,165,908) FY 2014/15 Year End Fund Balance $ 688,553 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the revision is not accepted, an error will be reflected in the FY 2014/15 Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund Year-End Report. March 15, 2016 Contra Costa County BOS Official Minutes 727