Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 04122016 - Comp Min Pkt
CALENDAR 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 April 12, 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)) Jeffrey M. Nelson v. Contra Costa County, WCAB #’s ADJ8600139; ADJ91097121. Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County v. Contra Costa County, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C12-00944 JST 2. C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Gov. Code, § 54956.9(d)(4): One potential case D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1 Property: 1700 Oak Park Blvd., Pleasant Hill Agency Negotiator: Karen Laws, Principal Real Property Agent Negotiating Parties: Contra Costa County and Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District Under negotiation: Price and payment terms 9:30 a.m. Call to order and opening ceremonies. Inspirational Thought- "Today is your day to paint life in bold colors, set today's rhythm with your heart-drum, walk today's march with courage. Create today as your celebration of life. ~ Jonathan Lockwood Huie 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 Sharon Anderson, County Counsel By unanimous vote, with all Supervisors present, the Board approved the initiation of litigation. Details of the case will be available upon request once litigation has commenced. CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.79 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 to recognize April as Alcohol Awareness Month in Contra Costa County. (Supervisor Glover) PRESENTATION proclaiming April 10-16, 2016 as "Week of the Young Child". (Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services Director) PRESENTATION to proclaim April 10-16, 2016 as National Crime Victims' Rights Week in promotion of victims' rights and to recognize crime victims and those who advocate on their behalf. (Mark Peterson, District Attorney) April 27th National Denim Day PRESENTATION declaring April, 2016 as "Child Abuse Prevention Month" in Contra Costa County. (Supervisor Andersen) PRESENTATION recognizing April 5, 2016 as Day for National Service, in Contra Costa County. (Supervisor Andersen) DISCUSSION ITEMS D. 1 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed. There were no items removed from consent for discussion. D. 2 PUBLIC COMMENT (3 Minutes/Speaker) Eli D., resident of Martinez, spoke on his interactions with Concord Police Department and other local law enforcement. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 2 D. 3 CONSIDER adopting recommended assumptions and methods for use in Contra Costa County Other Post Employment Benefit Plan GASB (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) 45 Actuarial Valuation as of January 1, 2016, as recommended by the County Administrator. (Lisa Driscoll, County Finance 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 D. 4 CONSIDER a position of support on the Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability Act, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. (William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director) Speaker: Rebecca Rozen, Hospital Council. 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. 5 CONSIDER adopting Resolution No. 2016/314 to temporarily close part-day, part year Center Based pre-school and Home Based programs, abolish project positions and layoff employees in the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, and in August, 2016 re-establish positions. (Camilla Rand, Community Services Bureau 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 D. 6 HEARING to consider declaring Contra Costa County’s intent to become a member of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa County, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. (John Kopchik, 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 D. 7 CONSIDER accepting a report from the Public Protection Committee on a letter received from the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition, approving formation of the ad hoc Contra Costa County Disproportionate Minority Contact Task Force and taking related actions. (Timothy Ewell, County Administrator's Office) Speakers: Kaylie Simon, Deputy District Attorney, CCC Racial Justice Coalition; Mei Christian, CCC Racial Justice Coalition; Eli D., resident of Martinez. ACCEPTED the report; REFERRED it to the Public Protection Committee (PPC) for review on April 21, 2016; APPROVED formation of ad hoc Contra Costa County Disproportionate Minority Contact Task Force (CCCDMC Task Force), comprised of no more than 15 members representing governmental agencies and community organizations whose work concerns racial equality within the criminal justice system, Chief Probation Officer Public Defender District Attorney Sheriff Superior Court of Contra Costa County Local Law Enforcement (member to be name by the CCC Police Chiefs Association) Local School Districts (up to 3 representatives) Department of Health Community-based Organizations (up to 5 members), with one representative from a faith-based organization; and a member of the public representing the interests of mental health and one general member of the public- possibly from the Former Grand Juror Association The Task Force will review and update the 2008 Disproportionate Minority Contact Report and integrate the findings into the scheduled update of the Countywide Reentry Strategic Plan, following April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 3 review by the PPC and Board of Supervisors; DETERMINED the mission of the CCCDMC Task Force for racial justice is: ` 1. Identify some consensus measures within the County to reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system 2. Make recommendations for implementation of the measure once identified 3. Report back to the Board of Supervisors on progress made toward reducing racial disparities within the criminal justice system; DIRECTED the PPC to move forthwith on the recruitment process to set up the Task Force; DIRECTED quarterly reports by the Task Force be submitted to the PPC on its progress, to the extent that there is something that could be forwarded to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration; and DIRECTED the Public Protection Committee to continue monitoring the progress of staff participating in the Government Alliance on Racial Equity training cohort and report back to the Board of Supervisors with any recommendations following the conclusion of that process. D. 8 CONSIDER adopting Resolution No. 2016/163 approving the Side Letter between Contra Costa County and Local 1 to increase the base rate of pay for the classifications of Lead Electrician and Electrician by three and four-tenths percent (3.4%), effective May 1, 2016. (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 adopting Resolution No. 2016/318 to amend agreements to reduce West Contra Costa Healthcare District's allocation of ad valorem property taxes from the District to the County, as requested by the West Contra Costa Healthcare District Board. (Supervisor Gioia) Speaker: Eric Zell, West Contra Costa Health Care District. 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 reports of Board members. There were no items reported today. Closed Session ADJOURN CONSENT ITEMS Road and Transportation C. 1 REJECT all bids received on March 8, 2016, for the 2016 Bay Point Asphalt Rubber Cape Seal Project, and ORDER any bid bonds posted by the bidders to be exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for security to be returned, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Bay Point area. (93% Local Road Funds and 7% CalRecycle Grant Funds) AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 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 C. 2 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a construction contract in the amount of $836,845 with Pavement Coatings Co. for the 2016 Slurry Seal Project, Alamo, Clayton, and Walnut Creek areas. (100% Local Road 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 ACCEPT background report on the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi Use Trail concept from the Departments of Public Works and Conservation and Development, and ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/326 supporting exploration of the concept of the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail, and other related efforts to advance the concept. (100% Dedicated Transportation 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 Engineering Services C. 4 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/156 accepting completion of the warranty period for the Subdivision Agreement, and release of cash deposit for faithful performance, subdivision SD03-08689, for a project developed by Shapell Industries of Northern California, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (100% Developer Fees) 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 Resolution No. 2016/155 accepting completion of landscape improvements for the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) for road acceptance RA04-01168, for a project being developed by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (100% Developer Fees) 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. 6 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with Concord Flying Club for a shade hangar at Buchanan Field Airport, effective March 25, 2016, in the monthly amount of $177.07. (100% Airport Enterprise 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. 7 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with Kent Ipsen for a large T-hangar at Buchanan Field Airport, effective March 18, 2016, in the monthly amount of $748.23. (100% Airport Enterprise 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 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 5 Claims, Collections & Litigation C. 8 DENY claims filed by USSA Insurance for Stephanie Green, Nationwide Ins. a/s/o Wunmi Mohammed-Kamson, Jane Young, Jonathan Ortega, and CSAA o/b/o Jesus Alvarado Rodriguez. DENY late claims filed by Allison Cassidy on behalf of her son, Delano Cassidy, a minor. Acting as the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Board, DENY claims filed by State Farm Ins. for Stephen Zendt and an amended claim filed by State Farm Ins. for Stephen Zendt. AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other: District II Supervisor Candace Andersen (ABSTAIN) Honors & Proclamations C. 9 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/140 proclaiming April 10-16, 2016 as "Week of the Young Child", as recommended by the Employment and Human 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. 10 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/136 to proclaim April 10-16, 2016 as "National Crime Victims' Rights Week" in promotion of victims' rights and to recognize crime victims and those who advocate on their behalf, as recommended by the District Attorney. 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 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/125 declaring April, 2016 as "Child Abuse Prevention Month" in Contra Costa County, 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. 12 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/143 recognizing April 5, 2016 as "Day for National Service", in Contra Costa County, 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. 13 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/150 to recognize April as "Alcohol Awareness Month" in Contra Costa County, as recommended by 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. 14 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/158 recognizing Ed and Kathy Chiverton for their many years of community service, 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. 15 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/164 recognizing Judy Dinkle as the Moraga Citizen of the Year, as April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 6 C. 15 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/164 recognizing Judy Dinkle as the Moraga 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 Ordinances C. 16 ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-09 amending the County Ordinance code to remove certain classes from the Information technology and Health-Medical groups of job classifications that are excluded from the Merit System and reorder the exempt classifications in the Health-Medical group, as recommended by the 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 Appointments & Resignations C. 17 ACCEPT the resignation of Webb Johnson, DECLARE vacant the Contra Costa County Historical Society #3 seat on the Contra Costa County Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, 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. 18 APPOINT Walter Fields to the District V Representative Alternate seat on the Contra Costa Fire Protection District Advisory Commission, as recommended by 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. 19 REAPPOINT Aleida Andrino-Chavez to the Rodeo Member seat, Dr. Maureen Powers to the San Pablo Member seat, and Thomas Hansen to the Crockett Member seat on the Western Contra Costa County Transit Authority Board, as recommended by 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. 20 ACCEPT the resignation of Peggy Black, DECLARE a vacancy in the District V Family Member seat on the Mental Health Commission, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by 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. 21 ACCEPT resignation of Doug Stewart, DECLARE a vacancy in the District V Member seat on the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by 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. 22 APPROVE the medical staff appointments and reappointments, additional privileges, medical staff April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 7 C. 22 APPROVE the medical staff appointments and reappointments, additional privileges, medical staff advancement, voluntary resignations and internal medicine privilege form, as recommend by the Medical Staff Executive Committee, at their March 21, 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. 23 APPOINT Amin Bhupen to Private / Non-profit Alternate seat on the Economic Opportunity Council, as recommended by the Employment and Human 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 Appropriation Adjustments C. 24 Public Defender's Office (0243): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5058 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $37,119 from the National Juvenile Defender Center, and appropriating it for contracted temporary help to host a pilot Juvenile Post Disposition Reentry Legal Fellowship program in the Office of the Public Defender. 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 Traffic Safety Fund (0368)/CSA P-2 Zone A (7653): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5059 authorizing the transfer of appropriations in the amount of $12,830 from the Traffic Safety Fund to CSA P-2 Zone A and authorizing additional revenue in the amount of $25,842 from accumulated depreciation for the purchase of one police patrol vehicle for use in the Blackhawk area. (67% CSA P-2 Zone A, 33% Traffic Safety 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. 26 Public Defender's Office (0243): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5050 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $72,585 from the San Francisco Foundation and the California Endowment, and appropriating it to fund salaries and benefits for three temporary clerical positions to implement the Proposition 47 Outreach Program in Office of the Public Defender. 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. 27 AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority requesting that the County be included in the annual rotation of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of the Authority, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure 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 ADOPT an "Oppose" position on AB 1707 (Linder), as introduced: Public Records: Response to April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 8 C. 28 ADOPT an "Oppose" position on AB 1707 (Linder), as introduced: Public Records: Response to Request, a bill that would require a written response identifying type of record withheld as exempt and the specific exemption that justifies withholding that type of record, 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. 29 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21847 to add four Registered Nurse-Experienced Level positions (represented), four Mental Health Clinical Specialist positions (represented), and one Administrative Aide position (unrepresented) in the Health Services Department. (100% FQHC revenue offset and HRSA MAT Grant 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. 30 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21848 to add one Clerical Supervisor position (represented) and cancel one vacant Clerk-Senior level position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (85% State California Children Services funds and 15% 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. 31 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21849 to add four Community Health Worker II positions (represented), and cancel two vacant Clerk-Senior level positions (represented) and two vacant Clerk-Experienced level positions (represented) in the Health Services Department. (Cost savings) 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 Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21850 to increase the hours of one permanent part-time Cook position (represented) from 24/40 to 40/40 in the Health Services Department. (100% 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 Leases C. 33 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a revenue lease amendment with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, for real property located at 1850 Muir Road in Martinez, to extend the term through March 31, 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 Grants & Contracts APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services: April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 9 C. 34 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute a contract with the California Department of Food and Agriculture to reimburse the County up to $3,120 for inspecting recycling establishments licensed as weighmasters and determining compliance with Business and Professions Code Section 12703.1, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (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. 35 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to apply for and accept grant funding in an amount not to exceed $20,000 from the Heritage Bank of Commerce for Small Business Development Center services to the low-to-moderate income population in Antioch for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. ($20,000 budgeted, 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. 36 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute an amendment with the California Department of Health Care Services, effective May 15, 2016, to implement a budgetary shift of funds from one line item to another, for continuation of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant Project, with no change in the original amount of $123,000 payable to the County, and no change in the original term of September 29, 2015 through May 31, 2016. (No match required) 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 Health Services Director, or designee, to execute, a contract amendment with the Department of Health Care Services, effective July 1, 2015, to make technical adjustments to the budget and to increase the amount payable to County by $520,803, to a new payment limit not to exceed $31,024,788, for continuation of the Drug Medi-Cal Substance Abuse Treatment Services with no change in the original term of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. (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. 38 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute, a contract amendment with the Department of Health Care Services, effective July 1, 2016, to make technical adjustments to the budget and to increase the amount payable to County by $1,807,056, to a new payment limit not to exceed $32,831,844, for continuation of the Drug Medi-Cal Substance Abuse Treatment Services with no change in the original term of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. (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. 39 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Public Health, Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Program, effective March 1, 2016, to make technical adjustments to the fiscal year 2015-2016 budget to increase the total amount payable to County by $181,557, to a new total amount of $3,915,763, with no change in the original term of October 1, 2013 through September 30, 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. 40 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant from April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 10 C. 40 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, in an initial amount of $101,571 to fund proactive enforcement targeting the unauthorized sale of alcoholic beverage by businesses within the County for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (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 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services: C. 41 APPROVE clarification of Board action of November 17, 2015 (C.45), which authorized the Chief Information Officer or designee to execute an Executable Quote and Oracle Master Agreement with Oracle America, Inc., for PeopleSoft Enterprise license and support, to accurately reflect the correct contract term of November 24, 2015 through November 26, 2016, with no change change to the payment limit of $480,728, as recommended by the Chief Information Officer (Department of Information Technology). (Charges to all County departments) 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 ACKNOWLEDGE and CONSENT to extend the start date to February 9, 2016 and to extend the completion date to May 31, 2016, in connection with the rehabilitation of the Church Lane Apartments in San Pablo by Resource for Community Development using $455,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds borrowed from the County. (100% Federal 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. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Director, a purchase order with SSP Data in an amount not to exceed $199,906 to procure backups for servers and databases for the period March 13, 2016 through March 12, 2017. (10% County; 45% State; 45% 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. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with MGA Healthcare, Inc., effective March 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $1,600,000 to a new payment limit of $2,600,000, and to revise the rate schedule to include additional temporary work categories at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, with no change in the original term of January 1 through December 31, 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. 45 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee to execute a contract with O3, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide the Emergency Services Unit with WebEOC software support for the term of April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. (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. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 11 C. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Julia Dyckman Andrus Memorial, Inc., effective May 5, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $36,765 to a new payment limit of $133,170, for trauma awareness training services to department California Work Opportunity and Responsibility and Welfare-to-Work staff, for the period October 5, 2015 through October 31, 2016. (Federal 84%, State 13%, County 3%) 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 Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Care Review Resources, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $166,257 to provide health care consultation, technical assistance and chart review services for Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers designated staff, for the period March 1, 2016 through February 28, 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. 48 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Interim Chief Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the University of Cincinnati Research Institute, to extend the term from June 30, 2016 through June 30, 2017 and increase the payment limit by $42,000 to a new payment limit of $200,000, to provide consulting services in the Juvenile Hall. (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. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with World Courier Ground, Inc., effective November 1, 2015, to increase the payment limit by $40,000 to a new payment limit of $780,000 to provide additional courier services to Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, with no change in the original term of April 1, 2014 through March 31, 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. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Rawel Randhawa, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $562,000 to provide gastroenterology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, for the period March 1, 2016 through February 28, 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 Indra Singh, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $266,240 to provide outpatient psychiatric services in Central County, for the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. (100% Mental Health Services Act) 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 an unpaid student training agreement with University of the Pacific, Thomas J. Long School of Pharmacy and Health Services, to provide supervised field instruction at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers to pharmacy students, for the period April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2021. (No fiscal impact) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 12 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 Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with National Council on Crime and Delinquency, effective April 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $165,782 to a new payment limit of $222,751, for the continued services of the Phase II Lethality Assessment Program Implementation for Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention for the period December 5, 2014 through September 30, 2016. (91% Federal, 9% 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. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Monument Impact in an amount not to exceed $247,575 to provide consultation, training, education, and evaluation of programs and policies to limit the sale of flavored tobacco near schools, for the period September 1, 2015 through June 30, 2020. (100% California Department of Public Health 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. 55 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/153 authorizing the Sheriff Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2015 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant in an amount not to exceed $150,000 for the update of the Contra Costa County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. (75% Federal, 25% In-Kind 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. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a non-financial agreement with Vizient, Inc., to perform financial and clinical data sharing at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period January 1 through December 31, 2016. (Non-financial agreement) 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 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract containing modified indemnification language with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, in an amount not to exceed $320,000 to provide remote neurology and neurovascular consultation services for patients at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 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. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with Ortho Clinic Diagnostics, Inc., in the amount of $124,192 to purchase an Ortho Vision Analyzer used in the Clinical Laboratory at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2020. (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. 59 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 13 C. 59 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Seneca Family of Agencies, effective April 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $243,859 to a new payment limit of $7,044,996 to provide additional Mobile Crisis Response Team services for seriously emotionally disturbed children and their families, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016; and to increase the automatic extension payment limit by $121,930 to a new payment limit of $3,522,498, through December 31, 2016. (46% Federal Financial Participation; 49% Mental Health Realignment; 5% Mental Health Services Act) 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 and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract containing mutual indemnification language with PerformRx in an amount not to exceed $95,000,000, to provide pharmacy administration services for the Contra Costa Health Plan, for the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan 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. 61 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Victor Treatment Centers, Inc., effective April 1, 2016 to include case management services for seriously emotionally disturbed youth, with no change in the original payment limit of $260,000, no change in the original term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, and no change in the six-month automatic extension amount of $130,000 through December 31, 2016. (50% Federal Financial Participation; 50% County 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. 62 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Medical Solutions, LLC (dba Nebraska Medical Solutions Staffing, LLC), effective March 15, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $900,000 to a new payment limit of $2,500,000 to provide additional hours of temporary staffing services at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, with no change in the original term of July 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. 63 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute required legal documents to provide $650,000 of Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDs funds to Tabora Gardens, L.P., a California limited partnership, for the Tabora Gardens Apartment project in Antioch; and ADOPT related California Environmental Quality Act findings. (100% federal 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. 64 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Coroner, a purchase order amendment with Spike's Produce, to increase the payment limit by $150,000 to a new payment limit of $500,000 to provide food products for the preparation of inmate meals in the three County adult detention facilities for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 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 Other Actions April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 14 Other Actions C. 65 APPROVE and ADOPT the 2016-2022 Capital Improvement Plan for Parks and Sheriff’s facilities and the Biennial Compliance Checklist for the Measure J Growth Management Program, and take related California Environmental Quality Act actions, 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. 66 ACCEPT and APPROVE the Employment and Human Services Department, Children and Family Services Bureau, System Improvement Plan as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director, and AUTHORIZE the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to sign the System Improvement Plan. 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. 67 APPROVE the design and bid documents, including plans and specifications, and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act for the Expansion of the Family Practice Clinic, 2311 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, for the Health Services Department Project; and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to solicit bids to be received on or about May 19, 2016, and to issue bid addenda, as needed, for clarification of the contract bid documents. (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. 68 APPROVE election consolidation requests from each jurisdiction that has filed a resolution with the County Clerk-Recorder, Elections Division, to consolidate their elections with the June 7, 2016 Primary Election and AUTHORIZE the County Clerk-Recorder, Elections Division, to conduct elections for those jurisdictions. (Costs are reimbursable through affected jurisdictions) 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. 69 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Department of Conservation and Development to initiate a General Plan Amendment study to consider changing the General Plan land use designation from Multiple-Family Residential – High Density to Commercial for the vacant property located immediately northeast of the San Pablo Avenue/Crestwood Drive intersection, San Pablo area, Assessor’s Parcel No. 405-203-018 (County File #GP16-0003). (100% Applicant fees) 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. 70 APPROVE the list of providers recommended by Contra Costa Health Plan's Peer Review and Credentialing Committee on March 8, 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 C. 71 ACCEPT the audit findings, audit response and related policy changes that were reviewed and April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 15 C. 71 ACCEPT the audit findings, audit response and related policy changes that were reviewed and approved by the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Hospital Joint Conference Committee in response to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2015 Operational Site Visit, and APPROVE the Health Services Department’s Health Care for the Homeless Program’s response to the findings as recommended by the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Hospital Joint Conference 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. 72 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator or designee to execute, on behalf of the County, a Community Choice Aggregator Non-Disclosure Agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company, including modified indemnification language, to obtain electrical load data within Contra Costa County. (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. 73 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to reallocate two Early Head Start childcare slots from County-operated childcare centers to contracted childcare partner programs, effective July 1, 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. 74 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Coroner, a purchase order with Dell, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $196,572 to purchase VMWare Horizon virtual desktop software for the Office of the Sheriff. (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. 75 ACCEPT the 2014/15 annual report from the Public Works Director on the Internal Services Fund for the County's Vehicle Fleet and on the disposition of low-mileage vehicles, as recommended by the Internal Operations 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. 76 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/157 approving the issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority in an amount not to exceed $30,000,000 to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of Miraflores Senior Apartments located at the corner of South 45th Street and Florida Avenue, Richmond, and authorize other related actions, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (100% 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. 77 ACCEPT the 2015 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, 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. 78 CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16, April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 16 C. 78 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. 79 AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to issue a one-time payment in the amount of $15,000 to the Contra Costa Family Medicine Residency Program, as recommended by the Health Services Director. (100% Song-Brown grant 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 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. 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 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 17 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. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 18 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 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 19 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) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 20 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 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 21 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT recommended assumptions and methods for use in Contra Costa County Other Post Employment Benefit Plan GASB 45 Actuarial Valuation as of January 1, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This report is for informational purposes and has no specific impact; however, the result of the recommendations herein, if implemented, may have impact on the County's calculated Other Post Employment Benefit Liability. BACKGROUND: An Other Post Employment Benefit Plan (OPEB) Valuation Report is required per Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statements 43 and 45 to be completed, by a County the size of Contra Costa, every two years. The report presents a calculation of liability and has no specific fiscal impact on its own. In 2004, due to growing concern over the potential magnitude of government employer obligations for post-employment benefits, the Government Accounting Standards Board enacted Statement 45. The main reason for the Statement was to establish uniform accrual accounting and reporting of these governmental liabilities much like under the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rules that already applied to the private sector for OPEBs (and GASB 25 and 27 statements that already applied to governmental pension liabilities). Accrual accounting was needed to report the cost of providing government services over the working lifetime of employees providing the services, rather than just the "pay-as-you-go" (paygo) cost that was not realized until after those employees retired. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Ann Elliott, Employee Benefits Manager, Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller, Russell Watts, County Treasurer-Tax Collector, Patrick Godley, Chief Financial Officer/Health Services D. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Other Post Employment Benefits 2016 Valuation Assumptions April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 22 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > Additionally, an intended audience for these GASB 45 results was the bond markets so that they could better assess levels of government solvency in issuing debt. Although plan solvency was not the main impetus behind Statement 45, GASB 45 is considered 'funding friendly' because it adds some security for those receiving the benefits, if those benefits are actually pre-funded. Because Statement 45 requires the public sector to account for total long term OPEB costs over the active service life of benefit-earning employees, rather than reporting current year OPEB costs only for existing retirees, it is thought that shining the light on these long term liabilities would force the public sector to address, and hopefully avoid, the collapses in benefit plans that have occurred in the private sector. Pursuant to GASB 45 requirements, Contra Costa County ordered its initial actuarial report in 2006. The 2006 report valued the County’s unfunded liability for retiree medical costs at $2.6 billion based upon a cash discount rate. This outstanding liability, if fully amortized over the following 30 years, would have necessitated an Annual Required Contribution (ARC) of $216 million. At that point in time, $216 million would have been six times the amount that the County was paying toward retiree health care costs on a paygo basis. The County has received four actuarial reports since that time, which describe the significant actions the County has taken to reduce its OPEB liability since 2006. Interim valuation results have also been presented to the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to California Government Code 7507, since the 2008 report. Interim reports are required prior to the adoption of changes to these benefits. The County’s ability to reduce the liability has had significant impact on the County’s overall fiscal stability and ability to deliver services. The majority of the elements of the valuation report are directed by GASB, however, some are not. In 2013, the County issued an RFP and selected Milliman, Inc. to be the County's OPEB actuary. Milliman reviewed the County's actuarial cost method and assumptions, confirmed some and recommended that the County change others. Staff reviewed the methods with the actuary and the Auditor recommended that the Board adopt the changes for the 2014 valuation. The changes led to a more accurate valuation of the County's OPEB liability. The same process has been used in preparation for the 2016 valuation. Over the last few months, Milliman has again reviewed the County's actuarial cost method and assumptions, confirmed some and recommended that the County change others. The proposed changes have taken into consideration the changes that will be required, per the GASB Statement 75 for the 2018 valuation. Staff reviewed the methods with the actuary and the Auditor and recommends that the Board adopt the following two changes for the 2016 valuation. The changes will lead to a more accurate valuation of the County's OPEB liability. Actuarial Cost Method We recommended that the actuarial cost method used for determining the benefit obligations be changed from the Entry Age Normal cost method to the Projected Unit Credit cost method for 2014. We had excellent reasons for that change at the time. The Entry Age Normal cost method is typically used to value pension benefits related to salary. Since health benefits are not based on salary, the Projected Unit Credit cost method is commonly used for OPEB valuations, as it allocates the present value of future benefits based on an employee’s expected service with the County at retirement. The Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) is equal to the present value of future benefits prorated by service to the valuation date over service at the expected retirement age. The Normal Cost is equal to the portion of the present value of future benefits attributed to one year of service. This equals the present value of benefits divided by the expected years of service at retirement. Note that the actuarial cost method does not change the present value of the County’s expected future OPEB payments. It only defines the method by which the present value of OPEB payments are allocated to each fiscal year for accounting purposes. However, in June 2015, GASB adopted standards 74 and 75 which will govern new accounting which is first effective for fiscal year ending June 30, 2017 for the fund itself and June 30, 2018 for the County. The new standard mandates the use of the individual Entry Age Normal cost method as a level percentage of salary. While the County could keep the Projected Unit Credit method for the 2016 valuation, the County will need to switch over in the next valuation for GASB 75. Staff is recommending that we make the change now. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 23 Coverage Election Assumptions In valuations prior to 2014, an assumption of marital status was included; however, assumed coverage elections for spouses and dependent children were not specified. For the 2014 valuation, we recommended use of assumed coverage elections based on County experience and detailed in the attached list of assumptions. The change yielded a lower liability result than previous assumptions. For the 2016 valuation, we are recommending a change in the spouse election assumption for new Safety retirees, addition of PEPRA Tier retirement rates, and an update of the medical information trend to reflect the delay of the effective date of the high cost plan Excise Tax (Cadillac Tax) from 2018 to 2020, and the one (1) year suspension of the Health Insurer fee in 2017. The recommended changes to methods and assumptions and those current assumptions that we are recommending not be changed are included in an attachment for reference. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: There will be a delay in the required issuance of the Contra Costa County Other Post Employment Benefit Plan GASB 45 Actuarial Valuation. ATTACHMENTS Recommended Assumptions and Methods - OPEB Actuarial Valuation as of January 1, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 24 Offices in Principal Cities Worldwide 650 California Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2702 USA Tel +1 415 403 1333 Fax +1 415 403 1334 milliman.com March 24, 2016 Ms. Lisa Driscoll County Finance Director County Administrator’s Office 651 Pine Street, 10th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Recommended Assumptions and Methods for Contra Costa County Other Post Employment Benefit Plan GASB 45 Actuarial Valuation as of January 1, 2016 Dear Lisa: We have prepared and enclosed for your review a summary of recommended assumptions and methods that we intend to use in our January 1, 2016 actuarial valuation of Contra Costa County’s retiree health benefits. The enclosed appendices are shown as they would appear in our actuarial valuation report. Appendix B contains the actuarial assumptions and methods, and Appendix C contains a summary of proposed assumption changes. Please review the proposed assumptions and methods and let us know if the county approves of them. Please note that the discount rate of 5.7% was estimated based on the County’s current policy of partially funding its OPEB liabilities. Under GASB 45, the discount rate for partially funded OPEB plans should represent a weighted average of the long term expected return on plan assets held in trust and the long term expected return on the County’s general funds. Since the weight is based on the ratio of the actual contribution to the Annual Required Contribution (ARC), we cannot determine a precise discount rate until all other assumptions and methods are selected and the valuation is run. Therefore, the discount rate should be considered an estimate that is potentially subject to change. If you have any questions, please call me at (415) 394-3740. Sincerely, John R. Botsford, FSA, MAAA Principal and Consulting Actuary JRB:dyu enc. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 25 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 Contra Costa County GASB 45 Actuarial Valuation as of January 1, 2016 22 Milliman Client Report SECTION III. APPENDICES Appendix B. Actuarial Cost Method and Assumptions Actuarial Cost Method The actuarial cost method used for determining the benefit obligations is the individual Entry Age Normal Cost Method. Under the principles of this method, the actuarial present value of the projected benefits of each individual included in the valuation is allocated as a level percentage of expected salary for each year of employment between entry age (defined as age at hire) and assumed exit. The portion of this actuarial present value allocated to a valuation year is called the normal cost. The portion of this actuarial present value not provided for at a valuation date by the sum of (a) the actuarial value of the assets, and (b) the actuarial present value of future normal costs is called the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL). 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 50 years is expected to be 6.13%, 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%. This is the same discount rate used in the January 1, 2014 actuarial valuation. Asset Class Expected 1-Year Nominal Return Targeted Asset Allocation Domestic Equity Large Cap 7.63% 17.0% Domestic Equity Mid Cap 8.21% 6.0% Domestic Equity Small Cap 8.81% 8.0% U.S. Fixed Income 5.00% 38.0% International 8.60% 9.0% Global Equity (Developed) 8.21% 7.0% Real Estate 7.71% 4.0% Cash 3.27% 1.0% Alternatives 4.57% 10.0% Expected Geometric Median Annual Return (50 years) 6.13% April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 26 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 Contra Costa County GASB 45 Actuarial Valuation as of January 1, 2016 23 Milliman Client Report SECTION III. APPENDICES Assumed Salary Increases (Applied to Individual Entry Age Normal Cost Method) The assumed annual rates of compensation increases used for the EAN actuarial cost method are the same as the assumption used in the December 31, 2014 CCCERA Actuarial Valuation. Years of Service General Safety Less than 1 13.50% 14.00% 1 10.50% 10.50% 2 8.75% 9.25% 3 7.25% 8.00% 4 6.25% 6.25% 5 5.50% 5.00% 6 5.25% 4.75% 7 5.00% 4.75% 8 or more 4.75% 4.75% 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, 2014 CCCERA Actuarial Valuation. These assumptions were adopted by CCCERA in connection with a study of experience during 2010-2012. 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 Members: 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 Members: 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% April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 27 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 Contra Costa County GASB 45 Actuarial Valuation as of January 1, 2016 24 Milliman Client Report SECTION III. 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, with the exception of those who were hired after January 1, 2013 as the PEPRA tiers. Age General Tier 3 General PEPRA Safety Tier A Safety PEPRA 45 0% 0% 2% 0% 46 0% 0% 2% 0% 47 0% 0% 7% 0% 48 0% 0% 7% 0% 49 0% 0% 20% 0% 50 4% 0% 25% 5% 51 3% 0% 25% 4% 52 3% 2% 25% 4% 53 5% 3% 25% 5% 54 5% 3% 25% 5% 55 10% 5% 30% 6% 56 10% 5% 25% 8% 57 10% 6% 25% 12% 58 12% 8% 35% 18% 59 12% 9% 35% 20% 60 15% 10% 40% 20% 61 20% 14% 40% 20% 62 27% 21% 40% 20% 63 27% 21% 40% 20% 64 30% 21% 40% 100% 65 40% 27% 100% 100% 66 – 69 40% 33% 100% 100% 70 – 74 40% 50% 100% 100% 75 100% 100% 100% 100% 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% April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 28 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 Contra Costa County GASB 45 Actuarial Valuation as of January 1, 2016 25 Milliman Client Report SECTION III. APPENDICES Coverage Election Assumptions Retiree Coverage – We have assumed 90% of new retirees hired before the exclusion date stated in Appendix A will elect medical and dental coverage at retirement. For employees hired after the exclusion date stated in Appendix A, we assumed 50% will elect to enroll in the health plans without any County subsidy. Spouse Coverage – We have assumed 50% of new General retirees and 60% of new Safety 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. For retirees enrolled in either the CalPERS Anthem and Blue Shield plans, we assumed they will transfer to the United Health Care Medicare Supplement plan upon reaching age 65, as the CalPERS health plan no longer offers Anthem or Blue Shield coverage for Medicare eligible retirees. Valuation of Retiree Premium Subsidy Due to Active Health Costs Currently, the County and California PERS (PEMHCA) 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. 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. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 29 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 Contra Costa County GASB 45 Actuarial Valuation as of January 1, 2016 26 Milliman Client Report SECTION III. 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 2020. 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 County Plans Calendar County Plans Calendar PEMHCA Plans Calendar PEMHCA Plans Year Pre 65 Year Post 65 Year Pre 65 Year Post 65 2016 4.50% 2016 5.25% 2016 4.50% 2016 5.00% 2017 8.00% 2017 8.25% 2017 8.00% 2017 8.25% 2018 5.50% 2018 – 2021 5.50% 2018 – 2021 5.50% 2018 – 2020 5.50% 2019 – 2020 5.25% 2022 – 2036 5.75% 2022 – 2036 6.25% 2021 – 2036 5.75% 2021 – 2023 5.50% 2037 – 2040 5.50% 2037 – 2038 6.00% 2037 – 2041 5.50% 2024 – 2025 5.75% 2041 – 2043 6.00% 2039 – 2044 5.75% 2042 – 2048 5.25% 2026 6.25% 2044 – 2046 5.75% 2045 – 2057 5.50% 2049 – 2053 5.75% 2027 6.50% 2047 6.00% 2058 – 2063 5.25% 2054 – 2060 5.50% 2028 6.25% 2048 6.25% 2064 – 2065 5.00% 2061 – 2062 5.75% 2029 - 2030 6.50% 2049 – 2053 6.00% 2066 – 2069 4.75% 2063 – 2064 5.50% 2031 – 2036 6.25% 2054 – 2060 5.75% 2070 + 4.50% 2065 – 2067 5.25% 2037 – 2039 6.00% 2061 – 2063 5.50% 2068 – 2069 5.00% 2040 – 2046 5.75% 2064 – 2065 5.25% 2070 – 2091 4.75% 2047 – 2059 5.50% 2066 – 2068 5.00% 2092 + 4.50% 2060 – 2063 5.25% 2069 – 2075 4.75% 2064 – 2066 5.00% 2076 + 4.50% 2067 – 2069 4.75% 2070 + 4.50% Dental Cost We assumed Dental costs will increase 4.0% annually. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 30 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 Contra Costa County GASB 45 Actuarial Valuation as of January 1, 2016 27 Milliman Client Report SECTION III. APPENDICES Appendix C. Changes in Actuarial Cost Method and Assumptions The following is a list of recommended assumption and method changes from the prior actuarial valuation. Actuarial Cost Method We recommend that the actuarial cost method used for determining the benefit obligations be changed from the Projected Unit Credit cost method to the individual Entry Age Normal cost method. This is the actuarial cost method adopted by the GASB board in June 2015 for the upcoming GASB 74/75 standards in which the implementation date for the OPEB Fund under GASB 74 will be for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, and for the County under GASB 75 will be for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018. Spouse Coverage Election Assumption We recommend that the spouse coverage election assumption be changed from 50% for all new retirees electing coverage to 50% for all new General retirees electing coverage and 60% for all new Safety retirees electing coverage. Our recommendation is based on a review of the County experience from 2012 to 2015. Health Cost Inflation Assumption We developed the medical cost trend for the prior valuation based on the “Getzen” model published by the Society of Actuaries for purposes of evaluating long term medical trend. The medical trend includes the effect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, on future health costs. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 delayed the excise tax on high cost plans from 2018 to 2020, and eliminated the Health Insurer Fee for calendar year 2017 only. The Health Insurer Fee will be assessed again in calendar year 2018. We recommend the medical trend be updated to reflect these recent legislative changes. Retirement Rates for PEPRA Tier Employees We recommend the usage of the PEPRA Tier retirement rates developed by CCCERA for employees hired on or after January 1, 2013. The rates are shown in Appendix B. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 31 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT a position of support on the Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability Act. FISCAL IMPACT: The Act makes the Medi-Cal hospital fee program and the protections permanent to create more certainty and to deliver approximately $10 billion in matching funds during the first three years. The Act also ensures that these funds cannot be diverted for other purposes. BACKGROUND: The Legislation Committee at its March 14, 2016 meeting recommended that the Board of Supervisors consider the Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability Act and adopt a position of support on it. In the fall of 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 239 (Hernandez), which was passed by the state Legislature without a single “No” vote. The legislation established an initial three-year Medi-Cal hospital fee program to ensure that California can unlock billions annually in federal matching funds for supplemental Medi-Cal payments to hospitals. The Act makes the fee program and the protections permanent to create more certainty and to deliver approximately $10 billion in matching funds during the first three years. The Act also ensures that these funds cannot be diverted for other purposes. Without ongoing protections for the hospital fee program, hospitals that care for children, seniors and low-income residents will be vulnerable to payment cuts or other budget politics. Funding protected by the Act will help prevent closures or cutbacks in local hospitals APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Endorsement Request - Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability Act April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 32 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > and will help preserve access for millions of men, women and children. California is home to more than 12 million Medi-Cal beneficiaries, more than half of which are children. The Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability Act (branded as ‘Keep A Good Idea Working’) is endorsed by a diverse coalition of sectors in California, including approximately 800 hospitals and health systems, health care advocacy groups, medical and dental groups, community benefit organizations, senior and children’s organizations and the business community. On Dec. 3, 2015, the Board of Directors of the California Association of Counties (CSAC) voted 51-0 to support the Act. The Coalition Website also provides additional information. Attached is the Fact Sheet, current Master Coalition List, and Endorsement Form. The Legislation Committee considered this initiative at their March 14, 2016 meeting and recommended that the Board of Supervisors consider the item as a Discussion item, and take a position of "Support" on it. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speaker: Rebecca Rozen, Hospital Council. ATTACHMENTS Endorsement Form Fact Sheet Coalition List Hospital Council Letter April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 33 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 34 KeepAGoodIdeaWorking.org April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 35 Paid for by Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. Major funding by California Health Foundation and Trust and Sutter Health. 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 Coalition List Health Care Associations California Hospital Association California Children’s Hospital Association Hospital Association of San Diego & Imperial Counties Hospital Association of Southern California Hospital Council of Northern & Central California Alliance of Catholic Health Care American Academy of Pediatrics - California American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX (California)* Association of California Healthcare Districts Association of California Nurse Leaders California Academy of Physician Assistants* California Alliance of Child and Family Services* California Ambulance Association* California Ambulatory Surgery Association* California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, Inc. (CAADPE) * California Association of Health Facilities California Association of Health Plans California Association of Health Underwriters* California Association of Medical Product Suppliers* California Association for Nurse Practitioners** California Association of Neurological Surgeons* California Association of Nurse Anesthetists California Association of Physician Groups California Black Health Network* California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology* California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies (CCCMHA)* California Dental Association California Medical Association* California Orthopaedic Association* California Pharmacists Association California Primary Care Association* California Psychological Association* California Radiological Society* California Society for Clinical Social Work* California Society of Addiction Medicine (CSAM)* California Society of Health-System Pharmacists California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery* California Society of Pathologists Children’s Specialty Care Coalition District Hospital Leadership Forum* Infectious Disease Association of California* Medical Oncology Association of Southern California, Inc. (MOASC)* Mental Health America in California* Mental Health Association of Orange County* Network of Ethnic Physician Organizations* Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons of California PEACH, Inc. (Private Essential Access Community Hospitals) Southern California Public Health Association* Children’s Hospitals Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Children’s Hospital Orange County CHOC Children’s at Mission Hospital HealthBridge Children’s Hospital* Loma Linda University Children’s Hospital Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Miller Children’s Hospital Long Beach Rady Children’s Hospital – San Diego Valley Children’s Healthcare April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 36 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 2 of 13 Hospitals + Healthcare Districts Adventist Medical Center – Hanford Adventist Medical Center - Reedley Alhambra Hospital Medical Center Alta Bates Summit Medical Center Alvarado Hospital Alvarado Parkway Institute Anaheim Regional Medical Center Antelope Valley Hospital Arroyo Grande Community Hospital Bakersfield Memorial Hospital Ballard Rehabilitation Hospital Banner Lassen Medical Center Barlow Respiratory Hospital Barstow Community Hospital* Barton Health Bear Valley Community Healthcare District Beverly Hospital* BHC Alhambra Hospital California Hospital Medical Center California Pacific Medical Center Canyon Ridge Hospital* Casa Colina Centers for Rehabilitation Catalina Island Medical Center Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Centinela Hospital Medical Center Central Valley General Hospital Chinese Hospital Chino Valley Medical Center* Citrus Valley Medical Center – Inter Community Campus* Citrus Valley Medical Center – Queen of the Valley Campus* City of Hope Clovis Community Medical Center Coalinga Regional Medical Center Coast Plaza Hospital* College Hospital Cerritos College Hospital Costa Mesa* College Medical Center Colusa Regional Medical Center Community Behavioral Health Center Community Hospital of Huntington Park* Community Hospital Long Beach Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula Community Hospital of San Bernardino Community Memorial Hospital Community Regional Medical Center Corona Regional Medical Center Dameron Hospital Association Del Amo Hospital* Delano Regional Medical Center Desert Regional Medical Center* Desert Valley Hospital* Doctors Hospital of Manteca* Doctors Medical Center of Modesto* Dominican Hospital East Los Angeles Doctors Hospital* Eastern Plumas Health Care Eden Medical Center El Camino Hospital Emanuel Medical Center Encino Hospital Medical Center Enloe Medical Center Fairchild Medical Center Fallbrook Hospital* Feather River Hospital* Foothill Presbyterian Hospital* Fountain Valley Regional Hospital* Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital* Fremont Hospital French Hospital Medical Center Fresno Heart & Surgical Hospital Garden Grove Hospital and Medical Center Gardens Regional Hospital and Medical Center* Glendale Adventist Medical Center Glendale Memorial Hospital and Health Center Glendora Community Hospital* Glenn Medical Center* Goleta Valley College Hospital Good Samaritan Hospital – Bakersfield Good Samaritan Hospital – Los Angeles April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 37 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 3 of 13 Good Samaritan Hospital – San Jose Greater El Monte Community Hospital Grossmont Healthcare District* Hazel Hawkins Memorial Hospital Healdsburg District Hospital Hemet Valley Medical Center Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital* Heritage Oaks Hospital Hi-Desert Medical Center* Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center Huntington Beach Hospital Inland Valley Medical Center* Jewish Home John C. Fremont Healthcare District John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital* John Muir Behavioral Health John Muir Medical Center – Concord Campus John Muir Medical Center – Walnut Creek Campus Kaiser Permanente Antioch Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Baldwin Park Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Downey Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Fontana Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Fremont Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Fresno Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Modesto/Manteca Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Oakland/Richmond Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Ontario Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Orange County Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Panorama City Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Redwood City Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Sacramento Medical Center Kaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center Kaiser Permanente San Leandro Medical Center Kaiser Permanente San Rafael Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Santa Rosa Medical Center Kaiser Permanente South Bay Medical Center Kaiser Permanente South Sacramento Medical Center Kaiser Permanente South San Francisco Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Vacaville Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Vallejo Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Walnut Creek Medical Center Kaiser Permanente West Los Angeles Medical Center Kaiser Permanente Woodland Hills Medical Center Kaweah Delta Healthcare District Kern Valley Healthcare District Kindred Hospital San Diego La Palma Intercommunity Hospital Lakewood Regional Medical Center* Lodi Health Loma Linda University Behavioral Medicine Center Loma Linda University Medical Center Loma Linda University Medical Center – Murrieta Lompoc Valley Medical Center Long Beach Memorial Medical Center Los Alamitos Medical Center* Los Angeles Jewish Home Los Robles Hospital and Medical Center Madera Community Hospital Mammoth Hospital Marian Regional Medical Center Marian Regional Medical Center - West Marina Del Rey Hospital* Marin General Hospital April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 38 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 4 of 13 Mark Twain St. Joseph’s Hospital Marshall Medical Center Mayers Memorial Hospital District Mee Memorial Hospital Memorial Hospital of Gardena* Memorial Hospital, Los Banos Memorial Medical Center Menifee Valley Medical Center* Menlo Park Surgical Hospital Mercy General Hospital Mercy Hospital Mercy Hospital of Folsom Mercy Medical Center Merced Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta Mercy Medical Center Redding Mercy San Juan Medical Center Mercy Southwest Hospital Methodist Hospital of Sacramento Methodist Hospital of Southern California Mills-Peninsula Health Services Mission Community Hospital Mission Hospital Modoc Medical Center Monterey Park Hospital Montclair Hospital Medical Center* Natividad Medical Center NorthBay Medical Center* NorthBay VacaValley Hospital* Northridge Hospital Medical Center Novato Community Hospital O’Connor Hospital Oak Valley Hospital District Ojai Valley Community Hospital Olympia Medical Center Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center Orchard Hospital PIH Health – Downey PIH Health – Whittier Pacific Alliance Medical Center Pacific Grove Hospital* Palmdale Regional Medical Center* Palo Verde Hospital* Palomar Medical Center* Paradise Valley Hospital Parkview Community Hospital Medical Center Petaluma Valley Hospital Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District Placentia-Linda Hospital* Plumas District Hospital Pomerado Hospital* Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center Providence Holy Cross Medical Center Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Center San Pedro Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Center Torrance Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center Providence Tarzana Medical Center Queen of the Valley Medical Center Rancho Springs Medical Center* Redlands Community Hospital Redwood Memorial Hospital Regional Medical Center of San Jose Ridgecrest Regional Hospital Riverside Community Hospital Saddleback Memorial Medical Center Saint Agnes Medical Center* Saint Francis Memorial Hospital Saint John’s Health Center Saint Louise Regional Hospital San Antonio Regional Hospital San Bernardino Mountains Community Hospital District San Dimas Community Hospital* San Gabriel Valley Medical Center San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital San Joaquin Community Hospital San Joaquin Valley Rehabilitation Hospital San Ramon Regional Medical Center* Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital Scripps Green Hospital* Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas* Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla* Scripps Mercy Hospital Chula Vista* Scripps Mercy Hospital San Diego* Seneca Healthcare District April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 39 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 5 of 13 Sequoia Hospital Seton Coastside Seton Medical Center Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center Sharp Coronado Hospital and Healthcare Center Sharp Grossmont Hospital Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns Sharp Mesa Vista Sharp Memorial Hospital Shasta Regional Medical Center* Sherman Oaks Hospital* Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital Sierra View Medical Center* Sierra Vista Hospital Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center* Simi Valley Hospital Sonoma Valley HealthCare District Sonora Regional Medical Center St. Bernadine Medical Center St. Elizabeth Community Hospital St. Francis Medical Center (Lynwood)* St. Helena Hospital – Clear Lake St. Helena Hospital – Napa Valley St. Helena Hospital Center for Behavioral Health St. John’s Pleasant Valley Hospital St. John’s Regional Medical Center St. Joseph’s Behavioral Health Center St. Joseph Hospital (Eureka) St. Joseph Hospital (Orange) St. Joseph’s Medical Center St. Jude Medical Center* St. Louise Regional Hospital St. Mary Medical Center (Apple Valley) St. Mary Medical Center (Long Beach) St. Mary’s Medical Center (San Francisco) St. Rose Hospital St. Vincent Medical Center Stanford Health Care Stanford Health Care – ValleyCare Surprise Valley Health Care District Sutter Amador Hospital Sutter Auburn Faith Hospital Sutter Coast Hospital Sutter Davis Hospital Sutter Delta Medical Center Sutter Lakeside Hospital and Center for Health Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center of Santa Cruz Sutter Medical Center, Sacramento Sutter Roseville Medical Center Sutter Santa Rosa Regional Hospital Sutter Solano Medical Center Sutter Tracy Community Hospital Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District Temecula Valley Hospital Totally Kids Rehabilitation Hospital Twin Cities Community Hospital* USC – Norris Cancer Center* USC – Verdugo Hills Hospital* Ukiah Valley Medical Center ValleyCare Health System* Valley Presbyterian Hospital Vibra Hospital Northern California Victor Valley Global Medical Center Watsonville Community Hospital* West Anaheim Medical Center* West Hills Hospital and Medical Center* White Memorial Medical Center Woodland Healthcare Clinics Alliance for Rural Community Health (ARCH)* Anderson Family Health & Dental Center* Antelope Valley Community Clinic* Big Sur Health Center* Burre Dental Center* California Association of Rural Health Clinics* Cleaver Family Wellness Clinic* Clinica de Salud del Valle de Salinas Clinica Monsenor Oscar A. Romero* April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 40 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 6 of 13 Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County (CCALAC)* Community Clinic Consortium of Contra Costa and Solano Counties* Community Health Partnership (10 Clinics)* Council of Community Clinics (serving San Diego, Riverside & Imperial Counties) Del Norte Community Health Center* Eisner Pediatric & Family Medical Center** Eureka Community Health Center* Ferndale Community Health Center* Forestville Teen Clinic* Forestville Wellness Center* Fortuna Community Health Center* Golden Valley Health Centers* Gravenstein Community Health Center* Happy Valley Family Health Center* Harbor Community Clinic* Humboldt Open Door Clinic* Imperial Beach Community Clinic* Kids Come First Health Center* L.A. Mission College Student Health Center* Maclay Health Center for Children* McKinley Community Health* Mendocino Coast Clinics* Mission Neighborhood Health Center* Mobile Health Services* Mountain Health and Community Services, Inc.(5 Clinics)* Neighborhood Healthcare (10 Clinics)* NEVHC Canoga Park Health Center* NEVHC Health Center for the Homeless, North Hollywood* NEVHC Mobile Medical Unit* NEVHC Pacoima Health Center* NEVHC Pediatric Health & WIC Center* NEVHC Rainbow Dental Center* NEVHC San Fernando Health Center* NEVHC Santa Clarita Health Center* NEVHC Sun Valley Health Center* NEVHC Valencia Health Center* North East Medical Services (10 Clinics)* Northcountry Clinic* Northcountry Prenatal Services* Northeast Valley Health Corporation* Occidental Area Health Center* Open Door Community Health Centers (8 Clinics)* PDI Surgery Center* Peach Tree Health* Petaluma Health Center* Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California* Primary Care Neuropsychiatry (PCN)* QueensCare Health Centers (5 Clinics)* Redwood Community Health Coalition (18 Clinics)* Russian River Health Center* Russian River Dental Clinic* SAC Health System* Saban Community Clinic* Sacramento Community Clinic* San Fernando Teen Health Center* San Ysidro Health Center* Santa Rosa Community Health Centers (8 Clinics)* Sebastopol Community Health Center* Shasta Community Health Center* Shasta Community Health Dental Center* Shasta Lake Family Health and Dental Center* Sierra Family Medical Clinic* Sonoma County Indian Health Project, Inc.* South Bay Family Health Care* South Central Family Health Center (4 Clinics)* Southside Coalition of Community Health Care Centers* St. John’s Well Child & Family Center (10 Clinics)* Tarzana Treatment Centers, Inc.* Van Nuys Adult Health Center* WCHC Mental Health Services* West County Health Centers* Westside Family Health Center* Willow Creek Community Health Center* April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 41 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 7 of 13 Health Systems Adventist Health Alameda Health System Avanti Hospitals* Citrus Valley Health Partners College Health Enterprises* Community Health Systems* Community Medical Centers Community Memorial Health System Cottage Health System Daughters of Charity Health System* Dignity Health Hospital Corporation of America (HCA)* John Muir Health Kaiser Permanente Northern California Region Kaiser Permanente Southern California Region Keck Medicine of USC* Kindred Healthcare* NorthBay Healthcare PIH Health Palomar Health Physicians for Healthy Hospitals, Inc.* Prime Healthcare Services* Prime Healthcare Services Foundation* Providence Health & Systems, Southern California Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System Scripps Health* Sharp HealthCare Southwest Healthcare System* St. Joseph Health Sutter Health Tenet Healthcare* Universal Health Services* Community Organizations A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing)* Age Well Senior Services* Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association (APAPA) Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council* CORA – Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse* California Senior Advocates League* California Youth Connection* Community Health Improvement Partners* Congress of California Seniors** Curry Senior Center* Family Voices of California Health Education Council* Helping Others Pursue Excellence (HOPE)* Meals on Wheels and Senior Outreach Services* National Association of Hispanic Elderly* On Lok Senior Health Services* Orange County LULAC Foundation* Sacramento Steps Forward* San Clemente Collaborative Solano Coalition for Better Health* The Children’s Initiative The Wall-Las Memorias Project* United Advocates for Children and Families* Women’s Empowerment* Labor Organizations State Building and Construction Trades Council of California* California State Association of Electrical Workers* Building and Construction Trades of Stanislaus, Merced, Tuolumne & Mariposa Counties* Cement Masons, Local 500** April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 42 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 8 of 13 District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity* District Council 16 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades* District Council 36 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades* Fresno, Madera, Kings & Tulare Counties Building and Construction Trades Council* Boilermakers Local 92* IBEW Ninth District* IBEW 6* IBEW 11* IBEW 18* IBEW 40** IBEW 45** IBEW 47* IBEW 100* IBEW 180** IBEW 234* IBEW 302** IBEW 332** IBEW 340* IBEW 413** IBEW 428* IBEW 440** IBEW 441* IBEW 465** IBEW 477* IBEW 551* IBEW 569* IBEW 595* IBEW 617** IBEW 639** IBEW 684** IBEW 952* IBEW 1245* IBEW 1710** IBEW 2139** IBEW 2295** International Brotherhood of Boilermakers* International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local 1988* Iron Workers 433* Kern, Inyo and Mono Counties Building and Construction Trades Council* Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council* Monterey/Santa Cruz County Building and Construction Trades Council* Pipe Trades DC #36* Plumbers, Pipe & Refrigeration Fitters United Association Local 246* Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 447* Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 582* San Bernardino/Riverside BTC* Sonoma, Mendocino & Lake Counties Building and Construction Trades Council* Southern California Pipe Trades District 16* Tri Counties Building and Construction Trades Council* U.A. Local 78* U.A. Local 114* U.A. Local 159* U.A. Local 230* U.A. Local 250* U.A. Local 345* U.A. Local 364* U.A. Local 398* U.A. Local 403* U.A. Local 460* U.A. Local 484* U.A. Local 582* U.A. Local 709* U.A. Local 761* Medical + Dental Societies Berkeley Dental Society* Central Coast Dental Society* Fresno Madera Medical Society* Hispanic Dental Association of San Diego - Bi-national Chapter* Los Angeles Dental Society* Mid-Peninsula Dental Society* Placer Nevada County Medical Society* Riverside County Medical Association* San Bernardino County Medical Society* April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 43 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 9 of 13 San Diego County Dental Society* San Diego County Medical Society* San Francisco Dental Society* San Francisco Medical Society* San Gabriel Valley Dental Society* San Mateo County Dental Society* San Mateo County Medical Society* Santa Clara County Dental Society* Santa Cruz County Medical Society* Tri-County Dental Society* Tulare County Medical Society* Tuolumne County Medical Society* Yuba Sutter Colusa Medical Society* Local Government + Elected Officials California State Association of Counties (CSAC)* Urban Counties of California* Kern County** Napa County* Santa Cruz County* Senate Republican Leader Jean Fuller Senator Joel Anderson Senator Patricia Bates Senator Tom Berryhill Senator Anthony Cannella Senator Ted Gaines Senator Isadore Hall Senator Bob Huff Senator John Moorlach Senator Mike Morrell Senator Jim Nielsen Senator Richard Pan Senator Sharon Runner Senator Jeff Stone Senator Andy Vidak Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes Assembly Member Katcho Achadjian Assembly Member Travis Allen Assembly Member Catharine Baker Assembly Member Frank Bigelow Assembly Member Susan Bonilla Assembly Member Rob Bonta Assembly Member Cheryl Brown Assembly Member Ling Ling Chang Assembly Member Rocky Chávez Assembly Member Jim Cooper Assembly Member Brian Dahle Assembly Member Tom Daly Assembly Member Beth Gaines Assembly Member James Gallagher Assembly Member Mike Gatto Assembly Member Mike Gipson Assembly Member Adam Gray Assembly Member Shannon Grove Assembly Member David Hadley Assembly Member Chris Holden Assembly Member Brian Jones Assembly Member Reginald Jones-Sawyer Assembly Member Young Kim Assembly Member Tom Lackey Assembly Member Eric Linder Assembly Member Brian Maienschein Assembly Member Devon Mathis Assembly Member Melissa Melendez Assembly Member Kristin Olsen Assembly Member Jim Patterson Assembly Member Marc Steinorth Assembly Member Don Wagner Assembly Member Marie Waldron Assembly Member Scott Wilk Assembly Member Jim Wood California Latino Elected Officials Coalition Mayor Kevin L. Faulconer, City of San Diego Mayor Kevin Johnson, City of Sacramento** Walter Allen III, Council Member, City of Covina* Jim B. Clarke, Council Member, Culver City* Fiona Ma, Member, California State Board of Equalization* April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 44 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 10 of 13 Business Organizations California Business Roundtable California Chamber of Commerce California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce Alhambra Chamber of Commerce* Arcadia Chamber of Commerce* Azusa Chamber of Commerce* Beaumont Chamber of Commerce* Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce* BizFed – The Los Angeles County Business Federation* Brea Chamber of Commerce Burbank Chamber of Commerce* Central City Association of Los Angeles* Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce* Chamber of Commerce Mountain View* The Chamber of the Santa Barbara Region* Duarte Chamber of Commerce* East Bay Leadership Council* El Dorado County Joint Chambers of Commerce* El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce* El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce* Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce* Folsom Chamber of Commerce* Fountain Valley Chamber of Commerce* Fremont Chamber of Commerce* Fresno Chamber of Commerce Fullerton Chamber of Commerce Gateway Chambers Alliance* Greater Grass Valley Chamber of Commerce* Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce* Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce* Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce* Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce* Hayward Chamber of Commerce* Hollywood Chamber of Commerce* Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce* Industry Manufacturers Council* Inland Empire Economic Partnership La Canada Flintridge Chamber of Commerce* Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce* Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce* Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce* Menifee Valley Chamber of Commerce* Modesto Chamber of Commerce* Montebello Chamber of Commerce* Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce* Mount Shasta Chamber of Commerce* Murrieta Chamber of Commerce* North Orange County Legislative Alliance North San Diego Business Chamber* Northridge Chamber of Commerce* Norwalk Chamber of Commerce* Oceanside Chamber of Commerce* Pasadena Chamber of Commerce* Perris Valley Chamber of Commerce* Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce* Regional Chamber Alliance* Rocklin Area Chamber of Commerce* Roseville Chamber of Commerce* Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce* San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce* San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce San Francisco Chamber of Commerce* San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership* San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce and Convention-Visitor’s Bureau* Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce* Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce* Santa Paula Chamber of Commerce* Shingle Springs Cameron Park Chamber of Commerce* Silicon Valley Chamber Coalition* Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce* Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce* United Chambers of Commerce of the San Fernando Valley* Valley Industry and Commerce Association* April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 45 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 11 of 13 Victor Valley Chamber of Commerce* Walnut Creek Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau* West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce* Westside Council of Chambers of Commerce* Whittier Area Chamber of Commerce* Wildomar Chamber of Commerce* Yorba Linda Chamber of Commerce* Political Organizations California Republican Party* Action Democrats of the San Fernando Valley* Alameda County Democratic Party* Burbank Democratic Club* Democratic Alliance for Action* Democratic Headquarters of the Desert* Democratic Party of Contra Costa County* Democratic Party of Orange County* Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley* Democrats for Israel – Los Angeles* Fresno County Democratic Party* Helen L. Doherty Democratic Club* Laguna Woods Democratic Club* Los Angeles County Democratic Party* New Frontier Democratic Club* NorthEast Democrats Club* Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains* Riverside County Democratic Party* Sacramento County Democratic Party* San Bernardino County Democratic Party* San Diego County Democratic Party* San Mateo County Democratic Party* Santa Clara County Democratic Party* Stonewall Democratic Club* Torrance Democratic Club* West End Democratic Club* Yuba County Democratic Party* Personal Endorsements - Title and/or organization name used for identification purposes only Mike Genest, Former Director, California Department of Finance** Tom Scott, State Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)* Whitney Ayers, Regional Vice President, Hospital Association of Southern California* Judy Baker, Board Member, Fairchild Medical Center* Meyer Bendavid (Woodland Hills)* John Comiskey (San Jose)* Donna Cozzalio, Board Member, Fairchild Medical Center* Arnold Daitch (Northridge)* Louis DeRouchey, MD, Board Member, Fairchild Medical Center* Josan Feathers, Retired Civil Engineer (La Mesa)* Sheryl A. Garvey (Santee)* Charles H. Harrison, Chief Executive Officer, San Bernardino Mountains Community Hospital District* Carol Hayden, Board Member, Fairchild Medical Center* Erin Jacobs, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Mount Saint Mary’s University* Dwayne Jones, Secretary/Treasurer Board Vice-Chairman, Fairchild Medical Center* Vicki Kirschenbaum (Burbank)* Douglas Langford, DDS, Board Member, Fairchild Medical Center* Carole Lutness (Valencia)* Judy McEntire (Santee)* Constance Menzies (Los Angeles)* April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 46 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 12 of 13 Darrin Mercier, Board Vice-Chairman, Fairchild Medical Center* Lawrence Mulloy, Chairman of the Board, Fairchild Medical Center* Steven Neal, Civic Engagement Advocate, Molina Healthcare* John P. Perez (Montebello)* James Quisenberry, Board Member, Fairchild Medical Center* Charlotte P. Reed (Lakeside)* Sharon Rogers (Los Angeles)* Diana Shaw (Santa Clarita)* Nick Shestople, Retired Engineer (Temecula)* Stephen David Simon, Director, Los Angeles City Department on Disability* Vina Swenson, MD, Pediatrician, Fairchild Medical Center* Shawn Terris, Financial Director, Palmer Drug and Alcohol Program* Igor Tregub (Berkeley)* Rebecca Unger (Joshua tree)* Vivian Yoshioka (Pomona)* Political Endorsements - Title and/or organization name used for identification purposes only John Burton, Chairman, California Democratic Party* Jeffrey Adair, Chair, San Mateo County Democratic Party* Jovan Ajee, Northern California Political Director, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus* Kerri Asbury, Chair, Democratic Party of Sacramento* Caro Avanessian, President, Glendale Democratic Club Bobbie Jean Anderson, Vice Chair, Los Angeles County Democratic Party* Jamie Beutler, Chair, California Democratic Party - Rural Caucus* Rachel Binah, Chair Emerita, California Democratic Party Environmental Caucus** Bernice Bonillas, President, Kern County Chapter, California Alliance for Retired Americans* Debra Broner, Region 10 Director, California Democratic Party* Austina Cho, President, Hubert Humphrey Democratic Club* Art Copelston, Treasurer/Controller, Democratic Headquarters of the Desert* Hilary Crosby, Controller, California Democratic Party* Stephan Early, President, NorthEast Democrats Club* Kimberly Ellis, Recording Secretary, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus* Michael Evans, Chair, Fresno County Democratic Party* Carolyn Fowler, Corresponding Secretary, Los Angeles County Democratic Party* Mark Gonzalez, Vice-Chair, Los Angeles County Democratic Party* Jimmy Gow, President, Torrance Democratic Club* Elvira Harris, Southern California Political Director, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus* Wanda Harris, Recording Secretary, California Democratic Party Women’s Caucus* Bob Handy, Founder, California Democratic Party Veteran’s Caucus* Heather Hutt, Treasurer, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus* Shanna Ingalsbee, President, Burbank Democratic Club* Kristin Ingram-Worthman, Region 1 Vice Chair, Los Angeles County Democratic Party* Judy Jacobs, Chair, California Democratic Party - Children’s Caucus* Howard Katz, Chairman, Riverside County Democratic Party* April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 47 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 13 of 13 Leslie Katz, Former San Francisco Supervisor and Former San Francisco Democratic Party Chair* Doug Kessler, California Democratic Party, Region 8* Jeannie Klever, California Democratic Party, Regional Director* Jeff Koertzen, Chair, Democratic Party of Contra Costa* Daraka Larimore-Hall, Secretary, California Democratic Party* Clark Lee, Chair, Asian Pacific Islander Caucus, California Democratic Party* Carole Levers, Chapter Leader, Progressive Democrats of America* Elizabeth “Nikki” Linnerman, Co-Chair, California Democratic Party Legislation Committee* Bonny Lundberg, Member, San Diego County Democratic Central Committee* Molly A. Muro Assembly District 55, DSCC Representative* Darren Parker, Chairman, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus* Maria Patterson, Vice-Chair, San Joaquin County Democratic Party* Thomas Patrick O’Shaughnessy, Chair, Irish American Caucus* Christine Pelosi, Chair, California Democratic Party Women’s Caucus* Denise Penn, Co-Chair, California Democratic Party – LGBT Caucus* Mister Phillips, Regional Director, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus* Robbin Proutt, Vice Chair, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus* Alexandra Rooker – Vice Chair, California Democratic Party* Cara Robin, President, West Los Angeles Democratic Club* Mary Strobridge, California Democratic Party Executive Board Representative from Assembly District 35* Patricia “Patti” Sulpizio, 38th Assembly District Delegation Chair, Los Angeles County Democratic Party* Cheryl Tierce, President, Democratic Women of Kern* Suzan Wilkinson, Region 19 Director, California Democratic Party* Monica Wilson, Policy Chair, California Democratic Party Women’s Caucus* Chris W. “Doz” Wood, Chairperson/Voter Registration, East County Democratic Club* April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 48 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 49 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 50 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/314 to: A) APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to temporarily close the part-day, part-year Head Start Center Based Pre-School Program, and the Home Based Program during the low enrollment summer period effective the close of business day May 13, 2016. B) ABOLISH project positions and lay off employees in the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau as specified in Attachment A-1, effective the close of business day May 13, 2016. C) Re-establish positions as specified in Attachment A-2, effective August 22, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval there will be no fiscal impact. The fiscal year funding received anticipates the closure of the part-day, part-year Center Based and the Home Based Programs during the summer months. The closure of the part day, part year Head Start Center Based Pre-School Program and the Home Based Program is scheduled in the operation of the child care program and the savings from the closure are incorporated in the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau's fiscal year budget. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Reni Radeva (925) 681-6321; rradeva@ehsd.cccounty.us 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Reni Radeva D. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Lay off Employees and Abolish and Restore Position in the EHSD/CSB Part-Day, Part-Year Programs April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 51 BACKGROUND: The Head Start Center Based and the Home Based Programs operate on a nine-month schedule. Teacher-Project and Early Childhood Educator-Project positions, funded through the Administration for Children and Families grant, will be eliminated by the close of business day May 13, 2016 through August 21, 2016. In order to keep expenditures within the available funding and keep staffing at the level necessary for efficient operations, it is necessary to abolish the positions described in Attachment A-1 on the date indicated. Positions required to support Center Based and Home Based programs for the 2016-2017 program year will be re-established August 22, 2016 as indicated on Attachment A-2. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to close the part-day, part-year Center Based and Home Based programs during the summer months of 2016 will result in a fiscal deficit for the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The five outcomes established by the Children's Report Card: (1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; (2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; (3) Families that are Economically Self Sufficient; (4) Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and (5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a Health Quality of Life for Children and Families are supported Employment and Human Services/Community Services Bureau part-day, part-year Head Start pre-school and home based programs support all the listed outcomes. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/314 Attachment A-1 & A-2 - Positions to be Abolished and Reestablished MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/314 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 52 ATTACHMENT A-1 RESOLUTION NO. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY POSITIONS TO BE ABOLISHED Effective: May 13th, 2016 DEPARTMENT: Employment and Human Services Pos # Classification Class Code Org # FT/PT Vacant/Filled 16130 Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1419 FT Filled 16131 Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1419 FT Filled 16132 Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1419 FT Filled 16133 Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1419 FT Filled 16134 Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1419 FT Filled 16135 Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1419 FT Filled 16136 Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1419 FT Filled 16142 Teacher CJN1 1457 FT Filled 16143 Teacher CJN1 1457 FT Filled 16140 Teacher CJN1 1486 FT Filled 16152 Teacher CJN1 1486 FT Filled 16138 Teacher CJN1 1488 FT Filled 15480 Teacher CJN1 1488 FT Filled 16139 Teacher CJN1 1422 FT Filled 16154 Teacher CJN1 1422 FT Filled 16147 Teacher CJN1 1438 FT Filled 16153 Teacher CJN1 1484 FT Filled 16151 Teacher CJN1 1484 FT Filled 13319 Teacher CJN1 1438 FT Filled 16141 Teacher CJN1 1445 FT Filled 16150 Teacher CJN1 1427 FT Filled 16149 Teacher CJN1 1427 FT Filled 16148 Teacher CJN1 1427 FT Filled 16144 Teacher CJN1 1458 FT Filled 16146 Teacher CJN1 1458 FT Filled 13318 Teacher CJN` 1458 FT Filled 14806 Master Teacher CJT1 1458 FT Filled 16155 Master Teacher CJT1 1427 FT Filled 16156 Master Teacher CJT1 1445 FT Filled April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 53 ATTACHMENT A-2 RESOLUTION NO. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY POSITIONS TO BE ESTABLISHED Effective: August 22nd, 2016 DEPARTMENT: Employment and Human Services Pos # Classification Class Code Org # FT/PT Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1419 FT Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1419 FT Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1419 FT Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1419 FT Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1419 FT Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1419 FT Early Childhood Educator 9MW4 1464 FT Teacher CJN1 1457 FT Teacher CJN1 1457 FT Teacher CJN1 1486 FT Teacher CJN1 1486 FT Teacher CJN1 1488 FT Teacher CJN1 1488 FT Teacher CJN1 1422 FT Teacher CJN1 1422 FT Teacher CJN1 1438 FT Teacher CJN1 1484 FT Teacher CJN1 1484 FT Teacher CJN1 1438 FT Teacher CJN1 1445 FT Teacher CJN1 1427 FT Teacher CJN1 1427 FT Teacher CJN1 1427 FT Teacher CJN1 1458 FT Teacher CJN1 1458 FT Teacher CJN1 1458 FT Master Teacher CJT1 1458 FT Master Teacher CJT1 1427 FT Master Teacher CJT1 1445 FT April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 54 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES55 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN public hearing, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE public hearing. 2. DECLARE the County's intent to become a member of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the portion of the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa County and to sustainably manage groundwater resources within the County in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. FISCAL IMPACT: At this time, it is the intent of the parties participating in the development of the East County Groundwater Sustainability Agency to share costs equally among its members. The amount of cost to be shared, and the extent to which in-kind contribution of staff time may address cost-sharing responsibilities, is not known at this time but will be known before final action is taken to join the East County Groundwater Sustainability Agency. BACKGROUND: The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) establishes a Statewide comprehensive groundwater management program with the goal of achieving sustainable groundwater basins over the next 20 years. It is the policy of the state that groundwater resources be managed sustainably for long-term reliability and multiple economic, social, and environmental benefits for current and future beneficial uses. Sustainable groundwater management is best achieved locally through the development, implementation, and updating of plans and programs based on the best available science (Section 113 Water Code). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 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:TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Declare Intent to Become a Member of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Portion of the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa County April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 56 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) SGMA requires all high-priority and medium-priority groundwater basins, as designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), be managed by a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). A local public agency, or combination of local public agencies overlying a designated basin, may become a GSA if the agency(ies) has(ve) water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities within a groundwater basin. A combination of local public agencies may form a GSA by way of Joint Excercise of Powers Agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding, or other legal document. SGMA provides that if no public agency becomes the GSA for a portion of the underlying basin, the County becomes the GSA by default unless it takes action to decline the responsibility in which case the State would regulate. The SGMA sets deadlines for the formation of GSAs and the adoption of Groundwater Sustainably Plan (GSPs) which, if not met, will allow for State intervention. By June 2017, all high-priority or medium-priority groundwater basins are required to have a single GSA or multiple GSAs that cover the entire basin. All high-priority or medium-priority groundwater basins must adopt a single GSP or a coordinated set of GSPs by January 31, 2022. There are portions of three medium-priority groundwater basins located in Contra Costa County, namely: the northern portion of the Eastbay Plain Subbasin (west county), the northern portion of the Livermore Valley Subbasin (south-central county), and the northwestern portion of the Tracy Subbasin (east county). Today's recommendation is only for participation in the Tracy Subbasin. Staff have also been working with other agencies on how to address SGMA requirements for these other basins and will report to the Board on theses issues in the future. The County has been collaborating with several local agencies that are located in the portion of the Tracy Subbasin that lies within Contra Costa County. The agencies are Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, Cities of Antioch and Brentwood, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District, East Contra Costa Irrigation District and the Town of Discovery Bay. The aforementioned agencies, including the County, will cover Contra Costa County’s portion of the Tracy Subbasin. The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee recommends the Board declare its intent for the County to become a member of the East County Groundwater Sustainably Agency for the portion of the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa County. With the Board declaring intent, staff will continue to participate in the formation of this GSA with the named seven local agencies. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Not declaring the Board’s intent for the County to become a member of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency will not allow the County to participate in the development of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan or in regulating and managing groundwater resources in the portion of the Tracy Subbasin within the County. ATTACHMENTS CCC Portion of Tracy Subbasin CCC GSA Governance Map April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 57 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 58 AlamedaCounty SolanoCounty SacramentoCounty ContraCostaCounty SanJoaquinCounty ContraCostaCounty ÄÅ44 ÄÅ160 ÄÅ1212 ÄÅ44 ÄÅ44 BethelIsland Byron Knightsen DiscoveryBay ShermanIsland WebbTract BaconIsland VictoriaIsland ByronTract HollandTract JerseyIsland MandevilleIsland UnionIsland BouldinIsland TwitchellIsland PalmTract BradfordIsland VeniceIsland OrwoodTract Veale Tract AndrusIsland WoodwardIsland ConeyIsland QuimbyIsland DeckerIsland WinterIsland OakleyAntioch Brentwood Pittsburg BixlerTract (RD 2122)San J o a q uin RiverOld RiverOld RiverMiddle River False River Dutch Slough Conne c t i o n S l o u g h Pi p e r S l o u g h T a y l o r S l o u g h Rock SloughSand Mound SloughHolland CutFisherman's CutIndian Slou g h Woodward CanalSheep SloughFranksTract BigBreak ShermanLake CliftonCourtForebay LosVaquerosReservoir Broad Slough Little FranksTract ContraLomaReservoir AntiochMunicipalReservoir MarshCreekReservoir Dredgers Cut Victoria CanalItalian SloughWest Cana l Grant Line Canal California AqueductDelta Mendota CanalMokelumne River Sacramento RiverDiabloWaterDistrict Town of Discovery BayCommunity Services District Diablo WD(fmr M-25) Diablo WD(fmr M-26) Diablo WD(fmr M-27) W.S.A. Diablo WD(no CCWD)CCWD/ECCIDDiabloOverlap ECCIDDiabloOverlap BBIDDBCSDOverlap ECCIDBrentwoodOverlap W.S.A.Contra Water Costa DistrictCCWDAntiochOverlap CCWDDiabloOverlap CCWD/ECCIDBrentwoodOverlap CCWD/ECCIDAntiochOverlap East Contra CostaIrrigation District Byron-BethanyIrrigation District DRAFT - Contra Costa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency Formation 0 3 61.5 MilesMap created 04/05/2016by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservationand Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.® Diablo Water District (Outside CCWD) Brentwood Antioch Diablo Water District (with CCWD) Byron-Bethany Irrigation District East Contra Costa Irrigation District Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District Contra Costa Water District Water Providing District Irrigation District City WSA DRAFT - Contra Costa CountyGroundwater Sustainability Agency Tracy Subbasin City Limit Other Areas outside jurisdiction of listed Agencies/Districts April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 59 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ACCEPT report from the Public Protection Committee on a letter received by the Board of Supervisors from the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition and referred to the Committee for review on April 21, 2015 (Agenda Item No. C.76); and 2. APPROVE formation of the ad hoc Contra Costa County Disproportionate Minority Contact Task Force, including composition as outlined in Attachment H, to review and update the 2008 Disproportionate Minority Contact Report and integrate the findings into the scheduled update of the Countywide Reentry Strategic Plan, following review by the Public Protection Committee and Board of Supervisors; and 3. DIRECT the Public Protection Committee to initiate a recruitment process for the five community based organization seats outlined in Attachment H and return to the Board of Supervisors with recommendations for appointment to the Task Force; and 4. DIRECT the Public Protection Committee to continue monitoring the progress of staff participating in the Government Alliance on Racial Equity training cohort and report back to the Board of Supervisors with any recommendations following the conclusion of that process. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:REPORT ON REFERRAL OF LETTER FROM THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RACIAL JUSTICE COALITION April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 60 FISCAL IMPACT: No immediate fiscal impact. Contract facilitation services related to the work of the proposed DMC Task Force will be bid out concurrent with the planned, and funded, County Reentry Strategic Plan and AB 109 Operations Plan RFPs in Summer 2016. BACKGROUND: Over the past year, the Public Protection Committee (PPC) held five public meetings on this issue. Below is an outline of events, commencing with receipt of a letter from the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition (the"Coalition"): On April 7, 2015, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) received a letter (Attachment F) from the Coalition requesting the review of certain topics within the local criminal justice system. The PPC generally hears all matters related to public safety within the County and was tasked with reviewing this referral by the BOS (Attachment G). On July 6, 2015, the PPC initiated discussion regarding this referral and directed staff to research certain items identified in the Coalition's letter to the BOS and return to the PPC in September 2015. Specifically, this was with regard to current workplace diversity training for county employees and current data on race in the County criminal justice system. On September 14, 2015, the PPC received a comprehensive report (Attachments A - D) from staff on current data related to race in the County criminal justice system, information regarding the County workplace diversity training and examples of diversity and implicit bias trainings from across the country. At the November 9, 2015 meeting, the PPC received a brief presentation reintroducing the referral and providing an update on how a 2008 Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) report (Attachment E) compares with the statistical data presented at the September meeting. Following discussion, the PPC directed staff to return in December 2015, following discussions between the County Probation Officer, District Attorney and Public Defender, with thoughts about how to approach a new DMC study initiative in the County. On December 14, 2015, the PPC received an update from the County Probation Officer, District Attorney and Public Defender on how best to proceed with an update to the 2008 DMC report; including, establishing a task force to review and update findings from the 2008 report. During the 2008 study, the concept of establishing a new task force was discussed; however, the task force was not formed at that time. The PPC directed the three departments above to provide a written project scope and proposed task force composition for final review. On February 29, 2016, the PPC received written description of the proposed task force discussed at the December 2015 meeting from the County Probation Officer, District Attorney and Public Defender (Attachment H). The PPC accepted the proposed task force composition and clarified that the three school district seats should be represented by the West Contra Costa Unified School District, the Mount Diablo Unified School District and the Antioch Unified School District. The PPC directed staff to prepare a report for consideration by the full Board of Supervisors and schedule for early April 2016. Below is an outline of attachments included in this staff report: Attachment A – Contra Costa County Data on Race in Criminal Justice Summary of race data in criminal justice systems in Contra Costa County Contra Costa County population estimates Probation Department data on Pretrial, AB 109 adult and juvenile probation populations Superior Court data on criminal case filings and jury service Attachment B - San Francisco Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis Related article: http://sfpublicdefender.org/news/2015/06/study-shocking-racial-disparities-in-sf-courts/ April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 61 Attachment C – Contra Costa County’s Workplace Diversity Training Summary of eLearning vendor Target Solutions' Workplace Diversity training materials Risk Management memo on diversity training, including completion data by department Board policy on required sexual harassment and workplace diversity training Attachment D – Other Diversity and Implicit Bias trainings and presentations: Governing for Racial Equity (GRE) Conference presentation on Incorporating Race and Justice Principals into Criminal Justice System Policies. The GRE Network is a regional consortium of government, philanthropy, higher education and the community partnering to achieve racial equity. The GRE Network brings together public sector employees from across the U.S. to end institutional and structural racism, strengthen regional alliances, and increase public will to achieve racial equity. The 2015 conference took place on June 11 & 12 in Seattle, Washington. EmTrain’s guide to the online training on Fostering a Diverse & Inclusive Workplace. EmTrain is San Mateo County’s online training vendor and is an approved provider of continuing education. King County participant’s guide to their workshop on Addressing Implicit Bias, Racial Anxiety, and Stereotype Threat. Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) presentation on Equity in Government. GARE Director Julie Nelson conducts trainings with elected officials, housing, police officers, commissioners and others that is focused on normalizing conversations about race (delineating the differences between implicit and explicit bias and individual, institutional and structural racism), organizing within institutions and with the community and operationalizing equity. GARE has launched a year-long learning cohort for jurisdictions in the Bay Area that are at the beginning phases of working on racial equity. Given the discussions that have been happening within the Public Protection Committee over the past year, departments have elected to send representatives to this training using department training budgets. Attachment E – Disproportionate Minority Contact, Reducing Disparity in Contra Costa County. December 2008 This is the original report completed following a three-year (2005-08) study period focusing on DMC issues in the local juvenile justice system. The PPC used this document as a reference to illustrate a process similar to the one that is being proposed in today's action. Attachment F - Letter from Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition, April 2015 Attachment G - Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition Referral to Public Protection Committee Attachment H - Proposed Composition for the DMC Task Force, as recommended by the District Attorney, Public Defender and County Probation Officer, and approved by the PPC for consideration by the Board of Supervisors CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board will not have accepted the report from the Committee. Also, the proposed DMC Task Force will not be formed, requiring the Board of determine alternative next steps related to this referral. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No immediate impact. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Kaylie Simon, Deputy District Attorney, CCC Racial Justice Coalition; Mei Christian, CCC Racial April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 62 Speakers: Kaylie Simon, Deputy District Attorney, CCC Racial Justice Coalition; Mei Christian, CCC Racial Justice Coalition; Eli D., resident of Martinez. ACCEPTED the report; REFERRED it to the Public Protection Committee (PPC) for review on April 21, 2016; APPROVED formation of ad hoc Contra Costa County Disproportionate Minority Contact Task Force (CCCDMC Task Force), comprised of no more than 15 members representing governmental agencies and community organizations whose work concerns racial equality within the criminal justice system, Chief Probation Officer Public Defender District Attorney Sheriff Superior Court of Contra Costa County Local Law Enforcement (member to be name by the CCC Police Chiefs Association) Local School Districts (up to 3 representatives) Department of Health Community-based Organizations (up to 5 members), with one representative from a faith-based organization; and a member of the public representing the interests of mental health and one general member of the public- possibly from the Former Grand Juror Association The Task Force will review and update the 2008 Disproportionate Minority Contact Report and integrate the findings into the scheduled update of the Countywide Reentry Strategic Plan, following review by the PPC and Board of Supervisors; DETERMINED the mission of the CCCDMC Task Force for racial justice is: ` 1. Identify some consensus measures within the County to reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system 2. Make recommendations for implementation of the measure once identified 3. Report back to the Board of Supervisors on progress made toward reducing racial disparities within the criminal justice system; DIRECTED the PPC to move forthwith on the recruitment process to set up the Task Force; DIRECTED quarterly reports by the Task Force be submitted to the PPC on its progress, to the extent that there is something that could be forwarded to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration; and DIRECTED the Public Protection Committee to continue monitoring the progress of staff participating in the Government Alliance on Racial Equity training cohort and report back to the Board of Supervisors with any recommendations following the conclusion of that process. ATTACHMENTS PowerPoint Presentation Attachment A: Contra Costa County Data on Race in the Criminal Justice System Attachment B: San Francisco Reinvestment Initiative: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Analysis Attachment C: Contra Costa County’s Workplace Diversity Training Attachment D: Other Diversity and Implicit Bias Trainings and Presentations Attachment E: Disproportionate Minority Contact, Reducing Disparity in Contra Costa County. December 2008 Attachment F: Letter from Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition, April 2015 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 63 Attachment G: Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition Referral to Public Protection Committee Attachment H: Proposed Composition of Disproportionate Minority Contact Task Force, as recommended by DA, PD and Probation April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 64 April 12, 2016 1 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 65 April 7, 2015: The Board of Supervisors received a letter from the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition. April 21, 2015: The Board of Supervisors referred the letter to the Public Protection Committee for review. July 2015–February 2016: The Committee held five public meetings on this issue and received testimony from staff and public stakeholders. 2 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 66 The Committee focused on two specific areas identified within the Coalition’s letter: Statistical Data on Race within County Criminal Justice System: o Booking o Prosecution o Pre-trial o Probation (Adult & Juvenile) o AB109 o Jury Composition Employee Training: o Implicit Bias o Workplace Diversity 3 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 67 4 Sources: U.S. Census, Sheriff’s Office, Probation Department, Contra Costa Superior Court April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 68 5 Identifies juvenile Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)* trends in selected communities within the County in 2005, including: o Richmond area (West County) o Monument Corridor (Central County) o Bay Point (East County) Makes short and long term recommendations for addressing DMC issues identified. *Disproportionate Minority Contact is a term of art originated by the U.S. Department of Justice in the 1970s during an effort to better understand over-representation of minority youth in the justice system April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 69 6 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 70 7 Source: Morris M.S., Monique. Disproportionate Minority Contact: Reducing Disparity in Contra Costa County.2008. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 71 8 Source: Morris M.S., Monique. Disproportionate Minority Contact: Reducing Disparity in Contra Costa County.2008. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 72 9 Source: Morris M.S., Monique. Disproportionate Minority Contact: Reducing Disparity in Contra Costa County.2008. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 73 10 Two data sets reporting different information with similar findings. DMC Report is neutral on causation and focuses on what local justice system can do once a juvenile enters the system. DMC Report provides a work-plan that could be re-considered by key stakeholders in the future. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 74 11 County policy requires Workplace Diversity Training for all new County employees o Training provided by Risk Management o Department Heads responsible for tracking Public Safety personnel receive state mandated racial bias training via: o Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) o Standards for Training and Corrections (STC) Workplace Diversity training is not Racial Bias training and vice-versa April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 75 Disproportionate Minority Contact does exist in the local criminal justice system, but… o Jurisdictions across the country are dealing with the same issues and have been for decades o Several socio-economic factors contribute to this disparity Most Public Safety classifications in the County do receive Implicit Bias training o Current County training does not include an implicit bias component o The vast majority of law enforcement classifications in the County do receive Implicit Bias training mandated by the State o Some departments offer a department level training on Implicit Bias (e.g. District Attorney partners with the Goldman School) 12 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 76 13 ACCEPT today’s report from the Public Protection Committee on the work completed to date related to the Racial Justice Coalition referral. APPROVE formation of a 15 member ad hoc DMC Task Force to review and update the 2008 DMC Report, for review and consideration by the PPC and BOS… o Chief Probation Officer o Public Defender o District Attorney o Sheriff-Coroner o Health Services Director o Superior Court representative o CCC Police Chiefs Association representative o (3) Representatives from Local School Districts (WCCUSD, MDUSD, AUSD) o (5) community based organization representatives April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 77 14 DIRECT the PPC to: o Initiate a recruitment process for the five community member seats on the DMC Task Force and return to the BOS with appointment recommendations. o Continue monitoring progress of staff participating in the Government Alliance on Racial Equity training cohort and report back to the BOS with any recommendations following conclusion of that process. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 78 15 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 79 Summary of Race Data in Criminal Justice Systems in Contra Costa County Sources: Census, Probation Department, Contra Costa Superior Court April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 80 People QuickFacts Contra Costa County California Population, 2014 estimate 1,111,339 38,802,500 Population, 2013 estimate 1,095,980 38,431,393 Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base 1,049,197 37,254,503 Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014 5.9% 4.2% Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013 4.5% 3.2% Population, 2010 1,049,025 37,253,956 Persons under 5 years, percent, 2013 5.9% 6.5% Persons under 18 years, percent, 2013 23.8% 23.9% Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2013 13.8% 12.5% Female persons, percent, 2013 51.2% 50.3% White alone, percent, 2013 (a) 67.9% 73.5% Black or African American alone, percent, 2013 (a) 9.6% 6.6% American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, 2013 (a) 1.0% 1.7% Asian alone, percent, 2013 (a) 15.9% 14.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 2013 (a) 0.6% 0.5% Two or More Races, percent, 2013 5.0% 3.7% Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013 (b) 24.9% 38.4% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013 46.3% 39.0% (a) Includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. Contra Costa County Population Source: US Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 81 Gender Not Specified 131 313 289 590 Female 3506 24% 3011 23% 2990 23% 4069 24% Male 10938 75% 9843 75% 9890 75% 12520 73% Total 14575 13167 13169 17179 Race Not Specified 214 578 470 765 A OTHER ASIAN 213 216 200 281 B BLACK 3669 25% 3376 26% 3594 27% 4274 25% 26% C CHINESE 7 9 9 22 D CAMBODIAN 1 F FILIPINO 50 42 36 65 G GUAMANIAN 2 2 5 H LATIN AMERICAN/HISPANIC 3558 24% 2883 22% 2868 22% 3727 22% 22% I AMERICAN INDIAN 12 11 17 15 J JAPANESE 5313 K KOREAN 6632 L LAOTIAN 6 2 M SPANISH OR MEXICAN AMERICAN O OTHER 635 644 608 830 P PACIFIC ISLANDER 23 26 15 25 S SAMOAN 3654 U HAWAIIAN 21 4 5 11 V VIETNAMESE 11345 W CAUCASIAN 6099 42% 5252 40% 5282 40% 7070 41% 41% X UNKNOWN 33 84 38 64 Z ASIAN INDIAN 8 23 13 8 Total 14575 13168 13168 17179 # Fiscal Year 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 Source: Court criminal case management system. Data retrieved from District Attorney files. Time Frame: Fiscal years 2010/11-2013/14 Criminal Cases Fiscal Year 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 82 Pretrial - Total Granted Supervision Currently being supervised Black/African- American 555 40% Black/African- American 189 44% Black/African- American 93 47% White 473 34% White 130 31% White 58 29% Hispanic/Latino 286 20% Hispanic/Latino 81 19% Hispanic/Latino 40 20% Asian 24 Asian 8 Asian 4 Other 21 Other 8 Other 2 Unknown 20 Unknown Unknown Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 17 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 8 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 3 American Indian/Alaskan Native 6 American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 American Indian/Alaskan Native Total 1402 Total 425 Total 200 Completed Successfully Unsuccessful Black/African- American 76 44% Black/African- American 29 33% White 54 31% White 32 36% Hispanic/Latino 29 17% Hispanic/Latino 23 26% Asian 4 Asian Other 5 Other 2 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 4 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 2 American Indian/Alaskan Native American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 Total 172 Total 89 Source: Probation Department CMS. Upon completion of interview with clients, probation officer enters data retrieved from California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) and from Public Defender’s Office worksheet; Time Frame: March 2014-July 2015 Pretrial April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 83 Adult Probation Black 1008 41%Black 1060 30% Hispanic 743 30% Hispanic 877 25% White 437 18% White 1112 31% Unknown 147 Unknown 277 Other Non-Asian 42 Other Non-Asian 67 Asian Indian 24 Asian Indian 21 Filipino 16 Filipino 30 Pacific Islander 11 Pacific Islander 4 Laotian 8 Laotian 1 Indian (American) 6 Indian (American) 3 Other Asians 5 Other Asians Hawaiian 3 Hawaiian 79 Samoan 3 Samoan 3 Guamanian 1 Guamanian 1 Chinese 1 Chinese 3 Cambodian 1 Cambodian Vietnamese 1 Vietnamese 2 Japanese 1 Japanese Korean Korean 1 Total 2458 Total 3541 Juvenile Probation Source: Probation Department CMS. Clerk enters data retrieved from the Court or CLETS. Time Frame: All current Adult and Juvenile Probation, as of July 2015 Adult and Juvenile Probation April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 84 Black 786 40% White 758 38% Hispanic 384 19% Unknown 19 Filipino 15 Asian 10 Samoan 3 Pacific Islander 3 Vietnamese 3 Chinese 2 Other 2 Am Indian 1 Japanese 1 Laotian 1 Total 1988 Caucasian 44% African-American 31% Hispanic 8% Probation Employees AB 109 Population Source: Probation Department CMS. Clerk enters data retrieved from the Court or from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Time Frame: October 2011-July 2015 Probation Department Employees Source: Human Resources AB 109 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 85 1.1% 12.1% 8.8% 15.2% 62.9% 1.2% 15.9% 9.3% 12.9% 63.8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic White Cumulative Jury Appearance to Target Demographics 2001-2010 2000 Census 2001-2010 % of Total Jurors by Race Racial data is self-reported by jurors based on questionnaires distributed at the time they report for service at each court location 2001-2010 % of Total Jurors by Race represents cumulative responses for the 10 year period between 2001-2010 Multi-racial responses are recorded as one (1) full person in each race 2000 baseline census numbers for jury demographic study have been filtered to exclude; persons under 18, and Non-U.S. Citizens April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 86 1.0% 16.2% 9.4% 21.3% 53.8% 1.3% 18.4% 7.5% 14.9% 61.8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic White Cumulative Jury Appearance to Target Demographics 2011-2015 2010 Census 2011 -2015 % of Total Jurors by Race Racial data is self-reported by jurors based on questionnaires distributed at the time they report for service at each court location 2011-2015 % of Total Jurors by Race represents cumulative responses for the 4.5 year period between 2011-2015 Multi-racial responses are recorded as one (1) full person in each race 2010 baseline census numbers for jury demographic study have been filtered to exclude; persons under 18, and Non-U.S. Citizens April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 87 Summary Note: These data can provide a good overview of demographic trends for those who report for jury service, but data for individuals who identify as either Hispanic or multi-racial may not be precisely accurate for any of three reasons: 1. Individuals who identify as Hispanic (an ethnicity, but reported here as if it were a racial category) may have selected any one of the racial categories listed on the form, or none of these categories, or “other” 2. Individuals who identified their racial category as “other” are not included in these data 3. Individuals who self-identify as multi-racial can indicate their racial identification by checking “multi-racial”, “other”, two or more of the other racial categories provided on the survey, or check the boxes for any combination of these categories April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 88 SAN FRANCISCO JUSTICE REINVESTMENT INITIATIVE: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES ANALYSIS FOR THE REENTRY COUNCIL SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 89 DISPROPORTIONALITY AT EVERY STAGE o In 2013, there were a disproportionate number of Black adults represented at every stage of the criminal justice process. While Black adults represent only 6% of the adult population, they represent 40% of people arrested, 44% of people booked in County Jail, and 40% of people convicted. o When looking at the relative likelihood of system involvement- as opposed to the proportion of Black adults at key decision points – disparities for Black adults remain stark. Black adults are 7.1 times as likely as White adults to be arrested, 11 times as likely to be booked into County Jail, and 10.3 times as likely to be convicted of a crime in San Francisco. FINDINGS REGARDING DATA CAPACITY o Data required to answer several key questions regarding racial and ethnic disparities were unavailable. As stakeholders move forward to more fully understand the disparities highlighted in the repot, they will need to build capacity for a more comprehensive and system- wide approach to reporting data on racial and ethnic disparities. o Lack of “ethnicity” data impeded a full analysis of the problem of disparities. Justice system stakeholders must improve their capacity to collect and record data on ethnicity of justice system clients. Lack of data regarding Latino adults’ involvement is problematic for obvious reasons – if we do not understand the extent of the problem, we cannot craft the appropriate policy solutions. Additionally, when population data disregard ethnicity, and only focus on race, the vast majority of these “Hispanics” are counted as White. The result is a likely inflated rate of system involvement for White adults1, and an underestimation of the disparity gap between White and Black adults. 1 Nationally, when population data disregard ethnicity, and only focus on race, the vast majority of these “Hispanics” (89%) would be identified as “White.”). Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2014). “Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013.” Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/ DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS IN SAN FRANCISCO o Data indicate that San Francisco’s demographic make-up is changing. Between 1994 and 2013, the number of Black adults decreased by 21 percent. At the same time, the number of Latino adults increased by 31 percent. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 2013: DISPARITY GAP FOR BLACK ADULTS AT KEY DECISION POINTS Arrests Bookings ConvictionsTimes More Likely Than Whites12 10 8 6 4 2 0 7.1 11 10.3 White Comparison 2013 DATA: SAN FRANCISCO 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 35% 13%9%12%13% 14% 15%16% 45%45%32%39%31% 6% 40% 44% 49% 40% 2% Population Arrests Bookings Pretrial Convictions Eligible White Black Latino Other The W. Haywood Burns Institute (BI) is a national non-profit organization that has worked successfully with local jurisdictions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system by leading traditional and non-traditional stakeholders through a data-driven, consensus based process. BI was engaged by the Reentry Council of The City and County of San Francisco to conduct a decision point analysis to learn whether and to what extent racial and ethnic disparities exist at key criminal justice decision making points in San Francisco. The analysis was limited due to data limitations. For additional information regarding the key findings listed in this summary, please see the full report. SAN FRANCISCO JUSTICE REINVESTMENT INITIATIVE: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES ANALYSIS FOR THE REENTRY COUNCIL April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 90 ARRESTS o In 2013, Black Adults in San Francisco were more than seven times as likely as White adults to be arrested. o Despite a significant overall reduction in arrest rates in San Francisco, the disparity gap – the relative rate of arrest for Black adults compared to White adults - is increasing. o Whereas the disparity gap in arrests statewide is decreasing, the disparity gap in San Francisco is increasing. o Rates of arrest are higher for Black adults than White adults for every offense category. o Despite reductions in rates of arrest for drug offenses, the Black/White disparity gap increased for every drug offense category. BOOKINGS TO JAIL (PRETRIAL) o Black adults in San Francisco are 11 times as likely as White adults to be booked into County Jail. This disparity is true for both Black men (11.4 times as likely) and Black Women (10.9 times as likely). o Latino adults are 1.5 times as likely to be booked as White adults. o Booking rates for Black and Latino adults have increased over the past three years while booking rates for White adults have decreased. o The top three residence zip codes of Black adults booked into County Jail were: 94102 (includes the Tenderloin), 94124 (Bayview-Hunters Point), and 94103 (South of Market). o The top three residence zip codes for Latino adults booked into County Jail were: 94110 (Inner Mission/ Bernal Heights), 94102 (includes the Tenderloin), and 94112 (Ingelside-Excelsior/Crocker-Amazon). o A vast majority (83 percent) of individuals booked into jail in San Francisco had residence zip codes within the County. Overall, only 17 percent of individuals booked into jail had residence zip codes outside of San Francisco.2 PRETRIAL RELEASE o Booked Black adults are more likely than booked White adults to meet the criteria for pretrial release.3 o Black adults are less likely to be released at all process steps: Black adults are less likely to receive an “other” release (i.e., cited, bailed, and dismissed); less likely than White adults to be released by the duty commissioner; and less likely to be granted pretrial release at arraignment. o Rates of pretrial releases at arraignment are higher for White adults for almost every quarter. o Out of all adults who meet the criteria for pretrial release (the entirety of the SFPDP database): o 39 percent of Black adults had prior felony(ies) compared to 26 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a prior felony were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a prior felony; 2 Data regarding the homeless population were unavailable. Of the total 19,273 book- ings in 2013, there were 3,973 (21%) that did not include a zip code. Some of these missing zip codes may be homeless adults who reside in San Francisco. 3 Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. Further analysis is needed to better understand this finding. For example, White adults may be more likely to be cited out and are therefore not included as “eligible” for pretrial release, and protocol for identifying “ethnicity” in the two information systems may not be consistent. DISPARITY GAP FOR ARRESTS (1994 and 2013) 1994 2013 White 1 White 1 Black 4.6 Black 7.1 For every 1 White adult arrested in San Francisco in 1994, there were 4.6 Black adults arrested. For every 1 White adult arrested in San Francisco in 2013, there were more than 7 Black adults arrested. White 1 Black 11 Latino 1.5 API 0.4 For every 1 White adult booked into San Francisco County Jail, there were 11 Black adults and 1.5 Latino adults booked DISPARITY GAP FOR BOOKINGS (2013) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 91 o 44 percent of Black adults had prior misdemeanor(s) compared to 45 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a prior misdemeanor were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a prior misdemeanor; and o 62 percent of Black adults had a high school diploma or GED compared to 66 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a HSD/GED were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a HSD/GED. CONVICTIONS/SENTENCING o For every White adult arrested and convicted in 2013, 1.4 Black adults were arrested and convicted.4 (Due to lack of data about Latinos at arrest, no comparison of convictions to arrest was made for Latinos). o Black adults in San Francisco (in the general population) are ten times as likely as White adults in San Francisco (in the general population) to have a conviction in court. o Latino adults in San Francisco (in the general population) are nearly twice as likely as White adults in San Francisco (in the general population) to have a conviction in court.5 o The vast majority of all people convicted are sentenced to Jail/ Probation. Black adults with Jail/Probation sentences are more likely to receive formal probation than White adults. Whereas 31 percent of White Adults receive formal probation, 53 percent of Black adults did. o Black adults are more likely to be sentenced to prison and county jail alone and less likely to be sentenced to Jail/Probation sentence than White adults. o When they receive Jail/Probation sentences, Black adults are more likely to have a longer County Jail sentence than White adults. o Although more White adults are convicted on DUI charges with blood alcohol levels greater than or equal to .08 than Black adults, Black and Latino adults convicted of these charges are more likely to have a longer jail sentence (as part of a Jail/Probation sentence) than White adults.6 o Of all Black adults convicted, 6 percent were convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances; of all White adults convicted, only 1 percent was convicted of this charge. While the number of adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances has decreased substantially over the past 3 years, the proportion is consistently higher for Black adults.7 o Black adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances are more likely to stay longer in jail as part of a Jail/Probation sentence. o Over the course of the last year, there were 288,177 bed days as the result of court sentences to jail (either though county jail alone or as a part of a Jail/Probation sentence). Black adults account for 50 percent of these sentenced bed days. 4 When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. 5 See note above. It is important to note this for all of the analyses in the conviction/sentencing section which compare White and Latino rates. 6 Analysis of specific charges includes the entire timeframe, in order to increase the number of cases analyzed. The criminal code referenced here is VC 23152(b)/M. 7 Analysis of specific charges includes the entire timeframe, in order to increase the number of cases analyzed. The criminal code referenced here is HS 11352(a)/F. DISPARITY GAP FOR CONVICTIONS (2013) White 1 Black 10.3 Latino 1.7 API 0.4 For every 1 White adult convicted of a crime in San Francisco, there were more than 10 Black adults and nearly 2 Latino adults convicted. 475 14th Street, Suite 800, Oakland, CA 94612 415.321.4100 • 415.321.4140 fax • info@burnsinstitute.orgApril 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 92 SAN FRANCISCO JUSTICE REINVESTMENT INITIATIVE: RACIAL & ETHNIC DISPARITIES ANALYSIS FOR THE REENTRY COUNCIL BY W. HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE June 23, 2015 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 93 The W. Haywood Burns Institute (BI) Our Work The Burns Institute works to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system by using a data driven, community centered approach to reducing system involvement for people of color. Our Work in San Francisco: Conduct analysis to identify whether and to what extent racial and ethnic disparities exist at key criminal justice decision making points. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 94 1.Identify Disparities Identify whether and to what extent racial and ethnic disparities exist 2.Identify, Analyze and Strategize around a “Target Population” Identify target population to focus the work. “Dig deeper” into target population to learn more about policy, practice, procedure and other factors contributing to disparities. Strategize around how policy, practice, and/or procedure change might result in reductions in disparities. Pilot or adopt policy, practice or procedural change 3.Measure Progress Monitor Effectiveness of Change Document c hanges in disparities BI Strategy for Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities Ongoing process April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 95 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 San Francisco Adult Population: Changing Demographics Black Latino San Francisco Demographics are Changing 49% 45% 8% 6% 13% 14% 30% 35% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 1994 2013 White Black Latino Other Source: Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2014). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013." Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/ April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 96 Overrepresentation of People of Color in San Francisco Criminal Justice System Population Source: Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2014). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013." Online. Arrest Source: “Monthly Arrest and Citation Register”, State of California Department of Justice (October 2014). Online Booking, SFPDP and Conviction Data provided to Burns Institute by Adult Probation as part of JRI data analysis agreement. Sources: CMS, JMS, SFPDP Databases. 45% 45% 32% 39% 31% 6% 40% 44% 49% 40% 14% 2% 15% 16% 35% 13% 9% 12% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Population Arrest Booking SFPDP Conviction 2013 Data: San Francisco White Black Latino Other Black adults: Overrepresented at each stage: • 6% of adults in the population •40% of arrests •44% of bookings to jail (pretrial) •49% of adults eligible for SFPDP •40% of convictions Latino adults: appear to be undercounted at various points in the criminal justice process, but data vary across decision points. This is likely caused by misidentification of some Latinos as White. Asian Pacific Islander and “other” adults: This analysis did not focus on API or “other” adults. Future disparities analysis should do so and must account for differences between subgroups within the larger API population. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 97 Disparity Gap at Key Decision Points 7.1 11 10.3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Arrests Bookings ConvictionsTimes More Likely Than White Disparity Gap for Black Adults at Key Decision Points (2013) White Comparison April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 98 ARRESTS April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 99 Arrest Rate Deductions 75 27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 San Francisco Arrest Rates (per 1000 Adults) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 San Francisco Arrest Rates by Race & Ethnicity per 1,000 in Population White Black Latino Other Reduction in Rate of Arrests: •White = 62% reduction (72 per 1,000 to 27 per 1,000) •Black = 42% reduction (334 per 1,000 to 195 per 1,000) What is the “Disparity Gap?” 72 27 334 195 What is the difference between these rates? What is the difference between these rates? ARRESTS Note: These data do not include cite and release interactions with police. Note: When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 100 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.4 5.4 5.4 6.1 6.5 6.7 6.3 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.8 7.2 7.2 6.8 6.8 6.6 7.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Times More Likely than White Disparity Gap Between Black and White Arrest Rates Despite significant reductions in arrest rates, disparities between Black and White adult arrests have increased. For every on 1 White adult arrested in 1994, 4.6 Black adults were arrested For every on 1 White adult arrested in 2013, 7.1 Black adults were arrested. White Comparison ARRESTS Note: when population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. Arrest Source: “Monthly Arrest and Citation Register”, State of California Department of Justice (October 2014). Online April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 101 California & SF Disparity Gaps 4.6 7.1 3.9 3.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Disparity Gap Between Black and White Arrest Rates San Francisco vs. State of California SF Black CA BlackTimes More likely than White White Comparison •Disparities in the rate of arrest between Black and White adults in San Francisco are greater than disparities in the State. •Disparities in the State are decreasing slightly while disparities in San Francisco continue to increase +53% Increase -23% Decrease Note: when population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. Arrest Source: “Monthly Arrest and Citation Register”, State of California Department of Justice (October 2014). Online ARRESTS April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 102 Disparities in Arrests for Drug Offenses Increased 4.1 5.5 1.7 0.9 2.7 9.0 14.5 6.8 4.5 7.9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 All Felony Drug Narcotics (F)Marijuana (F)Dangerous (F)Other Drug (F) Black/White Disparities in Felony Drug Arrests 1994 2013 4.0 2.1 2.8 6.8 11.9 3.9 2.6 13.9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 All Misdemenaor Drug Marijuana (M)Dangerous (M)Other (M) Black/White Disparities in Misdemeanor Drug Arrests 1994 2013 White Comparison Although rates of arrest for drug offenses have decreased in San Francisco from 1994 to 2013, the relative rate of arrest for drug offenses or “disparity gap” has increased. 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2013 Misdemeanor Drug Arrest Rate Felony Drug Arrest Rate Drug Arrest Rates per 1,000 Felony White Felony Black Misdemeanor White Misdemeanor Black ARRESTS April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 103 BOOKING TO PRETRIAL JAIL April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 104 Overview of the Booking Data Source: CMS race/ethnicity pulled from JMS Full Time Frame: 1/1/11-6/30/14 Started with 155,060 cases After we cleaned up the data, there were 63,318 bookings with data on race and ethnicity In 2013 (latest year): 19,273 cases with data on race and ethnicity Data required extensive clean-up in order to answer basic questions BOOKINGS 1/1/11- 6/30/14 # White 21,758 Black 28,125 Latino 7,010 API 4,058 Nat. Am. 246 Other 2,121 Total 63,318 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 105 Rates and Disparity Gaps in Bookings to Jail in San Francisco (2011-2013) In 2013, for every 1 White adult booked: •11 Black adults were booked •1.5 Latino adults were booked •.3 Asian adults were booked 1 11 1.5 0.3 BOOKINGS Rates of booking to jail are increasing for people of color in San Francisco, particularly Latino and Black adults. Note: when population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. API API April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 106 Bookings by Residence Zip Code The vast majority of all adults booked in County Jail in San Francisco have a residence zip code within San Francisco. Note: Zip Code analysis is based on cases for which zip code was recorded (in 2013, 15,272 cases). Data regarding the homeless population was unavailable. Of the total 19,273 bookings in 2013, there were 3,973 (21%) that did not include a zip code. Some of these missing zip codes may be homeless adults who reside in San Francisco. 82% 85% 80% 78% 97% 74% 83% 18% 15% 20% 22% 3% 26% 17% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% White Black Latino API Native American Other Total Proportion of Booked Adults with Residence Zip Code within San Francisco (2013) San Francisco Zip Code Out of County April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 107 Top Residence Zip Codes of Adults Booked into Jail in San Francisco Black: 94102: Tenderloin 94124: Bayview-Hunters Point 94103: South of Market Latino: 94110: Inner Mission/Bernal Heights 94102: Tenderloin 94112: Ingelside-Excelsior/Crocker- Amazon White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total 94102 3177 3939 675 313 49 150 8303 94124 471 3915 386 237 8 115 5132 94103 1201 1464 301 129 12 74 3181 94110 1037 794 909 99 17 103 2959 94112 672 728 541 247 10 117 2315 94109 1123 752 160 149 11 67 2262 BOOKINGS April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 108 PRETRIAL RELEASE April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 109 Overview of the Data Source: San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project (SFPDP) Data Full Time Frame: 1/1/11-6/30/14 Started with 26,657 cases After we cleaned up the data, we had 26,275 cases with race/ethnicity Latest full year: Q3 2013 – Q2 2014 7,840 cases with data on race/ethnicity 3,118 white; 3,683 black; 25 Latino; 100 Asian; 892 Other Data required extensive clean-up in order to answer basic questions Note: Only black/white disparity analyzed due to small numbers for other racial/ethnic groups. When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. SFPDP 1/1/11- 6/30/14 # White 10,426 Black 12,825 Latino 155 Asian 792 Other 2,077 Total 26,275 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 110 Pretrial Release Flow SFPDP April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 111 Pretrial Release Eligible Compared to Bookings 35% 46% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent of Booked Adults who are Eligible for Pretrial Release White Black White Black Bookings 5,940 7,947 Pretrial Release Eligible 3,118 3,683 Percent of Booked Adults who are Eligible for Pretrial Release 35% 46% Note: Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. Further analysis is needed to better understand this finding. For example, White adults may be more likely to be cited out and are therefore not included within “eligible” for pretrial release, and protocol for identifying “ethnicity” in the two information systems may not be consistent. Black adults booked into San Francisco County Jail are more likely than White adults to be eligible for Pretrial Release. Whereas 35% of White adults booked were eligible for Pretrial Release, 46% of booked Black adults were eligible. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 112 Other Releases: Bailed, Cited, and Dismissed (Q3 2013 – Q2 2014) •Overall, a substantial proportion (51%) of all cases eligible for pretrial release were Other Releases. •The proportion of eligible White adults released (54%) was higher than the proportion of eligible Black adults (48%). •The vast majority of Black & White adults released had their cases dismissed. •Black adults were more likely than White adults to have their case dismissed. White adults were more likely to post bail and be cited out than Black adults. SFPDP 54% (n=1673) 48% (n=1777) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Other Release Other: Bailed, Cited, & Dismissed White Black 7% (n=109) 11% (n=179) 83% (n=1385) 4% (n=68) 8% (n=137) 88% (n=1572) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bailed Cited Dismissed Breakdown of Other Releases White Black April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 113 Duty Commissioner Outcomes (Q3 2013-Q2 2014) •A higher proportion of White adults presented to duty commissioner were granted OR (34%) than Black adults presented (30%). SFPDP 34% 66% 30% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Granted (ORPJ and Sup ORPJ)Denied Duty Commissioner Outcomes White Black(n=105) (n=223) (n=240) (n=114) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 114 Presented at Arraignment (Q3 2013- Q2 2014) 35% (n=1087) 36% (n=1311) 30% 32% 34% 36% 38% 40% Presented at Arraignment Presented at Arraignment White Black •65% of adults eligible for pretrial release were released prior to arraignment. •Black adults were less likely to be granted release at arraignment than White adults. SFPDP 30% 70% 25% 74% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment Denied Outcomes at Arraignment White Black (n=762) (n=972) (n=321) (n=330) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 115 Outcomes at Key Points Booked Black adults are more likely than booked White adults to be eligible for Pretrial Release, but White adults are more likely to be released throughout the process. SFPDP 35% 46% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent of Booked Adults who are Eligible for Pretrial Release White Black Note: Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 116 Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment 32% 32% 24% 27% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 2011 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 Pretrial Release at Arraignment (2011- Q2 2014) White Black 8 point difference White adults are consistently more likely to be granted pretrial release at arraignment. Note: Trends in Duty Commissioner Grants of OR were not included due to small numbers. SFPDP 5 point difference April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 117 Trends for Adults at Arraignment (full time frame: Q1 2011 - Q2 2014) 35% 35% 25% 33% 0% 20% 40% Had HSD/GED and Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment White Black SFPDP •Educational Status •66% of White adults & 62% of Black adults had a high school diploma (HSD) or GED •When limiting the parameters to only those with a HSD or GED, White adults were still more likely to be released than Black adults in most quarters. •Prior Misdemeanor Convictions •45% of White adults and 44% of Black adults had a prior misdemeanor within 5 years. •When limiting the parameters to only those with a prior misdemeanor conviction within 5 years, White adults were still more likely to be released than Black adults in most quarters. The chart to the right shows the percent of each group released that had a misdemeanor within 5 years. •Prior Felony Convictions •26% of White adults and 39% of Black adults had a prior felony within 5 years. •When limiting the parameters to only those with a prior felony conviction within 5 years, White adults were still more likely to be released than Black adults in most quarters. The chart to the right shows the percent of each group released that had a prior felony within 5 years. 28% 30% 18% 25% 0% 20% 40% Had Prior Misdemeanor w/in 5 Years and Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment White Black 18% 22% 14% 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% Had Prior Felony w/in 5 Years and Granted OR at Arraignment White Black Note: Not all prior convictions are SF convictions. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 118 CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCING April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 119 General Sentencing Questions a)What types of sentences do defendants receive? b)How long are the sentences? c)Are defendants of color more likely to receive more restrictive sentences than White defendants? d)What sentences do defendants receive for the top convicted charges? e)How have sentences changed from 2011-2013/2014? Sentencing Options CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 120 Overview of the Data Source: CMS Race/Ethnicity pulled from JMS Full Time Frame: 1/1/11-6/30/14 Started with 18,621 convictions After we cleaned up the data, there were 14,618 cases with data on race/ethnicity Latest full year: Q3 2013-Q2 2014 4,806 convictions with both SF# and data on race/ethnicity Data required extensive clean-up in order to answer basic questions CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING 1/1/11- 6/30/14 # White 4,963 Black 6,030 Latino 1,731 API 1,210 Nat. Am. 46 Other 638 Total 14,618 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 121 Disparity Gaps in Convictions in San Francisco (2011-2013) 4.2 45.3 2.4 1.1 4.9 37.6 4.2 1.5 4.2 42.9 7.0 1.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 White Black Latino Asian Convictions per 1,000 in population (2011, 2012, 2013) Source of population data for rates calculation: Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2014). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013." Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/ Increase in reported numbers for Latino adults is likely due to better data collection. CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING API Note: when population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 122 1% 1% 74% 21% 2% 1% 63% 25% 9% 80% 13% 5% 1% 85% 11% 2% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Fine Probation Jail/Probation County Jail State Prison Sentence White Black Latino API Least restrictive Most restrictive 976 1107 567 306 280 448 93 40 Black adults are more likely to be sentenced to a more restrictive Sentence. CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING Sentence Type by Race/Ethnicity latest full year: Q3 2013– Q2 2014 150 * An Additional 47 adults received “Suspended State to Jail/Probation (W=10; B=25; L=7; API= 3). State Prison: 2 % of White Adults were sentenced to Prison 5% of Latino Adults were sentenced to Prison 9% of Black Adults were sentenced to Prison County Jail: 21% of White Adults were sentenced to County Jail 25% of Black Adults were sentenced to County Jail Black adults are more likely to receive Formal Probation than White Adults. •Black Adults: 53% receive Formal (47% receive CT) •White Adults: 31% receive Formal (69% receive CT) Note: when population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults & White/Latino adults. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 123 Sentence Length: Jail/Probation Sentences (latest full year: Q3 2013– Q2 2014) Probation Sentences are Similar for all Racial/Ethnic Groups and across Gender (measured in months) Sentences to County Jail vary considerably (measured in days) Probation (months) W B L API NA O Total N 976 1,107 567 306 10 142 3,108 Mean 35.7 36.3 37.1 36.4 34.2 35.5 36.2 Median 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 Min: 6 mo. Max: 60 mo. Median 36 mo. All groups Mean Ranges from 34.2 – 37.1 mo. County Jail (days) W B L API NA O Total N 976 1,107 567 306 10 142 3,108 Mean 38 63* 39 39 74 29 47 Median 10 20* 10 10 23 10 13 Median 13 days (overall) W-10 B-20 Mean: 47 days Ranges from 29 -74 days W-38 B-63 * Statistically significant (p=.05). CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 124 Top Convicted Charges (Full Time Frame: Q1 2011- Q2 2014) White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total DUI BAC .08—VC23152(b) (M) 900 278 393 280 4 178 2,033 Felony Burglary (F) 249 412 47 38 2 22 770 Reckless Driving (M) 244 72 70 120 2 55 563 Misd. Burglary (M) 200 256 37 47 3 11 554 Transporting or Selling Controlled Substances—HS11352(a) (F) 71 361 43 13 0 16 504 DUI Alcohol/Drugs (M) 205 73 59 67 1 49 454 Solicit Specific H and S Acts (M) 150 206 31 13 0 11 411 Battery (M) 120 101 54 31 1 21 328 Rec Known Stolen Prop $400 (F) 103 147 34 19 0 13 316 Poss Methaqualone/Etc. (M) 53 189 19 8 0 9 278 Grand Theft from Person (F) 32 201 28 10 0 7 278 Possess Controlled Substance (F) 50 195 16 7 0 6 274 Lost/Stolen Property (M) 131 94 19 25 1 4 274 Possess Controlled Substance (M) 150 61 27 14 0 6 258 Robbery (F) 27 176 32 14 0 6 255 all other charges 2,278 3,208 822 504 32 224 7,068 Total 4,963 6,030 1,731 1,210 46 638 14,618 CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 125 A closer look at sentences for DUI Blood Alcohol .08 (Full Time Frame: Q1 2011- Q2 2014) WHY DUI? (23152(B)VC/M) DUI was the top convicted charge code. In the full time period, 14% (2,033 of 14,618 sentences) were for DUI. White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total DUI .08 900 278 393 280 4 178 2,033 All Sentences 4,963 6,030 1,731 1,210 46 638 14,618 DUI as % of total 18% 5% 23% 23% 9% 28% 14% White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total County Jail 11 (1%) 10 (4%) 9 (2%) 1 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (1%) 33 (2%) Probation 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (0%) Jail/Probation 888 (99%) 268 (96%) 384 (98%) 276 (99%) 3 (75%) 177 (99%) 1,996 (98%) Total 900 278 393 280 4 178 2,033 Jail/Probation Sentences are by far the most frequently used sentence for DUI. * There were a total of 18,206 cases with sentences, but only 14,618 had data on race/ethnicity. There were 2,914 sentences for DUI, but 2,033 had data on race/ethnicity. CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 126 Sentence Length: Jail/Probation Sentences for DUI .08 (Full Time Frame: Q1 2011- Q2 2014) (VC 23152(b)) Probation Sentences are similar across racial/ethnic groups. Black and Latino Adults have longer average sentences to County Jail than White Adults. Probation (months) W B L API NA O Total N 888 268 384 276 3 177 1,996 Mean 40.1 41.1 41.2 40.4 36.0 40.5 40.5 Median 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 Min: 6 mo. Max: 60 mo. Median: 36 months Mean Ranges from 36-41 months County Jail (days) W B L AP I NA O Total N 888 268 384 276 3 177 1,996 Mean 13 17 18* 12 7 15 15 Median 7 8 10 5 5 5 8 Median: 8 days Mean: 15 days W-13 B-17 L-18 Min: 1 day Max: 365 days * Statistically significant (p=.05). CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 127 WHY Transport/Sell Controlled Substances? (HS 11352(a)/F) Transport/Sell Controlled Substances was the 2nd most frequent charge for which Black adults were convicted in the full time frame. White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total Trans Sell Controlled Substances 71 361 43 13 0 16 504 All Sentences 4,963 6,030 1,731 1,210 46 638 14,618 Trans/Sell as % of total 1% 6% 2% 1% 0% 3% 3% A closer look at sentences for Transporting or Selling Controlled Substances (HS 11352(a)/F) (Full Time Frame: Q1 2011- Q2 2014) White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total County Jail 6 (8%) 53 (15%) 3 (7%) 4 (31%) 1 (6%) 67 (13%) Jail/Probation 64 (90%) 238 (66%) 33 (77%) 4 (31%) 13 (81%) 352 (70%) State prison 1 (1%) 38 (11%) 7 (16%) 2 (15%) 2 (13%) 50 (10%) Suspended state to Jail/Probation 0 (0%) 32 (9%) 0 (0%) 3 (23%) 0 (0%) 35 (7%) Total 71 361 43 13 16 504 CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 128 Sentence Length: Jail/Probation Sentences for Transporting or Selling Controlled Substances (Full Time Frame: Q1 2011- Q2 2014) Black adults had longer average probation sentences than White adults. Black and Latino adults had longer average and median lengths of Sentences to County Jail than White adults. Probation (months) W B L API O Total N 64 238 33 4 13 352 Mean 35.8 38.2* 36.7 39 39.7 37.7 Median 36 36 36 36 36 36 Min: 4 mo. Max: 238 mo. Median: 36 months Mean Ranges from 35.8-39.7 months County Jail (days) W B L API O Total N 64 238 33 4 13 352 Mean 86 151* 129 114 128 136 Median 43 120 74 92 120 91 Median: 91 days Mean: 136 days W-86 B-151 Min: 4 days Max: 238 days B -120 W - 43 * Statistically significant (p=.05). CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 129 State Prison Sentences have Decreased for All Groups (Q1 2011-Q2 2014) 34 (of 315) = 11% 7 (of 326) = 2% 71 (of 460) = 15% 35 (of441) = 8% 134 (of 938) =14% 52 (of 1087) = 5% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 '11 Q1 '12 Q1 '13 Q1 '14 Q1 State Prison Sentences White Black Total CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING The proportion of convicted adults who are sent to State Prison decreased, but the relative likelihood of a State Prison sentence for convicted Black adults compared to convicted White adults increased. •Q1 2011: Convicted Black adults are 1.4 times as likely as convicted White adults to be sentenced to Prison. •In Q1 2011, 11% of convicted White adults and 15% of convicted Black adults were sentenced to State Prison. •Q2 2014: Convicted Black adults are nearly 4 times as likely as convicted White adults to be sentenced to Prison. •In Q2 2014, 2 % of convicted White adults and 8% of convicted Black adults were sentenced to State Prison. Q1 2011: Black adults made up 53% of all State Prison Sentences. Q2 2014: Black adults made up 67% of all State Prison Sentences. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 130 Use of Jail/Probation Sentences and County Jail have Increased 628 804 145 209 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 '11 Q1 '12 Q1 '13 Q1 '14 Q1 Jail/Probation & County Jail Sentences over Time Probation and County Jail County Jail +28% +44% 48 63 79 103 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 '11 Q1 '12 Q1 '13 Q1 '14 Q1 County Jail Sentences White Black Latino 226 246 292 293 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 '11 Q1 '12 Q1 '13 Q1 '14 Q1 Jail/Probation Sentences White Black Latino CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 131 Average County Jail Sentences in Jail/Probation Sentences have decreased over time, but are consistently longer for Black and Latino Adults 53 41 98 60 74 33 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 '11 Q1 '11 Q2 '11 Q3 '11 Q4 '12 Q1 '12 Q2 '12 Q3 '12 Q4 '13 Q1 '13 Q2 '13 Q3 '13 Q4 '14 Q1 '14 Q2 Average Jail Time (in Days) for County Jail/Probation Sentences (Q1 2011-Q2 2014) White Black Latino Black adults received average jail sentence 45 days longer (85% longer) than White adults. CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING Black adults received average jail sentence 19 days longer (46% longer) than White adults. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 132 Total Sentenced Bed Days (Q3 2013-Q2 2014) 54,089 110,197 20,920 13,854 27,901 33,853 13,942 5,528 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 White Black Latino API Bed Days Sentenced (including Jail/Probation and County) Felony Misdemeanor •Between Q3 2013 & Q2 2014, there were 288,177 bed days sentenced as the result of court sentences to jail (either though county jail alone (50%) or as a part of a jail/probation sentence (50%). •Proportion of bed days: •White adults account for 28 % of sentenced bed days in the time period. •Black adults account for 50% of sentenced bed days in the time period. •Latino adults account for 12% of sentenced bed days in the time period. •API adults account for 12% of sentenced bed days in the time period. CONVICTIONS & SENTENCING April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 133 Next Steps/Recommendations I.Build data capacity/address data limitations A.Appropriate existing committees (CMS and/or JUSTIS) should review reports and prioritize recommendations; ad hoc committees may need to be created. B.Consider: Protocols and Documentation; Creating a Data Dictionary; Staff Training; Modifications to Data Systems; Generating Regular Reports and Using Data. II.Develop capacity to answer key questions BI was unable to answer due to data limitations. For instance*: A.How do racial/ethnic disparities change when citations are included in arrests? B.When bail is set, do defendants of color have higher bail amounts attached to their bail offer than White defendants? Are defendants of color less likely to post bail? C.Are people of color more likely to plead guilty? Does the likelihood of a guilty plea increase for defendants who remain in custody pretrial? D.Why are Motions to Revoke Probation or Parole filed? What are the outcomes of MTRs for clients of color? *Additional questions are included in the report. These are examples. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 134 Next Steps/Recommendations cont. III.Develop a system of reporting key indicators of racial and ethnic disparities on a regular basis; BI recommends quarterly. See sample table below. IV.Institutionalize a process for deliberating on the data regularly, with traditional and non-traditional stakeholders. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 135 Burns Institute Contact Information W. Haywood Burns Institute 475 14th St., Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94608 (415) 321-4100 www.burnsinstitute.org April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 136 SAN FRANCISCO JUSTICE REINVESTMENT INITIATIVE: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES ANALYSIS FOR THE REENTRY COUNCIL April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 137 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Summary of Key Findings .............................................................................................................................. 4 San Francisco’s Changing Demographics and Overrepresentation at Key Decision Points .......................... 8 Arrests ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Booking to Jail (Pretrial) .............................................................................................................................. 13 Pretrial Release ........................................................................................................................................... 16 Sentencing................................................................................................................................................... 22 Building Data Capacity to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities ................................................................. 32 Conclusion and Next Steps.......................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix A: Initial Questions and Flow Charts ........................................................................................... 38 Appendix B: Disparity Gap in Arrests .......................................................................................................... 39 Appendix C: Description of SFPDP process Diagram and Terminology ...................................................... 41 Appendix D: Conviction/Sentencing Data ................................................................................................... 42 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 138 Introduction W. Haywood Burns Institute and the Importance of Data The W. Haywood Burns Institute (BI) is a national non-profit organization that has worked successfully with local jurisdictions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities (R.E.D.) in the justice system by leading traditional and non- traditional stakeholders through a data-driven, consensus based process. It is BI’s experience that local jurisdictions can implement successful and sustainable strategies that lead to reductions in racial and ethnic disparities at critical criminal justice decision-making points. An essential component of reducing racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system is the capacity to collect, analyze and use data. To target disparity reduction efforts, local stakeholders must have the ability to accurately identify the extent to which racial and ethnic disparities exist at key decision making points, which decision points exacerbate or mitigate the problem, and why people of color are involved at various points of contact in the justice system. To do so, system stakeholders and analysts must not only collect certain data, but they must know the appropriate data-related questions to ask to drive the work. Stakeholders and analysts must evaluate gaps in current data systems and the quality of the available data to assess their capacity to effectively identify and address disparities and sustain reductions. Finally, there must be an intentional process of deliberating on the data in collaborative meetings to drive policy. BI encountered significant and repeated problems in using existing datasets to better understand disparities in San Francisco’s criminal justice system. Data required to answer basic and fundamental questions about disparities were largely unavailable, or were in a format that required extensive clean up prior to analysis. This is troubling. If stakeholders are unable to understand the problem or review data on a regular basis, it will impede the development of appropriate policy solutions, and the sustainability of reform efforts. Importantly, the findings regarding the lack of data should serve as a call to action. If San Francisco is committed to reducing disparities, it must develop better data infrastructure to understand the problem. This report is a first step in using available data to understand whether and to what extent racial and ethnic disparities exist at key decision making points. Despite the significant data access challenges, BI and San Francisco justice partners have confidence in the accuracy of the findings presented in this report. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 139 Background In February 2011, the Reentry Council of The City and County of San Francisco (Reentry Council) submitted a letter of interest to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to participate in the local Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI). In May 2011, following BJA’s selection of San Francisco as a JRI site, the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at Community Resources for Justice (CRJ) began working with and providing technical assistance to the Reentry Council. From CJI’s presentations to the Reentry Council, and based on these preliminary findings, the Reentry Council identified three policy areas with potential for achieving cost savings and reinvestment opportunities: 1. Eliminate disproportionality in San Francisco’s criminal justice system 2. Create a uniform early termination protocol for probation 3. Maintain and expand pretrial alternatives to detention Reducing the disproportionate representation of people of color in San Francisco’s criminal justice system remains a priority in JRI activities. Learning more about these disparities was a priority for Phase II. In November 2014, CJI contracted BI to provide an analysis of whether and to what extent racial and ethnic disparities exist at the five following key decision making points: • Arrest • Bail and Pretrial Jail • Pretrial Release • Sentencing • Motion to Revoke Probation (MTR)1 The analysis in this report describes the nature and extent of racial and ethnic disparities in the decision making points above. The analysis does not explore the causes of disparities. BI did not perform statistical analyses to isolate the extent to which race/ethnicity – rather than a variety of other factors – predicts justice system involvement. Additionally, the analysis does not explore the extent to which individual bias impacts the disproportionate representation of people of color in the justice system. The disparities analysis was contingent upon availability of reliable data in an agreed-upon 1 Due to lack of data, the analyses regarding Motions to Revoke (MTR) were not possible. Due to the data limitations, BI narrowed its analysis to answer the following questions: 1. Arrest i. Are people of color more likely than White people to be arrested in San Francisco? ii. Are there certain categories of offenses that people of color are more likely to be arrested for? iii. How have racial and ethnic disparities in arrests changed from 2011 to 2014? 2. Booking to Jail (pretrial) i. Are defendants of color booked into jail pretrial at higher rates than White defendants? ii. Are there racial and ethnic disparities in rates of booking to jail when broken down by gender? iii. What are the top resident zip codes of adults booked into jail pretrial? 3. Pretrial Release i. Are defendants of color who meet the criteria for pretrial release less likely to be released on Own Recognizance (OR) than White defendants? ii. At what stage in the pretrial process are defendants released? (example: prior to or by duty commissioner review, before arraignment, or by arraignment judge) iii. How have racial and ethnic disparities in pretrial releases changed from 2011 to 2014? 4. Sentencing i. What types of sentences do defendants receive? ii. How long are the sentences? iii. Are defendants of color more likely to receive more restrictive sentences than White defendants? iv. What sentences do defendants receive for top convicted charges? v. How have racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing changed from 2011 to 2014? April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 140 format. As mentioned above, there were many limitations related to data availability and data integrity.2 These limitations can be broken down into the following categories3: • Unavailability of key data. • Lack of information system protections. • Incomplete fields in databases. • Lack of clear protocols in data collection. • Data not available in format conducive to analysis. • Definitions of certain variables were misunderstood or outdated. Despite the significant challenges, basic questions about racial and ethnic disparities were answered and are summarized in the next section. Prior to the release of this report, local justice system partners in San Francisco had the opportunity to review and vet the findings for accuracy. Thus, while the analysis included is only a first step in identifying disparities, BI and San Francisco justice partners have confidence in the accuracy of the findings presented in this report. 2 The original list of questions the analysis sought to answer is included in Appendix A. 3 BI submitted an additional report to the Reentry Council (“Summary of Data Challenges Encountered during Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in San Francisco’s Criminal Justice System”), which provides examples of these limitations. Our observations informed the data- related recommendations in this report. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 141 Summary of Key Findings Demographic Shifts in San Francisco: o Data indicate that San Francisco’s demographic make-up is changing. Between 1994 and 2013, the number of Black adults decreased by 21 percent. At the same time, the number of Latino adults increased by 31 percent. Disproportionality at Every Stage: o In 2013, there were a disproportionate number of Black adults represented at every stage of the criminal justice process. While Black adults represent only 6% of the adult population, they represent 40% of people arrested, 44% of people booked in County Jail, and 40% of people convicted. o When looking at the relative likelihood of system involvement- as opposed to the proportion of Black adults at key decision points – disparities for Black adults remain stark. Black adults are 7.1 times as likely as White adults to be arrested, 11 times as likely to be booked into County Jail, and 10.3 times as likely to be convicted of a crime in San Francisco. Findings Regarding Data Capacity: o Data required to answer several key questions regarding racial and ethnic disparities were unavailable. As stakeholders move forward to more fully understand the disparities highlighted in the repot, they will need to build capacity for a more comprehensive and system-wide approach to reporting data on racial and ethnic disparities. o Lack of “ethnicity” data impeded a full analysis of the problem of disparities. Justice system stakeholders must improve their capacity to collect and record data on ethnicity of justice system clients. Lack of data regarding Latino adults’ involvement is problematic for obvious reasons—if we do not understand the extent of the problem, we cannot craft the appropriate policy and practice solutions. Additionally, when population data disregard ethnicity, and only focus on race, the vast majority of these “Hispanics” are counted as White. The result is a likely inflated rate of system involvement for White adults 4, and an underestimation of the disparity gap between White and Black adults. 4 Nationally, when population data disregard ethnicity, and only focus on race, the vast majority of these “Hispanics” (89%) would be identified as “White.”). Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2014). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2013." Online Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/ April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 142 Arrests: o In 2013, Black Adults in San Francisco were more than seven times as likely as White adults to be arrested. o Despite a significant overall reduction in arrest rates in San Francisco, the disparity gap – relative rate of arrest for Black adults compared to White adults - is increasing. o Whereas the disparity gap in arrests statewide is decreasing, the disparity gap in San Francisco is increasing. o Rates of arrest are higher for Black adults than White adults for every offense category. o Despite reductions in rates of arrest for drug offenses, the Black/White disparity gap increased for every drug offense category. Bookings to Jail (Pretrial): o Black adults in San Francisco are 11 times as likely as White adults to be booked into County Jail. This disparity is true for both Black men (11.4 times as likely) and Black Women (10.9 times as likely). o Latino adults are 1.5 times as likely to be booked as White adults 5. o Booking rates for Black and Latino adults have increased over the past three years while booking rates for White adults have decreased. o The top three residence zip codes of Black adults booked into County Jail were: 94102 (includes the Tenderloin), 94124 (Bayview-Hunters Point), and 94103 (South of Market). o The top three residence zip codes for Latino adults booked into jail were: 94110 (Inner Mission/Bernal Heights), 94102 (includes the Tenderloin), and 94112 (Ingelside- Excelsior/Crocker-Amazon). o A vast majority (83 percent) of individuals booked into jail in San Francisco had residence zip codes within the County. Overall, only 17 percent of individuals booked into jail had residence zip codes outside of San Francisco 6. Pretrial Release: o Booked Black adults are more likely than booked White adults to meet the criteria for pretrial release7. 5 Data on Latino adults booked into County Jail is likely an undercount. When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults and White/Latino adults. 6 Data regarding the homeless population was unavailable. Of the total 19,273 bookings in 2013, there were 3,973 (21%) that did not include a zip code. Some of these missing zip codes may be homeless adults who reside in San Francisco. Disparity Gap for Arrests (1994 and 2013): For every 1 White adult arrested in San Francisco in 1994, there were 4.6 Black adults arrested. For every 1 White adult arrested in San Francisco in 2013, there were more than 7 Black adults arrested. Disparity Gap for Bookings (2013): For every 1 White adult booked into San Francisco County Jail, there were 11 Black adults and 1.5 Latino adults booked. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 143 o Black adults are less likely to be released at all process steps: Black adults are less likely to receive an “other” release (i.e., cited, bailed, and dismissed); less likely than White adults to be released by the duty commissioner; and less likely to be granted pretrial release at arraignment. o Rates of pretrial releases at arraignment are higher for White adults for almost every quarter. o Out of all adults who meet the criteria for pretrial release (the entirety of the SFPDP database): o 39 percent of Black adults had prior felony(ies) compared to 26 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a prior felony were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a prior felony; o 44 percent of Black adults had prior misdemeanor(s) compared to 45 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a prior misdemeanor were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a prior misdemeanor; and o 62 percent of Black adults had a high school diploma or GED compared to 66 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a HSD/GED were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a HSD/GED. Convictions/Sentencing: o For every White adult arrested and convicted in 2013, 1.4 Black adults were arrested and convicted.8 (Due to lack of data about Latinos at arrest, no comparison of convictions to arrest was made for Latinos.) o Black adults in San Francisco (in the general population) are ten times as likely as White adults in San Francisco (in the general population) to have a conviction in court. o Latino adults in San Francisco (in the general population) are nearly twice as likely as White adults in San Francisco (in the general population) to have a conviction in court.9 o The vast majority of all people convicted are sentenced to Jail/Probation. Black adults with Jail/Probation sentences are more likely to receive formal probation than White adults. Whereas 31 percent of White Adults receive formal probation, 53 percent of Black adults did. o Black adults are more likely to be sentenced to State Prison and County Jail alone and less likely to be sentenced to Jail/Probation than White adults. o When they receive Jail/Probation sentences, Black adults are more likely to have a longer jail sentence than White adults. o Over the course of the last year, there were 288,177 bed days as the result of court sentences to jail (either through County Jail alone or as a part of a Jail/Probation sentence). Black adults account for 50 percent of these sentenced bed days. 7 Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. Further analysis is needed to better understand this finding. For example, White adults may be more likely to be cited out and are therefore not included as “eligible” for pretrial release, and protocol for identifying “ethnicity” in the two information systems may not be consistent. 8 When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults and White/Latino adults. 9 See note above. It is important to note this for all of the analyses in the conviction/sentencing section which compare White and Latino rates. Disparity Gap for Convictions (2013): For Every 1 White adult convicted of a crime in San Francisco, there were more than 10 Black adults and nearly 2 Latino adults convicted. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 144 o Although more White adults are convicted on DUI charges with blood alcohol levels greater than or equal to .08 than Black adults, Black and Latino adults convicted of these charges are more likely to have a longer jail sentence (as part of a Jail/Probation sentence) than White adults.10 o Of all Black adults convicted, 6 percent were convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances; of all White adults convicted, only 1 percent was convicted of this charge. While the number of adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances has decreased substantially over the past 3 years, the proportion is consistently higher for Black adults.11 o Black adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances are more likely to be sentenced to State Prison than White adults convicted of the same offense. o Black adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances are more likely to stay longer in County Jail as part of a Jail/Probation sentence. 10 Analysis of specific charges includes the entire timeframe, in order to increase the number of cases analyzed. The criminal code referenced here is VC 23152(b)/M. 11 Analysis of specific charges includes the entire timeframe, in order to increase the number of cases analyzed. The criminal code referenced here is HS 11352(a)/F. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 145 San Francisco’s Changing Demographics and Overrepresentation at Key Decision Points Data indicate that San Francisco’s demographic make-up is changing. Between 1994 and 2013, the number of Black adults decreased by 21 percent. At the same time, the number of Latino adults increased by 31 percent. The proportion of the adult population that is Black decreased from eight percent to six percent, and the proportion of the adult population that is Latino increased from thirteen percent to fourteen percent. While compared to White adults, Asian adults are underrepresented in criminal justice system involvement; the proportion of the population that is Asian has also increased, from 30 percent to 35 percent. Latino Adults The growing number of Latino adults in the County calls for a clear and consistent protocol for accurately identifying and recording ethnicity in all criminal justice information systems. As indicated in the Phase I findings, not only are Black adults disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, race and ethnicity are inconsistently recorded in criminal justice departments’ data systems. The lack of a standardized format for race and ethnicity data collection across criminal justice agencies makes it impossible to ascertain what disparities may or may not exist for all communities of color. As identified in Phase I of JRI, challenges include differences in the way race and ethnicity is recorded by law enforcement agencies leading to difficulties in comparing groups across the system. Since the issue has been identified, efforts have been made to improve properly identifying and recording race and ethnicity. However, as the analysis below describes, most of the existing information systems still lack data on ethnicity. As a result, the analysis of the extent to which Latino adults are involved in the criminal justice system is limited. Although Latino adults represent 14 percent of the adult population, data indicates they represent only two percent of arrests and less than one percent of adults eligible for San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Program (SFPDP). While the proportion of Latino adults represented in booking and conviction data is higher, stakeholders BI worked with expressed concern that there is still work to be done to ensure they are using best practice for identifying and recording race and ethnicity. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 146 Lack of data regarding Latino adults’ involvement is problematic for obvious reasons—if we do not understand the extent of the problem, we cannot craft the appropriate policy and practice solutions. Additionally, when population data disregard ethnicity, and only focus on race, the vast majority of these “Hispanics” are counted as White. The result is a likely inflated rate of system involvement for White adults 12, and an underestimation of the disparity gap between White and Black adults. Black Adults Black adults are overrepresented at each stage of the criminal justice process investigated. In 2013, Black adults represented 6 percent of adults in the population, but they represented 40 percent of adult arrests; 44 percent of adults booked; 49 percent of adults eligible for SFPDP, and 40 percent of adults convicted. Asian Pacific Islander and “Other” Adults Due to lack of consistent data, this analysis did not focus on Asian Pacific Islander (API) or “other” adults. Future disparities analyses should include these populations but must account for differences between subgroups within the larger API population. Historical, cultural and economic differences between groups of Asian and Pacific Islander immigrants to the United States often result in a wide variety of experiences and outcomes within American society, including interaction with and rates of involvement in the criminal justice system. Improved data collection on race and ethnicity will support this type of analysis. 12 (Nationally, when population data disregard ethnicity, and only focus on race, the vast majority of these “Hispanics” (89%) would be identified as “White.”) Easy Access to Juvenile Populations. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 147 Arrests San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) was unable to provide data on the total number of arrests in San Francisco disaggregated by race and ethnicity. In lieu of local data from the Reentry Council member agencies, BI used the State of California Department of Justice (DOJ) “Monthly Arrest and Citation Register” (MACR) to compile data on arrests in San Francisco. An “arrest” using these data includes “any person taken into custody because an officer has reason to believe the person violated the law 13.” When an individual is arrested for multiple charges, MACR captures only the most serious offense based on the severity of possible punishment. Importantly, these arrest data do not include cite and release interactions with police. To understand the full scope of racial and ethnic disparities at arrest, SFPD must build capacity to collect and report on all arrests and contacts. Key Findings o In 2013, Black Adults in San Francisco were more than seven times as likely as White adults to be arrested 14. o Despite a significant overall reduction in arrest rates in San Francisco, the disparity gap – relative rate of arrest for Black adults compared to White adults - is increasing. o Whereas the disparity gap in arrests statewide is decreasing, the disparity gap in San Francisco is increasing. o Rates of arrest are higher for Black adults than White adults for every offense category. o Despite reductions in rates of arrest for drug offenses, the Black/White disparity gap increased for every drug offense category. Over the past two decades, arrest rates in San Francisco have decreased, but reductions for White adults outpaced Black adults. Between 1994 and 2013, arrests rates fell by 62 percent for White adults (from 72 arrests per 1,000 White adults in the population to 27 arrests). During that same time, arrest rates fell by 42 percent for Black adults (from 334 arrests per 1,000 to 195 arrests). 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2013 Percent Change 1994-2013 White # of Arrests 22,011 23,466 18,052 13,026 9,151 8,836 Rate per 1000 72 74 58 44 29 27 -62% Black # of Arrests 17,374 19,809 17,896 12,735 8,198 8,027 Rate per 1000 334 400 385 296 196 195 -42% 13 California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Monthly Arrest and Citation Register (MACR) Data Files; CJSC published tables (accessed November 2014). 14 When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults and White/Latino adults. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 148 Disparity Gap in Arrests: San Francisco The result of different arrest rate reductions is that despite significant reductions in arrest rates, the disparity between Black and White adults has increased. In 1994, for every White adult arrested, 4.6 Black adults were arrested, but in 2013 for every White adult arrested, 7.1 Black adults were arrested. Disparity Gap: San Francisco Arrests Compared to State of California Arrests During the same time period that San Francisco’s disparity gap increased by 45 percent, from Black adults being 4.6 times as likely as White adults to be arrested to 7.1 times as likely, the disparity gap in arrest rates for the State of California decreased. Statewide, in 1994, Black adults were 3.9 times as likely as White adults to be arrested. In 2013, Black adults were 3 times as likely. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 149 Disparities in Drug Arrest Between 1994 and 2013, rates for felony drug arrests in San Francisco decreased by 88 percent for White adults (decreasing from 14.1 per 1,000 to 1.7) and by 74 percent for Black adults (decreasing from 58.5 per 1,000 to 15.5). During the same time, rates for misdemeanor drug offenses decreased by 85 percent for White adults (from 2 per 1,000 to 0.3 per 1,000), while rates for Black adults decreased by 48 percent (from 7.9 per 1,000 to 4.1). The disparity gap between White and Black adult arrests has increased for almost every felony and misdemeanor drug offense. A review of changes in the disparity gap for other offenses is available in Appendix B. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 150 Bookings to Jail (Pretrial) When an adult in San Francisco is arrested or has violated the terms and conditions of his or her probation or parole, he or she may be booked into County Jail. The following analysis explores pretrial bookings to County Jail. Unfortunately, the analysis was restricted due to limited data. For this analysis, BI used data from the Court Management System (CMS) and supplemented it with race and ethnicity data from the Sheriff Department’s Jail Management System (JMS). The full time frame for the data analyzed is January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2014. Data required extensive clean up to answer the most basic questions about booking to pretrial jail. Many questions we were interested in exploring could not be answered. After we cleaned up the data,15 there were 63,318 bookings to jail in the full time frame with data on race and ethnicity. In 2013, 19,273 cases included data on race and ethnicity. Key Findings o Black adults in San Francisco are 11 times as likely as White adults to be booked into County Jail. This disparity is true for both Black men (11.4 times as likely) and Black Women (10.9 times as likely). o Latino adults are 1.5 times as likely to be booked as White adults 16. o Booking rates for Black and Latino adults have increased over the past three years while booking rates for White adults have decreased. o The top three residence zip codes of Black adults booked into County Jail were: 94102 (includes the Tenderloin), 94124 (Bayview-Hunters Point), and 94103 (South of Market). o The top three residence zip codes for Latino adults booked into jail were: 94110 (Inner Mission/Bernal Heights), 94102 (includes the Tenderloin), and 94112 (Ingelside-Excelsior/Crocker-Amazon). o A vast majority (83 percent) of individuals booked into jail in San Francisco had residence zip codes within the County. Overall, only 17 percent of individuals booked into jail had residence zip codes outside of San Francisco 17. The rate of booking to County Jail has increased in San Francisco over the past 3 years for people of color, but it has decreased for White adults. The rate of booking for Black adults increased from 191 per 1,000 in 2011 to 206 per 1,000 in 2013. Data indicate that the rate of booking for Latino adults increased by 153 percent. The significant increase is likely due – in some part – to better data collection practices to identify ethnicity. However, the data should be explored further. In 2013, Black and Latino adults were more likely to be booked into County Jail than White adults. For every one White adult booked into jail, there were eleven (11) Black adults and one and a half (1.5) Latino adults. 15 The data clean-up process for the booking data is described in the separate report BI submitted regarding data challenges (“Summary of Data Challenges Encountered during Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in San Francisco’s Criminal Justice System”). 16 Data on Latino adults booked into County Jail is likely an undercount. When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults and White/Latino adults. 17 Data regarding the homeless population were unavailable. Of the total 19,273 bookings in 2013, there were 3,973 (21%) that did not include a zip code. Some of these missing zip codes may be homeless adults who reside in San Francisco. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 151 White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total 2011 Pop. 319,436 41,404 99,104 243,503 2,223 n/a 705,670 2011 Booked 6,269 7,920 1,072 1,012 62 603 16,938 2011 Rate per 1,000 20 191 11 4 28 24 2012 Pop. 322,713 41,094 101,132 249,203 2,234 n/a 716,376 2012 Booked 6,493 7,940 1,863 1,228 66 684 18,274 2012 Rate per 1,000 20 193 18 5 30 26 2013 Pop. 324,372 41,237 102,261 255,069 2,248 n/a 725,187 2013 Booked 6,095 8,508 2,803 1,203 82 582 19,273 2013 Rate per 1,000 19 206 27 5 36 27 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 152 Zip Code Analysis BI explored the top residence zip codes of adults booked into County Jail pretrial. The vast majority of all adults booked in County Jail in San Francisco have a residence zip code within San Francisco (83 percent)18. The top zip codes were different for Black and Latino adults, but 94102 was a top zip code for both. Exploring top zip codes where people who are booked into jail reside can help local stakeholders better understand existing services and programs in those areas, as well as service gaps and needs. Additionally, justice stakeholders can explore policies and practices that impact justice system involvement such as police deployment and locations of neighborhood courts. 18 Zip Code analysis is based on cases for which zip code was recorded (in 2013, 15,272 cases). Data regarding the homeless population was unavailable. Of the total 19,273 bookings in 2013, there were 3,973 (21%) that did not include a zip code. Some of these missing zip codes may be homeless adults who reside in San Francisco. White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total 94102 3177 3939 675 313 49 150 8303 94124 471 3915 386 237 8 115 5132 94103 1201 1464 301 129 12 74 3181 94110 1037 794 909 99 17 103 2959 94112 672 728 541 247 10 117 2315 94109 1123 752 160 149 11 67 2262 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 153 Pretrial Release Some defendants booked into County Jail are released pretrial. The types of release include release on own recognizance (OR), release to supervision programs operated by the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Program (SFPDP), and other releases (released with a citation, case dismissal, bail posting, etc.). The mission of SFPDP is to facilitate, within various communities, positive and effective alternatives to fines, criminal prosecution, and detention. Key Findings o Booked Black adults are more likely than booked White adults to meet the criteria for pretrial release19. o Black adults are less likely to be released at all process steps: Black adults are less likely to receive an “other” release (i.e., cited, bailed, and dismissed); less likely than White adults to be released by the duty commissioner; and less likely to be granted pretrial release at arraignment. o Rates of pretrial releases at arraignment are higher for White adults for almost every quarter. o Out of all adults who meet the criteria for pretrial release (the entirety of the SFPDP database): o 39 percent of Black adults had prior felony(ies) compared to 26 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a prior felony were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a prior felony; o 44 percent of Black adults had prior misdemeanor(s) compared to 45 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a prior misdemeanor were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a prior misdemeanor; and o 62 percent of Black adults had a high school diploma or GED compared to 66 percent of White adults, however, White adults with a HSD/GED were almost always more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults with a HSD/GED. Overview of Data BI analyzed the data from the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project (SFPDP) database from the first quarter of 2011 to the second quarter of 2014. This analysis was done with the goal of answering the following questions 20: o Are defendants of color who meet the criteria for pretrial release less likely to be released on OR than White defendants? o At what stage in the pretrial process are defendants released? o How have racial and ethnic disparities in pretrial releases changed from 2011 to 2014? The analysis was done in two parts: first a detailed look at the last full year of data received, quarter three of 2013 to quarter two of 2014, broken down by race and ethnicity; and second, three and a half year trends that looked at the relative release rates over time. BI received four data files from SFPDP for 2011, 2012, 2013 and the first half of 2014. The full time frame of the data analyzed is January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2014. All four files were merged resulting in a single file of 26,657 cases. 161 cases (rows) were then deleted for lack of any data (blank), and 221 cases were excluded for lack of race and ethnicity data. The resulting number of valid cases is 26,496. For the last full year (quarter three 2013 to quarter two 2014), there are 7,840 valid cases. 19 Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. Further analysis is needed to better understand this finding. For example, White adults may be more likely to be cited out and are therefore not included as “eligible” for pretrial release, and protocol for identifying “ethnicity” in the two information systems may not be consistent. 20 These questions were not the entirety of this analysis but after careful study of the available data and numerous communications with staff at SFPDP, the limitations within the information system and data became clear, resulting in a need to limit the scope of the analysis. See Appendix A for full list of questions. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 154 Limited Race and Ethnicity Data In 2013, Latino adults represented 14.1 percent of the adult population in San Francisco. For the same year, the SFPDP data indicate that Latino adults represent only 0.2 percent of adults eligible for pretrial services. The relatively small numbers of Latinos, Asians, and Others in the SFPDP data make it difficult to identify meaningful trends.21 Therefore only White/Black disparities will be analyzed.22 Pretrial Release Overview The following analysis includes only for Black and White adults.23 The charts in this section show the number and respective percentage of the 6,801 individuals (3,118 White and 3,683 Black) as they proceeded through the various decision thresholds associated with pretrial release. The data indicate there was no disproportionality between White and Black adults who met criteria for pretrial release and were interviewed by SFPDP (both 85%). It should be noted that the 15 percent of White and Black adults who were not interviewed were not precluded from release at arraignment. Adults not interviewed by SFPDP are only precluded from being granted OR release by the duty commissioner, see Appendix C. 21 An analysis of racial and ethnic disparities depends heavily on the availability of relevant data at each stage with comparable population parameters. Counts, rates, and relative rate indices can fluctuate widely over time (e.g., year to year), especially with small case counts. When case counts are too low they tend to produce unreliable results. For example, in the last full year, there were only 25 Latinos (0.3%), 100 Asians (1.3%), and 892 “other” individuals (11.4%), compared to 3,118 Whites (40%) and 3,683 Blacks (47%). When these figures are broken down further into the various stages of the SFPDP process, the number of cases is even smaller. For example, of the 25 Latino individuals, five were presented to the duty commissioner. A comparison of what happened to those five individuals versus what happened to the 349 White individuals presented to the duty commissioner in the same time period would not yield meaningful results. 22 Note: When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are incorrectly identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults and White/Latino adults. It is important to note this for all of the analyses in the arrest section which compare White and Black arrest rates. 23 This section highlights outcomes from the last full year of data BI received, Quarter 3 of 2013 to Quarter 4 of 2014 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 155 Pretrial Release Flow 24 When adults booked into County Jail are identified as meeting the criteria for pretrial release (Eligible for Pretrial Release), they are interviewed to further assess appropriateness for pretrial release and SFPDP services. Once interviewed, their information packet may be presented to a duty commissioner where they may be granted or denied release on their own recognizance (OR). Adults who meet the criteria for pretrial release, but whose information is not presented to the duty commissioner or who are not granted OR by the duty commissioner may be granted or denied release at arraignment. In addition to those released by the duty commissioner or arraignment judge, adults may be released pretrial because their case was dismissed, they were cited out or they posted bail. 24 Description of terms in this chart is included in Appendix C. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 156 Pretrial Release Compared to Bookings Black adults booked into San Francisco County Jail are more likely than White adults to be eligible for pretrial release. According to booking data, there were 5,940 White adults and 7,947 Black adults booked into County Jail during the most recent year. According to SFPD data, during the same time period, there were 3,118 White adults and 3,683 Black adults eligible for some form of pretrial release. By comparing these data, we can learn the proportion of adults booked that were eligible for pretrial release 25. Whereas 35 percent of booked White adults were eligible for pretrial release, 46 percent of booked Black adults were eligible.26 Other Release: Bailed, Cited, and Dismissed The data indicate that 51 percent of all cases that met the criteria for pretrial release were released under the “other releases” category. The proportion of White adults who met the criteria for pretrial release who were released in the “other” category (54%) was higher than the proportion of Black adults that met the criteria for pretrial release who were released under “other” (48%). The vast majority of these released adults had their cases dismissed. Black adults were more likely than White adults to have their case dismissed. White adults were more likely to post bail or be cited out than Black adults. 25 Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. Further analysis is needed to better understand this finding. For example, White adults may be more likely to be cited out and are therefore not included within “eligible” for pretrial release, and protocol for identifying “ethnicity” in the two information systems may not be consistent. 26 Data for both Bookings and Pretrial eligible include the most recent year available (Q3 2013-Q2 2014). The data come from two distinct databases. Q3 2013-Q2 2014 White Black Bookings 5,940 7,947 Pretrial Release Eligible 3,118 3,683 % of Booked Adults Eligible for Pretrial Release 35% 46% April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 157 Presented to Duty Commissioner Per Penal Code Section 1270.1, not everyone eligible for pretrial release or arraignment review is eligible for presentation to the duty commissioner. In the year analyzed, 682 people were presented to the duty commissioner. White adults presented to the duty commissioner were more likely to be granted OR than Black adults. Thirty- three (33) percent of White adults presented to the duty commissioner were granted OR compared to 30 percent of Black adults presented.27 Presented at Arraignment Sixty five percent of adults eligible for pretrial release were released prior to arraignment. Adults who meet pretrial release criteria, and who have not yet been released, are presented at arraignment. Black adults were less likely to be granted pretrial release at arraignment. Whereas 30 percent of White adults were released at arraignment, only 25 percent of Black adults were. 27 See Appendix C for description of ORNF. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 158 Trends in Pretrial Releases at Arraignment White adults are consistently more likely to be granted pretrial release at arraignment than Black adults for nearly every quarter. In Quarter 1 2011, 24 percent of Black adults and 32 percent of White adults were granted pretrial release at arraignment. In Quarter 2 2014, the difference narrowed because a higher proportion of Black adults were granted pretrial release (27 percent), but White adults were still more likely to receive pretrial release. Educational Status Out of all cases in the SFPDP database, 66 percent of White adults and 62 percent of Black adults in the full timeframe had a high school diploma (HSD) or a GED. However, when disaggregating data by educational status, White adults are still more likely to be released than Black adults in most quarters. Prior Misdemeanor Convictions Out of all cases in the SFPDP database, 45 percent of White adults and 44 percent of Black adults within the full timeframe had a prior misdemeanor within five years.28 When limiting the pool of data to adults with a prior misdemeanor conviction within the last five years, White adults are still more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults in most quarters. Prior Felony Convictions Out of all cases in the SFPDP database, 26 percent of White adults and 39 percent of Black adults within the full timeframe had a prior felony within five years. When limiting the pool of data to adults with a prior felony conviction within the last five years, White adults are still more likely to be released at arraignment than Black adults in most quarters. 28 Not all prior convictions are San Francisco convictions. 35%35% 25%33% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 2011 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 HSD/GED and Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment White Black 28%30% 18% 25% 0% 20% 40% 2011 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 Prior Misdemeanor w/in 5 Years and Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment White Black 18%22% 14%20% 0% 20% 40% 2011 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 Prior Felony w/in 5 Years and Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment White Black April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 159 Sentencing If the judge finds beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed the alleged offense, the person is convicted and the judge imposes a sentence. The sentences included in this analysis include all adults sentenced, regardless of whether they were in custody pretrial. Key Findings o For every White adult arrested and convicted in 2013, 1.4 Black adults were arrested and convicted.29 (Due to lack of data about Latinos at arrest, no comparison of convictions to arrest was made for Latinos.) o Black adults in San Francisco (in the general population) are ten times as likely as White adults in San Francisco (in the general population) to have a conviction in court. o Latino adults in San Francisco (in the general population) are nearly twice as likely as White adults in San Francisco (in the general population) to have a conviction in court.30 o The vast majority of all people convicted are sentenced to Jail/Probation. Black adults with Jail/Probation sentences are more likely to receive formal probation than White adults. Whereas 31 percent of White Adults receive formal probation, 53 percent of Black adults did. o Black adults are more likely to be sentenced to State Prison and County Jail alone and less likely to be sentenced to Jail/Probation than White adults. o When they receive Jail/Probation sentences, Black adults are more likely to have a longer jail sentence than White adults. o Over the course of the last year, there were 288,177 bed days as the result of court sentences to jail (either through County Jail alone or as a part of a Jail/Probation sentence). Black adults account for 50 percent of these sentenced bed days. o Although more White adults are convicted on DUI charges with blood alcohol levels greater than or equal to .08 than Black adults, Black and Latino adults convicted of these charges are more likely to have a longer jail sentence (as part of a Jail/Probation sentence) than White adults.31 o Of all Black adults convicted, 6 percent were convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances; of all White adults convicted, only 1 percent was convicted of this charge. While the number of adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances has decreased substantially over the past 3 years, the proportion is consistently higher for Black adults.32 o Black adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances are more likely to be sentenced to State Prison than White adults convicted of the same offense. o Black adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances are more likely to stay longer in County Jail as part of a Jail/Probation sentence. The analysis of sentencing was intended to explore basic questions around potential racial and ethnic disparities in sentences for convicted adults in San Francisco, not to answer questions regarding why the disparities exist or where the responsibility for the disparities lies. The figure on the next page illustrates sentencing options. 29 When population data disregard ethnicity, the vast majority of Hispanic/Latino people are identified as White. This results in an inflated rate of system involvement for White adults; and subsequently an underestimation of the disparity gaps between White/Black adults and White/Latino adults. 30 See note above. It is important to note this for all of the analyses in the conviction/sentencing section which compare White and Latino rates. 31 Analysis of specific charges includes the entire timeframe, in order to increase the number of cases analyzed. The criminal code referenced here is VC 23152(b)/M. 32 Analysis of specific charges includes the entire timeframe, in order to increase the number of cases analyzed. The criminal code referenced here is HS 11352(a)/F. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 160 In analyzing sentencing, BI answers the following questions: • What types of sentences do defendants receive? • How long are the sentences? • Are defendants of color more likely to receive more restrictive sentences than White defendants? • What sentences do defendants receive for the top convicted charges? • How have racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing changed from 2011 to 2014? In answering these questions, BI used data from the Court Management System (CMS) and supplemented it with race and ethnicity data from the Sheriff Department’s Jail Management System (JMS). The full time frame for the data analyzed is January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2014.33 Disparity Gap in Convictions In 2013, more than 10 Black adults were convicted for every White adult convicted in San Francisco. Almost two Latino adults were convicted for every White adult convicted. For every White adult arrested and convicted in 2013, 1.4 Black adults were arrested and convicted. (Due to lack of data about Latinos at arrest, no comparison of convictions to arrest was made for Latinos). The disparity gap in convictions between Black and White adults remains high, whether convictions are compared to arrests or to the total adult population. Convictions per 1,000 in the population appear to be increasing quickly for Latinos, but this could be a reflection of changes in data collection practices. The number of convicted Latino adults increased by more than 200 percent between 2011 and 2013, rising from 235 to 711. 33 There were a total of 18,621 convictions in this data set. The data required extensive clean up to answer the questions. This included removing 335 cases with no SF#, the only means of reliably identifying an individual, leaving 18,268 cases. BI was advised not use the “case disposition” field in the CMS data to inform its understanding of sentence types. Instead the four sentence types and length variables were used to create 15 unique combinations of sentences each with a unique code. Eight of these unique codes, representing 80 cases, were excluded because they appeared to be data entry errors. This left 18,206 valid cases; however, of these cases 3,588 (19.7%) were missing race and ethnicity data, leaving 14,618 cases with both an SF# and race and ethnicity data. In order to show the most recent information, pieces of this analysis limit the timeframe to the last full year of data, quarter 3 of 2013 to quarter 2 of 2014, which included 4,806 cases with valid data on race and ethnicity. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 161 White Black Latino API Native American 2011 Population 319,436 41,404 99,104 243,503 2,223 2011 Convictions 1,352 1,877 235 261 9 2011 Rate per 1,000 4.2 45.3 2.4 1.1 4.0 2011 Disparity Gap 1 10.7 .6 .3 1.0 2012 Population 322,713 41,094 101,132 249,203 2,234 2012 Convictions 1,588 1,544 426 370 6 2012 Rate per 1,000 4.9 37.6 4.2 1.5 2.7 2012 Disparity Gap 1 7.6 .9 .3 .5 2013 Population 324,372 41,237 102,261 255,069 2,248 2013 Convictions 1,355 1,769 711 406 24 2013 Rate per 1,000 4.2 42.9 7.0 1.6 10.7 2013 Disparity Gap 1 10.3 1.7 .4 2.6 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 162 Sentence Types Black adults are more likely to be sentenced to State Prison and County Jail and less likely to be sentenced to Jail/Probation sentences than White adults. Data shown is for the latest full year: Q3 2013-Q2 2014 The vast majority of all sentences were Jail/Probation. Convicted White adults were more likely than convicted Black adults to receive a Jail/Probation sentence. Whereas 74 percent of White adults received a Jail/Probation sentence, 63 percent of convicted Black adults were sentenced to Jail/Probation. For the probation portion of Jail/Probation sentence, Black adults were more likely to receive formal probation than Black adults. Fifty-three (53) percent of Black adults received Formal Probation and 47percent received Court Probation (a form of informal probation). In contrast, only 31 percent received Formal Probation and 69 percent of White adults received Court Probation. While BI was unable to determine who was eligible for Court vs. Formal Probation from the data received, a next step would be to examine who was eligible for Court Probation but received Formal (disaggregated by race and ethnicity).34 Convicted Black adults were more likely than convicted White adults to be sentenced to County Jail. Twenty-one (21) percent of White adults were sentenced to County Jail, whereas 25 percent of Black adults were sentenced to County Jail. Convicted Black and Latino adults were also more likely than convicted White adults to be sentenced to State Prison. Whereas two (2) percent of convicted White adults were sentenced to State Prison, five (5) percent of Latino adults and nine (9) percent of Black adults were sentenced to State Prison. 34 A variable to identify eligibility for Court Probation would need to be captured in the database. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 163 Sentence Length When they receive a Jail/Probation sentence, Black adults are more likely to have a longer jail sentence than White adults. The tables below show mean and median sentences for Jail/Probation, County Jail, and State Prison sentences. The sentence lengths are further disaggregated by felony and misdemeanor offenses. Not surprisingly, the sentence lengths for felonies exceed the sentence length for misdemeanors. Jail/Probation sentences comprised 72 percent of all sentences in the latest year. The average number of days sentenced for White adults in the last year of data is 38 days in County Jail, compared to an average of 63 days for Black adults. The White-Black disparity persists when looking at the median; White adults have a median of ten days in County Jail compared to 20 days for Black adults.35 There did not appear to be disparities in lengths of probation in the Jail/Probation sentences. In the last full year, the mean sentence to probation ranged from 34.2 months to 37.1 months, and the median sentence was 36 months for all groups. Black adults are more likely to receive a longer State Prison sentence than White adults. Whereas the average State Prison sentence for White adults was 33 months, the average for Black adults was 149 months. When looking at County Jail sentences alone, while the differences in sentences were not statistically significant, Black and Latino adults had longer sentences than White adults. Moreover, 68 percent of adults sentenced to County Jail in the last full year were people of color. This is cause for concern. 35 The Mann-Whitney test was used to test significance in differences of median County Jail sentence length for Jail/Probation sentences and the results showed that there is a significant difference in the median jail sentence for Black and White adults. The Games-Howell Post Hoc test was used to determine if the differences in the mean sentences were significant, and the results showed that the mean sentence for Black adults is significant when compared to White. White N=280 N=27 N=280 N=27 Felony 314.5 33.3 180 24 Misdemeanor 75.5 *30 * Total 160.3 33.3 60 24 Black N=448 N=150 N=448 N=150 Felony 266 149 128 36 Misdemeanor 80.2 *26 * Total 166.1 149 71 36 Latino N=93 N=37 N=93 N=37 Felony 282.5 37.2 210 36 Misdemeanor 78.9 *30 * Total 139.4 37.2 69 36 Asian Pacific Islander N=40 N=7 N=11 N=7 Felony 334.2 46.7 365 30 Misdemeanor 85.2 *180 * Total 198 46.7 29 30 Latest Full Year: Q3 2013 - Q2 2014 County Jail (Days) Prison (Months) N=976 N=1,107 N=567 N=306 73 10 8 75 Jail/Probation Jail/Probation Probation Jail (Days)Jail (Days)Probation County Jail (Days) Prison (Months) Mean Sentence Median Sentence 36.4 35.9 38.9 36 36 36 N=306 10 7 62 36 36 10 36 36 36 20 71 10 36 36 36 10 38.9 36 129.7 15.3 37.1 38.6 39.2 110.3 36.5 19.8 36.3 62.9 N=567 38.1 117.3 34.9 23.2 35.7 38.3 N=1,107 39.4 128.6 34.9 18.3 N=976 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 164 County Jail Bed Days Over the course of the last year, there were 288,177 sentenced bed days as the result of court sentences to jail (either through county jail alone (50%) or as a part of a jail/probation sentence (50%).36 • White adults account for 28 percent of sentenced bed days over the last year. • Black adults account for 50 percent of sentenced bed days over the last year. • Latino adults account for 12 percent of sentenced bed days over the last year. • API adults account for 12 percent of sentenced bed days over the last year. Sentences for DUI (VC 23152(b)/M) DUI was selected for closer analysis because it is the top conviction charge.37 In the full time frame, 14 percent of all convictions were for DUIs. The vast majority of sentences for DUI were Jail/Probation, comprising 98 percent of all sentences for DUIs. Although more White adults are convicted on DUI charges38 than Black adults, Black and Latino adults are more likely to have a longer County Jail sentence (as part of a Jail/Probation sentence) than White adults. Whereas on average, Black and Latino adults were sentenced to 17 days and 18 days of County Jail, respectively, White adults were sentenced to 13 days County Jail. Additionally, the number of DUI convictions has increased over time, signaling that this is an offense that is still relevant in San Francisco. 36 This refers to sentenced bed days, not bed days served. The number of days served may be less than the number sentenced due to half time credits available for some convictions. 37 See Appendix D for the top offenses for which people were convicted broken down by race and ethnicity. 38 Analysis includes the entire timeframe, in order to include more cases. California code is VC 23152(b)/M, which is driving with a blood alcohol level greater than or equal to .08. DUI Sentences White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total County Jail 11 (1%) 10 (4%) 9 (2%) 1 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (1%) 33 (2%) Probation 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (0%) Jail/Probation 888 (99%) 268 (96%) 384 (98%) 276 (99%) 3 (75%) 177 (99%) 1,996 (98%) Total 900 278 393 280 4 178 2,033 Jail/Probation Jail (days) White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total N 888 268 384 276 3 177 1,996 Mean 13 17 18 12 7 15 15 Median 7 8 10 5 5 5 8 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 165 Sentences for Transporting or Selling Controlled Substances (HS 11352(A)/F) In addition to analyzing DUIs, BI reviewed sentencing outcomes for adults convicted of felony transporting or selling controlled substances (Health and Safety Code 11352(A)). This offense was selected because it was the second most frequent offense for which Black adults were convicted. Of all Black adults convicted, 6 percent were convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances.Of all White adults convicted, only 1 percent was convicted of this charge. Black adults convicted of transporting or selling controlled substances 39 are more likely to stay longer in jail as part of a Jail/Probation sentence. While the number of adults convicted for transporting or selling controlled substances has decreased substantially over the past 3 years, the proportion is consistently higher for Black adults. 39 Analysis includes the entire timeframe, in order to include more cases. California code is HS 11352(A)/F. Sentences for transporting or selling controlled substances—HS 11352(A)/ White Black Latino API Other Total County Jail 6 (8%) 53 (15%) 3 (7%) 4 (31%) 1 (6%) 67 (13%) Jail/Probation 64 (90%) 238 (66%) 33 (77%) 4 (31%) 13 (81%) 352 (70%) State prison 1 (1%) 38 (11%) 7 (16%) 2 (15%) 2 (13%) 50 (10%) Suspended State Prison to Jail/Probation 0 (0%) 32 (9%) 0 (0%) 3 (23%) 0 (0%) 35 (7%) Total 71 361 43 13 16 504 Jail/Probation Jail (days) White Black Latino API Other Total N 64 238 33 4 13 352 Mean 86 151* 129 114 128 136 Median 43 120 74 92 120 91 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 166 White adults convicted of transport /sell narcotics are more likely to receive a Jail/Probation sentence than Black adults, 90 percent compared to 66 percent. The County Jail portion of the Jail/Probation sentence is longer for Black and Latino adults convicted of transport/sell narcotics. Whereas White adults are sentenced to an average of 86 days, Black adults are sentenced to 151 days and Latino adults to 129 days. The number of convictions has decreased dramatically since the first quarter of 2011. Black adults are more likely to be sentenced to County Jail or State Prison for transport/sell narcotics. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 167 Sentencing Trends State prison sentences decreased for all groups since the first quarter of 2011. During the same time period the use of Jail/Probation Sentences and County Jail Sentences has increased. Given legal reforms in recent years, such as AB109 and Proposition 47, reductions in the use of State Prison sentences are not surprising. However, the time frame of our analysis suggests that the declining use of State Prison was a trend that began before the impacts of these reforms were fully realized. AB 109 went into effect in October 2011 and Prop 47 was passed and implemented in November 2014. In the first quarter of 2011, 72 percent of White adults (226 of 315) received Jail/Probation compared to 63 percent of Black adults (292 of 460). In the second quarter of 2014, 75 percent of White adults (246 of 326) received Jail/Probation, compared to 64% of Black adults (293 of 441). Stated differently, in the first quarter of 2011 White adults are 1.13 times more likely to get a Jail/Probation sentence than Black adults, and in the second quarter of 2014 White adults are 1.14 times more likely to get a Jail/Probation sentence. In the first quarter of 2011, 15 percent of White adults (48 of 315) and 17 percent of Black adults (79 of 460) received a County Jail sentence. In the second quarter of 2014, 20 percent of White adults (63 of 326) and 25 percent of Black adults (103 of 441) received a County Jail sentence. In other words, in the first quarter of 2011 Black adults were 1.13 times more likely to get a County Jail sentence than White adults, and in the second quarter of 2014, Black adults are 1.21 times more likely to get a County Jail sentence than White adults. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 168 Trends in State Prison Sentences Despite overall decreases, the use of State Prison sentences continues to be relevant to the discussion of disparities. The proportion of convicted adults sentenced to State Prison decreased from 14 percent of all convictions in the first quarter of 2011 to just five percent of all convictions in quarter 2 of 2014. In the first quarter of 2011, 15 percent of Black adults convicted received a sentence of State Prison, and 11 percent of White adults convicted received a sentence of State Prison. In the second quarter of 2014, eight percent of Black adults convicted were sentenced to State Prison, and two percent of White adults convicted were sentenced to State Prison. In comparing sentences to State Prison for White and Black adults, the disparity grew. Whereas in the first quarter of 2011, convicted Black adults were 1.4 times as likely as convicted White adults to be sent to State Prison, in quarter two of 2014, convicted Black adults were nearly four times as likely to be sent to State Prison. In other words, the proportion of Black adults sentenced to State Prison increased over time. During the first quarter of 2011, Black adults made up 53 percent of all State Prison sentences. By the second quarter of 2014, Black adults made up 67 percent of all State Prison sentences. Trends in Length of County Jail (for Jail/Probation Sentences) In Q1 2011, Black adults received an average jail sentence that was 45 days longer (85% longer) than White adults. In Q2 2014, Black adults received an average jail sentence that was 19 days longer (46% longer) than White adults. Although the average length of a County Jail sentence for Jail/Probation sentences have decreased, they are still consistently longer for Black and Latino adults. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 169 Building Data Capacity to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities The purpose of these recommendations is to aid in the development of data capacity, including data collection, analysis, and use. These recommendations build on a separate report BI submitted to the Reentry Council detailing the problems we encountered with respect to data availability and data integrity. Accessing reliable and accurate data is a common challenge for justice systems. Often criminal justice information systems are built for case management, not analytics. As a result, asking basic questions of the vast and often separate information systems is complicated. Based on our minimal experience in working with key criminal justice information systems in San Francisco, this will require a commitment. In making our observations and recommendations, BI would like to acknowledge that the San Francisco Adult Probation Department spent a significant amount of time and effort outreaching to various internal and external partners to make sense of the data. This outreach often resulted in a new understanding of data variables. Often, BI discovered that the data variables required to answer questions about disparities in the system were meaningless or were previously misunderstood. What was clear is that the knowledge necessary to improve data capacity in a meaningful way is shared by individuals in different departments and agencies. Therefore, there must be collective and collaborative effort to build data capacity, or efforts will be severely hindered. While BI recognizes that there is much we do not understand about the information systems and protocols in place, we hope these observations will help stakeholders continue to build capacity to use data to better understand decision-making in San Francisco’s criminal justice agencies. Both our identification of problems and recommendations are limited in nature as an information system or data capacity assessment was not part of our scope of work. However, due to the extensive challenges we encountered in attempting to perform our analysis, we felt it would be helpful to share our experiences and recommendations. The appropriate existing committees that already focus on building data infrastructure (CMS Committee and/or JUSTIS Committee) should review these reports, and prioritize the most relevant recommendations for further investigation and implementation. Additional ad-hoc or subcommittees may also be helpful to focus upon specific issues that are identified. Protocols and Documentation I. Develop clear protocols for gathering and entering key data into the information systems For instance, there is currently no clear and consistent procedure for collecting race and ethnicity data across criminal justice agencies. All agencies should adopt a consistent protocol and consistent race and ethnicity categories. The current best practice is to use a two-tiered questioning process: A. The first question: Do you identify as Hispanic or Latino? B. The second question: What is your race or ethnicity? II. Relevant agencies should develop or review and update existing training manuals It is not clear to BI which agencies have training manuals and when these were last reviewed and updated. A key component for ensuring strong data quality is having a detailed training process for users of the system. This is April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 170 accomplished in part by documentation. A training manual helps to ensure that users are trained according to a defined and agreed upon process. Additionally, agencies should evaluate quality assurance measures to ensure that data collection practice aligns with written protocol. III. Create and Distribute a Data Dictionary A significant portion of time was spent attempting to understand the terminology used in the various systems during our analysis of the data provided by the various stakeholders. While it is unavoidable to have some niche specific jargon within any professional environment, having a dictionary of this terminology and the meaning of the different variables in the various data systems can: A. Make each system more uniform and consistent by allowing its various users to have a common understanding of what it is they are inputting; and B. Act as a place to store knowledge that is currently known only to one or two people within the various stakeholder agencies, which will cut down the time in the future for this type of analysis. Staff Training I. Train staff to enter data according to protocol. Training staff in data entry protocols is important. It is equally important to make the system as user friendly as possible and to develop protocols that are simple in relation to a more efficient and protected system. II. Incentivize Proper Data Collection Procedures In addition to a training manual, it is good practice to create incentives for users of IT systems to be invested in the quality of the data that they are capturing. Two suggestions for incentivizing stronger and more consistent data collection are: A. Develop and/or implement user logging system. Utilizing a user logging system is a valuable way to enforce data collection rules. Essentially a user logging system captures who, when, and where data was added or modified. With this information, statistics may be developed that suggest varying levels of data quality for system users. Data quality measures may provide valuable statistics for performance reviews while also providing greater transparency into where data quality issues are occurring so that they can be addressed more directly and quickly. B. Educate staff on the value of data. Educating users as to why the data they are collecting is important may also serve as a valuable tool for greater data quality. A particular approach that may be useful is to share data analytics with the users who collect the data that feeds into the statistics. In addition, consider creative ways to empower users to be part of the analytical process. Modifications to Data Systems to Improve Data Integrity I. Limit the number of open fields in information systems This will help eliminate the problem of the same data being entered in multiple ways, such as encountered with the SFPDP database. II. Leverage Constraint Potential of Information Systems/Enforce Protections April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 171 In addition to greater efficiency, this provides the opportunity to leverage the information system to recall and enforce data rules. A simple example is requiring release dates to be later than booking dates. These types of constraints might address a good portion of the challenges encountered within the MTR data. Generating Reports and Using Data I. Develop infrastructure to report on key data disaggregated by race and ethnicity Jurisdictions that are committed to reforming any part of their system or ensuring that all people are being treated fairly and equitably must have the appropriate infrastructure in place. As a starting point in San Francisco, the relevant data committee should identify what information system modifications and data collection processes are required to answer the disparities questions developed by BI and refined by San Francisco stakeholders (as described in Appendix A). II. Develop regular reports (BI recommends quarterly) Once the capacity is in place, San Francisco should develop a report that will be reviewed regularly by stakeholders to measure progress on an ongoing basis. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 172 Conclusion and Next Steps Having worked in over 100 jurisdictions, BI continues to see racial and ethnic disparities similar to those in this report. The prevalence of these disparities undermines any notion of “justice” in our criminal justice system. Given the disparities in San Francisco outlined in this report, it is incumbent on local stakeholders to address the inequities within the criminal justice system. We hope this analysis provides a starting point for stakeholders to consider more effective reform strategies that promote equity and reduce the significant racial and ethnic disparities outlined in this report. To further disparity reduction efforts, BI recommends: (1) Build data capacity per the suggestions in this report. (2) Develop capacity to answer the key questions BI was unable to answer due to data limitations. For example: • Arrest: 1. How do racial and ethnic disparities change (if at all) when citations are included in arrests? 2. Are people of color more likely than White adults to have a more restrictive outcome to their arrest? (i.e. remain in jail vs. divert or citation for appearance); 3. Where are people of color arrested most frequently? • Pretrial Jail and Bail Decisions: 1. Do defendants of color remain in jail pretrial at higher rates than White defendants? 2. When bail is set, do defendants of color have higher bail amounts attached to their bail offer than White defendants? 3. Are defendants of color less likely to post bail? 4. Do defendants of color have a longer pretrial length of stay than White defendants? 5. How do lengths of stay differ by release types (i.e. cited out; dismissed; release on bail; release on pretrial services; release with credit for time served)? 6. Are defendants of color more likely than White defendants to remain in jail during the trial? • Charging and Sentencing: 1. Are defendants of color who remain in jail during trial more likely to have more restrictive sentences? 2. How does race and ethnicity impact charging decisions? 3. Are people of color more likely to plead guilty? Does the likelihood of a guilty plea increase for defendants who remain in custody pretrial? • Motions to Revoke Probation (MTR): 1. Are probation clients (“clients”) of color more likely than White clients to have MTRs filed? 2. Which departments or agencies are filing the MTRs? 3. Why was the MTR filed? (new arrest, drug use, fail to report, violate stay away order, etc.) 4. Do clients of color have their probation revoked for different reasons than White clients? 5. What are the outcomes of MTRs for clients of color (i.e., modification of probation leading to jail? Modification leading to treatment mandate? Revocation leading to state prison?) (3) Develop a system of reporting key indicators of racial and ethnic disparities on a regular basis; BI recommends quarterly. These reports should be disseminated to key partners and be made publicly available. The reports can be used to both identify where disparities exist and to identify target populations for disparity reduction work. Regular reports may be used to monitor trends and whether system involvement for people of color is increasing or decreasing. Below are examples of basic tables that stakeholders may agree to populate. The tables are included as a starting point for discussion --for each key decision point, there are additional data to consider. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 173 Key Decision Points to Monitor White Black Latino Asian Pacific Islander Native American Total Arrests Bookings to Jail Filings Declinations Convictions Jail Bookings by Most Serious Offense Category White Black Latino Asian Pacific Islander Native American Total Felony Person Property Drug Public Order Sex Other Total Misdemeanor Person Property Drug Public Order Sex Other Total Technical/ Administrative Violation of Probation Bench Warrant Other Technical Violation Average Daily Population in Jail White Black Latino Asian Pacific Islander Native American Total Average Daily Population (Total) ADP Felony Pretrial ADP Misdemeanor Pretrial ADP Probation Violation ADP FTA Warrant Hold ADP AWOL Warrant Hold ADP ICE Hold ADP Sentenced to Jail Misdemeanor ADP Sentenced to Jail Felony Length of Stay in Jail (Average and Median) by Release Type White Black Latino Asian Pacific Islander Native American Total Cite Out Dismiss Release on Bail Release to Pretrial Services Release with Credit for Time Served April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 174 Bail Set and Post White Black Latino Asian Pacific Islander Native American Total $1 -$100 Bail Set Bail Posted $101- $500 Bail Set Bail Posted $501- $1000 Bail Set Bail Posted $1001- $5000 Bail Set Bail Posted $5001- $10,000 Bail Set Bail Posted $10,001- $20,000 Bail Set Bail Posted $20,000+ Bail Set Bail Posted Pretrial Release Decision by Risk Assessment Score White Black Latino Asian Pacific Islander Native American Total Total Booked in Jail High Risk Score Medium Risk Score Low Risk Score Not assessed for Risk Pretrial Release High Risk Score Medium Risk Score Low Risk Score Not assessed for Risk Release on Monetary Bail High Risk Score Medium Risk Score Low Risk Score Not assessed for Risk Remain in Jail High Risk Score Medium Risk Score Low Risk Score Not assessed for Risk (4) Institutionalize a process for deliberating on the data regularly. Importantly, not only should the data be collected and reported, the data must be discussed by a collaborative made up of traditional and non-traditional stakeholders. During these meetings, stakeholders should consider how local policy and practice change could result in reductions in disparities. As data capacity is strengthened, these are the types of focused conversations we encourage San Francisco stakeholders to have. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 175 Appendix A: Initial Questions and Flow Charts 40 40 This initial analysis focus purposefully excluded charging decisions, a key decision point. JRI stakeholders agreed that BI’s analysis would not look at charging decisions, as both the Public Defender and District Attorney were already engaged in their own studies of this decision point. Their studies will provide a more in-depth look at charging decisions and will be shared with JRI partners. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 176 Appendix A: Initial Questions and Flow Charts April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 177 Appendix B: Disparity Gap in Arrests (2013) Disparity Gap (Times More Likely Than White) White Arrest Rate (per 1000) Black Arrest Rate (per 1000) Kidnapping (F) 62.9 0.003 0.19 Lewd or Lascivious (F) 23.6 0.003 0.07 Robbery (F) 17.0 0.34 5.77 Other Sex Law Violations (F) 15.7 0.05 0.73 Checks / Access Cards (M) 15.7 0.003 0.05 Narcotics (F) 14.5 0.69 10.04 Sex Offenses (F) 14.4 0.06 0.80 Other Drugs (M) 13.9 0.28 3.90 Weapons (M) 11.8 0.03 0.36 Weapons (F) 11.7 0.22 2.52 Forgery / Checks / Access Cards (F) 11.3 0.10 1.19 Other Felonies (F) 11.3 4.06 45.78 Other Offenses (F) 10.9 4.45 48.55 Burglary (F) 9.9 0.75 7.42 Homicide (F) 9.6 0.03 0.27 All Felony 9.4 10.56 98.82 Property Offenses (F) 9.0 1.81 16.34 Drug Offenses (F) 9.0 1.72 15.52 Other Misdemeanors (M) 8.9 1.33 11.91 Theft (F) 8.8 0.62 5.46 Failure to Appear Non-Traffic (M) 8.7 2.48 21.53 Other Drugs (F) 7.9 0.01 0.07 Disturbing the Peace (M) 7.4 0.06 0.41 Selected Traffic Violations (M) 7.2 2.86 20.59 Motor Vehicle Theft (F) 7.1 0.29 2.04 Violent Offenses (F) 7.0 2.52 17.61 Malicious Mischief (M) 6.9 0.02 0.17 Marijuana (F) 6.8 0.35 2.38 Trespassing (M) 6.0 0.57 3.40 Liquor Laws (M) 6.0 0.11 0.68 All Misdemeanor 5.7 16.68 95.84 Prostitution (M) 5.6 0.40 2.26 Other Theft (M) 5.3 0.09 0.46 Assault (F) 5.3 2.12 11.23 Forcible Rape (F) 5.2 0.03 0.15 Burglary Tools (M) 5.2 0.06 0.29 Assault and Battery (M) 5.2 1.98 10.23 Arson (F) 4.9 0.05 0.24 Dangerous Drugs (F) 4.5 0.67 3.03 Marijuana (M) 3.9 0.01 0.02 Petty Theft (M) 3.9 0.69 2.72 Drunk (M) 3.4 3.31 11.20 Lewd Conduct (M) 2.8 0.04 0.12 Dangerous Drugs 2.6 0.06 0.15 Hit and Run (M) 2.6 0.05 0.12 Manslaughter Vehicular (F) 2.6 0.01 0.02 Annoying Children (M) 2.6 0.01 0.02 City / County Ordinances (M) 2.6 0.01 0.02 Disorderly Conduct (M) 2.6 0.16 0.41 Driving Under the Influence (M) 2.3 1.80 4.20 Vandalism (M) 2.0 0.23 0.46 Indecent Exposure (M) 2.0 0.01 0.02 Hit and Run (F) 1.7 0.04 0.07 Obscene Matter (M) 1.3 0.02 0.02 Driving Under the Influence (F) 1.2 0.12 0.15 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 178 Appendix C: Description of SFPDP Process Diagram and Terminology “Eligible for Pretrial Release” is the largest and most inclusive category in the SFPDP system. It includes all individuals in the entire SFPDP data set. Eligible for Pretrial Release is not a term used in the SFPDP database, but rather a term BI created, after discussions with Reentry Staff, to label everyone in the SFPDP database. “Eligible for Pretrial Release” is the base of comparison for much of the analysis conducted with regard to pretrial release. “Interviewed,” indicates an individual was interviewed to determine eligibility for presentation to the duty commissioner. “Not Interviewed” is a term BI created to include all individuals that did not, for whatever reason, get interviewed to determine if they could be presented to the duty commissioner. “Other: Bailed, Cited, or Dismissed” is represents individuals that are cited out, bailed out, or have their case dismissed at some stage in the process, but not at arraignment or by the duty commissioner. Within this category “Bailed,” “Cited,” and “Dismissed”, some dispositions are distinguished within the SFPDP database as “Before Presentation” (BP), i.e., before presentation to the duty commissioner. These individuals were denoted by a BP prefix to their disposition in the SFPDP Rebooking Status variable. For example, both of these are dispositions within the SFPDP system: “Bailed” and “BP Bailed.” These distinctions are not relevant for this analysis and were therefore omitted. “Presented to Duty Commissioner” means that an individual was interviewed for eligibility and then presented to the duty judge. BI focused on two types of dispositions: “Granted OR by Commissioner” and “Denied OR by Commissioner.” “Granted OR by Commissioner” indicates that an individual who was interviewed and presented to the duty commissioner was then released on their Own Recognizance (OR) by the duty judge. This can happen in two ways, either regular ORPJ or Supervised-ORPJ (terminology used within the SFPDP database), the only difference being the reporting requirements. Correspondingly “Denied OR by Commissioner” means that the individual was not granted ORPJ or Supervised-ORPJ. Another disposition at the Duty Commissioner stage is ORNF stands for “Own Recognizance Not Filed.” ORNF is a designation within the SFPDP system that means the staff did not file the case for a variety of reasons, for example a person would have been presented to the duty judge, but they paid bail before their case was concluded or their case was dismissed. These individuals were not counted in the “Granted OR by Commissioner” category. Persons who were considered “ineligible” (SFPDP database terminology) for a duty commissioner outcome were subtracted from the total number of individuals presented for a given quarter, i.e., the denominator, for each analysis conducted. These individuals are only included in the totals listed, for example at the top of the SFPDP System Flow, and are not part of the rate (percentage) calculations. An individual is considered “ineligible” because of a hold on their file that precludes a duty judge from releasing that individual, for example, an ICE hold. This applies to the entire three and a half year duty commissioner outcome trends. “Presented at Arraignment” includes all individuals that were actually arraigned. There are several paths through the SFPDP process for a person to end in the “Presented at Arraignment” category. BI focused on whether a person was granted or denied “Pretrial Release at Arraignment.” Persons who had an arraignment status of “Hold” (SFPDP database terminology) were subtracted from the total number of individuals presented for a given quarter, i.e., the denominator. These individuals are only included in the totals listed, for example at the top of the SFPDP System Flow, and are not part of the rate (percentage) calculations. An individual with a hold is not eligible for release at arraignment due to, for example, an ICE hold. This applies to the entire three and a half year arraignment outcome trends. “Granted Pretrial Release at Arraignment” is a category that means that a person at arraignment was released by the court either on CTOR or Supervised-CTOR (terminology in the SFPDP database), the only difference being reporting requirements. “Denied Pretrial Release at Arraignment” means that once an individual was arraigned, he or she was denied CTOR. All the relevant information regarding this process is stored in four separate columns of data in the SFPDP data base: interview status (whether an individual was interviewed or not), rebooking status (whether an individual was released before presentation to the duty commissioner or before presentation at arraignment), duty judge 41 outcome (whether an individual was released or denied release by the duty commissioner), and arraignment outcome (whether an individual was released or denied). Due to the fact that within the base of all individuals various conclusions could occur leading to a lack of contiguity and because of a lack of a non-variable base (for example, all arrested), the only basis for comparison in most cases was whether an individual was eligible for an interview (defined above). 41 The term “judge” is used in the SFPDP database and not “commissioner” which is the more appropriate term, according to staff. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 179 Appendix D: Conviction/Sentencing Data Conviction Numbers Broken Down by Gender and Race/Ethnicity for Each Year TOTAL White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total 2011 1352 1877 235 261 9 168 3902 2012 1588 1544 426 370 6 230 4164 2013 1355 1769 711 406 24 161 4426 2014 668 840 359 173 7 79 2126 Total 4963 6030 1731 1210 46 638 14618 MALE White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total 2011 1155 1563 209 225 8 155 3315 2012 1291 1281 388 300 5 191 3456 2013 1126 1438 619 338 18 138 3677 2014 539 696 326 140 7 74 1782 Total 4111 4978 1542 1003 38 558 12230 FEMALE White Black Latino API Nat. Am. Other Total 2011 197 314 26 36 1 13 587 2012 297 263 38 70 1 39 708 2013 229 331 92 68 6 23 749 2014 129 144 33 33 0 5 344 Total 852 1052 189 207 8 80 2388 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 180 Top 25 Charges Resulting In Conviction (2011 through Q2 2014) White Black Latino API Native American Other Total DUI (M) [23152(B)VC] 900 278 393 280 4 178 2033 Burglary (F) [459PC] 249 412 47 38 2 22 770 Reckless Driving (M) [23103VC] 244 72 70 120 2 55 563 Burglary (M) [459PC] 200 256 37 47 3 11 554 Sale or Transport of Controlled Substance (F) [11352(A)HS] 71 361 43 13 0 16 504 DUI (M) [23152(A)VC] 205 73 59 67 1 49 454 "SOLICIT SPECIF H AND S ACTS" (M) [653F(D)PC] 150 206 31 13 0 11 411 Battery (M) [242PC] 120 101 54 31 1 21 328 Receiving Stolen Property (M) [496(A)PC] 103 147 34 19 0 13 316 Possession of Controlled Substance (M) [11350(B)HS] 53 189 19 8 0 9 278 Grand Theft (F) [487(C)PC] 32 201 28 10 0 7 278 Possession of Controlled Substance (F) [11350(A)HS] 50 195 16 7 0 6 274 Theft (M) [484A4905PC] 131 94 19 25 1 4 274 Possession of Methamphetamines (M) [11377(A)HS] 150 61 27 14 0 6 258 Robbery (F) [211PC] 27 176 32 14 0 6 255 Receiving Stolen Property (F) [496(A)PC] 64 98 30 15 0 5 212 ADW (F) [245(A)1PC] 58 98 29 12 2 10 209 Assault GBI (F) [245(A)4PC ] 48 95 37 15 0 1 196 Possession for Sales (F) [11351HS] 19 141 13 4 1 6 184 Possession of Concentrated Cannibis (M) [11357(C)HS] 101 48 13 7 1 6 176 Drug Possession for Sale (F) [11351,5HS] 8 129 10 2 0 1 150 Possession of Methamphetamines for Sale (F) [11378HS] 78 35 18 14 1 4 150 Domestic Battery (M) [243(E)1PC] 46 58 29 8 0 6 147 Vandalism (M) [594(B)1PC] 63 51 20 7 1 5 147 Accessory After the Fact (M) [32PC] 32 64 20 14 0 2 132 All Other 1706 2236 584 397 21 177 5121 Total 4963 6030 1731 1210 46 638 14618 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 181 Top 25 Convicted Charges Resulting In Sentence to Jail/Probation (2011 through Q2 2014) White Black Latino API Native American Other Total DUI (M) [23152(B)VC] 888 268 384 276 3 177 1996 Reckless Driving (M) [23103VC] 239 67 65 119 2 50 542 Burglary (F) [459PC] 138 249 30 27 1 13 458 DUI (M) [23152(A)VC] 202 68 56 67 0 47 440 Burglary (M) [459PC] 143 184 29 43 1 10 410 Sale or Transport of Controlled Substance (F) [11352(A)HS] 64 238 33 4 0 13 352 "SOLICIT SPECIF H AND S ACTS" (M) [653F(D)PC] 126 158 25 10 0 9 328 Battery (M) [242PC] 99 80 45 25 0 19 268 Possession of Controlled Substance (F) [11350(A)HS] 42 170 14 7 0 5 238 Receiving Stolen Property (M) [496(A)PC] 76 107 26 18 0 10 237 Possession of Controlled Substance (M) [11350(B)HS] 46 144 14 3 0 6 213 Grand Theft (F) [487(C)PC] 21 143 18 9 0 7 198 Possession of Methamphetamines (M) [11377(A)HS] 107 46 19 11 0 5 188 Theft (M) [484A4905PC] 83 57 12 15 0 2 169 Assault GBI (F) [245(A)4PC ] 40 74 34 14 0 1 163 Possession of Concentrated Cannabis (M) [11357(C)HS] 91 35 11 6 1 6 150 Receiving Stolen Property (F) [496(A)PC] 44 68 24 8 0 4 148 Robbery (F) [211PC] 14 89 18 7 0 2 130 ADW (F) [245(A)1PC] 36 53 15 9 0 8 121 Vandalism (M) [594(B)1PC] 51 41 17 6 1 5 121 Domestic Battery (M) [243(E)1PC] 41 43 24 6 0 5 119 Drug Possession for Sale (F) [11351,5HS] 8 84 7 1 0 0 100 Possession of Methamphetamines for Sale (F) [11378HS] 54 21 12 8 0 3 98 Possession for Sales (F) [11351HS] 12 71 7 2 1 4 97 Assault (M) [245(A)1PC] 41 39 6 6 0 2 94 All Other 1219 1410 414 309 12 129 3493 Total 3925 4007 1359 1016 22 542 10871 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 182 Top 25 Convicted Charges Resulting In Sentence to County Jail (2011 through Q2 2014) White Black Latino API Native American Other Total Burglary (M) [459PC] 57 71 8 4 2 1 143 Burglary (F) [459PC] 62 64 5 5 0 4 140 Theft (M) [484A4905PC] 46 36 6 10 1 2 101 "SOLICIT SPECIF H AND S ACTS" (M) [653F(D)PC] 23 47 6 3 0 2 81 Receiving Stolen Property (M) [496(A)PC] 27 40 8 1 0 3 79 Possession of Methamphetamines (M) [11377(A)HS] 43 15 8 3 0 1 70 Sale or Transport of Controlled Substance (F) [11352(A)HS] 6 53 3 4 0 1 67 Possession of Controlled Substance (M) [11350(B)HS] 7 43 5 5 0 3 63 Parole Revocation (F) [3455(A)PC] 8 42 7 3 1 1 62 Battery (M) [242PC] 20 21 9 5 1 2 58 Accessory After the Fact (M) [32PC] 4 27 5 3 0 0 39 Contempt of Court (M) [166(A)4PC] 13 17 1 4 1 0 36 Grand Theft (F) [487(C)PC] 6 22 6 0 0 0 34 DUI (M) [23152(B)VC] 11 10 9 1 1 1 33 Possession for Sales (F) [11351HS] 5 23 3 0 0 0 31 Possession of Methamphetamines for Sale (F) [11378HS] 17 8 4 2 0 0 31 Receiving Stolen Property (F) [496(A)PC] 11 13 5 1 0 0 30 Unlawful Taking of Vehicle (M) [10851(A)VC] 9 11 6 1 0 1 28 Drug Possession for Sale (F) [11351,5HS] 0 25 2 0 0 1 28 Domestic Battery (M) [243(E)1PC] 5 15 5 2 0 1 28 Vandalism (M) [594(B)1PC] 12 10 3 1 0 0 26 Driving Without License (M) [12500(A)VC] 5 15 5 0 0 0 25 Possession of Controlled Substance (F) [11350(A)HS] 5 17 1 0 0 1 24 Resisting Arrest (M) [148(A)1PC] 3 13 6 2 0 0 24 Possession of Concentrated Cannabis (M) [11357(C)HS] 7 13 2 1 0 0 23 All Other 279 398 98 50 6 22 853 Total 746 1224 245 120 18 48 2401 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 183 Top 25 Convicted Charges Resulting In Sentence to State Prison (2011 through Q2 2014) White Black Latino API Native American Other Total Burglary (F) [459PC] 37 72 12 6 1 4 132 Robbery (F) [211PC] 9 63 10 6 0 3 91 ADW (F) [245(A)1PC] 21 37 13 0 2 2 75 Possession for Sales (F) [11351HS] 2 41 3 2 0 2 50 Sale or Transport of Controlled Substance (F) [11352(A)HS] 1 38 7 2 0 2 50 Inflict Corporal Injury on Spouse (F) [273,5(A)PC] 9 29 4 1 0 0 43 Grand Theft (F) [487(C)PC] 5 26 3 1 0 0 35 Felon/Addict in Possession of Weapon (F) [12021A1PC] 4 26 2 2 0 0 34 Receiving Stolen Property (F) [496(A)PC] 7 14 1 6 0 1 29 Assault GBI (F) [245(A)4PC ] 5 15 3 0 0 0 23 Felon in Possession of Weapon (F) [29800A1PC] 2 17 1 1 0 1 22 Possession of Methamphetamines for Sale (F) [11378HS] 6 6 1 4 0 1 18 Reckless Evading of Police Officer (F) [2800,2AVC] 4 9 2 0 1 2 18 Drug Possession for Sale (F) [11351,5HS] 0 14 1 1 0 0 16 Elder Abuse (F) [368(B)1PC] 3 7 0 2 0 0 12 Unlawful Taking of Vehicle (F) [10851(A)VC] 4 4 1 1 0 1 11 Grand Theft (F) [487(A)PC] 2 5 2 1 0 0 10 Attempted Robbery (F) [664,211PC] 4 6 0 0 0 0 10 Possession of Controlled Substance (F) [11350(A)HS] 1 7 1 0 0 0 9 Possession of Methamphetamines (F) [11377(A)HS] 1 3 3 1 0 1 9 Criminal Threat (F) [422PC] 3 5 1 0 0 0 9 Possession of Marijuana for Sales (F) [11359HS] 0 5 2 1 0 0 8 Assault with Firearm (F) [245(A)2PC] 0 6 2 0 0 0 8 Voluntary Manslaughter (F) [192(A)PC] 0 4 1 1 0 1 7 Indecent Exposure (F) [314,1PC] 2 5 0 0 0 0 7 All Other 47 107 25 10 1 10 200 Total 179 571 101 49 5 31 936 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 184 The W. Haywood Burns Institute 475 14th Street, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 415.321.4100 415.321.4140 fax info@burnsinstitute.org April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 185 Descript Ethnic di backgrou unity and with a ten Course D 1 hour(s) Lessons: Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 4 Lesson 5 Lesson 6 Lesson 7 Lesson 8 Summary Workp tion: iversity is ra unds or cultu d tolerance to n-question e Duration: ) : - Benefits o 2 - Challenge - Creating a 4 - Federal Jo - Who Anti 6 - Filing a C 7 - Dealing w - Resolving y – Summary lace Diver acial, nationa ures. An awa o the workpl exam. of Workplace es of Workpl a Positive W ob Discrimin i-Discrimina Charge with a Charge g a Charge y rsity train al and religio areness abou lace or comm e Diversity lace Diversit Work Atmosp nation Laws ation Laws A e ing provid ous variety o ut different cu munity. This ty phere Affect ded by Ta of groups of p ultures and b s training cou rget Solut people who backgrounds urse has 7 le tions have varyin s helps bring earning mod ng g dules April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 186 County Administrator Risk Management Division 2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 140 Martinez, California 94553 Contra Costa County Risk Management Adm ini stration Fax Number {925) 335-1400 (925) 335-1421 September 10, 2015 In response to an inquiry from the County Administrator’s office, Risk Management would like to offer the following information regarding Contra Costa County’s eLearning Diversity training. What Are the Employer's Responsibilities for Diversity in the Workplace? Employers have an obligation to provide employees with a safe work environment free from discrimination, harassment and intimidation. Without the proper training and management, a diverse workplace can become a breeding ground for behavior and actions that rise to the level of unlawful and unfair employment practices. Therefore, employers have several responsibilities concerning diversity in the workplace. Definition Since the enactment of early nondiscrimination laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the meaning of diversity changed dramatically. In the 1960s, diversity typically referred to differences such as race, color, sex, national origin and religion. In fact, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act specifically prohibits discrimination based on these factors. In later years, the meaning of diversity expanded to include individuals with disabilities, workers age 40 and over, and veterans. However, the definition of diversity in the workplace isn’t confined to the characteristics and status codified by law. Workplace diversity includes differences attributed to generation, culture and work styles, and preferences. Training An employer’s communication policy pertaining to workplace diversity doesn’t end with a simple Equal Opportunity Employer (EOE) stamp. Employers also have a responsibility for training employees and managers on topics related to diversity. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission strongly recommends a workplace diversity component within every employer’s training and development offerings. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 187 The agency states: "Such training should explain the types of conduct that violate the employer’s anti‐harassment policy; the seriousness of the policy; the responsibilities of supervisors and managers when they learn of alleged harassment; and the prohibition against retaliation." New employees, from entry‐level to seasoned workers and from executive leadership to front‐line production workers, must receive company training on workplace diversity. Effective training teaches employees how to recognize behaviors that are inconsistent with company policy and actions that demonstrate lack of respect for differences among employees, customers, vendors and suppliers. Contra Costa County has taken a strong position on ensuring that the workforce learns about the anti‐harassment policy; the seriousness of the policy; communicating the responsibilities of the supervisors and managers as it relates to their respective role in handling alleged harassment; and ensured widespread communication on the importance of completing workplace diversity training. Workplace diversity training is provided through an eLearning platform, Target Solutions. This web‐based platform is an exceptional utility program that offers our county employees efficient, time saving, risk management tools. Target Solutions is used by more than 2,500 public entities nationwide. The platform also monitors key compliance tasks, distributes organizational policies, and manages employee certifications and licenses. The workplace diversity training is self‐paced and cross‐browser compliant with cutting‐edge interactions. On July 1, 2014, David Twa, County Administrator directed all the Department Heads /Directors to ensure that their respective existing staff and new employees be trained according to the County Board of Supervisors’ directive. David Twa’s memo designated the Workplace Diversity training as a mandated training topic. That directive originated from the Board of Supervisors’ Internal Operations report of October 24, 1991. Prior to the memo, this training was not enforced. Through collaboration of David Twa’s memo, the eLearning platform delivery and tracking system, and designating the training as mandatory – 4, 076 Contra Costa County employees have completed the workplace diversity training. Please refer to the table on the following page. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 188 Workplace Diversity Completions by Department As of August 2015 Department Number of Completions Total Number of Employees Treasurer 28 26 108% Auditor 49 52 94% Sheriff's Office 946 1091 87% District Attorney 183 236 78% Child Support Services 164 227 72% County Administrators 120 168 71% Human Resources 32 54 59% County Counsel 24 50 48% County Clerk‐Recorder 27 62 44% Department Heads 10 25 40% Probation 161 417 39% Veteran Services 5 13 38% Health Services 2051 5508 37% Assessor 43 153 28% Animal Services 70 253 28% Board of Supervisors 6 45 13% Library 32 433 7% Public Works 28 397 7% Public Defender 3 87 3% Agriculture 2 73 3% Employment and Human Services 87 3300 3% Retirement 1 55 2% Conservation and Development 4 258 2% Totals: 4076 12983 31% *Total number of employees taken from Target Solutions data, based off CCC PeopleSoft software program; Figures may include temporary employees and contractors. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 189 In Closing Increasing attention to workplace diversity has created a new vernacular which includes buzzwords used to describe employer’s responsibilities for creating workplaces that recognize and appreciate diversity among its workforce. Inclusiveness is one such buzzword. Contra Costa County has a responsibility to practice, not just advertise, inclusiveness. We practice inclusiveness by expanding recruitment practices through innovative outreach methods that produce a wider pool of qualified applicants. Creating a diversity friendly workplace in Contra Costa County isn’t about political correctness, procuring a buzzword, a quota issue, or dodging a consent decree order. It’s about making sure that our employees of all backgrounds and potential employees feel valued. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 190 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES191 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES192 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES193 Fostering a Diverse & Inclusive Workplace TABLE OF CONTENTS ___________________________________________Introduction 2 ________________________________Dimensions of Identity 3 ______________________________________Bias & Stereotype 5 __________________________________Common Challenges 6 _______________________________Breaking Down Barriers 8 _____________________________________________Mentoring 9 _____________________________________________Conclusion 9 © 2000-2014 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 194 Introduction Workplace diversity is a people issue, where we try to understand our differences and similarities. We define diversity broadly to include not just race and gender, but all the different identities and perspectives that people bring, such as profession, education, parental status, geographic location and so forth. Diversity is about including and learning from others who are not the same as us... about dignity and respect for everyone, and about creating a workplace environment that encourages learning from others and leverages the diverse perspectives and contributions. This course has the following objectives: •To increase your understanding of how your identity influences how you perceive others and how others perceive you •To understand our filters and how filters create barriers •To leverage our differences to create more business value •To foster and promote a more diverse, inclusive workplace Why is Diversity Important What is the business case for diversity? Certainly, it is the “right thing to do.” But beyond that, diversity can improve the quality of our workforce and provide us a competitive business advantage. As society changes, our markets and customers change and our workforce must reflect those changes as well. Traditional “minority” groups are now the majority in 6 out of the 8 largest cities in the United States with a combined buying power in the billions of dollars. Women are the primary investors in more than half of U.S. households. A diverse workforce can better understand our customers, identify market needs and suggest potential new products and services. Diversity initiatives can attract the best and brightest employees to our workplace. Our future depends on the quality of our employees today and our ability to attract and retain the top-notch talent of tomorrow. We also need a diverse workforce to increase our creativity and innovation since employees from varied backgrounds can bring different perspectives, ideas and solutions to the table. Our society is quickly changing and it's up to us to broaden our horizons and expand our awareness of different types of people. Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 2 PAGE 2 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 195 Dimensions of Identity In order to understand and foster diversity, we all need to become aware of and understand our own social and personal characteristics and how those characteristics influence our perspective. We also need to understand the characteristics of other people with whom we work and do business. The first step to awareness is to understand the 4 dimensions of identity: •Individual •Primary •Secondary •Universal Individual identity means those core characteristics that make up our unique personality and perspective on life. Primary identity refers to those characteristics that we cannot easily change such as our race, gender, age, and so forth. Secondary identity consists of characteristics that are more easily changed such as our marital status, religion, education, income level, and so on. Universal identity means those traits we all share and can understand in one another such as our love for our family. Individual Identity We all have a unique way of interacting with others and a unique perspective. Individual identity is the most powerful motivator of how a particular person will think or act. Our individual identity is far more relevant and predictive of how we will act than our primary or secondary identity. So, understanding someone’s individual identity is the best way to understand and predict that person's behavior and reactions. Primary Identity Our primary identity consists of core characteristics that have a powerful effect on our perspective AND on how others perceive us. Examples of primary identity include: •Race •Gender •Age •Ethnicity and National Origin •Disabilities Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 3 PAGE 3 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 196 •Sexual Orientation According to the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), the 9 factors we first notice about someone are: •Race •Gender •Age •Appearance •Facial expressions •Eye contact •Movement •Personal space •Touch We notice what matters to us. So the fact that race, gender, and age are the top three things we notice about someone indicates the role our primary identity plays in how we perceive others and how others perceive us. Secondary Identity Our secondary identity can change over time, but it also affects our perspective and how others perceive us. Secondary identity dimensions can include: •Marital or parental status •Religion •Education •Income level •Geographic location •Career •Sports, hobbies or other personal interests The primary and secondary identity dimensions can either be a source of commonality between people, OR, a difference that separates people. Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 4 PAGE 4 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 197 Universal Identity Our universal identity includes those traits we all share and can relate to as human beings across the globe such as: •Love for family •Need to support family •Need for dignity and respect •Need for esteem and a sense of belonging Bias & Stereotype As we mature, our perspective on people and situations increasingly stems from our life experiences and the attitudes of our friends and family. While this is a very natural evolution, it also creates blinders that cloud how you view people. These blinders become stereotypes and biases. What are Stereotypes and Biases? A stereotype is a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image. Bias is a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment. Identifying Your Blinders Blinders are intangible feelings that get in the way of facts. To identify blinders, ask yourself questions such as: •Do I have the same reaction to members of a given group each time you encounter him or her? •Do I have these reactions before--or after--I have a chance to know the individual? If the answer is “before you know the individual,” you’re operating on stereotypes and blinders. Work to label these automatic responses as stereotypes and remind yourself that they are not valid indicators of one’s character, skills or personality. Stereotyping is a learned habit, and it can be unlearned with practice. Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 5 PAGE 5 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 198 Common Challenges Diversity challenges can stem from all types of identity differences. However, there are a few common diversity challenges that we all seem to experience and that would be helpful to explore further. Gender The gender difference is arguably the greatest difference and therefore, the greatest challenge for people working together. Race Race and cultural background plays a big factor in either uniting or dividing people, depending on whether a person is “in the group” or outside it. When fostering an inclusive workplace, the key is to get to know and include all types of people... not just those who look and act like you. National Origin & Cultural Differences In today’s society, it’s relatively common to work alongside people who were born in different countries and exposed to very different cultural backgrounds. Also, given increasing globalization, it’s easy for any company to conduct business globally and work with people from all over the world. Therefore, becoming more aware of cultural differences is essential. Not surprisingly, it’s easier for people to accurately recognize emotions within their own culture than in others. A Chinese businessperson is more likely to accurately label the emotions underlying the facial expressions of a Chinese colleague than those of an American colleague. So here is a diversity tip: people need to know the emotional norms in each culture they do business in, or the cultures of the people they work with, to minimize unintended signals or miscommunications. Expanding your knowledge base and doing a little cultural research could provide huge dividends. Religion Every year some people in the workplace feel excluded and/or uncomfortable during the holiday season. Remember that many religions have important celebrations not only during the month of Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 6 PAGE 6 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 199 December, but at other times of the year as well. Be respectful and be inclusive of everyone's celebration. Language This is one of the most common tensions in today's workforce. A growing percentage of the workforce speaks two or more languages. Be respectful and be open-minded. Don't assume someone is talking about you if he or she is speaking in a language you can't understand. If you are multilingual, try to avoid speaking in another language in front of others who can't understand, as it often makes them feel uncomfortable and excluded. Generational Issues While each generation has its merits and strengths, their weaknesses and stereotypes can cause tension and disrespect. Younger workers may not appreciate or understand the intense work lives of Baby Boomers. Each generation also has a different view of, and approach to communication. While you may not subscribe to the text-messaging habits of Millennials, it's important to appreciate every generation's modes of communication to better manage an age- diverse staff. The chart below shows some generalized differences between the 4 generations working together in today’s workplace. Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 7 PAGE 7 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 200 Breaking Down Barriers We are each responsible for changing our stereotypes and taking down our blinders. Here, we will look at five easy steps to minimize blinders and foster a more inclusive environment. Break Assumptions •Collect information •Divide out the facts from your opinions and theories •Make judgment based only on the facts •Periodically refine your judgment based on the facts •Try to continue expanding your opinion of a person's potential. Empathize In order understand people from different cultures, empathy is vital. Try to put yourself in someone else’s shoes to see or appreciate their point of view. Involve Learn about the values and beliefs of others in the organization. Involving others in your world and involving yourself in other’s empowers and educates. Identify ways to value uniqueness among your colleagues. Look for ways to be inclusive and don’t build walls between people. Avoid Herd Mentality Herd mentality refers to a one-dimensional, group perspective. This way of thinking curbs creativity, innovation and advancement as people are limited in how they can approach or engage with different types of people. An inclusive environment can only develop if people are encouraged to think as individuals, and share their different ideas and perspectives. Do Not Tolerate Insensitive Behavior People can and do behave insensitively. By attacking someone’s person, you attack their dignity, which can only be divisive. Cultural competency is based upon people thinking through words and actions to ensure they do not act inappropriately. When insensitive behavior is witnessed, it is the responsibility of all to shun it and ensure it remains unacceptable. Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 8 PAGE 8 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 201 Mentoring Mentors can be critical to an employee's success in an organization. Providing strong mentors helps employees develop confidence, competence and credibility in an organization - traits that lead to career advancement. Mentors provide critical support in 5 ways: •Mentoring relationships open the door to challenging assignments that allow employees to gain professional competence. •By trusting and investing in the employee, a mentor sends a signal to the rest of the organization that the employee is a high performer, which helps the employee gain confidence and establish credibility. •Mentors provide crucial career advice and counsel that prevents their protégés from getting sidetracked from the path leading to the executive level. •Mentors often become powerful sponsors later in the employee's career, recruiting them repeatedly to new positions. •Mentors protect their protégés by confronting subordinates or peers who level unfair criticism, especially if the criticism has discriminatory undertones. All in all, mentoring is a win, win strategy. It helps the career advancement of employees AND it helps the organization DEVELOP and RETAIN diverse talent. Conclusion Fostering diversity is good for business. As organizations compete in an increasingly global marketplace, the different perspectives and experiences gained by having a rich mix of employees will be important to produce creative thinking, innovative solutions and a broader appeal to a larger customer base. But to foster diversity, we first need to appreciate the strength we gain from our differences and diversity. Here are 4 ways to show our appreciation for diversity: •Value it: Valuing differences is a critical first step in melding a productive and inclusive workforce. Differences are an advantage, but only if you recognize them as such. •Demonstrate: Talk is easy. Demonstrating your appreciation of differences and helping to create a more inclusive environment is more difficult. Be willing to consider and/or implement new ideas and ways of dealing with issues. •Reward: You need to reward people who demonstrate an appreciation for everyone's uniqueness. Rewarding inclusive behavior is critical. Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 9 PAGE 9 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 202 •Learn: Learn from colleagues whose value base and experiences are different from yours. Your efforts at learning send a message to your colleagues that you appreciate and value their differences. What develops when you are willing to learn from others is mutual respect, better communication and a greater understanding among everyone. By understanding our own identity and blinders, and those of others, we can understand and appreciate our differences. By appreciating and being sensitive to our differences, we can foster a diverse and inclusive workplace, and leverage our diversity for our benefit. Questions? Feel free to ask questions about this topic by emailing legalteam@emtrain.com © Emtrain 2014 1.800.242.6099 Updated Monday, April 21, 2014 Fostering Diversity in the Workplace Printable Guide 10 PAGE 10 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 203 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, January 2015 | kingcounty.gov/equity | 1 Inclusion, Belonging, and Excellence for One King County: Addressing Implicit Bias, Racial Anxiety, and Stereotype Threat A Note to Participants Thank you for being brave and open while you participate in this discussion, and for your commitment to ending racism within our lifetime. This session is designed to foster a nurturing community of learning, where all participants feel empowered to share and have positive interactions. Achieving Fairness and Opportunity in King County Government Practices Ensuring fairness and opportunity in how we operate as King County government and how we serve our communities, requires proactively dismantling institutional and structural racism. The concepts and tools provided in this discussion enable us to actively and effectively promote equitable outcomes in our workplaces and communities. Taking an Implicit Association Test (IAT) Before you join this discussion, please take the Race Implicit Association Test and at least one other IAT of your choice: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html A considerable part of this discussion is about understanding our individual unconscious biases – yes, we all have them. The IAT is an educational tool that evaluates a baseline of some of our most common unconscious biases. The IAT can only be taken on a computer. It is advised that you take the IATs in a private place where you feel comfortable. Feedback How did it go? Share your insights with jake.ketchum@kingcounty.gov, candace.jackson@kingcounty.gov, or arun.sambataro@kingcounty.gov. PARTICIPANT GUIDE April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 204 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, January 2015 | kingcounty.gov/equity | 2 Inclusion, Belonging, and Excellence for One King County: Addressing Implicit Bias, Racial Anxiety, and Stereotype Threat Participant Guide* Total time = 90 minutes Part 1: Getting Started (15 minutes) Purpose: Achieve King County Equity and Social Justice foundational practice of “fostering an organizational culture that promotes fairness and opportunity.”† Discussion Goals 1. Understand the concept of implicit bias and begin to identify our individual biases. 2. Learn how we experience racial anxiety and stereotype threat, and how these experiences impact our workplace and community interactions. 3. Discuss ways to mitigate implicit bias at decision points: Hiring Work relationships Policy (drafting, interpretation, implementation) Community engagement Customer service Personnel supervision * Revised by Rachel Godsil from Within Our Lifetime Facilitator Guide created by Patrick L. Scully, Ph.D. Clearview Consulting, LLC. Adapted for King County Equity and Social Justice. For more information, see http://www.withinourlifetime.net/Blog/index.html † King County Ordinance 16948. October 2010 (Pg. 4, Line 80.) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 205 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, January 2015 | kingcounty.gov/equity | 3 Guidelines for Multicultural Interactions (by Laurin Mayeno and Elena Featherston, 2006, adapted from VISIONS, Inc.) Be present… Bring your full attention to the process. Acknowledge anything that you need to let go of in order to be present. Try on new ideas, perspectives… Be willing to open up to new territory and break through old patterns. Remember, “try on” is not the same as “take on.” It’s OK to disagree… Avoid attacking, discounting or judging the beliefs and views of others. Instead, welcome disagreement as an opportunity to expand your world. Confidentiality… It helps to remember that the story belongs to the teller. Step up, step back… Be aware of sharing space in the group. Respect the different rhythms in the room; it is ok to be with silence. Self-awareness… Respect and connect to your thoughts, feelings and reactions in the process. Monitor the content, the process and yourself. Check out assumptions… This is an opportunity to learn more about yourself and others; do not “assume” you know what is meant by a communication especially when it triggers you – ask questions. Practice “both/and” thinking… Making room for more than one idea at a time means appreciating and valuing multiple realities. Intent is different from impact… and both are important. It is also important to own our ability to have a negative impact in another person’s life despite our best intention. Listen deeply… Listen with intent to hear, listen for the entire content and what is behind the words. Engage heart and mind -- listen with alert compassion. Speak from the “I… is speaking from one’s personal experience rather than saying “we,” it allows us to take ownership of thoughts, feelings and actions. Instructions for Participants Around your table/group, share what you hope to get out of this discussion. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 206 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, January 2015 | kingcounty.gov/equity | 4 Part 2: Understanding the Concepts (45 minutes, with video) Implicit bias refers to the process of associating stereotypes or attitudes toward categories of people without conscious awareness. Racial anxiety is discomfort about the experience and potential consequences of inter-racial interaction: People of color can be anxious that they will be the target of discrimination and hostile or distant treatment; Whites can be anxious that they will be assumed to be racist and, therefore, will be met with distrust or hostility. People experiencing racial anxiety often engage in less eye contact, have shorter interactions, and generally seem—and feel—awkward. Not surprisingly, if two people are both anxious that an interaction will be negative, it often is. So racial anxiety can result in a negative feedback loop in which both parties’ fears appear to be confirmed by the behavior of the other. Stereotype threat occurs when a person is concerned that she will confirm a negative stereotype about her group. When people are aware of a negative stereotype about their group in a domain in which they are identified, their attention is split between the activity at hand and concerns about being seen stereotypically. Implicit Association Test (drawing from Discussion Materials, Patricia Devine) (15+minutes) Questions for Participants Have you taken the Race IAT and one other IAT of your choice? What are your thoughts or reactions? What does it mean for how you work with your colleagues? The public? If you took the Race IAT and found it easier to pair white faces with positive words and black faces with negative words or the Gender IAT and found it easier to associate words linked to work with men and family to women, you are not alone. More than 85% of whites are shown to have a “preference” for whites, for example. The good news is that this “preference” is not fixed – you can change it – and that you can make sure your behavior is not affected by this automatic response that is not consistent with your conscious beliefs. Short video from Rachel Godsil’s presentation at the 2014 ESJ Annual Forum – Building a Culture of Equity (28 min.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGlRt-5HX_E&feature=em-share_video_user April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 207 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, January 2015 | kingcounty.gov/equity | 5 Part 3: Preventing Effects of Implicit Bias (30 minutes) It is important that people consciously engage in the process (Wald and Tropp*‡, 2013): Have intention and motivation to bring about change Become aware of bias Pay attention to when stereotypical responses or assumptions are activated Make time to practice new strategies Instructions for Participants Take a moment to review the interventions handout. (2 min.) We will focus on the interventions that we can practice easily on our own as individuals, and start to develop immediately within our workplaces, to bring about positive change. Individual Interventions Institutional Interventions Improve Conditions of Decision-making§ Count ‡ Wald, J., Tropp, L. Strategies for Reducing Racial Bias and Anxiety in Schools (PDF document). Retrieved from http://www.onenationindivisible.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Strategies-for-Reducing-Racial-Bias-and-Anxiety-in- Schools_Wald-and-Tropp.pdf That’s Elena: Mexican- American, from San Francisco, IT manager, loves skiing. That’s Steve: Korean- American, from NYC, Parks supervisor, loves hip-hop. Filipino- Individuation That’s James: African-American epidemiologist, from Auburn, enjoys traveling. Stereotype Replacement Increasing opportunities for contact April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 208 King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, January 2015 | kingcounty.gov/equity | 6 Questions for Participants Consider a specific decision point (select one from list on page 2) and discuss how we can apply these concepts and interventions that we reviewed above, during decision-making to minimize/eliminate negative impact. 1. What are some known risk areas where bias can influence interactions and decision- making? 2. How is implicit bias, racial anxiety, or stereotype threat at play? 3. How can you determine whether bias, racial anxiety or stereotype threat might be impacting decisions? 4. Which of the interventions (see definitions sheet) are likely to be most useful and how can they be applied to the situation? 5. How will you measure success? FOOD for THOUGHT (additional reading on these mind sciences) Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People by Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald, explore hidden biases that we all carry from a lifetime of experiences with social groups – age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, social class, sexuality, disability status, or nationality. Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do (Issues of Our Time) by Claude M. Steele offers a vivid first-person account of the research that supports his groundbreaking conclusions on stereotypes and identity. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 209 Guidelines for Multicultural Interactions Be present…Let go of anything that might be a distraction (deadlines, paperwork, children, etc.) and be intentional about your purpose in this moment. Bring your full attention to the process. Acknowledge anything that you need to let go of in order to be present. Try on new ideas, perspectives … as well as concepts and experiences that are different than your own. Be willing to open up to new territory and break through old patterns. Remember, “try on” is not the same as “take on.” It’s OK to disagree… Avoid attacking, discounting or judging the beliefs and views of others. Discounting can be verbally or non-verbally. Instead, welcome disagreement as an opportunity to expand your world. Ask questions to understand the other person’s perspective. Confidentiality…There is another dimension of confidentiality that includes “asking permission” to share or discuss any statement another person makes of a personal nature. It helps to remember that the story belongs to the teller. Step up, step back… Be aware of sharing space in the group. If you are person who shares easily, leave space for others to step into. Respect the different rhythms in the room, it is ok to be with silence. If you are a person who doesn’t speak often, consider stepping forward and sharing your wisdom and perspective. Self awareness… Respect and connect to your thoughts, feelings and reactions in the process. Be aware of your inner voice and own where you are by questioning why you are reacting, thinking and feeling as you do. Monitor the content, the process and yourself. Check out assumptions…This is an opportunity to learn more about yourself and others; do not “assume” you know what is meant by a communication especially when it triggers you – ask questions. Practice “both/and” thinking… Making room for more than one idea at a time means appreciating and valuing multiple realities (it is possible to be both excited and sad at the same time) – your own and others. While either/or thinking has it place it can often be a barrier to human communication Intent is different from impact… and both are important. It is also important to own our ability to have a negative impact in another person’s life despite our best intention. In generous listening, if we assume positive intent rather than judging or blaming, we can respond, rather than reacting or attacking when negative impact occurs. Listen deeply …Listen with intent to hear, listen for the entire content and what is behind the words. Encourage and respect different points of view and different ways of communicating. Engage heart and mind -- listen with alert compassion. Speak from the “I”…is speaking from one’s personal experience rather than saying “we,” it allows us to take ownership of thoughts, feelings and actions Laurin Mayeno and Elena Featherston, 2006 Adapted from VISIONS, Inc. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 210 Inclusion, Belonging and Excellence for One King County: Addressing Implicit Bias, Racial Anxiety, and Stereotype Threat | kingcounty.gov/equity | 1 Definitions of Interventions* Implicit Bias Interventions Studies have shown that people who engage in the strategies described below reduce their implicit bias, are more aware of and concerned about discrimination, and are more enthusiastic about inter-racial contact. (Devine et al, 2012) The following are steps that individuals can take to “break the prejudice habit” (Devine et al, 2012): Stereotype replacement: 1) Recognize that a response is based on stereotypes, 2) label the response as stereotypical, and 3) reflect on why the response occurred. This creates a process to consider how the biased response could be avoided in the future and replaces it with an unbiased response. Counter-stereotypic imaging: Imagine counter-stereotypic others in detail – friends, co-workers, respected community members, even celebrities. This makes positive images more available and begins the process of replacing the negative, often inaccurate stereotypes. Individuation: Learn specific information about your colleagues. This prevents stereotypic assumptions and enables association based on personal and unique, rather than group, characteristics. Perspective taking: Imagine oneself to be a member of a stereotyped group. This increases psychological closeness to the stereotyped group, which ameliorates automatic group-based evaluations. Increasing opportunities for contact: Increased contact between groups can reduce implicit bias through a wide variety of mechanisms, including altering their images of the group or by directly improving evaluations of the group. (Ex: learn about other cultures by attending community events and other public educational opportunities like exhibits, media, etc.) Institutions can establish practices to prevent these biases from seeping into decision-making. A group of researchers developed these four interventions listed, which have been found to be constructive (Kang et al., 2011): 1. Doubt Objectivity: Presuming oneself to be objective actually tends to increase the role of implicit bias; teaching people about non-conscious thought * Revised by King County Office of Equity and Social Justice in collaboration with Rachel Godsil. Adapted from Within Our Lifetime Facilitator Guide created by Patrick L. Scully, Ph.D. Clearview Consulting, LLC. For more information, see http://www.withinourlifetime.net/Blog/index.html April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 211 Inclusion, Belonging and Excellence for One King County: Addressing Implicit Bias, Racial Anxiety, and Stereotype Threat | kingcounty.gov/equity | 2 processes will lead people to be skeptical of their own objectivity and better able to guard against biased evaluations. 2. Increase Motivation to be Fair: Internal motivations to be fair rather than fear of external judgments tend to decrease biased actions. 3. Improve Conditions of Decision-making: Implicit biases are a function of automaticity. Think slowly by engaging in mindful, deliberate processing, not in the throes of emotions prevents our implicit biases from kicking in and determining our behaviors. 4. Count: Implicitly biased behavior is best detected by using data to determine whether patterns of behavior are leading to racially disparate outcomes. Once one is aware that decisions or behavior are having disparate outcomes, it is then possible to consider whether the outcomes are linked to bias. Racial Anxiety and Stereotype Threat Interventions Most of these interventions were developed in the context of the threat experienced by people of color and women linked to stereotypes of academic capacity and performance, but can be useful in the work place and are also be translatable to whites who fear confirming the stereotype that they are racist so can be useful in reducing racial anxiety. Social Belonging Intervention: Help employees realize that people of every identity category experience some challenge when they begin a new job or new set of responsibilities but that those feelings abate over time. This has been shown to have the effect of protecting employees from stigmatized identity categories from assuming that they do not belong due to their race or other identity category and helped them develop resilience in the face of adversity. Wise Criticism: Convey high expectations and belief in the capacity to meet them. Giving feedback that communicates both high expectations and a confidence that an individual can meet those expectations minimizes uncertainty about whether criticism is a result of racial bias or favor (attributional ambiguity). If the feedback is merely critical, it may be the product of bias; if feedback is merely positive, it may be the product of racial condescension. Behavioral Scripts: Setting set forth clear norms of behavior and terms of discussion can reduce racial anxiety and prevent stereotype threat from being triggered. Growth Mindset: Teaching people that abilities including the ability to be racially sensitive are learnable/incremental rather fixed has been useful in the stereotype threat context because it can prevent any particular performance for serving as “stereotype confirming evidence.” April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 212 Local and Regional Government alliance on race & EquityEquity WorkshopBuilding Healthy CommunitiesThe California Endowment Staff & PartnersNovember 24, 2014 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES213 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITY• Increase understanding of the role and opportunityfor governmental work on racial equity• Learn about key strategiesto support racial equity work• Enhance understanding of key racial equity conceptsand how they apply to government Objectives:April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES214 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYRacial inequityApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES215 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITY•“Closing the gaps”so that race does not predict one’s success, while also improving outcomes for all •To do so, have to: Target strategies to focus improvements for those worse offMove beyond “services”and focus on changing policies, institutions and structuresRacial equity means:April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES216 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYSource: Unconscious (Implicit) Bias and Health Disparities: Where Do We Go from Here?Explicit biasExplicit biasExpressed directlyExpressed directlyAware of biasAware of biasOperates consciously Operates consciously Implicit biasImplicit biasExpressed indirectlyExpressed indirectlyUnaware of biasUnaware of biasOperates sub‐consciouslyOperates sub‐consciouslyTypes of biasApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES217 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYJob search – identical resumes, apart from namesMore “white-sounding”names 50% more callbacks for jobs than “African-American sounding”names.Susan SmithLaKeshaWashington50% more call‐backs.Example of implicit biasApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES218 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITY•Suppressing or denying biased thoughts can actually increase prejudice rather than eradicate it. •Research has confirmed that if we openly challenge our biases, we can develop effective strategies and make more progress.What to do with bias?April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES219 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYInstitutional Explicit Institutional ImplicitIndividual ExplicitIndividual ImplicitWhat creates different outcomes?April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES220 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYWhat creates different outcomes?Institutional / ExplicitPolicies which explicitly discriminate against a group.Example: Police department refusing to hire people of color.Institutional / ImplicitPolicies that negatively impact one group unintentionally.Example:Police department focusing on street‐level drug arrests.Individual / ExplicitPrejudice in action –discrimination.Example:Police officer calling someone an ethnic slur while arresting them.Individual / ImplicitUnconscious attitudes and beliefs.Example:Police officer calling for back‐up more often when stopping a person of color.April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES221 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYIndividual racism:•Pre‐judgment, bias, or discrimination by an individual based on race. structuralinstitutionalindividualInstitutional racism:•Policies, practices and procedures that work better for white people than for people of color, often unintentionally or inadvertently.Structural racism:•A history and current reality of institutional racism across all institutions, combining to create a system that negatively impacts communities of color.Re-framing racismApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES222 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYRacial equity in the communityEducationJobsCriminalJusticeHousingEquitable DevelopmentWorking across systems to achieve equityAchieving equityApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES223 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYGovernment explicitly creates and maintains racial inequityExplicit biasDiscrimination illegal, but “race-neutral” policies and practices perpetuate inequity.Implicit biasProactive polices, practices and procedures for achieving racial equityGovernment for racial equityHistory of GovernmentApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES224 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYRacial inequities exist for all indicator for success Individual racismFund targeted services to help those with the greatest needsInstitutional racismFund services that incorporate policy changes. Training curriculum and implementation tools. Integrate racial equity analyses into decision‐making and planning. Structural racismPartner with others to leverage policy and organizational change. Build a national movement within government.Roles for government:But there is greater potential for impact at the institutional and structural levelsEffort has been put into eliminating individual racism Improve outcomes for all and eliminate racial inequitiesThe leverage of government can:Governmental roles in working towards racial equityApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES225 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYTransforming government to proactively work for racial equity Transforming government to proactively work for racial equity Liberates communityLiberates communitySo we can achieve racial equitySo we can achieve racial equityEffect of governmental transformationin communityApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES226 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYGovernment’s work for racial equityExample:• Seattle Race and Social Justice InitiativeApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES227 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYSeattle lessons learned:Develop and use a common analysisBuild capacity and infrastructureChange behavior and use toolsBe data drivenPartner across sectors with communityMove with urgencyApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES228 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITY RACE AND SOCIALJUSTICE COMMUNITY ROUNTABLECORE TEAM- Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement- Workforce Equity- Contracting Equity- Immigrant and Refugee Access to ServicesDirect Reporting RelationshipIndirect Reporting RelationshipCHANGE TEAMS CITY DEPARTMENTS RSJI COORDINATING TEAM (SOCR) RSJI SUB-CABINET MAYOR - CITY COUNCILINTERDEPARTMENTAL TEAMS•Equity in Education•Equitable Development•Equity in Criminal Justice•Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement•Workforce Equity•Contracting Equity•Campaign for Racial EquityGOVERNING FOR RACIAL EQUITYNETWORKWorking GroupsRSJI Strategy Team –The Initiative managing team from the Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR)Change Team –A group of employees in each department that help implement RSJI activities and work plans.Core Team –A Citywide leadership development team of 25 people that work with IDT’s to implement RSJI activities.RSJI Sub‐Cabinet –Department Directors or deputies who advise and review RSJI activities.Interdepartmental Teams –Convened by lead departments to develop and implement Citywide strategies and community partnerships to address racial inequity.RSJ Community Roundtable –A coalition of 25 government and community based organizations working for racial equity in King County.Governing for Racial Equity Network –A regional network of government agencies in Washington, Oregon and northern California working on issues of equity.RSJI STRATEGY TEAMBuild capacityApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES229 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYRSJI Employee Survey 2012“Examine impact of race at work”“Actively promoting RSJI changes”“Dept and City making progress”April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES230 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYCollective impactCommon agendaCommon agendaShared measurementShared measurementMutually reinforcing activitiesMutually reinforcing activitiesContinuous communicationContinuous communicationBackbone organizationBackbone organizationFor racial equityMove with urgencyApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES231 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYCollective impactShared racial foundation, leadership development, capacity buildingRacial equityRacial equity collective impactApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES232 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYMove with urgencyLatest successes:• RACE: are we so different? partnership with Pacific Science• Structural racism partnership fund• Expanded support from new Mayor April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES233 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYGovernment’s work for racial equityEast Salinas•How did it get started? •What is the community’s role? •How is the role of government evolving? •How is healing a part of the work?April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES234 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYData‐driven and accountableData‐driven and accountableInclusion and EngagementInclusion and EngagementIntegrated program and policy strategies Integrated program and policy strategies Structural change / partnershipsStructural change / partnershipsEducate and communicate about racial equityEducate and communicate about racial equityRacial Equity ToolkitApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES235 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITY• A Racial Equity Toolkit can be used in budget, policy and program decisions. • Examples:Streetlights / complaint-based systemsRestrictions on use of criminal background checks in hiring processes Contracting policies and proceduresCourt appearancesRacial Equity ToolkitApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES236 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYpoliticalconceptpoliticalactionVan Jones’s “Heart Space/Head Space Grid” from Rebuild the Dream (2012) How does change occur?April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES237 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYRational Political conceptPoliticalactionEmotionalHEADSPACEHEARTSPACEOUTSIDEGAMEINSIDEGAMEHow does change occur?April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES238 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYHead, heart, inside, outside•All four quadrants are important.•The key is a dynamic balance.Pair‐up –where are you most comfortable? What are your strategies to round‐out the other quadrants?April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES239 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYTransactional /transformational change“The single biggest failure in change initiatives is to treat adaptive challenges like technical problems.”April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES240 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYTransactional /transformational changeTechnical Problems / TransactAdaptive Problem / TransformEasy to identify Easy to deny (difficult to identify) Often lend themselves to routine solutions using skills and experience readily available Require changes in values, beliefs, roles, relationships, and approaches to workOften solved by an authority or expert People with the problem do the work of solving itRequire change in just one or a few places; often contained within organizational boundaries Require change in numerous places; usually cross organizational boundariesPeople are generally receptive to technical solutions People try to avoid the work of “solving” the adaptive challengeSolutions can often be implemented quickly—even by edict“Solutions” require experiments and new discoveries; they can take a long time to implement and cannot be implemented by edictApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES241 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYTechnical Problems / Transact Adaptive Problem / TransformInvite WMBE contractors to apply for contracts.Educate and encourage prime contractors to subcontract with WMBE firms.Change policies driving the resultsTranslate documents for limited English speaking public.Meet with and develop relationships with immigrant and refugee communities.Pass “ban the box” legislation Develop a criminal justice agendaTransactional /transformational examplesApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES242 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYBuilding a movementSmall group discussions at each site –•What are the opportunities and challenges in working for or with government on racial equity? •What are the barriers? April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES243 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYBuilding a movementGovernment Alliance on Race and Equity A national network of government working to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for allApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES244 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYSupport a cohort of governmental jurisdictions. Support a cohort of governmental jurisdictions. Develop a “pathway for entry” for new jurisdictions. Develop a “pathway for entry” for new jurisdictions. Build cross-sector collaborations to achieve equity in our communities. Build cross-sector collaborations to achieve equity in our communities. Alliance ApproachApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES245 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYCommitment to racial equity.Supportive electeds, department leadership and expertise within front-line staff work with communitySupportive stakeholders and partners.Alliance cohortApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES246 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYCustomized local strategies and collective national agendaBest practices – policies and toolsTechnical assistanceTraining / capacity buildingConvenings / organized peer‐to‐peer learningAcademic / philanthropic resourcesPartnerships with communityCohort ModelApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES247 LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITYGovernment Alliance on Race and EquityJulie Nelson, Director(206) 816‐5104Julie.nelson@racialequityalliance.orgCenter for Social InclusionGlenn Harris, Presidentgharris@thecsi.org(206) 790‐0837Contact informationApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES248 Governing for Racial Equity Conference June 11, 2015, Seattle, Washington April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 249 Is incorporating RSJ principles into CJS policy necessary? Is incorporating RSJ principles into CJS policy possible? How do we incorporate RSJ principles into CJS policy? Provide relevant examples within the institutions where RSJ principles have been incorporated… Conversation Guide April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 250 Is incorporating RSJ principles into CJS policy necessary? April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 251 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 252 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 253 How do we compare? April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 254 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 255 Blacks 6.4 X more likely to be incarcerated than whites 30,600 people in jail or prison April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 256 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 257 2012 Washington State Juvenile Justice Annual Report available at dshs.wa.gov April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 258 Washington’s Death Row April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 259 Is incorporating RSJ principles into CJS policy necessary Is incorporating RSJ principles into CJS policy possible How do we incorporate RSJ principles into CJS policy Provide relevant examples within the institutions where RSJ principles have been incorporated… Questions April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 260 2012 Washington State Juvenile Justice Annual Report: DSHS.WA.GOV Task Force on Race and the Criminal Justice System Report: http://www.law.seattleu.edu/centers-and- institutes/korematsu-center/race-and-criminal-justice Racial Equity Toolkit: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/RSJI /RacialEquityToolkit_FINAL_August2012.pdf Resources April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 261 Mercer Island Police Chief Ed Holmes: ed.holmes@mercergov.org Seattle City Attorney Peter Holmes: Peter.Holmes@seattle.gov Dir. Kimberly D. Ambrose: kambrose@uw.edu Prof. Carl Livingston, Jr.: Carl.Livingston@seattlecolleges.edu Panelist Contact Information April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 262 DDDIIISSSPPPRRROOOPPPOOORRRTTTIIIOOONNNAAATTTEEE MMMIIINNNOOORRRIIITTTYYY CCCOOONNNTTTAAACCCTTT RRReeeddduuuccciiinnnggg DDDiiissspppaaarrriiitttyyy iiinnn CCCooonnntttrrraaa CCCooossstttaaa CCCooouuunnntttyyy Prepared by Monique W. Morris, M.S. for the Contra Costa County Probation Officer April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 263 1 Table of Contents PART I: DMC IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1 II. REVIEW OF DMC TRENDS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 4 III. REVIEW OF PROBATION DMC TRAINING ACTIVITIES 7 IV. REVIEW OF DIVERSION PLANNING ACTIVITIES 9 V. OTHER STAKEHOLDER DMC REDUCTION ACTIVITIES 10 PART II: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESPONSES TO DMC TRENDS VI. CONTRA COSTA DMC LOGIC MODEL 13 INPUTS 13 OUTPUTS 15 OUTCOMES 17 VII. CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATIONS 17 IMMEDIATE 18 SHORT‐TERM 19 INTERMEDIATE 21 LONG‐TERM 22 VIII. CONCLUSION 22 IX. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 23 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 264 2 PART I: DMC IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 265 3 I. Introduction and Background In 1974, the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Action (JJDPA) mandated that states address Disproportionate Minority Confinement. In 1988, an amendment to JJDPA required states receiving Formula Grant Funds to address the disproportionate confinement and incarceration of youth of color. Disproportionate Minority Confinement was defined as when the proportion of a minority group1 detained or confined exceeded their proportion in the population. A number of states participating in the data‐driven, outcome focused effort to measure DMC developed and implemented a plan to reduce DMC. In 1992, the amendment to JJDPA became a core requirement to be eligible for future funding. DMC language was changed from Disproportionate Minority Confinement to Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC), so as to include a more complete analysis of the factors that lead to confinement and/or involvement with the justice system at various points along the continuum. National research has found many factors that contribute to Disproportionate Minority Contact, socioeconomic factors, juvenile justice system factors, educational factors, factors associated with the family and society, victimization, legal and legislative factors, and geographical factors have all been found to correlate with the overrepresentation of youth of color in contact with the justice system. The state of California, though the Corrections Standards Authority, has implemented several efforts to comply with federal DMC requirements, including distributing grant applications that prioritize consideration for efforts that focus services on youth of color; hosting regional trainings and meetings that provide information about DMC and strategies for addressing it; including DMC information in other juvenile justice workshops and conferences throughout the state; and facilitating the Enhanced DMC Technical Assistance Project in five counties, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Cruz, Alameda, and Contra Costa County. Since 2005, the effort to examine DMC in Contra Costa County has been led by the Probation Department, under the leadership of Chief Lionel Chatman. Further leadership is provided by a Decision Makers Workgroup, which was formed to bring together the key decision makers in the County’s juvenile justice system to discuss DMC, examine data which would hopefully identify the degree of DMC at various decision points along the justice system, develop recommendations regarding ways to reduce the level of DMC, and lead the implementation of next steps to be taken in this ongoing process. The Decision Making Workgroup is composed entirely of department heads or executive level staff of the various agencies who have some involvement in the 1 “Minority group” includes the following racial and ethnic classifications: Asian Pacific American, African American, Latino/Hispanic American, and Native American. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 266 4 juvenile justice system. Its members include the County Probation Officer, the District Attorney, the Presiding Juvenile Court Judge, an Assistant Public Defender, Representatives from the County Board of Supervisors, a representative for the County Administrator’s Office, Director of Employment and Human Services, Director of Health Services, County Superintendent of Schools, Chief of the Concord Police Department, Chief of the Richmond Police Department, and the Undersheriff. The selection of members was, to some degree, influenced by the scope of this project, which was designed to study the issue of DMC in three specific areas: the City of Richmond, the city of Bay Point, and the community in the City of Concord known as the Monument Corridor. II. Review of DMC Trends in Contra Costa County Data findings analyzed in 2006 revealed that racial disparities in the three target areas were most prevalent at the early stages of the juvenile justice continuum, specifically at the points of arrest and referral to probation. In all three areas, disparities were found for African American youth at arrest and referral to probation, however disparities were also found for other ethnic groups at various decision points. Specifically, in Richmond, disparities were found for African American and Latino youth, although additional research has documented racial disparities for Southeast Asian males in Richmond as well.2 [See Table 1] Table 1: DMC Trends in Richmond, by RRI, 2005 2 Juneja, P., with West Contra Costa County Southeast Asian Youth and Family Alliance. (2006) Hidden Challenges: A report in a series examining the status of API youth in West Contra Costa County, California. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Race/Ethnicity Arrests Referrals to Probation African American 2.8 2.6 Latino 1.0 1.1 White 1.0 1.0 Asian 0.2 0.3 Pacific Islander ‐‐ ‐‐ American Indian ‐‐ ‐‐ Unknown/Other 1.1 0.6 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 267 5 In Concord, disparities were found for African American youth at the points of arrest and referrals to probation. Slight disparities were also found for Latino youth at referrals to probation and for Pacific Islander and for youth whose ethnicity is recorded as “unknown” at point of arrest. [See Table 2] Table 2: DMC Trends in the Monument Corridor, by RRI, 2005 In Bay Point, in addition to the disparities found for African American youth, a slight overrepresentation was found for Latino youth at point of arrest and referral to probation. Disparity was also shown for youth whose ethnic backgrounds were recorded as “unknown” and Pacific Islander youth at referral to probation. [See Table 3] A 2007 report by Mark Morris Associates revealed further that the greatest disparities were found at other stages of the justice continuum as well, particularly for African American youth. The study analyzed more than 1,594 youth with a Contra Costa County juvenile court disposition in 2006, and included youth from all over. Leading cities in the sample included: Richmond (22%), Antioch (19%), Concord (12%), and Pittsburg (10%). Race/Ethnicity Arrests Referrals to Probation African American 3.8 5.2 Latino 1.1 2.0 White 1.0 1.0 Asian 0.2 0.1 Pacific Islander 1.4 0.0 American Indian 0.0 0.0 Unknown/Other 1.3 0.2 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 268 6 Table 3: DMC Trends in the Bay Point, by RRI, 2005 African American Youth African Americans were involved in the justice system at disproportionately high rates: • African American youth almost 13 times as likely as white youth to be placed in secure confinement. • Disparities were also found among average lengths of stay in detention. African American males were detained longer than non‐African American males: o African American males: 31 days o Latino American males: 13 days o White males: nine days o Asian American males: five days • African American males, on average, had a greater number of previous arrests and sustained petitions than non‐African American males. • African American males and females were referred to probation at younger ages than their white counterparts. • African American females more likely to have sustained petitions for misdemeanor violent offenses (42%) compared to Latina and white females. Latino Youth Mark Morris Associates found that like their African American counterparts, Latino youth were more likely to be detained than white youth and stay in detention for a Race/Ethnicity Arrests Referrals to Probation African American 5.7 2.7 Latino 1.7 1.2 White 1.0 1.0 Asian 0 0.1 Pacific Islander 0 3.8 American Indian 0 0 Unknown/Other 2.5 0.3 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 269 7 longer period of time (13 days, compared to nine days and five days for White and Asian American males, respectively). III. Review of Probation DMC Training Activities Probation DMC Training In 2008, eight of trainings were conducted with Probation staff. As of the writing of this report, all Contra Costa County Probation staff members have been trained on the key causes and correlates of DMC. In addition to presenting research and policy trends, the training provided an opportunity for Probation staff to offer their perspectives on the tools, resources and mechanisms required to support the individual and collective efforts to reduce DMC. Specifically, in each training Probation staff were asked the following questions: 1. What type of programming would you like to see to address the issue of DMC? 2. Where in your own work do you think you could impact DMC? 3. What challenges do you feel exist re: reducing DMC in Contra Costa County? 4. What support would you need to address DMC in your own work? A summary of the responses to these questions are presented below: Programs of Interest: • Early intervention in the education (i.e., elementary school), literacy programs and school tutoring • Increased juvenile mentoring and community service programs • Life skills and vocational training • Improved recreation and sports programs (i.e., PAL) • Alternative detention facilities for girls • Multilingual outreach • Victim impact speakers • Parental education and social skills Where Probation can Impact DMC: • Improve staffing, particularly community‐based probation officers • Adjudication intake is critical • Cultural competency training for management and staff • Ongoing cross‐training • Provide resources and opportunities equally to all clients • Promote basic life skills among clients • Treat all clients with dignity and respect • Batterer’s Program should include more than one spot for those w/o means to pay for programs. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 270 8 Challenges: • Lack of funding to provide needed resources. • Lack of education about DMC • Lack of employment opportunities for high‐risk communities • Perceived lack of a motivation among client and community • Perceived lack of staff and administrative buy‐in • Home/Parent situation – Parents should be held more accountable • Lack of cultural sensitivity and discussion • Fostering cooperation & communication between agencies Support Needed • Increase data collection • Need for specialized units • Management support, cooperation, flexibility. • Financial, support • Clients support Each session lasted four hours, and was co‐facilitated by the consultant and two of the six Probation staff (2 Deputy Probation Officers, 2 Institutional Supervisor II, and two Institutional Supervisor I) who have been trained to present materials and research on DMC. A follow‐up survey was conducted by Mark Morris Associates. A summary of their findings will be submitted in a separate report. Community‐based Partner DMC Training Four training sessions were held with the Probation contractors who provide direct services to youth on probation. Community‐Based Organization (CBO) partners, including Project Reach (Antioch/Pittsburg), West Contra Costa Youth Service Bureau (Richmond), and New Connections (Concord/Bay Point). Participants in these training sessions were also provided an opportunity to share their ideas regarding how to support a better partnership to improve public safety and reduce DMC. Specifically, in each training session, CBO partners were asked the following questions: 1. How can the Probation Department better support CBO’s effort to improve outcomes for youth and support DMC? 2. What role can the CBO partner play in advancing culturally specific programming for youth of color? 3. What challenges do you feel exist re: reducing DMC in Contra Costa County? April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 271 9 4. What support would you need to address DMC in your own work? A summary of the responses to these questions are presented below: • Communication‐ The majority of CBO respondents perceived there to be very little meaningful communication between the Probation Department and the CBO contract about the client (i.e. youth on probation). Improving communication was seen as a key area that could impact other areas of service, particularly where there may be assumptions about roles and responsibilities that need clarification. • Resources: CBOs tended to note a need for improved human and financial resources to support parental services, appropriate language access and services, and mental health programs and responses. • Challenges: CBOs identified fear and a lack of knowledge as major challenges for this work to continue in Contra Costa County. Connecting with unidentified stakeholders and lack of respect for CBO work were also viewed as challenges. • Needs: CBOs identified funding as a continued need with regard to supporting continued efforts to reduce DMC. Additional trainings were also viewed as key to a continued strategy to bridge communication gaps and to support joint strategies to address the overrepresentation of youth of color. A follow‐up survey was conducted by Mark Morris Associates. A summary of their findings will be submitted in a separate cover. IV. Review of Diversion Planning Activities There are currently no formal diversion programs recognized by law enforcement in the Richmond, Bay Point, or the Monument Corridor. Diversion programs should occur at the early stages of juvenile justice processing, but can also be instituted at later stages of the continuum to prevent further penetration into the system and costly placements. By definition, these programs divert youth from formal court processing while still providing a means to hold them accountable for their actions. Research3 has confirmed that there are several important benefits to diversion, including that they provide more effective and appropriate treatment for youth, reduce recidivism, decrease overcrowding in detention facilities, facilitate the 3 Davidson, W. et. al, (1990) Alternative Treatments for Troubled Youth: The Case of Diversion from the Justice System. New York: NY: Plenum Press. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 272 10 further development of community‐based services, improve working relationships of cross‐systems groups, and expedite court processing of youth into services. In 2008, two diversion subcommittees were established; one addressing Richmond and one addressing the Monument Corridor/Bay Point. These sub‐ committees are currently working to prepare a series of recommendations to the Decision Makers Workgroup regarding the design of area‐specific diversion protocols and programming, eligibility criteria, and communications strategies between agencies. The mission of these subcommittees is to develop tools, protocols, and recommend programming to divert youth from further contact with the juvenile justice system. Tools developed by this committee will assist juvenile justice professionals in determining who is eligible for diversion; and will be used, along with internal policies and procedures and the experience and expertise of juvenile justice professionals, as a guide for decision‐making. To support the development of these recommendations, two “best practices” panels on diversion were held. The first panel featured presentations from Sandra McBrayer of the San Diego Children’s Bureau; Joella Brooks of the Southwest Key Programs, Inc., and Julie Posadas Guzman of the Youth Justice Institute—all organizations that have established promising approaches and best practices with regard to protocols, data collection, and the implementation of culturally‐competent and gender‐responsive programming. A second panel and presentation on diversion was held for diversion subcommittee members and included presentations by Corporal Elmer Glasser of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, Julie Posadas Guzman of the Youth Justice Institute, and the consultant. V. Other Stakeholder DMC Reduction Activities A number of other county agencies are working on efforts that are related to DMC. According to Contra Costa Health Services, the following activities are underway: - CCHS has a department wide commitment to Reducing Health Disparities, with a unit dedicated to implementing a five‐year plan. The goals of the plan are to improve consumer/client/patient/customer experience; increase engagement and partnership with the community, improve staff cultural sensitivity and respect and responsiveness; and develop systems to support and promote access. - A Cross Divisional Violence Prevention Team has developed 12 recommendations for addressing street violence in Contra Costa and is focusing on communities with disproportionately high rates of violence. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 273 11 - With John Muir Trauma Center and the Office of Neighborhood Safety in Richmond, CCHS is working to implement a pilot project called Caught in the Crossfire, designed to work with violence victims and their families to prevent retaliation. - With staff and funding, CCHS support RYSE, the new youth center in Richmond that is based on a harm‐reduction model for empowering young people and developing partnerships to provide them with capacity building and services. According to the Children & Family Services Bureau: In 2001, the Children & Family Services Bureau began a Child Welfare Redesign of a 30‐year old system using data from the U.C. Berkeley Center of Social Services Research. A convening of countywide meetings resulted over a two‐year period with community partners and agency collaborative efforts. During this two‐year period alarming data surfaced from the U.C. Berkeley research indicating a disproportionate number of African American children entering into Contra Costa County’s child welfare system, and a disproportionate number of children remaining in our system at age 12‐13 years. In 2002‐2003, Children & Family Services formed a Cultural Competency Oversight Committee made up from all classification ranks. In the spring of 2003, as part of the oversight committee’s recommendations, Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau launched the training series for all child welfare staff. The series addresses Cultural Competency, Racial Disproportionality & Disparity, Color Blindness, Difficult Dialogue, Bias & Stereotypes, Decision Making and Cultural Considerations. All these trainings were mandated. From 2003 to 2005, Children & Family Services provided thirty‐three trainings with 1,219 Children & Family Services staff, thirty‐seven CBO’s and collaborative agencies. During this time period Children & Family Services initiated the Annie E. Casey Foundation “Family to Family Initiative” (F2F), and the use of “Team Decision Making” (TDM) for all African American children four years and under countywide in an effort to reduce entry into the child welfare system. Currently Children & Family Services is at the final training stages for staff on “Best Practice” on the “Words Means Things” training to address office dialogue and written reports. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 274 12 PART II: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESPONSES TO DMC TRENDS April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 275 13 VI. Contra Costa County DMC Logic Model The mission of the Contra Costa County DMC effort is to reduce delinquency and DMC by identifying key opportunities to prevent youth of color from contacting and penetrating the juvenile justice system, and by fostering partnerships among and between justice and community stakeholders to improve the healthy life outcomes of all youth. The Contra Costa logic model [Figure 1] depicts the interconnections of inputs, outputs (activities and reach) and outcomes related to reducing Disproportionate Minority Contact. Research has confirmed that many factors contribute to DMC and no one entity can reduce DMC alone; therefore this logic model reflects the input and skills of multiple stakeholders toward the goal of reducing DMC. Activities associated with the two primary findings of the research conducted by Mark Morris Associates—that African American youth are disproportionately overrepresented throughout the justice system and that Latino males are disproportionately represented in detention are specifically addressed in this logic model. This logic model depicts four primary areas for reducing DMC for these populations: 1) Inputs, including time and expertise of DMC reduction partners, financial resources, and knowledge; 2) Outputs, including a description of the activities to be performed and who are to comprise the target recipients of services; 3) Outcomes, including those intended outcomes in the short‐, intermediate‐, and long‐term; and 4) External Influences, which—as of the writing of this report—are to be determined by the Decision Making workgroup. Inputs Contra Costa County has invested several resources into this process to reduce delinquency and the overrepresentation of youth of color in contact with the justice system. Specifically, the Probation Department has devoted the time and expertise of staff, and invested financial resources into this process by supporting the education needs of DMC trainers and providing materials and space for training sessions. The Probation Department has also invested in the process of gaining knowledge regarding best practices, promising approaches, and data collection to inform the process of reducing DMC. The Probation Department worked with a DMC consultant and a data consultant to support this process, and performed site‐visits to Oregon and Santa Cruz, California in order to observe efforts in other counties regarding this issue. These site visits were helpful in terms of providing the Probation trainers with concrete examples of successes and challenges associated with reducing disparities. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 276 14 Figure 1: Contra Costa County DMC Logic Model April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 277 15 Additionally, the time and expertise of other key decision‐making stakeholders are important inputs to this process and provide the partnership necessary to implement strategies and promising approaches to reduce delinquency and racial disparities in the Contra Costa County juvenile justice system. These inputs inform the outputs associated with this effort, specifically with regard to what activities are performed in association to this effort and which audiences are to be reached. Outputs The outputs associated with this effort should include data reports on progress, other research support on progress, training and informational sessions, and the development of a five‐year plan to reduce DMC. The Probation Department has launched a number of activities associated with this effort, including the following: • DMC Training As noted above, the Probation Department has trained all staff members on the key concepts of DMC, its causes and correlates, and key responses to DMC. An updated training session will be offered in 2009‐2010 that includes information regarding the outcomes of the previous training, an overview of new research and legislation that may affect DMC in California and nationwide, and the outcomes of current efforts to reduce delinquency and DMC in Contra Costa County. Target Audience: Probation Staff • Motivational Interviewing Research4 has confirmed that motivational interviewing is an efficacious, client‐centered approach to engaging with individual who exhibit high‐risk behaviors, including alcohol and drug abuse. As part of its strategy to improve the quality of services, the Probation Department has been conducting training for staff on motivational interviewing. Target Audience: Probation Staff, with the ultimate beneficiary being the juvenile in contact with the department. • Cognitive Behavior Training Research5 supports the use of cognitive behavioral therapy as a tool to understand behaviors and to foster improved workplace communication and teamwork. In the Probation Department, this effort has been widely regarded 4 Miller, W.R. (1996) Motivational Interviewing: Research, Practice, and Puzzles. Addictive Behaviors, Volume 21, Issue 6, November‐December 1996, pp. 835‐842. 5 Gatto, R. (2006) Reflections from the Workplace. Weirton, WV: National Association of Cognitive‐ Behavioral Therapists. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 278 16 as an opportunity to improve communications skills that can ultimately improve the quality of services that are provided to probationers. Target Audience: Probation Staff. • Risk Assessment Tool Research6 has shown that the use of a structured decision‐making instrument at the point of intake to secure detention can dramatically improve the objectivity of decision‐making with regard to who is admitted. Historically, juvenile justice researchers and policymakers advocated the use of juvenile detention for two reasons, if youthful offenders pose a public safety risk to themselves or to others. Otherwise, a series of graduated sanctions and alternatives to detention should be established to adequately respond to the risk factors being exhibited by juvenile offenders. 7 Contra Costa County is in the process of developing a validated risk assessment tool toward the goal of reserving secure detention as a sanction for those who need it. Target Audience: Juvenile Offenders. • Parent Survey The Probation Department worked with consultants to develop a survey designed to capture the perceptions of parents who have had contact with the Probation Department regarding services provided. The survey inquires about the manner in which services were provided, as well as about the types of programs and services that they believe would have had an impact on the behaviors of their children. Target Audience: Parents of Juvenile Offenders • Diversion Programming Several justice and community stakeholders have been meeting to develop recommendations for the Decision Makers regarding diversion protocols for Contra Costa County, as well as programming in the area of Richmond, Monument Corridor, and Bay Point. Target Audience: Juvenile Offenders • Focus Groups As of the writing of this report, the Probation Department is working with consultants to conduct focus groups with youth in custody. The focus groups will provide an opportunity for feedback from the affected population to describe the programs and strategies that they feel are most effective to address their behavior, and what resources they feel are needed to support continued efforts toward rehabilitation in their home communities. 6 Bishop, D and Frazier, C. (1996) Race Effects in Juvenile Justice Decision-Making: Findings of a Statewide Analysis. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol 86, No 2.; p. 392- 7 Wilson, J. and Howell, B. (1993) Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: A Comprehensive Strategy. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 279 17 Target Audience: Juvenile Offenders • Cultural Competency Training and Events The Probation Department has developed a number of events (e.g., luncheons, lectures, etc.) to support the continued learning about the diverse cultures among staff and clients. Additionally, the department is planning a training session on cultural competency. Target Audience: Probation Staff. Additionally, several stakeholders in this process have been engaged in discussions regarding disparities in other fields (e.g., health, education, child welfare, etc.). To the extent that these efforts can partner and offer joint training and/or discussion groups in Richmond, Bay Point, and the Monument Corridor, the overall effort to reduce DMC would be enhanced. Outcomes The outputs described above are designed to foster immediate, short‐term, intermediate, and long‐term outcomes. Specific outcome statements need to be developed by the stakeholders involved in this effort. The ultimate goal of this initiative is to reduce delinquency and DMC in Contra Costa County. The outcomes needed to achieve this goal will be reached through the implementation of research‐ supported activities, including the recommendations below. VII. Consultant Recommendations According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,8 the steps required to reduce DMC include the following: • Define the Problem • Develop Program Logic • Identify Measures • Implement Evidence‐Based Programming • Collect and Analyze Data • Report Findings • Evaluate Effectiveness of Program Logic These steps require the input and participation of multiple stakeholders, including individuals and agencies who represent the following: juvenile justice and law enforcement, education, child welfare/social services, health services, community‐ 8 Nellis, A. (2005) Seven Steps to Develop and Evaluate Strategies to Reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 280 18 based services, faith community, youth and parents. Additionally, research 9 has found that in order to reduce DMC, data must be collected and carefully analyzed to inform efforts to reduce racial disparity in the justice system, that strong leadership is essential to the successful implementation of recommendations, and that while it is impossible to control all of the factors that lead to racial disparities, there are activities that can control and change rates of contact with the justice system. In light of these established steps and principles, and other research that supports diversion, early intervention and the importance of implementing a series of graduated sanctions and program alternatives to promote a reduction in delinquency and disproportionate minority contact, the consultant has prepared a summary of recommendations for Contra Costa County. These recommendations are organized according to those activities, which can and should take place immediately (within six months), in the short‐term (six months to one year), in the intermediate term (one to two years), and in the long‐term (three to five years). A. Immediate (Within 6 Months) Probation Specific 1. The Probation Department should contract with a consultant who can continue the process of guiding strategies, meetings, and training sessions regarding reducing DMC in Contra Costa County’s three target areas. The consultant’s primary role should be to help support the identification of effective diversion protocols and programming, foster a continued momentum of the project, and work with the Probation leadership on this effort to communicate successes to the Corrections Standards Authority, and other key stakeholders to execute activities according to its identified set of priorities. 2. The Probation Department should consider appointing DMC Coordinators in each of the major segments of the department’s services. DMC coordinators should be assigned to the field, juvenile hall, and the Oren Allen Youth Rehabilitation Center. These positions should be designed to support the collection of data, the monitoring of progress at key decision points, and the assistance with implementation of culturally competent programming and services where appropriate. 3. The Probation Department should continue its training of all Probation staff on DMC. Future curricula should include a review of the key causes and correlates, but also relate the findings and key successes of the 2008 study and the current activities to reduce delinquency and DMC. 4. The Probation Department should finalize its risk assessment tool being developed for the juvenile hall and train appropriate staff on its usage. 9 Hinton-Hoytt, E. et.al. (2002) Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention. A project of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 281 19 5. The Probation Department should follow up with its CBO partners to arrange meetings to discuss and clarify roles, responsibilities and communication between Deputy Probation Officers and community‐ based service providers, so as to improve the outcomes of juvenile probationers. All Stakeholders 6. To support the ongoing effort to address DMC and delinquency prevention at decision points that are under the control of agencies other than Probation, juvenile justice stakeholders represented among the Decision Making workgroup should consider conducting DMC training for their staff. Training should mirror the curriculum provided for the Probation Department and include specific information about the way in which their agencies can contribute to the overarching goal of this effort. 7. The Diversion subcommittees should continue to discuss protocols and programming to develop recommendations for the Decision Makers Workgroup regarding diversion pilot initiatives in Richmond, Monument Corridor, and Bay Point. 8. The DMC Decision Makers Workgroup and other partnering agencies in the DMC effort should develop and adopt a set of cultural competency principles. These principles should set a tone for continued discussions regarding DMC and the administration of intervention services and programs to all juvenile offenders in Contra Costa County. These principles should be shared and visible within the agencies working with youth who are system‐involved. B. ShortTerm (Between 612 Months) Probation Specific 1. The Probation Department should complete the design, validation, implementation, training, and use of a validated risk assessment tool at intake decision point in the juvenile hall. A valid research assessment instrument is a critical tool to support objective decision‐making and the application of uniform responses to youth who are facing detention. 2. The Probation Department should work with appropriate analysts to collect data at the DMC decision points, which will continue to inform the DMC and delinquency reduction process in Contra Costa County, and specifically in Richmond, the Monument Corridor, and Bay Point. Data reports are necessary in the following areas: April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 282 20 • Juveniles arrested in Contra Costa County, by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense (note first‐time and repeat offenders. If repeat, note prior services rendered); • Juveniles in diversion programs, by race, ethnicity, age, gender, offense, and prior services rendered; • Juveniles referred to probation, by race, ethnicity, age, and gender • Juvenile petitions filed, by offense, by race, ethnicity, age, gender and offense; • Juveniles with a sustained petition by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense; • Juveniles in detention, by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense • Average length of stay for juveniles in detention, by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense (pre‐ and post‐adjudication); • Juveniles transferred to adult court, by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense. If possible, additional data reports, including the RRI, should be generated in the following areas: • School suspensions and expulsions, by race, ethnicity, age, and gender; • School‐based incidents that lead to law enforcement or probation officers intervention—by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense. • Dual jurisdiction case trends, including reports on juveniles who qualify for 241.1 hearing, by race, ethnicity, age, and gender (300 and 600 cases); • Mental health trends (assessments that lead to formal diagnoses and treatment), by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense; and • Group home placement trends, by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and offense. 3. The Probation Department should continue its planning and implementation of cultural competency training for all Probation Department staff. Additionally, the Department should continue to implement its other activities and events that provide opportunities to celebrate the diversity and acknowledge the presence of diverse cultures among the population of youth and families who are in contact with the Probation Department. 4. The Probation Department should examine the outcomes and findings of the surveys conducted with the Probation Department, its CBO partners, and parent surveys to determine whether responses and/or modifications to existing training curriculum, policies, or events are necessary. All Stakeholders April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 283 21 5. The Diversion subcommittees that have been established for the Monument Corridor/Bay Point and Richmond areas should complete their development of recommendations to the Decision Makers Workgroup regarding the implementation of a pilot diversion program in each of the three target areas. Once the protocols and program are confirmed and adopted, the County should design an evaluation protocol and implement the pilot strategies as recommended. 6. Key stakeholders should work with a new consultant to develop an action plan to implement recommendations. For each problem issue, the planning team will should develop goals, objectives, and specific activities, processes, and outcome measures. EXAMPLE: Problem Issue: African American and Latino youth in Contra Costa County are underrepresented at the Diversion decision point. Goal: To reduce delinquency and DMC at the early stages of contact with the juvenile justice continuum. Objective: To develop diversion program alternatives for youth who are arrested and live in Richmond, Bay Point, and the Monument Corridor Activities Process Measure Outcomes Outcome Measures 7. The Decision Makers Workgroup should continue to meet as needed (at least quarterly) to monitor and discuss progress regarding the DMC effort in Contra Costa County. C. Intermediate (Between 12 Years) Probation Specific 1. The Probation Department should launch the use of a new Management Information System, which can produce reports on key DMC data areas. These data reports identical to those produced in the short‐term period, so as to measure progress and inform the efforts made regarding reductions in delinquency and DMC. Findings of the reports should be reviewed and discussed by key Probation Department staff and appropriate stakeholders in this effort. 2. The Probation Department should consider establishing ethnic liaison groups with community stakeholders to help guide the development of culturally competent protocol, programming, and communication April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 284 22 regarding youth who are system‐involved—in custody and out of custody—African American, Latino, Asian Pacific Islander, and Native American. This effort should include the development of MOUs, meeting schedules and agendas to be discussed between the Probation Department and the members of the liaison group. All Stakeholders 3. The Decision Makers Workgroup should meet and evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot diversion programs in the City of Richmond and the Monument Corridor/Bay Point areas. 4. The Decision Makers Workgroup, in partnership with the Board of Supervisors—and potentially, other Bay Area DMC counties—should consider sponsoring a summit or convening to discuss the regional successes, challenges, and opportunities regarding responding to DMC in the Bay Area. D. LongTerm (Between 35 Years) All Stakeholders 1. Research10 has confirmed that it is essential to evaluate the process on a regular cycle to determine if the logic model and its accompanying activities are producing the intended outcomes, or if there unintended consequences that need to be addressed. Therefore, all key stakeholders should review the effectiveness of logic model and discuss changes as needed. 2. All key stakeholders should continue the process of monitoring trends at key decision‐making points and developing programming and policy responses to decisions or practices that are found to result in unfair or unnecessary contact with the justice system. 3. All key stakeholders should continue to examine their respective areas of control and/or decision‐making and determine whether existing programs and strategies are sufficiently producing intended outcomes or if it is necessary to expand programming and services to support culturally‐competent and gender‐responsive efforts to reduce DMC. 4. At the end of five years, key stakeholders should work together to evaluate key outcomes of the DMC effort and determine where additional support is needed. 10 SUPRA, Note 6. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 285 23 VIII. Conclusion Contra Costa County is poised to accept the tremendous opportunity to continue its efforts to reduce DMC. As discussed in this report, the County has already taken important steps toward establishing an infrastructure to support and continue this work. With a continued commitment to implementing best practices to produce positive life outcomes for youth and provide a range of fair and equitable responses to youth who come into contact with the justice system, Contra Costa County will maximize its opportunities to reduce delinquency and DMC. VIII. Acknowledgments The consultant would like to extend her acknowledgment and appreciation to several individuals who have provided leadership and commitment to this effort. First, the consultant would like to thank Cynthia Haven, Contra Costa County’s DMC Coordinator, for her commitment and passion with regard to this project. The consultant would also like to thank the Probation Department, and specifically Chief Lionel Chatman, for providing a vision for working together to reduce disparities and to improve the quality of services provided to youth in contact with the justice system. A strong and heartfelt thank you is extended to the six Probation trainers— Arthur Fernandez, Suzanne Nelson, Marlon Washington, Theodore Martell, Petrenya Boykins, and Forrest Coleman—who dedicated hours of their time to learning and teaching the DMC curriculum to their colleagues. The consultant would also like to extend her gratitude to the Decision Makers Workgroup, which has continued to provide leadership on this effort: Ms. Bianca Bloom, Contra Costa County Office of Education Chief Lionel Chatman, Probation Department Mr. David Coleman, Public Defender Ms. Valerie Early, Employment and Human Services Department Mr. John Gioia, Board of Supervisors Mr. Federal Glover, Board of Supervisors Hon. Lois Haight, Presiding Juvenile Court Judge Mr. Robert Kochly, District Attorney, Chairperson of Decision Makers Workgroup Chief David Livingston, Concord Police Department Chief Chris Magnus, Richmond Police Department Dr. William Walker, Contra Costa Health Services Mr. Timothy Ewell, County Administrator’s Office Additionally, there were several agencies and individuals who have participated in or supported this ongoing process to examine DMC in Contra Costa County. Mr. Devonne Boggan, Richmond Office of Neighborhood Safety Ms. Joella Brooks, Southwest Key Programs, Inc. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 286 24 Ms. Kim Broussard, CA Corrections Standards Authority Mr. Daniel Cabral, District Attorney’s Office Ms. Lily Caceres, Oregon Youth Authority Mr. Terrance Cheung, Supervisor John Gioia’s Office Chief Judy Cox, Retired, Santa Cruz County Probation Department Ms. Sheryl Dash, Salem/Kaiser NAACP Ms. Kanwarpal Dhaliwal, RYSE Youth Center Ms. Julie Freestone, Contra Costa County Health Services Cpl. Elmer Glasser, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office Mr. Wendell Greer, West Contra Costa County School District Ms. Taalia Hasan, Youth Service Bureau Ms. Shalinee Hunter, CA Corrections Standards Authority Mr. Lonnie Jackson, Oregon Youth Authority Sgt. Marice Jennings, Concord Police Department Mr. Robert Jester, Oregon Youth Authority Lt. Dennis Kahane, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office Mr. David Koch, Multnomah Dept. of Community Justice Mr. Don Lau, YMCA of Richmond Mr. Jack Lawson, Oregon Youth Authority Mr. Phillip Lemman, Oregon Youth Authority Cpl. Larry Lewis, Richmond Police Department Mr. Steve Liday, Multnomah Dept. of Community Justice Ms. Anita Marquez, Center for Human Development Ms. Sandra McBrayer, The Children’s Initiative Mr. Michael Newton, Contra Costa County Probation Ms. Denise Nolan, Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office Ms. Carolyn Plath, Ygnacio Valley High School Ms. Julie Posadas Guzman, Youth Justice Institute Ms. Elaine Prendergast, Center for Human Development Ms. Christina Puentes, Oregon Youth Authority Mr. Rich Saito, Consultant Dr. Cynthia Scheinberg, New Connections Ms. Anya Seiko, Oregon State DMC Coordinator Hon. Bill Shinn, Mayor of Concord, CA Mr. Ron Weaver, Oregon Youth Authority Mr. James Woggan, Mt. Diablo School District Ambrose Community Center La Clinica de La Raza Monument Community Partnership Project REACH Richmond Building Blocks for Kids West Contra Costa County Youth Service Bureau For this project, the Contra Costa County training team had the opportunity to conduct site‐visits to the Oregon Youth Authority and the Santa Cruz Probation April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 287 25 Department. Thank you to all of the individuals at those institutions for their hospitality and resources, as well as their willingness to share information, successful strategies, and pitfalls with regard to examining this issue. Additionally, the consultants would like to acknowledge the parents, youth, and community members who attended meetings and participated in surveys and interviews associated with this project. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 288 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES289 RECOMMENDATION(S): REFER to the Public Protection Committee a letter from the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition regarding the local criminal justice system. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On April 7, 2015, the Board of Supervisors received a letter (attached) from the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition requesting review of topics within the local criminal justice system. The Public Protection Committee (PPC) generally hears all matters related to public safety within the County. Committee staff will integrate this issue into the PPC discussion schedule for CY 2015. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A review of the letter will not be referred to the Public Protection Committee. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/21/2015 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 ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036 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: April 21, 2015 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 76 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 21, 2015 Contra Costa County Subject:REFERRAL TO PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 290 No impact. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 291 ATTACHMENTS Letter to the Board of Supervisors April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 292 Date: December 21, 2015 To: Supervisor John Gioia Supervisor Federal Glover From: Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Phil Kader, Chief Probation Officer Tom Kensok, Assistant District Attorney Subject: Recommendation for Racial Justice Taskforce As requested by the Public Protection Committee of the Board of Supervisors, the above named individuals have met to discuss how the County can best move forward to address the disproportionate representation of racial minorities in the criminal justice system in Contra Costa County. We recommend that the County appoint a Racial Justice Taskforce (RJT) to be comprised of no more than 15 members representing governmental agencies and community organizations whose work concerns racial equality within the criminal justice system. We propose the following persons and/or entities for membership on the RJT; Chief Probation Officer Public Defender District Attorney Sheriff Superior Court of Contra Costa County Local Law Enforcement (member to be name by the CCC Police Chiefs Association) Local School Districts (up to 3 representatives) Department of Health Community-based Organizations (up to 5 members) We recommend that the mission of the RJT be to: 1. Identify some consensus measures within the County to reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system; 2. Make recommendations for implementation of the measures once identified; and 3. Report back to the Board of Supervisors on progress made toward reducing racial disparities within the criminal justice system. In recognition that this is a challenging undertaking, we further recommend that the County provide funding for two necessary components to the success of the RJT. First, we ask that the County contract with an impartial trained facilitator to guide the RJT through this process. Second, we suggest that the County contract with a public interest research entity or an academic institution to assist in data collection and outcome analysis. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 293 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/163 approving the Side Letter between Contra Costa County and Local 1 to increase the base rate of pay for the classifications of Lead Electrician (GFTA) and Electrician (GFWA) by three and four tenths percent (3.4%), effective the first day of the month following adoption of the Side Letter. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated cost of the agreement is $10,000 for the remainder of the current fiscal year and $59,500 annually. BACKGROUND: The County and Local One have concluded the meet and confer process on the 2015 Pay Equity Studies conducted for specific classifications pursuant to an agreement signed by the parties on April 2, 2014. As a result of the meet and confer process, the parties agree that effective the first day of the month following approval of the Side Letter by the Board of Supervisors, the base rate of pay for the classifications of Lead Electrician (GFTA) and Electrician (GFWA) will be increased by three and four tenths percent (3.4%). If adopted, the Side Letter is effective May 1, 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Harjit S. Nahal, Assistant County Auditor, Lisa Lopez, Assistant Director of Human Resources D. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Side Letter with Local 1 to Adjust Salaries Pursuant Pay Equity Studies April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 294 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Employees in the classification impacted will not receive the pay equity salary increase. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/163 Local 1 Side Letter - Pay Equity Study MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No.2016/163 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 295 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/12/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/163 In The Matter Of: Side Letter Adjusting Salaries Pursuant to Agreement Regarding Pay Equity Studies The Contra County Board of Supervisors acting in its capacity 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 attached Side Letter of agreement dated March 24, 2016, between Contra Costa County and Local 1, be ADOPTED. 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Harjit S. Nahal, Assistant County Auditor, Lisa Lopez, Assistant Director of Human Resources 5 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 296 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES297 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES298 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 299 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No 2016/318 approving an amendment to each of (1) the Amended and Restated Second Agreement for Property Tax Transfer from the West Contra Costa Health Care District to Contra Costa County, dated July 16, 2013, between the West Contra Costa Healthcare District (District) and the County, and (2) the Third Agreement for Property Tax Transfer From West Contra Costa Healthcare District to Contra Costa County,” dated July 1, 2014, between the District and County, which provide for a $1 million reduction in the allocation of District ad valorem property tax revenues to the County under the Second Agreement and under the Third Agreement, and authorizing the County Auditor to transmit directly to the District, instead of to the County, $1 million of the District’s annual ad valorem property tax allocation, each year in the month of April, and to make a final transfer of District ad valorem property taxes in the amount of $645,000 in consideration of County foregoing $1 million in District ad valorem property taxes that would otherwise be transferred to County under the second Agreement and the Third Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of a modification to the District's ad valorem property tax allocation, as proposed, would be a $1 million impact to the General Fund reserves annually until the agreements are complete. The impact to the County is a two to three year extension, which is cost neutral over time due to the final proposed transfer. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Supervisor John Gioia (510) 374-3231 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller, WCCHCD Board (via District I Office), Colin Coffey D. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RESOLUTION NO. 2016/318 AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO PROPERTY TAX TRANSFERS FROM WEST CONTRA COSTA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 300 BACKGROUND: In an attempt to keep Doctors Medical Center open, Contra Costa County provided $35 million in emergency funding to the hospital since 2006. In exchange, the District authorized an allocation of its ad valorem property tax revenues to the County. The hospital closed April 21, 2015. The County receives all of the ad valorem property tax, which is annually approximately $3.3 million. There currently are two agreements between the County and the District providing for the allocation of ad valorem property taxes from the District to the County. The two agreements are the Amended and Restated Second Agreement for Property Tax Transfer from the West Contra Costa Health Care District to Contra Costa County, dated July 16, 2013 (“Second Agreement”), and the Third Agreement for Property Tax Transfer From West Contra Costa Healthcare District to Contra Costa County, dated July 1, 2014 (“Third Agreement”). The total remaining ad valorem property tax revenues to be transferred to the County under the Second Agreement is $13,277,804. The total amount of ad valorem property tax revenues to be transferred to the County under the Third Agreement is $8,200,000. The property tax revenues are allocated from the District to the County at the rate of approximately $3,300,000 per fiscal year. This amount may be higher or lower depending on property values in the District’s tax rate areas. The two property tax transfer agreements operate sequentially. In other words, the parties have agreed that property tax revenues will not be allocated to the County under the Third Agreement, until after all property tax revenues have been allocated to the County under the Second Agreement. The District has requested that the County agree to forego $1,000,000 of the District’s ad valorem property tax allocation that would otherwise be allocated to the County under both the Second Agreement and under the Third Agreement for the purpose of assisting the District in winding down its affairs. The District’s annual cash spend for operations and on-going post-closure obligations exceeds the District’s current funding. DMC struggles from lack of cash. Wherever possible, DMC is holding off payment on invoices; however, annual costs to operate the District and honor owed obligations continue. The District lists its high level summary of annual costs to operate the District as: General operating costs $475,000. Includes general office personnel and office rental, outside bookkeeping, District audit, pension audit, and COPs repayment oversight. Successor pension plan payments $900,000 . Annual amount to fund the underfunded pension plan for past employees. This is based on last year’s actuarial estimate. Medical retiree medical plans $250,000. Annual payment to fund the medical retirement plan. Workers compensation $250,000. Claims from past employees still actively receiving workers compensation. Medical record storage $200,000. Annual costs to store and retrieve medical records for previous DMC patients. Biennial Election Costs $450,000. Cost of funding required Special District election costs. The proposed amendments to the County’s right to receive the allocation of District property taxes will not alter the total amount of property taxes that the District transferred to the County under the Second Agreement or Third Agreement, but will delay the repayment . Given the proposed amendment and the estimated total ad valorem, the final transfer will likely occur in FY 2023-24 rather than FY 2021-22. To make the amendment cost neutral to the County, the District would make a final transfer to the County of $645,000, which would be added to the $8.2 million in ad valorem property taxes to be transferred under the Third Agreement. If this amendment is executed, the total amount of tax revenues allocated to the County from the District under the Second Agreement will be increased by $645,000. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will receive the entire allocation of ad valorem property taxes described in the First Agreement and the Second Agreement between the County and the West Contra Costa Healthcare District. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 301 CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speaker: Eric Zell, West Contra Costa Health Care District. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/318 Amended and Restated Second Agreement for Property Tax Transfer from WCCHCD to Contra Costa County Amended and Restated Third Agreement for Property Tax Transfer from WCCHCD to Contra Costa County MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/318 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 302 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/12/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/318 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO PROPERTY TAX TRANSFERS FROM WEST CONTRA COSTA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WHEREAS, the West Contra Costa Healthcare District, a California local health care district (the “District”), previously operated Doctors Medical Center – San Pablo, a licensed general acute care hospital located in San Pablo, California; WHEREAS, Section 99.02 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (the “R&T Code”) authorizes the District and Contra Costa County (the “County”) to modify the allocation of property tax revenues between them, provided the modification does not violate the conditions set forth in R&T Code Section 99.02 and does not affect the tax revenue allocation for any other public entity; WHEREAS, the County and the District previously entered into two agreements that authorize the County Auditor to transfer and allocate to County ad valorem property tax revenues that otherwise would be allocated to the District — the Amended And Restated Second Agreement For Property Tax Transfer From West Contra Costa Healthcare District To Contra Costa County, dated July 16, 2013 (the “Second Agreement”), and the Third Agreement for Property Tax Transfer from West Contra Costa Healthcare District to Contra Costa County, dated July 1, 2014 (the “Third Agreement”); WHEREAS, the County and the District entered into an amendment to the Second Agreement, effective December 3, 2014, which directed the County Auditor Controller to allocate and transfer to the District $3,000,000 in District ad valorem property taxes that would otherwise be transferred to the County under the Second Agreement; WHEREAS, a total $13,277,804 in ad valorem property tax revenue remains to be transferred to the County pursuant to the Second Agreement, and a total of $8,200,000 in ad valorem property tax revenue remains to be transferred to the County pursuant to the Third Agreement, for a total combined sum of $21,477,804 that remains due and owing to the County; WHEREAS, in April, 2015, District announced that it would close Doctors Medical Center – San Pablo due to funding shortfalls; WHEREAS, the District has requested that the County agree to forego $1,000,000 of the District’s ad valorem property tax allocation that would otherwise be transferred to the County on an annual basis under the Second Agreement and under the Third Agreement for the purpose of assisting the District in winding down its affairs; WHEREAS, in consideration of County's agreement to forego $1,000,000 in ad valorem property taxes that would otherwise be transferred to it under the Second Agreement and under the Third Agreement, and the resulting extension of time in which the County will receive the ad valorem property taxes under the Second Agreement and the Third Agreement, the District has agreed to authorize the County Auditor to make a final transfer of District ad valorem property taxes to the County in the amount of $645,000, to be transferred after $8,200,000 in District ad valorem property taxes have been transferred under the Third Agreement. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County that: The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by reference.1. The County Administrator is directed to execute an amendment to the Second Agreement that directs the County Auditor2. 5 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 303 to transmit to the District, instead of to the County, $1,000,000 of the District’s ad valorem property tax allocation beginning in fiscal year 2015-16, and continuing until all amounts to be transferred to the County under the Second Agreement have been transferred. The amendment to the Second Agreement will not alter the total amount of property taxes that the County Auditor is required to transfer to the County under the Second Agreement. The County Administrator is directed to execute an amendment to the Third Agreement that (a) directs the County Auditor to transmit to the District, instead of to the County, $1,000,000 of the District’s ad valorem property tax allocation beginning in fiscal year 2015-16, and continuing until all amounts to be transferred to the County under the Third Agreement have been transferred, and (b) directs the County Auditor to make a final transfer of District ad valorem property taxes to the County in the amount of $645,000, to be transferred after $8,200,000 in District ad valorem property taxes have been transferred under the Third Agreement. The amendment to the Third Agreement will not alter the total amount of property taxes that the County Auditor is required to transfer to the County under the Third Agreement. 3. Contact: Supervisor John Gioia (510) 374-3231 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller, WCCHCD Board (via District I Office), Colin Coffey April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 304 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES305 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES306 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED SECOND AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER FROM WEST CONTRA COSTA HEALTHCARE DISTRICT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY This Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Second Agreement for Property Tax Transfer from West Contra Costa Healthcare District to Contra Costa County (this “Amendment”), dated April 12, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), is by and between the West Contra Costa Healthcare District, a California local health care district (“District”), and the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”), and amends the Amended and Restated Second Agreement for Property Tax Transfer from West Contra Costa Healthcare District to Contra Costa County, dated July 1, 2014 (the “Second Agreement”), between District and County. RECITALS I. WHEREAS, District previously operated an acute care hospital in San Pablo, California, doing business as “Doctor’s Medical Center – San Pablo” (“DMC”), at which it provided care to, among others, Medi-Cal beneficiaries; II. WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013, County and District entered into the Second Agreement, which provides that the County Auditor shall allocate and transfer to County the entirety of the general ad valorem property tax revenues that otherwise would be collected and allocated to District commencing July 1, 2013, as authorized by Section 99.02 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, until the sum of all such allocations to County equals $17,096,223.18; III. WHEREAS, on July 1, 2014, County and District entered into the Third Agreement for Property Tax Transfer from West Contra Costa Healthcare District to Contra Costa County, which provided for County to transfer $6,000,000 to District, and that the County Auditor shall allocate and transfer to County the entirety of the general ad valorem property tax revenues that otherwise would be collected and allocated to District commencing once the Second Agreement property tax transfers are complete, until the sum of all such allocations to County equals $8,200,000; IV. WHEREAS, District and County entered into the First Amendment To Amended And Restated Second Agreement For Property Tax Transfer From West Contra Costa Healthcare District To Contra Costa County, dated December 3, 2014, to document the one-time temporary suspension of up to $3,000,000 of the fiscal year 2014-15 ad valorem property taxes that would otherwise be allocated to County under the Second Agreement; V. WHEREAS, in April, 2015, District announced that it would close DMC due to funding shortfalls; VI. WHEREAS, as of the Effective Date of this Amendment, the remaining amount of ad valorem property tax revenues to be transferred to County under the Second Agreement is $13,277,804; April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 307 VII. WHEREAS, District has requested that County agree to forego $1,000,000 of District’s ad valorem property tax allocation that would otherwise be transferred to County on an annual basis under the Second Agreement for the purpose of assisting District in winding down its affairs; and VIII. WHEREAS, County has agreed to forego $1,000,000 of District’s ad valorem property tax allocation that would otherwise be transferred to County on an annual basis under the Second Agreement for the purpose of assisting District in winding down its affairs pursuant to the terms of this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and the following terms and conditions, the parties hereto agree as follows: AGREEMENT A. PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT AMENDMENT. The Second Agreement is hereby amended as follows: Section 2(A) – Continuing Property Tax Allocation. The second sentence of Section 2(A) of the Second Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: “The County Auditor shall allocate and transfer to County an amount equal to the general ad valorem property tax revenues that otherwise would be collected and allocated to District less $1,000,000 (such reduced amount, the “New Transfer Amount”) , commencing July 1, 2016, and thereafter shall continue to allocate the New Transfer Amount of ad valorem property tax revenues to County from year to year, as authorized by R&T Code Section 99.02, until the sum of all such allocations to County equals the Restated Property Tax Transfer Amount and District has satisfied all of its other obligations herein.” B. COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. [Signatures appear on following page.] April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 308 Second Amendment to A&R Second Property Tax Transfer Agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date. County of Contra Costa West Contra Costa Healthcare District By: By: Name: David Twa Name: Irma Anderson Title: County Administrator Title: Chair, Board of Directors Contra Costa County Approved as to form: Approved as to form: Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel By: By: Name: Name: Colin Coffey County Counsel District Counsel April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 309 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THIRD AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER FROM WEST CONTRA COSTA HEALTHCARE DISTRICT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY This First Amendment to Third Agreement for Property Tax Transfer from West Contra Costa Healthcare District to Contra Costa County (this “Amendment”), dated April 12, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), is by and between the West Contra Costa Healthcare District, a California local health care district (“District”), and the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”), and amends the Third Agreement for Property Tax Transfer from West Contra Costa Healthcare District to Contra Costa County, dated July 1, 2014 (the “Third Agreement”), between District and County. RECITALS I. WHEREAS, District previously operated an acute care hospital in San Pablo, California, doing business as “Doctor’s Medical Center – San Pablo” (“DMC”), at which it provided care to, among others, Medi-Cal beneficiaries; II. WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013, County and District entered into the Amended and Restated Second Agreement for Property Tax Transfer from West Contra Costa Healthcare District to Contra Costa County, dated July 1, 2014, which provides that the County Auditor shall allocate and transfer to County the entirety of the general ad valorem property tax revenues that otherwise would be collected and allocated to District commencing July 1, 2013, as authorized by Section 99.02 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, until the sum of all such allocations to County equals $17,096,223.18; III. WHEREAS, on July 1, 2014, County and District entered into the Third Agreement, which provided for County to transfer $6,000,000 to District, and that the County Auditor shall allocate and transfer to County the entirety of the general ad valorem property tax revenues that otherwise would be collected and allocated to District commencing once the Second Agreement property tax transfers are complete, until the sum of all such allocations to County equals $8,200,000; IV. WHEREAS, in April, 2015, District announced that it would close DMC due to funding shortfalls; and V. WHEREAS, as of the Effective Date of this Amendment, the remaining amount of ad valorem property tax revenues to be transferred to County under the Third Agreement is $8,200,000. VI. WHEREAS, District has requested that County agree to forego $1,000,000 of District’s ad valorem property tax allocation that would otherwise be transferred to County on an annual basis under the Third Agreement for the purpose of assisting District in winding down its affairs; VII. WHEREAS, County has agreed to forego $1,000,000 of District’s ad valorem property tax allocation that would otherwise be transferred to County on an annual basis under April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 310 the Third Agreement for the purpose of assisting District in winding down its affairs pursuant to the terms of this Amendment; and VIII. WHEREAS, in consideration of County's agreement to forego $1,000,000 in ad valorem property taxes that would otherwise be transferred to it annually under the Third Agreement, and the resulting extension of time in which County will receive the ad valorem property taxes under the Third Agreement, District has agreed to authorize the County Auditor to make a final transfer of District ad valorem property taxes to County in the amount of $645,000, to be transferred after $8,200,000 in District ad valorem property taxes have been transferred under the Third Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and the following terms and conditions, the parties hereto agree as follows: AGREEMENT A. PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT AMENDMENT. The Third Agreement is hereby amended as follows: Section 2(A) – Continuing Property Tax Allocation. The third sentence of Section 2(A) of the Third Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: “Once the County Auditor has allocated and transferred to County general ad valorem property tax revenues in the amount of the Existing Property Tax Transfer Amount pursuant to the Amended and Restated Second Agreement, the County Auditor then shall (1) allocate and transfer to County from year to year, pursuant to this Agreement, an amount equal to the general ad valorem property tax revenues that otherwise would be collected and allocated to District less $1,000,000 (such reduced amount, the “New Transfer Amount”), commencing July 1, 2016, as authorized by R&T Code Section 99.02, until the sum of all such allocations are equal to the New Property Tax Transfer Amount, and (2) after all of the New Property Tax transfer Amount has been transferred to County, allocate and transfer to County from year to year (as necessary), the entirety of the general ad valorem property tax revenues that otherwise would be collected and allocated to District as authorized by R&T Code Section 99.02, until the sum of all such allocations are equal to $645,000.” B. COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. [Signatures appear on following page.] April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 311 First Amendment to Third Property Tax Transfer Agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date. County of Contra Costa West Contra Costa Healthcare District By: By: Name: David Twa Name: Irma Anderson Title: County Administrator Title: Chair, Board of Directors Contra Costa County Approved as to form: Approved as to form: Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel By: By: Name: Name: Colin Coffey County Counsel District Counsel April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 312 RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE plans, specifications, and design for the 2016 Slurry Seal Project. Project No. 0672-6U2153-16 (2) DETERMINE that Pavement Coatings Co., the lowest monetary bidder, has complied with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program and has exceeded the Mandatory Subcontracting Minimum for this project, as provided in the project specifications; and FURTHER DETERMINE that Pavement Coatings Co. has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the project. (3) AWARD the construction contract for the above project to Pavement Coatings Co. in the total amount ($836,845.00) and the unit prices submitted in the bid, and DIRECT that Pavement Coatings Co. shall present two good and sufficient surety bonds, as indicated below, and that the Public Works Director, or designee, shall prepare the contract. (4) ORDER that, after the contractor has signed the contract and returned it, together with the bonds as noted below and any required certificates of insurance or 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 contract for this Board. (5) ORDER that, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 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:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Construction Contract for the 2016 Slurry Seal Project, Alamo, Clayton, and Walnut Creek areas. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 313 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon signature of the contract by the Public Works Director, or designee, and bid bonds posted by the bidders are to be exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for security shall be returned. (6) 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 Contract Code Section 22300. (7) 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. (8) 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. (9) DECLARE that, should the award of the contract to Pavement Coatings Co. be invalidated for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contract 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 construction contract and associated fees of this project will be funded by 100% Local Road Funds. BACKGROUND: The above project was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, plans and specifications were filed with the Board, and bids were invited by the Public Works Director. On March 8, 2016, the Public Works Department received bids from the following contractors: BIDDER, TOTAL AMOUNT, BOND AMOUNTS Pavement Coatings Co., $836,845.00; Payment: $836,845.00; Performance: $836,845.00 California Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc., $841,943.46 Graham Contractors, Inc., $869,842.30 Telfer Pavement Technologies, LLC, $917,254.00 VSS International, Inc., $921,777.00 American Pavement Systems, Inc., $1,004,473.84 The Public Works Director has determined that Pavement Coatings Co. (“Pavement Coatings Co.”) documented an adequate good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program and exceeded the Mandatory Subcontracting Minimum for this project, and the Public Works Director recommends that the construction contract be awarded to Pavement Coatings Co. The Public Works Director recommends that the bid submitted by Pavement Coatings Co. is the lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $5,098.46 less than the next lowest bid, and this Board concurs and so finds. The Board of Supervisors previously determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 314 Act as a Class 1(c) exemption, and a Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk on February 4, 2016. 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, and copies will be made available to any party upon request. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Construction of this project would be delayed, and the project might not be built. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 315 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the following recommendations related to the Marsh Creek Multi-Use Trail concept: 1) ACCEPT background report from staff of the Departments of Public Works and Conservation and Development on the general concept; 2) ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/326 supporting exploration of the concept of the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail, and supporting efforts to identify and secure funding for this project; 3) In collaboration with other proponents of the concept, ADVOCATE for support and funding for the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail, including study and potential implementation, in local, state, and federal transportation, recreation, park, and open space funding efforts and REQUEST consideration of the Marsh Creek Multi-use Trail in the sales tax matter currently under consideration by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority; 4) DIRECT staff to refine the preliminary budget and develop a scope of work for the feasibility analysis and AUTHORIZE staff to work with other prospective project partners to seek funding opportunities. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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 Cunningham (925) 674-7833 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: April 12, 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:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail Concept April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 316 FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended pre-project activities are covered under existing departmental budgets. (100% Dedicated Transportation Funds) BACKGROUND: Marsh Creek Road is a major thoroughfare that connects Central County and East County. Currently, a significant number of bicycle trips take place on Marsh Creek Road, in spite of the lack of bicycle paths. Marsh Creek Road within Clayton has an existing Class II bicycle lane(1), which connects to Clayton’s extensive trail network. In East Contra Costa County, the Marsh Creek Trail currently runs from the Big Break Regional Shoreline in Oakley to the southern city limits of Brentwood. The East Bay Regional Park District plans to extend the Marsh Creek Trail from the Brentwood city limits along Marsh Creek Road to the Round Valley Regional Reserve. The proposed new multi-use trail would create a new, major non-motorized east-west thoroughfare for expanded commuting and recreational opportunities. It would provide non-motorized access to Downtown Clayton, Diablo View Middle School, Mount Diablo, Round Valley Regional Preserve, and the existing Marsh Creek Trail in Brentwood and Oakley. The purpose of the trail would be to provide a safe, useful and enjoyable transportation corridor for various forms of non-motorized travel, including pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle users (including serious cyclists).The trail is proposed to be sized and designed to encourage and accommodate use by these different user groups. Once this trail and adjacent paths are completed, there will be one continuous non-motorized trail from Downtown Concord to Oakley. The trail could possibly be located on the opposite side of the creek from the road, immediately adjacent to the road itself or some distance from the creek or the road in constrained areas. Construction of the trail could be incorporated into, and performed in conjunction with, the Marsh Creek restoration project, as called for in the East Contra Costa County East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP), and be constructed in a sensitive manner that reflects the scenic and natural resources of the area. A number of agencies and organizations and agencies are proposed to and are considering adoption of a resolution regarding the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail. The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, a joint exercise of Powers Authority formed by the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley and Pittsburg and the County, has already adopted a resolution of support. In addition to the County, resolutions similar to Resolution No. 2016/326, are proposed to be considered by the City Councils of Brentwood, Clayton and Oakley, by the East Bay Regional Park District and by other prospective partners such as Save Mount Diablo, Friends of Marsh Creek Watershed, Bike East Bay, TRANSPAC and TRANSPLAN. The next step to explore the concept of the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail is to secure funding and perform a feasibility study. The goals of this study would be the following: • Conduct outreach to the public on the concept; • Better define the goals and objectives of the project; • Collect data useful to planning for the project, possibly including estimates of usage; • Define concept alternatives, including options for alignments, cross-sections, and phasing; and • Better define future costs and potential funding sources. (1) Caltrans Bicycle Facility Designations: Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) = A path separated from the roadway for non-motorized use,Class II Bikeway (bike lane) = An on-street striped bike lane, Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) = A street appropriate for bike usage but without any particular bike amenities, Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeway) = a bike lane that includes some type of separation that may include grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking. Preliminary Budget by Task for Feasibility Analysis April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 317 Preliminary Budget by Task for Feasibility Analysis for Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail Phase and Tasks Preliminary Cost Estimate 1) Feasibility Analysis (cost detail by task) Develop detailed scope of worka. Recruit and hire consultantb. Define project goals and objectivesc. Gather and analyze data on setting, opportunities & constraints d. Public outreach and involvemente. Define concept alternatives (routes, cross-sections etc.)f. Prepare and print final feasibility reportg. $500,000 (total) (staff costs) (staff costs) $5,000 $200,000 $30,000 $240,000 $25,000 2) Planning and environmental review approx. $1,500,000 3) Design approx. $3M 4) Right-of-Way Acquisition and Construction approx. $50M 5) Maintenance costs and funding TBD CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: This project may not proceed without action from the Board of Supervisors who is the current primary project sponsor. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/326 Marsh Creek Multi-Use Trail Information sheet and map MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/326 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 318 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/12/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/326 RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUPPORTING THE CONCEPT OF A MARSH CREEK CORRIDOR MULTI-USE TRAIL THAT CONNECTS THE DELTA TO MOUNT DIABLO AND NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES WHEREAS, Marsh Creek Road is a major thoroughfare that connects Central Contra Costa County and East Contra Costa County and is the gateway to 110,000 acres of open space and recreational areas managed by the East Bay Regional Park District, Contra Costa Water District, State Parks and other local jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, a significant number of bicycle trips take place on Marsh Creek Road, in spite of the lack of a bicycle path or a dedicated lane; and WHEREAS, Marsh Creek Road within Clayton has an existing Class II bicycle lane, which connects to Clayton’s extensive trail network into Concord and Mount Diablo State Park; and WHEREAS, in East Contra Costa County, the Marsh Creek Trail currently runs from the Big Break Regional Shoreline in Oakley to the southern city limits of the City of Brentwood, leaving a gap between that terminus and trails in the City of Clayton; and WHEREAS, the completed multi-use trail would create a new major non-motorized east-west thoroughfare for expanded and safer commuting and recreational opportunities, would provide non-motorized access to Downtown Clayton, Diablo View Middle School, Mount Diablo State Park, Round Valley Regional Preserve, and the Marsh Creek Trail through Brentwood and Oakley; and WHEREAS, once this trail and adjacent trails are completed, there will be one continuous non-motorized route from Central Contra Costa County to the Delta; and WHEREAS, improved access to separated trails, of the type proposed, are consistently shown to substantially increase use of non-motorized modes of travel relative to facilities in the shared roadway; and WHEREAS, construction of the trail could be performed in conjunction with restoration of Marsh Creek, as anticipated in the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan and be constructed in a sensitive manner that reflects the scenic and natural resources of the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS will support exploration of the concept of the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail, and will support efforts to identify and secure funding for this project, including study and potential implementation, in local, state, and federal transportation, recreation, park and open space funding efforts. Contact: John Cunningham (925) 674-7833 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 5 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 319 By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 320 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES321 G:\Transportation\R. Sarmiento\Assignments\Marsh Creek Corridor Multi‐Use Trail\Marsh Creek Corridor Multi‐Use Trail (4‐6‐16).docx MARSH CREEK CORRIDOR MULTI‐USE TRAIL CONCEPT FOR EXPANDED CONNECTIVITY: DELTA SHORELINE TO MOUNT DIABLO Project Description: Develop an approximately 15‐mile long multi‐use trail through the Marsh Creek Corridor on or near Marsh Creek Road between the City of Clayton and the City of Brentwood. Once this trail and adjacent trails are completed, there will be one continuous non‐motorized route from Concord to Mount Diablo that ultimately continues to the shoreline of the Delta in Oakley. Background: Marsh Creek Road is a major thoroughfare that connects Central and East Contra Costa County. This stretch of Marsh Creek Road where a trail is proposed receives up to 10,000 average vehicle trips a day. The western segment of Marsh Creek Road carries a higher volume of commuters on average each day due to its proximity to the City of Clayton while the eastern segment near Round Valley Regional Preserve (Deer Valley Road) receives significantly fewer average daily vehicle trips. Marsh Creek Road is the gateway to 110,000 acres of open space and recreational areas managed by the East Bay Regional Park District, Contra Costa Water District, State Parks, and other organizations. A significant number of bicycle trips take place on Marsh Creek Road, in spite of the lack of a bicycle path or designated lane. Marsh Creek Road within Clayton has an existing Class II bicycle lane, which connects to Clayton’s extensive trail network. In East Contra Costa County, the Marsh Creek Trail currently runs from the Big Break Regional Shoreline in Oakley to the southern city limits of the City of Brentwood. The East Bay Regional Park District plans to extend the Marsh Creek Trail through the City of Brentwood to the Round Valley Regional Preserve. After that section is completed, a gap in the multi‐use trail would still exist between Round Valley Regional Preserve and the City of Clayton. Benefits: The completed multi‐use trail will create a new major non‐motorized east‐west thoroughfare for expanded commuting and recreational opportunities. It will provide access to downtown Clayton, Diablo View Middle School, Mount Diablo State Park, Round Valley Regional Preserve, and the existing Marsh Creek Trail in Brentwood and Oakley. Once this trail is completed, there will be one continuous trail from Concord to the Delta shoreline in Oakley that can accommodate various forms of non‐motorized travel, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. Various trail alignment options are available that allow for flexible design opportunities. These include potential alignments that follow the creek, the road or separate the trail entirely to follow safer and more user‐friendly routes. Construction of the trail could be performed in conjunction with restoration of Marsh Creek, as anticipated in the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan /Natural Community Conservation Plan, and be constructed in a manner that reflects the scenic and natural resources of the area. Policies: Both the County’s General Plan and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan call for bicycle facilities along Marsh Creek Road. Funding Opportunities: A number federal, state, and local funding opportunities exist to support the planning, additional ROW acquisition, and construction of the Marsh Creek Trail. Local agencies in Contra Costa County have an additional opportunity to generate secure local funding by including the Marsh Creek Trail as a project in the upcoming proposed augmentation of the county‐wide transportation sales tax. Cost: TBD Cyclist on Marsh Creek Road Marsh Creek Corridor View of multi‐use trail Photo Credit: Scott Hein April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 322 Mount DiabloState Park Round ValleyRegional Preserve Marsh CreekState Park EBRPDLand Bank Mars h C r e e k R d ÄÅ4 Black DiamondMinesRegionalPreserve CCWD CCWD EBRPD Land Bank Los VaquerosWatershed Land Morgan TerritoryRegional Park MarshCreekTrailExisting Proposed Marsh Creek Regional Trail ClaytonTrailsExisting Brentwood AntiochClayton Mar s h C r e e k Area of Detail N 0 0.80.4 Miles Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail Study Area April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 323 RECOMMENDATION(S): REJECT all bids received on March 8, 2016, for the 2016 Bay Point Asphalt Rubber Cape Seal Project, and ORDER any bid bonds posted by the bidders to be exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for security shall be returned, Bay Point area. FISCAL IMPACT: Project to be funded by 93.3% Local Road Funds and 6.7% CalRecycle Grant Funds. BACKGROUND: The above project was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, plans and specifications were filed with and approved by the Board, bids were invited by the Public Works Director and Addendum No. 1 was issued. On March 8, 2016, the Public Works Department received bids from the following contractors: BIDDER, TOTAL UNIT AMOUNT VSS International, Inc., $1,736,832.00 American Pavement Systems, Inc., $1,824,424.00 Telfer Pavement Technologies, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 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:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:REJECT all bids received on March 8, 2016, for the 2016 Bay Point Asphalt Rubber Cape Seal project, Bay Point area. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 324 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) LLC, $1,863,717.00 Pavement Coatings Co., $2,442,095.00 The Public Works Director recommends to the Board of Supervisors to exercise its discretion to reject all bids pursuant to the Notice to Bidders. Contra Costa County Public Works Department, like so many other local Public Works agencies (Cities and Counties), as well as the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), is highly dependent on State gas tax revenues for funding a majority of operation and maintenance responsibilities on public roadway systems. Local Public Works agencies in California are seeing significant reductions in the allocation of State gas tax revenue for operations, maintenance, and capital improvements. In Contra Costa County, we have seen a decline in our gas tax revenue from $27.2 million in Fiscal Year 2013/2014 to a projected $18.9 million next year, a 70% decline in just a four year span. Based on the current year monthly receipts of gas tax, the Public Works Department expects gas tax revenues to be less than projected in the Public Works budget. Based on the revenue situation, Public Works has determined that there will be insufficient gas tax funding to move forward with the 2016 Bay Point Asphalt Rubber Cape Seal project. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Public Works Department may be unable to pay contractor for work performed. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 325 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/155 accepting completion of landscape improvements for the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) for road acceptance RA04-01168 (cross-reference subdivision SD04-08856), for a project being developed by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Developer Fees. The funds to be released are developer fees that have been held on deposit. BACKGROUND: The developer has completed the landscape improvements per the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping), and in accordance with the Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The completion of improvements will not be accepted and the maintenance/warranty period will not begin. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: S. Reed, Design/Construction, L. Leontoni, ES, L. Stritt, Shapell Homes, C. Hallford, Mapping Div, C. Low. City of San Ramon, The Continental Insurance Company C. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Accepting completion of landscape improvements for the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) for RA04-01168, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 326 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/155 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/155 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 327 Recorded at the request of:Public Works,Engineering Services Division Return To:Public Works, Engineering Services Division THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/12/2016 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. 2016/155 Accepting completion of landscape improvements for the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) for road acceptance RA04-01168 (cross-reference subdivision SD04-08856), for a project being developed by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) These improvements are approximately located along Dougherty Road from Bollinger Canyon Road to Park Avenue. The Public Works Director has notified this Board that the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) for RA04-01168 (cross-reference Subdivision SD04-8856), have been completed as provided in the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) with Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, heretofore approved by this Board; That the landscape improvements have been COMPLETED as of April 12, 2016, thereby is establishing the six-month terminal period for the filing of liens in case of action under said Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping): DATE OF AGREEMENT May 12, 2009 NAME OF SURETY The Continental Insurance Company BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the payment (labor and materials) surety for $108,800.00,Bond No. 929 474 609 issued by the above surety be RETAINED for the six month lien guarantee period until October 12, 2016, at which time the Board AUTHORIZES the release of said surety less the amount of any claims on file. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the landscaping improvements for RA04-01168 (cross-reference subdivision SD04-08856) on along Dougherty Road from Bollinger Canyon Road to Park Avenue are ACCEPTED AS COMPLETE . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of the warranty and maintenance period , the San Ramon City Council shall accept the landscape improvements for maintenance in accordance with the Dougherty Valley Memorandum of Understanding. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 328 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the beginning of the warranty and maintenance period is hereby established, and the $2,200.00 cash deposit (Auditor's Deposit Permit No. 522781, dated April 23, 2009) made by Shapell Homes, A Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and the performance/maintenance surety bond rider for $215,400.00, Bond No. 929 474 609, issued by The Continental Insurance Company be RETAINED pursuant to the requirements of Section 94?4.406 of the Ordinance Code until release 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: S. Reed, Design/Construction, L. Leontoni, ES, L. Stritt, Shapell Homes, C. Hallford, Mapping Div, C. Low. City of San Ramon, The Continental Insurance Company April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 329 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES330 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES331 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016 /156 accepting completion of the warranty period for the Subdivision Agreement, and release of cash deposit for faithful performance, subdivision SD03-08689, for a project developed by Shapell Industries of Northern California, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Developer Fees. The funds to be released are developer fees that have been held on deposit. BACKGROUND: The public improvements have met the guarantee performance standards for the warranty period following completion and acceptance of the improvements. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The completion of improvements will not be accepted and the maintenance/warranty period will not begin. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: S. Reed, Design/Construction, L. Leontoni, ES, C. Low. City of San Ramon, Shapell Industries of Nor. Cal, The Continental Insurance Company C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Accepting completion of warranty period and release of cash deposit for the Subdivison Agreement for SD03-08689, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 332 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/156 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/156 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 333 Recorded at the request of:Public Works, Engineering Services Division Return To:Public Works, Engineering Services Division THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/12/2016 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. 2016/156 Accepting completion of the warranty period for the Subdivision Agreement, and release of cash deposit for faithful performance, for subdivision SD03-08689, for a project developed by Shapell Industries of Northern California, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) On July 9, 2013, this Board resolved that the improvements in subdivision SD03-08689 were completed as provided in the Subdivision Agreement with Shapell Industries of Northern California, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and now on the recommendation of the Public Works Director; The Board hereby FINDS that the improvements have satisfactorily met the guaranteed performance standards for the period following completion and acceptance. That the Public Works Director is AUTHORIZED to REFUND the $17,000.00 cash deposit (Auditor’s Deposit Permit No.606800, dated June 19, 2012) plus interest to Shapell Industries of Northern California, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation in accordance with Government Code Section 53079, if appropriate, Ordinance Code Section 94-4.406, and the Subdivision Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of the warranty and maintenance period, the San Ramon City Council shall accept the civil improvements for maintenance in accordance with the Dougherty Valley Memorandum of Understanding. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the warranty period has been completed and the Subdivision Agreement and surety bond, Bond No.929 548 086, dated July 31, 2012, issued by The Continental Insurance Company, are exonerated. 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 334 cc: S. Reed, Design/Construction, L. Leontoni, ES, C. Low. City of San Ramon, Shapell Industries of Nor. Cal, The Continental Insurance Company April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 335 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES336 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with Concord Flying Club for a shade hangar at Buchanan Field Airport effective March 25, 2016 in the monthly amount of $177.07, Pacheco area. FISCAL IMPACT: The Airport Enterprise Fund will realize $2,124.84 annually. BACKGROUND: On September 1, 1970, Buchanan Airport Hangar Company entered into a 30-year lease with Contra Costa County for the construction of seventy-five (75) hangars and eighteen (18) aircraft shelters at Buchanan Field Airport. Buchanan Airport Hangar Company was responsible APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a hangar rental agreement with Buchanan Field Airport Hangar tenant April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 337 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for the maintenance and property management of the property during that 30-year period. On September 1, 2000, the County obtained ownership of the aircraft hangars and shelters, pursuant to the terms of the above lease. On February 13, 2007, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the new Large Hangar Lease Agreement for use with the larger East Ramp Hangars. On February 3, 2008, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the amended T-Hangar Lease Agreement which removed the Aircraft Physical Damage Insurance requirement. The new amended T-hangar Lease Agreement will be used to enter into this aircraft rental agreement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action will cause a loss of revenue to the Airport Enterprise Fund. ATTACHMENTS CFC Hangar Agreement April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 338 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 339 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 340 RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by USSA Insurance for Stephanie Green, Nationwide Ins. a/s/o Wunmi Mohammed-Kamson, Jane Young, Jonathan Ortega, and CSAA o/b/o Jesus Alvarado Rodriguez. DENY late claims filed by Allison Cassidy on behalf of her son, Delano Cassidy, a minor. Acting as the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Board, DENY claims filed by State Farm Ins. for Stephen Zendt and an amended claim filed by State Farm Ins. for Stephen Zendt. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: * APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSTAIN:Candace Andersen, District II 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:claims April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 341 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT a Resolution to proclaim April 10-16, 2016 as National Crime Victims' Rights Week in promotion of victims' rights and to recognize crime victims and those who advocate on their behalf. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The National Campaign for Victims' Rights led to President Ronald Reagan's reforms on behalf of crime victims, his declaration of the first National Crime Victims' Rights Week, and victims' rights legislation and victim services. National Crime Victims' Rights Week offers an opportunity to renew and strengthen our partnerships and teamwork, and to highlight the collaborative approaches that are integral to the U.S. Department of Justice's mission. Through partnerships, organizations can mobilize their experience, skills, resources, and stakeholders to help plan a powerful strategy to provide direct services to crime victims. In commemoration of National Crime Victims' Rights Week the District Attorney's Office APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Cherie Mathisen, 957-2234 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mark Peterson, District Attorney Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:National Crime Victims' Rights Week Presentation April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 342 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) will host on Friday, April 15, 2016 from 10:30 a.m. to noon in the Community Room located at 900 Ward Street, Martinez, a special ceremony to recognize the following Victim Assistance Program Volunteers: Jim Fulton, Roger Ryerson, Samuel Brewer, Hector Flores, Giovanni Vega and Emilee Divinagracia; and the following Award Winners: Clerical Staff John Pippig Crime Victim Advocate Marlen Valenzuela District Attorney Investigator James Morris-General Prosecutions; Tim Weaver-Special Victims Law Enforcement: Domestic Violence Matt Stonebraker, Richmond Police Dept. Law Enforcement: Crimes Persons Det. Erin Bai, CCCSO Law Enforcement: Crimes Persons Det. Ed Sanchez, Pittsburg Police Department Deputy District Attorney Kabu Adodoaji Deputy District Attorney - Restitution-Sloan Heffron Making A Difference Award - Sherry Cook, Foster Parent Special Courage Award Crime Survivor - Yasmine Harris and Cecilia Kioa Above and Beyond Award - Shane Wheaton, Witness Above and Beyond Award - Mona Hunley, Concord Police Department AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/136 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/136 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 343 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/136 PROCLAIMING APRIL 10-16, 2016 AS NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS WEEK Whereas, Americans are the victims of more than 20 million crimes each year and these crimes can touch the lives of anyone regardless of age, national origin, race, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration, or economic status; Whereas, Many victims face challenges in finding appropriate services, including victims with disabilities, young victims of color, Deaf and hard of hearing victims, LGBTQ victims, tribal victims, elder victims, victims with mental illness, immigrant victims, teen victims, victims with limited English proficiency, and others; Whereas, Too many communities feel disconnected from the justice and social response systems, and have lost in the ability of those systems to recognize them and respond to their needs; Whereas, Victims of repeat victimization who fail to receive support services are at greater risk for long term consequences of crime; Whereas, The victim services community has worked for decades to create an environment for victims that is safe, supportive, and effective; Whereas, Intervening early with services that support and empower victims provides a pathway to recovery from crime and abuse; Whereas, Honoring the rights of victims, including the right to be heard and to be treated with fairness, dignity and respect, and working to meet their needs rebuilds their trust in the criminal justice and social service systems; Whereas, Serving victims and rebuilding their trust restores hope to victims and survivors, as well as their communities; Whereas, National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, April 10-16, 2016, is an opportune time to commit to ensuring that all victims of crime—even those who are challenging to reach or serve—are offered culturally and linguistically accessible and appropriate services in the aftermath of crime; Whereas, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is joining forces with the victim service providers, criminal justice agencies, and concerned citizens throughout Contra Costa County and America to raise awareness of victims’ rights and observe National Crime Victims’ Right Week: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors does hereby reaffirm their commitment to respect and enforce victims’ rights and address their needs during National Crime Victims’ Rights Week and throughout the year, and is hereby dedicated to serving victims, building trust and restoring hope for justice and healing: ___________________ 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 344 By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 345 PR.3, C.10 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 346 FISCAL IMPACT: None CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The importance of early childhood education will not receive the added attention it deserves. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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. Bhambra, 681-6304 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: Jagjit Bhambra C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Proclaim April 6-12, 2016 as "Week of the Young Child" in Contra Costa County April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 347 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/140 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/140 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 348 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/140 proclaiming April 10 through April 16, 2016, Week of the Young Child in recognition of Contra Costa County’s continued commitment to investment in young children and their families. Whereas the National Association for the Education of Young Children, in conjunction with the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau’s Head Start and Child Development Program, Contra Costa County Local Planning and Advisory Council for Early Care and Education, Contra Costa Child Care Council, The Contra Costa County of Education and First 5 Contra Costa is celebrating the thirty-fifth annual Week of the Young Child during April 10-16, 2016; and Whereas Contra Costa County shares a dedication for every young child to have access to safe, healthy, quality environments with passionate, educated, skilled, well-compensated and dedicated teachers; and Whereas the theme of the 2016 Week of the Young Child is Access to Quality, highlighting that today we know more than ever before about the importance of children's earliest years in shaping their learning and development. Yet, never before have the needs of young children and their families been more pressing; and Whereas we have known for decades that the 0-5 years are the most critical in every human’s life, when 90% of our brains are formed, when capacity for learning is unlimited and our potential boundless; and Whereas to achieve the best brain development, young children need to form secure bonds with the people who care for them, and Whereas it is difficult to attract and retain the best and brightest teachers when early care and education workforce wages are among the lowest nationwide; Whereas nearly half of early educators (nationally) relies on public assistance to continue to teach and care for young children; and Whereas here in Contra Costa, families continue to struggle to make ends meet when nearly 22% of Contra Costa County’s workforce are single mothers; Whereas 52% of eligible families for subsidized child care are unable to benefit from high quality early education because there are not enough subsidies available; and Whereas a Contra Costa County minimum wage worker earning $10/hour spends 58% of their paycheck on child care costs; and Whereas Contra Costa County is committed to closing the gap for families to access high quality early learning; and Whereas more than $80,000,000 in public funding for child care and early learning is invested in Contra Costa each year; Whereas the purpose of the Week of the Young Child is to recognize the healthy development and education of all children is the responsibility of all of us, and to recommit ourselves to ensuring that each and every child experiences the type of early environment—at home, at child care, at school, and in the community—that will promote their early development; and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors hereby declares April 10-16, 2016 the Week of the Young Child in Contra Costa County in honor of all of those committed to enhancing the lives of young children and their families, and encourages all citizens to support the investments for quality early care and education that will benefit all of Contra Costa’s families. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 349 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 350 PR.2, C.9 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 351 RECOMMENDATION(S): PRESENATION recognizing April as Alcohol Awareness Month in Contra Costa County, as recommended by Supervisor Glover. (Isabelle Kirske) BACKGROUND: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Ed Diokno, 925-427-8138 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Declaring April as Alcohol Awareness Month April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 352 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) For the past several years, April has been declared Alcohol Awareness Month. At the Request of the members of Friday Night Live, a youth program managed by the Center of Human Development, and in coordination and recommendation of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Commission of the Health Services Department a new product has entered the marketplace - powdered alcohol - which is not covered in any of our ordinances limiting or restricting the sale of said product to minors, they wanted to use April (as Alcohol Awareness Month) to bring attention of this new product and similar products, especially those marketed towards young people. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: It will allow and encourage marketers of alcohol products to continue targeting young people who are too young to purchase or imbibe alcoholic products legally. Young people who fall for the marketing may become addicted to alcohol products and become victims of alcohol abuse to the detriment of their lives and the Contra Costa community. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: It will help young people become more aware of the predatory marketing strategies aimed at their age group; prevent them from going down the dangerous path which may lead to abuse of alcohol; encourage young people to participate in the democratic process in making policies that affect the lives of their communities and their peers. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/150 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/150 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 353 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/150 Declaring April as Alcohol Awareness Month. WHEREAS, it takes a community approach to change the norms surrounding underage drinking and to reduce the access points to alcohol for our young people; and WHEREAS, alcohol is a primary factor in the four leading causes of death for young people ages 10-21; and WHEREAS, people who begin drinking before age 15 are four times more likely to develop alcohol dependence than those who begin drinking at age 21; and WHEREAS, each year, nearly 2000 persons who are under 21 die in motor vehicle crashes that involve underage drinking; and WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa acknowledges that the epidemic of underage drinking kills more youth than all other drugs combined; and WHEREAS, alcohol is the number one drug of choice among America’s youth. In fact, the results from the 2011-2013 California Healthy Kids Survey indicate that 1 in 5 11th grade students in California drink 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row per month; and WHEREAS, the alcohol industry overexposes young people to harmful advertising, encouraging alcohol consumption through unfettered promotion of products specifically appealing to youth such as soda-like popular beverages available at corner stores, and the newly introduced “Palcohol” or powdered alcohol; and WHEREAS, alcopops for the purposes of this resolution are defined as youth oriented flavored malt beverages in single-serving containers as described under 27 C.F.R. § 25.55). Alcopops are the equivalent of 3-5 beers with as much as 12% alcohol in 24 ounces and are packaged in bottles or cans that are very colorful; and WHEREAS, a plethora of youth-oriented flavored malt beverages, also known as alcopops, already exist on the market, available wherever beer is sold, and they are sweet, bubbly, colorful, much like Arizona tea containers, high alcohol content drinks that are often the first drink consumed by underage youth; and WHEREAS, powdered alcohol also has a very high potential to attract youth with its convenience, fruity flavors and portability; and WHEREAS, powdered alcohol could be readily used to spike other alcoholic beverages making them more dangerous for youth consumption, or added to sodas, energy drinks, juices or punch very easily, much more easily than adding liquid alcohol; and WHEREAS, the Friday Night Live Program and the Office of Education work with the community, including students, parents, educators, local merchants, Contra Costa County, and local law enforcement to create an environment that decreases youth access to alcohol and changes the community norms in regard to underage drinking. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors proclaim April as Alcohol Awareness Month 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. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 354 ATTESTED: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 355 PR.1, C.13 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 356 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution declaring April, 2016 as "Child Abuse Prevention Month" in Contra Costa County April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 357 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/125 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/125 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 358 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/125 Recognizing April, 2016 as "Child Abuse Prevention Month" in Contra Costa County. Whereas, Child Abuse Prevention Month has been observed for the past 25 years since it was first proclaimed by the U.S. President in 1982; and Whereas, Child abuse and neglect affect children of all ages, races, and incomes, but it is 100 percent preventable; and Whereas, national statistics show that one in four girls and one in four boys will be mistreated before the age of eighteen, while children with disabilities are three to seven times more likely to suffer from child abuse than children without disabilities; and Whereas, despite outreach and community efforts, the rising number of reported child abuse cases remains a great concern, and highlights the need for increased protection and improved services for abused and neglected children; and Whereas, most experts believe the number of incidents of abuse are far greater than what is reported; early intervention child abuse programs are critical for preventing abuse, and can positively impact at-risk families, protecting children. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby recognize the efforts made by the Child Abuse Prevention Council and acknowledges its hard work to prevent child abuse throughout Contra Costa County, declaring April, 2016 as Child Abuse Prevention Month , 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 359 PR.4, C.11 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 360 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution recognizing Day for National Service April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 361 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/143 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/143 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 362 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/143 honoring Recognition Day for National Service. WHEREAS, service to others is a hallmark of the American character, and central to how we meet our challenges; and WHEREAS, the nation’s counties are increasingly turning to national service and volunteerism as a cost-effective strategy to meet their needs; and WHEREAS, AmeriCorps and Senior Corps participants address the most pressing challenges facing our communities, from educating students for the jobs of the 21st century and supporting veterans and military families to providing health services and helping communities recover from natural disasters; and WHEREAS, national service expands economic opportunity by creating more sustainable, resilient communities and providing education, career skills, and leadership abilities for those who serve; and WHEREAS, AmeriCorps and Senior Corps participants serve in more than 50,000 locations across the country, bolstering the civic, neighborhood, and faith-based organizations that are so vital to our economic and social well-being; and WHEREAS, national service participants increase the impact of the organizations they serve, both through their direct service and by managing millions of additional volunteers; and WHEREAS, national service represents a unique public-private partnership that invests in community solutions and leverages non-federal resources to strengthen community impact and increase the return on taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS, national service participants demonstrate commitment, dedication, and patriotism by making an intensive commitment to service, a commitment that remains with them in their future endeavors; and WHEREAS, the Corporation for National and Community Service shares a priority with county officials and mayors nationwide to engage citizens, improve lives, and strengthen communities; and is joining with the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, Cities of Service, and mayors and county officials across the country for the Mayor and County Recognition Day for National Service on April 5, 2016. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim April 5, 2016 as National Service Recognition Day, in Contra Costa County, and encourage residents to recognize the positive impact of national service in our County, and to thank those who serve and find ways to give back to their communities. ___________________ 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. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 363 ATTESTED: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 364 PR.5, C.12 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 365 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution recognizing Ed and Kathy Chiverton for their years of community service April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 366 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/158 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/158 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 367 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/158 recognizing Ed and Kathy Chiverton for their many years of community service. Whereas, Kathy Chiverton has an extensive history of community involvement, currently she is the Executive Director of the Discovery Counseling Center, she has served as Chief of Staff to two Contra Costa County Supervisors and was Executive Director of the San Ramon Valley YMCA; and Whereas, Kathy’s volunteer work is extensive and includes co-chairing school bond measures, serving on education foundations, Rotary, and working with the San Ramon Valley School District to address youth development and safety issues; and Whereas, Ed’s career brought him and his family to Alamo in 1991, his interest in serving the educational community has benefitted the community enormously; and Whereas, Ed has served on the San Ramon Valley Unified School District Facility Bond Oversight Committee, the Board of Directors of the San Ramon Valley Education Foundation, and has served in many roles over his 6-year term on the Foundation; he continues to support both the Foundation and the District by focusing on the development of new, self-sustaining programs that support the mission of both organizations; and Whereas, Kathy and Ed have three children who have benefitted from the excellent education provided them, and the hard work and dedication of their parents. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby honor Ed and Kathy Chiverton for their many years of dedication to the community. ___________________ 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 368 C.14 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 369 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 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:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution recognizing Judy Dinkle as the Moraga Citizen of the Year April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 370 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/164 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/164 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 371 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/164 recognizing Judy Dinkle as the Moraga Citizen of the Year. Whereas, Judy Dinkle moved to San Francisco in 1976, then to Moraga in 1981 where she has lived, worked and volunteered continuously for the last 35 years; and Whereas, Judy began her own kitchen and bathroom remodeling and design business in Moraga and has been a successful Moraga entrepreneur for 35 years; and Whereas, during that time she has also found time to devote to numerous charitable and community service organizations; after her daughter graduated from Campolindo High School, Judy began to devote even more time to Moraga community service and in 2001 was appointed to the Board of the Moraga Park Foundation where she has been a member continuously and has served as President twice; and Whereas, in 2005, Judy was one of several people appointed by the Town Council to the ad hoc “Hacienda Committee” whose charge was to evaluate what could be done to improve the utilization and financial viability of the Hacienda; and Whereas, Judy continues to live, work and volunteer for a number of organizations in Moraga, constantly giving of her time and service. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby honor Judy Dinkle for her dedication to the community of Moraga. ___________________ 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 372 C.15 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 373 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-09 amending the County Ordinance Code to remove the exempt classifications of Alcohol and Other Drugs Services Director-Exempt, Deputy Director/Chief Information Security Officer, and Deputy Chief Information Officer-Geographic Information System from the list of classifications excluded from the Merit System and reorder the classifications in section 33-5.313. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Attached is Ordinance No. 2016-09 amending Sections 33-5.313 and 33-5.359 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code to remove the exempt classifications of Alcohol and Other Drugs Services Director-Exempt, Deputy Director/Chief Information Security Officer, and Deputy Chief Information Officer-Geographic Information System from the list of classifications excluded from the Merit System. Due to the large number of classifications that are exempt in Section 33-5.313, we also reordered the remaining classifications into categories for ease of future reference and revision. Adoption of the ordinance will bring the County Ordinance Code up to date with actions previously taken by the Board of Supervisors to abolish the three subject job classifications. For reference, Position Adjustment Resolution 21662, adopted June 9, 2015, abolished the class of Alcohol and Other Drugs Services Director-Exempt; and APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 335-1077 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Human Resources Dept C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2016-09 TO UPDATE JOB CLASSES THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM MERIT SYSTEM April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 374 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Position Adjustment Resolution 21817, adopted February 9, 2016, abolished the classes of Deputy Director/Chief Information Security Officer and Deputy Chief Information Officer-Geographic Information System. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the ordinance code will not be current and will reference job classes that have been abolished. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2016-09 - Exempt Job Classes MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance No. 2016-09 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 375 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES376 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES377 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES378 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES379 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES380 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES381 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES382 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES383 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Doug Stewart, DECLARE a vacancy in the District V Member Seat on the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by Supervisor Federal D. Glover. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Planning Commission's powers and duties include: 1. Exercise all powers and duties prescribed by law (statute, ordinance or board order), including consideration of matters referred to it by the zoning administrator except those powers and duties specifically reserved or delegated to other divisions of the planning agency; 2.Initiate preparation of general plans, specific plans, regulations, programs and legislation to implement the planning power of the county; 3. Be generally responsible for advising the legislative body of matters relating to planning, which, in the opinion of the commission, should be studied; 4. Be the advisory agency as designated in Title 9 of this code for the purpose of passing on subdivisions; 5. Hear and decide all applications or requests for proposed entitlements estimated to generate one hundred or more peak hour trips unless otherwise provided by this code or board order; and 6. Hear and make recommendations regarding proposed development agreements when it is hearing the related project applications being processed concurrently with the development agreements. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Vincent Manuel (925) 427-8138 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT Resignation of Doug Stewart from the Contra Costa County Planning Commission April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 384 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Position would remain vacant. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 385 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES386 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Peggy Black, DECLARE a vacancy in the District V Family Member Seat on the Mental Health Commission, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by Supervisor Federal D. Glover. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The function of the Mental Health Commission is to review and evaluate the community's mental health needs, services, facilities, and special problems; to review any County agreements entered into pursuant to Section 5650 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; to advise the governing body and local mental health director as to any aspect of the local mental health program; and to submit an annual report to the Board of Supervisors. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The position would remain vacant. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Vincent Manuel (925) 427-8138 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Accept Resignation of Peggy Black from the Mental Health Commission April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 387 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 388 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES389 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Amin Bhupen to Private / Non-profit Alternate Seat on the Economic Opportunity Council, with a term ending on June 30, 2019, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: Mr. Bhupen is hereby appointed to the Private / Non-profit Alternate Seat with a term end of June 30, 2019. He lives in Walnut Creek, CA 94598. The Economic Opportunity Council approved Mr. Bhupen's application on March 10, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Economic Opportunity Council will be unable have a quorum to conduct routine business. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: CSB (925) 681-6304 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Nancy Sparks, Christina Reich, Cassandra Youngblood C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINT Amin Bhupen to the Private/Non-Profit Alternate Seat of the Economic Opportunity Council April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 390 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT the following individual to the District V Representative Alternate Seat of the Contra Costa Fire Protection District Advisory Commission with a term to expire September 2018, as recommended by Supervisor Federal D. Glover: Walter Fields Oakley, CA 94561 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa Fire Protection District Advisory Commission responsibility is to review and advise on annual operations and capital budgets; to review district expenditures; to review and advise on long-range capital improvement plans; pursuant to district ordinance to serve as the Appeals Board on weed abatement matters; to advise the Fire Chief on district service matters; to meet jointly with the Board of Supervisors and provide advice to the board as needed; to communicate with the other fire district advisory commissions on services and functional integration; to assist in the Fire Chief's selection process as required; to serve as liaison between the Board of Supervisors and the community served by each district; to perform such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned and as directed by the Board of Supervisors. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Vincent Manuel (925) 427-8138 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appoint Walter Fields to the Contra Costa Fire Protection District Advisory Commission April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 391 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat would remain vacant. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 392 RECOMMENDATION(S): DECLARE vacant Contra Costa County Historical Society #3 seat previously held by Webb Johnson, due to the relocation of his residence outside of the County’s jurisdictional boundaries, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: At the February 11, 2016, meeting of the Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee, Mr. Johnson announced his resignation from his position due to his relocation of residence outside of the County’s jurisdictional boundaries. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat must first be declared vacant before it may be filled. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Christine Louie, (925) 674-7787 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Declare a Vacancy on the Contra Costa County Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 393 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 394 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES395 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the medical staff appointments and reappointments, additional privileges, medical staff advancement, voluntary resignations and internal medicine privilege form, as recommend by the Medical Staff Executive Committee, at the March 21, 2016 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. Any privilege change needs to be approved by Board of Supervisors to implement them on privilege form packets. The above recommendations for appointment/reappointment were reviewed by the Credentials Committee and approved by the Medical Executive Committee. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wihelm, Sana Salman C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Medical Staff Appointments and Reappointments – March 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 396 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the 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. ATTACHMENTS March List IM priviledge April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 397 MEC Recommendations – March 2016 Definitions: A=Active C=Courtesy Aff=Affliate P/A= Provisional Active P/C= Provisional Courtesy Page 1 A. New Medical Staff Members Carl Gold, MD Internal Medicine Benjamin Graham, MD Hospitalist B. New Teleradiologist Staff Members Michelle Goni, MD Richard Hollis, DO Kristen Menn, MD C. Application for Affiliates Tamra Groode, FNP Pediatrics D. Request for Additional Privileges Megan Baker, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Psychiatry Christina Hamilton, MD OB/GYN Family Medicine Takenori Watanabe, MD Family Medicine HIV Specialist F. Advance to Non-Provisional Abid Ahmed, MD Hospitalist A Nicole Baltrushes, MD Hospitalist A Kenneth Etefia, MD Psychiatry/Psychology A Deidra Francis, FNP Family Medicine Aff John Hartmann, MD Psychiatry/Psychology C Nicole Hickey, MD Internal Medicine A Micah Hoffman, MD Psychiatry/Psychology C Peter Huang, MD Psychiatry/Psychology C Deepak Kumar, MD Psychiatry/Psychology C Brian Laing, MD Family Medicine A Flynne Lewis, MD Pediatrics A Mridula Rewal, MD Hospitalist A Michael Rogers, MD Psychiatry/Psychology C Linda Tran, DO Pediatrics C Arshya Vahabzadeh, MD Psychiatry/Psychology C G. Biennial Reappointments Abid Hassan Ahmed, MD Hospitalist P Andrea Bates, MD Psychiatry/Psychology C Charles Berletti, MD OB/GYN C John Betjemann, MD Internal Medicine C David Carey, MD Family Medicine A Annie Cherayil, MD Family Medicine A Vanja Douglas, MD Internal Medicine C Alexandra Duque-Silva, MD Pediatrics A Nancy Ebbert, MD Psychiatry/Psychology A Doris Galina Quintero, MD Internal Medicine C Katharine Goheen, MD Family Medicine A April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 398 MEC Recommendations – March 2016 Definitions: A=Active C=Courtesy Aff=Affliate P/A= Provisional Active P/C= Provisional Courtesy Page 2 George Hamilton, MD Psychiatry/Psychology A Brian Hathcoat, DDS Dental A Margaret Jett, DO Pediatrics A Anthony Kim, MD Internal Medicine C Ben Kim, DDS Dental A George Lee, MD Anesthesia A Matthew Littlefield, MD Psychiatry/Psychology A Richard McIlroy, III, MD Family Medicine A Ruxandra Radu-Radulescu, MD OB/GYN A Saunaz Sarvi, DDS Dental A Sonika Shah, MD Internal Medicine A Chiyo Shidara, DDS Dental A Zita Shiue, MD Internal Medicine C Tanuj Sidartha, MD Psychiatry/Psychology P Daniel Sobel, MD Emergency Medicine A Jennifer Stanger, MD Hospitalist A Erin Stratta, MD Emergency Medicine A Keith White, MD Pediatrics A H. Biennial Renew of Privileges Maura Daly, LM OB/GYN Anita Ko, OD Surgery Jessica Oqvist, LM OB/GYN Sharman Wong, OD Surgery Sonya Wyrobeck, CNM OB/GYN J. Voluntary Resignations Joan Gerbasi, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Akindele Kolade, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Ayonija Maheshwari, MD Anesthesia Rebecca Menashe, CNM OB/GYN Srikanth Reddy, MD Internal Medicine Summer Savon, PhD Psychiatry/Psychology Barbara Swarzenski, MD Psychiatry/Psychology April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 399 Internal Medicine Privilege 1 New Privilege Proposal for Internal Medicine April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 400 RECOMMENDATION(S): RE-APPOINT the following individuals to the Western Contra Costa Transit Authority Board of Directors for a new term expiring December 31, 2018, as recommended by Supervisor Federal D. Glover: Rodeo Member Seat Aleida Andrino-Chavez Rodeo, CA 94572 San Pablo Member Seat Dr. Maureen Powers San Pablo, CA 94806 Crockett Member Seat Thomas Hansen Crockett, CA 94525 FISCAL IMPACT: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Vincent Manuel (925) 427-8138 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Reappointment to the Western Contra Costa County Transit Authority Board April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 401 BACKGROUND: Members Andiron-Chavez, Powers, and Hansen have continued an excellent job of representing their communities on the Contra Costa Count Board of Directors and Supervisor Federal D. Glover would like to reappoint them for another term. The new two year term would expire December 31, 2018. The purpose of the Western Contra Costa Transit Authority is to own, operate and maintain a public transit system in an effort to meet public transportation needs in Western Contra Costa County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Positions would remain vacant. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 402 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5059 authorizing the transfer of appropriations in the amount of $12,830 from the Traffic Safety Fund (0368) to CSA P-2 Zone A (7653) and authorizing additional revenue in the amount of $25,842 from accumulated depreciation for the purchase of one non-ISF police patrol vehicle for use in the Blackhawk area. FISCAL IMPACT: This action increases appropriations in P2a Blackhawk (7653) and reduces appropriations in the Blackhawk Traffic Safety Fund (3682). No net county cost. BACKGROUND: The Office of the Sheriff, P-2A Zone, is in need of replacing one 2008 Ford Crown Victoria that has exceeded its useful life and is fully depreciated. The replacement vehicle will be purchased using the accumulated depreciation of $25,842 and Blackhawk Traffic Safety Funds of $12,830. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Liz Arbuckle,925-335-1529 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Staceyy M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Liz Arbuckle, Heike Anderson, Tim Ewell C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appropriation Adjustment - Purchase Order Blackhawk Vehicle April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 403 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Traffic Safety Fund was established to be used for the deposit of all monies received as a result of arrests for vehicle code misdemeanor violations by a law enforcement agency. Expenditures made from this fund shall be made only for traffic-control devices and the maintenance thereof, equipment and supplies for traffic law enforcement and traffic accident prevention, and the maintenance, improvement or construction of public streets, bridges and culverts. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: There will be insufficient appropriations available to facilitate the replacement of one patrol vehicle. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5059 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5059 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 404 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES405 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES406 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES407 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES408 RECOMMENDATION(S): Public Defender's Office (0243): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5058 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $37,119 from the National Juvenile Defender Center, and appropriating it for contracted temporary help for the pilot Juvenile Post Disposition Reentry Legal Fellowship program in the Office of the Public Defender. FISCAL IMPACT: This grant will provide $37,119 for salary reimbursement for an initial seven (7) month pilot fellowship program, with the potential for renewal for an additional year. A local direct funding match of $7,885 is required, which will be provided by reallocation of expenditure appropriations from expert witnesses (Non-County Professional Services). There is no increase in Net County Cost. BACKGROUND: At its meeting on February 9, 2016, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Public Defender to submit a grant application and execute an agreement with the National Juvenile APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Richard Loomis, 925-335-8093 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Juvenile Reentry Legal Fellowship (NJDC Grant) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 409 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Defender Center (NJDC) to host a pilot Juvenile Post Disposition Reentry Legal Fellowship program. The goal of this initiative is to support the success of justice-involved youth returning to their community by removing legal barriers to education, employment and housing. In this program, the NJDC provides funding for the Legal Fellow (attorney) salary, training and travel expenses, and the host organizations provide funding for fringe benefits, malpractice insurance, appropriate workspace and supplies. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the new revenue and appropriations are not authorized and approved, the Public Defender's Office will not have access to the additional help needed to address the legal representation needs of its Juvenile clients. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Fellowship program funded by this grant is designed to provide legal services to address barriers in employment and education that youthful offenders face in community reintegration following a juvenile delinquency placement or commitment. The ultimate measure of success of this pilot program will be an increase in employment and education participation of post-disposition juvenile offenders in Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5058 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5058 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 410 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES411 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES412 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES413 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES414 RECOMMENDATION(S): Public Defender's Office (0243): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5050 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $72,585 from the San Francisco Foundation and the California Endowment, and appropriating it to fund salaries and benefits for three temporary clerical positions to implement the Proposition 47 Outreach Program in Office of the Public Defender. (100% Foundation revenue) FISCAL IMPACT: Grant revenues fully fund anticipated program expenditures, for a six (6) month period beginning February 2016. There is no increase to Net County Cost. $72,585 in new revenue from the San Francisco Foundation and the California Endowment $72,585 appropriated for salaries and benefits APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Richard Loomis, 925-335-8093 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Staceyy M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Proposition 47 Defense Outreach Program April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 415 BACKGROUND: At its meeting on February 9, 2015, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Public Defender to apply and accept grants with the San Francisco Foundation and the California Endowment to fund a Proposition 47 Outreach Program. Proposition 47 legislation reclassifies some non-serious and non-violent property and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors; however, the provisions of this new law will sunset in November of 2017. The prescribed timeframe for offender relief constrain Defense Counsel to a limited period of time to identify, locate, and provide legal services to eligible defendants. The Contra Costa County Public Defender's Office has become a statewide leader in Proposition 47 work, and in partnership with local community based organizations has secured sentence reductions for all known eligible felony probationers (more than 1,000 defendants) in the County. There are reclassification provisions in Proposition 47 allowing for the reduction of prior felony convictions retroactively, and it is estimated that between 10,000 to 15,000 convictions in County are eligible for reclassification. Given existing staffing, as little as 40% of the eligible cases can be processed prior to the November 2017 deadline. Diligent solicitation of supplemental funding from non-profit foundations has resulted in the award of grant revenues to augment the public funding commitment to pursue this important work. The Department will employ three (3) temporary clerical positions to work under the supervision of a Deputy Public Defender to accelerate the Proposition 47 activities already underway by permanent support staff. The job duties will include: client intake, review of closed cases, drafting and filing of petitions, preparing files for hearings, client communications and notifications and conducting outreach events. As a condition of the grant awards, the California Endowment and the San Francisco Foundation require full indemnification by Contra Costa County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the new revenue and appropriations are not authorized and approved, the Public Defender's Office will not have access to the additional staffing needed to provide legal services to eligible defendants within the prescribed timeframe. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5050 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5050 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 416 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES417 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES418 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES419 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES420 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT an "Oppose" position on AB 1707 (Linder), as introduced: Public Records: Response to Request, a bill that would require a written response identifying type of record withheld as exempt and the specific exemption that justifies withholding that type of record, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. (No fiscal impact) FISCAL IMPACT: No immediate fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: At its March 14, 2016 meeting, the Legislation Committee considered the recommendation from the Clerk of the Board Jami Napier to recommend a position of "Oppose" to the Board of Supervisors on Assembly Bill (AB) 1707, which would require a response to a written request for public records be in writing regardless of whether the request was in writing. The bill would require that written response additionally to include a list that contains the title or other identification of each record requested but withheld due to an exemption and the specific exemption that applies to that record. Because local agencies would be required to comply with this new requirement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The Legislation Committee voted unanimously to recommend a position of Oppose to the full Board of Supervisors. Attachment B is the letter from the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) to the author, opposing the bill. The California Association of Clerks and Election Officials' (CACEO) Clerk of the Board Legislative Committee APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:AB 1707 (Linder) Public Records Act Request Responses April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 421 recently voted to OPPOSE AB 1707. The members were not concerned about adding the requirement that an agency respond in writing to even an oral CPRA request when a record or portion of a record is withheld, since the bill appears to reflect current practice in many or most member counties. However, the members were very concerned that the bill would impose an unreasonable burden upon clerks and county counsels who would have to create a "privilege log" when responding in writing to a request in which records and portions of records are withheld. As one member of the Committee pointed out, the bill also would be precedent-setting in the CPRA in that it would require agencies to create a new record that does not currently exist. This view seems consistent with some county counsels' reading of the bill. This legislation could also increase the difficulty in responding to record requests and could increase exposure to litigation (with potential for attorney fee awards). Even more important, there is a belief by some that it would not assist the public requesting records (except to aid in their litigation) or otherwise make privileged documents disclosable. Status: 03/29/2016 From ASSEMBLY Committee on JUDICIARY: Do pass to Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 422 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 2015 CA A 1707: Bill Analysis - 03/24/2016 - Assembly Judiciary Committee SYNOPSIS Under the California Public Records Act (PRA), all public records are open to public inspection unless a statutory exemption provides otherwise. When an agency withholds requested records from public inspection, existing law requires it to justify the withholding by "demonstrating" that the record withheld is exempt under an express provision of the PRA. According to the author, however, agencies often fail to adequately "demonstrate" why records are withheld. For example, according to a recent report in the Fresno Bee, a school district denied a request by simply stating that the records requested were exempt under "one or more of the following exemptions," and then proceeded to list five code sections from the Government Code. The author believes that in order to truly "demonstrate" that a record is subject to an exemption, as existing law requires, the agency must do more than just list applicable code sections; it must make some linkage between the records or types of records withheld and the specific exemption that applies to those records. Without this linkage, persons or entities making a PRA request will not know which exemptions applied to which requested records, or why. This bill, therefore, would require the agency's written response to identify at least the type or types of records withheld, and the specific exemption that applies to each type. The bill is supported by the ACLU, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among others. The bill is opposed by several individual cities and counties, the associations that represent them, and other public agencies. Opponents claim that this measure will impose significant costs and burdens on local agencies. However, several of the letters of opposition respond to the bill as introduced or to earlier proposed amendments. It is unclear to what extent the recent amendments address all of the opposition concerns, but they would seem to go a long way in that direction. The bill will move to the Assembly Committee on Local Government should it advance out of this Committee. SUMMARY: Requires that a public agency's written denial of a request for public records to provide a more specific explanation when it withholds requested public records. Specifically, this bill: 1) Provides that when a public agency withholds a record requested pursuant to the Public Records Act, the written response demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under an express provision of the Public Records Act shall identify the type or types of record withheld and the specific exemption that justifies withholding that type of record. 2) Finds and declares that because people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, requiring local agencies to identify which statutory exemption applies to the type or types of record withheld furthers the purpose the California Public Records Act. EXISTING LAW: 1) Requires state and local agencies to make public records available for inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. (Government Code Section 5250 et seq.) 2) Requires an agency to justify withholding any record that is responsive to a public records request by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of the Public Records Act or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. Specifies that a response to a written request for inspection or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing. (Government Code Section 6255 (a)-(b).) FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown COMMENTS: This bill seeks to strike a reasonable balance between the public's right to inspect public records against the ability of public agencies to withhold exempt documents without imposing unreasonable and costly burdens on those public agencies. Under the California Public Records Act (PRA), all public records are open to public inspection unless an express statutory exemption provides otherwise. When a public agency withholds April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 423 requested records from public inspection, existing law requires the agency to justify its decision by "demonstrating" that the record is exempt under an express provision of the PRA. The author and supporters of this bill, however, suggest that the public agencies too often fail to adequately "demonstrate" why records were withheld. For example, according to a recent report in the Fresno Bee, a school district denied the newspaper's PRA request by asserting that the records requested were exempt under "one or more of the following exemptions," and then listed five Government code sections and subdivisions. (Fresno Bee, March 5, 2016.) Supporters of this bill - including the California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA), whose members must often make public record requests - contend that this kind of response is all too common. The author believes that in order to truly "demonstrate" that a record is subject to an exemption, as existing law requires, the agency must do more than merely list applicable code sections; it must make some linkage between the records or types of records withheld and the specific exemption that applies to those records. Otherwise, the persons or entities making PRA requests will not know which exemptions apply to which requested records, or why. This leaves the requester with little or no information about how to refine a future request or, alternatively, decide whether to seek a writ of mandate, compelling the agency to provide the responsive records. This bill, therefore, would flesh out the existing requirement that an agency must "justify" a withholding by "demonstrating" that the record in question is subject to an express exemption. Under this bill, the agency would be required, in its written response, to identify the type or types of records withheld, and the specific exemption that applies to each type. Such an approach seems fully consistent with the implied intent of existing law, for it is difficult to imagine how an agency could "demonstrate" why a record was withheld if did not, at the very least, identify which exemptions applied to the types of records requested but withheld. Bills as Amended Does Not Require a "Log" or "List" of Responsive Documents: The primary contention of the opponents of this bill is that it would require agencies to expend much more time, effort, and money responding to PRA requests and less time performing its essential public duties. To a certain extent, this criticism has been mitigated, at least in part and for some opponents, by recent amendments. As introduced, this bill would have required an agency to identify each record (and presumably each document) with a "title" and to list the corresponding exemption that applied next to that "title." This approach did indeed seem impractical in many ways. Not only would it have been needlessly time consuming - especially where an entire group or type of record was subject to the same exemption - the very "title" of the document could have revealed exempt information. To be sure, agency staff responding to a request could modify the "title" so as to redact or otherwise shield exempted information, but this would be very time consuming and of minimal public benefit. In addition, not all records or documents have obvious "titles," which would effectively require agency staff to create a title. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the requirement that an agency list all document "titles" with corresponding exemptions would seem to require the agency to create the equivalent of the "privilege log" that is sometimes required in responses discovery requests. With one recently enacted exception, however, the provisions of the PRA do not require an agency to create records; the PRA only requires the agency to make existing records in its possession available for inspection and copying. In 2001, the California Supreme Court held that the existing language of the PRA does not require an agency to create any kind of "log" or "list" of responsive but exempt records. The Court suggested that the Legislature could amend the PRA to require such a list, but opined that as a policy matter such a requirement "would be burdensome and of scant public benefit." (Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 1061, 1074-1075.) In response to opposition concerns about the "title" and "list" requirement, concerns which mirrored the Court's dictum in Haynie, the author agreed to remove the "title" and "list" requirement. As recently amended, the bill simply requires that the agency, in its written response, to identify the records or types of records withheld and the specific exemption that applies to each type. That is, an agency could no longer list statutory exemptions and say that "one or more" of the listed exemptions applied to the records requested but withheld. Under this bill, an agency would need to state which exemptions applied to which records or types of records requested. This would not require an agency to create a "log" listing every record alongside a corresponding exemption. It would, however, require the agency to show which exemptions applied to which types of records withheld. For example: an agency could explain that certain types of contracts requested were subject to the trade secret exemption; or that the types of personnel records requested were subject to the medical information exemption; or that the correspondence requested was subject to the pending litigation exemption, and so on. This kind of written April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 424 response seems fully consistent with the intent of existing law, which already requires an agency to "demonstrate" why records in question were withheld, not merely list code sections that apply to the request as a whole. That the PRA already implicitly requires more than a form letter (i.e. a response that identifies the responsive documents at least by type) is also suggested by the requirement in current that the agency make reasonable efforts to assist the requester in refining his or her request in order to identify responsive and disclosable records. (Government Code Section 6253.1.) Without identifying the records and the exemptions that apply to those records, the agency would not have all of the information it would need to help the requester formulate a successful request for records. Clearly, the intent of the PRA is not only to make records available for public inspection, but to assist persons in finding relevant records and avoiding denials. It is difficult to imagine how a person could refine a request (with the assistance of the agency) if he or she did not know precisely why a prior request for specific documents was denied. Recent Amendments Appear to Strike Reasonable Balance: As recently amended, this bill seeks an appropriate balance to a difficult practical problem. On the one hand, it seems unreasonably burdensome to require an agency to create a list identifying each responsive record that has been withheld with the specific exemption that applies placed next to the record. On the other hand, it seems equally unreasonable, and inconsistent with the purpose of the PRA, for an agency's written response to consist of a form letter that merely lists the statutory exemptions that may apply to the request as a whole, without making any effort to break down the request and explain which exemption applies to which types of responsive records. Without question, the PRA imposes burdens on public agencies by requiring them to make all public records open to inspection, unless the record is subject to an express exemption. This not only requires agency staff to locate and retrieve responsive documents, it requires them to assess whether the records are subject to an exemption, which may not always be obvious. The PRA even requires the agency, within reason, to assist the requester in making a relevant and successful request. Moreover, in the provision amended by this bill, the PRA requires the agency to justify any withholding by "demonstrating" that the record withheld is subject to an express exemption. These duties impose burdens and costs, and the Legislature should be mindful of not adding to these burdens and costs unless doing so serves an important public benefit. Yet in enacting the PRA, the Legislature has already determined that access to public records is an essential feature of a democracy, even if it comes with some burdens and costs. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, it is sometimes necessary and appropriate for a public agency to deny a public records request when the records in question contain information that is subject to a statutory exemption. However, the author also believes that, in the event of a denial, the agency should adequately explain why the request was denied. Yet too often, the author contends, "denial notifications only contain a list of exemptions that may apply to the documents requested. The list does not include information detailing the types of documents being withheld, or the exemptions that apply. Under the current system, an applicant is unable to examine for him or herself whether the document should indeed be exempt." ACLU supports this bill because it supports government transparency. As an organization that is "concerned with fair and responsive government," the ACLU "frequently utilizes the PRA to gather important information about public entities." ACLU claims that government agencies "frequently respond to a PRA request with a form letter listing various exemptions from disclosure for all requested documents without stating whether responsive documents exist, what they are, or which exemption allegedly applies." ACLU believes that "AB 1707 would give a requester the information necessary to determine whether an agency has records responsive to the request, and appropriately advise the requester whether a legitimate exemption authorizes withholding the records." Finally, ACLU adds that the clarification afforded by AB 1707 "is consistent with the design and purpose of the PRA, would avoid unjustified obstructions, and would eliminate costly and would eliminate costly litigation in an already overburdened court system." The California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA) similarly stresses that, even though current law requires agencies to identify specific exemptions that justify withholding a specific record, the agencies often respond to a PRA request with a form letter that lists various exemptions that the agency "believes applies to the entire cache of requested records without identifying which exemption applies to which record." CNPA claims that such a response "subverts the purpose of the act - to give the people meaningful access to public records - and April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 425 forces the requester to go to court to learn why certain records were denied and which exemption applies." In this respect, CNPA, like many of the other supporters, suggests that in the long run this bill may lessen the burden on agencies, requesters, and courts by allowing requesters to get necessary information without going to court to challenge a denial. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) supports this bill for substantially the same reasons as those noted above; it additionally observes that AB 1707 will move the state closer to what is required under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), after which the CPRA is modeled. Under federal law, according to EFF, "it has become general practice to cite specific exemptions for each redaction made in a public record." EFF counters the arguments made by government agencies about the added costs and burdens by suggesting that "the bill may conserve recourses as well. If a member of the public chooses to challenge a CPRA request denial in court, this bill would allow the requester to narrow the challenge to specific documents, thus limiting the scope of litigation for both the government and the requester." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Several individual cities in California, as well as the League of California cities, oppose this bill because, they contend, it will pose "significant operational challenges, increased costs and a potential for increased litigation for cities already struggling to comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA)." As noted above in the analysis, most of the letters received by the Committee appear to be in response to the bill as introduced or to a set of earlier proposed amendments that are significantly different than the most recent amendments. Nonetheless, whatever form additional requirements may take, the cities remind us that any additional requirements will impose burdens and costs on already limited resources. Many of the letters submitted by the cities point out that they "already struggle to comply with the 10-day response period associated with the CPRA." Moreover, cities contend that in recent years the volume of requests have increased, so much so that "many cities large and small have already had to hire additional staff dedicated solely to review documents in association with CPRA requests." Other objections by the cities that submitted letters of opposition address the provision, no longer in the bill, that would have required the agency to supply a "log" or "list" of responsive titles as part of the denial response. The bill is also opposed by counties, county associations, and miscellaneous local, regional, and state entities for substantially the same reasons as those put forth by the cities. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support ACLU California Newspaper Publishers Association Electronic Frontier Foundation Firearms Policy Coalition San Diegans for Open Government Socrata Sierra Club Opposition Association of California Water Agencies California Association of Clerks and Election Officials California Association of Counties City Clerks Association of California City of Burbank City of Belvedere City of Chico City of Chino City of Chino Hills City of Coachella City of Colton City of Corona City of Costa Mesa April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 426 City of Cypress City of Danville City of Desert Hot Springs City of Downey City of Dublin City of Eastvale City of Glendora City of Indian Wells City of Laguna Hills City of Lakeport City of Lakewood City of La Quinta City of Los Alamitos City of Los Altos City of Martinez City of Menifee City of Murrieta City of Napa City of Newark City of Newport Beach City of Norco City of Norwalk City of Ontario City of Pinole City of Poway City of Rancho Cucamonga City of Riverbank City of Rocklin City of Roseville City of Salinas City of San Dimas City of San Marino City of Santa Maria City of Santa Monica City of South Lake Tahoe City of Temecula City of Torrance City of Union City League of California Cities Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) San Joaquin Board of Supervisors One Individual Analysis Prepared by: Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contra Costa County would not have a position on the bill. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: AB 1707 bill text Attachment B: CSAC Oppose April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 427 california legislature—2015–16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1707 Introduced by Assembly Member Linder January 25, 2016 An act to amend Section 6255 of the Government Code, relating to public records. legislative counsel’s digest AB 1707, as introduced, Linder. Public records: response to request. The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make public records available for inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. The act requires a response to a written request for public records that includes a denial of the request, in whole or in part, to be in writing. This bill instead would require that response to be in writing regardless of whether the request was in writing. The bill would require that written response additionally to include a list that contains the title or other identification of each record requested but withheld due to an exemption and the specific exemption that applies to that record. Because local agencies would be required to comply with this new requirement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 99 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 428 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. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 6255 of the Government Code is amended line 2 to read: line 3 6255. (a) The agency shall justify withholding any record by line 4 demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express line 5 provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case line 6 the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly line 7 outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. line 8 (b) A response to a written any request for inspection or copies line 9 of public records that includes a determination that the request is line 10 denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing. That written line 11 response also shall include a list that contains both of the line 12 following: line 13 (1) The title or other identification of each record requested but line 14 withheld due to an exemption. line 15 (2) The specific exemption that applies to that record. line 16 SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of line 17 this act, which amends Section 6255 of the Government Code, line 18 furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) line 19 of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes line 20 of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public line 21 access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of line 22 local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) line 23 of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California line 24 Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings: line 25 Because the people have the right of access to information line 26 concerning the conduct of the people’s business, requiring local line 27 agencies to provide a written response to any request for public line 28 records that is denied and to include in that response a list of each line 29 record being withheld due to an exemption from disclosure and 99 — 2 —AB 1707 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 429 line 1 the specific exemption that applies furthers the purposes of Section line 2 3 of Article 1. line 3 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 4 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because line 5 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school line 6 district under this act would result from a legislative mandate that line 7 is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section line 8 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. O 99 AB 1707— 3 — April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 430 CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CLERKS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS 1100 K Street, Suite 101 1127 11th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 916/327-7500 916/444-2542 March 8, 2016 The Honorable Eric Linder Member, California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 2016 Sacramento, California 95814 Re: AB 1707 (Linder) – Public records: response to request As Introduced on January 25, 2016 – OPPOSE Dear Assembly Member Linder: The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials (CACEO), regret that we must oppose your Assembly Bill 1707, which would require that local agencies subject to the California Public Records Act (PRA) include in their responses to requests for public records the name of documents withheld, and the exemption that applies to each document. The bill would additionally require these agencies to respond to all requests via written response, regardless of how the request is made. Would Require Public Agencies to Maintain Privilege Logs for PRA Requests While the intent behind AB 1707 may be purported to result in further transparency in the realm of access to public records, the costs and administrative burden it would place on public agencies would be crippling. The provisions of AB 1707 would essentially require public agencies to, in response to a PRA request, maintain a version of a “privilege log” – a document describing those documents or other items withheld from production in a civil lawsuit due to the claim that the documents are privileged from disclosure because of the attorney-client privilege or some other privilege. If a privilege claim is made, the party claiming privilege has the burden of showing that the privilege applies, usually by providing sufficient information on the privilege log so that the opposing party can assess its validity. Requiring public agencies to maintain a document-by-document log of records not provided in response to PRA requests will not only increase the complexity and cost of responding, it will additionally invite substantial ancillary litigation regarding whether an agency has complied with the procedural aspects of PRA and will not further benefit the requesting party. In fact, in Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061, the Court opined, “Requiring a public agency to provide a list of all records in its possession that may be responsive to a CPRA request has the potential for imposing significant costs on the agency. A single request may involve thousands of pages of materials…To require each public agency to catalog the responsive documents for each of the requests it receives − even when the agency could legitimately claim that all responsive documents are exempt from disclosure − would be burdensome and of scant public benefit.” Currently, public agencies cannot simply state that a record does not exist; they must state that there is something that cannot be disclosed and must justify withholding any record by demonstrating that, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record (California Government Code §6255). It should April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 431 additionally be noted that many PRA requests are incredibly voluminous and include potentially large numbers of communications (calls, emails, etc.); the requirement to list each record withheld and the exemption claimed would be extremely burdensome and would provide no added meaningful information than is currently provided. Privacy Concerns AB 1707 would require that the written responses include the title or any other identification of the document being withheld, and the exemption that applies to each record exempted. Requiring a list of specific documents would, in many cases, create a potential conflict with statutory confidentiality provisions, including, among many others: Revenue and Taxation Code §408 (includes property appraisal documents, change of ownership documents and others). Welfare and Institutions Code §827 (confidential juvenile court records may only be viewed by certain parties) and other WIC codes involving adult protective services and welfare benefits records. Penal Code §832.7 (confidentiality of peace officer personnel information). Further, protecting the confidentiality of exempt records relating to the deliberative process and records that are subject to attorney-client privilege may be compromised, in whole or in part, just by revealing the name or content of a privileged document. This consequence would involve far more than issues of cost and increased workload. For instance, the revelation of such information may compromise investigations in which confidentiality is essential to the effectiveness of the investigation. Unnecessary Expansion of Required Written Responses Government Code currently requires that, “A response to a written request (emphasis added) for inspection or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing.” AB 1707 removes the written response requirement in GC§6255(b) and applies it to denials (including redactions of records as well as total withholdings) of oral requests as well as written requests; it additionally contains no provision that would nullify the obligation to provide a written response in the instance where the requester is willing to forego the written response. It is not unusual for a member of the public to call or simply make an in-person request at a county department for a single record. This expansion of the written response requirement to all denied or redacted PRA requests would be astoundingly burdensome on county staff and departments and reduce our ability to provide important services to our residents. To date, CSAC has been provided with no specific incidents that would justify the need for this expansion. Imposes a Costly, Non-Reimbursable Mandate Proposition 42 (2014) amended the California Constitution to require local government agencies to comply with the PRA and to eliminate the requirement that the state reimburse local government agencies for compliance with the Act. Accordingly, the costs unnecessarily imposed by AB 1707 will take funds directly out of services we provide to our 38 million residents, including public safety, human services, and health benefits. In conclusion, AB 1707 is an unjustified expansion of the California Public Records Act that would place an undue fiscal and administrative burden on counties and subject them and their residents to confidentiality breaches and litigation. Our Association struggles to determine the necessity of such legislation and any significant problem it attempts to correct or the members of the public it seeks to help. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose AB 1707. Should you have further questions, please contact Faith Conley, CSAC Legislative Representative at 916.650.8117. Cc: The Honorable Mark Stone, Chair, Assembly Judiciary Committee Members, Assembly Judiciary Committee Tom Clark, Consultant, Assembly Judiciary Committee Consultant, Assembly Republican Caucus April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 432 RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority requesting that the County be included in the annual rotation of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of the Authority. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) is an agency formed by the Board of Supervisors under the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act of 1987 (Attachment 1). Contra Costa County, along with the nineteen cities, is a member agency of the Authority. The Authority manages the county's transportation sales tax program in addition to statutory, county congestion management obligations. The current transportation sales tax is Measure J (2004) which came in to effect in 2008 after the original county transportation sales tax, Measure C (1988), expired. The current practice at the Authority relative to election of officers is to rotate the Chair and Vice Chair through all member agencies excepting the County. At the February 17th Authority Board meeting during the annual rotation of the Chair and Vice Chair, Supervisor Karen Mitchoff commented that the County wished to be included in the Officer rotation. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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 Cunningham (925) 674-7833 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Letter to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Regarding Rotation of the Chair of the Board April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 433 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > The issue was subsequently raised at the March 8th Board of Supervisors meeting during the Transportation Expenditure Plan discussion. The Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee took the issue up at their March 10th meeting directing staff to bring the attached draft letter to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration. Two documents potentially address the protocol by which the Authority selects officers, the aforementioned Local Transportation and Improvement Act of 1987 and the Authority's Administrative Code (See relevant section as Attachment 2, full document available here: http://ccta.net/about/download/54ac708913f19.pdf ). Consistent with Supervisor Mitchoff's testimony at the February 17th Authority meeting, both documents appear to be silent on eligibility of members to serve in the Chair/Vice Chair capacity. A draft letter (Attachment 3) is attached for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the subject letter is not sent, the Authority is unlikely to consider including the County in the Chair/Vice Chair rotation. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act of 1987.pdf Attachment 2 - CCTA_AdminCode Excerpts Attachment 3 - BOS to CCTA Re Chair Rotation MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Letter to CCTA April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 434 180000. 180001. 180002. 180003. Code:Select Code Section:Search Up^Add To My Favorites PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE PUC DIVISION 19. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES [180000 180264] ( Division 19 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1. ) CHAPTER 1. General Provisions [180000 180003] ( Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1. ) This division shall be known and may be cited as the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following: (a) Local highway and transportation improvements and services are an immediate high priority needed to resolve local and regional transportation problems that threaten the economic viability and development potential of counties and cities and adversely impact the quality of life therein. Furthermore, regional transportation is a matter of statewide concern. (b) Comprehensive studies and reports have been completed by the Department of Transportation, the Assembly Office of Research, the Governor’s Task Force on Infrastructure, and the California Business Roundtable which conclude that there exists a local city street and county road maintenance backlog and shortfall of between five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) and eight hundred forty million dollars ($840,000,000) annually. (c) In order to deal in an expeditious manner with current and future local transportation maintenance and improvement needs, local agencies need to develop and implement local funding programs that go significantly beyond current federal and state funding which is inadequate to resolve these problems. (d) It is in the public interest to allow the voters of each county to establish local transportation authorities and raise additional local revenues to provide highway capital improvements and maintenance and to meet local transportation needs in a timely manner. (e) It is the intent of the Legislature that funds generated pursuant to this division be used to supplement and not replace existing local revenues used for transportation purposes. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) “Authority” means a local transportation authority created or designated pursuant to this division. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) This division shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes. No inadvertent error, irregularity, informality, or the inadvertent neglect or omission of any officer, in any procedure taken under this division, other than fraud, shall void or invalidate that proceeding or any levy imposed to finance highway improvements or local transportation needs. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 435 180050. 180051. 180052. Code:Select Code Section:Search Up^Add To My Favorites PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE PUC DIVISION 19. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES [180000 180264] ( Division 19 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1. ) CHAPTER 2. Creation of Local Transportation Authority [180050 180052] ( Chapter 2 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1. ) A county board of supervisors may create an authority to operate within the county to carry out this division, or may designate a transportation planning agency designated pursuant to Section 29532 of the Government Code or created pursuant to the Fresno County Transportation Improvement Act pursuant to Division 15 (commencing with Section 142000), or a county transportation commission created pursuant to the County Transportation Act (Division 12 (commencing with Section 130000)) in existence in the county on January 1, 1988, to serve as an authority. (Amended by Stats. 2000, Ch. 408, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2001.) (a) A board of supervisors that chooses to create an entirely new entity as an authority pursuant to Section 180050 shall determine the membership of the authority with the concurrence of a majority of the cities having a majority of the population in the incorporated area of the county. (b) Each member of the authority, and each alternate designated pursuant to subdivision (c), shall be an elected official of a local governmental entity within or partly within the county. Members of the board of supervisors serving on an authority shall comprise less than a majority of the authority. (c) (1) Each member of the authority may have an alternate to vote or otherwise officially participate on behalf of the member at meetings of the authority when the member is not present. Either the member, or the alternate, but not both, may officially participate in a meeting of the authority. An alternate shall be designated as follows: (A) Except as specified in subparagraph (B), the local governmental entity that appointed the member shall designate the alternate. (B) A member who serves because the member holds a specified public office, as specified in the county transportation expenditure plan, shall designate his or her own alternate. (2) An alternate acting on behalf of a member has all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a member. (Amended by Stats. 1999, Ch. 1007, Sec. 10. Effective January 1, 2000.) (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), members of an authority which is an entirely new entity shall serve for a term of not more than four years. (b) At the first meeting of an authority which is an entirely new entity convened pursuant to Section 180112 the members shall be selected by lot to serve staggered terms. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 436 180100. 180101. 180102. 180103. 180104. 180105. 180106. Code:Select Code Section:Search Up^Add To My Favorites PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE PUC DIVISION 19. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES [180000 180264] ( Division 19 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1. ) CHAPTER 3. Administration [180100 180111] ( Chapter 3 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1. ) The authority at its first meeting, and thereafter annually at the meeting designated by the authority, shall elect a chairperson who shall preside at all meetings, and a vice chairperson who shall preside in the absence of the chairperson. In the event of their absence or inability to act, the members present, by an order entered in the minutes, shall select one of their members to act as chairperson pro tempore, who, while so acting, shall have all the authority of the chairperson. (Amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 878, Sec. 4.) The authority shall adopt rules for its proceedings consistent with the laws of the state. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) A majority of the members of the authority constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business, and all official acts of the authority requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the authority. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) The acts of the authority shall be expressed by motion, resolution, or ordinance. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) All meetings of the authority shall be conducted pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) The authority shall do all the following: (a) Adopt an annual budget. (b) Adopt an administrative code, by ordinance, which prescribes the powers and duties of the authority officers, the method of appointment of the authority employees, and methods, procedures, and systems of operation and management of the authority. (c) Cause a postaudit of the financial transactions and records of the authority to be made at least annually by a certified public accountant. (d) Do any and all things necessary to carry out the purposes of this division. The authority may appoint a policy advisory committee. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) (a) The authority may hire an independent staff of its own or contract with any department or agency of the United States or with any public agency to implement this division. (b) The authority may contract with private entities in conformance with applicable procurement procedures for the procurement of engineering, project management, and contract management services. (Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch. 665, Sec. 1.) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 437 180107. 180108. 180109. 180110. 180111. The authority shall fix the compensation of its officers and employees. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) (a) Notice of the time and place of a public hearing on the adoption of the annual budget shall be published pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code not later than the 15th day prior to the day of the hearing. (b) The proposed annual budget shall be available for public inspection at least 15 days prior to the hearing. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) (a) The authority shall rely, to the extent possible, on existing state, regional, and local transportation planning and programming data and expertise, rather than on a large duplicative staff and set of plans. (b) The authority shall not expend more than 1 percent of the funds generated pursuant to this division in any year for salary and benefits of its staff. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) The authority shall consult with, and coordinate its actions to secure funding for the completion and improvement of the priority regional highways, with the cities in the county, the board of supervisors, and the Department of Transportation, for the purpose of integrating its planned highway improvements with the highway and other transportation improvement plans and operations of other transportation agencies impacting the county. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) The authority shall prepare and adopt an annual report each year on progress made to achieve the objective of improving transportation conditions related to priority highway operations and local transportation needs. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 438 180150. 180151. 180152. 180153. 180154. Code:Select Code Section:Search Up^Add To My Favorites PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE PUC DIVISION 19. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES [180000 180264] ( Division 19 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1. ) CHAPTER 4. Powers and Functions [180150 180154] ( Chapter 4 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1. ) The authority may sue and be sued, except as otherwise provided by law, in all actions and proceedings, in all courts and tribunals of competent jurisdiction. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) All claims for money or damages against the authority are governed by Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code, except as provided therein, or by other statutes or regulations expressly applicable thereto. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) The authority may make contracts and enter into stipulations of any nature whatsoever, either in connection with eminent domain proceedings or otherwise, including, but not limited to, contracts and stipulations to indemnify and hold harmless, to employ labor, and to do all acts necessary and convenient for the full exercise of the powers granted in this division. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) The authority may contract with any department or agency of the United States, with any public agency, including, but not limited to, the Department of Transportation, any county, city, or district, or with any person or a private entity upon any terms and conditions that the authority finds in its best interest for the procurement of engineering, project management, and contract management services. (Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch. 665, Sec. 2.) (a) Contracts for the purchase of services, supplies, equipment, and materials in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder after competitive bidding, except in an emergency declared by the authority or by an executive committee to which the authority has delegated responsibility to make that declaration. (b) If, after rejecting bids received under subdivision (a), the authority determines and declares that, in its opinion, the services, supplies, equipment, or materials may be purchased at a lower price on the open market, the authority may proceed to purchase these services, supplies, equipment, or materials in the open market without further observance of the provisions regarding contracts, bids, or advertisements. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 439 180200. 180201. 180202. 180203. Code:Select Code Section:Search Up^Add To My Favorites PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE PUC DIVISION 19. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES [180000 180264] ( Division 19 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1. ) CHAPTER 5. Transactions and Use Taxes [180200 180207] ( Chapter 5 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1. ) The Legislature, by the enactment of this division, intends that the additional funds provided governmental agencies by this chapter shall supplement existing local revenues being used for public transportation purposes and that local governments maintain their existing commitment of local funds for transportation purposes. The Legislature further intends that transportation authorities utilize “payasyougo” financing as the preferred method of funding transportation improvements and operations authorized by Section 180205, and that bond financing be utilized as an alternative method of funding, where the scope of the planned expenditures makes “payasyougo” financing unfeasible. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) A retail transactions and use tax ordinance applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of a county may be imposed by the authority in accordance with this chapter and Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, if the tax ordinance is adopted by a twothirds vote of the authority and imposition of the tax is subsequently approved by a majority of the electors voting on the measure, or by any otherwise applicable voter approval requirement, at a special election called for that purpose by the board of supervisors, at the request of the authority, and a county transportation expenditure plan is adopted pursuant to Section 180206. A retail transactions and use tax approved by the electors shall remain in effect for the period of time specified in the tax ordinance. The tax may be continued in effect, or reimposed, by a tax ordinance adopted by a twothirds vote of the authority and the reimposition of the tax is approved by any applicable majority of the electors. (Amended by Stats. 2003, Ch. 129, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2004.) The authority, in the ordinance, shall state the nature of the tax to be imposed, shall provide the tax rate or the maximum tax rate, shall specify the period during which the tax will be imposed, and shall specify the purposes for which the revenue derived from the tax will be used. The tax rate may be in 1/4 percent increments and shall not exceed a maximum tax rate of 1 percent. The proposition shall include an appropriations limit for that entity pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. (Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 318, Sec. 1.) (a) The county shall conduct the special election called by the board of supervisors pursuant to Section 180201. If the measure is approved, the authority shall reimburse the county for its cost in conducting the special election. (b) The special election shall be called and conducted in the same manner as provided by law for the conduct of special elections by a county. (c) The sample ballot to be mailed to the voters, pursuant to Section 13303 of the Elections Code, shall be the full proposition, as set forth in the ordinance calling the election, and the voter information handbook shall include the entire adopted county transportation expenditure plan. (Amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 923, Sec. 215. Effective January 1, 1995.) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 440 180204. 180205. 180206. 180207. (a) Any transactions and use tax ordinance adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be operative on the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after adoption of the ordinance. (b) Prior to the operative date of the ordinance, the authority shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incidental to the administration and operation of the ordinance. (Amended by Stats. 2003, Ch. 129, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2004.) The revenues from the taxes imposed pursuant to this chapter may be allocated by the authority for the construction and improvement of state highways, the construction, maintenance, improvement, and operation of local streets, roads, and highways, and the construction, improvement, and operation of public transit systems. For purposes of this section, “public transit systems” includes paratransit services. (Amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 962, Sec. 5.) (a) A county transportation expenditure plan shall be prepared for the expenditure of the revenues expected to be derived from the tax imposed pursuant to this chapter, together with other federal, state, and local funds expected to be available for transportation improvements, for the period during which the tax is to be imposed. (b) A county transportation expenditure plan shall not be adopted until it has received the approval of the board of supervisors and of the city councils representing both a majority of the cities in the county and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of the county. (c) The plan shall be adopted prior to the call of the election provided for in Section 180201. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) (a) The authority may annually review and propose amendments to the county transportation expenditure plan adopted pursuant to Section 180206 to provide for the use of additional federal, state, and local funds, to account for unexpected revenues, or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances. (b) The authority shall notify the board of supervisors and the city council of each city in the county and provide them with a copy of the proposed amendments. (c) The proposed amendments shall become effective 45 days after notice is given. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 441 180250. 180250.5. 180251. 180252. 180253. Code:Select Code Section:Search Up^Add To My Favorites PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE PUC DIVISION 19. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES [180000 180264] ( Division 19 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1. ) CHAPTER 6. Bonds [180250 180264] ( Chapter 6 added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1. ) (a) As part of the ballot proposition to approve the imposition of a retail transactions and use tax, authorization may be sought to issue bonds to finance capital outlay expenditures as may be provided for in the adopted county transportation expenditure plan, payable from the proceeds of the tax. (b) The maximum bonded indebtedness which may be outstanding at any one time shall be an amount equal to the sum of the principal of, and interest on, the bonds, but not to exceed the estimated proceeds of the tax, as determined by the plan. The amount of bonds outstanding at any one time does not include the amount of bonds, refunding bonds, or bond anticipation notes for which funds necessary for the payment thereof have been set aside for that purpose in a trust or escrow account. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the imposition of a retail transactions and use tax, together with the establishment of an appropriations limit of seven hundred sixtyfive million dollars ($765,000,000), was approved by the voters of a county pursuant to Section 180250 on November 8, 1988, and if the ordinance adopted by the authority which requested the board of supervisors to submit the proposition for approval of that tax and appropriations limit by the voters authorized the issuance of bonds payable from that tax, that authority may issue bonds, refunding bonds, or bond anticipation notes pursuant to this chapter. (Added by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1232, Sec. 2. Effective October 1, 1989.) (a) The bonds authorized by the voters concurrently with the approval of the retail transactions and use tax may be issued at any time by the authority and shall be payable from the proceeds of the tax. The bonds shall be referred to as “limited tax bonds.” The bonds may be secured by a pledge of revenues from the proceeds of the tax. (b) The pledge of the tax to the limited tax bonds authorized under this chapter shall have priority over the use of any of the tax for “payasyougo” financing, except to the extent that that priority is expressly restricted in the resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) Limited tax bonds shall be issued pursuant to a resolution adopted at any time by a twothirds vote of the authority. Each resolution shall provide for the issuance of bonds in the amounts as may be necessary, until the full amount of bonds authorized have been issued. The full amount of bonds may be divided into two or more series and different dates of payment fixed for the bonds of each series. A bond need not mature on its anniversary date. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) (a) A resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds shall state all of the following: (1) The purposes for which the proposed debt is to be incurred, which may include all costs and estimated costs incidental to, or connected with, the accomplishment of those purposes, including, without limitation, engineering, inspection, legal, fiscal agents, financial consultant and other fees, bond and other reserve funds, working capital, bond interest estimated to accrue during the construction period and for a period not to exceed three years thereafter, and expenses of all proceedings for the authorization, issuance, and sale of the bonds. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 442 180254. 180255. 180256. 180257. 180258. 180259. 180260. (2) The estimated cost of accomplishing those purposes. (3) The amount of the principal of the indebtedness. (4) The maximum term the bonds proposed to be issued shall run before maturity, which shall not be beyond the date of termination of the imposition of the retail transactions and use tax. (5) The maximum rate of interest to be paid, which shall not exceed the maximum allowable by law. (6) The denomination or denominations of the bonds, which shall not be less than five thousand dollars ($5,000). (7) The form of the bonds, including, without limitation, registered bonds and coupon bonds, to the extent permitted by federal law, and the form of any coupons to be attached thereto, the registration, conversion, and exchange privileges, if any, pertaining thereto, and the time when all of, or any part of, the principal becomes due and payable. (b) The resolution may also contain any other matters authorized by this chapter or any other law. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) The bonds shall bear interest at a rate or rates not exceeding the maximum allowable by law, payable at intervals determined by the commission. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) In the resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds, the authority may also provide for the call and redemption of the bonds prior to maturity at the times and prices and upon other terms as specified. However, no bond is subject to call or redemption prior to maturity, unless it contains a recital to that effect or unless a statement to that effect is printed. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) The principal of, and interest on, the bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States at the office of the treasurer of the authority, or at other places as may be designated, or at both the office and other places at the option of the holders of the bonds. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) The bonds, or each series thereof, shall be dated and numbered consecutively and shall be signed by the chairperson or vice chairperson of the authority and the auditorcontroller of the authority, and the official seal, if any, of the authority shall be attached. The interest coupons of the bonds shall be signed by the auditorcontroller of the authority. All of the signatures and seal may be printed, lithographed, or mechanically reproduced. If any officer whose signature appears on the bonds or coupons ceases to be that officer before the delivery of the bonds, the officer’s signature is as effective as if the officer had remained in office. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) The bonds may be sold as the authority determines by resolution, and the bonds may be sold at a price below par, whether by negotiated or public sale. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) Delivery of any bonds may be made at any place either inside or outside the state, and the purchase price may be received in cash or bank credits. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) All accrued interest and premiums received on the sale of the bonds shall be placed in the fund to be used for the payment of the principal of, and interest on, the bonds, and the remainder of the proceeds of the bonds shall be placed in the treasury of the authority and applied to secure the bonds or for the purposes for which the debt was incurred. However, when the purposes have been accomplished, any money remaining shall be either (a) transferred to the fund to be used for the payment of principal of, and interest on, the bonds or (b) placed in a fund to be used for the purchase of the outstanding bonds in the open market at prices and in the manner, either at public or private sale or otherwise, as determined by the authority. Bonds so purchased shall be canceled immediately.April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 443 180261. 180262. 180263. 180264. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) (a) The authority may provide for the issuance, sale, or exchange of refunding bonds to redeem or retire any bonds issued by the authority upon the terms, at the times and in the manner which it determines. (b) Refunding bonds may be issued in a principal amount sufficient to pay all, or any part of, the principal of the outstanding bonds, the premiums, if any, due upon call and redemption thereof prior to maturity, all expenses of the refunding, and either of the following: (1) The interest upon the refunding bonds from the date of sale thereof to the date of payment of the bonds to be refunded out of the proceeds of the sale of the refunding bonds or to the date upon which the bonds to be refunded will be paid pursuant to call or agreement with the holders of the bonds. (2) The interest upon the bonds to be refunded from the date of sale of the refunding bonds to the date of payment of the bonds to be refunded or to the date upon which the bonds to be refunded will be paid pursuant to call or agreement with the holder of the bonds. (c) The provisions of this chapter for the issuance and sale of bonds apply to the issuance and sale of refunding bonds. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) (a) The authority may borrow money in anticipation of the sale of bonds which have been authorized pursuant to this chapter, but which have not been sold or delivered, and may issue negotiable bond anticipation notes therefor and may renew the bond anticipation notes from time to time. However, the maximum maturity of any bond anticipation notes, including the renewals thereof, shall not exceed five years from the date of delivery of the original bond anticipation notes. (b) The bond anticipation notes, and the interest thereon, may be paid from any money of the authority available therefor, including the revenues from the tax. If not previously otherwise paid, the bond anticipation notes, or any portion thereof, or the interest thereon, shall be paid from the proceeds of the next sale of the bonds of the agency in anticipation of which the notes were issued. (c) The bond anticipation notes shall not be issued in any amount in excess of the aggregate amount of the bonds which the authority has been authorized to issue, less the amount of any bonds of the authorized issue previously sold, and also less the amount of other bond anticipation notes therefor issued and then outstanding. The bond anticipation notes shall be issued and sold in the same manner as the bonds. (d) The bond anticipation notes and the resolutions authorizing them may contain any provisions, conditions, or limitations which a resolution of the authority may contain. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) Any bonds issued under this chapter are legal investment for all trust funds; for the funds of insurance companies, commercial and savings banks, and trust companies; and for state school funds; and whenever any money or funds may, by any law now or hereafter enacted, be invested in bonds of cities, counties, school districts, or other districts within the state, that money or funds may be invested in the bonds issued under this chapter, and whenever bonds of cities, counties, school districts, or other districts within the state may, by any law now or hereafter enacted, be used as security for the performance of any act or the deposit of any public money, the bonds issued under this chapter may be so used. The provisions of this chapter are in addition to all other laws relating to legal investments and shall be controlling as the latest expression of the Legislature with respect thereto. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) Any action or proceedings wherein the validity of the adoption of the retail transactions and use tax ordinance provided for in this chapter or the issuance of any bonds thereunder or any of the proceedings in relation thereto is contested, questioned, or denied, shall be commenced within six months from the date of the election at which the ordinance is approved; otherwise, the bonds and all proceedings in relation thereto, including the adoption and approval of the ordinance, shall be held to be valid and in every respect legal and incontestable. (Added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 786, Sec. 1.) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 444 (2/6/2007) Nossaman TOC and Chpt 1.DOC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Ordinance #90-01 Adopted: February 21, 1990 As amended through: May 20, 2009 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 445 SUMMARY This ordinance prescribes rules for the proceedings of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority consistent with the laws of the State, as well as the powers and duties of officers and Board members, the method of their election or appointment and compensation and the methods, procedures and systems of operation and management of the Authority. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority does ordain as follows: April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 446 -i- CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER 1. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 1-1 CHAPTER 2. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PAYMENTS 2-1 FOR, AND CERTAIN PURCHASES OF, AUTHORITY GOODS AND SERVICES CHAPTER 3. REIMBURSEMENT POLICIES 3-1 CHAPTER 4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE 4-1 CHAPTER 5. CONTRACT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 5-1 CHAPTER 6. PERSONNEL POLICIES 6-1 CHAPTER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 7-1 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 447 -ii- CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER 1. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ARTICLE I. TITLE AND AUTHORITY 1-1 ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS 1-2 ARTICLE III. POWERS, AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF THE GOVERNING BOARD 1-6 103.1 Powers 1-6 103.2 Organization 1-7 103.3 Principal Office 1-9 103.4 Meetings 1-9 103.5 Quorum and Voting Requirements for Action by the Board 1-10 103.6 Amendments to the Ordinance 1-11 103.7 Amendments to the Expenditure Plan 1-11 103.8 Minutes 1-11 ARTICLE IV. OFFICERS AND DUTIES 1-13 104.1 In General 1-13 104.2 Standing Board Committees 1-15 104.3 Standing and Advisory Committees 1-17 104.4 Bonding Requirement 1-20 104.5 Compensation 1-20 104.6 Representatives 1-21 ARTICLE V. CONTRACTS 1-23 105.1 In General 1-23 105.2 Contract Bids, Rejection of Bid and Purchase in Open Market 1-23 105.3 Approval 1-23 105.4 Legal Preference; Minority and Women Owned Businesses; Application of Goals to Specific Projects 1-23 105.5 Personal Property Purchases 1-23 105.6 Agreements with Other Public Agencies and Procedures for Award of Cooperative Agreements 1-23 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 448 -iii- CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ARTICLE VI. BUDGETS, REPORTS, INVESTMENTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 1-25 106.1 Annual Budget, Notice, Hearing and Adoption 1-25 106.2 Project Budgets 1-25 106.3 Purchases and Payment Procedures 1-25 106.4 Books and Accounts 1-25 106.5 Expenditures 1-25 106.6 Reimbursement of Expenses 1-26 106.7 Reports and Audits 1-26 106.8 Investment of Funds 1-26 ARTICLE VII. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 1-27 107.1 Adoption of Conflict of Interest Code 1-27 107.2 Disclosure Statements 1-27 107.3 Acceptance of Contributions 1-27 ARTICLE VIII. ALLOCATION OF RELEASED FUNDS; ALLOCATION OF EXCESS FUNDS; TERMINATION AND DISPOSITION OF ASSETS 1-29 108.1 Allocation of Released and Excess Funds 1-29 108.2 Termination 1-29 108.3 Distribution of Property and Funds 1-29 ARTICLE IX. MISCELLANEOUS 1-30 109.1 Partial Invalidity 1-30 109.2 Interpretation of Sections Which Are Based on Provisions from Other Statutes, Applicable Ordinances or Codes 1-30 109.3 Policies and Procedures 1-30 109.4 Adoption and Amendment 1-30 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 449 1-13 ARTICLE IV OFFICERS AND DUTIES 104.1 In General. (a) The Officers of the Authority shall consist of the Chair and a Vice Chair, each of whom shall be a Commissioner, an Executive Director and other such officers as the Board may appoint. (b) Appointment of Chair and Vice Chair. The Board at its first meeting and annually thereafter, to be effective as of the first regular February Board meeting of each year, and at such other time as there may be a vacancy, shall elect a Chair who shall preside at all meetings and a Vice Chair who shall preside in his absence. The position of Chair shall be rotated annually and no person shall serve consecutive terms as Chair. (c) Appointment of Executive Director and Other Officers. The Executive Director and such other officers as the Board may deem necessary, shall be appointed by the affirmative votes of a majority of the Commissioners. (d) Removal of Officers and Employees. Officers may be removed by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners. Matters regarding the discharge of an employee shall be resolved by reference to the personnel policies set forth in the Personnel and Salary Manual and Procedures which are attached as Chapter 6 to this Code. (e) Duties of Various Officers. (1) Duties of Chair. The Chair shall, if present, preside at all meetings of the Board and shall exercise and perform such other powers and duties as may from time to time be assigned to him by the Board or prescribed herein. (2) Duties of the Vice Chair. The Vice Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in his absence and, when so acting, shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chair, and shall exercise and perform such other powers and duties as may from time to time be assigned him by the Board. (3) Chair Pro Tempore. In the event of the absence, or inability to act, of the Chair and Vice Chair, the Commissioners present at any meeting of the Board, by order entered in the minutes, shall select one of their members to act as Chair Pro Tempore, who, while so acting, shall have all of the authority of the Chair. (4) Duties of Executive Director. The Executive Director shall be a full-time officer of the Authority. The powers and duties of the Executive Director are: April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 450 1-14 (A) To have full charge of the administration of the day-to- day business affairs of the Authority; (B) To administer the personnel system of the Authority, including hiring, controlling, supervising, promoting, transferring, suspending with or without pay or discharging any employee in accordance with Chapter 6 attached hereto; (C) Subject to any limitation and to the terms and conditions set forth in Chapter 5 hereto, to act as the purchasing agent for the Authority with powers to be exercised in the manner governing the exercise of the powers of the purchasing agent of the County; (D) To keep the Board advised as to the needs and the status of operations of the Authority; (E) To see that all rules, regulations, ordinances, policies, procedures and resolutions of the Authority are enforced; (F) To execute and deliver contracts and agreements on behalf of the Authority following such approvals as may be required hereunder and to administer Authority contracts in accordance with and subject to the limitations set forth in Chapter 5 attached hereto; (G) To authorize, approve and make expenditures in accordance with and subject to the limitations set forth in Chapters 2 and 3 hereof. (H) To cause to be prepared and distributed the agenda for all Board meetings; (I) To undertake such other duties, powers and responsibilities as may from time to time be assigned to him by the Board; and (J) To accept and consent to deeds or grants conveying any interest in or easement upon real estate to the Authority pursuant to Government Code Section 27281 and to prepare and execute certificates of acceptances therefor from time to time as the Executive Director determines to be in furtherance of the purposes of the Authority. Such authority shall be limited to actions of a ministerial nature necessary to carry out conveyances authorized by the Board. (K) Unless specifically delegated to an officer appointed by the Executive Director with the approval of the Board, to assume the responsibilities of a Secretary and Treasurer of the Authority. Until such time as the Board appoints a Secretary and/or Treasurer, any reference in this Code to such officer shall be deemed to be a reference to the Executive Director or his appointee. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 451 1-15 104.2 Standing Board Committees. The Board may, as it deems appropriate, appoint Standing Board Committees consisting of three or more Commissioners, to accomplish the purposes set forth herein. (a) Organization of Standing Board Committees. Standing Board Committees shall be organized and operate as follows: (1) Each such Standing Board Committee shall by majority vote elect a chairman at its first meeting who shall serve at the pleasure of the Standing Board Committee. Except with respect to the Executive Committee, the Standing Board Committees shall establish a schedule of monthly regular meetings; special meetings of Standing Board Committees may be scheduled by the Executive Director or by the Committee Chair as needed. (2) Any meeting of such a committee shall be deemed to be a meeting of the Authority for purposes of compensation of the members of such Standing Board Committee only. The number of Commissioners serving on each Standing Board Committee shall be fixed and may be changed from time to time by the Board. (3) Except with respect to the Executive Committee, the Board shall appoint Commissioners to serve on each Standing Board Committee, as set forth below. To the extent possible, Standing Board Committee assignments shall reflect geographical balance. Committee members shall be appointed annually at the first regular Board meeting to be conducted in February of each calendar year. (4) Committee members shall hold such positions for a period of one year or until their successors are duly appointed. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy on a Standing Board Committee whether caused by the resignation or removal of a member or by an increase in the number of members of such committee shall hold such position until the next regular first February Board meeting only. (5) Upon the removal or resignation of a Commissioner, such Commissioner shall cease to be a committee member on any Standing Board Committee upon which such Commissioner was serving on the date of his resignation or removal. (6) A majority of the members of the Standing Board Committee shall constitute a quorum and approval of any action shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of Commissioners present at the meeting and constituting a quorum. In the event that a quorum is initially present at a Standing Board Committee meeting but a quorum is not present throughout the meeting, the members may continue to take action on behalf of the Standing Board Committee provided such action is approved by the number of members otherwise required for such action assuming the presence of a quorum. (7) All Standing Board Committee meetings shall be open to all Commissioners, unless the presence of Commissioners who are not members of such committee would violate the provisions of the Brown Act. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 452 1-16 (8) Except with respect to the Executive Committee, alternate members of Standing Board Committees may be appointed by the Board from remaining Commissioners, to attend Standing Board Committee meetings in the absence of the principal appointees to the committees. To the fullest extent possible, the Board shall appoint alternates so as to maintain geographical balance on such Standing Board Committee. If the Commissioner alternate appointed by the Board is not able to attend, the Commissioner's designated alternate shall attend the meeting. It shall be the responsibility of the Commissioner to inform such Commissioner’s alternate when such Commissioner is unable to attend a Standing Board Committee meeting 72 hours in advance of the meeting whenever possible. [Amended on November 16, 2005] (b) Standing Board Committees. The following Standing Board Committees are hereby created: (1) Administration and Projects Committee. The Administration and Projects Committee shall focus on near-term activities which relate directly to projects, programs, transit operations, finance and administrative matters. The Committee is responsible for the following specific activities: budget for projects, transit and paratransit programs, and general administration; finance and financial reporting; the Administrative Code and policies of the Authority; personnel; capital outlay projects, including project policies, reviews, approvals and allocations; the Strategic Plan; paratransit and transit programs; programming of state and federal funds for projects; and legislation involving the above. (2) Planning Committee. The Planning Committee shall focus on longer-term planning issues, and the funding allocations for demand management oriented activities. The Committee is responsible for the following specific activities: the Growth Management Program (GMP), including preparation of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, GMP policies and requirements, checklist review and approval, facilitation of program implementation; and the Congestion Management Program (CMP), including preparation of the biennial Congestion Management Plan, CMP policies and requirements, deficiency plan guidelines and review of deficiency plan when prepared, checklist review, the Congestion Management Plan Capital Improvements Program, and facilitation of program implementation; oversight of computerized transportation demand modeling and land use data base; review and comment on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) biennial Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and related processes; planning studies conducted with other agencies; carpools, vanpools and park and ride funds; Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) policies, oversight and allocations; Congestion Management Agency (GMP, CMP and TFCA) budget; and legislation involving the above. (3) Executive Committee. The Executive Committee, the membership of which shall consist of the Board Chair, the Board Vice Chair and the Chairs of the Administration and Projects Committee and the Planning Committee, shall be responsible for responding on behalf of the Authority in the event of an emergency which makes it April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 453 1-17 impossible for the full Board to act. During intervals between the meetings of the Board, the Executive Committee, in all cases in which specific directions shall not have been given by the Board, shall have and may exercise the power and authority of the Board, subject only to the limitation regarding Official Acts set forth in Section 103.5 hereof. In the event that, for any reason, the Executive Committee is unable to obtain a quorum of members, so many of the following alternate member(s), in the order indicated, as is necessary to achieve a quorum of the Executive Committee, may serve in their stead: (1) the Vice Chair of the standing committee for which the Committee Chair is absent or otherwise unavailable; (2) the Vice Chair of the other standing committee; (3) so many of the remaining members of the Board, in the order of their appointment to the Board (earliest to most recent) as may be necessary to achieve a quorum. A quorum of the Executive Committee shall consist of three members. (c) Other Committees. The Board may establish such other standing, special, ad hoc or other Board Committees as it deems necessary or advisable from time to time. [Amended on April 21, 1993; December 21, 1994; September 19, 2001] 104.3 Standing and Advisory Committees. The following committees have been established to assist in the creation of the Authority and the development of the Ordinance and the Expenditure Plan, to assist in the development of programs and projects under the Expenditure Plan and Ordinance, and to continue as standing committees. The standing and advisory committees are as follows: (a) Regional Transportation Planning Committees. For each of the Central, East, West and Southwest County regions, a regional transportation planning committee has been established with responsibility for transportation issues within such area. Relative to the Authority’s programs and processes, the Board shall prescribe the powers, duties and responsibilities of each RTPC. The RTPCs shall cooperate with the Authority in furtherance of Authority purposes. Each RTPC is responsible for developing a transportation plan for its area and updating it periodically, for incorporation by the Authority into a countywide transportation plan consistent with the Expenditure Plan and the Ordinance authorized by the voters and as amended from time to time by the Authority. (b) Each RTPC shall consist of Elected Officials from each City in the region as well as a member or members of the Board of Supervisors representing the unincorporated area within the region. RTPCs may also include planning commissioners from the Cities and/or County represented on such RTPC as well as members from the policy board of other public bodies such as transit organizations, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and ports, airports, or other agencies concerned with transportation. For election or recall of Commissioners, only City and County Elected Officials shall vote, and each City and Board of Supervisors shall have one vote for each such action. Other voting rights and procedures of the RTPCs governing the conduct of their activities shall be determined by each such RTPC with the concurrence of the Authority. Robert's Rules of Order shall be observed in the conduct of all RTPC meetings. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 454 1-18 (c) Each City RTPC member shall be appointed by the governing body of the City and in the case of Board of Supervisors' members, by the Board of Supervisors; provided, that the removal or resignation of any RTPC member who is a Commissioner shall not cause such Commissioner to be removed from the Board. Members from other public bodies and special interest groups shall be appointed by the RTPC and shall serve at the pleasure of the RTPC. Each RTPC shall, by vote of a majority of the members of such RTPC, elect a chair at its first meeting and thereafter from time to time as required. (d) Citizens Advisory Committee. The CAC is a citizens’ advisory committee to the Authority. The purpose of the citizens’ advisory committee is to provide citizen perspective, participation and involvement in Authority policy development and implementation. (1) Membership. Each of the Cities and the County shall appoint one member to the CAC. In addition, three (3) members shall be appointed by the Authority as "at large" members. Members shall be selected to reflect community and business organizations and interests within the County. Members shall not serve in a representative capacity with respect to their appointing authorities. (2) Terms of Membership. Members shall be appointed for four (4) year terms. There shall be no limit on the number of consecutive terms which a member may serve. At the discretion of the respective appointing body, CAC members are subject to recall at any time. (3) Subcommittees, Select Committees and Ad Hoc Committees. The CAC may create such subcommittees, select committees and ad hoc committees, and shall fix the membership and duties thereof, as it determines necessary or advisable to carry out its functions. Except as otherwise provided herein, such subcommittees, select committees and ad hoc committees shall be advisory only, and their recommendations and reports shall be made to the CAC. (4) Growth Management Compliance Checklist Review Subcommittee. A Growth Management Compliance Checklist Review subcommittee may be created, and its members appointed from the CAC membership by the full membership of the CAC. The subcommittee, if constituted, shall be charged with responsibility for reviewing and making recommendations to the Authority and any appropriate standing committee of the Authority with respect to Growth Management Checklists which have been submitted to the Authority by the Cities and the County in accordance with requirements of Ordinance 88-01 (as amended). In the interest of meeting timetables established by the Authority for review of Growth Management Checklists by the subcommittee, the report and recommendations of the Growth Management Compliance Checklist Review subcommittee may be submitted directly by the subcommittee to the Authority and/or any appropriate Authority standing committee. In such event, the report and recommendation need not be reviewed or approved by the full membership of the CAC. In the event the full membership of the CAC reviews reports and April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 455 1-19 recommendations made by the subcommittee, such review shall comply with the Authority timetable for review of the Checklists. (5) CAC Bylaws. The CAC may develop and adopt bylaws setting forth procedures for meetings, election of officers, attendance requirements, and other matters as necessary to facilitate CAC functions. Initial adoption of the bylaws, and subsequent approval of any amendments to the bylaws, requires a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the CAC members present and voting at any regular meeting of the CAC, and subsequent approval by the full Authority Board. [Amended on October 18, 2006] (e) Technical Coordinating Committee. (1) The TCC provides advice on technical matters that may come before the Authority. Members also act as the primary technical liaison between the Authority and the RTPCs. The TCC reviews and comments on project design, scope and schedule; provides advice on development of priority transportation improvement lists for submittal to the MTC for projects proposed under the federal Intermodal Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA) as well as the state Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) programs; reviews and comments on the Strategic Plan of the Authority and amendments and revisions thereto; reviews and comments on the Authority's Congestion Management Program and amendments and revisions thereto; reviews RTPC Action Plans and the merging of such Action Plans to form the Countywide Transportation Plan; and reviews and comments on the Authority's Growth Management Plan Implementation Documents. (2) The TCC's membership shall consist of 24 representatives, as follows: (A) twelve members, three appointed by each of the RTPCs, and representing planning, engineering and transportation disciplines; (B) three members appointed by the Board of Supervisors representing the planning and engineering disciplines; (C) five members, one appointed by each of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, the Alameda- Contra Costa Transit District, the East Contra Costa Transit Authority and the West Contra Costa Transit Authority; (D) one member appointed by the City County Engineering Advisory Committee; and April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 456 1-20 (E) three members, one ex-officio, non-voting member appointed by each of the California Department of Transportation, the MTC and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (3) Appointments shall be for renewable terms of two (2) years. Terms shall expire on March 31 of each odd numbered year. The committee shall elect a chair and vice chair annually. The committee may form subcommittees for the purpose of dealing with major programmatic issues. The committee shall meet monthly; subcommittee meeting shall be scheduled as necessary. (4) Each member, excluding non-voting members, shall have one vote on any matter to come before the committee for a vote; provided, that with respect to recommendations for including a project on the Capital Improvement Program list for ISTEA funding, each applicant which is represented on the committee for a project which is proposed to be included on the list shall be entitled to cast one vote on the list of projects to be recommended to the Authority. (f) Growth Management Task Force. The Growth Management Task Force assists the PGA with the development and implementation of the growth and congestion management plans of the Authority. Membership of the Task Force consists of four members from CAC, one staff member from each RTPC and one staff member from the County. The Task Force shall make recommendations and comment on issues coming before it, but shall not vote. Actions of the Task Force shall be subject to approval by vote of the PGA. [Amended on June 20, 1990; August 8, 1990; October 17, 1990; April 21, 1993, October 16, 1996; February 18, 2004; October 18, 2006] 104.4 Bonding Requirement. The officers or persons who have charge of, handle or have access to any property of the Authority shall be so designated and empowered by the Board. Each such officer or person shall be required to file an official bond with the Board in an amount which shall be established by the Board. The premiums on any such bonds attributable to the coverage required herein shall be expenses of the Authority. 104.5 Compensation. Compensation of employees, including the Executive Director, shall be as provided for from time to time by the Board in accordance with the Personnel and Salary Manual and Procedures which is Chapter 6 attached hereto; provided that the compensation of any such employee may be governed by contract approved by the Board pursuant to the Contract Policies and Procedures, Chapter 5 attached hereto. In accordance with Section 180109 of the Act, Staff salary and benefits shall not exceed one percent of the funds generated pursuant to the retail transactions and use tax authorized by the Ordinance. Compensation, benefits and related personnel matters are set forth more fully in Chapter 6 attached hereto. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 457 1-21 104.6 Representatives. (a) The Board shall have the authority to establish by resolution, representatives to the Authority, representing transportation and transit agencies and other entities interested or involved in transportation issues in Contra Costa. Each such person shall be referred to as a "Representative". Representatives shall have the following powers: (1) the right to attend regular sessions of the Board and to participate in the discussion of matters brought before the Board for consideration; (2) the right to attend regular committee meetings of the Planning and Government Affairs committee of the Board and to participate in the discussion of matters brought before such committee; (3) the right to attend regular meetings of such other Board Committees and of such Standing and Advisory Committees as the Board may determine, and to participate in the discussion of matters brought before such committees. (b) Each Representative shall be designated by the entity represented from among eligible candidates. Each such Representative shall be an Elected Official (i) elected to the Board of Supervisors of, or to the council of a town or city located within, the County, and appointed to the entity represented to the Authority, or (ii) elected to the legislative body of the entity represented to the Authority, and elected at large or to represent a district or ward of such entity which is located wholly or partially within the County. Each Representative shall have an alternate designated by the entity represented from among eligible candidates for Representative. Representatives shall hold office for a term of one year, subject to replacement by such Representative's alternate at the discretion of the Board if such Representative has been absent from four consecutive meetings of the Board. (c) Representatives shall not be commissioners, and shall have none of the rights or powers of such commissioners except as expressly provided herein. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, such Representatives shall not: (1) have the right to vote with respect to any matter brought before the Board or any Board Committee or Standing or Advisory Committee; (2) be counted for purposes of determining the number of persons attending any meeting for quorum or voting purposes; (3) be eligible for election or appointment as an officer of the Authority; (4) be entitled to attendance fees or other compensation for attendance at meetings of the Authority or any committee thereof; April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 458 1-22 (5) be entitled to attend or to otherwise participate in closed sessions of the Board or any committee thereof. (d) The Board shall have the authority to establish such other conditions and limitations with respect to Representatives as it deems necessary or advisable. [Amended on April 21, 1993] April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 459 The Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553 John Gioia, 1st District Candace Andersen, 2nd District Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District Karen Mitchoff, 4th District Federal D. Glover, 5th District April 12, 2015 David E. Hudson, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2999 Oak Road, Suite 100 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Subject: DRAFT Rotation of Authority Chair and Vice Chair I am writing on behalf of the Board of Supervisors to raise a concern and make a request regarding the administration of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). Currently, the Chair of the CCTA Board rotates between the city representatives. We are respectfully requesting that the County now be included in this rotation. The County’s membership in CCTA is equal to that of the cities in most other respects. The Board of Supervisors believes that an equal opportunity should be provided to the County to serve in the leadership capacity of Chair and Vice Chair. The Board of Supervisors appreciates and respects the leadership provided by the cities over these many years and we look forward to contributing in the same capacity if the Authority Board acts favorably on this request. Sincerely, Candace Andersen, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Supervisor, District II Copy: David Twa, Contra Costa County Administrator File: Transportation > Transportation > Committees > CCTA > CCTA Board of Directors g:\transportation\cunningham\memo-letter\letter\2015\drafts\bostocctarechairrotation.doc David Twa Clerk of the Board and County Administrator (925) 335-1900 Contra Costa County April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 460 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES461 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21849 to add three (3) full-time and one (1) part-time 20/40 Community Health Worker II positions (VKVB) at salary level QT5-1043 ($37,515-$45,599) and cancel two (2) Clerk-Senior level (JWXC) positions #6426 and #8493 at salary level 3RX-1033 ($37,049-$47,313) and two (2) Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB) positions #13895 and #8460 at salary level 3RH-0750 ($33,529-$41,601) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will have an annual cost savings of approximately $3,868 due to the cancellation of the four vacant positions. BACKGROUND: The Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program is a federally funded health and nutrition program that helps pregnant and postpartum women, infants and children under 5 years old to eat healthy foods and live a healthy and active life. Under this program, women, infants and children who qualify, are able to take advantage of various services such as breastfeeding support, nutrition and health education classes, checks to buy healthy foods, and referrals for health care and community services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Arlene J. Lozada (925)957-5269 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add and cancel positions in the Health Services Department April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 462 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The four positions to be cancelled are vacant due to resignations. It was determined that adding three full-time and one part-time Community Health Worker II positions will better serve the current needs of the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) Program. This will also help the program’s operational efficiencies and fulfill its obligations under the State Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health (MCAH) contract. The Community Health Worker II works in a variety of public health programs providing basic health care information and services to clients. Incumbents also provide assistance to medical personnel and nursing staff in their examination of patients and in other clinic activities. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, program operational needs will not be achieved due to staffing shortage. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No 21849 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21849 signed April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 463 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21849 DATE 3/25/2016 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 4650 Org No. 5828 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add three (3) full-time and one (1) part-time 20/40 Community Health Worker II (VKVB) positions, and cancel two (2) Clerk-Senior Level (JWXC) positions #6426 and #8493 and two (2) Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB) positions #13895 and #8460 in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 4/13/2016 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 ($3,868.00) Net County Cost ($967.00) Total this FY ($967.00) N.C.C. this FY ($241.75) SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Cost Savings(75% State WIC and 25% General Fund) Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Arlene J. Lozada ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT ___________________________________ ________________ 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 4/6/2016 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 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 464 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/7/2016 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 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 465 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES466 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21847 to add four (4) full-time Registered Nurse-Experienced Level (VWXD) positions at salary level L3H-0400 ($94,242-$105,040); four (4) full-time Mental Health Clinical Specialist (VQSB) positions at salary level QT2-1384 ($54,172-$80,419); and one (1) full-time Administrative Aide (AP7A) position at salary level B85-0972 ($34981-$54,268) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of approximately $1,297,588, which includes estimated pension costs of $282,619. The cost will be funded by Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) revenues and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Medication-assisted Treatment (MAT) Grant monies. BACKGROUND: The Health Care for the Homeless Program in Public Health received a grant on March 1, 2016 to provide MAT services for those in need in Contra Costa County, specifically for homeless individuals. MAT Services will include case management for opioid dependent individuals who are transitioning to a drug called buprenorphine. MAT clinics include individual and group counseling sessions and will be operated in Antioch, Concord and West County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Arlene J. Lozada (925)957-5269 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add nine (9) full-time positions in the Health Services Department April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 467 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Registered Nurses will provide case management and ensure that patient care is administered in a thorough and safe manner. The Mental Health Clinical Specialists will provide psycho-therapeutic intervention, treatment and other related mental health services to clients. The Administrative Aide will provide technical administrative work ensuring program needs and grant funding requirements are met. HRSA, a Federal Agency that funds our program requires that the County provide the MAT services before June 30, 2016. HRSA is giving the County 120 days to implement this program otherwise the funds will be revoked. Grant funding will be provided annually. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, grant funds will be revoked. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21847 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21847 signed April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 468 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21847 DATE 3/25/2016 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. 6377 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add four (4) Registered Nurse-Experienced Level (VWXD), four (4) Mental Health Clinical Specialist (VQSB) and one (1) Administrative Aide (AP7A) positions in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 4/13/2016 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 $1,297,588 Net County Cost Total this FY $216,264.67 N.C.C. this FY SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT HRSA MAT Grant and FQHC Revenue Offset Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Arlene J. Lozada ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 4/4/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review due to 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 4/4/2016 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 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 469 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/4/2016 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 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 470 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES471 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21848 to cancel one (1) vacant full-time Clerk-Senior level (JWXC) position #7151 at salary level 3RX-1033 ($37,049-$47,313) and add one (1) full-time Clerical Supervisor position (JWHF) at salary level K6X-1290 ($47,785-$61,023) in the Health Services Department. (Represented). FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of approximately $103,858, which includes $21,663 in pension costs. The cost will be funded by 85% State California Children Services funds and 15% General Fund. BACKGROUND: The California Children’s Services Program is a statewide program that arranges and pays for medical care, equipment and rehabilitation for eligible children and youth. The Clerical Supervisor will be assigned to the California Children’s Services (CCS) Administration Office. Public Health’s CCS Program serves over 4,100 clients and the Clerical Supervisor will provide supervision to an Account Clerk, ten Senior Clerks and one Clerk-Specialist in order to ensure that office processes and procedures are completed. Performing the most complex and responsible clerical duties, the incumbent will also review work flows, complete performance evaluations and direct the work of support staff. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Arlene J. Lozada (925)957-5269 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Cancel one (1) full-time position and add one (1) full-time position in the Health Services Department April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 472 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Adding this position will relieve the Program Administrator and other Managers in overseeing the work of administrative support staff members, including student workers. The Clerical Supervisor will be a participant of the CCS Management Team. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, program operational needs will not be achieved due to staffing shortage. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21848 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21848 signed April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 473 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21848 DATE 3/25/2016 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0460 Org No. 5890 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Cancel one (1) Clerk-Senior Level (JWXB) position #7151 and add one (1) Clerical Supervisor (JWHF) position in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 4/13/2016 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 $103,858.69 Net County Cost $15,578.80 Total this FY $17,309.78 N.C.C. this FY $2,596.46 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 85% State CA Children Services and 15% General Fund Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Arlene J. Lozada ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT ___________________________________ ________________ 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 4/6/2016 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 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 474 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/7/2016 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 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 475 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES476 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21850 to increase the hours of a permanent part-time Cook (1KWA) position #9641, from 24/40 to 40/40 in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, the costs associated with this action will be approximately $27,240 annually with benefits, including $6,578 in pension costs. Costs will be funded by Enterprise Fund I (100%). BACKGROUND: Contra Costa Regional Medical Center's (CCRMC) Nutrition Services unit has identified a need to increase the hours of Cook position #9641 from a 24/40 part-time position to a full-time position. The incumbent in this position has been working the increased hours in excess of 12 months and the Department has determined an ongoing need for these increased hours. Cooks working at CCRMC have a direct patient care impact as the food prepared is provided to hospital patients, staff and visitors. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Increase the position hours of one Cook position in the Health Services Department April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 477 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center will not have adequate staffing hours in its kitchen which directly impacts patient care. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21850 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21850 signed April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 478 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21850 DATE 3/29/2016 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES-CCRMC Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. 6501 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Increase the position hours of permanent part-time Cook (1KWA) position #9641 from 24/40 to 40/40 in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 4/13/2016 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 $27,240.89 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $6,810.22 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Enterprise Fund I 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 ___________________________________ ________________ 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 4/6/2016 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 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 479 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/7/2016 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 c urrent job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 480 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES481 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute an Amended and Restated Communication Site Lease between New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC and Contra Costa County (County), to lease approximately 500 square feet of vault and tower space, for a five year term commencing April 1, 2016 and ending March 30, 2021; EXERCISE any options to renew the lease, as defined in the lease. The County will receive total revenue of $148,884 over 5 years, as outlined under the terms and conditions set forth in the lease; and DETERMINE that the lease will not substantially interfere with the public use of the property. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund BACKGROUND: This site is a primary and necessary link in the communications network APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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 Silva, 925-313-2132 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Lease with New Cingular Wireless PCS located at 1850 Muir Road, Martinez. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 482 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for Contra Costa County. The County maintains its own separate communication vault with equipment under the Department of Information Technology at this facility. This lease was originally leased to Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company under a lease dated July 1, 1992. The County has numerous revenue leases with different entities at this location. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the amendment may result in the County not being able to offset its operating costs in maintaining the tower and vault. ATTACHMENTS Amended Lease April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 483 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 484 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 485 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 486 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 487 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 488 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 489 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 490 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 491 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 492 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 493 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 494 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 495 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 496 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, in an initial amount of $101,571 to fund proactive enforcement targeting the unauthorized sale of alcoholic beverage by businesses within the County for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Initial revenue of $101,571 to support continued monitoring and licensing of Alcoholic Beverage Control(ABC) businesses, and to support training and other personnel costs associated with ABC licensed businesses. No matching County funds. BACKGROUND: This grant will provide the Office of the Sheriff additional staffing and resources to institute proactive enforcement and training of ABC licensed businesses in areas where the crime rate is higher than the county average. Enforcement operations will utilize a variety of methods to address sales to minors, unlicensed sales, sales to intoxicated persons, purchase of alcohol with food stamps, illegal gaming, and narcotics in licensed establishments. Expectations include a decline in alcohol related crimes and arrests, with an overall reduction in the number of police calls for service County-wide. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 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:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016 State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Grant April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 497 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Sheriff-Coroner will not be authorized to apply for and accept the grant funding. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: One activity funded by this grant is targeting the unauthorized sale of alcohol to minors by businesses in the County. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 498 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Amendment Agreement, #28-602-15 with the California Department of Public Health, Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Program, effective March 1, 2016, to make technical adjustments to fiscal year 2015-2016 budget to increase the total amount payable to County by $181,557, from $3,734,205, to a new total amount of $3,915,763, with no change in the original term of October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment agreement will result in an increase of $181,557 to the 2014-2016 fiscal year budgets for the County’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Promotion Project. No County match required. BACKGROUND: On February 25, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Standard Agreement #28-602-13 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #28-602-14) with the California Department of Public Health, for the California Nutrition Network” APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg , M Wilhelm C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment Agreement #28-602-15 with the California Department of Public Health April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 499 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Project for the period from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2016. This Agreement provided nutrition education to Contra Costa County residents. The goal of the project is to educate the public, particularly low-income consumers, on healthful nutrition and physical activity practices to reduce risk for chronic disease. Approval of Amendment Agreement #28-604-15 will allow continuous support to the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed) eligible consumers in adopting healthy eating and physical activity behaviors, as part of a healthy lifestyle, through September 30, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the County will not receive funds to continue to educate SNAP-Ed eligible on healthful nutrition and physical activity practices, to help reduce risk for chronic disease. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 500 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Standard Amendment Agreement #29-502-38 (State 14-90053, A03) with the Department of Health Care Services, effective July 1, 2015, to amend Standard Agreement #29-502-34 (as amended by Amendment Agreements #29-502-35, #29-502-36 and #29-502-37), to increase the amount payable to County by $520,803, from $30,503,985 to a new payment limit not to exceed in funding, $31,024,788, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment agreement will result in an increase up to $520,803 in funding to a new total of $31,024,788 from the Department of Health Care Services. No County match required. BACKGROUND: The Standard Agreement #29-502 is a combined Negotiated Net Amount (NNA) and Drug/Medi-Cal contract. The NNA Agreement requires counties to provide Drug/Medi-Cal services up to their full State General Fund allocation for Drug/Medi-Cal match. If the required services exceed APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg, M Wilhelm C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment Agreement #29-502-38 with the Department of Health Care Services April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 501 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the allocation, counties may access Drug/Medi-Cal reserve set aside for this purpose. On December 2, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Standard Agreement #29-502-34 (as amended by Amendment Agreements #29-502-35, #29-502-36 and #29-502-37), with the Department of Health Care Services, for the period from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017, to provide Substance Abuse Treatment services. Approval of this Standard (Amendment) Agreement #29-502-38, will increase funding and make technical adjustment to the budget for the Drug Medi-Cal Substance Abuse Treatment Services with no change in the original term, through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved the County will not be able to receive additional funds to support continuation of the Substance Abuse Services, Prevention and Treatment Program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 502 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Standard Amendment Agreement #29-502-39 (State 14-90053, A04) with the Department of Health Care Services, effective July 1, 2016, to amend Standard Agreement #29-502-34 (as amended by Amendment Agreements #29-502-35, #29-502-36, #29-502-37 and #29-502-38), to increase the amount payable to County by $1,807,056, from $31,024,788 to a new payment limit not to exceed in funding, $32,831,844, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment agreement will result in an increase up to $1,807,056 in funding to a new total of $32,831,844 from the Department of Health Care Services. No County match required. BACKGROUND: The Standard Agreement #29-502 is a combined Negotiated Net Amount (NNA) and Drug/Medi-Cal contract. The NNA Agreement requires counties to provide Drug/Medi-Cal services up to their full State General Fund allocation for Drug/Medi-Cal match. If the required services exceed APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg, M Wilhelm C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment Agreement #29-502-39 with the Department of Health Care Services April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 503 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the allocation, counties may access Drug/Medi-Cal reserve set aside for this purpose. On December 2, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Standard Agreement #29-502-34 (as amended by Amendment Agreements #29-502-35, #29-502-36 and #29-502-37), with the Department of Health Care Services, for the period from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017, to provide Substance Abuse Treatment services. Approval of this Standard (Amendment) Agreement #29-502-38, will increase funding and make technical adjustment to the budget for the Drug Medi-Cal Substance Abuse Treatment Services with no change in the original term, through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved the County will not be able to receive additional funds to support continuation of the Substance Abuse Services, Prevention and Treatment Program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 504 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute on behalf of the County Standard Agreement Amendment #29-532-3 with the California Department of Health Care Services effective May 15, 2016, with no change in the original amount of $123,000 payable to County, to implement a budgetary shift of funds from one line item to another, with no change in the original term of September 29, 2015 through May 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: None. There is no change in the funding payable to County in an amount not to exceed $123,000 for the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) Project, through May 31, 2016. No County match required. BACKGROUND: Due to a significant prevalence of underage and excessive drinking among 12 to 25 years old, the communities of Antioch and Walnut Creek were identified through a data-driven APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment Agreement #29-532-3 with the California Department of Health Care Services April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 505 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) needs assessment process that compared County and State level indicators of substance abuse, its prevalence, and its consequences, and ultimately selected these two communities for the SPFSIG project. Through an established partnership with local law enforcement and elected officials in each of those communities, the County Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) prevention services engaged an existing system of care providers and residents through a Countywide Strategic Prevention Framework to develop a logic model that could assist in identifying priorities and build capacity based on specific cultural and AOD needs. The primary goal of the California’s Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant will be to reduce underage and excessive drinking among youth and young adults’ ages 12 to 25 years old, in the cities of Antioch and Walnut Creek, by implementing the County’s Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant Project. Approval of this Standard Agreement Amendment #29-532-3 will allow the California Department of Health Care Services to implement a budgetary shift of funds from one line item to another, effective May 15, 2016, and allow continuous funding for the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) Project, through May 31, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the California Department of Health Care Services will not assume all rights, duties, obligation, responsibilities and liabilities of any type that accrue under Grant SPG SIG 12-06. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 506 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, on behalf of the Workforce Development Board, to apply for and accept grant funding in an amount not to exceed $20,000 from the Heritage Bank of Commerce for Small Business Development Center services to the low-to-moderate income population of Antioch for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: County to receive an amount not to exceed $20,000 from the Heritage Bank of Commerce. (Match $20,000) BACKGROUND: The Small Business Development Center (SBDC) will partner with the Heritage Bank of Commerce to serve the low-to-moderate income population in Antioch and surrounding areas of Far East Contra Costa County with no-cost small business advising and training with the goal of starting and growing micro-enterprises and small businesses. SBDC will support the key challenges of access to capital, building the capacity of the population to successfully leverage their businesses to increase sales, and create employment in the region. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Small Business Development Center services to the proposed Antioch population would be curtailed. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 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:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Heritage Bank of Commerce Funding April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 507 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 508 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute Agreement #16-0094SA Weighmaster Program with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) for reimbursement in an amount not to exceed $3,120 to inspect recycling establishments licensed as weighmasters and determine compliance with Business and Professions Code Section 12703.1 for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement reimburses the department in an amount not to exceed $3120 to inspect recycling establishments on behalf of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) in Contra Costa County. There is no cost share requirement and the revenue from this agreement has been anticipated in the department's 16/17 budget. BACKGROUND: Common metals, precious metal and other recycler establishments involve CDFA licensed weighmasters. They are required to provide correct license application information and other information including the status of their weighmaster deputies. Transaction requirements also include thumb printing, photographic equipment, storm water permits and Weights & Measures sealed commercial weighing devices. This agreement will reimburse the department to perform inspections to verify compliance, document violations and take appropriate enforcement action. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: 646-5250 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: April 12, 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:Chad Godoy, Director of Agriculture/Weights & Measures Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:#16-0094SA Weighmaster Program April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 509 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to accept Agreement #16-00994SA will cause a loss of revenue to the department. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 510 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Julia Dyckman Andrus Memorial Inc., effective May 5, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $36,765 for a new payment limit of $133,170, for trauma awareness training services to EHSD California Work Opportunity and Responsibility and Welfare-to-Work staff for the period October 5, 2015 through October 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: $133,170: (Federal 84%, State 13%, County 3%) (CFDA #93.558, #16.738M) BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County, through its Contra Costa County Employment & Human Services Department (County), Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative (ZTDVI), was awarded a three year Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) in order to implement the Youth Justice Initiative (YJI) in Contra Costa County. County is engaging Julia Dyckman Andrus Memorial, Inc., to assist in carrying out activities consistent with the funding application. The YJI applies innovative evidence-based practices to improve outcomes and to create a model for improved school engagement, successful APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Gina Chenoweth 3-1648 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with Julia Dyckman Andrus Memorial Inc. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 511 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) prevention of juvenile justice involvement by youth, and recidivism reduction. Julia Dyckman Andrus Memorial, Inc. provides technical assistance, on-going training, and other tools in order to implement a trauma-informed violence prevention model pilot in the Antioch Unified School District as well as provide trauma-informed practices and tools overall to YJI partners. YJI partners include Contra Costa County Probation, Contra Costa County District Attorney, Contra Costa County Public Defender, EHSD bureaus, and community-based agencies. This amendment provides funding for additional trauma awareness training services to EHSD California Work Opportunity and Responsibility t Kids (CalWORKs) and Welfare-to-Work (WTW) staff. (19-985-1) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: EHSD California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) and Welfare-to-Work (WTW) staff will not be able to provide improved service delivery resulting from trauma awareness training. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports all five of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1)"Children ready for and succeeding in school"; 2)"Children and Youth Health and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; 3)"Families that are Economically Self Sufficient"; 4)"Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and 5)"Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families", by providing trauma awareness training to EHSD staff as well as Youth Justice Initiative partners. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 512 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with National Council on Crime and Delinquency, a Non-Profit Corporation, effective April 1, 2016, increasing the payment limit by $165,782 to a new payment limit not to exceed $222,751 for the continued services of the Phase II Lethality Assessment Program Implementation for Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention for the period December 5, 2014 through September 30, 2016. (91% Federal, 9% State) FISCAL IMPACT: $222,751: 91% Federal, Department of Justice Grant; 9% State, Assembly Bill 109. (CFDA #16.590, #16.320). BACKGROUND: The Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative (ZTDVI) applied for and received funds from the US Department of Justice, Office on Violence against Women (OVW), Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration ("Project") in 2013. The Project will be implemented in two phases - an assessment phase ("Phase I") and an implementation phase ("Phase II"). OVW completed Phase I in September 2014 and selected ZTDVI as one of four sites to participate in Phase II of the Project and implement the Lethality Assessment Program (LAP), a recognized promising practice. ZTDVI is engaging the Contractor to assist in carrying out activities consistent with the funding application. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with National Council on Crime and Delinquency April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 513 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Valuable services will not be provided. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 514 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #24-682-31 with Victor Treatment Centers, Inc., a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2016, to amend Novation Contract #24-682-30, to modify the Service Plan and rate sheet to include case management services, with no change in the original Payment Limit of $260,000, no change in the original term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, and no change in the six-month automatic extension amount of $130,000 through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 50% Federal Financial Participation; 50% County Realignment which includes a Case Management rate of $2.02 to the revised rate sheet. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On December 8, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #24-682-30 with Victor Treatment Centers, Inc., for the provision of outpatient services to seriously emotionally disturbed youth at the Center’s APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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 957-5101 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 61 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-682-31 with Victor Treatment Centers, Inc. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 515 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) three locations, Santa Rosa, Redding and Lodi/Stockton, for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2016. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #24-682-31 will allow the Contractor to provide case management services in addition to outpatient services, through June 30, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, seriously emotionally disturbed youth from Contra Costa County will not have adequate access to residential treatment facilities. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 516 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #26-644-16 with MGA Healthcare, Inc., a corporation, effective March 1, 2016, to amend Contract #26-644-15, to revise the rate schedule to include additional temporary work categories at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers (CCRMC) and to increase the payment limit by $1,600,000, from $1,000,000 to a new payment limit of $2,600,000, with no change in the original term of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. Additional categories for laboratory services are included in the rate schedule. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On January 5, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-644-15 with MGA Healthcare, Inc., for the provision of temporary pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and specialty registered nurses CCRMC to provide coverage during peak loads, temporary absences and emergencies APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-644-16 with MGA Healthcare, Inc. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 517 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. The Division is short staffed in the laboratory and requested to add additional work categories including clinical laboratory scientist, and cytotechnologist to the existing rate schedule to cover peak loads, temporary absences and emergencies. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-644-16 will allow the Contractor to provide additional temporary laboratory service categories through December 3l, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, Contractor will not be paid for additional temporary work services provided to Contra Costa Regional Medical Center. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 518 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #26-667-9 with World Courier Ground, Inc., a corporation, effective November 1, 2015, to amend Contract #26-667-5 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-667-7), to provide additional courier services, and increase the payment limit by $40,000, from $740,000 to a new payment limit of $780,000, with no change in the original term of April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On March 25, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-667-5 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-667-7) with World Courier Ground, Inc. for the provision of courier services for Contra Costa Regional Medical and Contra Costa Health Centers, (CCRMC), for the period from April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2017, for pharmacy, laboratory and on-call courier services, including pick-up, transport and delivery of laboratory specimens, transmittals, x-rays and pharmacy APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-667-9 with World Courier Ground, Inc. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 519 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) medications. 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 due to additional clinic locations requesting service, which was provided, in good faith by the Contractor, and not included in the original contract fee schedule. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-667-7 will allow the Contractor to provide additional courier services to a variety of CCRMC and Health Centers through March 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, County will not receive additional courier services provided by this Contractor in good faith. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 520 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #26-745-5 with Medical Solutions, LLC, (dba Nebraska Medical Solutions Staffing, LLC), a Limited Liability Corporation, effective March 15, 2016, to amend Contract #26-745-2, (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-745-4) to increase the original payment limit by $900,000 from $1,600,000 to a new contract payment limit of $2,500,000 for the provision of additional hours of temporary staffing services with no change in the original term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On May 12, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-745-2 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-745-4) with Medical Solutions, LLC, (dba Nebraska Medical Solutions Staffing, LLC) for the provision of temporary registered nurses, nurse practitioners, surgical technicians, and physician assistants to provide coverage during peak workloads, temporary absences APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr C. 62 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-745-5 with Medical Solutions, LLC (dba Nebraska Medical Solutions Staffing, LLC) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 521 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and emergency situations at CCRMC, and the County’s Detention Facilities, for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-745-5 will allow the Contractor to provide additional hours of temporary staffing services due to increased utilization through June 30, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, Contractor will not be able to provide additional hours of temporary services to CCRMC and County’s Detention Facilities through June 30, 2016. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 522 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #74-058-22 with Seneca Family of Agencies, a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2016, to amend Novation Contract #74-058-21 , to increase the payment limit by $243,859, from $6,801,137 to a new payment limit of $7,044,996, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, and to increase the automatic extension payment limit by $121,930 from $3,400,568 to a new payment limit of $3,522,498, through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This Amendment is funded 46% Federal Financial Participation; 49% by Mental Health Realignment; 5% Mental Health Services Act. (No Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On December 15, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-058-21 with Seneca Family of Agencies for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2016, for the provision of APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 59 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-058-22 with Seneca Family of Agencies April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 523 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Mobile Crisis Response Teams for seriously emotionally disturbed (SED) children and their families. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #74-058-22 will allow the Contractor to provide additional services through June 30, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, SED children throughout Contra Costa County will have reduced access to Specialty Mental Health Services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 524 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ACKNOWLEDGE and CONSENT to the delayed start and completion of the Church Lane Apartments rehabilitation project in San Pablo by Resources for Community Development using $455,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds borrowed from the County. Construction start was delayed 40 days from December 31, 2015 to February 9, 2016 and completion is delayed from March 31, 2016 to May 31, 2016. 2. AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to consent to future modifications to the completion of the Church Lane Apartments project, provided no dates are extended beyond six months of the original dates in the loan agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: No General Fund impact. CDBG funds are provided to the County on a formula allocation basis through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). CFDA #14.218. BACKGROUND: On October 7, 2014, the Board of Supervisors allocated $455,000 in CDBG funds to Resources for Community Development (RCD) for the Church Lane Apartments project. The purpose of the Church Lane Apartments project is to improve 22 units of rental housing affordable to and occupied by very-low income families. On December 8, 2015, the Board approved the legal documents for this project, including the Amended and Restated CDBG and HOME Loan Agreement. The project involves the rehabilitation of the common areas, including the concrete covered walkways on the second, third and fourth floors. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Kristin Sherk, 925-674-7887 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: April 12, 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:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approval of Extension of Time for Resources for Community Development to Commence and Complete Rehabilitation at Church Lane Apartments in San Pablo April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 525 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) RCD started the rehabilitation work on February 9, 2016, which was 40 days later than the anticipated start date due to heavy rains in December. The rehabilitation is underway, but was not completed by the March 31 completion date. During the construction work additional damage was discovered, including dry rot in the elevated walkways, that has delayed the completion date by two months or until May 31, 2016. Delegating authority to the Director to consent to future requests to modify rehabilitation due dates will enable the Department to respond to any other unforeseen delays in a timely manner. In no event will any dates be extended beyond June 30, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: RCD will be in default under the Loan Agreement, and the project will be further delayed. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The project helps to preserve existing affordable housing, which supports the Children's Impact Statement indicator #3: Families are Economically Self Sufficient. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 526 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the following actions related to making a loan of $650,000 in Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDs (HOPWA) funds to Tabora Gardens L.P. to plan and develop the Tabora Gardens Apartments project in Antioch: 1. FIND, as the responsible agency, that the Notice of Exemption prepared by the City of Antioch, as the lead agency, is adequate for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; 2. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute required legal documents to effect the loan; 3. DIRECT the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to file a Notice of Exemption for this project with the County Clerk; 4. DIRECT the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to arrange for payment of the $50 handling fee to the County Clerk for filing such Notice of Exemption; and 5. ALLOCATE up to an additional $10,000 in HOPWA funds to cover County expenses related to legal review and development monitoring. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Kara Douglas 674-7880 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 63 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVAL OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS LEGAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE TABORA GARDENS APARTMENTS IN ANTIOCH April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 527 FISCAL IMPACT: No General Fund impact. HOPWA funds are provided to the County on a formula allocation basis through the City of Oakland CFDA# 14.241. BACKGROUND: On February 26, 2013, the Board of Supervisors allocated $200,000 of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), and $800,000 of Summer Lake Trust funds to Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA) for the Tabora Gardens Apartment development. On February 25, 2014, the Board of Supervisors allocated $650,000 of HOPWA funds, $700,000 of HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME), and an additional $350,000 in NSP and $200,000 in Summer Lake Trust funds. Through this Board action, the Board is requested to approve legal documents for the HOPWA loan, and an additional $10,000 in HOPWA funds to be used for County staff costs. The Board will be requested to approve additional legal documents for the remaining funds at a later date. The HOPWA funds are needed earlier than the other funds to pay for pre-development costs. In addition, the HOPWA funds were awarded from 2012 and 2013 funding contracts and need to be expended prior to the expiration of the County HOPWA contracts with the City of Oakland. The purpose of the Tabora Gardens Apartment development is to improve the supply of multi-family rental housing affordable to and occupied by lower income senior households in East County through the construction of a 84 unit apartment building in Antioch. Five of the units will be designated as HOPWA units, four units will be designated as NSP units, eight units will be designated as Summer Lake Trust units, and 18 units (including the other County units) will be designated HOME-assisted units. All of the County-assisted units will be affordable to households earning less than 50 percent of the area median income. SAHA has formed a limited partnership, Tabora Gardens, L.P. to develop and own this project. Satellite AHA Development, Inc. is the General Partner with a SAHA affiliate as the initial limited partner. The ultimate limited partner will be the tax credit investor. HOPWA funds will be used for predevelopment activities. The loan is due on the earlier of December 31, 2016, or the date of construction loan closing. The intent is for the HOPWA loan to be included with the loan documents for HOME, NSP and Summer Lake Trust funds. That loan is expected to close in summer 2016. Additional financing for the development includes $3,283,755 in City of Antioch funds (former redevelopment agency, Community Development Block Grant and NSP), $5.2 million in Veteran's Housing, $6.9 million in State Multi-family Housing, $12.2 million in four percent low income housing tax credits, and a $24 million in tax exempt bonds (the County will be the bond issuer). Due to the high construction costs and limited revenue from the restricted rents, the total amount of the financing provided to the project will likely exceed the value of the completed project. Even though the proposed equity investment from low income housing tax credits is substantial compared to the amount of long term debt, the partnership agreement will have numerous safe guards of the investors equity. These safe guards essentially subordinate the County’s debt to the investor’s equity. Therefore, the County funds may not be fully secured through the value of the property. Though the County loans out the HOPWA funds it receives from the federal government, the County does not need to repay the federal government when loans are not repayed. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): HOPWA projects are subject to NEPA and 24 CFR Part 58 review. The NEPA review for this project has been completed. Required mitigations are included in the loan agreement. County Counsel has approved to form the following attached documents: HOPWA Loan Agreement Promissory Note Deed of Trust with Assignment Of Rents, Security Agreement, And Fixture Filing April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 528 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the approval and execution of the HOPWA and other loan documents, the project will not be constructed. SAHA must close on all financing by September 2016, or its $36 million in bond and tax credit financing will be lost. ATTACHMENTS CEQA Notice of Exemption Tabora HOPWA LOAN Agreement HOPWA Deed of Trust HOPWA Promissory Note - Tabora April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 529 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 530 1 863\98\1839782.4 HOPWA LOAN AGREEMENT Tabora Gardens Senior Apartments This HOPWA Loan Agreement (the "Agreement") is dated April 1, 2016, and is between the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (the "County"), and Tabora Gardens, L.P., a California limited partnership ("Borrower"). RECITALS A. Defined terms used but not defined in these recitals are as defined in Article 1 of this Agreement. B. The County has received Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") pursuant to the HOPWA Program ("HOPWA Funds"). The HOPWA Funds are available to and administered by the County, as a subrecipient of the City of Oakland, which is the representative for the Alameda-Contra Costa County Eligible Metropolitan Area. The HOPWA Funds must be used by the County in accordance with 24 C.F.R. Section 574 et seq. C. Borrower intends to acquire that certain real property located at the southeast corner of Tabora Drive and James Donlon Blvd. (Assessor’s Parcel No. 072-011-062) in the City of Antioch, County of Contra Costa, State of California, as more particularly described in Exhibit A (the "Property"). Borrower intends to construct eighty-five (85) senior housing units on the Property, eighty-four (84) of which will be for rental to extremely low and very low income households, and one (1) manager's unit (the "Development"). The Development, as well as all landscaping, roads and parking spaces on the Property and any additional improvements on the Property, are the "Improvements". D. Borrower desires to borrow from the County Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) of HOPWA Funds (the "Loan"). E. The Loan is evidenced by the Note and is secured by the Deed of Trust. F. The Loan is being made to finance predevelopment costs of the Development. Construction of the Development is intended to maintain the supply of affordable rental housing in Contra Costa County. Due to the assistance provided Borrower through the Loan, the County is designating five (5) units as HOPWA-assisted units (the "HOPWA-Assisted Units"). G. The City has determined the Development to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"). H. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) ("NEPA"), the County has completed and approved all applicable environmental review for the activities proposed to be undertaken under this Agreement. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 531 2 863\98\1839782.4 The parties therefore agree as follows: AGREEMENT ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS Section 1.1 Definitions. The following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Agreement" means this HOPWA Loan Agreement. (b) "Approved Development Budget" means the proforma predevelopment and development budget, including sources and uses of funds, as approved by the County, and attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. (c) "Borrower" has the meaning set forth in the first paragraph of this Agreement. (d) "CDLAC" means the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee. (e) "CEQA" has the meaning set forth in Paragraph G of the Recitals. (f) "City" means the City Antioch, California, a municipal corporation. (g) "Construction Closing" means the date upon which all of the following has occurred: (i) escrow closes for all financing necessary for the construction of the Improvements, and (ii) any deeds of trust related to such financing are recorded against the Property. (h) "County" has the meaning set forth in the first paragraph of this Agreement. (i) "Deed of Trust" means the Deed of Trust with Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement, and Fixture Filing of even date herewith among Borrower, as Trustor, Old Republic Title Company, as trustee, and the County, as beneficiary, that will encumber the Property to secure repayment of the Loan and performance of the covenants of the Loan Documents. (j) "Default Rate" means the lesser of the maximum rate permitted by law and ten percent (10%) per annum. (k) "Development" has the meaning set forth in Paragraph C of the Recitals. (l) "Event of Default" has the meaning set forth in Section 5.1. (m) "Hazardous Materials" means: (i) any substance, material, or waste April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 532 3 863\98\1839782.4 that is petroleum, petroleum-related, or a petroleum by-product, asbestos or asbestos- containing material, polychlorinated biphenyls, flammable, explosive, radioactive, freon gas, radon, or a pesticide, herbicide, or any other agricultural chemical, and (ii) any waste, substance or material defined as or included in the definition of "hazardous substances," "hazardous wastes," "hazardous materials," "toxic materials", "toxic waste", "toxic substances," or words of similar import under any Hazardous Materials Law. (n) "Hazardous Materials Claims" means with respect to the Property (i) any and all enforcement, cleanup, removal or other governmental or regulatory actions instituted, completed or threatened against Borrower or the Property pursuant to any Hazardous Materials Law; and (ii) all claims made or threatened by any third party against Borrower or the Property relating to damage, contribution, cost recovery compensation, loss or injury resulting from any Hazardous Materials. (o) "Hazardous Materials Law" means any federal, state or local laws, ordinances, or regulations relating to any Hazardous Materials, health, industrial hygiene, environmental conditions, or the regulation or protection of the environment, and all amendments thereto as of this date and to be added in the future and any successor statute or rule or regulation promulgated thereto. (p) "HOPWA-Assisted Units" has the meaning set forth in Paragraph F of the Recitals. (q) "HOPWA" means the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program pursuant to the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 USC 12901 et seq.), as amended by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 USC 5301 et seq.). (r) "HOPWA Eligible Household" means a household that includes at least one Person with HIV/AIDS. (s) "HOPWA Funds" has the meaning set forth in Paragraph B of the Recitals. (t) "HOPWA Term" means the period beginning on the date of this Agreement and ending on the tenth (10th) anniversary of the date of this Agreement. (u) "HUD" has the meaning set forth in Paragraph B of the Recitals. (v) "Improvements" has the meaning set forth in Paragraph C of the Recitals. (w) "Loan Documents" means this Agreement, the Note, and the Deed of Trust. (x) "Loan" has the meaning set forth in Paragraph D of the Recitals. (y) "NEPA" has the meaning set forth in Paragraph H of the Recitals. (z) "Note" means the promissory note of even date herewith that April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 533 4 863\98\1839782.4 evidences Borrower's obligation to repay the Loan. (aa) "Persons with HIV/AIDS" has the meaning set forth in the Regulatory Agreement. (bb) "Predevelopment Activities" means the activities related to the Development that are performed by Borrower prior to Construction Closing, including but not limited to preparation of funding applications, design, engineering, and planning costs. (cc) "Predevelopment Costs" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.3. (dd) "Property" has the meaning set forth in Paragraph C of the Recitals. (ee) "Regulatory Agreement" means the Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants between the County and Borrower that will (i) regulate the use and occupancy of the Development, and (ii) be recorded against the Property at Construction Closing. The form of the Regulatory Agreement will be provided by the County. (ff) "Subsequent Loan" means a loan from the County to Borrower that may be approved or denied in the County's sole discretion and, if approved, will be (i) used for the development of the Improvements and (ii) funded at Construction Closing. (gg) "Subsequent Loan Documents" means the loan agreement, promissory note, deed of trust, Regulatory Agreement, and any other document evidencing, or entered into by and between the County and Borrower regarding the Subsequent Loan. (hh) "TCAC" means the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. (ii) "Tenant" means the tenant household that occupies a unit in the Development. (jj) "Term" means the period of time that commences on the date of this Agreement, and expires, unless sooner terminated in accordance with this Agreement, on the earlier of: (i) December 31, 2016, and (ii) the date of the Construction Closing. (kk) "Transfer" has the meaning set forth in Section 3.17 below. Section 1.2 Exhibits The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference: Exhibit A: Legal Description of the Property Exhibit B: Approved Development Budget Exhibit C: NEPA Mitigation Requirements April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 534 5 863\98\1839782.4 ARTICLE 2 LOAN PROVISIONS Section 2.1 Loan. Upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Section 2.5 of this Agreement, the County shall lend to Borrower the Loan for the purposes set forth in Section 2.3 of this Agreement. Borrower's obligation to repay the Loan is evidenced by the Note. Section 2.2 Interest. (a) Loan. Subject to the provisions of subsection (b) below, no interest will accrue on the outstanding principal balance of the Loan. (b) Default Interest. Upon the occurrence of an Event of a Default, interest on the outstanding principal balance of the Loan will begin to accrue, beginning on the date of such occurrence and continuing until the date the Loan is repaid in full or the Event of Default is cured, at the Default Rate. Section 2.3 Use of Loan Funds. Borrower shall use the Loan to finance the expenses incurred in connection with the Predevelopment Activities consistent with the Approved Development Budget (the "Predevelopment Costs"). Predevelopment Costs include HOPWA-eligible costs incurred by Borrower in connection with the Development prior to the date of this Agreement. Any HOPWA Funds not disbursed pursuant to Section 2.5 to finance Predevelopment Costs may be disbursed pursuant to the Subsequent Loan Documents for construction costs consistent with the Approved Development Budget. Borrower may not use the Loan proceeds for any other purposes without the prior written consent of the County. Section 2.4 Security. In consideration of the Loan, Borrower shall secure its obligation to repay the Loan, as evidenced by the Note, by executing the Deed of Trust, and cause or permit it to be recorded as a lien against the Property. Section 2.5 Conditions Precedent to Disbursement of Loan Funds for Predevelopment Costs. The disbursements for Predevelopment Costs may not exceed the Loan amount. The County is not obligated to disburse any portion of the Loan for Predevelopment Costs, or to take any other action under the Loan Documents unless all of the following conditions have been and continue to be satisfied: (a) There exists no Event of Default nor any act, failure, omission or condition that would constitute an Event of Default under this Agreement; (b) Borrower holds title to the Property or is acquiring title to the Property April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 535 6 863\98\1839782.4 simultaneously with the disbursement of the Loan proceeds; (c) Borrower has delivered to the County a copy of a corporate resolution authorizing Borrower to obtain the Loan and execute the Loan Documents; (d) There exists no material adverse change in the financial condition of Borrower from that shown by the financial statements and other data and information furnished by Borrower to the County prior to the date of this Agreement; (e) Borrower has furnished the County with evidence of the insurance coverage meeting the requirements of Section 3.18 below; (f) Borrower has executed and delivered to the County the Loan Documents and has caused all other documents, instruments, and policies required under the Loan Documents to be delivered to the County; (g) The Deed of Trust has been recorded against the Property in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Contra Costa; (h) A title insurer reasonably acceptable to the County is unconditionally and irrevocably committed to issuing a 2006 ALTA Lender's Policy of title insurance insuring the priority of the Deed of Trust in the amount of the Loan, subject only to such exceptions and exclusions as may be reasonably acceptable to the County, and containing such endorsements as the County may reasonably require. Borrower shall provide whatever documentation (including an indemnification agreement), deposits or surety is reasonably required by the title company in order for the County's Deed of Trust to be senior in lien priority to any mechanics liens in connection with any start of construction that has occurred prior to the recordation of the Deed of Trust against the Property in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Contra Costa; (i) All environmental review necessary for the construction of the Development has been completed, and Borrower has provided the County evidence of planned compliance with all NEPA and CEQA requirements and mitigation measures applicable to construction, and evidence of compliance with all NEPA and CEQA requirements and mitigation measures applicable to preconstruction; (j) The County has determined the undisbursed proceeds of the Loan, together with other funds or firm commitments for funds that Borrower has obtained in connection with the Development, are not less than the amount the County determines is necessary to pay for the construction of the Development and to satisfy all of the covenants contained in this Agreement; and (k) The County has received a written draw request from Borrower, including: (i) certification that the condition set forth in Section 2.5(a) continues to be satisfied; (ii) certification that the proposed uses of funds is consistent with the Approved Development Budget; (iii) the amount of funds needed; and, (iv) where applicable, a copy of the bill or invoice covering a cost incurred or to be incurred. When a disbursement is requested to pay any contractor in connection with Improvements, the written request must be accompanied April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 536 7 863\98\1839782.4 by: (1) certification by Borrower's architect reasonably acceptable to the County that the work for which disbursement is requested has been completed (although the County reserves the right to inspect the Property and make an independent evaluation); and (2) lien releases and/or mechanics lien title insurance endorsements reasonably acceptable to the County. Section 2.6 Repayment Schedule. (a) Payment in Full of Loan. Subject to Sections 2.6(b), Borrower shall pay all outstanding principal and accrued interest on the Loan, in full, on the earliest to occur of: (i) any Transfer other than as permitted pursuant to Section 3.17; (ii) an Event of Default; and (iii) the expiration of the Term. (b) Subsequent Loan. If a Subsequent Loan is approved by the County and Subsequent Loan Documents are executed by the parties and if all, or any portion, of the Subsequent Loan is then funded, then (i) this Agreement will terminate, (ii) the Note will be cancelled and replaced with the promissory note associated with the Subsequent Loan, (iii) the Loan will be combined with the Subsequent Loan for purposes of repayment, (iv) the deed of trust associated with the Subsequent Loan will supersede in its entirety the Deed of Trust, (v) Borrower will execute the Regulatory Agreement; and (vi) thereafter the Loan will be repaid in accordance with the terms of the Subsequent Loan Documents. The County has no obligation to provide Borrower the Subsequent Loan. (c) Prepayment. Borrower may prepay the Loan at any time without premium or penalty. However, the Regulatory Agreement and the Deed of Trust will remain in effect for the entire Term, regardless of any prepayment or Transfer. Section 2.7 Non-Recourse. Except as provided below, neither Borrower, nor any partner of Borrower, has any direct or indirect personal liability for payment of the principal of, and interest on, the Loan. Following recordation of the Deed of Trust, the sole recourse of the County with respect to the principal of, or interest on, the Note will be to the property described in the Deed of Trust; provided, however, that nothing contained in the foregoing limitation of liability limits or impairs the enforcement of all the rights and remedies of the County against all such security for the Note, or impairs the right of County to assert the unpaid principal amount of the Note as demand for money within the meaning and intendment of Section 431.70 of the California Code of Civil Procedure or any successor provision thereto. The foregoing limitation of liability is intended to apply only to the obligation to repay the principal and interest on the Note. Except as hereafter set forth; nothing contained herein is intended to relieve Borrower of its obligation to indemnify the County under Sections 3.10(b)(vi), 3.11, and 6.4 of this Agreement, or liability for: (i) loss or damage of any kind resulting from waste, fraud or willful misrepresentation; (ii) the failure to pay taxes, assessments or other charges which may create liens on the Property that are payable or applicable prior to any foreclosure under the Deed of Trust (to the full extent of such taxes, assessments or other charges); (iii) the fair market value of any personal property or fixtures removed or disposed of by Borrower other than in accordance with the Deed of Trust; and (iv) the misappropriation of any proceeds under any insurance policies or awards resulting from condemnation or the exercise of the power of eminent domain or by reason of damage, loss or destruction to any portion of the Property. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 537 8 863\98\1839782.4 ARTICLE 3 LOAN REQUIREMENTS Section 3.1 TCAC and CDLAC Applications. (a) Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Agreement Borrower shall submit timely and complete applications to CDLAC for a tax exempt bond allocation and to TCAC for a reservation of 4% tax credits. (b) Upon award of the reservation of tax credits from TCAC, Borrower shall exercise diligent good faith efforts to obtain a funding commitment from a reputable equity investor reasonably acceptable to the County. The County shall review and reasonably approve or disapprove of the submitted equity information within ten (10) days after submission. If the County disapproves the equity investor or funding commitment, it shall specify in writing the reasons for such disapproval. The County shall not disapprove the equity investor if such investor is a well-established investor in low income housing tax credit projects. The County shall not disapprove the equity funding commitment if the pricing of the credits in the commitment is commensurate with other equity financing currently provided in the low income housing tax credit market for projects similar to the Development and is consistent with the Approved Development Budget. Section 3.2 Approved Development Budget; Revisions to Budget. As of the date of this Agreement, the County has approved the Approved Development Budget set forth in Exhibit B which includes the Predevelopment Costs and the percentage of each such line item to be funded by the Loan. Borrower shall submit any amendments to the Approved Development Budget to the County for approval within five (5) days after the date Borrower receives information indicating that actual costs of the Development vary or will vary from the costs shown on the Approved Development Budget. Written consent of the County will be required to amend the Approved Development Budget. Section 3.3 Information. Borrower shall provide any information reasonably requested by the County in connection with the Development, including (but not limited to) any information required by HUD in connection with Borrower's use of the Loan funds. Section 3.4 Progress Reports; Periodic Development Evaluation. During the performance of the Predevelopment Activities Borrower shall on the first day of each month of the Term, and from time to time as reasonably requested by the County, provide the County with written progress reports regarding the status of the performance of the Predevelopment Activities. Section 3.5 Borrower Supervision of Predevelopment Activities. Borrower is solely responsible for all aspects of Borrower's conduct in connection with April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 538 9 863\98\1839782.4 the performance of the Predevelopment Activities, including (but not limited to) the quality and suitability of the plans and specifications, the supervision of work, and the qualifications, financial condition, and performance of all architects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and consultants. Any review or inspection undertaken by the County with reference to the Predevelopment Activities and the Improvements is solely for the purpose of determining whether Borrower is properly discharging its obligations to the County, and should not be relied upon by Borrower or by any third parties as a warranty or representation by the County as to the quality of the design or construction of the Improvements. Section 3.6 Compliance with Laws. Borrower shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal, state, county or municipal governments or agencies now in force or that may be enacted hereafter, including (without limitation and where applicable) the prevailing wage provisions of Sections 1770 et seq., of the California Labor Code and implementing rules and regulations, in owning the Property, and performing the Predevelopment Activities. Section 3.7 Equal Opportunity. During the performance of the Predevelopment Activities, there will be no discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, or disability in the hiring, firing, promoting, or demoting of any person engaged in the work. Section 3.8 Records. (a) Borrower shall keep and maintain at the principal place of business of Borrower set forth in Section 6.9 below, or elsewhere with the County's written consent, full, complete and appropriate books, records and accounts relating to the Development. Borrower shall cause all books, records and accounts relating to its compliance with the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of this Agreement to be kept and maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied, and to be consistent with requirements of this Agreement. Borrower shall cause all books, records, and accounts to be open to and available for inspection and copying by HUD, the County, its auditors or other authorized representatives at reasonable intervals during normal business hours. Borrower shall cause copies of all tax returns and other reports that Borrower may be required to furnish to any government agency to be open for inspection by the County at all reasonable times at the place that the books, records and accounts of Borrower are kept. Borrower shall preserve such records for a period of not less than five (5) years after their creation in compliance with all HUD records and accounting requirements. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit exception, monitoring, inspection or other action relating to the use of the Loan is pending at the end of the record retention period stated herein, then Borrower shall retain the records until such action and all related issues are resolved. Borrower shall cause the records to include all invoices, receipts, and other documents related to expenditures from the Loan funds. Borrower shall cause records to be accurate and current and in a form that allows the County to comply with the record keeping requirements contained in 24 C.F.R. 574.450 and 24 C.F.R. 574.530. Such records are to include but are not limited to: April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 539 10 863\98\1839782.4 (i) Records providing a full description of the activities undertaken with the use of the Loan funds; (ii) Records demonstrating that each activity undertaken with the HOPWA Funds meets one of the eligible activities of the HOPWA program set forth in 24 C.F.R. Section 574.300 and 24 C.F.R. Section 574.310; (iii) Records demonstrating compliance with the HUD property standards and lead-based paint requirements including the property standards of 24 C.F.R. Section 574.310(b) and the lead-based paint requirements of 24 C.F.R. Section 574.635; (iv) Records documenting compliance with the fair housing, equal opportunity, and affirmative fair marketing requirements; (v) Financial records as required by 2 C.F.R. Part 200, and during the HOPWA Term, financial records and other documents necessary to document compliance with the requirements of 24 C.F.R. Part 574 et seq; (vi) Records demonstrating compliance with the HOPWA marketing, tenant selection, affordability, and income requirements; (vii) Records demonstrating compliance with MBE/WBE requirements; (viii) Records demonstrating compliance with 24 C.F.R. Part 135 which implements Section 3 of the Housing Development Act of 1968; (ix) Records demonstrating compliance with applicable relocation requirements, which must be retained for at least five (5) years after the date by which persons displaced from the property have received final payments; (x) Records demonstrating compliance with labor requirements including certified payrolls from Borrower's general contractor evidencing that applicable prevailing wages have been paid; and (xi) Records documenting compliance with the supportive service requirements of 24 C.F.R. Section 574.310(a)(1). (b) The County shall notify Borrower of any records it deems insufficient. Borrower has fifteen (15) calendar days after the receipt of such a notice to correct any deficiency in the records specified by the County in such notice, or if a period longer than fifteen (15) days is reasonably necessary to correct the deficiency, then Borrower must begin to correct the deficiency within fifteen (15) days and correct the deficiency as soon as reasonably possible. Section 3.9 County Audits. (a) Each year, Borrower shall provide the County with a copy of Borrower's April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 540 11 863\98\1839782.4 annual audit, which is to include information on all of Borrower's activities and not just those pertaining to the Development. Borrower shall also follow the applicable audit requirements of 2 C.F.R. Part 200 and the additional audit requirements set forth in 24 C.F.R. 574.650. (b) In addition, the County may, at any time, audit all of Borrower's books, records, and accounts pertaining to the Development including but not limited to the Residual Receipts of the Development. Any such audit is to be conducted during normal business hours at the principal place of business of Borrower and wherever records are kept. Immediately after the completion of an audit, the County shall deliver a copy of the results of the audit to Borrower. (c) If it is determined as a result of an audit that there has been a deficiency in a loan repayment to the County then such deficiency will become immediately due and payable, with interest at the Default Rate from the date the deficient amount should have been paid. Section 3.10 HOPWA Requirements. (a) Borrower shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing the use of the HOPWA Funds, as set forth in 24 C.F.R. Part 574 et. seq. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and applicable laws and regulations governing the use of the Loan funds, the applicable laws and regulations govern. During the HOPWA Term, these requirements are federal requirements, implemented by the County; thereafter, these requirements are deemed local County requirements. (b) The laws and regulations governing the use of the Loan funds include (but are not limited to) the following: (i) Environmental and Historic Preservation. 24 C.F.R. Part 58, which prescribes procedures for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4361), and the additional laws and authorities listed at 24 C.F.R. 58.5; (ii) Applicability of Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. The applicable policies, guidelines, and requirements of 2 C.F.R. Part 200; (iii) Debarred, Suspended or Ineligible Contractors. The prohibition on the use of debarred, suspended, or ineligible contractors set forth in 24 C.F.R. Part 24; (iv) Civil Rights, Housing and Community Development, and Age Discrimination Acts. The Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 100; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended; Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended; Section 104(b) and Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794, et seq.); the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 USC 6101, et seq.); Executive Order 11063 as amended by Executive Order 12259 and implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 107; Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Orders April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 541 12 863\98\1839782.4 11375, 12086, 11478, 12107; Executive Order 11625 as amended by Executive Order 12007; Executive Order 12432; Executive Order 12138 as amended by Executive Order 12608; (v) Lead-Based Paint. The requirement of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4821 et seq.), the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (42 U.S.C. 4851 et seq.), and implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 35; (vi) Relocation. The requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601, et seq.), and implementing regulations at 49 C.F.R. Part 24; Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. 42 et seq.; 24 C.F.R. 574.630; and California Government Code Section 7260 et seq. and implementing regulations at 25 California Code of Regulations Sections 6000 et seq. If and to the extent that development of the Development results in the permanent or temporary displacement of residential tenants, homeowners, or businesses, then Borrower shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal statutes and regulations with respect to relocation planning, advisory assistance, and payment of monetary benefits. Borrower shall prepare and submit a relocation plan to the County for approval. Borrower is solely responsible for payment of any relocation benefits to any displaced persons and any other obligations associated with complying with such relocation laws. Borrower shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably chosen by the County), and hold harmless the County against all claims that arise out of relocation obligations to residential tenants, homeowners, or businesses permanently or temporarily displaced by the Development; (vii) Discrimination against the Disabled. The requirements of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 100; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), and federal regulations issued pursuant thereto, which prohibit discrimination against the disabled in any federally assisted program, the requirements of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157) and the applicable requirements of Title II and/or Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq.), and federal regulations issued pursuant thereto; (viii) Clean Air and Water Acts. The Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., and the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect thereto, at 40 C.F.R. Part 1500, as amended from time to time; (ix) Uniform Administrative Requirements. The provisions of 24 C.F.R. 574.650 regarding cost and auditing requirements; (x) Housing Quality Standards. The housing quality standards set forth in 24 C.F.R. Section 574.310(b); (xi) Supportive Services. The supportive service requirements of 24 C.F.R. Section 574.310(a)(1). Borrower shall procure services to satisfy such service requirements; April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 542 13 863\98\1839782.4 (xii) Training Opportunities. The requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701u ("Section 3"), requiring that to the greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and employment be given to lower income residents of the project area and agreements for work in connection with the project be awarded to business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in, the areas of the project. Borrower agrees to include the following language in all subcontracts executed under this Agreement: (1) The work to be performed under this contract is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701u. The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance or HUD-assisted projects covered by Section 3, shall, to the greatest extent feasible, be directed to low- and very low-income persons, particularly persons who are recipients of HUD assistance for housing. (2) The parties to this contract agree to comply with HUD's regulations in 24 C.F.R. Part 135, which implement Section 3. As evidenced by their execution of this contract, the parties to this contract certify that they are under no contractual or other impediment that would prevent them from complying with the Part 135 regulations. (3) The contractor agrees to send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which the contractor has a collective bargaining agreement or other understanding, if any, a notice advising the labor organization or workers' representative of the contractor's commitments under this Section 3 clause; and will post copies of the notice in conspicuous places at the work site where both employees and applicants for training and employment positions can see the notice. The notice shall describe the Section 3 preference; shall set forth minimum number and job titles subject to hire; availability of apprenticeship and training positions; the qualifications for each; the name and location of the person(s) taking applications for each of the positions; and the anticipated date the work shall begin. (4) The contractor agrees to include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract subject to compliance with regulations in 24 C.F.R. Part 135, and agrees to take appropriate action, as provided in an applicable provision of the subcontract or in this Section 3 clause, upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of the regulations in 24 C.F.R. Part 135. The contractor will not subcontract with any subcontractor where the contractor has notice or knowledge that the subcontractor has been found in violation of the regulations in 24 C.F.R. Part 135. (5) The contractor will certify that any vacant employment positions, including training positions, that are filled (A) after the contractor is selected but before the contract is executed, and (B) with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 C.F.R. Part 135 require employment opportunities to be directed, were not filled to circumvent the contractor's obligations under 24 C.F.R. Part 135. (6) Noncompliance with HUD's regulations in 24 C.F.R. Part 135 may result in sanctions, termination of this contract for default, and debarment or suspension from future HUD assisted contracts. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 543 14 863\98\1839782.4 (7) With respect to work performed in connection with Section 3 covered Indian housing assistance, section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450e) also applies to the work to be performed under this contract. Section 7(b) requires that to the greatest extent feasible (i) preference and opportunities for training and employment shall be given to Indians, and (ii) preference in the award of contracts and subcontracts shall be given to Indian organizations and Indian-owned Economic Enterprises. Parties to this contract that are subject to the provisions of Section 3 and section 7(b) agree to comply with Section 3 to the maximum extent feasible, but not in derogation of compliance with section 7(b). (xiii) Drug Free Workplace. The requirements of the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690) and implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 24; (xiv) Anti-Lobbying; Disclosure Requirements. The disclosure requirements and prohibitions of 31 U.S.C. 1352 and implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 87; (xv) Historic Preservation. The historic preservation requirements set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. Section 470) and the procedures set forth in 36 C.F.R. Part 800. If archeological, cultural, or historic period resources are discovered during construction, all construction work must come to a halt and Borrower shall immediately notify the County. Borrower shall not shall alter or move the discovered material(s) until all appropriate procedures for "post-review discoveries" set forth in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act have taken place, which include, but are not limited to, consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer and evaluation of the discovered material(s) by a qualified professional archeologist; (xvi) Religious Organizations. If Borrower is a religious organization, as defined by the HOPWA requirements, Borrower shall comply with all conditions prescribed by HUD for the use of HOPWA Funds by religious organizations, including the First Amendment of the United States Constitution regarding church/state principles and the applicable constitutional prohibitions set forth in 24 C.F.R. 574.300(c); (xvii) Violence Against Women. The requirements of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113–4, 127 Stat. 54) applicable to HUD- funded programs; and (xviii) HUD Regulations. Any other HUD regulations present or as may be amended, added, or waived in the future pertaining to the Loan funds. Section 3.11 Hazardous Materials. (a) Borrower shall keep and maintain the Property (including but not limited to, soil and ground water conditions) in compliance with all Hazardous Materials Laws and may not cause or permit the Property to be in violation of any Hazardous Materials Law. Borrower may not cause or permit the use, generation, manufacture, storage or disposal of April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 544 15 863\98\1839782.4 on, under, or about the Property or transportation to or from the Property of any Hazardous Materials, except such of the foregoing as may be customarily used in construction of projects like the Development or kept and used in and about residential property of this type. (b) Borrower shall immediately advise the County in writing if at any time it receives written notice of any Hazardous Materials Claims, and Borrower's discovery of any occurrence or condition on any real property adjoining or in the vicinity of the Property that could cause the Property or any part thereof to be classified as "border-zone property" (as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25117.4) under the provision of California Health and Safety Code, Section 25220 et seq., or any regulation adopted in accordance therewith, or to be otherwise subject to any restrictions on the ownership, occupancy, transferability or use of the Property under any Hazardous Materials Law. (c) The County has the right to join and participate in, as a party if it so elects, and be represented by counsel acceptable to the County (or counsel of its own choice if a conflict exists with Borrower) in any legal proceedings or actions initiated in connection with any Hazardous Materials Claims and to have its reasonable attorneys' fees in connection therewith paid by Borrower. (d) Borrower shall indemnify and hold harmless the County and its board members, supervisors, directors, officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns from and against any loss, damage, cost, fine, penalty, judgment, award, settlement, expense or liability, directly or indirectly arising out of or attributable to: (i) any actual or alleged past or present violation of any Hazardous Materials Law; (ii) any Hazardous Materials Claim; (iii) any actual or alleged past or present use, generation, manufacture, storage, release, threatened release, discharge, disposal, transportation, or presence of Hazardous Materials on, under, or about the Property; (iv) any investigation, cleanup, remediation, removal, or restoration work of site conditions of the Property relating to Hazardous Materials (whether on the Property or any other property); and (v) the breach of any representation of warranty by or covenant of Borrower in this Section 3.11, and Section 4.1(l). Such indemnity shall include, without limitation: (x) all consequential damages; (y) the costs of any required or necessary investigation, repair, cleanup or detoxification of the Property and the preparation and implementation of any closure, remedial or other required plans; and (z) all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the County in connection with clauses (x) and (y), including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees and consultant fees. This indemnification applies whether or not any government agency has issued a cleanup order. Losses, claims, costs, suits, liability, and expenses covered by this indemnification provision include, but are not limited to: (1) losses attributable to diminution in the value of the Property, (2) loss or restriction of use of rentable space on the Property, (3) adverse effect on the marketing of any rental space on the Property, and (4) penalties and fines levied by, and remedial or enforcement actions of any kind issued by any regulatory agency (including but not limited to the costs of any required testing, remediation, repair, removal, cleanup or detoxification of the Property and surrounding properties). This obligation to indemnify will survive termination of this Agreement and will not be diminished or affected in any respect as a result of any notice, disclosure, knowledge, if any, to or by the County of Hazardous Materials. (e) Without the County's prior written consent, which will not be April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 545 16 863\98\1839782.4 unreasonably withheld, Borrower may not take any remedial action in response to the presence of any Hazardous Materials on, under or about the Property, nor enter into any settlement agreement, consent decree, or other compromise in respect to any Hazardous Material Claims, which remedial action, settlement, consent decree or compromise might, in the County's judgment, impair the value of the County's security hereunder; provided, however, that the County's prior consent is not necessary in the event that the presence of Hazardous Materials on, under, or about the Property either poses an immediate threat to the health, safety or welfare of any individual or is of such a nature that an immediate remedial response is necessary and it is not reasonably possible to obtain the County's consent before taking such action, provided that in such event Borrower shall notify the County as soon as practicable of any action so taken. The County agrees not to withhold its consent, where such consent is required hereunder, if: (i) a particular remedial action is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (ii) Borrower will or may be subjected to civil or criminal sanctions or penalties if it fails to take a required action; (iii) Borrower establishes to the satisfaction of the County that there is no reasonable alternative to such remedial action which would result in less impairment of the County's security hereunder; or (iv) the action has been agreed to by the County. (f) Borrower hereby acknowledges and agrees that: (i) this Section is intended as the County's written request for information (and Borrower's response) concerning the environmental condition of the Property as required by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5; and (ii) each representation and warranty in this Agreement (together with any indemnity obligation applicable to a breach of any such representation and warranty) with respect to the environmental condition of the Property is intended by the Parties to be an "environmental provision" for purposes of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 736. (g) In the event that any portion of the Property is determined to be "environmentally impaired" (as that term is defined in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5(e)(3)) or to be an "affected parcel" (as that term is defined in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5(e)(1)), then, without otherwise limiting or in any way affecting the County's or the trustee's rights and remedies under the Deed of Trust, the County may elect to exercise its rights under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5(a) to: (i) waive its lien on such environmentally impaired or affected portion of the Property; and (ii) exercise, (1) the rights and remedies of an unsecured creditor, including reduction of its claim against Borrower to judgment, and (2) any other rights and remedies permitted by law. For purposes of determining the County's right to proceed as an unsecured creditor under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5(a), Borrower will be deemed to have willfully permitted or acquiesced in a release or threatened release of Hazardous Materials, within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5(d)(1), if the release or threatened release of Hazardous Materials was knowingly or negligently caused or contributed to by any lessee, occupant, or user of any portion of the Property and Borrower knew or should have known of the activity by such lessee, occupant, or user which caused or contributed to the release or threatened release. All costs and expenses, including (but not limited to) attorneys' fees, incurred by the County in connection with any action commenced under this paragraph, including any action required by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5(b) to determine the degree to which the Property is environmentally April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 546 17 863\98\1839782.4 impaired, plus interest thereon at the Default Rate, until paid, will be added to the indebtedness secured by the Deed of Trust and is due and payable to the County upon its demand made at any time following the conclusion of such action. Section 3.12 Maintenance; Damage and Destruction. (a) Borrower shall maintain the Development and the Property in good repair and in a neat, clean and orderly condition. If there arises a condition in contravention of this requirement, and if Borrower has not cured such condition within thirty (30) days after receiving a County notice of such a condition, then in addition to any other rights available to the County, the County may perform all acts necessary to cure such condition, and to establish or enforce a lien or other encumbrance against the Property, subject to the provisions provided in subsection (b) below. (b) Subject to the requirements of senior lenders, and if economically feasible in the County's judgment after consultation with Borrower, if any improvement now or in the future on the Property is damaged or destroyed, then Borrower shall, at its cost and expense, diligently undertake to repair or restore such improvement consistent with the plans and specifications approved by the County with such changes as have been approved by the County. Such work or repair is to be commenced no later than the later of one hundred twenty (120) days, or such longer period approved by the County in writing, after the damage or loss occurs or thirty (30) days following receipt of the insurance proceeds, and is to be complete within one (1) year thereafter. Any insurance proceeds collected for such damage or destruction are to be applied to the cost of such repairs or restoration and, if such insurance proceeds are insufficient for such purpose, then Borrower shall make up the deficiency. If Borrower does not promptly make such repairs then any insurance proceeds collected for such damage or destruction are to be promptly delivered by Borrower to the County as a special repayment of the Loan, subject to the rights of the senior lenders, if any. Section 3.13 Fees and Taxes. Borrower is solely responsible for payment of all fees, assessments, taxes, charges, and levies imposed by any public authority or utility company with respect to the Property or the Development, and shall pay such charges prior to delinquency. However, Borrower is not required to pay and discharge any such charge so long as: (i) the legality thereof is being contested diligently and in good faith and by appropriate proceedings; and (ii) if requested by the County, Borrower deposits with the County any funds or other forms of assurance that the County in good faith from time to time determines appropriate to protect the County from the consequences of the contest being unsuccessful. Section 3.14 Notices. Borrower shall promptly notify the County in writing of any and all of the following: (a) Any litigation known to Borrower affecting Borrower, or the Property and of any claims or disputes that involve a material risk of such litigation; April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 547 18 863\98\1839782.4 (b) Any written or oral communication Borrower receives from any governmental, judicial, or legal authority giving notice of any claim or assertion that the Property fails in any respect to comply with any applicable governmental law; (c) Any material adverse change in the physical condition of the Property (including any damage suffered as a result of fire, earthquakes, or floods); (d) Any material adverse change in Borrower's financial condition, any material adverse change in Borrower's operations, or any change in the management of Borrower; (e) That any of the statements in Section 4.1(l) regarding Hazardous Materials are no longer accurate; (f) Any Default or event which, with the giving of notice or the passage of time or both, would constitute a Default; and (g) Any other circumstance, event, or occurrence that results in a material adverse change in Borrower's ability to timely perform any of its obligations under any of the Loan Documents. Section 3.15 Operation of Development as Affordable Housing. Borrower shall operate the Development as an affordable housing development consistent with: (i) HUD's requirements for use of HOPWA Funds (with respect to the HOPWA-Assisted Units); (ii) the Regulatory Agreement; and (iii) any other regulatory requirements imposed on Borrower. Upon the Construction Closing the County and Borrower shall cause to be recorded against the Property the Regulatory Agreement providing, among other matters, for the rental of the HOPWA-Assisted Units to HOPWA Eligible Households with incomes that do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of area median income for a time period of no less than the HOPWA Term, and to income eligible households after the expiration of the HOPWA Term through the end of fifty-five (55) years. Section 3.16 Nondiscrimination. (a) Borrower covenants by and for itself and its successors and assigns that there will be no discrimination against or segregation of a person or of a group of persons on account of race, color, religion, creed, age (except for lawful senior housing in accordance with state and federal law), familial status, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry or national origin in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Property, nor may Borrower or any person claiming under or through Borrower establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the Property. The foregoing covenant will run with the land. (b) Nothing in this Section prohibits Borrower from requiring HOPWA- Assisted Units in the Development to be available to and occupied by income eligible April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 548 19 863\98\1839782.4 households in accordance with the Regulatory Agreement, or from requiring the HOPWA- Assisted Units in the Development to be available to and occupied by HOPWA Eligible Households. Section 3.17 Transfer. (a) For purposes of this Agreement, "Transfer" means any sale, assignment, or transfer, whether voluntary or involuntary, of: (i) any rights and/or duties under this Agreement; and/or (ii) any interest in the Development, including (but not limited to) a fee simple interest, a joint tenancy interest, a life estate, a partnership interest, a leasehold interest, a security interest, or an interest evidenced by a land contract by which possession of the Development is transferred and Borrower retains title. The term "Transfer" excludes the leasing of any single unit in the Development to an occupant in compliance with the Regulatory Agreement. The County Deputy Director – Department of Conservation and Development is authorized to execute assignment and assumption agreements on behalf of the County to implement any approved Transfer. (b) No Transfer is permitted without the prior written consent of the County, which the County may withhold in its sole discretion. The Loan will automatically accelerate and be due in full upon any Transfer made without the prior written consent of the County. Section 3.18 Insurance Requirements. (a) Borrower shall maintain the following insurance coverage throughout the Term of the Loan: (i) Workers' Compensation insurance to the extent required by law, including Employer's Liability coverage, with limits not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) each accident. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with limits not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) each occurrence combined single limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including coverages for Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Broadform Property Damage, Products and Completed Operations. (iii) Automobile Liability insurance with limits not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence combined single limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including coverages for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, as applicable. (iv) Builders' Risk insurance during the course of construction, and upon completion of construction, property insurance covering the Development, in form appropriate for the nature of such property, covering all risks of loss, excluding earthquake, for one hundred percent (100%) of the replacement value, with deductible, if any, acceptable to the County, naming the County as a Loss Payee, as its interests may appear. Flood insurance must be obtained if required by applicable federal regulations. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 549 20 863\98\1839782.4 (v) Commercial crime insurance covering all officers and employees, for loss of Loan proceeds caused by dishonesty, in an amount approved by the County, naming the County a Loss Payee, as its interests may appear. (b) Borrower shall cause any general contractor, agent, or subcontractor working on the Development under direct contract with Borrower or subcontract to maintain insurance of the types and in at least the minimum amounts described in subsections (i), (ii), and (iii) above, except that the limit of liability for commercial general liability insurance for subcontractors must be One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), and must require that such insurance will meet all of the general requirements of subsections (d) and (e) below. (c) The required insurance must be provided under an occurrence form, and Borrower shall maintain the coverage described in subsection (a) continuously throughout the Term. Should any of the required insurance be provided under a form of coverage that includes an annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defense costs be included in such annual aggregate limit, such annual aggregate limit must be three times the occurrence limits specified above. (d) Commercial General Liability, Automobile Liability and Property insurance policies must be endorsed to name as an additional insured the County and its officers, agents, employees and members of the County Board of Supervisors. (e) All policies and bonds are to contain: (i) the agreement of the insurer to give the County at least thirty (30) days' notice prior to cancellation (including, without limitation, for non-payment of premium) or any material change in said policies; (ii) an agreement that such policies are primary and non-contributing with any insurance that may be carried by the County; (iii) a provision that no act or omission of Borrower shall affect or limit the obligation of the insurance carrier to pay the amount of any loss sustained; and (iv) a waiver by the insurer of all rights of subrogation against the County and its authorized parties in connection with any loss or damage thereby insured against. Section 3.19 Anti-Lobbying Certification. (a) Borrower certifies, to the best of Borrower's knowledge or belief, that: (i) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; (ii) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 550 21 863\98\1839782.4 cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying, in accordance with its instructions. (b) This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this Agreement was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this Agreement imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) and no more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for such failure. Section 3.20 Other Indebtedness and Liens. Borrower shall not incur any indebtedness of any kind or encumber the Property with any liens without the prior written consent of the County. If the County and Borrower enter into the Subsequent Loan Documents, such agreement will set forth the County's standard provisions regarding additional liens and subordination. Section 3.21 NEPA Mitigation Requirements. Borrower shall comply with the NEPA mitigation requirements set forth in the attached Exhibit C in the development of the Development. ARTICLE 4 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF BORROWER Section 4.1 Representations and Warranties. Borrower hereby represents and warrants to the County as follows and acknowledges, understands, and agrees that the representations and warranties set forth in this Article 5 are deemed to be continuing during all times when any portion of the Loan remains outstanding: (a) Organization. Borrower is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California and has the power and authority to own its property and carry on its business as now being conducted. (b) Authority of Borrower. Borrower has full power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and to make and accept the borrowings contemplated hereunder, to execute and deliver the Loan Documents and all other documents or instruments executed and delivered, or to be executed and delivered, pursuant to this Agreement, and to perform and observe the terms and provisions of all of the above. (c) Authority of Persons Executing Documents. This Agreement and the Loan Documents and all other documents or instruments executed and delivered, or to be executed and delivered, pursuant to this Agreement have been executed and delivered by persons who are duly authorized to execute and deliver the same for and on behalf of Borrower, and all actions required under Borrower's organizational documents and applicable governing law for the authorization, execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 551 22 863\98\1839782.4 and the Loan Documents and all other documents or instruments executed and delivered, or to be executed and delivered, pursuant to this Agreement, have been duly taken. (d) Valid Binding Agreements. The Loan Documents and all other documents or instruments executed and delivered pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement constitute or, if not yet executed or delivered, will when so executed and delivered constitute, legal, valid and binding obligations of Borrower enforceable against it in accordance with their respective terms. (e) No Breach of Law or Agreement. Neither the execution nor delivery of the Loan Documents or of any other documents or instruments executed and delivered, or to be executed or delivered, pursuant to this Agreement, nor the performance of any provision, condition, covenant or other term hereof or thereof, will: (i) conflict with or result in a breach of any statute, rule or regulation, or any judgment, decree or order of any court, board, commission or agency whatsoever that is binding on Borrower, or conflict with any provision of the organizational documents of Borrower, or conflict with any agreement to which Borrower is a party; or (ii) result in the creation or imposition of any lien upon any assets or property of Borrower, other than liens established pursuant hereto. (f) Compliance with Laws; Consents and Approvals. The performance of the Predevelopment Activities and construction of the Development will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal, state and local governments and agencies and with all applicable directions, rules and regulations of the fire marshal, health officer, building inspector and other officers of any such government or agency. (g) Pending Proceedings. Borrower is not in default under any law or regulation or under any order of any court, board, commission or agency whatsoever, and there are no claims, actions, suits or proceedings pending or, to the knowledge of Borrower, threatened against or affecting Borrower or the Development, at law or in equity, before or by any court, board, commission or agency whatsoever which might, if determined adversely to Borrower, materially affect Borrower's ability to repay the Loan or impair the security to be given to the County pursuant hereto. (h) Title to Land. At the time of recordation of the Deed of Trust, Borrower will have good and marketable fee title to the Development and there will exist thereon or with respect thereto no mortgage, lien, pledge or other encumbrance of any character whatsoever other than liens for current real property taxes and liens in favor of the County or approved in writing by the County. (i) Financial Statements. The financial statements of Borrower and other financial data and information furnished by Borrower to the County fairly and accurately present the information contained therein. As of the date of this Agreement, there has not been any material adverse change in the financial condition of Borrower from that shown by such financial statements and other data and information. (j) Sufficient Funds. Borrower holds sufficient funds and/or binding commitments for sufficient funds to complete the acquisition of the Property and the performance of the Predevelopment Activities in accordance with the terms of this April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 552 23 863\98\1839782.4 Agreement. (k) Taxes. Borrower and its subsidiaries have filed all federal and other material tax returns and reports required to be filed, and have paid all federal and other material taxes, assessments, fees and other governmental charges levied or imposed upon them or their income or the Property otherwise due and payable, except those that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which adequate reserves have been provided in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. There is no proposed tax assessment against Borrower or any of its subsidiaries that could, if made, be reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on the property, liabilities (actual or contingent), operations, condition (financial or otherwise) or prospects of Borrower and its subsidiaries, taken as a whole, or which could result in (i) a material impairment of the ability of Borrower to perform under any loan document to which it is a party, or (ii) a material adverse effect upon the legality, validity, binding effect or enforceability against Borrower of any Loan Document. (l) Hazardous Materials. To the best of Borrower's knowledge, except as disclosed in writing by Borrower to the County prior to the date of this Agreement: (i) no Hazardous Material has been disposed of, stored on, discharged from, or released to or from, or otherwise now exists in, on, under, or around, the Property; (ii) neither the Property nor Borrower is in violation of any Hazardous Materials Law; and (iii) neither the Property nor Borrower is subject to any existing, pending or threatened Hazardous Materials Claims. ARTICLE 5 DEFAULT AND REMEDIES Section 5.1 Events of Default. Any one or more of the following constitutes an "Event of Default" by Borrower under this Agreement: (a) Failure to Make Payment. If Borrower fails to make any payment when such payment is due pursuant to the Loan Documents. (b) Breach of Covenants. If Borrower fails to duly perform, comply with, or observe any other condition, term, or covenant contained in this Agreement (other than as set forth in Section 6.1(a) and Section 6.1(c) through Section 6.1(j)), or in any of the other Loan Documents, and Borrower fails to cure such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof from the County to Borrower. (c) Insolvency. If a court having jurisdiction makes or enters any decree or order: (i) adjudging Borrower to be bankrupt or insolvent; (ii) approving as properly filed a petition seeking reorganization of Borrower, or seeking any arrangement for Borrower under the bankruptcy law or any other applicable debtor's relief law or statute of the United States or any state or other jurisdiction; (iii) appointing a receiver, trustee, liquidator, or assignee of Borrower in bankruptcy or insolvency or for any of their properties; (iv) directing the winding up or liquidation of Borrower if any such decree or order described in clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive, is unstayed or undischarged for a period of ninety (90) calendar days; or (v) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 553 24 863\98\1839782.4 Borrower admits in writing its inability to pay its debts as they fall due or will have voluntarily submitted to or filed a petition seeking any decree or order of the nature described in clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive. The occurrence of any of the Events of Default in this paragraph will act to accelerate automatically, without the need for any action by the County, the indebtedness evidenced by the Note. (d) Assignment; Attachment. If Borrower assigns its assets for the benefit of its creditors or suffers a sequestration or attachment of or execution on any substantial part of its property, unless the property so assigned, sequestered, attached or executed upon is returned or released within ninety (90) calendar days after such event or, if sooner, prior to sale pursuant to such sequestration, attachment, or execution. The occurrence of any of the events of default in this paragraph shall act to accelerate automatically, without the need for any action by the County, the indebtedness evidenced by the Note. (e) Suspension; Termination. If Borrower voluntarily suspends its business or, the partnership is dissolved or terminated, other than a technical termination of the partnership for tax purposes. (f) Liens on Property and the Development. If any claim of lien (other than liens approved in writing by the County) is filed against the Development or any part thereof, or any interest or right made appurtenant thereto, or the service of any notice to withhold proceeds of the Loan and the continued maintenance of said claim of lien or notice to withhold for a period of twenty (20) days, without discharge or satisfaction thereof or provision therefor (including, without limitation, the posting of bonds) satisfactory to the County. (g) Condemnation. If there is a condemnation, seizure, or appropriation of all or the substantial part of the Property and the Development. (h) Unauthorized Transfer. If any Transfer occurs other than as permitted pursuant to Section 3.17. (i) Representation or Warranty Incorrect. If any Borrower representation or warranty contained in this Agreement, or in any application, financial statement, certificate, or report submitted to the County in connection with any of the Loan Documents, proves to have been incorrect in any material respect when made. (j) Applicability to General Partner. The occurrence of any of the events set forth in Section 6.1(c), through Section 6.1(e) in relation to Borrower's managing general partner. Section 5.2 Remedies. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default and until such Even of Default is cured or waived, the County is relieved of any obligation to disburse any portion of the Loan. In addition, upon the occurrence of an Event of Default and following the expiration of all applicable notice and cure periods the County may proceed with any and all remedies available to it under law, April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 554 25 863\98\1839782.4 this Agreement, and the other Loan Documents. Such remedies include but are not limited to the following: (a) Acceleration of Note. The County may cause all indebtedness of Borrower to the County under this Agreement and the Note, together with any accrued interest thereon, to become immediately due and payable. Borrower waives all right to presentment, demand, protest or notice of protest or dishonor. The County may proceed to enforce payment of the indebtedness and to exercise any or all rights afforded to the County as a creditor and secured party under the law including the Uniform Commercial Code, including foreclosure under the Deed of Trust. Borrower is liable to pay the County on demand all reasonable expenses, costs and fees (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses) paid or incurred by the County in connection with the collection of the Loan and the preservation, maintenance, protection, sale, or other disposition of the security given for the Loan. (b) Specific Performance. The County has the right to mandamus or other suit, action or proceeding at law or in equity to require Borrower to perform its obligations and covenants under the Loan Documents or to enjoin acts on things that may be unlawful or in violation of the provisions of the Loan Documents. (c) Right to Cure at Borrower's Expense. The County has the right (but not the obligation) to cure any monetary default by Borrower under a loan other than the Loan. Upon demand therefor, Borrower shall reimburse the County for any funds advanced by the County to cure such monetary default by Borrower, together with interest thereon from the date of expenditure until the date of reimbursement at the Default Rate. Section 5.3 Right of Contest. Borrower may contest in good faith any claim, demand, levy, or assessment the assertion of which would constitute an Event of Default hereunder. Any such contest is to be prosecuted diligently and in a manner unprejudicial to the County or the rights of the County hereunder. Section 5.4 Remedies Cumulative. No right, power, or remedy given to the County by the terms of this Agreement or the other Loan Documents is intended to be exclusive of any other right, power, or remedy; and each and every such right, power, or remedy is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power, or remedy given to the County by the terms of any such instrument, or by any statute or otherwise against Borrower and any other person. Neither the failure nor any delay on the part of the County to exercise any such rights and remedies will operate as a waiver thereof, nor does any single or partial exercise by the County of any such right or remedy preclude any other or further exercise of such right or remedy, or any other right or remedy. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 555 26 863\98\1839782.4 ARTICLE 6 GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 6.1 Relationship of Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement is to be interpreted or understood by any of the Parties, or by any third persons, as creating the relationship of employer and employee, principal and agent, limited or general partnership, or joint venture between the County and Borrower or its agents, employees or contractors, and Borrower will at all times be deemed an independent contractor and to be wholly responsible for the manner in which it or its agents, or both, perform the services required of it by the terms of this Agreement. Borrower has and retains the right to exercise full control of employment, direction, compensation, and discharge of all persons assisting in the performance of services under the Agreement. In regards to the construction and operation of the Development, Borrower is solely responsible for all matters relating to payment of its employees, including compliance with Social Security, withholding, and all other laws and regulations governing such matters, and must include requirements in each contract that contractors are solely responsible for similar matters relating to their employees. Borrower is solely responsible for its own acts and those of its agents and employees. Section 6.2 No Claims. Nothing contained in this Agreement creates or justifies any claim against the County by any person that Borrower may have employed or with whom Borrower may have contracted relative to the purchase of materials, supplies or equipment, or the furnishing or the performance of any work or services with respect to the purchase of the Property, the construction or operation of the Development, and Borrower shall include similar requirements in any contracts entered into for the construction or operation of the Development. Section 6.3 Amendments. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement is valid unless made in writing by the Parties. The County Deputy Director, Department of Conservation and Development is authorized to execute on behalf of the County amendments to the Loan Documents or amended and restated Loan Documents as long as any discretionary change in the amount or terms of this Agreement is approved by the County's Board of Supervisors. Section 6.4 Indemnification. Borrower shall indemnify, defend and hold the County and its board members, supervisors, directors, officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns harmless against any and all claims, suits, actions, losses and liability of every kind, nature and description made against it and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) which arise out of or in connection with this Agreement, including but not limited to the purchase of the Property and the development, construction, marketing and operation of the Development, except to the extent such claim arises from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the County, its agents, and its employees. The provisions of this Section will survive the expiration of the Term and the reconveyance of the Deed of Trust. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 556 27 863\98\1839782.4 Section 6.5 Non-Liability of County Officials, Employees and Agents. No member, official, employee or agent of the County is personally liable to Borrower in the event of any default or breach of this Agreement by the County or for any amount that may become due from the County pursuant to this Agreement. Section 6.6 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no third party beneficiaries to this Agreement. Section 6.7 Discretion Retained By County. The County's execution of this Agreement in no way limits any discretion the County may have in the permit and approval process related to the construction of the Development. Section 6.8 Conflict of Interest. (a) Except for approved eligible administrative or personnel costs, no person described in Section 6.8(b) below who exercises or has exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to the activities funded pursuant to this Agreement or who is in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a financial interest or benefit from the activity, or have a financial interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves or those with whom they have immediate family or business ties, during, or at any time after, such person's tenure. Borrower shall exercise due diligence to ensure that the prohibition in this Section 6.8(a) is followed. (b) The conflict of interest provisions of Section 6.8(a) above apply to any person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected or appointed official of the County. (c) In accordance with California Government Code Section 1090 and the Political Reform Act, California Government Code section 87100 et seq., no person who is a director, officer, partner, trustee or employee or consultant of Borrower, or immediate family member of any of the preceding, may make or participate in a decision, made by the County or a County board, commission or committee, if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material effect on any source of income, investment or interest in real property of that person or Borrower. Interpretation of this section is governed by the definitions and provisions used in the Political Reform Act, California Government Code Section 87100 et seq., its implementing regulations manual and codes, and California Government Code Section 1090. (d) Borrower shall comply with the conflict of interest provisions set forth in 24 C.F.R. Section 574.625. Section 6.9 Notices, Demands and Communications. All notices required or permitted by any provision of this Agreement must be in writing April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 557 28 863\98\1839782.4 and sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered by express delivery service, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, to the principal office of the Parties as follows: County: County of Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Affordable Housing Program Manager Borrower: Tabora Gardens, L.P. c/o Satellite Affordable Housing Associates 1835 Alcatraz Avenue Berkeley, CA 94703 Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as the affected party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section. Receipt will be deemed to have occurred on the date shown on a written receipt as the date of delivery or refusal of delivery (or attempted delivery if undeliverable). Section 6.10 Applicable Law. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of California. Section 6.11 Parties Bound. Except as otherwise limited herein, this Agreement binds and inures to the benefit of the parties and their heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors, and assigns. This Agreement is intended to run with the land and to bind Borrower and its successors and assigns in the Property and the Development for the entire Term, and the benefit hereof is to inure to the benefit of the County and its successors and assigns. Section 6.12 Attorneys' Fees. If any lawsuit is commenced to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party will have the right to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit from the other party. Section 6.13 Severability. If any term of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions will continue in full force and effect unless the rights and obligations of the parties have been materially altered or abridged by such invalidation, voiding or unenforceability. Section 6.14 Force Majeure. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either party will not April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 558 29 863\98\1839782.4 be deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war, insurrection, strikes, lock- outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, lack of transportation, or court order. An extension of time for any cause will be deemed granted if notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other within ten (10) days from the commencement of the cause and such extension of time is not rejected in writing by the other party within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice. In no event will the County be required to agree to cumulative delays in excess of one hundred eighty (180) days. Section 6.15 County Approval. The County has authorized the County Deputy Director- Department of Conservation and Development to execute the Loan Documents and deliver such approvals or consents as are required by this Agreement, and to execute estoppel certificates concerning the status of the Loan and the existence of Borrower defaults under the Loan Documents. Section 6.16 Waivers. Any waiver by the County of any obligation or condition in this Agreement must be in writing. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure by the County to take action on any breach or default of Borrower or to pursue any remedy allowed under this Agreement or applicable law. Any extension of time granted to Borrower to perform any obligation under this Agreement does not operate as a waiver or release from any of its obligations under this Agreement. Consent by the County to any act or omission by Borrower may not be construed to be consent to any other or subsequent act or omission or to waive the requirement for the County's written consent to future waivers. Section 6.17 Title of Parts and Sections. Any titles of the sections or subsections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and are to be disregarded in interpreting any part of the Agreement's provisions. Section 6.18 Entire Understanding of the Parties. The Loan Documents constitute the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Loan. Section 6.19 Multiple Originals; Counterpart. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts. Remainder of Page Left Intentionally Blank April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 559 Signature page County Loan Agreement 863\98\1839782.4 30 The parties are executing this Agreement as of the date first above written. COUNTY: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California By: ____________________________________ Name: ____________________________________ Its: ____________________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: SHARON L. ANDERSON County Counsel By: ______________________ Kathleen Andrus Deputy County Counsel BORROWER: Tabora Gardens, L.P., a California limited partnership By: Satellite AHA Development, Inc. a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, its general partner By:_______________________ Its:_______________________ April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 560 A-1 863\98\1839782.4 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The land is situated in the State of California, County of Contra Costa, and is described as follows: Parcel One: Portion of the Northwest ¼ of Section 36, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northern line of the land described in the Deed to United States of America, recorded May 24, 1938, in Book 461, Page 34 Official Records, distant thereon South 85° 31’ 50” East, 30.06 feet from the western line of said Section; running thence North 1° 05’ 07” East, said bearings used for the purpose of his description, 404.40 feet; thence on the arc of a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 255 feet, through a central angle of 28° 04’ 21”, a distance of 124.94 feet to said western line of Section 36; thence along the last named line, North 1° 05’ 07” East, 85 feet, more or less, to the northeastern line of the land described in the grant of easement for Federal Engineering Co., recorded February 28, 1930, in Book 237, Page 9 of Official Records; thence along the last named line South 43° 04’ East to said northern line, (461 OR 34); thence along the last named line North 85° 31’ 50” West, to the point of beginning. Excepting from Parcel One: That portion thereof described in the Deed to Battaglia & Del Favero Construction and Development Co., Inc., recorded April 22, 1980, Book 9824, Official Records, page 224. Parcel Two: Portion of the Northwest ¼ of Section 36, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Parcel A of Sunnyridge Unit 2, Subdivision 4921, recorded in Map Book 195, at Page 41, Recorders Office, Contra Costa County, California; thence North 03° 34’ 28” East, 7.82 feet to a point on a curve, said curve being the souther line of Paso Corto Road; thence, along said curve concave to the northeast with a radius of 801.00 feet, central angle of 20° 54’ 55” an arc length of 292.40 feet to a point of tangency; Thence North 57° 30’ 00” West, 67.97 feet to a point; thence leaving said Paso Corto Road, South 43° 30’ 00” East, 196.15 feet; thence South 86° 25’ 32” East, 190.94 feet to point of beginning. (Being APN 072-011-062) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 561 B-1 863\98\1839782.4 EXHIBIT B APPROVED DEVELOPMENT BUDGET April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 562 C-1 863\98\1839782.4 EXHIBIT C NEPA MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS NEPA Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – _Tabora Gardens___ All mitigations / conditions of approval must be included in project agreement and/or legal documents. Compliance with mitigations / conditions of approval must be documented prior to final payment of County funds Mitigation Measure(s) Source Method and date County staff informed Project Sponsor Included in County loan document and /or project agreement Verification of Mitigation Measure(s) Responsible for implementation Mitigation Timing Responsible for monitoring and reporting on implementation Monitoring and reporting frequency Verification of compliance Date completed Comments Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment: Based on the findings of the Phase I Environmental Assessment (as may be amended) conducted by Furgo West Inc. dated September 9, 2010, the conclusions and recommendations listed on pages 17 and 18 shall be implemented. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment September 2010 City of Antioch Approved Construction Plans Project sponsor, architect Pre and post construction Architect and contractor ongoing Letter from architect Copy of Final approved Building Permit Phase 2 Environmental Assessment: Based on the findings of the Phase II Environmental Assessment (as may be amended) conducted by Furgo West Inc. dated November 23, 2010, the conclusions and recommendations listed on page 4 shall be implemented. Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment November 2010 City of Antioch Approved Construction Plans Project sponsor, architect Pre and post construction Architect and contractor ongoing Letter from architect Copy of Final approved Building Permit April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 563 C-2 863\98\1839782.4 Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation: Based on the finding of the Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation (as may be amended) conducted by Furgo West Inc. dated November 8, 2010, the conclusions listed on page 3 and 4 including but not limited to highly expansive surficial soils, seismic design considerations and other design considerations shall be implemented. Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation November 2010 City of Antioch Approved Construction Plans Project sponsor, architect Pre and post construction Architect and contractor ongoing Letter from architect Copy of Final approved Building Permit Contra Costa Water District: Based on the Contra Costa Water District’s letter dated December 15, 2010 the following conditions shall be implemented: CCWD property line needs to be indicated on Tentative Map as well as any project drainage coming towards the Contra Costa Canal. No construction activities should occur on Reclamation property. No East Bay Regional Park District trail access or landscaping to occur within Contra Costa Water District letter December 15, 2010 City of Antioch Approved Construction Plans Project sponsor, architect Pre and post construction Architect and contractor ongoing Letter from architect Copy of Final approved Building Permit April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 564 C-3 863\98\1839782.4 Reclamation property. Project bio swales shall not impact Reclamation right-of-way. There shall be no project drainage onto Reclamation property. Reclamation fence to remain during grading and construction. A six-foot chain link fence (or other appropriate fencing) should be installed. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: Based on the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District’s letter dated November 16, 2010 the 11 requirements identified in the letter shall be implemented. Contra Costa Fire Protection District letter November 16, 2010 City of Antioch Approved Construction Plans Project sponsor, architect Pre and post construction Architect and contractor ongoing Letter from architect Copy of Final approved Building Permit Biological Assessment Report: Based on the findings of the Biological Assessment Report (as may be amended) conducted by Wood Biological Consulting dated August 25, 2010, the conclusions and recommendations listed on page 12 through 14 shall be implemented. Biological Assessment Report August 2010 City of Antioch Approved Construction Plans Project sponsor, architect Pre and post construction Architect and contractor ongoing Letter from architect Copy of Final approved Building Permit April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 565 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i 863\98\1839782.4 ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS ............................................................................2 Section 1.1 Definitions................................................................................................... 2 Section 1.2 Exhibits ....................................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE 2 LOAN PROVISIONS ..............................................................................................5 Section 2.1 Loan. ........................................................................................................... 5 Section 2.2 Interest......................................................................................................... 5 Section 2.3 Use of Loan Funds. ..................................................................................... 5 Section 2.4 Security. ...................................................................................................... 5 Section 2.5 Conditions Precedent to Disbursement of Loan Funds for Predevelopment Costs. ................................................................................ 5 Section 2.6 Repayment Schedule. .................................................................................. 7 Section 2.7 Non-Recourse. ............................................................................................ 7 ARTICLE 3 LOAN REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................8 Section 3.1 TCAC and CDLAC Applications. .............................................................. 8 Section 3.2 Approved Development Budget; Revisions to Budget. .............................. 8 Section 3.3 Information. ................................................................................................ 8 Section 3.4 Progress Reports; Periodic Development Evaluation. ................................ 8 Section 3.5 Borrower Supervision of Predevelopment Activities. ................................ 8 Section 3.6 Compliance with Laws. .............................................................................. 9 Section 3.7 Equal Opportunity. ...................................................................................... 9 Section 3.8 Records. ...................................................................................................... 9 Section 3.9 County Audits. .......................................................................................... 10 Section 3.10 HOPWA Requirements. ............................................................................ 11 Section 3.11 Hazardous Materials. ................................................................................ 14 Section 3.12 Maintenance; Damage and Destruction. ................................................... 17 Section 3.13 Fees and Taxes. ......................................................................................... 17 Section 3.14 Notices. ..................................................................................................... 17 Section 3.15 Operation of Development as Affordable Housing. ................................. 18 Section 3.16 Nondiscrimination..................................................................................... 18 Section 3.17 Transfer. .................................................................................................... 19 Section 3.18 Insurance Requirements. ........................................................................... 19 Section 3.19 Anti-Lobbying Certification. .................................................................... 20 Section 3.20 Other Indebtedness and Liens. .................................................................. 21 Section 3.21 NEPA Mitigation Requirements. .............................................................. 21 ARTICLE 4 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF BORROWER .......................21 Section 4.1 Representations and Warranties. ............................................................... 21 ARTICLE 5 DEFAULT AND REMEDIES ...............................................................................23 Section 5.1 Events of Default. ..................................................................................... 23 Section 5.2 Remedies. .................................................................................................. 24 Section 5.3 Right of Contest. ....................................................................................... 25 Section 5.4 Remedies Cumulative. .............................................................................. 25 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 566 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page ii 863\98\1839782.4 ARTICLE 6 GENERAL PROVISIONS ....................................................................................26 Section 6.1 Relationship of Parties. ............................................................................. 26 Section 6.2 No Claims. ................................................................................................ 26 Section 6.3 Amendments. ............................................................................................ 26 Section 6.4 Indemnification. ........................................................................................ 26 Section 6.5 Non-Liability of County Officials, Employees and Agents...................... 27 Section 6.6 No Third Party Beneficiaries. ................................................................... 27 Section 6.7 Discretion Retained By County. ............................................................... 27 Section 6.8 Conflict of Interest. ................................................................................... 27 Section 6.9 Notices, Demands and Communications. ................................................. 27 Section 6.10 Applicable Law. ........................................................................................ 28 Section 6.11 Parties Bound. ........................................................................................... 28 Section 6.12 Attorneys' Fees. ......................................................................................... 28 Section 6.13 Severability. .............................................................................................. 28 Section 6.14 Force Majeure. .......................................................................................... 28 Section 6.15 County Approval. ...................................................................................... 29 Section 6.16 Waivers. .................................................................................................... 29 Section 6.17 Title of Parts and Sections. ....................................................................... 29 Section 6.18 Entire Understanding of the Parties. ......................................................... 29 Section 6.19 Multiple Originals; Counterpart. ............................................................... 29 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property EXHIBIT B Approved Development Budget EXHIBIT C NEPA Mitigation Requirements April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 567 863\98\1839782.4 HOPWA LOAN AGREEMENT Between COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA And TABORA GARDENS, L.P. Tabora Gardens Apartments dated April 1, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 568 863\98\1839786.1 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Affordable Housing Program Manager No fee for recording pursuant to Government Code Section 27383 DEED OF TRUST WITH ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS, SECURITY AGREEMENT, AND FIXTURE FILING (Tabora Gardens) THIS DEED OF TRUST WITH ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS, SECURITY AGREEMENT ("Deed of Trust") is made as of April 1, 2016, by and among Tabora Gardens L.P., a California limited partnership ("Trustor"), Old Republic Title Company, a California corporation ("Trustee"), and the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California ("Beneficiary"). FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, including the indebtedness herein recited and the trust herein created, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Trustor hereby irrevocably grants, transfers, conveys and assigns to Trustee, IN TRUST, WITH POWER OF SALE, for the benefit and security of Beneficiary, under and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Trustor's fee interest in the property located in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, that is described in the attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"). TOGETHER WITH all interest, estates or other claims, both in law and in equity which Trustor now has or may hereafter acquire in the Property and the rents; TOGETHER WITH all easements, rights-of-way and rights used in connection therewith or as a means of access thereto, including (without limiting the generality of the foregoing) all tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereof and thereto; TOGETHER WITH any and all buildings and improvements of every kind and description now or hereafter erected thereon, and all property of Trustor now or hereafter affixed to or placed upon the Property; TOGETHER WITH all building materials and equipment now or hereafter delivered to said property and intended to be installed therein; TOGETHER WITH all right, title and interest of Trustor, now owned or hereafter acquired, in and to any land lying within the right-of-way of any street, open or proposed, April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 569 863\98\1839786.1 2 adjoining the Property, and any and all sidewalks, alleys and strips and areas of land adjacent to or used in connection with the Property; TOGETHER WITH all estate, interest, right, title, other claim or demand, of every nature, in and to such property, including the Property, both in law and in equity, including, but not limited to, all deposits made with or other security given by Trustor to utility companies, the proceeds from any or all of such property, including the Property, claims or demands with respect to the proceeds of insurance in effect with respect thereto, which Trustor now has or may hereafter acquire, any and all awards made for the taking by eminent domain or by any proceeding or purchase in lieu thereof of the whole or any part of such property, including without limitation, any awards resulting from a change of grade of streets and awards for severance damages to the extent Beneficiary has an interest in such awards for taking as provided in Paragraph 4.1 herein; TOGETHER WITH all of Trustor's interest in all articles of personal property or fixtures now or hereafter attached to or used in and about the building or buildings now erected or hereafter to be erected on the Property which are necessary to the complete and comfortable use and occupancy of such building or buildings for the purposes for which they were or are to be erected, including all other goods and chattels and personal property as are ever used or furnished in operating a building, or the activities conducted therein, similar to the one herein described and referred to, and all renewals or replacements thereof or articles in substitution therefor, whether or not the same are, or will be, attached to said building or buildings in any manner; and TOGETHER WITH all of Trustor's interest in all building materials, fixtures, equipment, work in process and other personal property to be incorporated into the Property; all goods, materials, supplies, fixtures, equipment, machinery, furniture and furnishings, signs and other personal property now or hereafter appropriated for use on the Property, whether stored on the Property or elsewhere, and used or to be used in connection with the Property; all rents, issues and profits, and all inventory, accounts, accounts receivable, contract rights, general intangibles, chattel paper, instruments, documents, notes drafts, letters of credit, insurance policies, insurance and condemnation awards and proceeds, trade names, trademarks and service marks arising from or related to the Property and any business conducted thereon by Trustor; all replacements, additions, accessions and proceeds; and all books, records and files relating to any of the foregoing. All of the foregoing, together with the Property, is herein referred to as the "Security." To have and to hold the Security together with acquittances to the Trustee, its successors and assigns forever. FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THE FOLLOWING OBLIGATIONS (together, the "Secured Obligations"): A. Payment to Beneficiary of all sums at any time owing under or in connection with (i) the Note (defined in Section 1.5 below) until paid in full or cancelled, and (ii) any other amounts owing under the Loan Documents (defined in Section 1.4 below). Principal and other payments are due and payable as provided in the Note or other Loan Documents, as applicable. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 570 863\98\1839786.1 3 The Note and all its terms are incorporated herein by reference, and this conveyance secures any and all extensions thereof, however evidenced; B. Payment of any sums advanced by Beneficiary to protect the Security pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Deed of Trust following a breach of Trustor's obligation to advance said sums and the expiration of any applicable cure period, with interest thereon as provided herein; C. Performance of every obligation, covenant or agreement of Trustor contained herein and in the Loan Documents; and D. All modifications, extensions and renewals of any of the Secured Obligations (including without limitation, (i) modifications, extensions or renewals at a different rate of interest, or (ii) deferrals or accelerations of the required principal payment dates or interest payment dates or both, in whole or in part), however evidenced, whether or not any such modification, extension or renewal is evidenced by a new or additional promissory note or notes. AND TO PROTECT THE SECURITY OF THIS DEED OF TRUST, TRUSTOR COVENANTS AND AGREES: ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS In addition to the terms defined elsewhere in this Deed of Trust, the following terms have the following meanings in this Deed of Trust: Section 1.1 The term "Default Rate" means the lesser of the maximum rate permitted by law and ten percent (10%) per annum. Section 1.2 The term "Loan" means the loan made by Beneficiary to Trustor in the amount of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000). Section 1.3 The term "Loan Agreement" means that certain HOPWA Loan Agreement between Trustor and Beneficiary, of even date herewith, as such may be amended from time to time, providing for the Beneficiary to loan to Trustor Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000). Section 1.4 The term "Loan Documents" means this Deed of Trust, the Note, the Loan Agreement, and any other agreements, debt, loan or security instruments between Trustor and Beneficiary relating to the Loan. Section 1.5 The term "Note" means the promissory note in the principal amount of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) of even date herewith, executed by Trustor in favor of Beneficiary, as it may be amended or restated, the payment of which is secured by this Deed of Trust. The terms and provisions of the Note are incorporated herein by reference. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 571 863\98\1839786.1 4 Section 1.6 The term "Principal" means the amounts required to be paid under the Note. ARTICLE 2 MAINTENANCE AND MODIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY AND SECURITY Section 2.1 Maintenance and Modification of the Property by Trustor. The Trustor agrees that at all times prior to full payment and performance of the Secured Obligations, the Trustor will, at the Trustor's own expense, maintain, preserve and keep the Security or cause the Security to be maintained and preserved in good condition. The Trustor will from time to time make or cause to be made all repairs, replacements and renewals deemed proper and necessary by it. The Beneficiary has no responsibility in any of these matters or for the making of improvements or additions to the Security. Trustor agrees to pay fully and discharge (or cause to be paid fully and discharged) all claims for labor done and for material and services furnished in connection with the Security, diligently to file or procure the filing of a valid notice of cessation upon the event of a cessation of labor on the work or construction on the Security for a continuous period of thirty (30) days or more, and to take all other reasonable steps to forestall the assertion of claims of lien against the Security or any part thereof. Trustor irrevocably appoints, designates and authorizes Beneficiary as its agent (said agency being coupled with an interest) with the authority, but without any obligation, to file for record any notices of completion or cessation of labor or any other notice that Beneficiary deems necessary or desirable to protect its interest in and to the Security or the Loan Documents; provided, however, that Beneficiary exercises its rights as agent of Trustor only in the event that Trustor fails to take, or fails to diligently continue to take, those actions as hereinbefore provided. Upon demand by Beneficiary, Trustor shall make or cause to be made such demands or claims as Beneficiary specifies upon laborers, materialmen, subcontractors or other persons who have furnished or claim to have furnished labor, services or materials in connection with the Security. Nothing herein contained requires Trustor to pay any claims for labor, materials or services which Trustor in good faith disputes and is diligently contesting provided that Trustor shall, within thirty (30) days after the filing of any claim of lien, record in the Office of the Recorder of Contra Costa County, a surety bond in an amount 1 and 1/2 times the amount of such claim item to protect against a claim of lien. Section 2.2 Granting of Easements. Trustor may not grant easements, licenses, rights-of-way or other rights or privileges in the nature of easements with respect to any property or rights included in the Security except those required or desirable for installation and maintenance of public utilities including, without limitation, water, gas, electricity, sewer, telephone and telegraph, or those required by law, and as approved, in writing, by Beneficiary. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 572 863\98\1839786.1 5 Section 2.3 Assignment of Rents. As part of the consideration for the indebtedness evidenced by the Note, Trustor hereby absolutely and unconditionally assigns and transfers to Beneficiary all the rents and revenues of the Property including those now due, past due, or to become due by virtue of any lease or other agreement for the occupancy or use of all or any part of the Property, regardless of to whom the rents and revenues of the Property are payable, subject to the rights of senior lenders that are approved by the Beneficiary pursuant to the Loan Agreement. Trustor hereby authorizes Beneficiary or Beneficiary's agents to collect the aforesaid rents and revenues and hereby directs each tenant of the Property to pay such rents to Beneficiary or Beneficiary's agents; provided, however, that prior to written notice given by Beneficiary to Trustor of the breach by Trustor of any covenant or agreement of Trustor in the Loan Documents, Trustor shall collect and receive all rents and revenues of the Property as trustee for the benefit of Beneficiary and Trustor to apply the rents and revenues so collected to the Secured Obligations with the balance, so long as no such breach has occurred and is continuing, to the account of Trustor, it being intended by Trustor and Beneficiary that this assignment of rents constitutes an absolute assignment and not an assignment for additional security only. Upon delivery of written notice by Beneficiary to Trustor of the breach by Trustor of any covenant or agreement of Trustor in the Loan Documents, and without the necessity of Beneficiary entering upon and taking and maintaining full control of the Property in person, by agent or by a court-appointed receiver, Beneficiary shall immediately be entitled to possession of all rents and revenues of the Property as specified in this Section 2.3 as the same becomes due and payable, including but not limited to, rents then due and unpaid, and all such rents will immediately upon delivery of such notice be held by Trustor as trustee for the benefit of Beneficiary only; provided, however, that the written notice by Beneficiary to Trustor of the breach by Trustor contains a statement that Beneficiary exercises its rights to such rents. Trustor agrees that commencing upon delivery of such written notice of Trustor's breach by Beneficiary to Trustor, each tenant of the Property shall make such rents payable to and pay such rents to Beneficiary or Beneficiary's agents on Beneficiary's written demand to each tenant therefor, delivered to each tenant personally, by mail or by delivering such demand to each rental unit, without any liability on the part of said tenant to inquire further as to the existence of a default by Trustor. Trustor hereby covenants that Trustor has not executed any prior assignment of said rents, other than as security to senior lenders, that Trustor has not performed, and will not perform, any acts or has not executed and will not execute, any instrument which would prevent Beneficiary from exercising its rights under this Section 2.3, and that at the time of execution of this Deed of Trust, there has been no anticipation or prepayment of any of the rents of the Property for more than two (2) months prior to the due dates of such rents. Trustor covenants that Trustor will not hereafter collect or accept payment of any rents of the Property more than two (2) months prior to the due dates of such rents. Trustor further covenants that, so long as the Secured Obligations are outstanding, Trustor will execute and deliver to Beneficiary such further assignments of rents and revenues of the Property as Beneficiary may from time to time request. Upon Trustor's breach of any covenant or agreement of Trustor in the Loan Documents, Beneficiary may in person, by agent or by a court-appointed receiver, regardless of the adequacy of Beneficiary's security, enter upon and take and maintain full control of the Property in order to perform all acts necessary and appropriate for the operation and maintenance thereof including, April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 573 863\98\1839786.1 6 but not limited to, the execution, cancellation or modification of leases, the collection of all rents and revenues of the Property, the making of repairs to the Property and the execution or termination of contracts providing for the management or maintenance of the Property, all on such terms as are deemed best to protect the security of this Deed of Trust. In the event Beneficiary elects to seek the appointment of a receiver for the Property upon Trustor's breach of any covenant or agreement of Trustor in this Deed of Trust, Trustor hereby expressly consents to the appointment of such receiver. Beneficiary or the receiver will be entitled to receive a reasonable fee for so managing the Property. All rents and revenues collected subsequent to delivery of written notice by Beneficiary to Trustor of the breach by Trustor of any covenant or agreement of Trustor in the Loan Documents are to be applied first to the costs, if any, of taking control of and managing the Property and collecting the rents, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees, receiver's fees, premiums on receiver's bonds, costs of repairs to the Property, premiums on insurance policies, taxes, assessments and other charges on the Property, and the costs of discharging any obligation or liability of Trustor as lessor or landlord of the Property and then to the sums secured by this deed of Trust. Beneficiary or the receiver is to have access to the books and records used in the operation and maintenance of the Property and will be liable to account only for those rents actually received. Beneficiary is not liable to Trustor, anyone claiming under or through Trustor or anyone having an interest in the Property by reason of anything done or left undone by Beneficiary under this Section 2.3. If the rents of the Property are not sufficient to meet the costs, if any, of taking control of and managing the Property and collecting the rents, any funds expended by Beneficiary for such purposes will become part of the Secured Obligations pursuant to Section 3.3 hereof. Unless Beneficiary and Trustor agree in writing to other terms of payment, such amounts are payable by Trustor to Beneficiary upon notice from Beneficiary to Trustor requesting payment thereof and will bear interest from the date of disbursement at the rate stated in Section 3.3. If the Beneficiary or the receiver enters upon and takes and maintains control of the Property, neither that act nor any application of rents as provided herein will cure or waive any default under this Deed of Trust or invalidate any other right or remedy available to Beneficiary under applicable law or under this Deed of Trust. This assignment of rents of the Property will terminate at such time as this Deed of Trust ceases to secure the Secured Obligations. ARTICLE 3 TAXES AND INSURANCE; ADVANCES Section 3.1 Taxes, Other Governmental Charges and Utility Charges. Trustor shall pay, or cause to be paid, prior to the date of delinquency, all taxes, assessments, charges and levies imposed by any public authority or utility company that are or may become a lien affecting the Security or any part thereof; provided, however, that Trustor is not required to pay and discharge any such tax, assessment, charge or levy so long as (a) the legality thereof is promptly and actively contested in good faith and by appropriate proceedings, and (b) Trustor maintains reserves adequate to pay any liabilities contested pursuant to this April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 574 863\98\1839786.1 7 Section 3.1. With respect to taxes, special assessments or other similar governmental charges, Trustor shall pay such amount in full prior to the attachment of any lien therefor on any part of the Security; provided, however, if such taxes, assessments or charges can be paid in installments, Trustor may pay in such installments. Except as provided in clause (b) of the first sentence of this paragraph, the provisions of this Section 3.1 may not be construed to require that Trustor maintain a reserve account, escrow account, impound account or other similar account for the payment of future taxes, assessments, charges and levies. In the event that Trustor fails to pay any of the items required by this Section to be paid by Trustor, Beneficiary may (but is under no obligation to) pay the same, after the Beneficiary has notified the Trustor of such failure to pay and the Trustor fails to fully pay such items within seven (7) business days after receipt of such notice. Any amount so advanced therefor by Beneficiary, together with interest thereon from the date of such advance at the maximum rate permitted by law, will become part of the Secured Obligations secured hereby, and Trustor agrees to pay all such amounts. Section 3.2 Provisions Respecting Insurance. Trustor agrees to provide insurance conforming in all respects to that required under the Loan Documents during the course of construction and following completion, and at all times until all amounts secured by this Deed of Trust have been paid, all Secured Obligations secured hereunder have been fulfilled, and this Deed of Trust has been reconveyed. All such insurance policies and coverages are to be maintained at Trustor's sole cost and expense. Certificates of insurance for all of the above insurance policies, showing the same to be in full force and effect, are to be delivered to the Beneficiary upon demand therefor at any time prior to Trustor's satisfaction of the Secured Obligations. Section 3.3 Advances. In the event the Trustor fails to maintain the full insurance coverage required by this Deed of Trust or fails to keep the Security in accordance with the Loan Documents, the Beneficiary, after at least seven (7) days prior notice to Trustor, may (but is under no obligation to) (i) take out the required policies of insurance and pay the premiums on the same, and (ii) make any repairs or replacements that are necessary and provide for payment thereof. All amounts so advanced by the Beneficiary will become part of the Secured Obligations (together with interest as set forth below) and will be secured hereby, which amounts the Trustor agrees to pay on the demand of the Beneficiary, and if not so paid, will bear interest from the date of the advance at the Default Rate. ARTICLE 4 DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION OR CONDEMNATION Section 4.1 Awards and Damages. Subject to the rights of senior lenders, all judgments, awards of damages, settlements and compensation made in connection with or in lieu of (1) the taking of all or any part of or any April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 575 863\98\1839786.1 8 interest in the Property by or under assertion of the power of eminent domain, (2) any damage to or destruction of the Property or any part thereof by insured casualty, and (3) any other injury or damage to all or any part of the Property (collectively, the "Funds") are hereby assigned to and are to be paid to the Beneficiary by a check made payable to the Beneficiary. The Beneficiary is authorized and empowered (but not required) to collect and receive any Funds and is authorized to apply them in whole or in part to any indebtedness or obligation secured hereby, in such order and manner as the Beneficiary determines at its sole option. The Beneficiary is entitled to settle and adjust all claims under insurance policies provided under this Deed of Trust and may deduct and retain from the proceeds of such insurance the amount of all expenses incurred by it in connection with any such settlement or adjustment. All or any part of the amounts so collected and recovered by the Beneficiary may be released to Trustor upon such conditions as the Beneficiary may impose for its disposition. Application of all or any part of the Funds collected and received by the Beneficiary or the release thereof will not cure or waive any default under this Deed of Trust. The rights of the Beneficiary under this Section 4.1 are subject to the rights of any senior mortgage lender. The Beneficiary shall release the Funds to Trustor to be used to reconstruct the improvements on the Property provided that Beneficiary reasonably determines that Trustor (taking into account the Funds) has sufficient funds to rebuild the improvements in substantially the form that existed prior to the casualty or condemnation. ARTICLE 5 AGREEMENTS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY; FURTHER ASSURANCES; PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST Section 5.1 Other Agreements Affecting Property. Trustor shall duly and punctually perform all terms, covenants, conditions and agreements binding upon it under the Loan Documents and any other agreement of any nature whatsoever now or hereafter involving or affecting the Security or any part thereof. Section 5.2 Agreement to Pay Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. In the event of any Event of Default (as defined in Section 7.1) hereunder, and if the Beneficiary employs attorneys or incurs other expenses for the collection of amounts due hereunder or the enforcement of performance or observance of an obligation or agreement on the part of the Trustor in this Deed of Trust, the Trustor agrees that it will, on demand therefor, pay to the Beneficiary the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other reasonable expenses so incurred by the Beneficiary. Any such amounts paid by the Beneficiary will be added to the Secured Obligations, and will bear interest from the date such expenses are incurred at the Default Rate. Section 5.3 Payment of the Principal. The Trustor shall pay to the Beneficiary the Principal and any other payments as set forth in the Note in the amounts and by the times set out therein. Section 5.4 Personal Property. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 576 863\98\1839786.1 9 To the maximum extent permitted by law, the personal property subject to this Deed of Trust is deemed to be fixtures and part of the real property and this Deed of Trust constitutes a fixtures filing under the California Commercial Code. As to any personal property not deemed or permitted to be fixtures, this Deed of Trust constitutes a security agreement under the California Commercial Code. Section 5.5 Financing Statement. The Trustor shall execute and deliver to the Beneficiary such financing statements pursuant to the appropriate statutes, and any other documents or instruments as are required to convey to the Beneficiary a valid perfected security interest in the Security. The Trustor shall perform all acts that the Beneficiary reasonably requests so as to enable the Beneficiary to maintain a valid perfected security interest in the Security in order to secure the payment of the Note in accordance with its terms. The Beneficiary is authorized to file a copy of any such financing statement in any jurisdiction(s) as it deems appropriate from time to time in order to protect the security interest established pursuant to this instrument. Section 5.6 Operation of the Security. The Trustor shall operate the Security (and, in case of a transfer of a portion of the Security subject to this Deed of Trust, the transferee shall operate such portion of the Security) in full compliance with the Loan Documents. Section 5.7 Inspection of the Security. At any and all reasonable times upon seventy-two (72) hours' notice, the Beneficiary and its duly authorized agents, attorneys, experts, engineers, accountants and representatives, may inspect the Security, without payment of charges or fees. Section 5.8 Nondiscrimination. The Trustor herein covenants by and for itself, its heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there will be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Security, nor will the Trustor itself or any person claiming under or through it establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the Security. The foregoing covenants run with the land. ARTICLE 6 HAZARDOUS WASTE Trustor shall keep and maintain the Property (including, but not limited to, soil and ground water conditions) in compliance with all Hazardous Materials Laws and shall not cause or permit the Property to be in violation of any Hazardous Materials Law (defined below). April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 577 863\98\1839786.1 10 Trustor may not cause or permit the use, generation, manufacture, storage or disposal of on, under, or about the Property or transportation to or from the Property of (i) any substance, material, or waste that is petroleum, petroleum-related, or a petroleum by-product, asbestos or asbestos-containing material, polychlorinated biphenyls, flammable, explosive, radioactive, freon gas, radon, or a pesticide, herbicide, or any other agricultural chemical, and (ii) any waste, substance or material defined as or included in the definition of "hazardous substances," "hazardous wastes," "hazardous materials," "toxic materials", "toxic waste", "toxic substances," or words of similar import under any Hazardous Materials Law (collectively referred to hereinafter as "Hazardous Materials"), except such of the foregoing as may be customarily used in construction or operation of a multi-family residential development. Trustor shall immediately advise Beneficiary in writing if at any time it receives written notice of: (i) any and all enforcement, cleanup, removal or other governmental or regulatory actions instituted, completed or threatened against Trustor or the Property pursuant to any applicable federal, state or local laws, ordinances, or regulations relating to any Hazardous Materials, health, industrial hygiene, environmental conditions, or the regulation or protection of the environment, and all amendments thereto as of this date and to be added in the future and any successor statute or rule or regulation promulgated thereto ("Hazardous Materials Law"); (ii) all claims made or threatened by any third party against Trustor or the Property relating to damage, contribution, cost recovery compensation, loss or injury resulting from any Hazardous Materials (the matters set forth in clauses (i) and (ii) above are hereinafter referred to as "Hazardous Materials Claims"); and (iii) Trustor's discovery of any occurrence or condition on any real property adjoining or in the vicinity of the Property that could cause the Property or any part thereof to be classified as "border-zone property" (as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25117.4) under the provision of California Health and Safety Code Section 25220 et seq., or any regulation adopted in accordance therewith, or to be otherwise subject to any restrictions on the ownership, occupancy, transferability or use of the Property under any Hazardous Materials Law. Beneficiary has the right to join and participate in, as a party if it so elects, and be represented by counsel acceptable to Beneficiary (or counsel of its own choice if a conflict exists with Trustor) in, any legal proceedings or actions initiated in connection with any Hazardous Materials Claims, and to have its reasonable attorneys' fees in connection therewith paid by Trustor. Trustor shall indemnify and hold harmless Beneficiary and its boardmembers, directors, officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns from and against any loss, damage, cost, fine, penalty, judgment, award, settlement, expense or liability, directly or indirectly arising out of or attributable to: (i) any actual or alleged past or present violation of any Hazardous Materials Law; (ii) any Hazardous Materials Claim; (iii) any actual or alleged past or present use, generation, manufacture, storage, release, threatened release, discharge, disposal, transportation, or presence of Hazardous Materials on, under, or about the Property; (iv) any investigation, cleanup, remediation, removal, or restoration work of site conditions of the Property relating to Hazardous Materials (whether on the Property or any other property); and (v) the breach of any representation of warranty by or covenant of Trustor in this Article, and Section 5.1(l) of the Loan Agreement. Such indemnity must include, without limitation: (x) all consequential damages; (y) the costs of any required or necessary investigation, repair, cleanup or April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 578 863\98\1839786.1 11 detoxification of the Property and the preparation and implementation of any closure, remedial or other required plans; and (z) all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Beneficiary in connection with clauses (x) and (y), including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees and consultant fees. This indemnification applies whether or not any government agency has issued a cleanup order. Losses, claims, costs, suits, liability, and expenses covered by this indemnification provision include, but are not limited to: (1) losses attributable to diminution in the value of the Property; (2) loss or restriction of use of rentable space on the Property; (3) adverse effect on the marketing of any rental space on the Property; and (4) penalties and fines levied by, and remedial or enforcement actions of any kind issued by any regulatory agency (including but not limited to the costs of any required testing, remediation, repair, removal, cleanup or detoxification of the Property and surrounding properties). This obligation to indemnify will survive reconveyance of this Deed of Trust and will not be diminished or affected in any respect as a result of any notice, disclosure, knowledge, if any, to or by Beneficiary of Hazardous Materials. Without Beneficiary's prior written consent, which may not be unreasonably withheld, Trustor may not take any remedial action in response to the presence of any Hazardous Materials on, under or about the Property, nor enter into any settlement agreement, consent decree, or other compromise in respect to any Hazardous Material Claims, which remedial action, settlement, consent decree or compromise might, in Beneficiary's reasonable judgment, impairs the value of the Beneficiary's security hereunder; provided, however, that Beneficiary's prior consent is not necessary in the event that the presence of Hazardous Materials on, under, or about the Property either poses an immediate threat to the health, safety or welfare of any individual or is of such a nature that an immediate remedial response is necessary and it is not reasonably possible to obtain Beneficiary's consent before taking such action, provided that in such event Trustor notifies Beneficiary as soon as practicable of any action so taken. Beneficiary agrees not to withhold its consent, where such consent is required hereunder, if (i) a particular remedial action is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (ii) Trustor will or may be subjected to civil or criminal sanctions or penalties if it fails to take a required action; (iii) Trustor establishes to the reasonable satisfaction of Beneficiary that there is no reasonable alternative to such remedial action which would result in less impairment of Beneficiary's security hereunder; or (iv) the action has been agreed to by Beneficiary. The Trustor hereby acknowledges and agrees that (i) this Article is intended as the Beneficiary's written request for information (and the Trustor's response) concerning the environmental condition of the Property as required by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5, and (ii) each representation and warranty in this Deed of Trust or any of the other Loan Documents (together with any indemnity applicable to a breach of any such representation and warranty) with respect to the environmental condition of the property is intended by the Beneficiary and the Trustor to be an "environmental provision" for purposes of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 736. In the event that any portion of the Property is determined to be "environmentally impaired" (as that term is defined in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5(e)(3) or to be an "affected parcel" (as that term is defined in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5(e)(1), then, without otherwise limiting or in any way affecting the Beneficiary's or the Trustee's rights and remedies under this Deed of Trust, the Beneficiary may elect to exercise its April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 579 863\98\1839786.1 12 rights under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5(a) to (1) waive its lien on such environmentally impaired or affected portion of the Property and (2) exercise (a) the rights and remedies of an unsecured creditor, including reduction of its claim against the Trustor to judgment, and (b) any other rights and remedies permitted by law. For purposes of determining the Beneficiary's right to proceed as an unsecured creditor under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5(a), the Trustor will be deemed to have willfully permitted or acquiesced in a release or threatened release of hazardous materials, within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5(d)(1), if the release or threatened release of hazardous materials was knowingly or negligently caused or contributed to by any lessee, occupant, or user of any portion of the Property and the Trustor knew or should have known of the activity by such lessee, occupant, or user which caused or contributed to the release or threatened release. All costs and expenses, including (but not limited to) attorneys' fees, incurred by the Beneficiary in connection with any action commenced under this paragraph, including any action required by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 726.5(b) to determine the degree to which the Property is environmentally impaired, plus interest thereon at the Default Rate until paid, will be added to the indebtedness secured by this Deed of Trust and will be due and payable to the Beneficiary upon its demand made at any time following the conclusion of such action. ARTICLE 7 EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES Section 7.1 Events of Default. The following are events of default following the expiration of any applicable notice and cure periods (each an "Event of Default"): (i) failure to make any payment to be paid by Trustor under the Loan Documents; (ii) failure to observe or perform any of Trustor's other covenants, agreements or obligations under the Loan Documents, including, without limitation, the provisions concerning discrimination; (iii) failure to make any payment or observe or perform any of Trustor's other covenants, agreements, or obligations under any Secured Obligations, which default is not cured within the times and in the manner provided therein; and (iv) failure to make any payments or observe or perform any of Trustor's other covenants, agreements or obligations under any other debt instrument or regulatory agreement secured by the Property, which default is not cured within the time and in the manner provided therein. Section 7.2 Acceleration of Maturity. If an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, then at the option of the Beneficiary, the amount of any payment related to the Event of Default and all unpaid Secured Obligations are immediately due and payable, and no omission on the part of the Beneficiary to exercise such option when entitled to do so may be construed as a waiver of such right. Section 7.3 The Beneficiary's Right to Enter and Take Possession. If an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, the Beneficiary may: (a) Either in person or by agent, with or without bringing any action or proceeding, or by a receiver appointed by a court, and without regard to the adequacy of its April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 580 863\98\1839786.1 13 security, enter upon the Property and take possession thereof (or any part thereof) and of any of the Security, in its own name or in the name of Trustee, and do any acts that it deems necessary or desirable to preserve the value or marketability of the Property, or part thereof or interest therein, increase the income therefrom or protect the security thereof. The entering upon and taking possession of the Security will not cure or waive any Event of Default or Notice of Sale (as defined in Section 7.3(c), below) hereunder or invalidate any act done in response to such Event of Default or pursuant to such Notice of Sale, and, notwithstanding the continuance in possession of the Security, Beneficiary will be entitled to exercise every right provided for in this Deed of Trust, or by law upon occurrence of any Event of Default, including the right to exercise the power of sale; (b) Commence an action to foreclose this Deed of Trust as a mortgage, appoint a receiver, or specifically enforce any of the covenants hereof; (c) Deliver to Trustee a written declaration of an Event of Default and demand for sale, and a written notice of default and election to cause Trustor's interest in the Security to be sold ("Notice of Sale"), which notice Trustee or Beneficiary shall cause to be duly filed for record in the Official Records of Contra Costa County; or (d) Exercise all other rights and remedies provided herein, in the instruments by which the Trustor acquires title to any Security, or in any other document or agreement now or hereafter evidencing, creating or securing the Secured Obligations. Section 7.4 Foreclosure By Power of Sale. Should the Beneficiary elect to foreclose by exercise of the power of sale herein contained, the Beneficiary shall deliver to the Trustee the Notice of Sale and shall deposit with Trustee this Deed of Trust which is secured hereby (and the deposit of which will be deemed to constitute evidence that the Secured Obligations are immediately due and payable), and such receipts and evidence of any expenditures made that are additionally secured hereby as Trustee may require. (a) Upon receipt of the Notice of Sale from the Beneficiary, Trustee shall cause to be recorded, published and delivered to Trustor such Notice of Sale as is then required by law and by this Deed of Trust. Trustee shall, without demand on Trustor, after the lapse of that amount of time as is then required by law and after recordation of such Notice of Sale as required by law, sell the Security, at the time and place of sale set forth in the Notice of Sale, whether as a whole or in separate lots or parcels or items, as Trustee deems expedient and in such order as it determines, unless specified otherwise by the Trustor according to California Civil Code Section 2924g(b), at public auction to the highest bidder, for cash in lawful money of the United States payable at the time of sale. Trustee shall deliver to such purchaser or purchasers thereof its good and sufficient deed or deeds conveying the property so sold, but without any covenant or warranty, express or implied. The recitals in such deed or any matters of facts will be conclusive proof of the truthfulness thereof. Any person, including, without limitation, Trustor, Trustee or Beneficiary, may purchase at such sale. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 581 863\98\1839786.1 14 (b) After deducting all reasonable costs, fees and expenses of Trustee, including costs of evidence of title in connection with such sale, Trustee shall apply the proceeds of sale to payment of: (i) the unpaid Principal amount of the Note; (ii) all other Secured Obligations owed to Beneficiary under the Loan Documents; (iii) all other sums then secured hereby; and (iv) the remainder, if any, to Trustor. (c) Trustee may postpone sale of all or any portion of the Property by public announcement at such time and place of sale, and from time to time thereafter, and without further notice make such sale at the time fixed by the last postponement, or may, in its discretion, give a new Notice of Sale. Section 7.5 Receiver. If an Event of Default occurs and is continuing, Beneficiary, as a matter of right and without further notice to Trustor or anyone claiming under the Security, and without regard to the then value of the Security or the interest of Trustor therein, may apply to any court having jurisdiction to appoint a receiver or receivers of the Security (or a part thereof), and Trustor hereby irrevocably consents to such appointment and waives further notice of any application therefor. Any such receiver or receivers will have all the usual powers and duties of receivers in like or similar cases, and all the powers and duties of Beneficiary in case of entry as provided herein, and will continue as such and exercise all such powers until the date of confirmation of sale of the Security, unless such receivership is sooner terminated. Section 7.6 Remedies Cumulative. No right, power or remedy conferred upon or reserved to the Beneficiary by this Deed of Trust is intended to be exclusive of any other right, power or remedy, but each and every such right, power and remedy will be cumulative and concurrent and will be in addition to any other right, power and remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. Section 7.7 No Waiver. (a) No delay or omission of the Beneficiary to exercise any right, power or remedy accruing upon any Event of Default will exhaust or impair any such right, power or remedy, and may not be construed to be a waiver of any such Event of Default or acquiescence therein; and every right, power and remedy given by this Deed of Trust to the Beneficiary may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expeditious by the Beneficiary. Beneficiary's express or implied consent to breach, or waiver of, any obligation of the Trustor hereunder will not be deemed or construed to be a consent to any subsequent breach, or further waiver, of such obligation or of any other obligations of the Trustor hereunder. Failure on the part of the Beneficiary to complain of any act or failure to act or to declare an Event of Default, irrespective of how long such failure continues, will not constitute a waiver by the Beneficiary of its right hereunder or impair any rights, power or remedies consequent on any Event of Default by the Trustor. (b) If the Beneficiary (i) grants forbearance or an extension of time for the payment or performance of any Secured Obligation, (ii) takes other or additional security or the payment of any sums secured hereby, (iii) waives or does not exercise any right granted in the April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 582 863\98\1839786.1 15 Loan Documents, (iv) releases any part of the Security from the lien of this Deed of Trust, or otherwise changes any of the terms, covenants, conditions or agreements in the Loan Documents, (v) consents to the granting of any easement or other right affecting the Security, or (vi) makes or consents to any agreement subordinating the lien hereof, any such act or omission will not release, discharge, modify, change or affect the original liability under this Deed of Trust, or any other obligation of the Trustor or any subsequent purchaser of the Security or any part thereof, or any maker, co-signer, endorser, surety or guarantor (unless expressly released); nor will any such act or omission preclude the Beneficiary from exercising any right, power or privilege herein granted or intended to be granted in any Event of Default then made or of any subsequent Event of Default, nor, except as otherwise expressly provided in an instrument or instruments executed by the Beneficiary, will the lien of this Deed of Trust be altered thereby. Section 7.8 Suits to Protect the Security. The Beneficiary has the power to (a) institute and maintain such suits and proceedings as it may deem expedient to prevent any impairment of the Security and the rights of the Beneficiary as may be unlawful or any violation of this Deed of Trust, (b) preserve or protect its interest (as described in this Deed of Trust) in the Security, and (c) restrain the enforcement of or compliance with any legislation or other governmental enactment, rule or order that may be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, if the enforcement for compliance with such enactment, rule or order would impair the Security thereunder or be prejudicial to the interest of the Beneficiary. Section 7.9 Trustee May File Proofs of Claim. In the case of any receivership, insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization, arrangement, adjustment, composition or other proceedings affecting the Trustor, its creditors or its property, the Beneficiary, to the extent permitted by law, will be entitled to file such proofs of claim and other documents as may be necessary or advisable in order to have the claims of the Beneficiary allowed in such proceedings and for any additional amount that becomes due and payable by the Trustor hereunder after such date. Section 7.10 Waiver. The Trustor waives presentment, demand for payment, notice of dishonor, notice of protest and nonpayment, protest, notice of interest on interest and late charges, and diligence in taking any action to collect any Secured Obligations or in proceedings against the Security, in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default, endorsement or guaranty of this Deed of Trust. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 583 863\98\1839786.1 16 ARTICLE 8 MISCELLANEOUS Section 8.1 Amendments. This Deed of Trust cannot be waived, changed, discharged or terminated orally, but only by an instrument in writing signed by Beneficiary and Trustor. Section 8.2 Reconveyance by Trustee. Upon written request of Beneficiary stating that all Secured Obligations have been paid or forgiven, and all obligations under the Loan Documents have been performed in full, and upon surrender of this Deed of Trust to Trustee for cancellation and retention, and upon payment by Trustor of Trustee's reasonable fees, Trustee shall reconvey the Security to Trustor, or to the person or persons legally entitled thereto. Section 8.3 Notices. If at any time after the execution of this Deed of Trust it becomes necessary or convenient for one of the parties hereto to serve any notice, demand or communication upon the other party, such notice, demand or communication must be in writing and is to be served personally or by depositing the same in the registered United States mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and (1) if intended for Beneficiary is to be addressed to: County of Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Affordable Housing Program Manager and (2) if intended for Trustor is to be addressed to: Tabora Gardens, L.P. c/o Satellite Affordable Housing Associates 1835 Alcatraz Avenue Berkeley, CA 94703 Any notice, demand or communication will be deemed given, received, made or communicated on the date personal delivery is effected or, if mailed in the manner herein specified, on the delivery date or date delivery is refused by the addressee, as shown on the return receipt. Either party may change its address at any time by giving written notice of such change to Beneficiary or Trustor as the case may be, in the manner provided herein, at least ten (10) days prior to the date such change is desired to be effective. Section 8.4 Successors and Joint Trustors. Where an obligation created herein is binding upon Trustor, the obligation also applies to and binds any transferee or successors in interest. Where the terms of the Deed of Trust have the April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 584 863\98\1839786.1 17 effect of creating an obligation of the Trustor and a transferee, such obligation will be deemed to be a joint and several obligation of the Trustor and such transferee. Where Trustor is more than one entity or person, all obligations of Trustor will be deemed to be a joint and several obligation of each and every entity and person comprising Trustor. Section 8.5 Captions. The captions or headings at the beginning of each Section hereof are for the convenience of the parties and are not a part of this Deed of Trust. Section 8.6 Invalidity of Certain Provisions. Every provision of this Deed of Trust is intended to be severable. In the event any term or provision hereof is declared to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever by a court or other body of competent jurisdiction, such illegality or invalidity will not affect the balance of the terms and provisions hereof, which terms and provisions will remain binding and enforceable. If the lien of this Deed of Trust is invalid or unenforceable as to any part of the debt, or if the lien is invalid or unenforceable as to any part of the Security, the unsecured or partially secured portion of the debt, and all payments made on the debt, whether voluntary or under foreclosure or other enforcement action or procedure, will be considered to have been first paid or applied to the full payment of that portion of the debt that is not secured or partially secured by the lien of this Deed of Trust. Section 8.7 Governing Law. This Deed of Trust is governed by the laws of the State of California. Section 8.8 Gender and Number. In this Deed of Trust the singular includes the plural and the masculine includes the feminine and neuter and vice versa, if the context so requires. Section 8.9 Deed of Trust, Mortgage. Any reference in this Deed of Trust to a mortgage also refers to a deed of trust and any reference to a deed of trust also refers to a mortgage. Section 8.10 Actions. Trustor shall appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the Security. Section 8.11 Substitution of Trustee. Beneficiary may from time to time substitute a successor or successors to any Trustee named herein or acting hereunder to execute this Trust. Upon such appointment, and without conveyance to the successor trustee, the latter will be vested with all title, powers, and duties conferred upon any Trustee herein named or acting hereunder. Each such appointment and substitution is to be made by written instrument executed by Beneficiary, containing reference to April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 585 863\98\1839786.1 18 this Deed of Trust and its place of record, which, when duly recorded in the proper office of the county or counties in which the Property is situated, will be conclusive proof of proper appointment of the successor trustee. Section 8.12 Statute of Limitations. The pleading of any statute of limitations as a defense to any and all obligations secured by this Deed of Trust is hereby waived to the full extent permissible by law. Section 8.13 Acceptance by Trustee. Trustee accepts this Trust when this Deed of Trust, duly executed and acknowledged, is made public record as provided by law. Except as otherwise provided by law, the Trustee is not obligated to notify any party hereto of a pending sale under this Deed of Trust or of any action or proceeding in which Trustor, Beneficiary, or Trustee is a party unless brought by Trustee. Section 8.14 Tax Credit Provisions. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein or in any documents secured by this Deed of Trust or contained in any subordination agreement, and to the extent applicable, the Beneficiary acknowledges and agrees that in the event of a foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure (collectively, "Foreclosure") with respect to the Security encumbered by this Deed of Trust, the following rule contained in 26 U.S.C. Section 42(h)(6)(E)(ii), as amended, applies: For a period of three (3) years from the date of Foreclosure, with respect to an existing tenant of any low-income unit, (i) such tenant may not be subject to eviction or termination of their tenancy (other than for good cause), (ii) nor may such tenant's gross rent with respect to such unit be increased, except as otherwise permitted under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. Remainder of Page Left Intentionally Blank April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 586 Signature page County Deed of Trust 863\98\1839786.1 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Trustor has executed this Deed of Trust as of the day and year first above written. Tabora Gardens, L.P., a California limited partnership By: Satellite AHA Development, Inc. a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, its general partner By:_______________________ Its:_______________________ April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 587 863\98\1839786.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF __________________ ) On ____________________, before me, ___________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ______________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Notary Public A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 588 A-1 863\98\1839786.1 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION The land is situated in the State of California, County of Contra Costa, and is described as follows: April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 589 863\98\1839785.1 1 PROMISSORY NOTE (HOPWA Loan) $650,000 Martinez, California April 1, 2016 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Tabora Gardens, L.P., a California limited partnership ("Borrower") hereby promises to pay to the order of the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California ("Holder"), the principal amount of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) plus interest thereon pursuant to Section 2 below. All capitalized terms used but not defined in this Note have the meanings set forth in the Loan Agreement. 1. Borrower's Obligation. This Note evidences Borrower's obligation to repay Holder the principal amount of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) with interest for the funds loaned to Borrower by Holder to finance Predevelopment Costs of the Development pursuant to the HOPWA Loan Agreement between Borrower and Holder of even date herewith (the "Loan Agreement"). 2. Interest. (a) Loan. Subject to the provisions of Subsection (b) below, no interest will accrue on the outstanding principal balance of the Loan. (b) Default Interest. If an Event of Default occurs, interest will accrue on all amounts due under this Note at the Default Rate until such Event of Default is cured by Borrower or waived by Holder. 3. Term and Repayment Requirements. Principal and interest under this Note is due and payable as set forth in Section 2.6 of the Loan Agreement. Subject to Section 2.6(b) of the Loan Agreement, the unpaid principal balance hereunder, together with accrued interest thereon, is due and payable no later than the date that is earlier of: (i) December 31, 2016, and (ii) the date of the Construction Closing. 4. No Assumption. This Note is not assumable by the successors and assigns of Borrower without the prior written consent of Holder, except as provided in the Loan Agreement. 5. Security. This Note, with interest, is secured by the Deed of Trust. Upon execution, the Deed of Trust will be recorded in the official records of Contra Costa County, California. Upon recordation of the Deed of Trust, this Note will become nonrecourse to Borrower, pursuant to and except as provided in Section 2.7 of the Loan Agreement which Section 2.7 is hereby incorporated into this Note. The terms of the Deed of Trust are hereby incorporated into this Note and made a part hereof. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 590 863\98\1839785.1 2 6. Terms of Payment. (a) Borrower shall make all payments due under this Note in currency of the United States of America to Holder at Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553, Attention: Affordable Housing Program Manager, or to such other place as Holder may from time to time designate. (b) All payments on this Note are without expense to Holder. Borrower shall pay all costs and expenses, including re-conveyance fees and reasonable attorney's fees of Holder, incurred in connection with the payment of this Note and the release of any security hereof. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Note, or any instrument securing the obligations of Borrower under this Note, if, for any reason whatsoever, the payment of any sums by Borrower pursuant to the terms of this Note would result in the payment of interest that exceeds the amount that Holder may legally charge under the laws of the State of California, then the amount by which payments exceed the lawful interest rate will automatically be deducted from the principal balance owing on this Note, so that in no event is Borrower obligated under the terms of this Note to pay any interest that would exceed the lawful rate. (d) The obligations of Borrower under this Note are absolute and Borrower waives any and all rights to offset, deduct or withhold any payments or charges due under this Note for any reason whatsoever. 7. Event of Default; Acceleration. (a) Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, the entire unpaid principal balance, together with all interest thereon, and together with all other sums then payable under this Note and the Deed of Trust will, at the option of Holder, become immediately due and payable without further demand. (b) Holder's failure to exercise the remedy set forth in Subsection 7(a) above or any other remedy provided by law upon the occurrence of an Event of Default does not constitute a waiver of the right to exercise any remedy at any subsequent time in respect to the same or any other Event of Default. The acceptance by Holder of any payment that is less than the total of all amounts due and payable at the time of such payment does not constitute a waiver of the right to exercise any of the foregoing remedies or options at that time or at any subsequent time, or nullify any prior exercise of any such remedy or option, without the express consent of Holder, except as and to the extent otherwise provided by law. 8. Waivers. (a) Borrower hereby waives diligence, presentment, protest and demand, and notice of protest, notice of demand, notice of dishonor and notice of non-payment of this Note. Borrower expressly agrees that this Note or any payment hereunder may be extended from time to time, and that Holder may accept further security or release any security for this Note, all without in any way affecting the liability of Borrower. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 591 863\98\1839785.1 3 (b) Any extension of time for payment of this Note or any installment hereof made by agreement of Holder with any person now or hereafter liable for payment of this Note must not operate to release, discharge, modify, change or affect the original liability of Borrower under this Note, either in whole or in part. 9. Miscellaneous Provisions. (a) All notices to Holder or Borrower are to be given in the manner and at the addresses set forth in the Loan Agreement, or to such addresses as Holder and Borrower may therein designate. (b) Borrower promises to pay all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by Holder in the enforcement of the provisions of this Note, regardless of whether suit is filed to seek enforcement. (c) This Note is governed by the laws of the State of California. (d) The times for the performance of any obligations hereunder are to be strictly construed, time being of the essence. (e) The Loan Documents, of which this Note is a part, contain the entire agreement between the parties as to the Loan. This Note may not be modified except upon the written consent of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower is executing this Promissory Note as of the day and year first above written. Tabora Gardens, L.P., a California limited partnership By: Satellite AHA Development, Inc. a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, its general partner By:_______________________ Its:_______________________ April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 592 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD), Information Technology Unit, a purchase order with SSP Data, in the amount not to exceed $199,906, to procure backups for servers and databases over the period of March 13, 2016 through March 12, 2017. (10% County; 45% State; 45% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $199,906: 100% Administrative Overhead (10% County; 45% State; 45% Federal) BACKGROUND: In 2010, DoIT migrated their systems off tape backup. The new service will backup the data to a local repository (storage device) that is linked to a remote facility that keeps a copy of that storage device. This setup APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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, 313-1514 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Authorize Purchasing Agent to Issue Purchase Order April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 593 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) has been recommended as a County standard. EHSD adopted the DoIT standard for performance, reliability, and cost effectiveness. The backup system was procured in early 2011. EHSD Information Technology Unit's data needs have grown and as a result, they have two 50 Terabyte devices to support the department's backup and off-site storage needs. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Employment and Human Services Department will be at risk of not meeting standards for performance, reliability and cost effectiveness. EHSD will also be at risk, in a disaster, of not being able to recover key data to continue operations. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 594 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE clarification of Board action of November 17, 2015 (C.45), which authorized the Chief Information Officer or designee to execute an Executable Quote and Oracle Master Agreement with Oracle America, Inc., for PeopleSoft Enterprise license and support, to accurately reflect the correct contract term of November 24, 2015 through November 26, 2016, with no change change to the payment limit of $480,728. FISCAL IMPACT: The $480,727.04 is budgeted under Org #1695 FY 2014 - 2015 and FY 2015 - 2016, supported through countywide inter-departmental charges to all departments. BACKGROUND: The PeopleSoft Human Capital Management (HCM) system is currently used to process the County's payroll, in addition to maintaining Human Resources and Employee Benefits records. During the Fit Gap Analysis, it was proposed to implement additional functionality for certain HCM modules, which enable the County to streamline business processes. This board order amends Board Order (C.54) approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 17, 2015 to correct the contract term of November 24, 2015 through November 26, 2016 for the Executable Quote and Oracle Master Agreement with Oracle America, Inc., with no change in the payment which was revised to $480,728 by an action of the Board on January 5, 2016 (C.42). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Fern Carroll, 925-313-1228 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: April 12, 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:Ed Woo, Chief Information Officer Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Clarification of Term for November 17, 2015, Board Order Item #C.54 with Oracle America, Inc. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 595 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In accordance with Administrative Bulletin No 611.0, County Departments are required to obtain Board approval for single item purchases over $100,000. The County Administrator's Office has reviewed this request and recommends approval. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the correction to term is not approved the County will be unable to pay the invoices under the Executable Quote. ATTACHMENTS Master Agreement Executable Quote April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 596 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 597 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 598 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 599 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 600 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 601 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 602 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 603 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 604 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 605 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 606 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 607 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Interim Chief Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the University of Cincinnati Research Institute (UCRI), to increase the payment limit by $42,000 to a new payment limit of $200,000, for consulting services in the Juvenile Hall and to extend the term from June 30, 2016 to June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: The increased fiscal impact of $42,000 will be covered 100% by the General Fund. BACKGROUND: In April 2014, with the assistance of the University of Cincinnati Research Institute (UCRI), Probation began addressing the challenges of disciplining Juvenile Hall residents while continuing to meet their educational needs and maintaining the safety and security of all of the juveniles housed at Juvenile Hall, the staff, and the facility itself. The Department retained UCRI to develop a new behavior management system for Juvenile Hall, including a more effective way to use room confinement without compromising the safety and security of the facility. The new behavior management system focused on providing incentives to juveniles to engage in positive behavior APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Danielle Fokkema, 925-313-4195 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:Philip F. Kader, County Probation Officer Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amedment with University of Cincinnati Research Institute (UCRI) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 608 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) rather than relying on discipline and punishment to discourage negative behavior. This emphasis on positive reinforcement reflected a philosophical change in the Department's approach to behavioral issues. As a first step towards development of the new behavior management system, Probation Department staff assigned to Juvenile Hall as well as others assigned to work at Juvenile Hall, such as teachers from the County Office of Education and therapists from the Health Services Department, received training by UCRI. The training focused on correctional institution practices. This contract amendment/extension is necessary for UCRI to provide enhanced training to Juvenile Hall staff as well as continued technical assistance. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Probation will be unable to continue to develop and implement their Core Corrections Program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following community outcomes from the Children's Report Card: "Children are Healthy and Ready for School", "Youth Are Healthy and Preparing for Adulthood", and "Families and Communities Are Safe." April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 609 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-754-2 with Care Review Resources, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $166,257, to provide health care consultation, technical assistance and chart review services to Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC) designated staff, for the period from March 1, 2016 through February 28, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is 100% funded Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On April 14, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-754-1 with Care Review Resources, Inc., for the provision of qualified health care consultation, technical assistance, and chart review services to CCRMC designated staff, including, but not limited to safety and performance, reporting methodologies regarding quality and performance improvement on core measures, and provide written recommendations to the Health Services Director on processes and outcomes, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-754-2 Care Review Resources, Inc. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 610 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for the period from February 15, 2015, through February 29, 2016. This requirement is a condition made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on regulations and guidance for Hospital funding. Approval of Contract #26-754-2 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide consultation and technical assistance through February 28, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not be able to participate in Medicaid and Medicare funding. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 611 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-758-3 with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, a California Constitutional corporation, in an amount not to exceed $320,000, to provide remote neurology and neurovascular consultation services for patients at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Enterprise Fund I (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On January 7, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-758-1 (as amended by Contract Amendment #26-758-2) with UCSF to provide twenty-four hour a day, remote APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Samir Shah, 370-5525 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M WILHELM C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-758-3 with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 612 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) neurology and neurovascular consultation services for patients being treated in the Emergency Department or Inpatient Units at CCRMC, for the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015, including mutual indemnification. Approval of Contract #26-758-3 will allow the Contractor to continue providing services to CCRMC through December 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, safety and effectiveness of emergency stroke care in the CCRMC Emergency Department will not be increased. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 613 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-761-2 with Rawel Randhawa, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $562,000, to provide gastroenterology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers (CCRMC) for the period from March 1, 2016 through February 28, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On March 25, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-761 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-761-1), with Rawel Randhawa, M.D. for the provision of gastroenterology services, including but not limited to: clinic coverage, on-call coverage, consultation and medical and/or surgical procedures at CCRMC through February 29, 2016. Approval of Contract #26-761-2 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide gastrointestinal services at CCRMC through February 28, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring gastroenterology services at CCRMC will not have access to Contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 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: April 12, 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:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-761-2 with Rawel Randhawa, M.D. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 614 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 615 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27–633–13 with PerformRx, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $95,000,000, to provide pharmacy administration services for the Contra Costa Health Plan, for the period from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. Actual costs will depend upon usage. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: Both the State Department of Health Services and the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) require a Pharmacy Benefits Manager that can develop, maintain, and manage a large pharmacy network and monitor the correct dispensing of drug benefits, co-pays under multiple group product lines adhering to the APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 60 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27–633–13 with PerformRx, LLC April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 616 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) required Health Plan Formulary and Health Plan Prior authorization protocol. On April 21, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27–633-11 (as amended by Contract Amendment Extension Agreement #26-633-12) with PerformRx, LLC, for provision of pharmacy administration services for Contra Costa Health Plan members, including providing drug utilization review and management, prior authorization procedures, account management, member pharmacy call center, analysis and reporting services and developing partnerships with prescribers and pharmacies, for the period from May 1, 2015 through April 30, 2016. Approval of Contract #27–633–13 will allow the Contractor to continue providing services through April 30, 2017. This contract includes mutual indemnification. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, contractor will not provide pharmacy administration services to Contra Costa Health Plan. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 617 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #72-084 with Monument Impact, a non-profit organization, in an amount not to exceed $247,575, to provide consultation, training, education and evaluation of programs and policies to limit the sale of flavored tobacco near schools for the period from September 1, 2015 through June 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by California Department of Public Health grant. BACKGROUND: Under this contract, Contractor will implement policy, system and environmental change efforts in Concord aimed at limiting the sale of flavored tobacco products near schools, parks and other youth sensitive areas. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #72-084 with Monument Impact April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 618 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The County’s Tobacco Prevention Program received the “Achieving Tobacco-Related Health Equity Among California’s Diverse Populations” grant from the California Department of Public Health. This grant required development and negotiation of a five year budget and scope of work for this subcontract as part of the larger project. This required extensive consultation with the subcontractor and the state to plan objectives and budgets for five years of program implementation and ensure adherence to the rules and regulations of the grantor. In order to meet the original contract term established by the funding agency (California Department of Public Health), the Division requests a retroactive start date of September 1, 2015. Approval of Contract #72-084 will allow Contractor to provide services through June 30, 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County will not have access to Contractor’s technical assistance and program support services to implement policy aimed at reducing and preventing the use of tobacco products among populations with high rates of smoking, and the County will not receive state funding. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 619 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #74-462-3 with Indra Singh, M.D., self-employed individual, in an amount not to exceed $266,240, to provide outpatient psychiatric services for the period from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Mental Health Services Act. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On March 31, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-462-2 with Indra Singh, M.D., for the period from May 1, 2015 through April 30, 2016 for the provision of diagnosing, counseling, evaluating, and providing medical and therapeutic treatment to County patients at the Central County Adult Mental Health Clinic. Approval of Contract #74-462-3 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide outpatient psychiatric services to patients in Central County through April 30, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-462-3 with Indra Singh, M.D. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 620 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring outpatient psychiatric services in Central County 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 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 621 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee to execute a contract with O3, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide the Emergency Services Unit with WebEOC software support for the term of April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% County General Fund; Budgeted. BACKGROUND: The State adopted WebEOC as its standard for emergency management software. As such, counties were expected to use the software in order to communicate with the State in the event of emergencies. Contra Costa County licenses the software from ESI Acquisition, Inc. but needs assistance with customization, maintenance, and training. The purpose of this contract is for the contractor, O3, Inc., to maintain WebEOC on the County’s computer server; to develop web applications (add-ons) to enhance the usability of the software; to provide training for the County and its partners; and to provide support in the event of either an emergency or computer/software problems. The contract includes a provision obligating the County to indemnify O3, Inc. for claims arising out of the negligence of the County in performing its agreements with the software licensor, ESI Aquisition, Inc. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Emergency Services Software Support April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 622 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If a negative action is recommended on this contract, training for the County and its partners is not likely not happen; and necessary support in the event of either an emergency or computer/software problems will not be readily available. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 623 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/153 authorizing the Sheriff Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept the U. S. Department of Homeland Security, 2015 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant, in an amount not to exceed $150,000 for the update to the Contra Costa County Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: $150,000. Up to an initial amount of $112,500 in Federal Revenue and County initial in kind match of $37,500. BACKGROUND: This grant will allow a comprehensive update to the Contra Costa County regional hazard mitigation plan. The goal is to reduce overall risk to the population and structures from future hazard events, while also reducing reliance on Federal funding in future disasters. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negative action on this request will result in the inability to update the current Contra Costa County regional hazard mitigation plan. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Mary Jane Robb, 925-335-1557 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:FY 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 624 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/153 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Res 2016/153 signed April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 625 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/12/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/153 IN THE MATTER OF: Applying for and accepting the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2015 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant. WHEREAS the County of Contra Costa County is seeking funds available through the U.S.Department of Homeland Security; NOW, THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors: Authorizes the Sheriff-Coroner, Undersheriff or the Sheriff's Chief of Management Services, to execute for and on behalf of the County of Contra Costa, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining Federal financial assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Contact: Mary Jane Robb, 925-335-1557 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: 5 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 626 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES627 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, non-financial Agreement #26-919 between Contra Costa County and Vizient, Inc., a non-profit corporation, to perform financial and clinical data sharing at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a non-financial agreement. No County match required. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County Health Services and Vizient, Inc. have agreed to share data to improve Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Center’s clinical, operational and patient safety performance. The purpose of this agreement is to authorize Vizient, Inc, to deliver Contra Costa County data to University Healthcare Consortium (UHC) (a subcontractor to Vizient, Inc.) and to authorize Vizient Inc. to deliver Contra Costa Health Services Healthcare Engagement Network (HEN) data to Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS) as required by law. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Non-Financial Agreement #26-919 with Vizient, Inc. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 628 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, the County will not have access to shared data to improve Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Center’s clinical, operational and patient safety performance. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 629 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order with Ortho Clinic Diagnostics Inc., in the amount of $124,192 for the purchase of an Ortho Vision Analyzer used in the Clinical Laboratory at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: Ortho Clinic Diagnostics, Inc. has the reagents and ID-Micro Typing system cards that can only be used on the Johnson & Johnson centrifuges and incubators. These products identify blood types and cross-match units of blood for transfusion and other surgical procedures. Upgrading to automation can cut down work up to half the time. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved, the CCRMC Clinical Laboratory will not be able to perform testing. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Crystal Grayson, M Wilhelm C. 58 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Ortho Clinic Diagnostics, Inc. Purchase Order April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 630 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Coroner, a purchase order amendment with Spike's Produce, to increase the payment limit by $150,000 to a new payment limit of $500,000 to provide food products for the preparation of inmate meals in the three County adult detention facilities for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: Increase of $150,000 to a $500,000 maximum purchase order amount. 100% County General Fund; Budgeted FY 15/16. BACKGROUND: Spike's Produce is a locally owned and operated small business that provides low-cost produce to all three adult detention facilities. These deliveries occur in the early morning, making it essential to have a low-cost, local solution. Other vendors could not meet the daily delivery service requirements necessary while maintaining low prices and high quality of fresh produce. This blanket purchase order will ensure timely delivery of essential food products for meals served at adult detention facilities. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Liz Arbuckle, (925) 335-1529 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Liz Arbuckle, Heike Anderson, Tim Ewell C. 64 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order - Spike's Produce April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 631 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-695-1 with University of the Pacific, Thomas J. Long School of Pharmacy and Health Services, an educational institution, to provide supervised field instruction at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers to pharmacy students, for the period from April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide University of the Pacific, Thomas J. Long School of Pharmacy and Health Services pharmacy students with the opportunity to integrate academic knowledge with applied skills at progressively higher levels of performance and responsibility. Supervised fieldwork experience for students is considered to be an integral part of both educational and professional preparation. The Health Services Department APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M WILHELM C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:University of the Pacific, Thomas J. Long School of Pharmacy and Health Services Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-695-1 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 632 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) can provide the requisite field education, while at the same time, benefitting from the students’ services to patients. On May 10, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-695 with University of the Pacific, Thomas J. Long School of Pharmacy and Health Services for the provision of supervised fieldwork instruction experience for pharmacy students at CCRMC and Health Centers, for the period from April 1, 2011 through March 31, 2016. Approval of Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-695-1, will allow University of the Pacific, Thomas J. Long School of Pharmacy and Health Services pharmacy students to receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience, at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers through March 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the students will not receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 633 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the 2015 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, in accordance with Government Code Section 65400. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements that every jurisdiction must include in its General Plan. State law mandates that all local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The Association of Bay Area Governments allocates the Bay Area regional housing need to all the cities and counties in the Bay Area. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65400, the County is required to submit an annual report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development and the State Office of Planning and Research by April 1 of each year. Jurisdictions are also required to submit the annual report to their legislative bodies for review and comment. Attached to this Board Order is the County's 2015 Annual Housing Element Progress Report. The County's Housing Element (Fifth Cycle) covers the planning period from 2015 to 2023 and plans for the provision of 1,367 units of housing in the unincorporated County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Christine Louie, (925) 674-7787 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 77 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2015 Annual Housing Element Progress Report April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 634 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) This is the first report for the Fifth Cycle Housing Element. In 2015, the County issued 330 building permits for single family housing, 13 permits were issued for attached second units, 2 permits for duplexes, and 2 permits for mobile homes. No permits were issued for multi-family housing. To date, the County has issued building permits for 349 units, or 25 percent of the County's current planning period allocation. The County continues to implement 31 housing related programs, including programs designed to remove governmental constraints to maintaining, improving, and developing housing. A summary of the programs and recent accomplishments are included as Table C in the attached report. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: There is no consequence of a negative action. The County is required to provide the annual Housing Element Progress Report to the Board of Supervisors in a public meeting to allow the public an opportunity to review and comment on the report. ATTACHMENTS 2015 Housing Element Report April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 635 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 636 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 637 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 638 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 639 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 640 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 641 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 642 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 643 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 644 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 645 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT 2014/15 annual report from the Public Works Director on the Internal Services Fund for the County's Vehicle Fleet and on low-mileage vehicles. FISCAL IMPACT: Reassigning underutilized vehicles would increase cost efficiency but the fiscal impact was not estimated. BACKGROUND: Each year, the Public Works Department Fleet Services Manager has analyzed the fleet and annual vehicle usage and made recommendations to the IOC on the budget year vehicle replacements and on the intra-County reassignment of underutilized vehicles, in accordance with County policy. In FY 2008/09, the Board approved the establishment of an Internal Services Fund (ISF) for the County Fleet, to be administered by Public Works (formerly by the General Services Department). The Board requested the IOC to review annually the Public Works department report on the fleet and on low-mileage vehicles. Last year, the IOC requested the Auditor's Office to test the Fleet Program's compliance with County clean air policies. The Chief Auditor, in July 2015, reported that as of February 28, 2015, 18% of the fleet were clean air vehicles, 36.2% were not clean air vehicles but were exempted by the policy or by the Fleet Manager, and 45.8% were not exempt and not in compliance with the clean air vehicle policy. The Fleet Manager emphasized his commitment to downsizing the fleet and right-sizing County vehicles. The Committee asked the Fleet Manager to update the 2008 County Clean Air Vehicle Policy to also to reflect current technology such as electric and hydrogen APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 335-1077 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: April 12, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 75 To:Board of Supervisors From:INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2015 Annual Report on the Fleet Internal Service Fund April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 646 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > fuel cell vehicles, and current funding incentives, and to segregate large construction vehicles from regular trucks and sedans in future reports to make the statistical reporting more meaningful. That policy was updated, approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 17, 2015, and disseminated to County departments as County Administrative Bulletin 508.5. Attached is the Fleet/ISF report for FY 2014/15. Following are highlights from the report: Only two low-mileage vehicles were identified, as compared to nine last year. Public Works will reassign or make the vehicles available through their department vehicle pool to increase utilization. 44 hybrid vehicles were purchased. Fleet Services added a mobile repair van to its array of services. The mobile repair van saves customer time in ferrying vehicles, and keeps the vehicles in service longer. Fleet Services continues to install GPS telematic devices in the vehicles to track engine performance, location, vehicle speed, and idling time. The devices also qualify the vehicles for the for State's continuous smog testing pilot program, making those vehicles exempt from the biennial smog testing requirement, which saves the County time and money. For those vehicles not equipped with telematic devices, Public Works is now certified to perform its own smog testing. 75% of the fleet staff are now ASE (Automotive Service Excellence) Blue Seal-certified, which has increased technical competency and employee morale. The County leverages purchasing incentives to lower the County cost for purchasing hybrid vehicles. The Internal Operations Committee is forwarding this report for the Board's information. No action by the Board is requested. ATTACHMENTS 2014-15 Annual Fleet/ISF Report April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 647 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 648 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 649 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 650 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 651 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES652 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES653 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 654 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment & Human Services Director, or designee, to reallocate 2 Early Head Start childcare slots from county operated childcare centers to contracted childcare partner programs, effective July 1, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: None. No County match. BACKGROUND: Early Head Start is a federal program that promotes the school readiness of children ages birth through three from low-income families by enhancing their cognitive, social and emotional development. Early Head Start and Head Start programs provide a learning environment that supports children's growth in the following domains: language and literacy; cognition and general knowledge; physical development and health; social and emotional development; and approaches to learning. Early Head Start also provides comprehensive services which include health, nutrition, social and other services determined as necessary via family needs assessments. Services are designed to be responsive to each child and family's ethnic, cultural, and linguistic heritage. Services are provided through a variety of APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: CSB (925) 681-6304 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Jagjit Bhambra, Katharine Mason, Haydee Ilan, Cassandra Youngblood C. 73 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approval to reallocate 2 Early Head Start childcare slots April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 655 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) service models including: centers or schools that children attend part or full day, family childcare homes and/or the children's own homes wherein a Head Start staff visit once per week to provide in-home services. Children who receive home-based services gather periodically with other enrolled families for group learning experiences facilitated by Head Start staff. Contra Costa County submits an application annually to U.S. Health and Human Services Department, Administration for Children and Families as the Head Start grantee. The annual application includes newly identified goals and objectives for the program. The board approved submission of the 2016 Head Start grantee application on August 18, 2015. The total number of Early Head Start slots funded through the application is 72 slots, distributed among county operated centers and contracted partner childcare agencies This board order seeks approval to transfer 2 of the Early Head Start childcare slots from direct county operated centers to add to the contract with childcare partner Aspiranet, effective July 1, 2016. There will be no disruption of services to enrolled children and families. The proposed change is informed by community needs assessment which identified a greater need for infant/toddler care in East Contra Costa County as opposed to Central and West Contra Costa County. This action was approved by the Contra Costa County Head Start Policy Council on March 16, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will be unable to effect strategic plan to maximize childcare resources. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Community Services Bureau of the Employment & Human Services Department’s Head Start program supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 3: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and, Outcome 4: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. ATTACHMENTS ACF letter April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 656 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 657 RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE the design and bid documents, including the plans and specifications, for the Expansion of the Family Practice Clinic, 2311 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, for the Health Services Department. (2) DETERMINE that the project qualifies for a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Class 1(a) Categorical Exemption pursuant to Article 19, Section 15301(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development, or designee, to promptly file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk; and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to arrange for payment of the $50 handling fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Exemption and the $25 handling fee to the Department of Conservation and Development for processing costs. (3) AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to solicit bids to be received on or about May 19, 2016, and issue bid addenda, as needed, for clarification of the bid documents, provided the involved changes do not significantly increase the construction cost estimate. (4) DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to publish, at least 14 calendar days before the bid opening date, the Notice to Contractors in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22037, inviting bids for this project. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Ramesh Kanzaria, (925) 313-2000 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: PW Accounting, PW CPM Division Manager, PW CPM Project Manager, PW CPM Clerical, Auditor's Office, County Counsel's Office, County Administrator's Office, County Administrator's Office C. 67 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Advertisement for the Expansion of the Family Practice Clinic, 2311 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg (WW0859) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 658 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) (5) DIRECT the Public Works Director, or designee, to send notices by email or fax and by U.S. Mail to the construction trade journals specified in Public Contract Code Section 22036 at least 15 calendar days before the bid opening. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Funding from Enterprise I Patient Revenues. BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act and other recent legislation have resulted in a significant increase in the number of Contra Costa residents who are eligible for subsidized County health services. The proposed expansion at the Pittsburg Health Center will provide the resources required to meet this demand. The project includes remodeling of approximately 5,900 square feet of interior clinic space located on the 2nd floor of the Pittsburg Health Center at 2311 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg. The scope of work will include demolition of existing interior walls and, construction of new walls, ceilings, flooring, lighting, plumbing, mechanical and electrical work. Plans and specifications for the project have been prepared for the Public Works Department by The Ratcliff Architects. The construction cost estimate is $2,064,000 and the general prevailing wage rates are on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and will be the minimum rates paid on this project. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the project is not approved, the facility will be unable to meet the needs of the increased number of Contra Costa County residents eligible for subsidized health services. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 659 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the list of providers recommended by Contra Costa Health Plan's Peer Review and Credentialing Committee on March 8, 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 of Supervisors 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. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Heather Wong, M Wilhelm C. 70 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve New and Recredentialing Providers in Contra Costa Health Plan’s Community Provider Network April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 660 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS March Providers April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 661 Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Peer Review and Credentialing Committee March 8, 2016 CREDENTIALING PROVIDERS MARCH 2016 Name Specialty Berry, Michael, M.D. Urgent Care Blau, Nathan, M.D. Primary Care Internal Medicine Blohm, Richard, M.D. Urgent Care Botelho, Barbara, M.D. Primary Care Pediatrician Callister, Devin, M.D. Infectious Disease Cheung, Ka Ling, M.D. Pulmonary Disease Cohen, Michael, M.D. Pulmonary Disease/Internal Medicine Fleck, Catherine, MFT Behavior Analysis Hoffmann, Victorina, M.D. Primary Care Internal Medicine Jothi, Sumana, M.D. Otolaryngology Kim, Haena, M.D. Surgery - Plastic & Reconstructive Kramer, Kristina, M.D. Pulmonary Disease Lewis, William, M.D. Otolaryngology Li, Tsung Tsuan, M.D. Otolaryngology Lozano, Rebeca, BCBA Behavior Analysis MacDannald, Harry, M.D. Pulmonary Disease Marsh, Jennifer, LCSW Mental Health Services Marwaha, Jatinder, M.D. Internal Medicine/Sleep Medicine Parnow, Kathrynn, BCBA Behavior Analysis Samaniego, Armando, M.D. Urgent Care Shea, Whitney, BCBA Behavior Analysis Sinhbandith, Janet, BCBA Behavior Analysis Suresh, Sandhya, BCBA Behavior Analysis Warren, Kaitlin, NP Primary Care Pediatrician Wilkie, Harold, M.D. Urgent Care Zaka, Jamal, M.D. Pulmonary Disease RECREDENTIALING PROVIDERS MARCH 2016 Name Specialty Caldeira, Joyce, MFT Mental Health Services Challenor, Peter, L.Ac Acupuncture Chin, Brian, M.D. Surgery - General Surgery - Bariatric April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 662 Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director March 8, 2016 Page 2 of 2 RECREDENTIALING PROVIDERS MARCH 2016 Name Specialty Davis, Katrece, NP Mid-Level Family Planning DeVane, Barbara, DO Ophthalmology Diez Gonzalez, Yarigtnetzilem, OD Optometry Gollapudi, Ramakrishna, M.D. Gastroenterology Gould, Toby, MFT Mental Health Services Harris, Rick, DC Chiropractic Medicine Heifetz, Claude, DC Chiropractic Medicine Hufbauer, Ellen, M.D. Family Planning Le, Tuong-Vi, OD Optometry Myers, Nancy, LCSW Mental Health Services Nordensjo, Anna, M.D. Primary Care Family Medicine Ramos, Brenda, DC Chiropractic Medicine Respicio, S. Gabriel, OD Optometry Richardson, Diana, LEP Behavior Analysis Rivera-Lopez, Hector, Ph.D. Mental Health Services Rusby, Marsha, MFT Mental Health Services Stephens, Thomas, PA Mid-Level Cardiovascular Disease Swann, Beverly, MFT Mental Health Services Zimmerman, Daniel, M.D. OB/GYN bopl-March 8, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 663 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. FIND that the proposed 2016-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Parks and Sheriff Facilities is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines (see Exhibit A); 2. ADOPT the 2016-2022 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities (see Exhibit B), pursuant to the requirements of the Measure J Growth Management Program; 3. APPROVE the completed Biennial Compliance Checklist (Checklist) (see Exhibit C), and FIND that the County's policies and programs conform to the requirements for compliance with the Contra Costa Transportation and Improvement and Growth Management Program as established by Measure C in 1988 and reauthorized by Measure J in 2004; and 4. AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign the completed Checklist. FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities and the approval of the Checklist will qualify the County to receive its Fiscal Year 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 allocations of Measure J "return to source" revenue, estimated to be approximately $2 million annually. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 65 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Biennial Compliance Checklist and Capital Improvement Program for Measure J-2004 Growth Management Program April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 664 FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D) The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), the Congestion Management Agency in the County also uses the Checklist to demonstrate compliance with the State Congestion Management Act (Government Code §65088 et. seq.). The State will withhold a portion of the state gas tax (Street and Highways Code §2105) to cities and counties that fail to comply with the Congestion Management Act. The County receives approximately $4.5 million annually from this revenue source, which is dedicated to transportation purposes. BACKGROUND: The County biennially submits a compliance checklist to CCTA to receive the County's portion (18 percent) of the sale tax funds available for local street maintenance and improvements. Two related actions must precede completion and submission of the Checklist: 1. CEQA review of the proposed 2016-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Parks and Sheriff Facilities; and 2. Adoption of the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities, pursuant to the requirements of the Measure J Growth Management Program. CEQA Analysis To comply with CEQA, staff has found, pursuant to adopted County CEQA Guidelines, that the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities is not subject to CEQA (see Exhibit A). This follows from the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential to cause significant adverse effects to the environment. All capital facilities programmed are either fully committed, constructed, awaiting occupancy, or undergoing separate environmental review. Under the provision of §15061(b)3, of the State and County CEQA guidelines, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities could have a significant effect on the environment. Development Mitigation Program The CIP (see Exhibit B) is adopted pursuant to the requirements of the Measure J Growth Management Program and authorized by Implementation Measure 4-n of the County General Plan. Any capital project sponsored by the County and necessary to maintain adopted levels of performance must be identified in a CIP with a minimum programming period of five years. Funding sources for the complete cost of the improvements, and phasing, if any, must also be identified in the CIP. The CIP demonstrates that development anticipated between 2016-2022 will maintain compliance with the performance standards for parks and sheriff facilities. A seven-year programming period is used to be consistent with the County's other capital improvement programs. The CIP is a summary of Parks and Sheriff Facilities and was prepared as part of the County's Development Mitigation Program. Table 5 of the CIP shows that no expansion of Sheriff Facilities is proposed for the seven-year period for patrol and investigation use. The existing "surplus" capacity is projected to be sufficient to accommodate population growth during this period. Checklist The Checklist (see Exhibit C) covers the compliance reporting period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015. The County has satisfied all Checklist requirements during 2014 and 2015. Performance standards for urban services in the unincorporated area were maintained. The County implemented all the required plans, programs and ordinances for mitigating local and regional transportation impacts of development projects, implemented the adopted Housing Element, and constructed the necessary capital improvements for urban services. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 665 County voters approved an Urban Limit Line measure in 2006 and the County complied with the provisions of the measure during 2014 and 2015. The Board of Supervisors has participated in or taken actions during the reporting period, consistent with the multi-jurisdictional transportation planning process established by Measure J. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to adopt the CIP for Park and Sheriff Facilities or approve the Checklist will prevent the County from qualifying for its Fiscal Year allocation for 2015/2016 of "return to source" funds and state gas tax funds. Funds will be available for allocation beginning June 30, 2016. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - CEQA Determination Exhibit B- Development Mitigation Program -Capital Improvement Program (Parks and Sheriff Facilities) Exhibit C - Checklist MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Exhibit C - Checklist April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 666 EXHIBIT A G:\Transportation\R. Sarmiento\Board Orders\Board of Supervisors\2016\Growth Management Checklist\Exhibit A - Development Mitigation Program_CEQA_2016.doc DETERMINATION THAT AN ACTIVITY IS NOT A PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FILE NO. CP 16-03 ACTIVITY NAME: Adoption of 2016-2022 Contra Costa County Development Mitigation Program: Capital Improvement Program for Parks and Sheriff Facilities PREPARED BY: Robert Sarmiento DATE: April 12, 2016 This activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b) of Chapter 3 of the State CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: The adoption of a Capital Improvements Program for the provision of Parks and Sheriff facilities in order to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Measure J-2004. No significant change in the environment will result from the adoption of this program: all capital facilities programmed are either fully committed or constructed, awaiting occupancy or are undergoing separate environmental review. Projects which may be funded in the future consistent with, or under this program, which are as yet undefined, will be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act. LOCATION: Countywide in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. Date: April 12, 2016 Reviewed by: Conservation and Development Department Representative April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 667 1 EXHIBIT B Contra Costa County Development Mitigation Program 2016 – 2022 Capital Improvement Program for Parks and Sheriff Facilities Pursuant to Measure J Growth Management Program Prepared by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development March 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 668 2 I. INRODUCTION This document is Contra Costa County’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for providing park and Sheriff Facilities in the unincorporated area of the County, pursuant to the requirements of the Measure J Growth Management Program. A companion document, the County Road Improvement & Preservation Program, describes transportation projects to mitigate the transportation impacts of new development. Both documents respond to the requirements of the County General Plan and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) growth management program that was initiated with the Measure C transportation sales tax in 1988, and reauthorized in Measure J in 2004. The County General Plan includes a Growth Management Element, which has performance standards for urban services (i.e. roads, sewers, water police, fire, parks and flood control). New development needs to demonstrate that it meets these performance standards or such development cannot be approved. The County is responsible for providing the following urban services in the unincorporated area: roads, police, and parks. The Growth Management Element requires that capital projects sponsored by the County necessary to maintain the performance standards for these three urban services shall be identified in the five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Funding sources for the complete cost of the improvement and phasing, if any, shall also be identified. The Measure J growth management program requires local jurisdictions to develop a five-year capital improvement program. It is CCTA policy that all capital improvement programs be amended, taking into account changes in project costs, funding sources, project development, and timing. Jurisdictions can avoid annual updates by developing longer range capital improvement programs. The County has elected to use a seven-year horizon for the CIP. CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT: The CIP is based on a seven-year horizon, 2016-2022 growth estimates for that time period are presented in Section II. Section III of the CIP reviews the performance standards, which were established by the Growth Management Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, and describes the status of County’s compliance with these standards based on the estimated population growth. Section IV describes the program facilities needed to meet the demands of future growth as dictated by the performance standards set forth in the Growth Management Element. II. POPULATION ESTIMATES Table 1 provides an estimate of past population growth in the unincorporated area since adoption of the County’s Growth Management Element in 1991. It also describes projected population growth for the seven-year period of the CIP, 2016-2022. The projected population growth is based on information received from the Housing Element of the County General Plan. These forecasts are based on ABAG’s projected population estimates, as adjusted by the Department of Conservation and Development to reflect the actual growth recorded on the unincorporated area between 1991 and 2015. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 669 3 TABLE 1 PAST AND PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH IN UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA* AREA 1991-2015 2016-2022 East County 12,030** 1,069 Central County 16,189*** 908 West County 4,488 1,248 TOTAL 32,707 3,225 * Sources: 2010 Census, Projected 2020 and 2030 estimated provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments and refined by CCC Department of Conservations and Development. ** Includes growth in Oakley up to the year 2000. *** Does not include growth in Dougherty Valley, which ABAG assigns to the City of San Ramon. III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The Growth Management Element establishes standards for the provision of certain public services in the unincorporated areas. These performance standards are applied to all development that was approved since the adoption of the County General Plan in January 1991. The standards apply to the entire unincorporated area, countywide. Park Facilities: The growth management standard for park facilities is three acres of neighborhood parks per 1,000 population. Table 2 evaluates this standard as of 2015. This evaluation is based on population growth for the 1991 - 2015 time period and the park acreage opened during that period. Parks are financed largely by park dedication fees assessed against new development in the unincorporated area. A Park Impact Fee Nexus Study was approved by the Board in 2007 and fees were updated shortly thereafter. Fees range from $3,955 to $7,238, depending on dwelling type and location. Unless otherwise indicated, the parks shown on Table 4 occur on County- owned parcels or land dedicated by developers to the County. Expenditures are for park improvements only. Since January 1991, the County has opened approximately 145 acres of new park facilities that meet the neighborhood park classification. Actual park construction exceeded the growth management standard by 47 acres. These facilities represent a broad range of accomplishments, including contribution to joint school/park facilities, pro-rated credit for park facilities of cities or special districts funded partially by County revenues or land-dedication, and linear parks that serve the local area. See Appendix A for a description of these park facilities. TABLE 2 EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PARK FACILITIES STANDARD AS OF 2015 REQUIRED FACILITIES FACILITIES OPENED SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 98 acres 145 acres 47 acres Sheriff Facilities: The growth management standard for Sheriff facilities is 155 square feet of patrol and investigation facilities per 1,000 population. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 670 4 Table 3 evaluates compliance with the performance standard as of 2015. The evaluation is based on population growth for 1991-2015 time period and the square footage of Sheriff Facilities opened as of 2015. The population growth between 1991 and 2015 created a demand for 5,069 square feet of patrol, investigation and support facilities. Since 1991, the County has opened 74,892 square feet of facilities that serve patrol, investigation and support activities. Actual Sheriff Facility construction exceeded the growth management standard by 69,823 square feet. See Appendix B for the inventory of Sheriff Facilities. TABLE 3 EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH SHERIFF FACILITIES STANDARD AS OF 2015 REQUIRED FACILITIES FACILITIES OPENED SURPLUS/ (DEFICIT) 5,069 sq.ft. 74,892 sq.ft. 69,823 sq.ft. IV. SEVEN-YEAR PROGRAM FOR PARK AND SHERIFF FACILITIES The County’s Growth Management Element and CCTA’s Measure J growth management program requires that capital improvement programs include approved projects, their estimated costs and a financial plan for providing the improvements. This section describes a seven-year program of projects to maintain compliance with the County’s adopted growth management standards for park and sheriff facilities. Park Facilities: The projected growth during the 2016-2022 time period will generate the need for 10 acres of neighborhood and community parks. Table 4 describes the park facilities programmed for construction during the 2016-2022 time period. A total of a little more than 36 acres of neighborhood parks are programmed for construction during that time period. As of 2015, the County maintains a surplus of 47 acres (as previously shown in Table 2). By implementing the Seven Year Program of Park Facilities from Table 4, the County would increase the park facilities surplus by 26 acres, for a total of 73 acres, by 2022.1 Sheriff Facilities: The projected growth during the 2016-2022 time period will generate the need for 500 square feet of Sheriff facilities to serve patrol and investigation activities. The surplus square footage resulting from Sheriff facilities opened as of 2016 is 69,823 sq. ft. This “surplus” of facility capacity is sufficient to serve all growth projected to occur in the unincorporated area by 2022, with approximately 69,323 sq. ft. of capacity remaining by that time. The formula utilized to evaluate this need for facilities in 2022 is detailed in Table 5. No construction or acquisition of additional sheriff facilities is programmed for the next seven years. Existing capacity is expected to be more than sufficient to accommodate population growth for the next seven years. Fees are currently in place for new development in the unincorporated area to provide ongoing support for Sheriff operations. The fees do not cover additional facilities that may be needed in the future. 1 The formula utilized to evaluate this need for facilities in 2022 is detailed in Table 5. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 671 5 Since 1991, a significant inventory of space for patrol and investigation activities has been made available on a short-term basis to the Sheriff through donations or leases. These facilities total 3,734 sq. ft. and are listed in Appendix B. The Sheriff recommends that this space not be claimed by the Board for the purpose of meeting the growth management standard for Sheriff Facilities. This CIP is consistent with that recommendation. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 672 TABLE 4 SEVEN YEAR PROGRAM OF PARK FACILITIES 6 Park Location Park Type Region Of County Total Acreage Acreage for Growth Mgmt. Compliance North Richmond Neighborhood West 0.3 0.3 El Sobrante Neighborhood West 5.0 5.0 Iron Horse Trail Pocket Parks Pocket Central 0.3 0.3 Pacheco Community Park Community Central 5.0 5.0 Vine Hill Park Neighborhood Central 2.0 2.0 Hemme Station Park Neighborhood Central 0.7 0.7 Bay Point Shoreline Ballfields Community East 5.0 5.0 Byron Community Park Community East 5.0 5.0 Bethel Island Park Community East 5.0 5.0 Concord Ballfield Access Community East 5.0 5.0 Bay Point Park Neighborhood East 3.0 3.0 Total (rounded) 36.3 (36) 36.3 (36) TABLE 5 EVALUATION OF THE NEED FOR FACILITIES IN 2022 Projected Population Growth 2016-2022 Park Acres Required 2016 - 2022 (3 Acres/1000 people) Park Acres to be Constructed 2016-2022 Surplus (Deficit) Surplus (Deficit) of Park Acres from 1991-2015 Surplus (Deficit) of Park Acres by 2022 3,225 10 36 26 47 73 Sheriff Facilities Required 2016 - 2022 (155 sq.ft./1000 people) Sheriff Facilities to be Constructed 2016-2022 Surplus (Deficit) Surplus (Deficit) of sq.ft. from 1991-2015 Surplus (Deficit) of sq.ft. by 2022 3,225 500 0 (500) 69,823 69,323 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 673 APPENDIX A: INVENTORY OF PARK FACILITIES 8 Appendices on separate excel spread sheet. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 674 APPENDIX AParkLocationAreaType of ParkTotal AcresAcres for Growth ManagementCompletion DateMontalvin ParkDenise DrMontalvin Manor/San PabloNeighborhood7.07.01991MonTaraBay Community Center and Ball Fields (Rehab)Tara Hills DrTara Hills/San Pablo Community Facility4.04.01991California Pacific WaterwaysPorthole/FoghornByronNeighborhood5.25.21992Alamo Elementary School ParkLivorna/WilsonAlamoNeighborhood3.12.51992Clyde ParkNorman/SussexClydeNeighborhood2.02.01992Fox Creek Park (Pleasant Hill BART) Las Juntas WayPleasant Hill Neighborhood0.50.31992Cornell ParkDisco Bay Blvd/Willow LakeDiscovery Bay Neighborhood10.010.01992Boeger ParkCaskey StBay PointNeighborhood0.60.51992Old Tassajara SchoolCamino Tassajara/Finley RdTassajaraCommunity Facility1.01.01992Marie Porter ParkKilburn StreetClydeNeighborhood0.20.51992Rancho LagunaKnoll Dr/Camino PabloMoragaNeighborhood8.18.11993Brentwood Ball Fields (3)Sunset RdBrentwoodNeighborhoodn/an/a 1993Bettencourt RanchCamino Tassajara DanvilleNeighborhood6.02.51994El Sobrante Open SpaceCastro Ranch RdEl Sobrante Regional100.0n/a 1994Hap Magee Ranch Park (City/County) Camille AveAlamoNeighborhood17.28.01994North Richmond Ball Field3rd and Walnut CreekNorth Richmond Community Facility8.04.01994Lefty Gomez Community Center and BallfieldsParker AvenueRodeoCommunity Facility 11.011.01995Diablo Vista ParkCrow Canyon/Tassajara RanchTown of Danville Neighborhood2.00.71996Marie Murphy SchoolValley ViewEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996Olinda SchoolOlinda RdEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996Valley View SchoolMaywood/MeadowbrookEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996Sheldon SchoolMay/LaurelEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996El Sobrante ElementaryManor/MitchellEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996De Anza High SchoolValley View RdEl Sobrante Neighborhood4.02.01996Tradewinds Court ParkTradewinds CourtBay PointNeighborhood0.70.71996Livorna ParkLivorna/MirandaAlamoNeighborhood4.44.41997Laurel ParkLaurel Rd Detention BasinOakleyNeighborhood14.414.41998Rodeo Creek TrailWillow Ave/Parker AveRodeoNeighborhood1.02.51998Rancho Romero SchoolHemme AveAlamoNeighborhood5.45.42000Country Placen/an/aNeighborhood2.52.52000Andrew H. Young Danville Blvd/JacksonAlamoNeighborhood0.020.022000Maybeck ParkAmy LaneClydeNeighborhood0.010.012000Discovery Bay Westn/aDiscovery Bay (Rec Center)2.42.42002Discovery Bay WestLakeshore CircleDiscovery Bay Neighborhood4.04.02002Del Hombre RespiteTreat BlvdPleasant Hill Neighborhood0.70.72002Regatta Park (Tyler Memorial Park) n/aDiscovery Bay Neighborhood4.84.82002Silfer ParkNewport DrDiscovery Bay Neighborhood5.85.82002Viewpoint Park (aka Lehman)Sea Cliff PlaceBay PointNeighborhood0.10.12002Ravenswood ParkDiscovery Bay Neighborhood2004Diablo Vista Middle School Sports FieldCamino Tassajara/MonterossoDanvilleSchool15.015.02005Spears Circle ParkSpears CircleNorth Richmond Neighborhood0.50.52007Big Oak Tree ParkKilburn StreetClydeNeighborhood0.240.242008El Sobrante Children's Reading GardenAppian AvenueEl Sobrante Community Facility0.020.022008Parkway Estates (Tot Lot)Malcom DriveNorth Richmond Neighborhood0.30.32011Pacheco Creekside ParkAspen DrivePachecoNeighborhood1.61.62011Clyde Pedestrian TrailNorman AvenueClydeNeighborhood0.53.82011Lynbrook ParkKevin Drive and Port Chicago HwyBay PointNeighborhood4.134.132013Hickory MeadowsWinterbrook and Summerfield DrBay PointNeighborhood0.370.372013Total261.4144.58April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES675 APPENDIX B: INVENTORY OF SHERIFF FACILITIES USED FOR PATROL AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES 9 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 676 APPENDIX B n/a 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,600 1,600 0 0 (1,600) n/a 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 23,390 23,390 22,990 22,990 (400) n/a 0 425 425 425 2,117 2,117 3,921 3,921 1,804 n/a 0 1,725 1,725 1,725 n/a 0 1,149 1,149 1,149 is this the correct sf? n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 257 257 257 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 1,100 1,100 n/a 0 (1,100) 7,760 2,350 1,567 n/a 0 (1,567) 2,200 733 n/a 0 (733) n/a n/a 3,209 1,070 1,070 split? 3,900 3,900 0 0 (3,900) n/a n/a 0 0 0 1,684 842 1,684 842 0 split? n/a n/a 3,580 3,580 3,580 take off? 8,764 4,382 8,764 4,382 0 split? n/a n/a 4,593 1,531 1,650 split? 6,500 3,250 6,500 3,250 0 split? n/a n/a 0 0 0 n/a 0 0 0 0 n/a 0 20,000 6,667 6,667 split? 7,500 3,000 18,100 7,240 4,240 split? 3,800 3,800 0 0 (3,800) 1,470 490 0 0 n/a n/a 35,000 35,000 35,000 split? n/a n/a 24,925 24,925 24,925 split? n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 67,132 n/a 0 600 600 600 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 800 800 800 n/a 0 140 140 140 n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 825 825 825 n/a 0 1,100 1,100 1,100 n/a 0 269 269 269 3,734 78,626 74,892 Additional Sheriff Property Clayton, 12000 Marsh Ck Detention Staff Locker Bldg 1,344 1,344 Work Shop,Storage,Inmate Welf Off 3,261 3,261 Dorms F&G 14,352 14,352 Wood Shop, Storage 976 976 Pump House - - Medical Coach 626 626 Chapel 2,015 2,015 Shop 5,796 5,796 School Office 1,740 1,740 Kitchen 7,372 7,372 Dorms D&E 14,352 14,352 Pump House - - Laundry/DSW Office 2,080 2,080 Dorms B&C 13,872 13,872 Security Cell 441 441 Bldgs 182-200 1,426 1,426 Classroom 1 960 960 Former Fire Stn 4,639 4,639 Classroom 2 960 960 Classroom 3 960 960 Supply Storage 608 608 Martinez, 835 Castro St - Leased 1,800 1,800 Martinez, 815 Court St - Leased Court Security 1,763 1,763 Martinez, 920 Mellus St Civil 3,500 3,500 Martinez, 1959 Muir Rd Peace Officers Monument - - Martinez, 1980 Muir Rd Generator Bldg 400 400 Martinez, Pine St @ Mellus St @ Court St Detention Fac. Annex - - Martinez, 651 Pine St, N. Wing Cal ID - 1st Flood - - Martinez, 900 Thompson St-Leased Custody Alternative 3,850 3,850 Pittsburg, 340 Marina Blvd-Leased Police Academy & Training 16,000 16,000 Richmond, 5555 Giant Hwy - West County Detention Center Admin/Medical/Inmate Programs 18,926 18,926 Housing, Visiting 19,352 19,352 Inmate Programs 6,073 6,073 Admin, Mtce,Kitchen,Intake 70,975 70,975 Housing 30,424 30,424 Housing 30,424 30,424 Housing 30,424 30,424 Housing 30,424 30,424 Women's Program Bldg 12,320 12,320 Martinez, 50 Glacier Dr, Office of Emergency Services 6,175 6,175 Martinez, 1127 Escobar St, Martinez, 1000 Ward St, Detention Detention Facility 161,405 161,405 LOCATION As of 1/1/91 As of 11/24/15 Amount of Sq Ft Claimed for Growth ManagementTotal Bldg Area SHERIFF'S Total Bldg Area SHERIFF'S Patrol Facilities Space in Bldg San Pablo, 2280 Giant Rd - Patrol Substation Space in Bldg Alamo, 150 Alamo Plaza Stes B+C Alama Plaza - Patrol Substation Alamo, 3240 W Stone Valley Rd - Patrol Substation Concord, 500 Sally Ride Dr - Helicopter Hanger Martinez, 1980 Muir Rd - Patrol/Investigation El Sobrante, 3796 San Pablo Dam Rd, Ste b - Aux Patrol Activities-Leased Richmond, 1555 3rd St - Joint Office w/ Richmond PD and CHP Oakley, 210 O'Hara Ave - Patrol Substation Oakley, Lauritzen's Harbor - Marine Patrol Substation - Leased Richmond, 5555 Giant Highway - Patrol Substation Richmond, 1535 Fred Jackson Way #C, N. Rich Comm Policing Annex Rodeo, 199 Parker St - Auxiliary Patrol Activities Concord, 2099 Arnold Ind, Ste C&D - Prop Svcs, Crime Lab/Patrol Support-Le Martinez, 651 Pine St/No. Wing - Administration (40% Patrol Support) Concord, 2099 Arnold Ind, Ste C - Property Svcs, Crime Lab/Patrol Support Martinez, 815 Marina Vista - Administration (40% Field Support) Total Field Enforcement Support Facilities Antioch, 212 H St - Dispatch Facility (2/3 Sheriff's) Martinez, 500 Court St - Criminalistics Laboratory (1/3 Sheriff's) (GGC) Martinez, 401 Escobar St - Property Storage (1/2 Sheriff's) Martinez, 729 Castro St - Criminalistics Laboratory (1/3 Sheriff's) Martinez, 1236 Escobar St - SFR & parking lot - storage Martinez, 821 Escobar St - Training (10% Field Operations) Martinez, 1139 Escobar St - vacant (1/2 Sheriff's) Martinez, 1122 Escobar St - Criminalistics (1/2 Sheriff's) Martinez, 30 Glacier Dr - Tech. Svcs. Admin. (30% Field Support) Martinez, 40 Glacier St - Communications Center (1/2 Sheriff's) Martinez, 823 Marina Vista - Administration (40% Field Support) Martinez, 1960 Muir Rd - Criminalistics Laboratory (1/3 Sheriff's) Martinez, 651 Pine St - Administration (40% Patrol Support) Martinez, 651 Pine St/No. Wing - Records Martinez, 2530 Arnold Dr - Records/Crime Lab Total Leased Patrol Facilities Danville, 1092 Eagle Nest Pl - Patrol Substation Byron, 1636 Discovery Bay Blvd - Auxiliary Patrol Activities Grand Total Discovery Bay, 1555 Riverlake Blvd, Ste J - Patrol Substation Grand Total Minus Leased Crockett, 1528 Pomona St - Auxiliary Patrol Activities Richmond, 1675 1st St - Auxiliary Patrol Activities Rodeo, 301 California St - Auxiliary Patrol Activities Bay Point, 642 Pt Chicago Hwy - Auxiliary Patrol Activities WC, 3003 Oak Rd, Ste 110 - Res Dep.- PH BART - Leased Total Bethel Island, 5993 Bethel Island Rd, Suite B 9 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 677 Compliance Checklist Attachments Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015‐16 and 2016‐17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 Measure J Growth Management Program Compliance Checklist 1.Action Plans YES NO N/A a. Is the jurisdiction implementing the actions called for in the applicable Action Plan for all designated Routes of Regional Significance within the jurisdiction? b. Has the jurisdiction implemented the following procedures as outlined in the Implementation Guide and the applicable Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance? i.Circulation of environmental documents, ii.Analysis of the impacts of proposed General Plan amendments and recommendation of changes to Action Plans, and iii.Conditioning the approval of projects consistent with Action Plan policies? c.Has the jurisdiction followed the procedures for RTPC review of General Plan Amendments as called for in the Implementation Guide? 2.Development Mitigation Program YES NO a. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented a local development mitigation program to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the impact mitigation costs associated with that development? b. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented the regional transportation mitigation program, developed and adopted by the applicable Regional Transportation Planning Committee, including any regional traffic mitigation fees, assessments, or other mitigation as appropriate? April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 678 Compliance Checklist Attachments Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015‐16 and 2016‐17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 3. Housing Options and Job Opportunities YES NO a. Has the jurisdiction prepared and submitted a report to the Authority demonstrating reasonable progress in providing housing opportunities for all income levels under its Housing Element? The report can demonstrate progress by (1) comparing the number of housing units approved, constructed or occupied within the jurisdiction over the preceding five years with the number of units needed on average each year to meet the housing objectives established in its Housing Element; or (2) illustrating how the jurisdiction has adequately planned to meet the existing and projected housing needs through the adoption of land use plans and regulatory systems which provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development; or (3) illustrating how its General Plan and zoning regulations facilitate improvement or development of sufficient housing to meet the Element’s objectives. Note: A copy of the local jurisdiction’s annual report to the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is sufficient. b. Does the jurisdiction’s General Plan—or other adopted policy document or report—consider the impacts that its land use and development policies have on the local, regional and countywide transportation system, including the level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided? c. Has the jurisdiction incorporated policies and standards into its development approval process that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments? April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 679 Compliance Checklist Attachments Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015‐16 and 2016‐17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 4. Traffic Impact Studies YES NO N/A a. Using the Authority’s Technical Procedures, have traffic impact studies been conducted as part of development review for all projects estimated to generate more than 100 net new peak‐hour vehicle trips? (Note: Lower traffic generation thresholds established through the RTPC’s Action Plan may apply). b. If the answer to 4.a. above is “yes”, did the local jurisdiction notify affected parties and circulate the traffic impact study during the environmental review process? 5. Participation in Cooperative, Multi‐Jurisdictional Planning YES NO a. During the reporting period, has the jurisdiction’s Council/Board representative regularly participated in meetings of the appropriate Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC), and have the jurisdiction’s local representatives to the RTPC regularly reported on the activities of the Regional Committee to the jurisdiction's council or board? (Note: Each RTPC should have a policy that defines what constitutes regular attendance of Council/Board members at RTPC meetings.) b. Has the local jurisdiction worked with the RTPC to develop and implement the Action Plans, including identification of Routes of Regional Significance, establishing Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) for those routes, and defining actions for achieving the MTSOs? c. Has the local jurisdiction applied the Authority’s travel demand model and Technical Procedures to the analysis of General Plan Amendments (GPAs) and developments exceeding specified thresholds for their effect on the regional transportation system, including on Action Plan MTSOs? April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 680 Compliance Checklist Attachments Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015‐16 and 2016‐17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 YES NO d. As needed, has the jurisdiction made available, as input into the countywide transportation computer model, data on proposed improvements to the jurisdiction’s transportation system, including roadways, pedestrian circulation, bikeways and trails, planned and improved development within the jurisdiction, and traffic patterns? 6. Five‐Year Capital Improvement Program YES NO Does the jurisdiction have an adopted five‐year capital improvement program (CIP) that includes approved projects and an analysis of project costs as well as a financial plan for providing the improvements? (The transportation component of the plan must be forwarded to the Authority for incorporation into the Authority’s database of transportation projects) 7. Transportation Systems Management Program YES NO Has the jurisdiction adopted a transportation systems management ordinance or resolution that incorporates required policies consistent with the updated model ordinance prepared by the Authority for use by local agencies or qualified for adoption of alternative mitigation measures because it has a small employment base? 8. Adoption of a voter‐approved Urban Limit Line YES NO N/A a. Has the local jurisdiction adopted and continually complied with an applicable voter‐approved Urban Limit Line as outlined in the Authority’s annual ULL Policy Advisory Letter? April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 681 Compliance Checklist Attachments Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015‐16 and 2016‐17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 b. If the jurisdiction has modified its voter‐approved ULL or approved a major subdivision or General Plan Amendment outside the ULL, has the jurisdiction made a finding of consistency with the Measure J provisions on ULLs and criteria in the ULL Policy Advisory Letter after holding a noticed public hearing and making the proposed finding publically available? 9. Adoption of the Measure J Growth Management Element YES NO N/A Has the local jurisdiction adopted a final GME for its General Plan that substantially complies with the intent of the Authority’s adopted Measure J Model GME? 10. Posting of Signs YES NO N/A Has the jurisdiction posted signs meeting Authority specifications for all projects exceeding $250,000 that are funded, in whole or in part, with Measure C or Measure J funds? 11. Maintenance of Effort (MoE) YES NO Has the jurisdiction met the MoE requirements of Measure J as stated in Section 6 of the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance (as amended)? (See the Checklist Instructions for a listing of MoE requirements by local jurisdiction.) 12. Submittal of LSM Reporting Form YES NO Has the local jurisdiction submitted a Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Reporting Form for eligible expenditures of 18 percent funds covering FY 2013‐14 and FY 2014‐15? April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 682 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 683 Compliance Checklist Attachments Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015‐16 and 2016‐17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 Supplementary Information (Required) 1. Action Plans a. Please summarize steps taken during the reporting period to implement the actions, programs, and measures called for in the applicable Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance: See Attachment A. Please note that Actions, Programs and Measures that do not include Contra Costa County are not listed. b. Attach, list and briefly describe any General Plan Amendments that were approved during the reporting period. Please specify which amendments affected ability to meet the standards in the Growth Management Element and/or affected ability to implement Action Plan policies or meet Traffic Service Objectives. Indicate if amendments were forwarded to the jurisdiction’s RTPC for review, and describe the results of that review relative to Action Plan implementation: See Attachment B. Provide a summary list of projects approved during the reporting period and the conditions required for consistency with the Action Plan: No projects during the reporting period required conditions to ensure consistency with the applicable Action Plan. 2. Development Mitigation Program Describe progress on implementation of the regional transportation mitigation program: The County participates in each Regional Transportation Planning Committee’s respective development impact fee program: Sub‐Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (WCCTAC), Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (TRANSPAC), East Contra April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 684 Compliance Checklist Attachments Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015‐16 and 2016‐17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 Costa Regional Fee & Financing Authority (TRANSPLAN), and Tri‐Valley Transportation Development Mitigation Fee Program (SWAT/TVTC). The County also administers a total of 15 Area of Benefit (AOB) programs within the unincorporated area. An AOB is a development traffic mitigation fee program, supported by County ordinances that are adopted by the County Board of Supervisors and designed to collect fees within a defined boundary area to fund road improvement projects that mitigate traffic impacts generated by new development projects. 3. Housing Options and Job Opportunities a. Please attach a report demonstrating reasonable progress in providing housing opportunities for all income levels. (Note: A copy of the local jurisdiction’s annual report to the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is sufficient). See Attachment C. The State Department of Housing and Community Development reviewed the County’s revised Housing Element in 2015 and found the element to be in full compliance with State housing element law. b. Please attach the jurisdiction’s adopted policies and standards that ensure consideration of and support for walking, bicycling, and transit access during the review of proposed development. See Attachment D. The County's Complete Streets policy ensures consideration of and support for walking, bicycling, and transit access. 4. Traffic Impact Studies Please list all traffic impact studies that have been conducted as part of the development review of any project that generated more than 100 net new peak hour vehicle trips. (Note: Lower traffic generation thresholds established through the RTPC’s Action Plan may apply). April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 685 Compliance Checklist Attachments Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 Note whether the study was consistent with the Authority’s Technical Procedures and whether notification and circulation was undertaken during the environmental review process. Pantages Bays Residential Project (Fehr & Peers): 292 AM peak hour trips and 292 PM peak hour trips. 5. Participation in Cooperative, Multi-Jurisdictional Planning No attachments necessary. During the reporting period, the County Board of Supervisors regularly participated in Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC) meetings. The County's representatives to the RTPCs regularly reported on the activities of the RTPCs to the County Board of Supervisors. The County has worked with the RTPCs to develop and implement the RTPC's Action Plans. The County has applied the Authority's travel demand model and Technical Procedures to the analysis of its General Plan Amendments and developments exceeding specified vehicle trip thresholds for their effect on the regional transportation system. 6. Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Please attach the transportation component of the most recent CIP version, if the Authority does not already have it. Otherwise, list the resolution number and date of adoption of the most recent five-year CIP. Parks and Sheriff Facilities See Attachment E. The CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities (2016-2022) was adopted on April 12, 2016. County’s Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program (CRIPP) Date of Ordinance or Resolution Adoption: April 1, 2014 Resolution or Ordinance Number: #2014/91 7. Transportation Systems Management Program Please attach a copy of the jurisdiction’s TSM ordinance, or list the date of ordinance or resolution adoption and its number. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 686 Compliance Checklist Attachments Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015‐16 and 2016‐17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 Date of Ordinance or Resolution Adoption: January 21, 2003 Resolution or Ordinance Number: #2003/02 8. Adoption of a voter‐approved Urban Limit Line The local jurisdiction’s adopted ULL is on file at the Authority offices. Please specify any actions that were taken during the reporting period with regard to changes or modifications to the voter‐approved ULL, which should include a resolution making a finding of consistency with Measure J and a copy of the related public hearing notice. The County took no actions that resulted in a change or modification to the voter‐approved ULL. 9. Adoption of the Measure J Growth Management Element Please attach the adopted Final Measure J Growth Management Element to the local jurisdiction’s General Plan. See Attachment F. 10. Posting of Signs Provide a list of all projects exceeding $250,000 within the jurisdiction, noting which ones are or were signed according to Authority specifications. 1. Stone Valley Road Bike Lane Gap Closure: $521,062.12 2. San Pablo Dam Road Walkability: $1,713,590.00 3. Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure ‐ Phase II: $408,453.50 11. Maintenance of Effort (MoE) Please indicate the jurisdiction’s MoE requirement and MoE expenditures for the past two fiscal years (FY 2013‐14 and FY 2014‐15). See the Instructions to identify the MoE requirements. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 687 Compliance Checklist Attachments Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015‐16 and 2016‐17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 MOE Requirement: $420,064 MOE Expenditures: $778,015 (2013/2014) $766,620 (2014/2015) $772,318 (2013‐2015 Average) 12. Submittal of LSM Reporting Form Please attach LSM Reporting Form for FY 2013‐14 and 2014‐15. See Attachment G. 13. Other Considerations Please specify any alternative methods of achieving compliance for any components for the Measure J Growth Management Program N/A April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 688 Compliance Checklist Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 Attachment A April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 689 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 1.Support and seek additional funding for expanding transit service, including service between Lamorinda BART stations and adjacent communities in Central County,service on Pleasant Hill Road,service to Bishop Ranch and the Tri-Valley area,and service through the Caldecott Tunnel. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 2. Support BART and CCCTA strategies that enhance transit ridership and reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage casual carpools for on-way BART ridership. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 3. Support bus headway reductions on routes providing service to the Bay Point/Colma BART line and reinstatement of direct service to important employment centers such as Pleasanton and Bishop Ranch. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 4. Support expansion of BART seat capacity through the corridor and parking capacity east of Lamorinda.REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 5. Support augmentation and expansion of, and seek funding for, subscription bus service (flex van) to BART stations and high volume ridership locations such as St. Mary's College, to provide additional transit opportunities. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 6. Support expansion of BART seat capacity through the corridor and parking capacity east of Lamorinda.REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 7. Seek funds to build and operate park and ride lots and associated BART shuttles in Lamorinda to encourage carpooling and transit ridership while reducing commute loads. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 8. Develop a Lamorinda Transit Plan to identify future community transit needs and to address the changing needs of the senior population. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 9. Support transit service that links Lamorinda bus service more directly to communities to the north and east of Lafayette. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 10. Encourage expanded Travel Demand Management (TDM) programs to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation and increase overall vehicle occupancy. Promote TDM activities including ridersharing, casual carpooling and BART pool using resources such as the SWAT TDM program and RIDES for Bay Area Commuters. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 11. Support Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs at colleges and high schools. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 12. Implement the Spare-the-Air Program. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 13. Seek funding to construct park-and-ride lots along primary arterial roads approaching SR 24 throughout Lamorinda. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 14. Support programs and projects that encourage students to take alternative modes of transportation to school to reduce demand on the roadway and increase vehicle occupancy rates. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 15. Support a collaborative effort with the Acalanes Union High School District to promote and increase ridesharing and use of transit for travel to and from t he high schools in Lamorinda. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 16. Promote alternative work opportunities including employer pre-tax benefit programs, compressed work-week schedules, flex schedules and tele- work. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST SWAT: LAMORINDA AREA April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 690 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST SWAT: LAMORINDA AREA 17. In cooperation with Lamorinda jurisdictions, develop TDM plans and provide consultations to improve mobility and decreased parking demand for new development and redevelopment. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 18. Encourage "green" commuting including ZEV and NEV vehicles, clean fuel infrastructure and car sharing.REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 19. Evaluate and seek opportunities to improve and/or build walkways/bikeway facilities between the Lamorinda BART stations and adjacent land uses and communities as outlined on the map included in the Action Plan. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions In 2015, the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study was completed. 20. Support the development of regional bicycle facilities.REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions In 2015, the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study was completed. 21. Seek funding to provide bicycle parking infrastructure at employment sites and activity centers throughout Lamorinda.REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 22. Support operational improvements that increase throughput on I-80 to reduce diversion of traffic through Lamorinda on alternative routes. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 23. Support multi-modal safety actions that encourage safe speeds with particular emphasis on access to schools. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 24. Pursue financial incentives to implement sound growth control strategies and support strengthening of growth management policies. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 25. Participate in the Regional Transportation Mitigation Program (RTMP). REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 26. Support continuation and expansion of Measure J return-to-source funds for road maintenance. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 27. Monitor and evaluate the MTSOs for all Routes of Regional Significance every four years.REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 28. Establish reciprocity agreements with jurisdictions outside of Lamorinda to mitigate the downstream impacts of proposed new devlopment projects of General Plan Amendments that could adversely affect ability to achieve the MTSOs. REGION WIDE N/A 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 29. Seek funding for an auxiliary lane on eastbound SR 24 Gateway on- ramp to Brookwood and continue completion of improvements to esatbound Brookwood off-ramp subject to specific design criteria. STATE ROUTE 24 Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction (including freeway on- ramps) (2.5 after 2030) +10%daily ridership on public transit system (BART) 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. 30. Support efforts of Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol to implement an incident management program on SR-24.STATE ROUTE 24 Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction (including freeway on- ramps) (2.5 after 2030) +10%daily ridership on public transit system (BART) 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 691 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST SWAT: LAMORINDA AREA 31. Support HOV and transit improvements in the I-680 corridor to reduce single occupant automobile use on SR 24.STATE ROUTE 24 Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction (including freeway on- ramps) (2.5 after 2030) +10%daily ridership on public transit system (BART) 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions In 2015, the County participated in the I-680 Transit Options Study. 32. Support HOV and transit improvements in the I-680 corridor to reduce single occupant automobile use on SR 24.STATE ROUTE 24 Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction (including freeway on- ramps) (2.5 after 2030) +10%daily ridership on public transit system (BART) 2013 SWAT Jurisdictions In 2015, the County participated in the I-680 Transit Options Study. 33. Seek grant(s) to study 1) access from side streets and 2) intersection configurations in the residential and commercial portions on San Pablo Dam Road and make recommendations for improvements. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction. Increase average ridership as much as possible with initial goal of achieving a 10%increase to 3,000 average weekday daily riders. 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. 34. Seek Measure J funding of HOV facility needs for San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo. Study to look at need for, feasibility, and cost of installing additional park and ride lots and HOV bypass lanes at critical congestion points in the corridor. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction. Increase average ridership as much as possible with initial goal of achieving a 10%increase to 3,000 average weekday daily riders. 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. 35. Local jurisdictions to work with the transit agencies to resolve transit stop access and amenity needs as identified by the transit agencies. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction. Increase average ridership as much as possible with initial goal of achieving a 10%increase to 3,000 average weekday daily riders. 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. 36. Improve and/or add sidewalks and/or pedestrian pathways along San Pablo Dam Road. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction. Increase average ridership as much as possible with initial goal of achieving a 10%increase to 3,000 average weekday daily riders. 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 692 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST SWAT: LAMORINDA AREA 37. Install, where appropriate, bicycle lanes as part of any future roadway improvements to the corridor. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction. Increase average ridership as much as possible with initial goal of achieving a 10%increase to 3,000 average weekday daily riders. 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. 38. Prepare letters of support to Caltrans, ACCMA, CCTA and MTC for continued improvement of high occupancy vehicle and transit capacity in the I-80 corridor to reduce traffic pressure on San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction. Increase average ridership as much as possible with initial goal of achieving a 10%increase to 3,000 average weekday daily riders. 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. 39. Work with AC Transit, BART, County Connection, WestCAT and MTC to explore feasibility of service reorganization in San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo corridor and develop recommendations to increase frequency and connectivity of bus service for people traveling between City of Richmond, San Pablo, El Sobrante and Orinda. Request annual reports from transit operators to WCCTAC and SWAT on their activities related to this action. Seek additional funds for public transit. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction. Increase average ridership as much as possible with initial goal of achieving a 10%increase to 3,000 average weekday daily riders. 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County, AC Transit, BART, County Connection, WestCAT, MTC None. 40. Support pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Camino Pablo, including BART access, to encourage alternative transportation modes, increase transit ridership, and reduce auto demand. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction. Increase average ridership as much as possible with initial goal of achieving a 10%increase to 3,000 average weekday daily riders. 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. 41. Investigate appropriate mechanisms, including maintaing existing roadway lanes and widths and restrictive signal timing, to discourage use of San Pablo Dam Road and Camino Pablo as a substitute for freeway travel. CAMINO PABLO SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better during peak period/peak direction. Increase average ridership as much as possible with initial goal of achieving a 10%increase to 3,000 average weekday daily riders. 2013 Orinda, Contra Costa County None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 693 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 1. None specified in the Action Plan Danville Boulevard Intersection LOS < 0.9 2010 Contra Costa County, Danville County development review procedures will ensure compliance with Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs). 2. Consistent with the provisions of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, control growth to meet intersection level of service standards. (p. 39) Camino Tassajara Road, East of Crow Canyon Road Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections, except volume-to- capacity ratio of ≤0.9 at the intersection with Crow Canyon. 2010 Danville, San Ramon & Contra Costa County None. 3. An initial level of development of 8,500 units may be constructed in the Dougherty Valley based on the Settlement Agreement. Up to 11,000 units may be considered pending the completion of additional traffic studies as set forth in the settlement agreement. (p.39) Camino Tassajara Road, East of Crow Canyon Road Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections, except volume-to- capacity ratio of ≤0.9 at the intersection with Crow Canyon. 2010 Danville, San Ramon & Contra Costa County None. 4. Secure funding for operational improvements.Crow Canyon Road Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.91 at intersections within San Ramon. Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections within Danville, except volume-to-capacity ration of ≤0.9 at the intersection with Camino Tassajara. 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville None. 5. Secure funding for widening to 6 lanes.Crow Canyon Road Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.91 at intersections within San Ramon. Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections within Danville, except volume-to-capacity ration of ≤0.9 at the intersection with Camino Tassajara. 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville None. 6. Improve Camino Tassajara intersection (See Camino Tassajara).Crow Canyon Road Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.91 at intersections within San Ramon. Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections within Danville, 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville None. 7. Improve geometrics of intersection of Crow Canyon/I-680 southbound off-ramp.Crow Canyon Road except volume-to-capacity ration of ≤0.9 at the intersection with Camino Tassajara. Volume-to-Capacity ratio <0.9 at intersections within Danville, except volume-to-capacity ration of ≤0.9 at the intersection with Camino Tassajara. 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville None. 8. Improve intersection at Sunset.Bollinger Canyon Road, East of I-680 Intersection LOS .91 2010 Contra Costa County & San Ramon Ongoing: the County continued to collect fees on new development to help finance this project. 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST SWAT: TRI-VALLEY AREA April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 694 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST SWAT: TRI-VALLEY AREA 9. Consistent with the provisions of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, San Ramon, Contra Costa County, Danville control growth to meet intersection level of service standards. Bollinger Canyon Road, East of Alcosta Intersection LOS .91 2010 Contra Costa County & San Ramon The County continues to convene the Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee with all affected jurisdictions, agencies and developers to monitor impacts of growth, including traffic impacts. 10. Improve intersection at Alcosta.Bollinger Canyon Road, East of Alcosta Intersection LOS .91 2010 Contra Costa County & San Ramon None. 11. Complete extension project in conjunction with the development of Dougherty Valley. Bollinger Canyon Road, East of Alcosta Intersection LOS .91 2010 Contra Costa County & San Ramon None. 12. Secure developer funding for planned widenings.Dougherty Road, North of Old Ranch Road Intersection LOS .91 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville None. 13. Put in place growth controls to insure achievement of TSOs. (p. 44) Dougherty Road, North of Bollinger Rd.Intersection LOS .91 2010 Contra Costa County, San Ramon, Danville Ongoing: County development review procedures will ensure compliance with TSOs, which are now known as Multi- modal Transportation Service Objectives or MTSOs. 14. Pursue funding for auxiliary lanes. I-680, between Central Contra Costa County and SR 84 Maintain minimum average speed of 30 MPH and a delay index of 2.0 between Contra Costa County and SR 84 No more than 5 hours of congestion south of SR 84 2010 Contra Costa Co., San Ramon, Danville None. 15. Support commute alternatives. I-680, south of SR 84 N/A 2010 All TVTC Jurisdictions None. 16. Advocate Express Bus Service.I-680, south of SR 84 N/A 2010 All TVTC Jurisdictions None. 17. Advocate HOV lanes from SR 84 to the Sunol Grade I-680, south of SR 84 N/A 2010 All TVTC Jurisdictions None. 18. Improve the operational efficiency of freeways and arterial streets through effective corridor management strategies. These strategies could include traffic operations systems and ramp metering, provided studies show that metering would effectively reduce overall delay within the corridor and not adversely affect operations of adjacent intersections. Area Wide N/A N/A Contra Costa, San Ramon, Danville The County participated in updating the Tri Valley Transportation Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. 19. (2000) Work to find sources of stable funding to support ongoing transit operations and to support new or enhanced express bus service. Area Wide N/A N/A Contra Costa, San Ramon, Danville None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 695 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) Encourage land use decisions that manage the increase of overall traffic demand: Continue to support implementation of the Measure J Growth Management Program. Continue to support higher-density development around transit hubs and downtowns. Continue to require each jurisdiction to: ◦Notice the initiation of the environmental review process for projects generating more than 100 net-new peak-hour vehicle trips. ◦ For projects that require a General Plan Amendment,identify any conflicts with Action Plan MTSOs and then,if requested,present the analysis results and possible mitigation strategies to TRANSPAC for review and comment. Include the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in the design, construction, and maintenance of development projects. Continue to implement the TRANSPAC Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program. REGION WIDE N/A Ongoing TRANSPAC Jurisdictions None. Increase HOV lane usage: ◦ Support the completion of a continuous HOV system on I-680. ◦Support consistent occupancy requirements for toll-free HOV lanes on the Benicia-Martinez Bridge and I-680. ◦ Support additional incentives for HOV users. Provide additional park-and-ride lots. REGION WIDE N/A Ongoing 2014 (Action 2- A) TRANSPAC Jurisdictions In 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved two Director's Deeds from the State of California, Department of Transportation, to the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to execute a Joint Use Agreement in connection with the Interstate 680 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Project, Martinez area. Work to improve freeway flow: Continue to monitor and evaluate operational improvements at freeway interchanges on I-680, SR-242, SR-24 and SR-4. Continue to support the completion of the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel (SR-24). Support the study oand implementation of potential regional freeway management strategies. Consider a multi-agency approach to freeway ramp metering REGION WIDE N/A Ongoing 2014 (Caldecott) TRANSPAC Jurisdictions In 2012, the Board of Supervisors adopted resolution No. 2012/509 honoring the Caldecott Fourth Bore Medallion Design Competition winners. 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST TRANSPAC AREA April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 696 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST TRANSPAC AREA Manage arterial traffic flow: ◦Seek funding for traffic and transit improvements along Regional Routes. ◦Continue to implement the Central Contra Costa Traffic Management Program. ◦Where feasible and appropriate,address the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists along Regional Routes. REGION WIDE N/A Ongoing TRANSPAC Jurisdictions In 2014, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2014/262 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to file an application for the Active Transportation Program funding for the Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure (Phase III) Pre-construction Project for up to $300,000 and committing local support and assurance to complete the project. In 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a memorandum of understanding between Contra Costa County and the City of Martinez to conduct an alignment study for the Pacheco Boulevard Improvements Project. In 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved the Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements Project and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, and authorized the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise the project April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 697 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST TRANSPAC AREA Support an efficient and effective transit system: ◦Support the development of real-time information and better connectivity for regional transit and local and feeder bus service. ◦Promote coordination of transfer times among Express bus, feeder bus, BART, and park-and-ride lots. ◦Support the expansion of BART service and BART station and parking facilities. ◦Support the construction and maintenance of accessible bus stops, park-and-ride lots, and transit hubs. ◦Support improvements that increase the efficiency of local transit on Regional Routes. ◦Support increased access to BART stations for buses and other alternative modes. ◦Support innovative approaches to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transit services for seniors and disabled persons through the allocation of Central County’s Measure J $10 million for Additional Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities. These funds are in addition to Measure J Other Countywide Programs and total $35 million in Central County. ◦Support expansion and use of park-and-ride facilities using Express and local buses. REGION WIDE N/A Ongoing TRANSPAC Jurisdictions In 2015, the County participated in the I-680 Transit Optoins Study. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 698 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST TRANSPAC AREA Increase participation in the 511 Contra Costa Program to improve multi- modal mobility and decrease single-occupant vehicle use in Central County. ◦Support the 511 Contra Costa Program to educate and encourage Contra Costa residents,students and commuters to use multi-modal alternatives by promoting transit,shuttles,carpooling,vanpooling,walking,bicycling, alternative work schedules and telecommuting. ◦Develop TDM programs at K-12 schools and colleges to encourage carpooling, transit ridership, walking and bicycling. ◦Promote alternative work opportunities including employer pre-tax benefit programs,compressed work-week schedules,flex schedules and telework. ◦Encourage commuters to make local trips or trips linked to transit by walking, bicycling, or carpooling instead of driving alone. ◦Promote park-and-ride lot use to potential carpoolers,vanpoolers,and transit riders, including shuttle services, where applicable. ◦In cooperation with Central County jurisdictions,develop TDM plans and provide consultations to improve mobility and decrease parking demand for new development and redevelopment. ◦Explore innovative new technologies to improve mobility and reduce SOV trips. ◦Seek funding to provide bicycle parking infrastructure at employment sites and activity centers throughout Central County. ◦Encourage “green”commuting,including ZEV and NEV vehicle,clean fuel infrastructure, and car sharing. REGION WIDE N/A Ongoing TRANSPAC Jurisdictions 511 Contra Costa In 2012,the Board of Supervisors authorized an application for Safe Routes to School funds for the Walnut Boulevard Pedestrian and Bike Safety Project. In 2013,the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized execution of a contract with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)to provide transportation demand management services for the Contra Costa Centre area,for the period of July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. In 2014,the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the Conservation and Development Director,or designee,to execute a contract with the Contra Costa Centre Association in an amount not to exceed $285,850 to provide transportation demand management services for the Contra Costa Centre area,for the period July 1,2014 through June 30, 2015. In 2015,the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the Conservation and Development Director,or designee,to execute a contract with the Contra Costa Centre Association in an amount not to exceed $267,515 to provide transportation demand management services for the Contra Costa Centre area for the period July 1,2015 through June 30, 2016. (100% County Service Area M-31 funds) Continue to support investment in and implementation of HOV lanes on I-680. Continue to support planned improvements to the I-680/SR-4 interchange and to SR-4. Continue to work with Solano County to manage traffic in the I- 680 corridor. Complete the I-680 HOV Express bus access stuyd funded through Regional Measure 2. INTERSTATE 680 4.0 Delay Index 2013 TRANSPAC Jurisdictions None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 699 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST TRANSPAC AREA Partner with TRANSPLAN and WCCTAC to develop a Corridor Management Plan for SR4 from East County through Central County (boundaries to be defined) including connecting and/or supporting arterials. This process will identify an MTSO(s) for SR4, actions, projects and define an approach to managing arterials in the corridor. TRANSPAC, TRANSPLAN and WCCTAC jointly will seek funding for the Corridor Management Plan from CCTA and other available sources. Support improvements to the I-680/SR-4 interchange. STATE ROUTE 4 5.0 Delay Index from Cummings Skyway (WCCTAC boundary) to Willow Pass (TRANSPLAN boundary). This MTSO is expected to be revised upon completion and adoption of the Corridor Management Plan by TRANSPLAC, TRANSPLAN and WCCTAC. 2013 TRANSPLAC Jurisdictions None. Assess possible applications of the Central Contra Costa Traffic Management Program. Complete Pacheco Transit Hub. Seek funding to widen Pacheco Boulevard to four lanes and make related improvements. Coordinate proposed improvements to the I-680/SR-4 interchange with surrounding arterials and local streets. Assess the need for improvements at the Pacheco Boulevard/Arnold Drive intersection. Work with Contra Costa County staff on coordination of the implementation of the Buchanan Airport Master Plan. PACHECO BOULEVARD Martinez: 15 MPH average speed in both directions in the AM and PM peak hours. Contra Costa County: 1.5 V/C for all intersections. 2013 Martinez, Contra Costa County None. Work with SWAT/City of Lafayette on corridor issues and, if feasible, consider development of a traffic management plan and other operational strategies for Pleasant Hill Road. PLEASANT HILL ROAD Pleasant Hill: 15 MPH average speed in both directions in the AM and PM peak hours. Contra Costa County: 1.5 V/C for all intersections. 2013 Pleasant Hill, Contra Costa County None. Assess possible application of the Central Contra Costa Traffic Management Program. TAYLOR BOULEVARD Pleasant Hill: 15 MPH average speed in both directions in the AM and PM peak hours. Contra Costa County: 1.5 V/C for all intersections. 2013 Pleasant Hill, Contra Costa County None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 700 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST TRANSPAC AREA Seek funding to improve vehicle, bus, bicycle and pedestrian access at the Pleasant Hill BART Station. TREAT BOULEVARD Concord: Average stopped delays (signal cycles to clear) at the following intersections: ◦ Clayton Road/Denkinger Road: 3 ◦ Cowell Road: 5 ◦ Oak Grove Road: 5 Walnut Creek: LOS F at Bancroft Road intersection. Contra Costa County: 1.5 V/C for all intersections. 2013 Concord, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County In 2012,the Board of Supervisors accepted the completed contract work for the Iron Horse Trail Pedestrian Overcrossing project in the Pleasant Hill/BART Station area (53%Federal Funds and 47% Redevelopment Funds). In 2012,the Board of Supervisors approved the license agreement between the City of Concord and the County for the City's use of a portion of the Iron Horse Corridor for a public trail north of Monument Boulevard to Mayette Avenue. Continue to support implementation of the East-Central Traffic Management Plan. Seek funding from Measure J/STIP for a truck-climbing lane on Kirker Pass Road toward East County. Seek funding to improve vehicle, bus, bicycle and pedestrian access at the Walnut Creek BART Station. YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD KIRKER PASS ROAD Concord: Average stopped delays as follows: ◦ Clayton Road/Kirker Pass Road: 3 ◦ Alberta Way/Pine Hollow Drive: 4 ◦ Cowell Road: 4 Walnut Creek: LOS F at both Bancroft Road and Civic Drive intersections. Contra Costa County: 1.5 V/C for all intersections. 2013 Concord, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County In 2015, the County continued to advocate for funding to complete the Kirker Pass Road Truck Climbing lane. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 701 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) SR 4 FREEWAY; SR 4 BYPASS; SR 4 NON- FREEWAY; BYRON HIGHWAY. Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle or greater during morning peak hour (SR 4 Freeway and SR 4 Bypass) Delay index less than 2.5 (SR 4 Freeway, SR 4 Bypass and SR Non-freeway);less than 2.0 (Byron Highway) Level of service E (Byron Highway);D or better at signalized intersections and E or better at non-signalized intersections on non-freeway SR 4 Transit ridership increase of 25 percent from 2000 to 2010. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. In 2015,the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No.208 with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority effective October 21,2015,to increase the amount payable to Contra Costa County by $200,000 for a new payment limit of $7,248,054 for the State Route 4 East Widening Somersville Road to State Route 160 Project. In 2015,the Board of Supervisors approved the conveyance of real property acquired for the State Route 4 East Widening Somersville Road to State Route 160 Project Segment 1,to the State of California. MARSH CREEK ROAD (east of Deer Valley Road) CAMINO DIABLO ROAD DEER VALLEY ROAD (rural portion) Delay index less than 2.0. Level of service E. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. In 2014,the Board of Supervisors approved plans, specifications,and design for the Marsh Creek Road Safety Improvements - 1 Mile East of Russelmann Park Road project. In 2014,the Board of Supervisors approved plans, specifications,and design for the Deer Valley Road Shoulder Widening project. SR 4 NON-FREEWAY (SR-160 to San Joaquin County line) VASCO ROAD CORRIDOR (including Mountain House Road) BYRON HIGHWAY Level of service D or better at signalized intersections. Level of service E or better at unsignalized intersections. Delay index less than 2.5 (from SR 160 to Balfour Road)and less than 2.0 (Balfour Road to San Joaquin County line). Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle during peak period. Delay index less than 2.5. Level of service E. Delay index less than 2.0. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. None. KIRKER PASS ROAD Delay index less than 2.0. Level of service E. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. None. 2. Implement a growth management strategy that reduces the traffic impacts of future development proposals in eastern Contra Costa County. 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST TRANSPLAN AREA 1. Implement regional transportation improvements including SR 4 freeway widening, SR 4 Bypass, Buchanan Road Bypass, SR 4 non-freeway widening from Oakley to Discovery Bay, Byron Highway Corridor capacity increases, BART extension to Hillcrest Avenue. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 702 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST TRANSPLAN AREA VASCO ROAD CORRIDOR (including Mountain House Road) Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle during peak period. Delay index less than 2.5. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. None. MARSH CREEK ROAD (east of Deer Valley Road) Delay index less than 2.0.2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. None. CAMINO DIABLO ROAD DEER VALLEY ROAD (rural portion) Level of service E.2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. None. 3. Periodically review the East County Subregional Impact Fee that pays a portion of three regional improvements: SR 4 widening from Bailey Road to SR 4 Bypass; SR 4 Bypass; and Buchanan Road Bypass. SR 4 FREEWAY; SR 4 BYPASS; BUCHANAN ROAD BYPASS Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle or greater during morning peak hour (SR 4 freeway). Delay index less than 2.5. Transit ridership increase of 25 percent from 2000 to 2010. 2010 Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, County. None. 4. Explore Commuter Rail Transit Options. Request CCTA lead an exploration of commuter rail options on existing tracks together with other agencies such as BART, Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, ACE, AMTRAK or others. SR 4 FREEWAY; SR 4 NON-FREEWAY; PARALLEL ARTERIALS Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle or greater during morning peak hour (SR 4 freeway). Delay index less than 2.5 (less than 2.0 on SR 4 non-freeway between Balfour Road and San Joaquin County line) Transit ridership increase of 25 percent from 2000 to 2010. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions, CCTA, TRANSPLAN None. 5. Intermodal Transit Centers: Develop East County BART stations as intermodal transit centers for East County. Involves improving coordination and interface between BART and bus transit; and Station area specific plans. SR 4 FREEWAY Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle or greater during morning peak hour. Delay index less than 2.5. Transit ridership increase of 25 percent from 2000 to 2010. 2010 County, Pittsburg, BART and Tri Delta Transit. None. 6. Transportation funding: Lobby for increased transportation funding at the state or regional level. SR 4 FREEWAY; VASCO ROAD CORRIDOR; BYRON HIGHWAY Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle or greater during morning peak hour (SR 4 freeway and Vasco Road Corridor). Delay index less than 2.5 (less than 2.0 on Byron Highway). Transit ridership increase of 25 percent from 2000 to 2010. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions The County engages the delegation to advocate fro increased transportation funding. 2. Implement a growth management strategy that reduces the traffic impacts of future development proposals in eastern Contra Costa County. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 703 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST TRANSPLAN AREA 7. Encourage walking and bicycling transportation: Provide improvements that encourage transportation via walking and bicycling, such as sidewalks and bicycled lanes or other facilities in conjunction with street improvement projects or new streets; and identification and elimination of physical barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel. AREAWIDE ACTIONS N/A (no MTSOs for area-wide actions).N/A All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions In 2014 the County approved the Byron Highway-Byer Road Pedestrian Improvements Project. In 2014 the County approved the Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road Sidewalk Improvements Project. In 2014 the County approved the Byron Highway-Byer Road Pedestrian Improvements Project. In 2014 the County approved the Clearland Drive Curb Ramp Project a in the Bay Point area. In 2014,the County approved Resolution No.2014/212 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director,or designee,to file an application for the Active Transportation Program (ATP)funding for the Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Project. In 2014,the County approved Resolution No.2014/211 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director,or designee,to file an application for the Active Transportation Program (ATP)funding for the Rio Vista Pedestrian Connection Project. In 2014,the County approved improvement plans for the Byron Highway- Byer Road Pedestrian Improvements in the Byron area. In 2014,the County approved plans,specifications,and design for the Pacifica Avenue Sidewalk - Inlet Drive to Mariner’s Cove Drive Project. In 2014,the County approved Amendment No.2 with Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc.,effective November 1,2014,to increase the payment limit by $150,000 to a new payment limit of $650,000 to provide additional transportation engineering services for the Bailey Road/State Route 4 Interchange Project. 8. Pursue a jobs-housing balance in East County: Work on growth policies and programs to promote more employment development, to provide an opportunity for shorter East County commutes and use available transportation capacity in what is now the “reverse commute” direction. SR 4 FREEWAY Vehicle occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle or greater during morning peak hour. Delay index less than 2.5. Transit ridership increase of 25 percent from 2000 to 2010. 2010 All TRANSPLAN jurisdictions. None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 704 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 1. Maintain pavement management systems/schedules to manage and monitor pavement needs. Area-wide Actions N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 2. Seek funding for roadway maintenance. Area-wide Actions N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 3.Acknowledge casual carpooling and work with local jurisdictions on specific issues (e.g.signage,marketing,transit coordination,drop- off and pick-up areas, and parking). Area-wide Actions N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 4.Develop a bicycle and/or pedestrian plan for West County using the update to the County-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan as a baseline for analysis. Area-wide Actions N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 5.Continue to focus on ADA compliance for pedestrians (e.g. improvements for the visually impared). Area-wide Action N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions In 2014,the Board of Supervisors approved improvement plans for curb ramps at Shawn Drive and Delmore Road,as recommended by the Public Works Director. In 2014,the Board of Supervisors approved the Giaramita Street Sidewalk Replacement Project and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act,and authorized the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise the project. 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST WCCTAC AREA April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 705 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST WCCTAC AREA 6.Work with CCTA and MTC to seek funding for bicycle and pedestrian improvements to: Complete the San Francisco Bay Trail and connectors between Alameda County and the Carquinez Bridge. Close gaps in the pedestrian system through installation of improvements such as crosswalks,sidewalks,curb cuts,islands or “holding areas,” and bus shelters. Support streetscape enhancements,where feasible,and maintenance funding. Study bicycle and pedestrian safety enahcements at the Point Molate/Bay Train/Chevron property near the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge toll plaza. Area-wide Action N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions In 2013,the Board of Supervisors approved a Memorandum of Understanding between the County and East Bay Regional Park District for the conversion and rehabilitation of a 1.7-mile segment of Carquinez Scenic Drive into a segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail. In 2012,the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the Public Works Director to execute a contract with Caltrans to continue the pedestrian improvement projects on Chesley Avenue and Market Avenue at the Union Pacific Railroad crossing. In 2014,the Board of Supervisors approved the Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure Project and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act and authorized the Public Works Director to advertise the project. In 2014,the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No.2014/213 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director,or designee,to file an application for the Active Transportation Program funding for the Appian Way Complete Streets Project for up to $500,000 and committing local support and assurance to complete the project, El Sobrante area. In 2014,the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the Public Works Director,or designee,to submit,on behalf of the County,a grant application to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for the Contra Costa Priority Development Area Planning Grant Program to conduct a planning study on San Pablo Avenue. In 2015,the Board of Supervisors approved the Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act,and authorized the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise the project. 7. Require project sponsors to routinely evaluate and address public and private project impacts on transit bus travel time and service affected on Routes of Regional Significance. Area-wide Actions N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 706 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST WCCTAC AREA 8. Encourage adoption of General Plan components that: Support a jobs/housing balance. Support the preservation of open space and in-fill developments. Support high-density transit oriented development of residential, commercial and mixed use development,especially around rail stations and transit hubs. Incorporate transit-supporting goals and policies in the circulation element, such as designation of a network of transit streets. Monitor development and implementation projects on or near the san Pablo Avenue corridor and the El Cerrito BART stations,as a designated ABAG FOCUS Priority Development Area. Area-wide Actions N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 9.Work with BAAQMD to alert residents of air quality problem days with the “Spare the Air” campaign. Area-wide Actions N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 10. Work with schools/Districts to prepare a needs assessment of the sidewalk and bicycle facilities along school routes to promote safe access to schools. Area-wide Actions N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 11. Continue support of Street Smarts Program to promote increase in public safety education and reduction in pedestrian and bicycle injury incidents and actively seek State and Federal Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes to Transit grant funding. Area-wide Actions N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 12.Seek funding for installation of intersection signal emergency service vehicle preemption to permit faster response times. Area-wide Actions N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 13. Work with CCTA, MTC, Caltrans, WCCTAC and WCCTAC jurisdictions to complete a West County goods movement study to reduce impacts on West County roadways and ensure efficient goods movement. Seek funding to study goods movement issues such as truck activity increases, truck and rail interaction, and designation of truck routes to address increased goods movement. Area-wide Actions N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 14.WCCTAC staff will prepare a Climate Change report specific to West County in coordination with the biennial Growth Management Compliance Checklist (with the collaboration of the member agencies – local jurisdictions and transit operators –and other transportation colleagues)for presentation to the WCCTAC Board through 2010.The Report will highlight the transportation and transportation-related actions that have been achieved that affect GHG emissions. Area-wide Action N/A 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 15. Create truck access routes to the Richmond Parkway that minimize truck traffic through residential areas. RICHMOND PARKWAY Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on Richmond Parkway. 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 707 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST WCCTAC AREA 16. Participate in the planning and review of the proposed Point Molate Casino and Sugarbowl Casino in North Richmond RICHMOND PARKWAY Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on Richmond Parkway. 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 17. Plan and implement improvements identified by the North Richmond Truck Study adjacent to Richmond Parkway. RICHMOND PARKWAY Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on Richmond Parkway. 2013 WCCTAC, Richmond, Contra Costa County None. 18. Support improvement to the Richmond Parkway Bay Trail crossing at Wildcat Creek. RICHMOND PARKWAY Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on Richmond Parkway. 2013 WCCTAC, Richmond, Contra Costa County, San Pablo None. 19. Study potential roadway modifications to permit transit service improvements on Richmond Parkway and pedestrian crossings. RICHMOND PARKWAY Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on Richmond Parkway. 2013 WCCTAC, AC Transit, Richmond, Contra Costa County None. 20.Study traffic improvement and management options to discourage diversion from I-80 and encourage diverted traffic to return to I-80 on the next downstream feeder road.Clearly identify feeder roads to motorists that will take them back to I-80,particularly at Appian Way, Hilltop Drive,El Portal Drive,and San Pablo Dam Road.Include study of diversion traffic and reduction in diversion traffic as part of the I-80 ICM project and San Pablo SMART corridor. SAN PABLO AVENUE Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Avenue. 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions, Caltrans In 2012,the Board of Supervisors authorized the Public Works Director to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans for the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) Project. 21. Work with CCTA and MTC to seek funding to: Develop bike route links to the Bay Trail such as the Richmond Greenway,Wildcat Creek Trail,Pinole Valley Road,and John Muir Parkway as alternate bicycle facilities to San Pablo Avenue. Improve bicycle and pedestrian access to the West County BART stations. SAN PABLO AVENUE Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Avenue. 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions, BART, AC Transit, WestCAT, Contra Costa Health Services None. 22. Complete a corridor-wide specific plan for San Pablo Avenue through coordination of each partner jurisdiction, building upon the specific plans prepared by the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito as well as the County of Contra Costa (and potentially San Pablo). SAN PABLO AVENUE Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Avenue. 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions, BART, AC Transit None. 23.Partner with ABAG on development of San Pablo Avenue,El Cerrito del Norte BART station,Hercules New Town Center and Hercules Waterfront as well as other Priority Development Areas. SAN PABLO AVENUE Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Avenue. 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 24.Seek funding for construction of completed plans for San Pablo Avenue SMART Corridor extension to Crockett.SAN PABLO AVENUE Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Avenue. 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions None. 25. Seek funding for SMART Corridors O&M.SAN PABLO AVENUE Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Avenue. 2013 WCCTAC Jurisdictions, CCTA None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 708 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST WCCTAC AREA 26. Work with transit agencies and jurisdictions to resolve transit access and amenity needs as identified by the transit agencies. SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain San Pablo Dam Road transit ridership of 3,000 passengers per weekday by year 2012. Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Dam Road. Achieved in 2005 2013 WCCTAC, AC Transit, Contra Costa County, Richmond, San Pablo None. 27.Work with CCTA and MTC to develop recommendations to increase the frequency and connectivity of bus service for riders traveling between the cities of Richmond,San Pablo,El Sobrante, Pinole and Orinda. SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain San Pablo Dam Road transit ridership of 3,000 passengers per weekday by year 2012. Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Dam Road. 2013 WCCTAC, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo, Contra Costa County, AC Transit, BART None. 28.Seek grant funding from CCTA and MTC to study intersection configurations and signal coordination in the residential and commercial portions and San Pablo Dam Road. SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain San Pablo Dam Road transit ridership of 3,000 passengers per weekday by year 2012. Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Dam Road. 2013 WCCTAC, Richmond, San Pablo, Contra Costa County None. 29.Utilize completed roadway alignment study of San Pablo Dam Road between Appian Way and Tri Lane to adopt road design standards,a capital improvement program for infrastructure improvements, and zoning. SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain San Pablo Dam Road transit ridership of 3,000 passengers per weekday by year 2012. Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Dam Road. 2013 Richmond, Contra Costa County None. 30.Coordinate any vehicle,pedestrian and bicycle improvements with the findings of recently completed Downtown El Sobrante couplet study.Based on the findings of this study,potentially add and coordinate signals in commercial core as well as improve pedestrian and bicycle access through installation of pedestrian corsswalks,traffic calming measures,school safety measure and streetscape improvements. SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain San Pablo Dam Road transit ridership of 3,000 passengers per weekday by year 2012. Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Dam Road. 2013 WCCTAC, Contra Costa County, Caltrans, Richmond, San Pablo, Contra Costa Health Services In 2012,the Board of Supervisors approved the San Pablo Dam Road Walkability Project and authorized the Public Works Director to advertise the project. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 709 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST WCCTAC AREA 31. Plan, design, fund and implement improvements to I-80/San Pablo Dam Road interchange. SAN PABLO DAM ROAD Maintain San Pablo Dam Road transit ridership of 3,000 passengers per weekday by year 2012. Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Dam Road. 2013 WCCTAC, San Pablo, Richmond, Caltrans, CCTA, Contra Costa County In 2012,the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized execution of a contract with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)to provide right-of-way services to CCTA for the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Project. In 2013,the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized execution of an agreement with Caltrans, City of San Pablo and CCTA for the exercise of the power of eminent domain for the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Project. In 2013,the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution of Necessity No.2013/475 for acquisition by eminent domain of real property required for the I- 80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Project - Phase 1. 32.Based on the findings of the Downtown El Sobrante Study,work with CCTA and MTC to fund construction of any vehicle,pedestrian, and bicycle improvements.Modifications may include widening Appian Way to four lanes from Valley View Road in unincorporated Contra Costa County to Michael Drive in the City of Pinole.Additional modifications may include improved pedestrian and bicycle access through installation of pedestrian crosswalks,traffic calming measures, and streetscape improvements. APPIAN WAY Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on Appian Way. 2013 WCCTAC, Contra Costa County, Pinole In 2013,the County adopted the Appian Way Alternatives Analysis and Complete Streets Study. 33.Encourage traffic safety and operational improvements including the planned extension of the existing truck climbing lane on Cummings Skyway approximately 2 miles. CUMMINGS SKYWAY Maintain LOS “D” or better on all segments on Cummings Skyway.2013 WCCTAC, Contra Costa County None. 34.Design and fund the Cummings Skyway Class II bike lane project between Corockett Boulevard and Franklin Canyon Road.CUMMINGS SKYWAY Maintain LOS “D” or better on all segments on Cummings Skyway.2013 WCCTAC, Contra Costa County None. 35.Seek grant funding to develop and implement a signal coordination plan for El Portal Drive.EL PORTAL DRIVE Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on El Portal Drive. 2013 WCCTAC, San Pablo, Contra Costa County None. 36.Plan,fund,and implement bike route improvements to create a continuous bike route to Contra Costa College.EL PORTAL DRIVE Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on El Portal Drive. 2013 WCCTAC, San Pablo, Contra Costa County None. 37. Support implementation of the El Portal Gateway Project.EL PORTAL DRIVE Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on El Portal Drive. 2013 WCCTAC, San Pablo, Contra Costa County None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 710 Relevant Action Plan Policy Route(s) of Regional Signficance Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective Schedule to Achieve Affected Jurisdictions Implentation Status as of December 31, 2015 (Actions since last Checklist are in Italics.) 2014 AND 2015 MEASURE J COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST WCCTAC AREA 38.Monitor requirement for changes or additions to the El Portal Drive interchange ramps as part of the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road interchange construction project. EL PORTAL DRIVE Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on El Portal Drive. 2013 WCCTAC, San Pablo, Richmond, Caltrans, CCTA, Contra Costa County None. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 711 Compliance Checklist Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 Attachment B April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 712 General Plan Amendments 2014 and 2015 General Plan Amendments Meet Growth Management Element Standards Meet MTSOs RTPC Reviewed (GPAs) Results of RTPC Review (GPAs) 1 Name: Dougherty Valley Specific Plan Amendment for New Elementary School N/A N/A N/A. County was not the lead agency in processin g this GPA. N/A Location: Dougherty Valley/South Contra Costa County Applicant: Shapell Homes County File: GP12-0004 Description: Change General Plan land use designation from Single-Family Residential – High Density (SH) to Public/Semi-Public (PS) and from Parks and Recreation (PR) to Multiple-Family Residential – Low Density (ML). Adopted: February 11, 2014 Resolution #: 2014/32 Calendar Year: 2014 Net New Peak Hour Trips: None 2 Name: Name: Heritage Point Mixed Use Project Yes Yes Yes No Commen ts Location: North Richmond/West Contra Costa County Applicant: Community Housing and Development Corp. County File: GP13-0004 Description: Change General Plan land use designation from Commercial (CO) and Single-Family Residential – High Density (SH) to Mixed Use (MU). Adopted: May 5, 2015 Resolution #: 2015/128 Calendar Year: 2015 Net New Peak Hour Trips: 56 A.M. and 64 P.M. 3 Name: QLC – Pomona Street (Rolph Park Subdivision) Yes Yes No N/A Location: Crockett/West Contra Costa County Applicant: QLC Management, LLC County File: GP09-0002 Description: Change General Plan land use designation from Open Space (OS) to Single- Family Residential – High Density (SH). Adopted: July 28, 2015 Resolution #: None Calendar Year: 2015 Net New Peak Hour Trips: 9 A.M. and 9 P.M. 4 Name: Driftwood Estates Yes Yes No N/A Location: Bay Point/East Contra Costa County Applicant: DeNova Homes County File: GP13-0002 Description: Change General Plan land use designation from Single-Family Residential – Medium Density (SM) to Single-Family Residential – High Density (SH). Adopted: July 28, 2015 Resolution #: None Calendar Year: 2015 Net New Peak Hour Trips: 50 A.M. and 50 P.M. 5 Name: Pantages Bays Yes Yes Yes No Commen ts Location: Discovery Bay/East Contra Costa County Applicant: Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC County File: GP99-0008 Description: Change General Plan land use designations from Agricultural Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation (DR) to Single-Family Residential – Medium Density (SM) to Single-Family Residential – High Density (SH). Adopted: October 6, 2015 Resolution #: None Calendar Year: 2015 Net New Peak Hour Trips: 292 A.M. and 292 P.M. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 713 Compliance Checklist Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 Attachment C April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 714 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 715 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodPursuant to GC 65400 local governments must provide by April 1 of each year the annual report for the previous calendar year to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). By checking the “Final” button and clicking the “Submit” button, you have submitted the housing portion of your annual report to HCD only. Once finalized, the report will no longer be available for editing.The report must be printed and submitted along with your general plan report directly to OPR at the address listed below: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044CONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2013 12/31/2013April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES716 Mobile Homes MH Renter 010 0 0 100Modular and Mobile Homes includingon-site teacher rental housing(9) Total of Moderate and Above Moderate from Table A310 270(10) Total by Income Table A/A3010 10 270(11) Total Extremely Low-IncomeUnits*0-ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodAffordability by Household IncomesVery Low-IncomeProject Identifier(may be APN No., project name or address)Unit CategoryNote below the number of units determined to be affordable without financial or deed restrictions and attach an explanation how the jurisdiction determined the units were affordable. Refer to instructions.8Housing without Financial Assistanceor Deed Restrictions4Table A5aHousing with Financial Assistance and/or Deed Restrictions67Housing Development Information53Low-IncomeModerate-IncomeAboveModerate-IncomeTotal Unitsper Project1TenureR=RenterO=Owner2Deed RestrictedUnitsEst. # Infill Units*See InstructionsSee InstructionsAssistance Programs for Each DevelopmentAnnual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction Very Low-, Low-, and Mixed-Income Multifamily ProjectsCONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2013 12/31/2013* Note: These fields are voluntaryApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES717 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting Period(3) Acquisition of Units(2) Preservation of Units At-Risk(5) Total Units by IncomeActivity TypeVery Low-IncomeAnnual Building Activity Report Summary - Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired pursuant to GC Section 65583.1(c)(1)(1) Rehabilitation ActivityAffordability by Household IncomesPlease note: Units may only be credited to the table below when a jurisdiction has included a program it its housing element to rehabilitate, preserve or acquire units to accommodate a portion of its RHNA whichmeet the specific criteria as outlined in GC Section 65583.1(c)(1) Low-IncomeTable A2* Note: This field is voluntary(4) The Description should adequately document how each unit complies with subsection (c )(7) of Government Code Section 65583.1TOTAL UNITSExtremely Low-Income*CONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2013 12/31/20130 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES718 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting Period6.TotalNo. of Units Permittedfor Above Moderate1.Single FamilyNo. of Units Permittedfor Moderate2.2 - 4 Units3.5+ Units7.Number of infillunits*5.Mobile HomesAnnual building Activity Report Summary for Above Moderate-Income Units(not including those units reported on Table A)4.Second UnitTable A3* Note: This field is voluntaryCONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2013 12/31/201301000010027000002700April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES719 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodYear8Year7Year5Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Remaining Need for RHNA Period ► ► ► ► ► Year1Total Units to Date (all years)LowNon-Restricted Very LowDeed RestrictedNon-RestrictedYear4Note: units serving extremly low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals.Total Units ► ► ► Deed Restricted Enter Calendar Year starting with the first year of the RHNA allocation period. See Example.Year3 Above Moderate ModerateYear2 Permitted Units Issued by AffordabilityRHNA Allocation by Income LevelTotal Remaining RHNAby Income LevelYear9Year6Total RHNA by COG.Enter allocation number:Income LevelTable B CONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2013 12/31/201381500000000000000000008155980000000001000000000105886870000100000106771408000174 270 000-4449643508000174 290 00004643044April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES720 10. New Construction of Affordable Housing Increase the supply of affordable housing Ongoing Habitat for Humanity East Bay is seeking entitlements to build 20 affordableunits in Bay Point. The County has financed an additional 390 units in thecities.11. Inclusionary HousingIntegrate affordable housing withinmarket-rate developments.Ongoing In response to the Palmer decision, the County reduced the rental in-lieu fee to$0. Two applications for for-sale housing would require 9 affd units.12. Acquisition/ RehabilitationImprove existing housing and increasesupply of affordable housingOngoing No new applications for HOME or CDBG funds were submitted in 2013.13. Second UnitsFacilitate the development of secondunits.Ongoing On 3/15/11, the B/S amended the 2nd unit ordinance to facilitate approval of2nd unit applications.14. Special Needs HousingIncrease the supply of special needshousing.Ongoing The County provided CDBG and HOME funds to developers for the Belle Terre(Lafayette), and Berrellesa Palms (Martinez) projects. Both will providehousing for frail seniors. 15. Accessible HousingIncrease the supply of accessiblehousing.Ongoing The County continues to require accessible units in all new constructionprojects that receive HOME or CDBG funding. Accessible units are included inrehabilitation projects when feasible.-ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodProgram Description(By Housing Element Program Names)Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583.Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.Name of Program ObjectiveTimeframein H.E.Status of Program ImplementationProgram Implementation StatusTable CCONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2013 12/31/2013April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES721 15a. ReasonableIncrease the supply of special needs andaccessible housing.Ongoing On 7/26/11, the Board of Supervisors approved a land use permit for BonitaHouse to operate a adult residential care facility for 10 adults in Knightsen.16.Contra Costa Interagency Council on Homelessness Meet the housing & supportive servicesneeds of the homelessOngoing CCICH continues to support the development of permanent supportivehousing.17. First-Time Homebuyer OpportunitiesProvide additional homeownershipopportunities.Ongoing The County provided 11 Neighborhood Stabilization Program loans to low,moderate, and middle income homebuyers.18. Section 8 Rental AssistanceAssist very low-income households withrental payments.PreparePHAP ¿Action Planannually.The Housing Authority continues to prepare its annual Action Plan and provideSection 8 housing vouchers19. Home Sharing ProgramProvide for home sharing opportunities. Ongoing No new activities to report in 2013.19a. Extremely LowPromote development of housingaffordable to extremely low incomehouseholds.Ongoing The County continues to provide funding preferences to developers whoinclude units that are affordable to extremely-low income households.20. Sites InventoryProvide for adequate housing sites,including ¿as-right development¿ sites forhomeless facilitiesJune 2010 forzoningchanges.The County uses Accela to track permits and development activity21. Mixed-Use DevelopmentsEncourage mixed-use developments. Ongoing Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment (County File: GP#02-0003)was approved June 28, 2011, which established mixed use designations alongSan Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way corridors. P-1 (Planned Unit) Districtzoning was approved in 2013.22. Density Bonus & Other Development Incentives Support affordable housing development. Ongoing Two applicants are seeking General Plan Amendments instead of densitybonuses.23. Infill DevelopmentFacilitate infill development.Ongoing GIS based land use inventory system has been developed to identify lotszoned for residential use that are suitable for lot consolidation to improvedevelopment footprint.23a. North RichmondPrepare and process Specific Plan toconvert a 100 (+/-) acre industrial area inNorth Richmond to new residentialneighborhood with potentially 2100 newdwelling units.December2010All work on the North Richmond Specific Plan (Plan) is suspended indefinitely.The preparation of the Plan was being funded by the County RedevelopmentAgency (RDA), which funding was lost with the elimination of redevelopmentagencies. The draft Plan assumed that financing and construction of requiredinfrastructure would be substantially funded through the RDA. No other publicor private entity has come forward to replace the RDA as the applicant.24. Planned Unit DistrictProvide flexibility in design for residentialprojectsOngoing The El Sobrante P-1 was approved in 201325. Planning FeesReduce the cost of development. Ongoing The County offered fee deferrals from December 2009 until December 31,April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES722 2011. No developers took advantage of the program26. Streamlining of Permit ProcessingExpedite review of residential projects Ongoing27. Review of Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance Ensure County regulations do notunnecessarily constrain housingdevelopment.a)June 2010b)OngoingThe draft ordinance is under staff review.28. Anti-Discrimination ProgramPromote fair housing.Completeupdate to theAI by 2010and ongoingprovision ofservices.The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice was by the Board ofSupervisors on 5/25/2010.29. Residential Displacement ProgramLimit number of households beingdisplaced or relocated.Ongoing The County strives to limit displacement or relocation.1. Neighborhood Preservation Program Improve the quality of existing housing &neighborhoods.Ongoing 38 homes in the CDBG Urban County were rehabilitated. 2. HACCC Rental Rehabilitation Assistance Improve the quality of the rental housingstock.Ongoing This program has been discontinued due to lack of production and decreasingresources to support the program.3. Public Housing ImprovementMaintain and improve the quality of thepublic housing stockOngoing The Housing Authority continues to invest approximately $1.7 million annual inrepair and improvements of its public housing.4. Weatherization ProgramAssist homeowners and renters withminor home repairs.Ongoing 2013 - 360 units weatherized in County cities, towns, and communities. Thedecrease represents a return to pre-stimulus funding levels.5. Code EnforcementMaintain & improve the quality of existinghousing & neighborhoods.Ongoing Program is continuing with a 50% staff reduction from 2009 levels. 2013 had890 cases opened and 796 cases closed. Approximately 87% are residential6. Rental InspectionIdentify blighted and deteriorated housingstock and ensure the rehabilitation ofabatement of housing that does notcomply with State and local building code.Ongoing The program was been suspended due to budget cuts in 2009.7. Housing Successor (formerly RedevelopmentReplacement Housing)Provide replacement housing to lower- &moderate-income households.Assessreplacementobligationsevery 2-3yearsThe Housing Successor is in compliance with its replacement housingobligations.8. Condominium Conversion OrdinancePreserve the rental stock & protectapartment tenants.Ongoing There were no condominium conversion requests in this reporting periodApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES723 9. Preservation of Assisted HousingPreserve the existing stock of affordablehousing.OngoingApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES724 Table B above does not include information for the first three years of the reporting period. Actual accomplishments are as follows: Units to Date RemainingVery low 88 727Low 53 545Moderate 330 357Above Moderate 1,672 -264TOTAL 2,143 1,365-ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodGeneral Comments:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2013 12/31/2013April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES725 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodPursuant to GC 65400 local governments must provide by April 1 of each year the annual report for the previous calendar year to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). By checking the “Final” button and clicking the “Submit” button, you have submitted the housing portion of your annual report to HCD only. Once finalized, the report will no longer be available for editing.The report must be printed and submitted along with your general plan report directly to OPR at the address listed below: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044CONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2014 12/31/2014April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES726 Muir Ridge, Martinez area SF Owner 220 044 HOMEInvestmentPartnerships Act4(9) Total of Moderate and Above Moderate from Table A332 237(10) Total by Income Table A/A322 32 237(11) Total Extremely Low-IncomeUnits*0-ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodAffordability by Household IncomesVery Low-IncomeProject Identifier(may be APN No., project name or address)Unit CategoryNote below the number of units determined to be affordable without financial or deed restrictions and attach an explanation how the jurisdiction determined the units were affordable. Refer to instructions.8Housing without Financial Assistanceor Deed Restrictions4Table A5aHousing with Financial Assistance and/or Deed Restrictions67Housing Development Information53Low-IncomeModerate-IncomeAboveModerate-IncomeTotal Unitsper Project1TenureR=RenterO=Owner2Deed RestrictedUnitsEst. # Infill Units*See InstructionsSee InstructionsAssistance Programs for Each DevelopmentAnnual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction Very Low-, Low-, and Mixed-Income Multifamily ProjectsCONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2014 12/31/2014* Note: These fields are voluntaryApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES727 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting Period(3) Acquisition of Units(2) Preservation of Units At-Risk(5) Total Units by IncomeActivity TypeVery Low-IncomeAnnual Building Activity Report Summary - Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired pursuant to GC Section 65583.1(c)(1)(1) Rehabilitation ActivityAffordability by Household IncomesPlease note: Units may only be credited to the table below when a jurisdiction has included a program it its housing element to rehabilitate, preserve or acquire units to accommodate a portion of its RHNA whichmeet the specific criteria as outlined in GC Section 65583.1(c)(1) Low-IncomeTable A2* Note: This field is voluntary(4) The Description should adequately document how each unit complies with subsection (c )(7) of Government Code Section 65583.1TOTAL UNITSExtremely Low-Income*CONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2014 12/31/20140 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES728 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting Period6.TotalNo. of Units Permittedfor Above Moderate1.Single FamilyNo. of Units Permittedfor Moderate2.2 - 4 Units3.5+ Units7.Number of infillunits*5.Mobile HomesAnnual building Activity Report Summary for Above Moderate-Income Units(not including those units reported on Table A)4.Second UnitTable A3* Note: This field is voluntaryCONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2014 12/31/201417001323232237000023765April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES729 -ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodYear8Year7Year5Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Remaining Need for RHNA Period ► ► ► ► ► Year1Total Units to Date (all years)LowNon-Restricted Very LowDeed RestrictedNon-RestrictedYear4Note: units serving extremly low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals.Total Units ► ► ► Deed Restricted Enter Calendar Year starting with the first year of the RHNA allocation period. See Example.Year3 Above Moderate ModerateYear2 Permitted Units Issued by AffordabilityRHNA Allocation by Income LevelTotal Remaining RHNAby Income LevelYear9Year6Total RHNA by COG.Enter allocation number:Income LevelTable B CONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2014 12/31/2014815000000000020000000281359800000000010200000001258668700001032000426451408000174 270 237 00-6817273508000174 290 273 0007372771April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES730 Neighborhood Preservation ProgramImprove the quality of existing housing &neighborhoods.Ongoing 20 homes in the CDBG Urban County were rehabilitated. HACCC Rental Rehabilitation Assistance Improve the quality of the rental housingstock.Ongoing This program was discontinued due to lack of production and decreasingresources to support the program.Public Housing ImprovementMaintain and improve the quality of thepublic housing stock.Ongoing The Housing Authority continues to invest approximately $1.6 million annual inrepair and improvements of its public housing.Weatherization ProgramAssist homeowners and renters withminor home repairs.Ongoing 274 units weatherized in County cities, towns, and communities. Condominium Conversion OrdinancePreserve the rental stock & protectapartment tenants.Ongoing There were no condominium conversion requests in this reporting period.Second UnitsFacilitate the development of secondunits.Ongoing 14 permits second units were issued in 2014.Contra Costa Interagency Council on Homelessness(CCICH)Meet the housing & supportive servicesneeds of the homelessOngoing CCICH continues to support the development of permanent supportivehousing.-ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodProgram Description(By Housing Element Program Names)Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583.Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.Name of Program ObjectiveTimeframein H.E.Status of Program ImplementationProgram Implementation StatusTable CCONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2014 12/31/2014April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES731 Sites InventoryProvide for adequate housing sites,including ¿as-right development¿ sites forhomeless facilitiesJune 2010 forzoningchanges.The sites inventory was updated and included in the Fifth Housing Element.Density Bonus & Other Development Incentives Support affordable housing development. Ongoing Three applicants (Driftwood Estates, Heritage Point, and Pacifica Avenue) areseeking General Plan amendments and will provide affordable housing underthe Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements. Infill DevelopmentFacilitate infill development.Ongoing GIS based land use inventory system has been developed to identify lotszoned for residential use that are suitable for lot consolidation to improvedevelopment footprint.North Richmond Specific PlanPrepare and process Specific Plan toconvert a 100 (+/-) acre industrial area inNorth Richmond to new residentialneighborhood with potentially 2100 newdwelling units.December2010All work on the North Richmond Specific Plan (Plan) is suspended indefinitely.The preparation of the Plan was being funded by the County RedevelopmentAgency (RDA), which funding was lost with the elimination of redevelopmentagencies. The draft Plan assumed that financing and construction of requiredinfrastructure would be substantially funded through the RDA. No other publicor private entity has come forward to replace the RDA as the applicant.Planned Unit DistrictProvide flexibility in design for residentialprojects.Ongoing The El Sobrante P-1 was approved in 2013.Planning FeesReduce the cost of development. Ongoing The County offered fee deferrals from December 2009 until December 31,2011. No developers took advantage of the program.Streamlining of Permit ProcessingExpedite review of residential projects Ongoing Continued implementationReview of Zoning & Subdivision OrdinanceEnsure County regulations do notunnecessarily constrain housingdevelopment.a) June 2010,(b) OngoingThe Homeless Shelter and SRO Ordinance was adopted by the Board ofSupervisors on November 4, 2014. A draft farmworker ordinance is expected in Spring 2015.Anti-Discrimination ProgramPromote fair housing.Completeupdate to theAI by 2010and ongoingprovision ofservices.The AI was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on 5/25/2010. The County continues to support fair housing counseling and legal rightsorganizations with its CDBG funds.Residential Displacement ProgramLimit number of households beingdisplaced or relocated.Ongoing The County strives to limit displacement or relocation.Mixed-Use DevelopmentsEncourage mixed-use developments. Ongoing Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment (County File: GP#02-0003)was approved June 28, 2011, which established mixed use designations alongSan Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way corridors. P-1 (Planned Unit) Districtzoning was approved in 2013.April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES732 Extremely Low Income HousingPromote development of housingaffordable to extremely low incomehouseholds.Ongoing The County continues to provide funding preferences to developers whoinclude units that are affordable to extremely-low income households.Home Sharing ProgramProvide for home sharing opportunities. Ongoing No activities to report in 2014.Section 8 Rental AssistanceAssist very low-income households withrental payments.PreparePHAP ¿Action Planannually.The Housing Authority continues to prepare its annual Action Plan and provideSection 8 housing vouchersFirst-Time Homebuyer OpportunitiesProvide additional homeownershipopportunities.Ongoing The County provided 54 MCCs throughout the County. Habitat for Humanitypulled the first 4 of 12 building permits for the Muir Ridge development.Reasonable AccomodationIncrease the supply of special needs andaccessible housing.June 2011 County updated the County reasonable accommodation policy.Accessible HousingIncrease the supply of accessiblehousing.Ongoing The County continues to require accessible units in all new constructionprojects that receive HOME or CDBG funding. Accessible units are included inrehabilitation projects when feasible.Special Needs HousingIncrease the supply of special needshousing.Ongoing No new projects in 2014. Third Ave apartments in Walnut Creek is underconstruction. Third Ave will have 17 units reserved for individuals withdevelopmental disabilities, and an additional 2 units for persons with HIV/AIDs.Acquisition/ RehabilitationImprove existing housing and increasesupply of affordable housing.Ongoing RCD was awarded CDBG funds to rehabilitate the 23 unit Church Laneapartments in San Pablo.Inclusionary HousingIntegrate affordable housing withinmarket-rate developments.Ongoing In response to the Palmer decision, the County reduced the rental in-lieu fee to$0. Applications for 85 units of for-sale housing would require 12 affordableunits.Code EnforcementMaintain & improve the quality of existinghousing & neighborhoods.Ongoing 958 cases opened and 957 cases closed. Approximately 90 percent areresidential.Rental InspectionIdentify blighted and deteriorated housingstock and ensure the rehabilitation ofabatement of housing that does notcomply with State and local building code.Ongoing The program was suspended in 2009. Deteriorated properties are identified bycode enforcement.Redevelopment Replacement Housing Provide replacement housing to lower- &moderate-income households.Assessreplacementobligationsevery 2-3yearsThe Housing Successor is in compliance with former redevelopment agencyreplacement housing obligations.Preservation of Affordable Housing with Public Preserve the existing stock of affordable Monitor at-risk Rivershore Apartments in Bay Point is at risk of converting to market rate inApril 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES733 Assistancehousing.units.Participate inpreservationof units.Conducttenant educ2017. No activities have occurred yet related to this potential conversion.New Construction of Affordable Housing Increase the supply of affordable housing. Ongoing Habitat for Humanity East Bay is seeking entitlements to build 20 affordableunits in Bay Point and its Muir Ridge project in the Martinez area beganconstruction on 12 affordable homes. The County has financed additional 204units in the cities.April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES734 The total number of units permitted (adding the first three years to the total in Table B above) are:Very-low income - 90 units (725 remaining)Low income - 55 units (543 remaining)Moderate income - 327 (357 remaining)Above moderate income - 1,941 (533 over goal)Total - 2,416 (1,092 remaining)-ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202 )JurisdictionReporting PeriodGeneral Comments:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY01/01/2014 12/31/2014April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES735 Compliance Checklist Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 Attachment D April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 736 5. Transportation and Circulation Element 5-9 o Streets should be designed, maintained according to the “Complete Streets” philosophy, which accomplishes the following: - Specifies that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles and users, and motorists, of all ages and abilities. - Aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network. - Recognizes the need for flexibility: that all streets are different and user needs will be balanced. - Is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads. - Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right of way. - Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high-level approval of exceptions. - Directs the use of the latest and best design standards. - Directs that complete streets solutions fit in with context of the community. - Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes. o Some of the specific approaches proposed in this Element for both near-term and longer-term solutions include the following: - Place limits on the capacity of streets and highways which enter the County (near-term). - Improve the reliability and convenience of inter and intra-County transit service (longer-term). - Close gaps in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks. Work towards a continuous, safe, and reliable network of alternatives to automobiles that covers local and regional attractions (long term). - Expand roadways and plan for new roadways where feasible and appropriate (longer-term). - Accept congestion as an inevitable traffic condition for single occupancy automobiles during rush hours (near-term). - Improve the design of new development to provide alternative routes for circulation on the roadway system (near- and longer-term). - Improve the design of new development to provide convenient use of alternative forms of transportation (near- and longer-term). - Encourage ride sharing and staggered work hour programs (near-term). - Construct HOV lanes and on-ramp metering lights along commute corridors (near-term). - Support new development that provides for a mix of land uses which complement each other, encourage shared parking, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (near- and longer- term). -Establish Pedestrian Districts in selected locations using the MTC Pedestrian District Study as a guideline (longer-term). 5.6 ROADWAYS AND TRANSIT INTRODUCTION The need for roadway and transit facilities is most directly tied to the land use patterns set forth in the Land Use Element. As described above, buildout of the land use plan through the year 2020, together with anticipated growth outside of the County, would place excessive demands on the existing circulation infrastructure in the County. The goals, policies and implementation measures set forth in this section, together with those in the Growth Management Element, are intended to address the future circulation needs of Contra Costa County. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 737 5. Transportation and Circulation Element 5-20 reactions. TDM measures usually: 1) involve lower capital costs; 2) provide incentives designed to modify travel demand; 3) are implemented by local government or the private sector, and 4) give all travel modes equal consideration in providing access to development. The County currently promotes TDM strategies in unincorporated areas through certain County ordinances. The County should continue to monitor the effectiveness of its zoning and subdivision ordinances to ensure that new development provides multimodal access and does not solely rely on the automobile. To this end, if a new development has enough traffic generated to warrant a new transit stop (according to the appropriate transit jurisdiction), then such a development will extend the transit service area, which is shown in the County’s Transit Network Plan. Additional efforts to investigate in the future include: 1) establishment of maximum parking ratios and relaxing of minimum requirements; 2) shifting long-term parking in commercial areas to short-term use; 3) zoning regulations that encourage more pedestrian/transit friendly development. 5.8 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND BIKEWAYS Pedestrian and bicycle transportation are a viable mode of commuter transportation in the urban areas on either side of the Berkeley Hills and throughout eastern Contra Costa County due to favorable topography and weather. The County promotes the use of the Complete Streets philosophy to further advance the goals of this plan. Complete streets are streets safe for all users at all times throughout the County. The County supports pedestrians and bicyclists by implementing the Routine Accommodation policy statement developed by the United States Department of Transportation, the California Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to ensure that the needs of walkers and bicyclists are integrated into Transportation Infrastructure. Considering, and making accommodation for bicycle and pedestrian mobility and safety in the planning and designing of new or improved transportation facilities can benefit all modes of travel. Pedestrian facilities are becoming increasingly important to address the various needs of County residents living in urban and rural settings as our community continues to develop and change. We are all pedestrians at one time, walking to the post office, using a wheelchair from a transit station to work, traveling from your car to a retail shopping center. Pedestrian facilities also encourage walking for better health. Additionally, lower income residents of Contra Costa County are over seven times more likely to walk as a primary commute mode than the general population. A well designed and well maintained system of pedestrian facilities provides safe, convenient and accessible access for residents. Sidewalks shall be designed so they are wide enough to accommodate the potential pedestrian volume. Surfaces should be kept as level as possible. Intersections shall have well designed curb ramps on all corners and crosswalks, where provided, should be well marked and visible. Traffic signal phasing shall allow adequate time for pedestrians to cross as well as have accommodations for disabled users with impairments. Lighting shall be provided where needed for visibility and safety. The network of pedestrian facilities must provide convenient access to destinations that attract pedestrian travel, such as schools, parks, transit, neighborhood shopping, post offices and other public facilities. Development of a comprehensive bikeway system will provide further incentive to commute by bike. The comprehensive bikeway system is the interconnected system of safe bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes that satisfy the travel needs of most April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 738 5. Transportation and Circulation Element 5-21 cyclists in the county. Many existing bikeways are of a recreational design which also serve as pedestrian trails and located off-street. These facilities should be supplemented by more off-street paths and more on-street commuter bikeways that provide direct access to commercial uses. A comprehensive bikeway system is depicted in a fold-out map in the back of the General Plan entitled “Bikeway Facilities Network”. "Bikeway" means all facilities that are provided primarily for bicycle travel. The following categories of bikeways are defined in the California Streets and Highway Code. O Class I Bikeway (Bike Path or Bike Trail): Provides a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized. O Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): Provides a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive use or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. O Class III Bikeway (Bike Route): Provides a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists. In March of 2002 the Contra Costa Transportation Authority launched a comprehensive effort to work with local jurisdictions, agencies and special interest groups to produce the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The outcome of this effort produced a comprehensive plan that was adopted by many City Councils and the Board of Supervisors. Relevant sections of the plan have been incorporated into this General Plan. The following are the pedestrian facilities and bikeways goals, policies and implementation measures: 5-L. Expand, improve and maintain facilities for walking and bicycling. 5-36. Describe a system of bicycle facilities and key attractors of bicycle and pedestrian traffic so that all travelers, including people with disabilities, can travel safely and independently. 5-ai. Design a growing comprehensive and safe bicycle network using a mix of existing local roads, collectors and bikeways which prioritizes bicycle movement from residences to key attractors while minimizing automobile presence on the network. Coordinate with cities, transit agencies, community groups and public utilities. 5-aj. Where possible, roads selected for the comprehensive bikeway system should be 35 mph or less. 5-ak. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bike ways in the vicinity of schools and other public facilities and in commercial areas and provide convenient access to bus routes. 5-al. Ensure that pedestrian connectivity is preserved or enhanced in new developments by providing short, direct pedestrian connections between land uses and to building entrances. 5-am. Construct the bikeways shown in the Bikeway Network map and incorporate the needs of bicyclists in roadway construction and maintenance projects and normal safety and operational improvements. 5-an. Promote planning and coordination of pedestrian and bicycle facilities among cities, transit agencies and public utilities. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 739 5. Transportation and Circulation Element 5-22 5-ao. Provide secure bicycle parking facilities at appropriate locations, such as transit stations, as well as improved access to transit systems. 5-37.Identify gaps in the bicycle network and needed improvements to pedestrian districts and key activity centers and define priorities for eliminating these gaps and making needed improvements. Facilities shall be designed to the best currently available standards and guidelines. 5-ap.Pedestrian Districts should be created in areas of mixed or dense land use and intense or potentially intense pedestrian activity. 5-aq.Landscaping and trees should be used to enhance pedestrian facilities and should be selected to minimize future maintenance and safety issues. 5-ar.Streetscape improvements should be included in the design of high usage pedestrian facilities to encourage pedestrian activity. This would include improvements such as benches, public art, drinking fountains and pedestrian-scale lighting fixtures. 5-as.Provide sidewalks with a clear path wide enough to accommodate anticipated pedestrian use and wheelchairs, baby strollers or similar devices. This area clear zone must be free of street furniture, signposts, utility poles or any other obstruction. 5-at.Traffic calming measures should be designed so they improve pedestrian and bicycle movement in residential neighborhoods and commercial districts as well as strategic corridors between them that help form the comprehensive bicycle network. 5-38.Encourage adequate long term and routine maintenance of bikeway and walkway network facilities, including regular sweeping of bikeways and shared use pathways, utilizing private and/or local community resources when feasible. 5-au.Provide ways for the general public to report problems. 5-av.Include the cost of major maintenance needs of bicycle and pedestrian facilities when calculating the maintenance needs of streets and roadways. 5-M Improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. 5-39.Reduce conflicts among motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. 5-aw.Use curb extensions and pedestrian islands and other strategies to reduce pedestrian crossing distances. 5-ax.Use traffic control devices such as signs, signals or lights to warn motorists that pedestrians or bicyclists are in the roadway. 5-ay. Provide buffers between roads and sidewalks utilizing planter strips or buffer zones that provide streetscape improvements. 5-az. Provide buffers between train tracks and non-motrized facilities when necessary, utilitizing distance, barriers, or grade separation. 5-ba. Ensure that users of non-motorized facilities are channeled to legal crossings of train tracks, which are use appropriate traffic control devices and are adequately inspected and maintained. 5-40.Provide information to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. 5-bb.Support development of a countywide collision data analysis program that will generate collision rates useful for planning purposes. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 740 5. Transportation and Circulation Element 5-23 5-bc.Support the development and implementation of programs to educate drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians as to their rights and responsibilities, 5-N Encourage more people to walk and bicycle. 5-41.Work with local and regional agencies to develop useful and cost effective programs to encourage more people to walk and bicycle. 5-42.Support programs such as "safe routes to school maps and "bike trains" or "walking school buses" for elementary students that would encourage more students to walk or bicycle to school. 5-43.Encourage the use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to promote healthy transportation choices. 5-44.Encourage the use of wayfinding and signage to help direct pedestrians and bicyclists to desirable destinations. 5-O Plan for the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. 5-45.Accommodate and encourage other agencies to accommodate the needs for mobility, accessibility and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians when planning, designing and developing transportation improvements. 5-bd.Review capital improvement projects to make sure that needs of non-motorized travelers (including pedestrians, bicyclist and persons with disabilities) are considered in programming, planning, maintenance, construction operations and project development activities and products. 5-be.Incorporate sidewalks, bike paths, bike lanes, crosswalks, pedestrian cut- throughs, or other bicycle pedestrian improvements into new projects. 5-bf.Where economically feasible provide safe and convenient alternatives when bicycle or pedestrians facilities are removed. 5-bg.Accommodate cyclists and pedestrians during construction of transportation improvements and other development projects. 5-46.Support the incorporation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities into other capital improvements projects, where appropriate, to expand bicycle-pedestrian facilities, harmonize the needs of all travel modes, and achieve economies of scale. 5.9 SCENIC ROUTES INTRODUCTION This scenic routes plan is intended to add considerations of roadway road corridor appearances and aesthetics to the scope of the County General Plan. This plan has two basic purposes: it enables the County to request that the State designate state routes to the State highways program, while at the same time providing a local scenic route implementation program. Such a plan provides recognition of the perception we have of our surroundings while traveling through the County. Presently Contra Costa County has numerous roadways that pass through areas affording pleasurable views. The number of such roadways where scenic quality exists will diminish, however, unless protected. Their character is changed through improvements to them or when land adjacent to them is developed. This plan identifies a Countywide scenic route system and ensure that new projects approved along a scenic route are reviewed to maintain their scenic potential. Most scenic routes depend on natural landscape qualities for their aesthetics and many formally designated scenic routes April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 741 Compliance Checklist Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 Attachment E April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 742 1 EXHIBIT B Contra Costa County Development Mitigation Program 2016 – 2022 Capital Improvement Program for Parks and Sheriff Facilities Pursuant to Measure J Growth Management Program Prepared by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development March 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 743 2 I. INRODUCTION This document is Contra Costa County’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for providing park and Sheriff Facilities in the unincorporated area of the County, pursuant to the requirements of the Measure J Growth Management Program. A companion document, the County Road Improvement & Preservation Program, describes transportation projects to mitigate the transportation impacts of new development. Both documents respond to the requirements of the County General Plan and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) growth management program that was initiated with the Measure C transportation sales tax in 1988, and reauthorized in Measure J in 2004. The County General Plan includes a Growth Management Element, which has performance standards for urban services (i.e. roads, sewers, water police, fire, parks and flood control). New development needs to demonstrate that it meets these performance standards or such development cannot be approved. The County is responsible for providing the following urban services in the unincorporated area: roads, police, and parks. The Growth Management Element requires that capital projects sponsored by the County necessary to maintain the performance standards for these three urban services shall be identified in the five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Funding sources for the complete cost of the improvement and phasing, if any, shall also be identified. The Measure J growth management program requires local jurisdictions to develop a five-year capital improvement program. It is CCTA policy that all capital improvement programs be amended, taking into account changes in project costs, funding sources, project development, and timing. Jurisdictions can avoid annual updates by developing longer range capital improvement programs. The County has elected to use a seven-year horizon for the CIP. CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT: The CIP is based on a seven-year horizon, 2016-2022 growth estimates for that time period are presented in Section II. Section III of the CIP reviews the performance standards, which were established by the Growth Management Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, and describes the status of County’s compliance with these standards based on the estimated population growth. Section IV describes the program facilities needed to meet the demands of future growth as dictated by the performance standards set forth in the Growth Management Element. II. POPULATION ESTIMATES Table 1 provides an estimate of past population growth in the unincorporated area since adoption of the County’s Growth Management Element in 1991. It also describes projected population growth for the seven-year period of the CIP, 2016-2022. The projected population growth is based on information received from the Housing Element of the County General Plan. These forecasts are based on ABAG’s projected population estimates, as adjusted by the Department of Conservation and Development to reflect the actual growth recorded on the unincorporated area between 1991 and 2015. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 744 3 TABLE 1 PAST AND PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH IN UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA* AREA 1991-2015 2016-2022 East County 12,030** 1,069 Central County 16,189*** 908 West County 4,488 1,248 TOTAL 32,707 3,225 * Sources: 2010 Census, Projected 2020 and 2030 estimated provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments and refined by CCC Department of Conservations and Development. ** Includes growth in Oakley up to the year 2000. *** Does not include growth in Dougherty Valley, which ABAG assigns to the City of San Ramon. III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The Growth Management Element establishes standards for the provision of certain public services in the unincorporated areas. These performance standards are applied to all development that was approved since the adoption of the County General Plan in January 1991. The standards apply to the entire unincorporated area, countywide. Park Facilities: The growth management standard for park facilities is three acres of neighborhood parks per 1,000 population. Table 2 evaluates this standard as of 2015. This evaluation is based on population growth for the 1991 - 2015 time period and the park acreage opened during that period. Parks are financed largely by park dedication fees assessed against new development in the unincorporated area. A Park Impact Fee Nexus Study was approved by the Board in 2007 and fees were updated shortly thereafter. Fees range from $3,955 to $7,238, depending on dwelling type and location. Unless otherwise indicated, the parks shown on Table 4 occur on County- owned parcels or land dedicated by developers to the County. Expenditures are for park improvements only. Since January 1991, the County has opened approximately 145 acres of new park facilities that meet the neighborhood park classification. Actual park construction exceeded the growth management standard by 47 acres. These facilities represent a broad range of accomplishments, including contribution to joint school/park facilities, pro-rated credit for park facilities of cities or special districts funded partially by County revenues or land-dedication, and linear parks that serve the local area. See Appendix A for a description of these park facilities. TABLE 2 EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PARK FACILITIES STANDARD AS OF 2015 REQUIRED FACILITIES FACILITIES OPENED SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 98 acres 145 acres 47 acres Sheriff Facilities: The growth management standard for Sheriff facilities is 155 square feet of patrol and investigation facilities per 1,000 population. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 745 4 Table 3 evaluates compliance with the performance standard as of 2015. The evaluation is based on population growth for 1991-2015 time period and the square footage of Sheriff Facilities opened as of 2015. The population growth between 1991 and 2015 created a demand for 5,069 square feet of patrol, investigation and support facilities. Since 1991, the County has opened 74,892 square feet of facilities that serve patrol, investigation and support activities. Actual Sheriff Facility construction exceeded the growth management standard by 69,823 square feet. See Appendix B for the inventory of Sheriff Facilities. TABLE 3 EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH SHERIFF FACILITIES STANDARD AS OF 2015 REQUIRED FACILITIES FACILITIES OPENED SURPLUS/ (DEFICIT) 5,069 sq.ft. 74,892 sq.ft. 69,823 sq.ft. IV. SEVEN-YEAR PROGRAM FOR PARK AND SHERIFF FACILITIES The County’s Growth Management Element and CCTA’s Measure J growth management program requires that capital improvement programs include approved projects, their estimated costs and a financial plan for providing the improvements. This section describes a seven-year program of projects to maintain compliance with the County’s adopted growth management standards for park and sheriff facilities. Park Facilities: The projected growth during the 2016-2022 time period will generate the need for 10 acres of neighborhood and community parks. Table 4 describes the park facilities programmed for construction during the 2016-2022 time period. A total of a little more than 36 acres of neighborhood parks are programmed for construction during that time period. As of 2015, the County maintains a surplus of 47 acres (as previously shown in Table 2). By implementing the Seven Year Program of Park Facilities from Table 4, the County would increase the park facilities surplus by 26 acres, for a total of 73 acres, by 2022.1 Sheriff Facilities: The projected growth during the 2016-2022 time period will generate the need for 500 square feet of Sheriff facilities to serve patrol and investigation activities. The surplus square footage resulting from Sheriff facilities opened as of 2016 is 69,823 sq. ft. This “surplus” of facility capacity is sufficient to serve all growth projected to occur in the unincorporated area by 2022, with approximately 69,323 sq. ft. of capacity remaining by that time. The formula utilized to evaluate this need for facilities in 2022 is detailed in Table 5. No construction or acquisition of additional sheriff facilities is programmed for the next seven years. Existing capacity is expected to be more than sufficient to accommodate population growth for the next seven years. Fees are currently in place for new development in the unincorporated area to provide ongoing support for Sheriff operations. The fees do not cover additional facilities that may be needed in the future. 1 The formula utilized to evaluate this need for facilities in 2022 is detailed in Table 5. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 746 5 Since 1991, a significant inventory of space for patrol and investigation activities has been made available on a short-term basis to the Sheriff through donations or leases. These facilities total 3,734 sq. ft. and are listed in Appendix B. The Sheriff recommends that this space not be claimed by the Board for the purpose of meeting the growth management standard for Sheriff Facilities. This CIP is consistent with that recommendation. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 747 TABLE 4 SEVEN YEAR PROGRAM OF PARK FACILITIES 6 Park Location Park Type Region Of County Total Acreage Acreage for Growth Mgmt. Compliance North Richmond Neighborhood West 0.3 0.3 El Sobrante Neighborhood West 5.0 5.0 Iron Horse Trail Pocket Parks Pocket Central 0.3 0.3 Pacheco Community Park Community Central 5.0 5.0 Vine Hill Park Neighborhood Central 2.0 2.0 Hemme Station Park Neighborhood Central 0.7 0.7 Bay Point Shoreline Ballfields Community East 5.0 5.0 Byron Community Park Community East 5.0 5.0 Bethel Island Park Community East 5.0 5.0 Concord Ballfield Access Community East 5.0 5.0 Bay Point Park Neighborhood East 3.0 3.0 Total (rounded) 36.3 (36) 36.3 (36) TABLE 5 EVALUATION OF THE NEED FOR FACILITIES IN 2022 Projected Population Growth 2016-2022 Park Acres Required 2016 - 2022 (3 Acres/1000 people) Park Acres to be Constructed 2016-2022 Surplus (Deficit) Surplus (Deficit) of Park Acres from 1991-2015 Surplus (Deficit) of Park Acres by 2022 3,225 10 36 26 47 73 Sheriff Facilities Required 2016 - 2022 (155 sq.ft./1000 people) Sheriff Facilities to be Constructed 2016-2022 Surplus (Deficit) Surplus (Deficit) of sq.ft. from 1991-2015 Surplus (Deficit) of sq.ft. by 2022 3,225 500 0 (500) 69,823 69,323 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 748 7 APPENDICIES April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 749 APPENDIX AParkLocationAreaType of ParkTotal AcresAcres for Growth ManagementCompletion DateMontalvin ParkDenise DrMontalvin Manor/San PabloNeighborhood7.07.01991MonTaraBay Community Center and Ball Fields (Rehab)Tara Hills DrTara Hills/San Pablo Community Facility4.04.01991California Pacific WaterwaysPorthole/FoghornByronNeighborhood5.25.21992Alamo Elementary School ParkLivorna/WilsonAlamoNeighborhood3.12.51992Clyde ParkNorman/SussexClydeNeighborhood2.02.01992Fox Creek Park (Pleasant Hill BART) Las Juntas WayPleasant Hill Neighborhood0.50.31992Cornell ParkDisco Bay Blvd/Willow LakeDiscovery Bay Neighborhood10.010.01992Boeger ParkCaskey StBay PointNeighborhood0.60.51992Old Tassajara SchoolCamino Tassajara/Finley RdTassajaraCommunity Facility1.01.01992Marie Porter ParkKilburn StreetClydeNeighborhood0.20.51992Rancho LagunaKnoll Dr/Camino PabloMoragaNeighborhood8.18.11993Brentwood Ball Fields (3)Sunset RdBrentwoodNeighborhoodn/an/a 1993Bettencourt RanchCamino Tassajara DanvilleNeighborhood6.02.51994El Sobrante Open SpaceCastro Ranch RdEl Sobrante Regional100.0n/a 1994Hap Magee Ranch Park (City/County) Camille AveAlamoNeighborhood17.28.01994North Richmond Ball Field3rd and Walnut CreekNorth Richmond Community Facility8.04.01994Lefty Gomez Community Center and BallfieldsParker AvenueRodeoCommunity Facility 11.011.01995Diablo Vista ParkCrow Canyon/Tassajara RanchTown of Danville Neighborhood2.00.71996Marie Murphy SchoolValley ViewEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996Olinda SchoolOlinda RdEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996Valley View SchoolMaywood/MeadowbrookEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996Sheldon SchoolMay/LaurelEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996El Sobrante ElementaryManor/MitchellEl Sobrante Neighborhood0.50.31996De Anza High SchoolValley View RdEl Sobrante Neighborhood4.02.01996Tradewinds Court ParkTradewinds CourtBay PointNeighborhood0.70.71996Livorna ParkLivorna/MirandaAlamoNeighborhood4.44.41997Laurel ParkLaurel Rd Detention BasinOakleyNeighborhood14.414.41998Rodeo Creek TrailWillow Ave/Parker AveRodeoNeighborhood1.02.51998Rancho Romero SchoolHemme AveAlamoNeighborhood5.45.42000Country Placen/an/aNeighborhood2.52.52000Andrew H. Young Danville Blvd/JacksonAlamoNeighborhood0.020.022000Maybeck ParkAmy LaneClydeNeighborhood0.010.012000Discovery Bay Westn/aDiscovery Bay (Rec Center)2.42.42002Discovery Bay WestLakeshore CircleDiscovery Bay Neighborhood4.04.02002Del Hombre RespiteTreat BlvdPleasant Hill Neighborhood0.70.72002Regatta Park (Tyler Memorial Park) n/aDiscovery Bay Neighborhood4.84.82002Silfer ParkNewport DrDiscovery Bay Neighborhood5.85.82002Viewpoint Park (aka Lehman)Sea Cliff PlaceBay PointNeighborhood0.10.12002Ravenswood ParkDiscovery Bay Neighborhood2004Diablo Vista Middle School Sports FieldCamino Tassajara/MonterossoDanvilleSchool15.015.02005Spears Circle ParkSpears CircleNorth Richmond Neighborhood0.50.52007Big Oak Tree ParkKilburn StreetClydeNeighborhood0.240.242008El Sobrante Children's Reading GardenAppian AvenueEl Sobrante Community Facility0.020.022008Parkway Estates (Tot Lot)Malcom DriveNorth Richmond Neighborhood0.30.32011Pacheco Creekside ParkAspen DrivePachecoNeighborhood1.61.62011Clyde Pedestrian TrailNorman AvenueClydeNeighborhood0.53.82011Lynbrook ParkKevin Drive and Port Chicago HwyBay PointNeighborhood4.134.132013Hickory MeadowsWinterbrook and Summerfield DrBay PointNeighborhood0.370.372013Total261.4144.58April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES750 APPENDIX B n/a 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,600 1,600 0 0 (1,600) n/a 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 23,390 23,390 22,990 22,990 (400) n/a 0 425 425 425 2,117 2,117 3,921 3,921 1,804 n/a 0 1,725 1,725 1,725 n/a 0 1,149 1,149 1,149 is this the correct sf? n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 257 257 257 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 1,100 1,100 n/a 0 (1,100) 7,760 2,350 1,567 n/a 0 (1,567) 2,200 733 n/a 0 (733) n/a n/a 3,209 1,070 1,070 split? 3,900 3,900 0 0 (3,900) n/a n/a 0 0 0 1,684 842 1,684 842 0 split? n/a n/a 3,580 3,580 3,580 take off? 8,764 4,382 8,764 4,382 0 split? n/a n/a 4,593 1,531 1,650 split? 6,500 3,250 6,500 3,250 0 split? n/a n/a 0 0 0 n/a 0 0 0 0 n/a 0 20,000 6,667 6,667 split? 7,500 3,000 18,100 7,240 4,240 split? 3,800 3,800 0 0 (3,800) 1,470 490 0 0 n/a n/a 35,000 35,000 35,000 split? n/a n/a 24,925 24,925 24,925 split? n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 67,132 n/a 0 600 600 600 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 800 800 800 n/a 0 140 140 140 n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 825 825 825 n/a 0 1,100 1,100 1,100 n/a 0 269 269 269 3,734 78,626 74,892 Additional Sheriff Property Clayton, 12000 Marsh Ck Detention Staff Locker Bldg 1,344 1,344 Work Shop,Storage,Inmate Welf Off 3,261 3,261 Dorms F&G 14,352 14,352 Wood Shop, Storage 976 976 Pump House - - Medical Coach 626 626 Chapel 2,015 2,015 Shop 5,796 5,796 School Office 1,740 1,740 Kitchen 7,372 7,372 Dorms D&E 14,352 14,352 Pump House - - Laundry/DSW Office 2,080 2,080 Dorms B&C 13,872 13,872 Security Cell 441 441 Bldgs 182-200 1,426 1,426 Classroom 1 960 960 Former Fire Stn 4,639 4,639 Classroom 2 960 960 Classroom 3 960 960 Supply Storage 608 608 Martinez, 835 Castro St - Leased 1,800 1,800 Martinez, 815 Court St - Leased Court Security 1,763 1,763 Martinez, 920 Mellus St Civil 3,500 3,500 Martinez, 1959 Muir Rd Peace Officers Monument - - Martinez, 1980 Muir Rd Generator Bldg 400 400 Martinez, Pine St @ Mellus St @ Court St Detention Fac. Annex - - Martinez, 651 Pine St, N. Wing Cal ID - 1st Flood - - Martinez, 900 Thompson St-Leased Custody Alternative 3,850 3,850 Pittsburg, 340 Marina Blvd-Leased Police Academy & Training 16,000 16,000 Richmond, 5555 Giant Hwy - West County Detention Center Admin/Medical/Inmate Programs 18,926 18,926 Housing, Visiting 19,352 19,352 Inmate Programs 6,073 6,073 Admin, Mtce,Kitchen,Intake 70,975 70,975 Housing 30,424 30,424 Housing 30,424 30,424 Housing 30,424 30,424 Housing 30,424 30,424 Women's Program Bldg 12,320 12,320 Martinez, 50 Glacier Dr, Office of Emergency Services 6,175 6,175 Martinez, 1127 Escobar St, Martinez, 1000 Ward St, Detention Detention Facility 161,405 161,405 LOCATION As of 1/1/91 As of 11/24/15 Amount of Sq Ft Claimed for Growth ManagementTotal Bldg Area SHERIFF'S Total Bldg Area SHERIFF'S Patrol Facilities Space in Bldg San Pablo, 2280 Giant Rd - Patrol Substation Space in Bldg Alamo, 150 Alamo Plaza Stes B+C Alama Plaza - Patrol Substation Alamo, 3240 W Stone Valley Rd - Patrol Substation Concord, 500 Sally Ride Dr - Helicopter Hanger Martinez, 1980 Muir Rd - Patrol/Investigation El Sobrante, 3796 San Pablo Dam Rd, Ste b - Aux Patrol Activities-Leased Richmond, 1555 3rd St - Joint Office w/ Richmond PD and CHP Oakley, 210 O'Hara Ave - Patrol Substation Oakley, Lauritzen's Harbor - Marine Patrol Substation - Leased Richmond, 5555 Giant Highway - Patrol Substation Richmond, 1535 Fred Jackson Way #C, N. Rich Comm Policing Annex Rodeo, 199 Parker St - Auxiliary Patrol Activities Concord, 2099 Arnold Ind, Ste C&D - Prop Svcs, Crime Lab/Patrol Support-Le Martinez, 651 Pine St/No. Wing - Administration (40% Patrol Support) Concord, 2099 Arnold Ind, Ste C - Property Svcs, Crime Lab/Patrol Support Martinez, 815 Marina Vista - Administration (40% Field Support) Total Field Enforcement Support Facilities Antioch, 212 H St - Dispatch Facility (2/3 Sheriff's) Martinez, 500 Court St - Criminalistics Laboratory (1/3 Sheriff's) (GGC) Martinez, 401 Escobar St - Property Storage (1/2 Sheriff's) Martinez, 729 Castro St - Criminalistics Laboratory (1/3 Sheriff's) Martinez, 1236 Escobar St - SFR & parking lot - storage Martinez, 821 Escobar St - Training (10% Field Operations) Martinez, 1139 Escobar St - vacant (1/2 Sheriff's) Martinez, 1122 Escobar St - Criminalistics (1/2 Sheriff's) Martinez, 30 Glacier Dr - Tech. Svcs. Admin. (30% Field Support) Martinez, 40 Glacier St - Communications Center (1/2 Sheriff's) Martinez, 823 Marina Vista - Administration (40% Field Support) Martinez, 1960 Muir Rd - Criminalistics Laboratory (1/3 Sheriff's) Martinez, 651 Pine St - Administration (40% Patrol Support) Martinez, 651 Pine St/No. Wing - Records Martinez, 2530 Arnold Dr - Records/Crime Lab Total Leased Patrol Facilities Danville, 1092 Eagle Nest Pl - Patrol Substation Byron, 1636 Discovery Bay Blvd - Auxiliary Patrol Activities Grand Total Discovery Bay, 1555 Riverlake Blvd, Ste J - Patrol Substation Grand Total Minus Leased Crockett, 1528 Pomona St - Auxiliary Patrol Activities Richmond, 1675 1st St - Auxiliary Patrol Activities Rodeo, 301 California St - Auxiliary Patrol Activities Bay Point, 642 Pt Chicago Hwy - Auxiliary Patrol Activities WC, 3003 Oak Rd, Ste 110 - Res Dep.- PH BART - Leased Total Bethel Island, 5993 Bethel Island Rd, Suite B 9 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 751 Compliance Checklist Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 Attachment F April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 752 4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 753 4-i 4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1 4.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS 4-2 4.3 TRAFFIC SERVICE STANDARDS AND FACILITIES STANDARDS 4-3 4.4 GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES 4-4 Goals 4-4 Policies 4-4 Implementation Measures 4-8 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 754 4-1 4. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 4.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Element is to establish policies and standards for traffic levels of service and performance standards for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control to ensure generally that public facilities consistent with adopted standards are provided. By including this Element in the adoption of the General Plan, the County intends to establish a long range program which will match the demand for public facilities to serve new development with plans, capital improvement programs and development impact mitigation programs. The intent is to ensure that growth takes place in a manner that will ensure protection of the health, safety and welfare of both existing and future residents of Contra Costa County. The responsible management of growth in the County is key to preserving the quality of life for current and future County residents. This Growth Management Element is the culmination of a process which was created by the Mayors' Conference and the County Board of Supervisors. The Contra Costa Transportation Partnership Commission was established as a Transportation Authority under State law (PUC Section 180000) to provide a forum for transportation issues in the County and to propose ways to manage traffic congestion. By approving Measure C - 1988, the voters established the Transportation Authority, added one-half cent to the County sales tax for the next 20 years to be used for transportation funding, and gave the Transportation Authority the charge to implement a Growth Management Program. That program requires the County and each city to develop a Growth Management Element as part of its General Plan in order to be eligible to receive local street maintenance and improvement funds generated by Measure C-1988. This Growth Management Element complies with the model element developed by the Transportation Authority and includes the sections required by Measure C - 1988 to be part of this Growth Management Element. These sections (1) adopt traffic levels of service standards (LOS) keyed to types of land use, and (2) adopt performance standards maintained through capital projects for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control. The Transportation Authority recognizes that facilities standards, as are discussed in this Element, establish performance standards to be applied in the County's development review process. In addition to adopting this Growth Management Element as part of the General Plan under Measure C - 1988, the voters of the County, in Measure C - 1990, reaffirmed that growth management should be an integral part of this General Plan. This Element is also adopted pursuant to the authority granted to local jurisdictions by Section 65303 of the Government Code of the State of California, which states: April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 755 4. Growth Management Program 4-2 "The General Plan may include any other elements or address any other subjects which, in the judgment of the legislative body, relates to the physical development of the county or city." 4.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS As indicated in Section 3, Land Use Element, the Growth Management Element works closely in conjunction with the Land Use Element to ensure that development proceeds in a manner which will not negatively affect facility and traffic service standards for existing land uses. In this regard, it should be noted that developments which cannot satisfy the assurances required by these standards should not be approved. By utilizing this Growth Management Element to responsibly manage new development proposals, the County will ensure that new development projects will bear their appropriate share of the adverse burdens and impacts they impose on public facilities and services. As a result, the Growth Management Element must be carefully considered together with Land Use and other elements of this General Plan when assessing General Plan consistency. The timing of the potential physical development contemplated in the Land Use Element will in part be determined by the ability of developers to satisfy the policies and standards described in this Growth Management Element. The Urban Limit Line (ULL) and the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard also work together with the Growth Management Element to ensure that growth occurs in a responsible manner and strikes appropriate balances between many competing values and interests. In addition, this Growth Management Element contains implementing programs which encourage new development to promote the goals and objectives of the Conservation Element; the Public Facilities and Services Element; and the Housing Element. Moreover, by establishing an interjurisdictional land supply and development monitoring program, the Growth Management Element coordinates the implementation of the County General Plan with those of the 19 cities in the County. To carry out the goals and objectives of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the Plan, new development must demonstrate that the level of service standards of the Growth Management Element will be met. Only in this way will the negative effects of such growth be avoided. While it is anticipated that new growth will be able to mitigate its potential impacts through development fees and other exactions, it is possible that the timing of project approvals may be affected by the inability of individual developments to carry its appropriate cost of full service increments needed to allow further growth in a given area of the County. Thus, the improvements needed to implement the Circulation and Public Facilities and Services Elements of the Plan will in part be directly tied to, and dependent upon, the implementation of the Growth Management Element. Similarly, implementation of the Land Use Element will only proceed when it can be demonstrated that the growth management standards can be met by new development. Policies relating to this "Pay as you Grow" philosophy underpinning the Growth Management Element can be found in the Transportation and Circulation Element, Overall Transportation/Circulation Goals 5-E and 5-F, and in the Overall Transportation/Circulation Policies 5-1 through 5-4. Related Land Use Element Goals 3-F and 3-H and Land Use Policies 3-5 through 3-10 are also part of the policy framework which underlies the Growth Management Element, and are integrally related to it. In a similar fashion, each of the required growth management performance standards included in this Element is also included in the Public Facilities and Services Element under the applicable goals and policies listed for sewers, water, police, fire, parks and flood control. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 756 4. Growth Management Program 4-3 4.3 TRAFFIC SERVICE STANDARDS AND FACILITIES STANDARDS The basic unit of measurement of performance of an intersection or roadway segment is called a Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a measure of the ratio of the volume to capacity of a roadway or intersection and is expressed as a letter A through F. In general LOS A describes free flowing conditions, and F describes very congested conditions, with long delays. Routes of Regional Significance are those roadways which carry significant volumes of through traffic, which neither begins nor ends within the affected jurisdiction. They generally include Interstate Freeways and State Highways, as well as local roads which, due to their location between job and housing centers, carry significant volumes of intra-county trips. All other roadways are referred to in the Growth Management Element as Basic Routes. Basic routes, and their signalized intersections, are those to which LOS standards are applied in determining whether proposed projects may be approved. The methodology used in determining if projects exceed allowable LOS standards is the method established by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority in its Technical Procedures. At present, most Basic Routes in the unincorporated area operate at or better than the LOS Standards specified in the Growth Management Element. Many Routes of Regional Significance are below these standards, however, reflecting the fact that the trips are not dependent upon land uses in unincorporated Contra Costa County, but are cumulative with traffic generated by land uses located outside of the unincorporated areas. Public Protection Facility standards contained in this plan are based upon the 1990 facilities to unincorporated population ratio. In the area of parks, for example, the current unincorporated population to park acreage yields a ratio of less than 1 acre per 1,000 persons. While certain developed areas of the County experience flooding in the event of the 100-year flood, the County Ordinance Code collect-and-convey requirements are applied to all new developments. Water and sewer services are generally adequate for existing development. For the purposes of establishing a Public Protection Facility standard, several factors must be considered. Firstly, the unincorporated community of Kensington has established a Community Services District which provides the full range of police services in the area, and the Sheriff does not service this area. Secondly, the California Highway Patrol is responsible for enforcement of the Vehicle Code on highways and County roads throughout the unincorporated area. Thirdly, certain economies of scale enable the Sheriff to provide patrol and investigation services in physical facilities substantially smaller than a comparable series of cities would require, due to centralized administrative services, crime lab facilities and other similar functions which numerous cities would duplicate in each location. According to the Department, very little time is spent by deputies in the stations; nearly all is spent in the vehicles on patrol; no clericals are housed in the stations. In addition, the Sheriff also provides coroner services, incarceration and criminalistics services. For these reasons, direct comparisons between County facilities standards and standards that may be adopted by cities in the County are not advised, since such comparisons would be highly misleading. The computation of a Sheriff facility standard in this General Plan includes only patrol and investigation services, adjusted for a marginal increase in centralized administrative services. As of January, 1991, the County provides approximately 155 square feet of floor area per thousand population in six locations throughout the County. In 1997, it became evident that the Sheriff’s Office needed to include support facilities necessary to conduct patrol and investigation, which are now included in the calculation of new square footage. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 757 4. Growth Management Program 4-4 It should be noted that implementation of the goals of this Plan's various elements depends not only upon the County's administration of the Growth Management Program described below, but upon the interplay of several levels of government. Federal and State funding for improvements to Basic Routes will be required to attain and maintain traffic levels of service at designated levels. Finally, the County, the 19 cities, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the California Department of Transportation will all have to work cooperatively in order to mitigate the negative impacts of growth upon the regional transportation system to achieve the levels of population, housing and jobs anticipated by this Plan. 4.4 GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES GOALS 4-A. To provide for the levels of growth and development depicted in the Land Use Element, while preserving and extending the quality of life through the provision of public facilities and ensuring traffic levels of services necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 4-B. To establish a cooperative interjurisdictional growth monitoring and decision making process in which each jurisdiction can share in the beneficial aspects of new growth, and avoid its potential negative effects. POLICIES 4-1. New development shall not be approved in unincorporated areas unless the applicant can provide the infrastructure which meets the traffic level of service and performance standards outlined in Policy 4-3, or a funding mechanism has been established which will provide the infrastructure to meet the standards or as is stated in other portions of this Growth Management Element. 4-2. If it cannot be demonstrated prior to project approval that levels of service will be met per Policy 4-1, development will be temporarily deferred until the standards can be met or assured. Projects which do not, or will not, meet the standards shall be scheduled for hearing before the appropriate hearing body with a staff recommendation for denial, on the grounds that the project is inconsistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Growth Management Element of the County General Plan. 4-3. Table 4-1 shows the performance standards which shall apply to development projects. In the event that a signalized intersection on a Basic Route exceeds the applicable level of service standard, the County may approve projects if the County can establish appropriate mitigation measures, or determine that the intersection or portion of roadway is subject to a finding of special circumstances, or is a Route of Regional Significance, consistent with those findings and/or action plans adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority pursuant to Measure C - 1988. Mitigation measures specified in the action plans shall be applied to all projects which would create significant impacts on such regional routes, as defined by the Authority in consultation with local agencies and as permitted by law. For the purpose of reporting to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority in compliance with the Growth Management Program, a list of intersections that will be reported on Basic Routes will be prepared and maintained by the Conservation and Development Department. 4-4. The County shall institute an ongoing growth management program process, as generally depicted in Figure 4-1. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 758 4. Growth Management Program 4-5 4-5. For the purpose of applying the Traffic Level of Service standards consistent with Measure C - 1988 only, unincorporated areas subject to the growth management standards of this Element shall be characterized as Central Business District, Urban, Suburban, Semi-rural and Rural as depicted in Figure 4-2. 4-6. Conformity with the growth management standards will be analyzed for all development projects such as, subdivision maps, or land use permits. A general plan amendment is a long range planning tool and is not to be considered a development project or a project approval under the growth management program. Traffic LOS Standards will be considered to be met if: o measurement of actual conditions at the intersection indicates that operations are equivalent to or better than those specified in the standard; or o the County has included projects in its adopted capital improvements program which, when constructed, will result in operations equal to or better than the standard. TABLE 4-1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Traffic Levels of Service Keyed to Land Use Type Rural Areas: Peak Hour Level of Service of low C (Volume/Capacity Ratio= .70-.74) Semi-Rural Areas: Peak Hour Level of Service of high C (Volume/Capacity Ratio= .74-.79) Suburban Areas: Peak Hour Level of Service of low D (Volume/Capacity Ratio= .80-.84) Urban Areas: Peak Hour Level of Service of high D (Volume/Capacity Ratio= .85-.89) Central Business: Peak Hour Level of Service of low E Districts (CBD): (Volume/Capacity Ratio= .90-.94) Note: These terms are used solely with reference to the Growth Management Element performance standards. Water The County, pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. At the project approval stage, (subdivision map, land use permit, etc.), the County may consult with the appropriate water agency. The County, based on information furnished or available to it from consultations with the appropriate water agency, the applicant or other sources, should determine whether (1) capacity exists within the water system if a development project is built within a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. Project approvals conditioned on (1) or (2) above, will lapse according to their terms if not satisfied by verification that capacity exists to serve the specific project ("will serve letters"), actual hook-ups or comparable evidence of adequate water quantity and quality availability. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 759 Figure 4.1 Flow Chart of Growth Management Process CONTRA COSTA COUNTYPage4-6Land Supply Identification Development Monitoring Evaluation Performance Standards Evaluation Infrastructure Constraints Analysis Jobs/Housing Performance Evaluation Interjurisdictional Coordination and Decision-Making Process Growth Managment Determinations Direction of Implementation Programs Done Initially by General Plan Done Annually 5 year cycle 5 year cycle 5 year cycle 5 year cycle 5 year cycle 5 year cycle April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 760 HERCULESHERCULES PINOLEPINOLE RICHMONDRICHMOND MARTINEZMARTINEZ CONCORDCONCORD PLEASANT HILL PLEASANT HILL WALNUT CREEK WALNUT CREEK LAFAYETTELAFAYETTE CLAYTONCLAYTON ANTIOCHANTIOCH OAKLEYOAKLEY BRENTWOODBRENTWOOD SAN RAMON SAN RAMON DANVILLEDANVILLE ORINDAORINDA MORAGAMORAGA EL CERRITO EL CERRITO SAN PABLO SAN PABLO PITTSBURGPITTSBURG CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 05102.5 Miles 1:300,000 Map Created on December 9, 2004 Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor - N. Wing, Martinez, CA94553-0095 37:59:48.455N122:06:35.384W Figure 4-2 Level of Service Designations for Unincorporated Areas Bay Area Rapid Transit Freeways and Highways Railroads Major Roads Incorporated Areas Unincorporated Areas ANTIOCH AlamoPage4-7City Sphere of Influence City Limits Suburban Central Business District Urban Rural Semi Rural April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 761 4. Growth Management Program 4-8 Sanitary Sewer The County, pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. At the project approval stage, (subdivision map, land use permit, etc.), the County may consult with the appropriate sewer agency. The County, based on information furnished or available to it from consultations with the appropriate sewer agency, the applicant or other sources, should determine whether (1) capacity exists within the sewer system if the development project is built within a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. Project approvals conditioned on (1) or (2) above, will lapse according to their terms if not satisfied by verification that capacity exists to serve the specific project ("will serve letters"), actual hook-ups or comparable evidence of adequate sewage collection and wastewater treatment capacity availability. Fire Protection Fire stations shall be located within one and one-half miles of developments in urban, suburban and central business district areas. Automatic fire sprinkler systems may be used to satisfy this standard. Public Protection A Sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station area and support facilities per 1,000 population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County. Parks and Recreation Neighborhood parks: 3 acres required per 1,000 population. Flood Control and Drainage Require major new development to finance the full costs of drainage improvements necessary to accommodate peak flows due to the project. Limit development within the 100 year flood plain until a flood management plan has been adopted and implementation is assured. For mainland areas along rivers and bays, it must be demonstrated that adequate protection exists through levee protection or change of elevation prior to development. Development shall not be allowed in flood prone areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency until a risk assessment and other technical studies have been performed. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES 4-a Incorporate the performance standards outlined in Policy 4-3 into the review of development projects. 4-b Work cooperatively with the 19 cities and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority through each of the Regional Transportation Planning Committees to define action plans for mitigating the impacts of development on Routes of Regional Significance. 4-c Require traffic impact analysis for any project which is estimated to generate 100 or more AM or PM peak-hour trips based upon the trip generation rates as presented in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 6th edition, 1997, or the most current published edition. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 762 4. Growth Management Program 4-9 4-d Require that during the review of development proposals, the traffic impact analysis shall determine whether a project could cause a signalized intersection or freeway ramp to exceed the applicable standard and shall identify mitigations/fees such that the intersection or ramp will operate in conformance with applicable standards. Development proposals shall be required to comply with conditions of approval detailing identified mitigation measures and/or fees. In no event shall Local Road Improvement and Maintenance Funds replace development mitigation fee requirements, pursuant to Measure C-88. 4-e Establish through application to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and in conjunction with the regional committees, a list of Routes of Regional Significance and Intersections proposed for Findings of Special Circumstances. Proposed projects affecting these routes and/or intersections will require alternate mitigation as specified in Action Plans to be adopted by the Transportation Authority, but in this respect only, shall not be subject to LOS Performance Standards. Map 4-3 shows the Routes of Regional Significance as adopted by the Transportation Authority in 2004. The County will assist in developing or updating Action Plans for these routes (and for other roads if the Transportation Authority revises the Routes of Regional Significance in the future.) 4-f In the event that any Basic Route does not meet adopted standards the County shall consider amendments to either its General Plan Land Use Element, Zoning, Capital Improvement program or other relevant plans or policies in order to attain the standards. If this is not feasible for the reasons specified in the Transportation Authority's "Implementation Guide: Traffic Level of Service Standards and Programs for Routes of Regional Significance" application for findings of special circumstances shall be made to the Transportation Authority. Such application shall include alternative proposed standards and mitigation measures. 4-g Capital projects sponsored by the County and necessary to maintain and improve traffic operations will be specified in a five year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Funding sources for such projects, as well as intended project phasing, if any, shall be generally identified in the CIP. 4-h The County will participate in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Conflict Resolution Process as needed to resolve disputes related to the development and implementation of Action Plans and other programs described in the Transportation Authority's Model Growth Management Element. 4-i The County will implement specified local actions in a timely manner, consistent with adopted action plans. 4-j As part of its program to attain Traffic Service levels, the County shall continue to implement its Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. 4-k No development project (subdivision map, land use permit, etc.) shall be approved unless findings of consistency have been made with respect to Policy 4- 3. 4-l The County will adopt a development mitigation program to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of providing police, fire, parks, water, sewer and flood control facilities. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 763 VascoR dVascoR dM arsh CreekRd M arsh CreekRd CaminoTassajaraCaminoTassajaraC a mino Tassajara C a mino Tassajara Walnut BlvdWalnut Blvd ClaytonRd ClaytonRd Dam Rd Dam RdSanPa b loSanPa b lo K irke rP a s s R d K irke rP a s s R d RailroadAveRailroadAveBalfour RdBalfourRd Lone Tree Way Lone Tree Way By r on HwyBy r on Hwy C r o w C a n y o n R d C r o w C a n y o n R d B o llin gerC a n y o n Rd B o llin gerC a n y o n Rd Cutting BlvdCutting Blvd S anPabloA v e S anPabloA v e RichmondRichmondGarrard BlvdGarrard BlvdParkwayParkway23rdSt23rdStAl hamb r a A v eAl hamb r a A v eY g n a c io V alleyR dY g n a c io V alleyR dT re a tB lv d T re a tB lv d Geary RdGeary Rd Pacheco Blvd Pacheco Blvd Buchanan RdBuchanan Rd Willow Pass RdWillow Pass Rd E 18th StE18thSt CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 05102.5 Miles 1:300,000 ContraCostaBlvdContraCostaBlvdDoughert yRdDoughert yRdMap Created on August, 23 2004 Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor - N. Wing, Martinez, CA94553-0095 37:59:48.455N122:06:35.384WCummi n g s Sk y w ayCummi n g s Sk y w ay TaylorB lvd TaylorB lvd DeerValleyRdDeerValleyRdStateRoute4BypassStateRoute4BypassFigure 4-3 Routes of Regional Significance SanPabl oAveSanPabl oAveDa n v ill e B lv dDa n v ill e B lv d Page4-10JohnMuirParkway JohnMuirParkway Appi anWayAppi anWayHillcrest A v e Hillcrest A v e C a mino DiabloCaminoDiablo James DonlonBlvd James DonlonBlvdSomersvilleRdSomersvilleRdLelandRdLelandRd Buchana n R d B y p ass Buchana n R d B y p ass S a n d Creek RdSandCreekRdDallasRanchRdDallasRanchRd MainStMainStBrentwoodBlvdBrentwoodBlvdCalifornia Delta HwyCaliforniaDeltaHwyPleasantHillRdPleasantHillRdC a r ls o n B l v d C a r ls o n B l v d Centra lAv eCentralAve ElPortal Dr ElPortal Dr Parker AveParker AveSanRamonVall e y Blv dSanRamonVall e y Blv d A lcosta A lcosta B lv dBlvdNMainStNMainStProposed Route of Regional Significance Freeway (Route of Regional Significance) Other Road Route of Regional Significance April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 764 4. Growth Management Program 4-11 4-m The County will only approve projects after finding that one or more of the following conditions are met: (a) Assuming participation in adopted mitigation programs, performance standards will be maintained following project occupancy; (b) Because of the characteristics of the development project, specific mitigation measures are needed to ensure the maintenance of standards, and these will be required as conditions of project approval; or, (c) Capital improvements planned by the service provider will assure maintenance of standards. 4-n Capital Projects sponsored by the County and necessary to maintain levels of performance shall be identified in the five year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Funding sources for the complete cost of the improvements, and phasing, if any, shall also be identified. 4-o All new development shall contribute to, or participate in, the improvement of the parks, fire, police, sewer, water and flood control systems in reasonable proportion to the demand impacts and burdens generated by project occupants and users. 4-p The County shall develop and carry out a growth management/monitoring program as generally indicated in Figure 4-1, as follows: (a) a land supply and development monitoring process; (b) periodic review of performance standards and monitoring of infrastructure constraints; (c) interagency coordination and decision-making to provide information for the first two tasks and successfully implement the overall growth management program; (d) a jobs/housing performance evaluation to determine their relative balance within each sub-region of the County; and (e) growth management determinations, a process which identifies growth areas capable and incapable of meeting performance standards, and directs resources to overcoming any constraints. These components are described in detail below. Adoption of Performance Standards The first step in the growth management program process is completed upon the adoption of performance standards for public facilities and services in this Growth Management Element. Figure 4-1 shows the flow chart of the growth management process. Land Supply/Development Monitoring Analysis The second step in the growth management process, an analysis of land supply and development monitoring, will commence at the beginning of each calendar year. Annual status reports on the implementation of the General Plan and its Growth Management Element will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors and City Councils in June. This status report will fulfill the requirements of Government Code 65400 (b) in the State planning and zoning laws, which requires that every city and county must prepare an annual report to the City Council or Board of Supervisors and the State which summarizes the status of the General Plan and the progress that has been made in its implementation. The subsequent steps in the process, commencing with the performance standards evaluation, will occur on a five-year cycle. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 765 4. Growth Management Program 4-12 The land supply and development monitoring process is a two-part component designed as the basis for the periodic re-examination of lands available in the County for urban development. The availability of developable lands is then contrasted against the actual rate of growth which has been measured over the most recent period. In essence, this component is a land supply and demand tracking process. This process is designed to work in tandem with the other four components (performance standards/infrastructure constraints analysis, interjurisdictional coordination, jobs/housing balance analysis, and growth management determinations) in order to obtain an updated, working perspective of the current capacity of the County to accommodate growth. The land supply and development monitoring process is prepared in an objective fashion by staff, using a set methodology defined and agreed to by the jurisdictions involved (the County, the 19 cities, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the individual service providers). The re-examination of the land supply (initially set by the General Plan Review Program) will occur on an annual basis, in concert with the State Population Certification program which is already conducted by the County and each city planning department. Using a standard format and methodology should provide a high degree of confidence in the process and the established annual schedule should alert the development interests, city agencies, and special districts as to when their contribution will be critical. At the beginning of each annual cycle, formal notification will be given to each of the cities informing them that the land supply and development monitoring process is being initiated and requesting their active participation and cooperation. The Land Use Information System (LUIS), developed in 1987, and the more recent Geographic Information System, provides the foundation for tracking overall land supply, land absorption, and changing land uses in the County. The specific questions that must be answered during this process with the use of the updated LUIS data system are: o how many acres of vacant land in the County, specified by land use type, are identified as available for development? o what changes have occurred in these numbers since the previous evaluation? o how many acres of underutilized or previously developed land are available for redevelopment? o how many acres of land County-wide have been identified as unavailable for development based upon environmental, health and safety, public resource, or other conditions? The County Conservation and Development Department staff will prepare a report which examines the absorption rate (i.e. approved development projects) and the General Plan Amendment requests that have been received. The report on the status of development areas will rely upon residential and commercial/industrial building permit and other project approval information from the cities. This permit approval and General Plan Amendment application information will then be compared to the expected rate of residential and job growth projected for the jurisdiction over the planning period by the respective General Plans. The annual report will be forwarded to decision-making bodies for use in reviewing further General Plan Amendments which would alter the land supply component. Performance Standards Evaluation and Infrastructure Constraints Analysis While the second component of the growth management program (land supply and development monitoring) will be prepared on an annual basis, the final four components will generally be performed only once every five years. Although these final four April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 766 4. Growth Management Program 4-13 components of the Growth Management Program will be comprehensively and formally evaluated every five years, circumstances may necessitate evaluating and modifying the standards during the annual review of the land supply and development component of this Growth Management Program. If circumstances so necessitate, the Board of Supervisors should consider all information before it, including the Land Supply/Development Monitoring Analysis, fiscal constraints, and other information obtained through consultation with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, before modifying the standards. The data and analysis generated in the annual land supply and development monitoring reports will be aggregated for use in the tasks outlined in the following processes. The intent of this third component of the growth management program, performance standards and infrastructure capacity evaluation, is to re-examine minimum allowable performance standards for development projects set in the General Plan, and to determine the remaining available capacities of certain infrastructure facilities. The growth management program for the Contra Costa County General Plan mandates the establishment of infrastructure performance standards for several different services or facilities, including circulation (traffic), sanitary sewage, flood control and drainage, water supply, police and fire protection and emergency services, and parks and recreation. These standards and policies attempt to define a quality of life by setting benchmark indicators of the minimum levels of service required for specific urban services. Every five years the performance standards would be reviewed by staff and the service providers by examining prior experience and ability to serve. In addition, service districts may be provided an opportunity to explain why certain standards are not being met and to explore measures to be taken to alleviate the situation. This information would then be used to evaluate whether the standards for the current review period were appropriate. The second major task to be completed during this phase of the growth management program is an evaluation of the remaining infrastructure capacity in various areas of the County. Part of this evaluation will determine where and why certain existing urbanized areas are not being adequately served. The assumption is that adequate infrastructure capacities can be engineered and built to serve virtually any amount and location of urban growth within the ULL, but that opportunities exist to plan for cost-effective and efficient growth in areas particularly within the ULL, where underutilized infrastructure capacities already exist or where the extension of services is relatively unconstrained compared to other areas. The basic data requirements of this portion of the process include: o a determination of the remaining capacity for each facility or service provider based upon the defined performance standards, and identification of the geographic areas that could be served by the capacity; o an itemization of funded infrastructure improvement projects, their location and expected date of completion, and the service area or population they are designed to serve; o identification of urbanized areas with inadequate service, as defined by the adopted performance standards; o an itemization of the major capital improvements not now funded but needed to bring existing areas into compliance with the performance standards; o itemization of major capital improvements necessary to serve anticipated future development at the adopted service level, and the cost of these improvements; o identification of major physical, economic and/or environmental constraints to the provision of service or facilities in a given area; and April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 767 4. Growth Management Program 4-14 o identification of possible sources of funding for the improvements. The object of the data gathering is to illustrate where future growth can and cannot occur without major investment in new or improved infrastructure systems, and to identify the level and source of financing required. Additionally, the exercise will allow the preparation of estimates of future required capacity based upon the performance standards. One outcome of this process will be to provide up-to-date information concerning where future growth is expected to occur, thus assisting in capital facilities planning efforts. To ensure that high density "leapfrog" growth does not occur, as a matter of policy, this growth management program mandates that new urban and central business district levels of development shall not be approved unless the development is within the ULL and near existing or committed urban or central business district levels of development. Jobs/Housing Performance Evaluation The purpose of this step is to provide a basis for assessing the jobs/housing balance within each section of the County for the current five year review cycle, to assist the jurisdictions in the sub-regions in determining preferred locations for residential and employment growth, and to assist in focusing the direction of implementation programs. The jobs/housing balance evaluation is based upon the County's Land Use Information System data base, augmented by the information provided in the development monitoring evaluation. The evaluation considers growth in housing units and employment and housing and employment availability, relative affordability and commute patterns, and to the extent that the data are available, price of the units and wage levels of the jobs added. The jobs/housing performance evaluation will be used to identify areas where jobs or housing should be stimulated and encouraged. It would also be used to provide information about areas in which infrastructure deficiencies need to be corrected in order to facilitate a better jobs/housing balance. Interjurisdictional Coordination and Decision-Making The growth management program outlined here will not succeed without the cooperation and active participation of the County, the Local Agency Formation Commission, the 19 cities, and the service providers. These agencies and cities may view cooperation with the County's growth management program as a threat to their local authority over land use or other growth issues. The County's efforts to achieve cooperation must be aimed at persuading the cities and agencies that the growth management program will ultimately enhance their ability to meet their own General Plan goals. In addition, the County will participate in the cooperative planning process established by the Transportation Authority for the purpose of reducing the cumulative regional traffic impacts of development. Interjurisdictional cooperation would not require all of the cities and agencies to adopt the same goals, policies and implementation measures as will be included in the County's General Plan and growth management program. However, it would be desirable for the County to request that the cities and agencies adopt resolutions that specifically recognize and accept the growth management program and its premise. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 768 4. Growth Management Program 4-15 A key commitment by the jurisdictions involves the dedication of a relatively small, but adequate, level of staff time to assist the County in gathering the required data for the necessary planning studies. Additional commitments must be made on the part of policy makers and staff to review the annual land supply and development monitoring reports, consider them when making important planning decisions, and to actively participate in the growth management determination process every five years. Growth Management Determinations Building upon the preceding components of the growth management program, the final aspect of the process involves using the reports that have been generated to make the important decisions about where future growth in the County should be encouraged in order to minimize infrastructure costs and to enhance the overall level of "quality of life." The process for making these determinations is as important as the determinations themselves. The process can help to achieve consensus among cities and the County (in consultation with service providers) as to appropriate amounts and locations of new residential, commercial and industrial growth in the County. The growth management determination process should include the following steps, several of which are based upon information developed in the previous components of the program: o indicate on a County General Plan map the current city boundary lines, Spheres of Influence, the Urban Limit Line and current service areas for all of the major utilities/facilities; o add to the base map information regarding improvements or extensions to service systems that have been completed since the last review period or improvements itemized in capital improvement programs, as well as constructed and approved development projects and adopted General Plan Amendments; o identify lands that have been determined to be undevelopable; o identify on the map the geographic areas with infrastructure constraints and the locations of development projects that have been unable to meet performance standards; o review the annual land supply and development monitoring reports in conjunction with the performance standards and infrastructure constraints analysis reports to determine whether an adequate supply of vacant land is designated for urban use in the County and city General Plans, on both a Countywide and subregional basis, to allow the anticipated amount of urban development during the remainder of the twenty year period. This urban development must be subject to the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. (See Section 3, Land Use Element.) o Determine whether adjustment to the urban limit line is needed in order to provide sufficient land to accommodate anticipated needs. Growth management determinations shall be made in consultation with the Transportation Authority. In addition, it is anticipated that these growth management determinations will be made in a series of joint meetings conducted on a subregional basis with representatives of the cities. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the service districts should also be consulted. Staff will present the base map and accompanying reports to the County and City Planning Commissions, LAFCO and service district boards, with a request that the agencies review the recommendations and make formal comments. After this review period is complete and appropriate changes, if needed, have been made, the map and reports will be recirculated to all of the jurisdictions in the County. The final action will be to request that the cities, LAFCO April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 769 4. Growth Management Program 4-16 Definitions of Terms The following definitions apply to the geographic terms used with respect to the Growth Management Element only. The level of service designations for unincorporated County areas are shown in Figure 4-2. Rural. Rural areas are defined as generally those parts of the County that are designated in the General Plan for agricultural, open space or very low density residential uses, and which are characterized by medium to very large parcel sizes (10 acres to several thousand acres). These areas have very low population densities, usually no more than 1 person per acre or 500 people per square mile. Suburban. Suburban areas are defined as generally those parts of the County that are designated in the General Plan for low and medium density single family homes; low density multiple family residences; low density neighborhood- and community-oriented commercial/industrial uses; and other accompanying uses. Individual structures in suburban areas are generally less than 3 stories in height and residential lots vary from about one fifth of an acre (8,000 or 9,000 square feet) up to 2 or 3 acres. Population densities in suburban areas fall within a wide range, from about 1,000 to 7,500 persons per square mile (1.5 to 12.0 people per acre). Urban. Urban areas are defined as generally those parts of the County that are designated in the General Plan primarily for multiple family housing, with smaller areas designated for high density single family homes; low to moderate density commercial/industrial uses; and many other accompanying uses. Urban areas usually include clusters of residential buildings (apartments and condominiums) up to three or four stories in height and single family homes on relatively small lots. Many commercial strips along major arterial road are considered urban areas. Examples of urban areas in Contra Costa County are the older neighborhoods in Richmond, El Cerrito, Pittsburg, and Antioch and the downtown commercial districts in smaller cities such as Martinez, Danville, and Lafayette. Population densities in urban areas are usually at least 7,500 persons per square mile (12.0 people per acre). Employment densities in commercial areas may range up to about 15 jobs per acre. Central Business District/Major Commercial Center. Central business districts or major commercial centers are defined as those areas designated in the General Plan for high density commercial and residential uses. They consist of either the downtown area of a major city in Contra Costa County (Concord, Walnut Creek, and Richmond) or a large business/office complex (such as Bishop Ranch or the Pleasant Hill BART station area). These areas are characterized by large concentrations of jobs and consist of clusters of buildings four stories or more in height. CBD's or major commercial centers generally have employment densities. Contra Costa Transportation Authority Model Growth Management Element Correspondence Table Table 4-2 demonstrates how the policies contained in the County General Plan are consistent with (correspond to) the policies in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Model Growth Management Element. These policies must be consistent for the County to qualify for Measure J transportation sales tax revenue. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 770 4. Growth Management Program 4-17 TABLE 4-2 CORRESPONDENCE TABLE BETWEEN MEASURE J ‐ MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) AND COUNTY GENERAL PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS Contra Costa residents extended the Measure C (1988) transportation sales tax and growth management program when they approved Measure J in 2004. Measure J changes the specific requirements for the growth management program from those set in Measure C, eliminating two requirements, adding one and clarifying or refining others. County growth management policies and programs developed to comply with Measure C are not inherently in conflict with Measure J growth management requirements as is demonstrated by this correspondence table. The one growth management requirement added by Measure J, a voter‐approved urban limit line, was already part of the County General Plan in 1991. In response to a Measure J refinement to the Measure C Housing Options requirement, the General Plan was amended in 2008 to include adoption of policies and standards into the development approval process that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments. The Measure J Model Growth Management Element requires local jurisdictions to provide a correspondence table that clearly identifies which sections of the Plan constitute each required Element. The County growth management policies and programs described in this table restate text in the County General Plan in the format required by the Measure J Model Growth Management Element. MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME)1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Growth Management Element (GME) to the General Plan is to establish the goals, policies and implementation programs that are intended to manage and mitigate the impacts of future growth and development within [the local jurisdiction]. This element is also intended to comply with the requirements of the Measure J Growth Management Program (GMP). Planned Levels of Development; The Urban Limit Line and Land Uses (Land Use Element §3.6, pg. #3‐8) Introduction (Growth Management Element §4.1, pg. #4‐1) Introduction (Housing Element §6.1, pg. #6‐1) 1.2 Background2 The Measure J GMP, adopted by the voters of Contra Costa in November 2004, requires each local jurisdiction to meet the six following requirements: • Adopt a development mitigation program; • Address Housing Options; • Participate in an Ongoing Cooperative, Multi‐Jurisdictional Planning Process; Public Participation through Voting Process (Introduction §1.3, pg. #1‐2 through 1‐3) Introduction (Growth Management Element §4.1, pg. #4‐1) 1 Local Growth Management Elements must substantially comply with the intent of this model element, but need not reflect its exact language or organization. Applicable policies that are contained in other elements of the jurisdiction’s General Plan should also be referenced here within the Growth Management Element. 2 Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Ordinance 06‐02 Amending and Restating the Measure C Transportation Expenditure Plan to Make Non‐substantive Changes and insert Specific Provisions Moved from Ordinance 88‐01. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 771 4. Growth Management Program 4-18 MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME)1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS • Adopt an Urban Limit Line (ULL); • Develop a five‐year capital improvement program; and • Adopt a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Ordinance or Resolution. Measure J (2004) is a 25‐year extension of the previous Measure C Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program approve by the voters in 1988. Both programs include a ½ percent transportation and retail transactions and use tax intended to address existing major regional transportation problems. The Growth Management component is intended to assure that future residential business and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth. Compliance with the GMP is linked to receipt of Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds and Transportation for Livable Community funds from the Transportation Authority. The Growth Management Program defined by the original Ordinance 88‐01 continues in effect along with its linkage to Local Street maintenance and improvement funds through March 31, 2009. Beginning on April 1, 2009, the Measure J GMP requirements take effect. Measure J eliminates the previous Measure C requirements for local performance standards and level‐of‐service standards for non‐regional routes. Measure J also adds the requirement for adoption of a voter‐approved ULL. 1.3 Intent By adopting and implementing this Element, the jurisdiction intends to establish a comprehensive, long‐range program that will match the demands for multi‐modal transportation facilities and services generated by new development with plans, capital improvement programs and development mitigation programs. The Urban Limit Line is intended to promote compact urban development patterns and restrict the extension of infrastructure into areas where urban development is not planned. Introduction (Growth Management Element §4.1, pg. #4‐1) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 772 4. Growth Management Program 4-19 MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME)1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS 1.4 Authority The GME is adopted pursuant to the authority granted to local jurisdictions by Section 65303 of the Government Code of the State of California which states: The general plan may include any other elements or address any other subjects which, in the judgment of the legislative body, relate to the physical development of the county or city. The GME also is consistent with the requirements of Contra Costa’s Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan (Measure J), approved by Contra Costa County voters in 2004, and as amended by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Introduction (Growth Management Element §4.1, pg. #4‐1) 1.5 Relation to Other General Plan Elements [Refer to other elements.] Relationship to Other General Plan Elements (Land Use Element §3.2, pg. #3‐2) Relationship to Other General Plan Elements (Growth Management Element §4.2, pg. #4‐2) Relationship to Other Elements (Transportation and Circulation Element §5.2, pg. #5‐1 through 5‐2) Relationship to the General Plan (Housing Element §6.1E Table 6‐1, pg. #6‐6 through 6‐7) 1.6 Organization of Element The GME establishes goals, and policies in Section 2 and sets forth corresponding implementation programs in Section 3. All sections are numbered sequentially, with the first number referring to the section and the second number to the subsection. 1.7 Definition of Maps, Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures (Introduction pg. 1‐5 through 1‐7) 2. GOALS AND POLICIES 2.1 Introduction The introductory text should: (1) Describe the relationship of the goals and policies in the GME to the other elements of the General Plan, especially the policies in the Circulation and Land Use element; (2) Define terms such as Action Plans, Routes of Regional Significance and Urban Limit Line, or refer to definitions in other parts of the Plan; and (1) Relationship to Other General Plan Elements (Land Use Element §3.2, pg. #3‐2) (See Relationship to Other General Plan Elements (Growth Management Element §4.2, pg. #4‐2) under 1.5 Relation to Other General Plan Elements in the MGME) Relationship to Other Elements (Transportation and Circulation Element §5.2, pgs. 5‐1 through 5‐2) (2) Land Use Definitions (The Text of Measure C‐1988 and Measure C‐1990 §1.11, pg. #1‐16) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 773 4. Growth Management Program 4-20 MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME)1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS (3) Present a general discussion of how the jurisdiction will comply with Measure J. Text may also be included that discusses the roles of other agencies in the attainment of standards, or other factors that relate to the success of the programs included in the Section. (3) 4.1 Introduction (Growth Management Element, pg. #4‐1) Growth Management Program (Housing Element §6.3, pg. #6‐49 through 6‐51) 2.2 Goals (Examples based on Measure J) • Assure that new residential, business and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth. • Support cooperative transportation and land use planning in Contra Costa County. • Support land use patterns that make more efficient use of the transportation system, consistent with the General Plans of local jurisdictions. • Support infill and redevelopment in existing urban and brownfield areas. Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Land Use Element §3.8, pg. 3‐32 and pg. 3‐33 Goal 3‐K) Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pg. 4-4) (See Table 6‐1, Goal 6 and 7 under 1.5 Relation to Other General Plan Elements in the MGME) 2.3 Policies The local jurisdiction intends to comply with the Measure J GMP. The following policies are intended to implement Measure J and achieve the goals of this element: 2.3.1 Development Mitigation Program: Adopt and maintain in place a development mitigation program to ensure that new growth is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth. 2.3.1.1 Local Mitigation Program: The local jurisdiction shall adopt a local program to mitigate development impacts on non‐regional routes and other facilities. Revenue provided from this program shall not be used to replace private developer funding of any required improvements that have or would have been committed to any project. 2.3.1.2 Regional Mitigation Program: The local jurisdiction shall participate in a regional development mitigation program to establish Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Land Use Element §3.8, pg. #3‐34 through 3‐37) Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pgs. #4‐4 through 4‐8) Roadways and Transit Policies (Transportation and Circulation Element §5.6, pg. #5‐15 and 5‐16) Housing Goals and Policies (Housing Element §6.6, pg. #6‐89 through 6‐91 – only certain policies cited) (See Policies 3‐5 through 3‐7, 4‐1 through 4‐ 4, and 5‐4 and 5‐21 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) (See Policies 3‐5 through 3‐7, 4‐1 through 4‐ 4, and 5‐4 and 5‐21 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) (See Policies 4‐3 and 4‐4 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 774 4. Growth Management Program 4-21 MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) 1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS fees, exactions, assessments or other mitigation measures to fund regional or subregional transportation improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of planned or forecast development on the regional transportation system. 2.3.2 Address Housing Options: Demonstrate reasonable progress in provide housing opportunities for all income levels and demonstrate reasonable progress in meeting housing goals. 2.3.2.1 Periodic Reports. Prepare periodic reports to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to demonstrate reasonable progress in providing housing opportunities for all income levels. 2.3.2.2 Impacts on Transportation. Consider the impacts that the local jurisdiction’s land use development policies have on the local, regional, and countywide transportation system, including the level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided. 2.3.2.3 Incorporation into Development Approval Process. Incorporate policies and standards into the development approval process that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments. (See Housing Element: §6.6 – Housing Plan (pg. #6‐88 through 6‐92 – only certain policies cited) under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) Housing Plan (Housing Element Appendix B, pg. #6‐1B, Table B‐1, “Program Implementation Status”) (Periodic Reports are provided to CCTA via the Biennial Compliance Checklist) (See Policies 4‐3 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) (See Policies 4‐1 and 5‐21 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) 2.3.3 Participate in On‐Going Multi‐Jurisdictional Planning: Participation in an on‐going multi‐jurisdictional planning process with other jurisdictions and agencies, the RTPC, and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to create a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation system and to manage the impacts of growth. 2.3.3.1 Action Plans. Work with the RTPC to develop and update Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. For the network of designated Routes of Regional Significance, set Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) for those routes, and identify actions for achieving the MTSOs. The Action Plans also include a process for monitoring and review of the traffic impacts of proposed new developments. (See Policies 4‐4 and 5‐1 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) (see previous) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 775 4. Growth Management Program 4-22 MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME)1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS 2.3.3.2 Travel Demand Model. Apply the Authority’s travel demand forecasting model and Technical Procedures to the analysis of General Plan Amendments (GPAs) and developments exceeding specified thresholds for their effect on the regional transportation system, including the Action Plan MTSOs. 2.3.3.3 Interagency Consultation. Circulate traffic impact analyses to affected jurisdictions and to the RTPC for review and comment. 2.3.3.4 Mitigation Program. Work with the appropriate RTPCs to develop the mitigation program outlined in Section 2.3.1.2 above. 2.3.3.5 Countywide Transportation Plan. Participate in the preparation of the Authority’s Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the ongoing countywide transportation planning process. Travel Model Support. Help maintain the Authority’s travel demand modeling system by providing information on proposed land use developments and transportation projects, including those projects that the jurisdiction has adopted as part of its five‐year CIP. (None) (See Policies 4‐4 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) (See Policy 4‐3 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) (None) (See 2.3.3 Participate in On‐Going Multi‐ Jurisdictional Planning and 2.3.3.2 Travel Demand Model in the MGME) 2.3.4 Adopt an Urban Limit Line (ULL): The local jurisdiction shall adopt a ULL that has been approved by the majority of the voters within the local jurisdiction. The ULL may be either a MAC‐ULL, a County ULL, or a Local Voter ULL as defined in the Principles of Agreement (Attachment A) to the Measure J GMP (as amended). Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures §3.8, pg. #3‐34, Policies 3‐5, 3‐10 and 3‐11) 2.3.4.1 Applicability. A complying ULL shall be in place through March 31, 2034, which is the end of the Measure J sales tax extension (See 2.3.4 Adopt an Urban Limit Line in the MGME) 2.3.4.2 Policies. The ULL includes the following policy provisions: [List applicable policies here] (See 2.3.4 Adopt an Urban Limit Line in the MGME) 2.3.5 Develop a Five‐Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Annually or biennially, prepare and maintain a capital improvement program that outlines the capital projects needed to implement the goals, policies, and programs of this General Plan for the next five years. The CIP shall include approved projects and an analysis of the costs of the proposed projects as well as a financial plan for providing the improvements. (See Policies 3‐7 and 4‐1 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 776 4. Growth Management Program 4-23 MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME)1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS 2.3.6 Adopt a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Ordinance or Resolution: To promote carpools, vanpools, and park and ride lots, the local jurisdiction shall maintain in place an ordinance or resolution that conforms to the model TSM ordinance or resolution that the Authority has drafted and adopted. (See Policy 5‐24 under 2.3 Policies in the MGME) 3. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS 3.1 Development Mitigation Program. The jurisdiction will adopt and implement a development mitigation program to ensure that new growth is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth. This program shall consist of both a local program to mitigate impacts on local streets and other facilities and a regional program to fund regional and subregional transportation projects, consistent with the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Land Use Element §3.8, pg. #4‐9) Goals Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pg. #4‐ 9, Measure 4‐g) 3.1.1 Local Mitigation Program – Required Mitigation or Fees. The jurisdiction will require development projects to provide local mitigation or fees as established for proposed new development. Goals Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pg. #4‐ 11, Measure 4‐m and 4‐n) Roadway and Transit Implementation Measures (Transportation and Circulation Element §5.6, pg. #5‐17, Measure 5‐e) 3.1.2 Regional Mitigation Program – Required Fees and Exemptions. The jurisdiction will require development projects to pay regional development mitigation fees established by the RTPC in accordance with the RTPC’s adopted program. [List specific RTMP requirements here] Goals Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pgs. #4‐8 and 4‐9, Measures 4‐b and 4‐d) Roadway and Transit Implementation Measures (Transportation and Circulation Element §5.6, pg. #5‐17, Measure 5‐f) 3.1.3 Analyze the impacts of land use policies and future development on the transportation system by evaluating General Plan Amendments and requiring preparation of traffic impact reports for projects that generate in excess of a specified traffic threshold. The General Plan Amendment Process (Introduction §1.10, pg. #1‐9) Goal, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pgs. #4‐8 and 4‐9, Measures 4‐c through 4‐e) Contra Costa County Guidelines for Administering the California Environmental Quality Act (2010), Appendix M 3.1.4 Use of Measure J Funds. Measure J transportation improvement funds, including the 18% Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds, may be used for any eligible transportation purpose. In no case, however, will those funds replace private developer funding for transportation projects determined to be required for new growth to mitigate the impacts it creates. Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pg. #4‐9, 4‐d) 3.2 Address Housing Options. To achieve reasonable progress in providing housing opportunities for all income levels, the local jurisdiction will: [List specific implementation programs here, or reference programs located in the Housing Element] Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Land Use Element §3.8, pg. #3‐ 39, Measures 3‐ab) Housing Plan (Housing Element Appendix B, pg. #6‐1B, Table B‐1, “Program April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 777 4. Growth Management Program 4-24 MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME)1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS Implementation Status”) (Periodic Reports are provided to CCTA via the Biennial Compliance Checklist) 3.2.1 Prepare a biennial report on the implementation of actions outlined in the local jurisdictions Housing Element, for submittal to CCTA as part of the biennial GMP Compliance Checklist. The report will demonstrate reasonable progress using one of the following three options: Housing Plan (Housing Element Appendix B, pg. #6‐1B, Table B‐1, “Program Implementation Status”) (Periodic Reports are provided to CCTA via the Biennial Compliance Checklist) 3.2.1.1 Comparing the number of housing units approved, constructed or occupied within the jurisdiction over the preceding five years with the number of units needed on average each year to meet the housing objectives established in the jurisdictions Housing Element; or 3.2.1.2 Illustrating how the jurisdiction has adequately planned to meet the existing and projected housing needs through the adoption of land use plans and regulatory systems which provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development; or 3.2.1.3 Illustrating how a jurisdiction’s General Plan and zoning regulations facilitate the improvement and development of sufficient housing to meet those objectives. Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pgs. #4‐11 through 4‐12, “Land Supply/Development Monitoring Analysis”) (See 3.2.1.1 in the MGME) (See 3.2.1.1 in the MGME) 3.2.2 As part of the development review process, support the accommodation of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access for new development. [List specific procedures] Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Land Use Element §3.8, pg. #3‐39 through 3‐40, Measures 3‐al through 3‐ao) Goals Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pg. #4‐ 9, Measure 4‐j) Roadway and Transit Implementation Measures (Transportation and Circulation Element §5.6, pg. #5‐18 through 5‐23 (certain Measures only) 3.3 Multi‐Jurisdictional Transportation Planning. The jurisdiction will participate in multi‐jurisdictional transportation planning by participating in activities of the RTPC including development of Regional Route Action Plans and cooperating in the assessment and mitigation of traffic impacts in neighboring jurisdictions when it is believed that local actions contribute to conditions at such intersections. Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element, §4.4 pg. #4‐8, Measure 4‐b) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 778 4. Growth Management Program 4-25 MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME)1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS 3.3.1 Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. The map/list on page ( ) shows Routes of Regional Significance that have been designated by the local jurisdiction in cooperation with the RTPC and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The jurisdiction will participate with both agencies in developing and implementing Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. (See Measure 4‐b under 3.3 Multi‐ Jurisdictional Transportation Planning in the MGME) 3.3.2 Travel Demand Modeling. The jurisdiction will apply the Authority’s travel demand model for analysis of General Plan amendments affecting land use or circulation and development projects that generate more than a specified threshold of peak hour trips to determine the effects on the regional transportation system and compliance with the Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives established in the Action Plan applicable to the jurisdiction’s planning area. The jurisdiction also will help maintain the Authority’s travel demand modeling system by providing information on proposed improvements to the transportation system, planned and approved development within the jurisdiction, and long‐ rang plans relative to ABAG’s projections for households and jobs within the local jurisdiction. Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Land Use Element §3.8, pg. #3‐ 38, Measure 3‐o) 3.3.3 Other Planning and Implementation Programs. The jurisdiction will work with the RTPC and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to help develop other plans, programs and studies to address transportation and growth management issues. (None) 3.3.4 Conflict Resolution. The jurisdiction will participate in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s established conflict resolution process as needed to resolve disputes related to the development and implementation of Actions Plans and other programs described in this Element. Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (Growth Management Element §4.4, pg. #4‐9, Measure 4‐h) 3.4 Urban Limit Line (ULL). The jurisdiction will adopt either a Mutually Agreed‐Upon Countywide ULL, a County ULL, or Local Voter ULL consistent with the requirements of the Measure J GMP (as amended by Authority Ordinance 06‐04). Urban development is allowed within the line, subject to the policies and standards of the Land Use Element: The ULL can only be amended by a subsequent vote of the electorate; minor adjustments of less than 30 acres may be approved by a majority vote of the local jurisdiction‘s legislative body. Land Use Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures §3.8, pg. #3‐38, Measures 3‐p through 3‐s) 3.5 Five‐Year Capital Improvement Program. Capital projects sponsored by the local jurisdiction and necessary to maintain and improve traffic operations will be included in the five‐ year Capital Improvement Program (See Measure 4‐g under 3.1 Development Mitigation Program in the MGME) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 779 4. Growth Management Program 4-26 MODEL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (MGME) 1 FINAL – RELEASED ON 06‐08‐07 CORRESPONDING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN TEXT, GOALS, POLICIES OR PROGRAMS (CIP). Funding sources for such projects as well as intended project phasing will be generally identified in the CIP. 3.6 Transportation Systems Management. As part of this growth management program, the jurisdiction will adopt and implement [a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) ordinance] or [a TSM Resolution] or [an alternative mitigation program]. (See Measure 4‐j under 3.2.2 in the MGME) GLOSSARY (See Land Use Definitions under 2.1 Introduction in the MGME) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 780 Compliance Checklist Reporting Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County For Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 Reporting Period: Calendar Years 2014 & 2015 Attachment G April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 781 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 782 Jurisdiction: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Reporting Period: FY 2014-2015 Measure J 18%: $2,384,478 Project Type Project Name Project Description (Location, Limits)Measure J Funds Expended ($)Reporting Metric (see instructions) Local Streets and Roads 7 year Capital Rd Improvement Program PW Development of database for capital road improvement and preservation program. $ 250,000 N/A - Administrative tasks. Local Streets and Roads San Pablo Dam Road Sidewalk Walkability Project PW Reconstruct sidewalks and install pedestrian enchancements along San Pablo Dam Road between Appian Way and El Portal $ 200,000 Approximately 4,900 SY of sidewalk installed. Local Streets and Roads Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Rd Sidewalk Improvement PW Construct sidewalk and bike lanes along Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road. Reconfigure the Port Chicago Highway/Willow Pass Road intersectionto remove the westbound free right turn lane. $ 100,000 N/A - Design phase work. Local Streets and Roads Byron Highway/Camino Diablo Rd Intersection Improvement PW Construct safety improvements at the Byron Highway/Camino Diablo intersection, including a new traffic signal, left turn pockets, improve railroad crossing, and new sidewalks. $ 382,523 N/A - Design phase work. Local Streets and Roads Pavement Repairs/Prep PW Conduct pavement maintenance to prolong the life of pavement, including potholing, pavement patching, base failure repair, and crack sealing. $ 1,600,000 1,949 Potholes filled 109,162 SY of Pavement Patching 2,507 SY of Base Failure Repairs 9.2 miles of Crack Sealing (Total project, 45% Measure J Funds) Local Streets and Roads Pavement Surface Treatment PW Conduct pavement surface treatments such as chip seals, microsurface, and cape seals on various roadways in the unincoporated areas of El Sobrante, Pleasant Hill BART, Alamo, Blackhawk, and East Richmond. $ 3,400,000 Approximately 745,000 square yards (Total project, 84% Measure J Funds) Other Measure C Growth Management Compliance with CCTA Growth Management Program including GMP tracking and maintenance of our GMP checklist, portion of County share of RTPC costs, preparation for Growth Management Element Update. $ 29,689 N/A TDM/TSM Employee TSM Staff work related to Contra Costa County TSM program including bike lockers, car/vanpool program support, employee questions/referrals regarding transit and non-motorized commute options. $ 20,208 N/A TDM/TSM Countywide TSM Staff time related to all bicycle and pedestrian, transit and school bus planning. $ 201,540 N/A Other Regional Transportation Planning Commission Staff time related to attending RTPC meetings and portion of County share of RTPC costs. $ 461,176 N/A CCTA Measure J Local Streets & Roads Maintenance Audit Reporting Form April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 783 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator or designee to execute, on behalf of the County, a Community Choice Aggregator Non-Disclosure Agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company, including modified indemnification language, to obtain electrical load data within Contra Costa County. FISCAL IMPACT: There is a $920 charge from PG&E to obtain the requested electrical load data, which will be paid from the approved budget for the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD). BACKGROUND: On March 15, 2016, the Board of Supervisors authorized DCD to proceed with conducting a technical study to evaluate alternatives for potential implementation of a Community Choice Energy program. To conduct this study, the County must request and obtain electrical load data from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for electrical accounts within the unincorporated area, and within the boundaries of the cities that have authorized the County to obtain such data on their behalf. Utility customer information is confidential and not subject to disclosure. (Pub. Util. Code, § 8380.) The Public Utilities Commission has authorized electricity providers to release utility customer to public agencies when they are considering whether to participate in community choice energy or community choice aggregation. However, the PUC requires the public agency to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with the electricity provider, to ensure that utility customer information will remain confidential. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 335-1077 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: April 12, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: DCD, CAO C. 72 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY AGGREGATION NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT WITH PG&E April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 784 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Pursuant to the PUC’s requirements, before PG&E will release electricity load data to the County, PG&E will require the County to enter into a Community Choice Aggregator Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”). Under this agreement, the County will be required to indemnify PG&E, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parent companies, officers, employees, and agents from any claims related to the County or its representatives’ use or disclosure of confidential utility data that the County receives from PG&E. County employees and consultants that will have access to the electricity load data will need to execute an acknowledgement that they agree to maintain and dispose of the load data in accordance with the terms of the NDA. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the recommended action so that the County can proceed with conducting a technical study to evaluate alternatives for implementing a community choice energy program. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not authorize County staff to take the recommended action, staff will not be able to conduct a technical study of Community Choice Energy, as previously directed by the Board. ATTACHMENTS CCE Non-Disclosure Agreement Form with PG&E April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 785 Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Francisco, California U 39 Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 32646-E* Cancelling Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 32235-E Electric Sample Form No. 79-1031 Community Choice Aggregator Non-Disclosure Agreement Advice Letter No: 4221-E Issued by Date Filed May 2, 2013 Decision No. 12-11-015 Brian K. Cherry Effective May 2, 2013 D.12-08-045, D.11-07-056 Vice President Resolution No. 1C7 Regulatory Relations Please Refer to Attached Sample Form April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 786 This Non-Disclosure Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“Utility”) and _______________________________ __________________________________________________________________[name]______ ________________________, a ________________________ [describe political entity] _____________________________(“CCA”) as of _________________________ (“Effective Date”). This Agreement is executed pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) Order Instituted Rulemaking (“OIR”) 03-10-003, California Public Utilities Code (“PU Code”) Section 366.2 et seq., and applicable Utility tariffs (as modified hereafter from time to time). As used herein Utility and CCA may each be referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as “Parties.” The CPUC has determined that CCA/Community may obtain specified confidential customer information from Utility pursuant to Tariff Schedules E-CCAINFO-Information (as modified hereafter from time to time) (“E-CCAINFO”) as a community choice aggregator, as defined by PU Code Section 331.1, solely in order to investigate, pursue or implement community choice aggregation pursuant to PU Code Section 366.2, et seq. or confidential customer electric and gas consumption data to implement energy efficiency programs pursuant to PU Code section 381.1. The provisions of this Agreement and E-CCAINFO govern the disclosure of Utility’s confidential customer information to CCA/Community (“Disclosure Provisions”) under Schedules E-CCAINFO and E-CCA. The Parties hereby mutually agree that: 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, current proprietary and confidential information of Utility regarding customers of Utility (“Utility Customers”) may be disclosed to CCA from time to time in connection herewith as provided by the Disclosure Provisions and solely for the purpose of investigating, pursuing or implementing community choice aggregation pursuant to PU Code Section 366.2, et seq. as a community choice aggregator or to implement energy efficiency programs pursuant to PU Code section 381.1. Such disclosure is subject to the following legal continuing representations and warranties by CCA: (a) CCA represents and warrants that, pursuant to PU Code Section 331.1, (1) it is either (i) a city, county, or other entity as defined in PU Code Section 331.1 whose governing board has elected to combine the loads of its residents, businesses, and municipal facilities in a community wide electricity buyers program or (ii) a city, county, or other entity as defined in PU Code Section 331.1 that intends to actively investigate or pursue delivery of electric service to customers located within the geographic territory of the CCA, and (2) that to investigate, pursue or implement community choice aggregation under PU Code Section 366.2 et seq., or to implement energy efficiency programs pursuant to PU Code section 381.1; April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 787 (b) CCA represents and warrants that it has all necessary authority to enter into this Agreement, and that it is a binding enforceable Agreement according to its terms; (c) CCA represents and warrants that the authorized representative(s) executing this Agreement is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the CCA; and (d) CCA confirms its understanding that the information of Utility Customers is of a highly sensitive confidential and proprietary nature, and that such information will be used as contemplated under the Disclosure Provisions solely for the purposes of investigating, pursing or implementing Community Choice Aggregation under PU Code Section 366.2 as a community choice aggregator or to implement energy efficiency programs pursuant to PU Code section 381.1, and that any other use of the information may permit Utility to suspend providing further information hereunder. (e) CCA represents and warrants that it will implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, to protect the personal information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure, and prohibits the use of the data for a secondary commercial purpose not related to community choice aggregation or energy efficiency purposes without the customer’s prior consent to that use. 2. The confidential and proprietary information disclosed to CCA in connection herewith may include, without limitation, the following billing information about Utility Customers: Customer-specific information from the current billing periods as well as prior 12 months consisting of: service agreement number, name on agreement, service address with zip code, mailing address with zip code, telephone number, meter number, monthly kWh usage, monthly maximum demand where available, electrical or gas consumption data as defined in PU Code Section 8380, other data detailing electricity or gas needs and patterns of usage, Baseline Zone, CARE participation, End Use Code (Heat Source) Service Voltage, Medical Baseline, Meter Cycle, Bill Cycle, Balanced Payment Plan and other plans, HP Load and Number of Units and monthly rate schedule for all accounts within the CCA's territory. In addition, PG&E will provide the CCA the following additional information regarding customers currently enrolled in its CCA service: current and historical billing information for non-CCA services provided by PG&E or other electric service providers (collectively, “Confidential Information”). Confidential Information shall also include specifically any copies, drafts, revisions, analyses, summaries, extracts, memoranda, reports and other materials prepared by CCA or its representatives that are derived from or based on Confidential Information disclosed by Utility, regardless of the form of media in which it is prepared, recorded or retained. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 788 3. Except for electric and gas usage information provided to CCA pursuant to this Agreement, Confidential Information does not include information that CCA proves (a) was properly in the possession of CCA at the time of disclosure; (b) is or becomes publicly known through no fault of CCA, its employees or representatives; or (c) was independently developed by CCA, its employees or representatives without access to any Confidential Information. 4. From the Effective Date, no portion of the Confidential Information may be disclosed, disseminated or appropriated by CCA, or used for any purpose other than to investigate, pursue or implement community choice aggregation under PU Code Section 366.2 et seq. as a community choice aggregator or to implement energy efficiency programs pursuant to PU Code section 381.1 as permitted under this Agreement and the Disclosure Provisions. 5. CCA shall, at all times and in perpetuity, keep the Confidential Information in the strictest confidence and shall take all reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized or improper disclosure or use of Confidential Information. CCA shall implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, to protect the personal information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure and prohibits the use of the data for a secondary commercial purpose not related to community choice aggregation or energy efficiency. Specifically, CCA shall restrict access to Confidential Information, and to materials prepared in connection therewith, to those employees or representatives of CCA who have a “need to know” such Confidential Information in the course of their duties with respect to the CCA program and who agree to be bound by the nondisclosure and confidentiality obligations of this Agreement, provided, however, that, an Energy Service Provider, agent, or any other entity, including entities that provide both direct access (as codified in Assembly Bill No. 1890, Stats. 1996, ch. 854) and community choice aggregation services shall limit their utilization of the information provided to the purposes for which it has been provided and shall not utilize such information, directly or indirectly, in providing other services, including but not limited to Direct Access services, in order to effectuate the obligations of this Agreement. Prior to disclosing any Confidential Information to its employees or representatives, CCA shall require such employees or representatives to whom Confidential Information is to be disclosed to review this Agreement and to agree in writing to be bound by the terms of this Agreement by signing the “Non- Disclosure Agreement for CCA Employees or Representatives” form attached as Exhibit A hereto. CCA shall provide Utility with copies of the signed Exhibit A forms at Utility request. CCA shall also provide Utility with a list of the names, titles, and addresses for all persons or entities to which Confidential Information is disclosed in connection herewith (“Disclosure List”). This Disclosure List shall be updated by CCA on a regular basis, and will be provided to Utility once each quarter at a minimum. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 789 6. CCA shall be liable for the actions of, or any disclosure or use by, its employees or representatives contrary to this Agreement; however, such liability shall not limit or prevent any actions by Utility directly against such employees or representatives for improper disclosure and/or use. In no event shall CCA or its employees or representatives take any actions related to Confidential Information that are inconsistent with holding Confidential Information in strict confidence. CCA shall immediately notify Utility in writing if it becomes aware of the possibility of any misuse or misappropriation of the Confidential Information by CCA or any of its employees or representatives. However, nothing in this Agreement shall obligate the Utility to monitor or enforce the CCA’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement. 7. CCA shall comply with the consumer protections concerning subsequent disclosure and use that are in Attachment B to CPUC Decision No. 12-08-045. 8. CCA acknowledges that disclosure or misappropriation of any Confidential Information could cause irreparable harm to Utility and/or Utility Customers, the amount of which may be difficult to assess. Accordingly, CCA hereby confirms that the Utility shall be entitled to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction or the CPUC for an injunction, specific performance or such other relief (without posting bond) as may be appropriate in the event of improper disclosure or misuse of its Confidential Information by CCA or its employees or representatives. Such right shall, however, be construed to be in addition to any other remedies available to the Utility, in law or equity. 9. In addition to all other remedies, CCA shall indemnify and hold harmless Utility, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parent company, officers, employees, or agents from and against and claims, actions, suits, liabilities, damages, losses, expenses and costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements) attributable to actions or non-actions of CCA and/or its employees and/or its representatives in connection with the use or disclosure of Confidential Information. 10. If, at any time, CCA ceases its investigation, pursuit or implementation of community choice aggregation pursuant to PU Code Section 366.2 et seq., CCA shall promptly return or destroy (with written notice to Utility itemizing the materials destroyed) all Confidential Information then in its possession at the request of Utility. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the nondisclosure obligations of this Agreement shall survive any termination of this Agreement. 11. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and permitted assigns of the Parties hereto. This Agreement shall not be assigned, however, without the prior written consent of the non-assigning Party, which consent April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 790 may be withheld due to the confidential nature of the information, data and materials covered. 12. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, communications, correspondence and representations, whether oral or written. This Agreement shall not be amended, modified or waived except by an instrument in writing, signed by both Parties, and, specifically, shall not be modified or waived by course of performance, course of dealing or usage of trade. Any waiver of a right under this Agreement shall be in writing, but no such writing shall be deemed a subsequent waiver of that right, or any other right or remedy. 13. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to its principles on conflicts of laws. 14. This Agreement shall, at all times, be subject to such changes or modifications by the CPUC as it may from time to time direct in the exercise of its jurisdiction. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the authorized representatives of the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Customer) (Signature) (Signature) (Type/Print Name) (Type/Print Name) (Title) (Title) (Date) (Date) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 791 EXHIBIT A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT FOR CCA EMPLOYEES OR REPRESENTATIVES I, ________________________________, declare under penalty of perjury that (1) I am employed as ____________________(title) at _____________________ ___________________________________________ (employer and address); and (2) I have personally reviewed the attached COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATOR NON- DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT relating to disclosure and use of Confidential Information (as defined therein) and I agree to be bound by its provisions. Signed: Print Name: Dated: April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 792 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE election consolidation requests from each jurisdiction that has filed a resolution with the County Clerk-Recorder, Elections Division, to consolidate their elections with the June 7, 2016 Primary Election and AUTHORIZE the County Clerk-Recorder, Elections Division, to conduct elections for those jurisdictions: City of Clayton, Community Facilities District 2007-1; City of Oakley, City of Richmond, City of Antioch, City of Orinda, City of Pittsburg, Brentwood Union School District, Lafayette School District, Walnut Creek School District, San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, Chabot-Las Positas Community College District, and the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct cost to the County. Any additional cost incurred by the Elections Division will be recovered from each City, School District, and Special District. BACKGROUND: Records indicate that some entities have filed a resolution with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors requesting the consolidation (copies attached of all resolutions) with the primary Election. Granting the requests will allow the County Elections Division to consolidate the Districts' and Cities' elections with the County Primary Election, which may reduce taxpayer costs. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Rosa Mena, 925.335.7806 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 68 To:Board of Supervisors From:Joseph E. Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Consolidation Requests for the June 7, 2016 Primary Election April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 793 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Not approving the requests will require each City, School, and Special District to conduct its own election, at a likely higher cost. ATTACHMENTS City of Clayton City of Oakley Resolution City of Richmond (1) City of Richmond (2) City of Antioch (1&2) City of Orinda City of Pittsburg Brentwood School Dist Lafayette School Dist Walnut Creek School Dist San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Chabot Las Positas Comm College Livermore Valley JointUSD April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 794 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 795 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 796 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 797 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 798 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 799 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 800 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 801 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 802 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 803 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 804 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 805 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 806 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 807 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 808 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 809 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 810 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 811 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 812 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 813 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 814 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 815 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 816 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 817 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 818 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES819 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES820 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES821 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES822 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES823 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES824 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES825 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES826 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES827 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA In the Matter of: CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL BOND ELECTION FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO FINANCE ROADWAY AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS ) ) ) ) ORDINANCE NO. 16-01 ____________________ WHEREAS, the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Orinda (the “City”), by resolution duly passed and adopted by affirmative vote of more than two - thirds of all its members at a meeting of the Council duly and regularly held on February 16, 2016, did determine that the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction and completion of the municipal road and drain improvements hereinafter mentioned; and did further determine that the cost of the acquisition, construction and completion of said municipal road and drain improvements will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the City and will require an expenditure greater than the amount allowed therefor by the annual tax levy, and will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness therefor; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Orinda does ordain as follows: Section 1. Specifications of Election Order. (a) A special municipal bond election is hereby ordered to be held throughout the City of Orinda on June 7, 2016, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the City the proposition of incurring bonded indebtedness of the City attached hereto as Exhibit A. (b) The Registrar of Voters (the “Registrar of Voters”) of the County of Contra Costa (the “County”) is hereby requested to reprint the full text of the measur e contained in Exhibit A hereto (the “Measure”) as the ballot measure in all official materials pertaining to the election, including notices of election, notices inviting arguments, and other notices, voter information pamphlets, and the official ballots. In the event the full text of the proposition is not reprinted in the voter information pamphlet, the Registrar of Voters is hereby requested to print, immediately below the impartial analysis of the bond proposition, in no less than 10-point boldface type, a legend substantially as follows: “The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure ___. If you desire a copy of the measure, please call the April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 828 2 Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters at (925) 335-7800 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.” Section 2. Abbreviation of Proposition: Pursuant to Section 13247 of the Elections Code, the Council hereby directs the Registrar of Voters to use the following abbreviation of the bond proposition on the ballot: Orinda Road and Storm Drain Repair Measure. To repair failing roads and storm drains, restore and upgrade other roadways and storm drains, fix potholes, and improve safety on Orinda public streets, shall the City of Orinda issue twenty five million dollars in bonds, with financial audits, public review of all expenditures, and a citizens’ oversight committee? Section 3. Required Recitals. (a) Purpose. The object and specific purpose of incurring the indebtedness is to finance a portion of the cost of acquisition, construction and/or completion of municipal improvements consisting of roadway repairs and improvements and storm drain repairs and improvements, and proceeds of the bonds shall be spent only for such purpose, pursuant to Government Code Section 53410. (b) Cost of Improvements. The estimated cost of the municipal improvements described in subdivision (a) to be funded from the bonds is $25,000,000. The City plans to use the bond proceeds to supplement other available City moneys for the municipal road and drain improvements. The estimated cost of the municipal road and drain improvements includes legal and all other fees incidental to or connected with the authorization, issuance and sale of the proposed bonds, the costs of printing the bonds, and all other costs and expenses incidental to or connected with the authorization, issuance and sale of the bonds. (c) Amount of Bonds. The amount of principal of the indebtedness proposed to be incurred for said municipal improvements is $25,000,000. (d) Maximum Interest Rate. Said bonds shall bear interest at rates not to exceed the maximum allowed by law at the time of sale of the bonds or any series thereof. (e) Date of Election. The election will be held on June 7, 2016. (f) Election Procedures. Except as otherwise provided herein, the manner of holding the election, the forms of the ballots, the procedures for voting for or against the Measure, the procedures for canvassing the vote, and all other procedures for conducting the election, shall be as directed by the Elections Code, or as determined by the Registrar of Voters in accordance with the Elections Code. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cooperate with the Registrar of Voters and to follow April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 829 3 the procedures and meet all deadlines established by the Registrar of Voters. The Measure shall be approved by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the qualified electors voting on the Measure. (g) Maximum Maturity of Bonds. The final maturity date of any of the bonds shall not exceed 30 years from the time of incurring the indebtedness evidenced by such bonds or the series of bonds of which such bonds are a part. (h) Special Bond Proceeds Account; Annual Report to Council. Upon approval of the Measure and the sale of any bonds approved, the Council shall establish an improvement fund or account (which may be an existing fund or account, if appropriate) in which proceeds of the sale of bonds will be deposited. As long as any proceeds of the bonds remain unexpended, the City Manager shall cause a report to be filed with the Council no later than January 31 of each year, commencing January 31, 2017, stating (1) the amount of bond proceeds received and expended in that year, and (2) the status of any project funded or to be funded from bond proceeds. The report may relate to the calendar year, fiscal year, or other appropriate annual period as the City Manager shall determine, and may be incorporated into the annual budget, audit, or other appropriate routine report to the Council. Section 4. Request for Consolidation. The Council hereby requests with respect to the special municipal bond election called hereby, that the Board of Supervisors of the County consolidate said election with any other election being conducted on the same date in the same territory or any territory which is in part the same. The precincts, polling places and officers of election shall be the same as those set forth in any order of the Registrar of Voters or the Board of Supervisors of the County providing for the precincts, polling places and election officers for the general city, county and statewide election to be conducted on the date of the special municipal bond election, as set forth in the notice to be published by the Registrar of Voters pursuant to Sections 12105 and 10417 of the Elections Code. Section 5. Impartial Analysis. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of the Measure to the City Attorney of the City, who is hereby directed to prepare the impartial analysis of the Measure pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280. The City Attorney shall cause the impartial analysis to be filed with the City Clerk no later than March 18, 2016. Section 6. Primary Arguments. Arguments in favor of or against the Measure shall be submitted to the office of the City Clerk no later than March 18, 2016. The City Council authorizes the following member(s) of its body: Victoria Smith Dean Orr April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 830 4 to file a written argument not exceeding 300 words regarding the Measure as specified above, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the persons submitting it, in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 3 of Division 9 of the Elections Code. Section 7. Tax Rate Statement. The Finance Director of the City is hereby authorized and directed to cause to be prepared a tax rate statement as required by Elections Code Section 9401 in connection with the Measure. The Finance Director shall cause the Tax Rate Statement to be filed with the Registrar of Voters at the same time as this Ordinance is filed, and in any event no later than March 11, 2016. Section 8. Rebuttal Arguments. The Council has adopted the provisions of Elections Code Section 9285(a) for elections on City measures, and will accept rebuttal arguments on the Measure. If both primary arguments in favor of and against the Measure are submitted, rebuttal arguments must be filed with the City Clerk no later than March 28, 2016. Section 9. Notice of Election. Notice of the election shall be given: (a) by publication of the full text of this ordinance in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published at least six days per week in the City, once a day for at least seven days beginning no later than March 16, 2016, and the City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to cause this ordinance to be so published; and (b) by publication of a combined Notice of Election, Synopsis of the Measure and Notice to File Arguments, pursuant to Elections Code Sections 9163, 9286(b) and 12111, not later than March 16, 2016, and the Registrar of Voters is hereby requested to serve as filing authority for the notices described in this subsection (b). Section 10. Filing with Registrar of Voters. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Registrar of Voters as soon as practicable after the adoption hereof, and in any event no later than March 11, 2016. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 831 5 Section 11. Effective Date. A two-thirds vote of all of the members of the Council is required for approval of this ordinance. Being an ordinance calling and ordering an election, this ordinance shall take effect from and after its final passage and approval. The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda held on February 16, 2016, and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the Council held on March 1, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Gee, Orr, Worth and Mayor Smith NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Victoria Smith, Mayor ATTEST: Michele L. Olsen, City Clerk April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 832 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Orinda, California, do hereby certify as follows: The foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of an ordinance introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda duly and regularly held at 22 Orinda Way, on February 16, 2016, and duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the City Council duly and regularly held at the regular meeting place thereof on March 1, 2016, of which meeting all of the members of the City Council had due notice and at which a quorum thereof was present and acting throughout. At said meeting the ordinance was introduced by Council Member Worth and read by title only, and was thereupon, upon motion of Council Member Worth, seconded by Council Member Orr, adopted by the following vote: AYES: Gee, Orr, Worth and Mayor Smith NOES: Phillips ABSENT: None I have carefully compared the attached with the original minutes of the meeting on file and of record in my office and the attached is a full, true and correct copy of the original ordinance adopted at the meeting and entered in the minutes. The ordinance has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its introduction and adoption and is now in full force and effect. Dated: March 1, 2016. City Clerk, City of Orinda April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 833 EXHIBIT A ORINDA ROAD AND STORM DRAIN REPAIR BOND MEASURE This Proposition may be known as the “Orinda Road and Storm Drain Repair Bond Measure” or as “Measure ___”. [designation to be assigned by County Registrar of Voters] PROPOSITION By approval of this proposition by at least two-thirds of the registered voters voting on the proposition, the City of Orinda shall be authorized to issue and sell $25,000,000 in bonds to provide financing for a portion of the cost of acquisition, construction and/or completion of municipal improvements consisting of repairs and improvements to roadways and storm drains. Proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by this proposition shall be used only for the purposes set forth in the paragraph above, subject to each of the accountability safeguards specified below. ACCOUNTABILITY SAFEGUARDS Citizens' Infrastructure Oversight Commission (CIOC). On March 20, 2007, the City Council created the City Infrastructure Commission which advises the City Council with regard to infrastructure needs and improvements. On March 4, 2014, the City Council expanded the responsibilities of the City Infrastructure Commission and charged it with, among other things, (a) making recommendations to the City Council with respect to infrastructure project priorities and scope and (b) reviewing bond expenditures and reporting to the public whether bond proceeds are expended only for the projects approved by the City Council and authorized by voters. The City Infrastructure Commission complies with the Brown Act, including posting of all agendas, conducting open meetings, and approving its meeting minutes. Special Bond Proceeds Account; Annual Report to Council . Upon approval of the Measure and the sale of any bonds approved, the Council shall establish an improvement fund or account (which may be an existing fund or account, if appropriate) in which proceeds of the sale of bonds will be deposited. As long as any proceeds of the bonds remain unexpended, the City Manager shall cause a report to be filed with the Council no later than January 31 of each year, commencing January 31, 2017, stating (1) the amount of bond proceeds received and expended in that year, and (2) the status of any project funded or to be funded from bond proceeds. The report may relate to the calendar year, fiscal year, or other appropriate annual period as the City Manager shall determine, and may be incorporated into the annual budget, audit, or other appropriate routine report to the Council. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 834 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 835 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 836 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 837 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 838 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 839 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 840 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 841 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 842 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 843 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 844 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 845 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 846 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 847 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 848 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 849 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 850 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 851 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 852 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 853 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 854 OHSUSA:764544332.3 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BRENTWOOD UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT ORDERING A SCHOOL BOND ELECTION, AND AUTHORIZING NECESSARY ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH ________________________________ WHEREAS, the Board of Education (the “Board”) of the Brentwood Union School District (the “District”), located within the County of Contra Costa, California (the “County”), is authorized to order elections within the District and to designate the specifications thereof, pursuant to Sections 5304 and 5322 of the California Education Code (the “Education Code”); and WHEREAS, the Board is specifically authorized to order elections for the purpose of submitting to the electors the question of whether bonds of the District shall be issued and sold for the purpose of raising money for the purposes hereinafter specified, pursuant to Education Code Sections 15100 et seq.; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18 of Article XVI and Section 1 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and Section 15266 of the Education Code, school districts may seek approval of bonds and levy an ad valorem tax to repay those bonds upon a 55% vote of those voting on a proposition for the purposes hereinafter specified, provided certain accountability measures are included in the proposition, including performance and financial audits and oversight by an independent citizens oversight committee to ensure that all funds are spent properly and as promised to the voters; and WHEREAS, the Board deems it necessary and advisable to submit such a bond proposition to the electors, which, if approved by 55% of the votes cast, would permit the District to issue its bonds; and WHEREAS, such a bond election must be conducted concurrent with a statewide primary election, general election or special election, or at a regularly scheduled local election at which all of the electors of the District are entitled to vote, as required by Section 15266 of the Education Code; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2016, a statewide primary election is scheduled to be conducted throughout the District; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that, based upon a projection of assessed property valuation, if approved by voters, the tax rate levied to meet the debt service requirements of the bonds proposed to be issued will not exceed the maximum tax rate permitted by Section 15268 of the Education Code; and April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 855 2 OHSUSA:764544332.3 WHEREAS, Section 9400 et seq. of the California Elections Code (the “Elections Code”) requires that a tax rate statement be contained in all official materials, including any ballot pamphlet prepared, sponsored or distributed by the District, relating to the election; and WHEREAS, the Board now desires to authorize the filing of a ballot argument in favor of the bond proposition to be submitted to the voters at the election; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, determined and ordered by the Board of Education of the Brentwood Union School District as follows: Section 1. Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Specifications of Election Order; Required Certification. Pursuant to Education Code Sections 5304, 5322, 15100 et seq., and 15266, a special election shall be held within the boundaries of the District on June 7, 2016, for the purpose of submitting to the registered voters of the District the bond proposition contained in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. In accordance with Section 1 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and as provided in the text of the bond proposition, the Board hereby certifies that it has evaluated safety, class size reduction and information technology needs in developing the bond project list set forth in the bond proposition. Section 3. Conduct of Election. (a) Request to County Officers. Pursuant to Section 5303 of the Education Code, the Registrar of Voters of the County (the “Registrar of Voters”) is required to, and is hereby requested to, take all steps to hold the election in accordance with law and these specifications. (b) Abbreviation of Proposition. Pursuant to Section 13247 of the Elections Code and Section 15122 of the Education Code, the Board hereby directs the Registrar of Voters to use the following abbreviation of the bond proposition on the ballot: “To provide Brentwood students with 21st century classrooms, upgrade libraries and science labs, improve school safety and security, expand access to classroom technology for students and teachers, renovate and modernize older schools in the District, build a new elementary school, and replace, acquire, construct and renovate school facilities, shall the Brentwood Union School District issue $158,000,000 in bonds, at legal interest rates, with an independent citizens’ oversight committee and no funds spent on administrators salaries?” April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 856 3 OHSUSA:764544332.3 (c) Voter Pamphlet. The Registrar of Voters is hereby requested to reprint the full text of the bond proposition as set forth in Exhibit A in its entirety in the voter information pamphlet to be distributed to voters pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code. In the event the full text of the bond proposition is not reprinted in the voter information pamphlet in its entirety, the Registrar of Voters is hereby requested to print, immediately below the impartial analysis of the bond proposition, in no less than 10-point boldface type, a legend substantially as follows: “The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure __. If you desire a copy of the measure, please call the Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters at (925) 335-7800 or the Brentwood Union School District at (925) 513-6300, and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you. Measure __ is also available on the Internet at http://www.brentwood.k12.ca.us/.” (d) Accountability Safeguards. In the event the full text of the bond proposition is not reprinted in the voter information pamphlet in its entirety, the Registrar of Voters is hereby requested to include the following statement in the ballot in compliance with Section 15272 of the Education Code: “If Measure __ is approved, the Board of Education of the Brentwood Union School District will appoint a citizens’ oversight committee and conduct annual independent audits to assure that bond funds are spent only on the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, and for no other purposes.” (e) State Matching Funds. The District has determined that the projects to be funded from the proposed bonds will not require State matching funds for any phase thereof, and that Section 15122.5 of the Education Code does not apply to the bond proposition, and accordingly, the Registrar of Voters is directed not to include the disclosure otherwise required by Section 15122.5 of the Education Code. (f) Consolidation Requirement. Pursuant to Section 15266(a) of the Education Code, the election shall be consolidated with the statewide primary election on June 7, 2016, and pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section 10400) of Division 10 of the Elections Code, the Registrar of Voters and the Board of Supervisors of the County are hereby requested to order consolidation of the election with such other elections as may be held on the same day in the same territory or in territory that is in part the same. (g) Canvass of Results. The Board of Supervisors of the County is authorized and requested to canvass the returns of the election, pursuant to Section 10411 of the Elections Code. (h) Required Vote. Pursuant to Section 18 of Article XVI and Section 1 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, the bond proposition shall become effective upon the affirmative vote of at least 55% of those voters voting on the proposition. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 857 4 OHSUSA:764544332.3 (i) Election Costs. The District shall pay all costs of the election approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County pursuant to Education Code Section 5421. Section 4. Delivery of Order of Election to County Officers. The Clerk of the Board of the District is hereby directed to cause to be filed as soon as practicable, and in any event no later than March 11, 2016 (which date is not fewer than 88 days prior to the date set for the election), one copy of this Resolution to the Registrar of Voters, including the tax rate statement attached hereto as Exhibit B, containing the information required by Elections Code Section 9400 et seq., completed and signed by the Superintendent of the District, and shall file a copy of this Resolution with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County. Section 5. Ballot Arguments. The President of the Board, or any member or members of the Board as the President shall designate, are hereby authorized, but not directed, to prepare and file with the Registrar of Voters a ballot argument in favor of the bond proposition, within the time established by the Registrar of Voters, which shall be considered the official ballot argument of the Board as sponsor of the bond proposition. Section 6. Further Authorization. The members of the Board, the Superintendent of the District, and all other officers of the District are hereby authorized and directed, individually and collectively, to do any and all things that they deem necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this resolution in accordance with the terms hereof and of applicable provisions of law. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 858 5 OHSUSA:764544332.3 Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption by a two-thirds vote. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day, February 24, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: APPROVED: ___________________________________ Carlos Sanabria, President of the Board of Education of the Brentwood Union School District Attest: ___________________________________ Scott Dudek, Clerk of the Board of Education of the Brentwood Union School District April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 859 A-1 OHSUSA:764544332.3 EXHIBIT A FULL TEXT OF BOND PROPOSITION BRENTWOOD UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURE This Proposition may be known and referred to as the “Brentwood Union School District Construction, Renovation and Improvement Measure” or as “Measure __”. [designation to be assigned by County Registrar of Voters] BOND AUTHORIZATION By approval of this proposition by at least 55% of the registered voters voting on the proposition, the Brentwood Union School District (the “District”) shall be authorized to issue and sell bonds of up to $158,000,000 in aggregate principal amount to provide financing for the specific school facilities projects listed under the heading entitled “BOND PROJECT LIST” below (the “Bond Project List”), subject to all of the accountability safeguards specified below. ACCOUNTABILITY SAFEGUARDS The provisions in this section are specifically included in this proposition in order that the voters and taxpayers of the District may be assured that their money will be spent to address specific facilities needs of the District, all in compliance with the requirements of Article XIIIA, Section 1(b)(3) of the California Constitution, and the Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bonds Act of 2000 (codified at Sections 15264 and following of the California Education Code (the “Education Code”)). Evaluation of Needs. The Board of Education of the District (the “Board”) has prepared an updated facilities master plan in order to evaluate and address all of the facilities needs of the District at each campus and facility, and to determine which projects to finance from a local bond at this time. The Board hereby certifies that it has evaluated safety, class size reduction and information technology needs in developing the Bond Project List. Limitations on Use of Bonds. Proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by this proposition shall be used only for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, including, to the extent permitted by law, the acquisition or lease of real property in connection with an existing or future financing of the specific school facilities projects listed in the Bond Project List, including the prepayment of existing or future interim lease, certificate of participation or lease revenue bond financings, and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 860 A-2 OHSUSA:764544332.3 Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee. The Board shall establish an independent citizens’ oversight committee (pursuant to Education Code Section 15278 and following), to ensure bond proceeds are expended only for the school facilities projects listed in the Bond Project List. The committee shall be established within 60 days of the date when the results of the election appear in the minutes of the Board. In accordance with Section 15282 of the Education Code, the citizens’ oversight committee shall consist of at least seven members and shall include a member active in a business organization representing the business community located within the District, a member active in a senior citizens’ organization, a member active in a bona fide taxpayers’ organization, a member that is a parent or guardian of a child enrolled in the District, and a member that is both a parent or guardian of a child enrolled in the District and active in a parent-teacher organization. No employee or official of the District and no vendor, contractor or consultant of the District shall be appointed to the citizens’ oversight committee. Annual Performance Audits. The Board shall conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the bond proceeds have been expended only on the school facilities projects listed in the Bond Project List. These audits shall be conducted in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States for performance audits. The results of these audits shall be made publicly available and shall be submitted to the citizens’ oversight committee in accordance with Section 15286 of the Education Code. Annual Financial Audits. The Board shall conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the bond proceeds until all of those proceeds have been spent for the school facilities projects listed in the Bond Project List. These audits shall be conducted in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States for financial audits. The results of these audits shall be made publicly available and shall be submitted to the citizens’ oversight committee in accordance with Section 15286 of the Education Code. Special Bond Proceeds Account; Annual Report to Board . Upon approval of this proposition and the sale of any bonds approved, the Board shall take actions necessary to establish an account in which proceeds of the sale of bonds will be deposited. As long as any proceeds of the bonds remain unexpended, the Superintendent of the District shall cause a report to be filed with the Board no later than January 1 of each year, commencing January 1, 2017, stating (a) the amount of bond proceeds received and expended in that year, and (b) the status of any project funded or to be funded from bond proceeds. The report may relate to the calendar year, fiscal year, or other appropriate annual period as the Superintendent of the District shall determine, and may be incorporated into the annual budget, audit, or other appropriate routine report to the Board. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 861 A-3 OHSUSA:764544332.3 FURTHER SPECIFICATIONS Joint-Use Projects. The District may enter into agreements with other public agencies or nonprofit organizations for joint use of school facilities financed with the proceeds of the bonds in accordance with Education Code Section 17077.42 (or any successor provision). The District may seek State grant funds for eligible joint-use projects as permitted by law, and this proposition hereby specifies and acknowledges that bond funds will or may be used to fund all or a portion of the local share for any eligible joint-use projects identified in the Bond Project List or as otherwise permitted by California State regulations, as the Board shall determine. Single Purpose. All of the purposes enumerated in this proposition shall be united and voted upon as one single proposition, pursuant to Education Code Section 15100, and all the enumerated purposes shall constitute the specific single purpose of the bonds, and proceeds of the bonds shall be spent only for such purpose, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53410. Bonds may be Issued in Excess of Statutory Bonding Limit. Issuance of all of the authorized bonds might require the outstanding debt of the District to exceed its statutory bonding limit of 1.25% of the total assessed valuation of taxable property in the District. In that event, the District intends to seek a waiver of its bonding limit from the State Board of Education, which has the power to waive certain requirements of the Education Code applicable to the District. By approval of this proposition, the voters have authorized the District to seek such a waiver, and to issue authorized bonds in excess of the 1.25% limit as the State Board of Education may approve. No such waiver has yet been sought or granted. Other Terms of the Bonds. When sold, the bonds shall bear interest at an annual rate not exceeding the statutory maximum, and that interest shall be made payable at the time or times permitted by law. The bonds may be issued and sold in several series, and no bond shall be made to mature more than the statutory maximum number of years from the date borne by that bond. BOND PROJECT LIST The Bond Project List below lists the specific projects the District proposes to finance with proceeds of the bonds. The Bond Project List shall be considered a part of the bond proposition and shall be reproduced in any official document required to contain the full statement of the bond proposition. Listed projects will be completed as needed at a particular school or facility site according to Board-established priorities, and the order in which such projects appear on the Bond Project List is not an indication of priority for funding or completion. Each project is assumed to include its share of costs of the election and bond issuance, construction-related costs, such as project and construction management, architectural, engineering, inspection and similar planning and testing costs, demolition and interim housing costs, legal, accounting and similar fees, costs related to the independent annual financial and performance audits, a contingency for unforeseen design and construction costs, and other costs incidental to and necessary for completion of the listed projects (whether the April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 862 A-4 OHSUSA:764544332.3 related work is performed by the District or third parties). The final cost of each project will be determined as plans are finalized, construction bids are awarded, and projects are completed. In addition, certain construction funds expected from non-bond sources have not yet been secured. Therefore, the Board cannot guarantee that the bonds will provide sufficient funds to allow completion of all listed projects. Alternatively, if the District obtains unexpected funds from non- bond sources with respect to listed projects, such projects may be enhanced, supplemented or expanded to the extent of such funds. Some projects may be subject to further government approvals, including by State officials and boards and/or local environmental or agency approval. Inclusion of a project on the Bond Project List is not a guarantee that the project will be completed. The specific projects authorized to be financed with proceeds of the bonds under this proposition are as follows: CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS The following projects are authorized to be financed at all school sites and support facilities, including: Adams Middle School Brentwood Elementary School Bristow Middle School Edna Hill Middle School Garin Elementary School Krey Elementary School Loma Vista Elementary School Marsh Creek Elementary School Mary Casey Black Elementary School Pioneer Elementary School Ron Nunn Elementary School CLASSROOMS AND SCHOOL FACILITIES Construct and equip new classrooms, classroom buildings, laboratories, school support facilities, music, theater, dance and other arts facilities, libraries, lecture halls, restrooms, building connections, and operations and maintenance facilities. Modernize, upgrade, renovate, rehabilitate, re-configure, expand, upgrade and equip classrooms, classroom buildings, laboratories, restrooms, common areas and school support facilities, including library, multipurpose room/auditorium, food storage, preparation and service, cafeteria, music, theater, dance and other arts, career and technical education, preschool, operations and maintenance, and office, staff and administrative support facilities, whether permanent, portable or modular, including interior and exterior (as applicable) doors, windows, door and window hardware, roofs, rain gutters and downspouts, walls, ceilings and floors and finishes, paint, siding, insulation, casework, cabinets, secured storage, carpets, drapes, window coverings, infrastructure, lighting, sinks, drinking fountains, fixtures, signage, fencing, landscaping, furniture and equipment. Renovate, restore, re-configure and/or modernize portable buildings or replace such buildings with permanent or modular buildings. Construct, renovate, restore, re-configure and/or modernize multi-purpose/ performing art centers at middle schools. Furnish and equip classrooms and other school facilities, including, but not limited to, desks, chairs and classroom furniture, science and lab equipment, school-site maintenance equipment, copy machines, “cubicle” partitions, chairs, storage units and school office equipment, including initial purchases and continued replacement of equipment and furniture as needed. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 863 A-5 OHSUSA:764544332.3 Improve, correct, restore or renovate grounds, buildings and structures or portions thereof to eliminate or mitigate health and safety risks to students, faculty, staff, parents and the public or comply with local, state and federal building, health, safety, access and other related requirements, including seismic safety requirements, Field Act requirements and access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Inspect buildings and other structures and renovate, replace and/or improve such structures to eliminate/mitigate any structural deficiencies or dry rot, termite, mold or similar damage or hazards. All or portions of these projects may be used as joint-use projects within the meaning of Section 17077.42(c) of the Education Code (or any successor provision). EXTERIOR & GROUNDS IMPROVEMENTS Acquire and install exterior safety lighting. Acquire and install safety and security systems, hardware and fixtures. Acquire and install campus signage. Construct, improve, replace, renovate and rehabilitate walkways, covered walkways, breezeways and sidewalks. Landscape and improve irrigation and drainage of grounds. Expand or construct new storage and maintenance buildings and/or facilities. Install, improve, replace or upgrade exterior campus fencing. Resurface, refurbish, renovate and paint building exteriors as needed. Construct, modernize, improve, renovate, replace, reconfigure, convert, and equip quads, courtyards and other outdoor areas, including installation or improvement of seating, tables and outdoor gathering amenities. Renovate, repair, resurface, upgrade, expand, construct and/or install and improve paved and other hard surfaces (including playgrounds), benches, walls, gates, fencing, play areas, quads, courtyards, outside instructional areas, playfields, and running tracks, including physical education fields and related facilities, and acquire, improve, replace and/or upgrade playground, physical education and outdoor area equipment and fixtures. All or portions of these projects may be used as joint-use projects within the meaning of Section 17077.42(c) of the Education Code (or any successor provision). TECHNOLOGY, ENERGY & INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS Acquire, install, upgrade and/or construct renewable energy and/or energy-saving systems, improvements and equipment, including electricity generation and distribution systems and/or water heating systems, natural light improvements, upgraded insulation and roofing, efficient lighting, windows and window coverings, shade structures, energy management and conservation systems, and other passive technologies, and structures to support such systems, improvements and equipment and related infrastructure. Renewable energy and/or energy-saving systems include existing systems as well as systems developed in the future. Acquire and install technology equipment, fixtures and infrastructure, including computers, tablets, mobile devices, software, interactive educational technology, digital projectors and cameras, monitors, audio systems, video systems, network equipment (including servers, network interface devices, network switches and routers, wireless network equipment, firewalls, network security equipment, April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 864 A-6 OHSUSA:764544332.3 racking, power and cooling equipment, wiring and uninterruptible power supplies), etc; rehabilitate and replace such equipment, fixtures and infrastructure as needed in the future. Technology equipment, fixtures and infrastructure includes existing technology equipment, fixtures and infrastructure as well as technology equipment, fixtures and infrastructure developed in the future. Construct, improve, replace, renovate and rehabilitate internet or other network access systems, and telephone, radio, fire alarm, public address, intrusion alarm and surveillance and other security systems. Renovate, replace, upgrade, acquire, install and/or integrate major site/building/utility systems, equipment and related infrastructure and housing, including lighting, plumbing, electrical (including wiring and related infrastructure for modern technology), heating, refrigeration, cooling and ventilation, water, sewer, gas, irrigation, drainage, and energy efficiency/management monitoring systems, networks, fixtures, equipment and controls. All or portions of these projects may be used as joint-use projects within the meaning of Section 17077.42(c) of the Education Code (or any successor provision). NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION Acquisition and construction of a new elementary school, and if determined to be needed in the discretion of, and as determined by, the Board of Education of the District, a new middle school, and, in each case, related facilities, including: Acquisition of land and any rights-of-way and easements made necessary by construction of such facilities. Planning, designing, and constructing the school and related facilities, including costs related to construction services, architectural design, engineering, site inspection and testing services and plan review fees. Associated onsite and offsite development, demolition of existing structures, and other improvements made necessary for construction of such facilities. Construction of such school and related facilities and grounds, including necessary supporting infrastructure. Acquisition and installation of furnishings and equipment related to the constructed facilities. All or portions of these facilities may be used as joint-use projects within the meaning of Section 17077.42(c) of the Education Code (or any successor provision). MISCELLANEOUS All listed bond projects include the following as needed: Planning, designing and providing temporary housing necessary for listed bond projects. The inspection, sampling and analysis of grounds, buildings and building materials to determine the presence of hazardous materials or substances, including asbestos, lead, etc., and the encapsulation, removal, disposal and other remediation or control of such hazardous materials and substances. Necessary onsite and offsite preparation or restoration in connection with new construction, renovation or remodeling, or installation or removal of relocatable buildings, including demolition of structures; removing, replacing, or installing irrigation, drainage, utility lines (gas, water, sewer, electrical, data and voice, etc.), trees and landscaping; relocating fire access roads; and acquiring any necessary easements, licenses, land or rights of way made necessary by listed bond projects. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 865 A-7 OHSUSA:764544332.3 Address other unforeseen conditions revealed by construction, renovation or modernization (including plumbing or gas line breaks, dry rot, seismic and structural deficiencies, etc.). Demolition of existing facilities and reconstruction of facilities scheduled for modernization, if the Board of Education of the District determines that such an approach would be more cost-effective in creating more enhanced and operationally efficient campuses. Acquire or construct storage facilities and other space on an interim basis, as needed to accommodate construction materials, equipment, and personnel, and interim classrooms (including relocatables) for students and school functions or other storage for classroom materials displaced during construction. Furnishing and equipping of classrooms and other school facilities; furnishing and equipping shall include initial purchases, and scheduled and necessary replacements, upgrades and updating of technology. All other costs and work necessary and incidental to the listed bond projects. Acquisition of all or a portion of any school site or facility, or an interest therein, or make lease payments with respect to any school site or facility, encumbered in order to finance or refinance the listed bond projects pursuant to a lease, certificate of participation or lease revenue bond financing. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 866 B-1 OHSUSA:764544332.3 EXHIBIT B TAX RATE STATEMENT An election will be held in the Brentwood Union School District (the “District”) on June 7, 2016, to authorize the sale of up to $158,000,000 in bonds of the District to finance school facilities as described in the proposition. If the bonds are approved, the District expects to issue the Bonds in multiple series over time. Principal and interest on the bonds will be payable from the proceeds of tax levies made upon the taxable property in the District. The following information is provided in compliance with Sections 9400 through 9404 of the California Elections Code. 1. The best estimate of the tax which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue during the first fiscal year after the sale of the first series of bonds, based on estimated assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is 2.750 cents per $100 ($27.50 per $100,000) of assessed valuation in fiscal year 2016- 17. 2. The best estimate of the tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue during the first fiscal year after the sale of the last series of bonds, based on estimated assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is 2.795 cents per $100 ($27.95 per $100,000) of assessed valuation in fiscal year 2025-26. 3. The best estimate of the highest tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue, based on estimated assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is 2.800 cents per $100 ($28.00 per $100,000) of assessed valuation in fiscal year 2033-34. 4. The best estimate of the total debt service, including the principal and interest, that would be required to be repaid if all of the bonds are issued and sold is $393,288,851. Voters should note that estimated tax rates are based on the ASSESSED VALUE of taxable property on the County’s official tax rolls, not on the property’s market value, which could be more or less than the assessed value. In addition, taxpayers eligible for a property tax exemption, such as the homeowner’s exemption, will be taxed at a lower effective tax rate than described above. Certain taxpayers may also be eligible to postpone payment of taxes. Property owners should consult their own property tax bills and tax advisors to determine their property’s assessed value and any applicable tax exemptions. Attention of all voters is directed to the fact that the foregoing information is based upon the District’s projections and estimates only, which are not binding upon the District. The actual tax rates and the years in which they will apply, and the actual total debt service, may vary from those presently estimated, due to variations from these estimates in the timing of bond sales, the amount of bonds sold and market interest rates at the time of each sale, and actual assessed valuations over the term of repayment of the bonds. The dates of sale and the amount of bonds sold at any given time will be determined by the District based on need for construction funds and other factors, including the legal limitations on bonds approved by a 55% affirmative vote. The actual interest rates at which the bonds will be sold will depend on the bond market at the April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 867 B-2 OHSUSA:764544332.3 time of each sale. Actual future assessed valuation will depend upon the amount and value of taxable property within the District as determined by the County Assessor in the annual assessment and the equalization process. Dated: __________, 2016. Superintendent of Schools Brentwood Union School District April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 868 OHSUSA:764544332.3 CLERK’S CERTIFICATE I, Scott Dudek, Clerk of the Board of Education of the Brentwood Union School District, of the County of Contra Costa, California, hereby certify as follows: The attached is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Education of the District duly and regularly held at the regular meeting place thereof on February 24, 2016, and entered in the minutes thereof, of which meeting all of the members of the Board of Education had due notice and at which a quorum thereof was present. The resolution was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: An agenda of the meeting was posted at least 72 hours beforehand at 255 Guthrie Lane, Brentwood, California, a location freely accessible to members of the public, and a brief description of the adopted resolution appeared on the agenda. A copy of the agenda is attached hereto. The resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption, and the same is now in full force and effect. WITNESS my hand this ______day of ______________, 2016. Scott Dudek, Clerk of the Board of Education Brentwood Union School District April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 869 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 870 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 871 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 872 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 873 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 874 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 875 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 876 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 877 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 878 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 879 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 880 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 881 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 882 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 883 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES884 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES885 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES886 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES887 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES888 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES889 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES890 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES891 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES892 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES893 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES894 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES895 April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES896 San Francisco Bay Restoration Authôrity JÅN 1 5rûtô REGISTRAH CIF VOTERS COUNTY OF $ANTA CLARA TO MEMORANDUM DATE: January 13,2016 Virginia J. Bloom, Assistant Registrar of Voters Santa Claru County Registrar of Voters; ATTN: Candidate Services 1555 Berger Drive, Building 2 San Jose, CA95lI2 FROM:Kelly Malinowski Clerk of the Board San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Kelly.Malinowski@ scc.ca. gov (sr}) 286-s203 SUBJECT: San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Resolutions from January 13,2016 Board Meeting a to be Held for the Restoration Authority on June Requesting Services of Registrar of Voters; Requesting Consolidation of Elections; and Specifying Certain Procedures for the Consolidation Election; and Resolution #14: Special Parcel Tax Ballot Measure for Voter Approval: The San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Measure a Ms. Bloom, Please find enclosed 1 original copy each of both Resolution#I3 and Resolution#I4, passed by the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority's (Authority) Governing Board on January 13, 2016. The two enclosed original Resolutions are submitted for your review. Please note that these resolutions respond to following issues and concern raised in a telephone call with the Authority's legal counsel on December 15: o Resolution #13 names all nine counties. o The Authority will submit duplicate originals of both resolutions to the other 8 counties once your offtce confirms that the resolutions are acceptable as submitted or as modified by per your comments, if any. o The Authority has decided that it wants the measure to be printed in full in the ballot materials and has provided the text of the measure without headers or footers. o The Authority has specified in Resolution #13 that a 213 vote of all votes cast on the measure will be regarded as passing the measure. 101 8tn street Oakland, California 94607 (s10) 464 7910 (510) 464 7985 Fax sfbayrestore.org ¡nfo@sf bayrestore.org April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 897 o The Authority has specified in Resolution #13 that the Authority will be designating authors for the Arguments. The staff of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority will be in touch soon to ensure you have everything you need for this review, and if there are any questions, please contact the Clerk of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority listed below. The Authority's legal Counsel will also be transmitting a memorandum articulating the balance of the Authority's responses to the issues and concems raised on the December 15 call. Thank you. Best, v Malinowski Clerk of the Board San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Kelly. Malinowski@scc. ca. gov (srD)286-s203 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 898 JÅ},¡ i 5 ?0tt San Francisco Bav Restoration Authôrity .REGISTÊAR OF VOTËNS COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Resolution #13 CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BN HNLD FOR THIT sAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY oN JUNE 7,20t6; REQUESTING SERVICES OF TTEGISTRAR OF VOTERS; ITEQUESTING CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS; AND SPNCÍTYN.TC CERTAIN PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSOLIDATION ELECTION WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 50075 et seq. of the Govern¡nent Code, cities, counties and districts in California have the authorityto impose special taxes pJrsuant to theprovisions of Article XIII-A of the California Constitution,'subjeòt to the approval of two-thirds of the votes cast by voters voting upon the proposition; wl-IEREAS, the san Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (,,Authority"), a regional g,overnmental entit¡ is authorized pursuant to the aforementioned p.ouírionr ãf tn" Government Code, as well as the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Act ('fitlc 7.25 ofthe Government Code, commencing with section 66700),to levy a parceliax, sub¡ect to therequisite two-thirds voter approval, in the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma, and the City and County of San Francisco (such nine counties, collectively, the.,San Francisco Bay Area"j; WHEREAS, aftet years of study, the Authority has prepared the San Francisco Bay Clean Water,Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Measúre (the "Measure") in order to fund programs that will: . Reduce trash, pollution and harmful toxins;o lmprove water quality;o Restore habitat for fish, birds and wildlife;r Protect communities from floods; ando lncrease shoreline access for pubric enjoyment and recreation. ÌWHEREAS, the Authority proposes to levy a special parcel tax of $12 per year for 20 years oneach parcel wholly or partially in the San Franiisco Bay Area, subjectìo two-thirds voterapproval, to fund the programs identified in the Measure. Such a levy is anticipated to generate approximately $25,000,000 a year to fund specific clean water, polluiion prevention and habitatrestoration projects and other purposes, including, without limitàtion, the þossible payment ofdebt service on bonds issued by or on behalf of the Authority, all as set forth in the Measure; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 66704.05,when the Authority proposes theMeasure to levy a parcel tax, the board of supervisors of the counties, including t"hË City anOCounty of San Francisco, (hereafter, all references to "County" include the Ciry a;d County of SanFrancisco) in which the parcel tax is proposed, are required to call a special élection on theMeasure. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 899 Resolution #13 CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD FORTHE ' SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY ON JUNE 7,2016; REQUtrSTING SERVICES OF REGISTRAR OF VOTERS; RE,QUE5TING CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS; AND SPECIFYING CERTAIN I'ROCEDURESF()RTHEC0NSOLIDATIONtrLEcTIoN NOW THAREFORE, THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY GOVERNING BOARD HETTEBY RESOLVES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOTilS: FIRST.: A special election is hereby called within each of the following nine Counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Máteo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma and the City and County of San F'rancisco (comprising the entire jurisdiction of said Authority), which election is to be consolidated with the genãral election to be held on June 7,2016. As required by Elections Code sections 13247 and t 0i03, the abbreviated form of the Measure as it shall appear on the ballot is as follows: san Francisco Bay clean water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Program. To protect san Francisco Bay for future generations by reducing trash, pollution and harmful toxins, improving water quality, restoring habitat for fish, birds and wildlife, protecting "ofn*uniti.s from floods, and increasing shoreline public access, shall the san Francisco Bay Restoration Authority authorize a parcel tax of $12 per year, raising approximately $25 million annually for twenty years with independent citizen oversight, audits, and all funds staying local? Item 10, Resolution: Calling a Special Election April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 900 The Measure shall be voted on within the entire jurisdiction of the Authority, which pursuant tothe Sarr Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Aci (Act), comprises the nine Counties enumerated above and referred to in the Act as the San Francisco Bay Area. A2l3 voteof all votes cast on themeasure is required to pass the measure. SECOND: The Registrar of Voters of each County in the San Francisco Bay Area is requested to give notice of said election in accordance with law and to perform all other acts which arerequired for the holding and conducting of said election. THIRD: The Board of Supervisors of each County within the San Francisco Bay Area is herebyIequested to order the consolidation of the Authority's special election with the áther elections tobe held on June 7,2016,to conduct such election in accordance with the requirernents set forth inElections Code section 10418, and to provide the election precincts, polling'places, and votingbooths which shall in each County be the same, and that there shall bi onl/óne set of electionofficers in each of said precincts; and to further provide that the question set forth above shall beset forth in each form of ballot to be used at said election. Said fioarcl of Supervisors is further requested to order the Registrar of Voters to: (a) set forth on all sample ballóts relating to saidconsolidation election, to be mailed to the qualified electors of the Authority, the luestion setforth above and (b) provide absentee voter ballots for said consolidation election fior use byqualified electors of said Authority who are entitled thereto, in the manner provided by law. FOURTH: Pursuant to Government Code section 66704.05,each County within the SanFrancisco Bay Area shall use the exact ballot question, impartial analysis, and ballot languageprovided by the Authority. If two or more Counties are required to piepare a translation ofballot materials into a different language, the County that cbntains tire largest population amongthose Counties that are required to prepare a translation of ballot materialı intå tùe same language shall prepare the translation and that translation shall be used by the other Counties, asapplicable. FIFTH: Pursuant to Government Code section 66704.05,the Registrar of Voters of eachCounty within the San Francisco Bay Area shall mutually agree to use the same letter designation for the Measure. SXTH: Each Registrar of Voters of each County within the San Francisco Bay Area is herebyauthorized and requested to canvass, or cause to be canvassed, as provided by law, the returns ofsaid special election with respect to the total votes cast for aná agâinst said questión and to certifysuch canvass of the votes cast to the Governing Board of the Authority. Resolution #13 CALLING A SPECIAL ELE,CTION TO BE HELD FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY ON JUNE 7,2016; REQUESTTNG SERVICES OF REGTSTRAR OF VOTERS; REQUESTING coNSoLIDATIoN oF ELECTIONS; AND spECInyING CERTAIN PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSOLIDATION ELECTION Item 10, Resolution: Calling a Special ElectionApril 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 901 Resolution #13 ALLING A SPECIALJr|åçtt"N ro Bn' HELD SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION AUTHORTTY ON JUNE 7'2016; REQUESTING SERVICAS OF REGISTRAR OF VOTERS; REQUtrSTING CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS; AND SPECIFYING CERTAIN PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSOLIDATION ELECTION SEVRN1'I{: "fhe clerk of.this Boarcl is hereby authqrized and directecl to certify to the due aloption of the resolution and to transmit a copy hereof so certified to each of the Registrar of Voters within the San F'rancisco Bay Area. EIGHTH: T'heattachmenttoResolutionNo. l4shallcomprisethefulltextoftheMeasure' NINT'FI: The Authority recognizes that each County in the San lrrancisco Bay Area will incur additional costs becaure of tn" consolidation of the election on the Measure with the June 7, 2016 election and agrees to reimburse each County for the "incremental costs" thereof, as defined in covernment code secrion 66704.05(h). 'l'he chair of the Authority is hereby authorizsd ancl directecl to expend the necessary funds to pay those costs' PASSED AND ADOPTED by the (ioverning Board of the san F'rancisco Bay Restoration Authority at its meeting on January 13,2016, by the following vote: AYES: Governing Board Members 'u\[rrotl,\.qioi4.Y NOES: Governing Board Members N fU- ABSENT: Governing Board Members N ABSTAIN: Governing Board Members Pine Chair Kelly Clerk of the Governing Board (^f Vu/r \0\w),w ffin q I, Kelly Malinowski, Clerk of the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Áuthority, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted 6y the Govêrning iloard of the Sãn Francisco Bay Restoration Authority at its meeting of lanuary 13,Z0l6,wnrcn Resolution is on file in the office of this regional governmental entity Item 10, Resolution: Calling a Special Election April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 902 San Francisco Bav Restoration Authôrity JAN 1 i; ä018 REGISTHAR OF VOTËRS COUNTY OF SANTA CLAHA Resolution #14 SPECIAL PARCEL TAX BALLOT MEASURE FOR VOTER APPIIOVAL: THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY CLEAN WATER, POLLUTION PREVENTION AND HABITAT RESTORATION MEASURE WI-ltiREAS, the San fìrancisco Bay (sometimes relèrred to her.ein as the,.Bay,,) is the region,sgreatest natural l.esource and its central feature and contributes significantlyio the State'seconomic health and vitality. The Bay is a hub of interconnectedlpen-spaces, watersheds,natural habitats, scenic areas, agricultural lancls, and regional trails; wl-ltiREAS, the San F'rancisco Bay and its wetlands, waterways and shorelin e are asignificantpart of the State's coastal rssources and a healthy Bay not only enhances the quality of life for allBay Area residents but is essential to support thé statL's human and wildlife populations; WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay must be protected and restored so that current and futrregenerations may use and enjoy it; WI-l[]REAS, the restoration, preservation, and maintenance of the San Francisco Bay and itswetlands, improvement of Bay water quality, provision of public access to the Bay shoreline, andenhancement of shoreline recreational amenities for the growing population of the San FranciscoBay Area are irnmediate state and regional priorities; WHEREAS, wetland restoration in the San Francisco Bay is necessary to address the growing danger that global warming and rises in sea level pose toihe economic well-being, public health,natural resources' and environment of the State. iidal wetlands can prevent Rooãíng and adaptto rising sea levels; WHEREAS, the protection and restoration of the San Francisco Bay require efficient andeffective use of public funds, leveraging of local funds with State and federal resources, andinvestment of significant resources over a sustained period for habitat restoration on shorelineparcels, parks, and recreational facilities, and public access to natural areas; WHEREAS, in 2008, the State established the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (the"Authority") for the purpose of assisting in the restoration, enhancement, protection andenjoyment of the wetlands and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay and shoreline, including raisingfunds for programs that would protect and restore the Bay; WHEREAS, the Authority is a regional governmental entity comprising the nine counties thattouch the san Francisco Bay: the counties of Alameda, contra cãsta, ñIarin, Napa, April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 903 San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma, and the City and County of San Francisco (such nine counties, collectively, the "San lìrancisco Bay Area"); WI-IEREAS, after years of study, the Authority has prepared the San lirancisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Flabitat Restoration Measr¡re (the "Measure") in order to fund programs that will: o Reduce trash, pollution and hannf'ul toxins;. ln'lprove water quality; e Restore habitat for fish, birds and wildlif'e;o Protect communities from floods; ando Increase shoreline access for public enjo¡rment and recreation. WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 50075 et seq. of the Government Code, cities, counties and districts in the State have the authority to impose special taxes pursuant to the provisions of Article XIII-A of the Califbrnia Constitution, subject to the approval of two- thirds of the votes cast by voters voting upon the proposition; WI-IEREAS, the Authority is authorized pursuant to the aforementioned provisions of the Government Code, as well as the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Act (Title 7.25 of the Government Code, commencing with section 66700), to levy a parcel tax, subject to the requisite two-thirds voter approval, in the San F'rancisco Bay Area; and WI-|ËREAS, the Authority proposes to levy a special parcel tax of $12 per year for 20 years on each parcel wholly or partially in the San Francisco Bay Area, subject to two-thirds voter approval, to fund the programs identified in the Measure. Such a levy is anticipated to generate approximately $25,000,000 a year to fund specific clean water, pollution prevention and habitat restoration projects and other purposes, including the possible payment of debt service on bonds, all as set forth in the Measure; and WHEREAS, the proceeds from the parceltax will be spent only for localprojects that directly improve the Bay, and cannot be taken away by the State. The Measure also requires citizen oversight, transparency, independent audits of all money collected and spent, and strict caps on the amount that may be spent on project management and administration. NOW THEREFORE, THE SAN FRANCSICO BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY GOVERNING BOARD HEREBY RESOLVES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Approval of Ballot Measure. Pursuant to Government Code sections 50075 through 50077.5 and the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Act (Title 7.25 of the Government Code, commencing with section 66700 of the Government Code), the Authority hereby adopts the San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Measure (the "Measure") and approves the placement of the Measure on the June 7, 2016 election ballot within the San Francisco Bay Area. A full copy of the Measure is attached hereto. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 904 Section 2. Tax Imposed and Rate. Subject to two-thirds approval of the voters voting on the Measure, a special parcel tax (the "Special 'fax") shall be levied in the amount and in accordance with the terms and procedurcs set forth in the Measure, for a twenty-year year period commencing July 1,2017 and ending June 30, 2037. The SpecialTax shall be levied at an annual rate of twelve dollars ($12) per parcelof taxable real property (as defined in the Measure) wholly or partially within the San Francisco Bay Area. The proceeds from the Special 'lax shall be used solely to support the programs and priorities and other purposes set forth in the Measure, including, without limitation, the payment of debt service on bonds issued by or on behalf of the Authority for the purposes set lorth in tlre Measure. Section 3. Method of Collection. Subject to two-thirds approval of the voters voting on the Measure, the Special 'fax shall be collected by the 'fax Collector of each county, including the City and County of San F'rancisco (hereafter, all referencos to "County" include the City and County of San Francisco) within the San Francisco Bay Area in accordance with the terms and procedures set fbrth in the Measure. Section 4. Accountability. The Authority's levy, collection and expenditure of the Special Tax shall be subject to the transparency, independent audit, and accountability measures set forth in the Measure, including requirements that: (a) the proceeds of the Special Tax be used solely for supporting the programs and priorities and other purposes set forth in the Measure; (b) the proceeds of the SpecialTax be deposited in a special account; (c) the proceeds of the Special Tax be spent only for projects in the San F'rancisco Bay Area identified in the Measure and cannot be taken by the State; (d) an independent, annual audit be conducted ofall Special Tax proceeds collected and allocated under the Measure; (e) an annual report be prepared showing both the amounts of Special Tax proceeds collected and expended and the status of any project funded pursuant to the Measure; and (Ð annual audits and reports be submitted to an Independent Citizen Oversight Committee for review, with its findings to be posted on the Authority's website. Section 5. Additional Action. The Chair of the Governing Board of the Authority, or any of his or her designees, is hereby authorized and directed to make any changes to the text of the Measure attached hereto, to the abbreviated form of the Measure, or to the text of this Resolution or Resolution No.l3 (calling the special election), as may be convenient or necessary to comply with the intent of this Resolution and Resolution No.l3 to place the Measure on the June 7, 2016 ballot, the requirements of elections offìcials, or the requirements of the law; and to take or authorize any administrative actions necessary to effectuate placing the measure on the ballot and administering the said election, including without limitation, drafting the argument in favor of the measure and fixing the dates on which arguments and rebuttals are due . Section 6. CEQA. Pursuant to the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378(bX4), adoption of this resolution to place the Measure, a government funding mechanism, on the ballot for voter approval is not a project subject to the requirements of CEQA. Prior to approval of funding of any projects pursuant to the Measure, any necessary environmental review required by CEQA shall be completed. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 905 pASSED AND ADOPTED by the Governing Board of the San F'rancisco Bay Restoration Authority at its meeting on January 13,2016, by the following vote: AYES: Governing Board Members t¡\ü.u"t\\0i NOES: Governing Board Members \,0\ ,þ ABSENT: Governing Board Members N /þ- ABS'I"AIN: Governing Board Members Dave Pine Chair I, Kelly Malinowski, Clerk of the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted 6y the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority at its meeting of Jänuary 13,20l6,whiòh Resolution is on frle in the offlrce of this regional governmental entity Kelly Clerk Governing Board \0\{útl4r ol*n April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 906 Attachment to Resolution 14 of Governing Board San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Special Parcel Tax Ballot Measure f'or Voter Approval The San Francisco Bay Clean Watero Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Measure April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 907 THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY CLEAN WATER' POLLUTTON PREVENTION AND HABITAT RESTORATTON ME,ASURE The people of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority do ordain as follows: Section l. Findings and PurPose. Over the last century, landfill and toxic pollution have had a massive impact on San Francisco Bay (sometimes r.eferred to herein as the "Bay"), It is not too late to reverse this impact and ,"rioi. the Bay for future generations. 'l'o meet that objective, in 2008, state law established the San Francisco Bay Restorãtion Authority (the "Authority"), to raise and allocate resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitats in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. The purpose of the San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Measure (the "Measure") is to protect and restore San Francisco Bay to benefit future generations by ìeducing trash, pollution, and harmfill toxins, improving water quality, restoriãg habitat for fish, birds, and wildlife, protecting communities from flood and increasing shoreline public access and recreational areas. Section 2. Funding of Snn Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Expenditure Plan. Subject to voter approval, the Authority hereby establìshes a special parcel tax (the "special f#l the proceeds of which shall be used solely for the purpose of supporting the programs and priorities and other purposes set forth in this Measure. The Special Tax shall be levied at a rate ãit*rlu" dollars ($iz) per parcel within the jurisdiction of the Authority, which consists of the Counties of Alameda,.iontia Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma and the City and County of San Francisco (such nine counties, collectively, the "San Francisco Bay Area"j. The Special Tax shall be levied annually for a total of twenty (20) years' commencing July l, 2017 and ending June 30, 2037. The Special Tax shall be levied on each parcel of taxable property within the San Francisco Bay Area, ãnd shall be collected by the tax cıltectors of each county (including the City and County of San Francisco) in the San Francisco Bay Area (the "Tax Collectors") at the same time as, and along with, and will be subject to the same penalties as general, ad valorem taxes collected by the Tax Collectors. The Speciil Tax and any pènalty shall bear interest at the same rate as the rate for unpaid advaloremproperty taxes until puid. any Special Tax levied shall become a lien upon the próperties against which taxes are assessed and collectible as herein provided' The Special Tax shall appear as a soparate item on the tax bill. All propert y thatis otherwise exempt îrom ad valoremproperty taxes in any yeü shall also be ,*r*pf frorn the Special Tax in ru"h y"ut. The Authority shall adopt procedures that set forth any ciarifications and exemptions to address unique circumstances and any procedure for clámants seeking an exemption, refund, reduction or recomputation of the Special Tax. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 908 A, Program DescriPtions L.¡nder this Measure, the Authority may t'und projects along the Bay shorelines within the Authority's jurisdiction, which consists of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma and the City and County of San F'rancisco. The shorelines include the shorelines of San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait, Suisun Bay, and most of the Northern Contra Costa County Shoreline to the edge of the Dslta Primary Zone. These projects shall advance the following programs: l. Safe, Clean Water and Pollution Prevention Program Section 3. San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Expenditure Plan. 'l'he r.evenues from the Special Tax set f'orth in Section 2 above shall be used solely for the purpose of supporting programs ancl priorities and ptlrposes set forth in this Measure, including the following: T'he purpose of this program to be funded under the Measure is to remove pollution, trash and harmful toxins from the Bay in order to provide clean water for fish, birds, wildlife, and people. a. lmprove water quality by reducing pollution and engaging in restoration activities, protecting public health and making fish and wildlife healthier. b. lReduce poitution levels through shoreline cleanup and trash removal from the Bay. c. Restore wetlands that provide natural fîlters and remove pollution from the Bay's water. d. Clean and enhance creek outlets where they flow into the Bay' 2. Vital Fish, Bird and Wildlife Habitat Program The purpose of this program to be funded under the Measure is to signifrcantly improve wildi¡fe-habitat that wili support and increase vital populations of fish, birds, and other wildlife in and around the BaY. a. Enhance the San Francisco Bay National ÏVildlife Refuge, shoreline parks and open space preserves, and other protected lands in and around the Bay, providing expanded and improved habitat for fish, birds and mammals. b. prótect and restore wetlands and other Bay and shoreline habitats to benefit wildlife, including shorebirds, waterfowl and fish. c. provide for stewardship, maintenance and monitoring of habitat restoration projects in and around the Bay, to ensure their ongoing benefits to wildlife and people' 3. Integrated Flood Protection Program The purpose of this program to be funded under the Measure is to use natural habitats to protËct åommunitiei alıng the Bay's shoreline from the risks of severe coastal flooding caused by storms and high water levels. a. provide nature-based flood protection through wetland and habitæ restoration along the Bay's edge and at creek outlets that flow to the Bay. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 909 b. Build and/or improve flood protection levees that are a necessary part of wetland restoration activities, to protect existing shoreline communities, agriculture, and infiastructure. 4. Shoreline Public Access Program The purpose of this program to be fr¡nded under the Measure is to enhance the quality of life oi Bay Area residents, including those with disabilities, through sal'er and improved public access, as part oIand compatible with wildlif'e habitat rcstoration projects in and around the Bay. a. Construct new, repair existing and/or rcplace deteriorating public access trails, signs, and related facilities along the shoreline and manage these public access facilities. b. Provide interpretive materials and special outreach events about polh,rtion prevention, wildlife habitat, public access, and flood protection, to protect the Bay's health and encourage communitY engagement. B. Additional Allocation Criteria and Community Benefits l. The Authority shall ensure that the Measure's revenue is spent in the most efftcient and effective manner, consistent with the public interest and in compliance with existing law. The Authority shall give priority to projects that: a. Have the greatest positive irnpact on the Bay as a whole, in terms of clean water, wildlife habitat and beneficial use to Bay Area residents. b. Have the greatest long-term impact on the Bay, to benefit future generations. c. Provide for geographic distribution across the region and ensure that there are projects fundedln each of the nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area over the lifb of the Measure. d. Increase impact value by leveraging state and federal resources and public/private partnerships. e. Benefiteconomically disadvantaged communities. f. Benefit the region's economy, including local workforce development, employment opportunities for Bay Area residents, and nature-based flood protection for critical infrastructure and existing shoreline communities- g. twork with local organizations and businesses to engage youth and young adults and assist them in gaining skills related to natural resource protection. h. Incorporate mınitoring, maintenance and stewardship to develop the most efficient and eîfective strategies for restoration and achievement of intended benefits. i. Meet the selection criteria of the Coastal Conservancy's San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program and are consistent with the San Francisco Bay Conservation and DevelopmentCommission's coastal management program and with the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture's implementation strategy. 2. TheAuthority shall ensure that 50Yo of the total net revenue generated during the 20-year term of the Special Tax is allocated to the four Bay Area regions, defined as the North Bay (Sonoma, Marin, Napa and Solano Counties), East Bay (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), West Bay (City and County of San Francisco and San Mateo County) and South Bay (Santa Clara County) in proportion to each region's share of the Bay Area's population, as determined in the 2010 census, and consistent with the priorities set forth itr itt¡r section. As a result, each region will receive the following minimum percentage of April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 910 total net revenue generated during the 20-year term of the Special Tax: North Bay:9%o, East Bay: l8%o, West Bay: I lolo, South Bay: l2Yo. The remaining revenue shallbe allocated consistent with all other provisions of this Measure. 3. The Authority shall conduct one or more public meetings annually to gain public input on selection of projects under this Measure. All actions, including decisions about selecting projects for fìrnding, will be made by the Authority in public meetings with advance notice and with meeting materials made available in advance to the public. 4. 'ilre Authority may accumulate revenue over multiple years so that sufficient funding is available tbr larger and long-term projects. All interest income shall be used solely to support programs and priorities set forth in this Measure. 5. No Special Tax proceeds shall be used for campaign advocacy. 6. No more than 5Yo of the Special Tax proceeds generated in any given fiscal year may be used by the Authority f'or general government purposes in such fiscal year, including to administer the projects funded under this Measure. Any unused funds may be carried over fbr use in subsequent tìscal years. 7. The Authority shall have the right, power and authority to pledge Special Tax proceeds to the payment of bonds of the Authority or another public agency (including, but not limited to, a joint powers authority created pulrsuant to Article I of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.)), and use Special Tax proceeds to pay debt service on such bonds and the costs of issuance related thereto. C. Accountability and Oversight In order to ensure accountability, transparency and public oversight of funds collected and allocated under this Measure and comply with State law, all of the following shall apply: l. The specific purpose of the Special Tax shall be to support only programs and priorities and other purposes listed in this Measure. The Special Tax proceeds shall be applied only for specific purposes of this Measure and shall be spent only in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in this Measure. 2. A separate account shall be created by the Authority into which all Special Tax proceeds must be deposited. The Authority shall commission an independent annual audit of all revenues deposited in, and all expenditures made from, the separate account and publish annual financial statements. 3. All Special Tax revenue, except as set forth in Section 3.8.6 above, shall be spent on projects for the benefit of the San Francisco Bay Area, and shall not be taken by the State. 4. The Authority shall prepare annual written reports showing (i) the amount of funds collected and expended from Special Tax proceeds and (ii) the status ofany projects or programs required or authorized to be funded from the proceeds of the Special Tax, as April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 911 identifiecl above. The reporl shall comply with Government Code section 50025.3, be posted on the Authority's website, and be submitted to the Bay Restoration Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Government Code section 66703.7 (the ,,Advisory Committee"), for review and comment. 5. The Advisory Committee shall provide advice to the Authority on all aspects of its activities under this Measure to ensure maximum benefit, value, and trañsparency. Advisory Committee meetings will be announced in advance and will be ôpen t6¡the public' The responsibilities of the Advisory Committee shall include, but shall not be limited to: (a) advising the Authority about implementation of this Measure; and (b) making recommendations regarding expenditure priorities under this Measure. 6. The Authority shall appoint six members of the public to an Independent Citizens Oversight Committee that shall: (a) annually review the Authoriiy's confbnnance with the Measure; (b) review the Authority's audits and expenditure and flrnancial reports; and (c) publish an annual repoú of its findings, which shall be posted on the Authority,s wensìtå. The six members shall include residents of the North Bay, East Bay, West Bay, and South Bay, as defined in Government Code 66703(a), who are experts in water quality, pollution reduction, habitat restoration, flood protection, improvement of public u"""r, tó the Bay, or financing of these objectives. No person may serve on the Inãependent Citizens Oversight Committee who (a) is an elected official or government employee, or (b) has had or could have a financial interest in decisions of the Authority as def'rned by ' - Government Code section 87103 and the Fair Political Practices Commission. Section 4. Establishment of Appropriation Limit. Pursuant to Article XIII-B of the California Constitution and section 66704.05(bX2) of the Government Code, the appropriation limit of the Authority shall be set by the tàtaì revenues actually received by the Authority from the proceeds of the Special Tax ievied in fiscal year 2017'18, as adjusted each fiscal year thereafter for the estimated change in the cost of living, population and number of parcels on which the Special Tax is levied (such estimate to be determined by the Governing Body of the Authority and be conclusive for all purposes after made). The appropriation limit may be further adjusted by any other changes ihai may be permitted or required by Article XIII-B of the california constitution. Section 5. Amendments and Severability. A. The Governing Board of the Authority shall be empowered to amend this Measure by majority vote of its members to further the purposes oithis Measure, to conform the provisions of this Measure to applicable State law, to modify the methods of levy and collection of the special Tax, or to assign the duties of public offîcials under this Measure. B. If any part of this Measure is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this Measure and the voters declare that they would have passed the remainder of this Measure as if such invalid portion were not included. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 912 RESOLUTION NO. _____ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CHABOT-LAS POSITAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ORDERING AN ELECTION, AND ESTABLISHING SPECIFICATIONS OF THE ELECTION ORDER WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Chabot-Las Positas Community College District (the “District”), comprised of Chabot College and Las Positas College, has determined that certain educational facilities need to be constructed, renovated, acquired and equipped, in a fiscally prudent manner, to enable the District to maintain Chabot College and Las Positas College as valuable community resources that provide an affordable education to local students and veterans who desire to learn job skills and transfer to four-year universities; and WHEREAS, since the costs of attending California’s public universities has risen to at least six times that of attending a community college, more local students are relying on community colleges, such as Chabot College and Las Positas College, and the high quality, affordable college options they each provide; and WHEREAS, in today’s tough economic times and competitive job environment, the District must continue providing important training and education for local residents entering the workforce for new professions and increase opportunities for local students to earn college credits, certifications and job skills at a reasonable price; and WHEREAS, the Chabot and Las Positas Colleges have served thousands of military veterans, many of whom have recently returned from war zones and face post-traumatic stress disorder and permanent disabilities and need better access to job placement programs and facilities, and need to be trained or retrained as they re-enter the civilian workforce; and WHEREAS, the State is not providing the District with enough money for the District to adequately maintain Chabot College and Las Positas College educational facilities and academic programs; and WHEREAS, the Board has received information regarding the feasibility of a local bond measure and the District’s bonding capacity; and WHEREAS, a local measure will provide funds that cannot be taken away by the State to support local college transfer and job training; and WHEREAS, such a local measure will include mandatory taxpayer protections, including an independent citizens’ oversight of all funds and mandatory annual financial audits to ensure funds are spent only as authorized; and WHEREAS, the Board and District has solicited stakeholder and community input on priorities from students, faculty, staff, business and civic leaders, and the community; and WHEREAS, in the judgment of the Board, it is advisable to provide additional funding for job training and workforce preparation for students of all ages, veterans and local residents and to improve facilities for course opportunities in business, technology, nursing, early childhood April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 913 2 education, public safety and other high-demand jobs, by means of a general obligation bond issued in a financially prudent manner; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2000, the voters of California approved the Smaller Classes, Safer Schools and Financial Accountability Act (“Proposition 39”) which reduced the voter threshold for ad valorem tax levies used to pay for debt service or bonded indebtedness to 55% of the votes cast on a community college district general obligation bond; and WHEREAS, concurrent with the passage of Proposition 39, Chapter 1.5, Part 10, Division 1, Title 1 (commencing with Section 15264) of the Education Code (the “Act”) became operative and established requirements associated with the implementation of Proposition 39; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to make certain findings herein to be applicable to this election order and to establish certain performance audits, standards of financial accountability and citizen oversight which are contained in Proposition 39 and the Act; and WHEREAS, the Board determines that, in accordance with Opinion No. 04-110 of the Attorney General of the State of California, the restrictions in Proposition 39, which prohibit any bond money to be used for administrator salaries and other operating expenses of the District shall be strictly monitored by the District’s Citizens’ Oversight Committee; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Education Code Section 15270, based upon a projection of assessed property valuation, the Board has determined that, if approved by voters, the tax rate levied to meet the debt service requirements of the bonds proposed to be issued will not exceed the Proposition 39 limits per year per $100,000 of assessed valuation of taxable property; and WHEREAS, Section 9400 et seq. of the Elections Code of the State of California (the “Elections Code”) requires that a tax rate statement be contained in all official materials, including any ballot pamphlet prepared, sponsored or distributed by the District, relating to the election; and WHEREAS, the Board now desires to authorize the filing of a tax rate statement and ballot argument in favor of the proposition to be submitted to the voters at the election; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Elections Code, it is appropriate for the Board to request consolidation of the election with any and all other elections to be held on June 7, 2016, and to request each of the Alameda County Registrar of Voters and the Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters to perform certain election services for the District; and WHEREAS, in the judgment of the Board, it is advisable to request each of the Alameda County Registrar of Voters and the Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters to call an election pursuant to Proposition 39 on the question of whether general obligation bonds shall be issued and sold on behalf of the District for purposes set forth below. NOW THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CHABOT-LAS POSITAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Board, pursuant to Education Code Sections 15100 et seq., Sections 15264 et seq. and Government Code Section 53506, hereby requests each of the Alameda April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 914 3 County Registrar of Voters and the Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters to call an election under the provisions of Proposition 39 and the Act and submit to the electors of the District the question of whether bonds of the District in the aggregate principal amount of $950,000,000 (the “Bonds”) shall be issued and sold to raise money for the purposes described in Exhibits “A” and “B” hereto. Both exhibits are directed to be printed in the voter sample ballot pamphlet. Section 2. That the date of the election shall be June 7, 2016. Section 3. That the purpose of the election shall be for the voters in the District to vote on a proposition, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference herein, containing the question of whether the District shall issue the Bonds to pay for improvements to the extent permitted by such proposition. In compliance with Proposition 39 and the Act, the ballot proposition in Exhibit “A” is subject to the following requirements and determinations: (a) the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds shall only be used for the purposes set forth in the ballot measure and not for any other purpose, including faculty and administrator salaries and other college operating expenses; (b) that the Board, in compliance with Proposition 39, and in establishing the projects set forth in Exhibit “B”, evaluated the needs of returning veterans, safety, university transfer, enrollment trends, class size reduction, class availability, information technology and technical job training facilities of the District; (c) that the Board will cause to be conducted an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the Bond moneys get expended for the projects identified in Exhibits “A” and “B” hereto; (d) that the Board will cause an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of Bonds to be conducted until all of the Bond proceeds have been expended and accounted for; (e) that the Board will cause the appointment of a Citizens’ Oversight Committee in compliance with Education Code Section 15278 no later than 60 days after the Board enters the election results in its minutes pursuant to Education Code Section 15274. The Citizens’ Oversight Committee shall initially consist of at least seven (7) members and at no time consist of less than seven (7) members, with the possible exception of brief periods to fill any unexpected vacancies. The Citizens’ Oversight Committee may not include any employee or official of the District or any vendor, contractor or consultant of the District. The Citizens’ Oversight Committee shall include all of the following: One (1) member who is active in a business organization representing the business community located within the District; One (1) member who is active in a senior citizens’ organization; One member who is active in a bona fide taxpayer association. In furtherance of its specifically enumerated purposes, the Citizens’ Oversight Committee may engage in any of the following activities relating solely and exclusively to the expenditure of the Proposition 39 bond proceeds: (i) Receive and review copies of the annual, independent financial and performance audits performed by independent consultant(s); April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 915 4 (ii) Inspect District facilities and grounds to ensure that Proposition 39 bond revenues are expended in compliance with applicable law; (iii) Receive and review copies of all scheduled maintenance proposals or plans developed by the District; (iv) Review efforts of the District to maximize Proposition 39 bond revenues by implementing cost-saving programs; and (f) that the tax levy authorized to secure the bonds of this election shall not exceed the Proposition 39 limits per $100,000 of taxable property in the District when assessed valuation is projected by the District to increase in accordance with Article XIIIA of the California Constitution. Section 4. That the authority for ordering the election is contained in Education Code Sections 15100 et seq., 15340 et seq. and 15264 et seq. and Government Code Section 53506. Section 5. That the authority for the specifications of this election order is contained in Section 5322 of the Education Code. Section 6. That each of the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, the Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors are hereby requested to consolidate the election ordered hereby with any and all other elections to be held on June 7, 2016 within the District. Section 7. That this Resolution shall stand as the “order of election” to each of the Alameda County Registrar of Voters and the Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters to call an election within the boundaries of the District on June 7, 2016. Section 8. That the Secretary of the Board is hereby directed to send a certified copy o f this Resolution to each of the Alameda County Registrar of Voters and the Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters no later than March 11, 2016. Section 9. That the bonds shall be issued pursuant to Section 15300 et seq. of the Education Code or issued pursuant to Section 53506 of the Government Code. The maximum rate of interest on any bond shall not exceed the maximum rate allowed by Education Code Sections 15140 to 15143, as modified by Government Code Section 53531. The Board approves the filing of a Tax Rate Statement and primary and rebuttal arguments, as appropriate, and directs their publication in accordance with the requirements of the Elections Code. Section 10. That the Board requests the governing body of any such other political subdivision, or any officer otherwise authorized by law, to partially or completely consolidate such election and to further provide that the canvass be made by any body or official authorized by law to canvass the returns of the election, and that the Board consents to such consolidation. Section 11. Pursuant to Section 5303 of the Education Code and Section 10002 of the Elections Code, the Boards of Supervisors of Alameda County and Contra Costa County are requested to permit their respective Registrar of Voters to render all services specified by Section 10418 of the Elections Code relating to the election, for which services the District agrees to reimburse each of Alameda County and Contra Costa County, such services to include the April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 916 5 publication of a Formal Notice of School Bond Election and the mailing of the sample ballot and tax rate statement (described in Section 9401 of the Elections Code) pursuant to the terms of Section 5363 of the Education Code and Section 12112 of the Elections Code. ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 1st day of March, 2016. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CHABOT-LAS POSITAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT By Board President Attest: Secretary April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 917 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss ALAMEDA COUNTY ) I, Dr. Jannett N. Jackson, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. ____which was duly adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Chabot-Las Positas Community College District at meeting thereof held on the 1st day of March 2016, and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: By Secretary April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 918 A-1 EXHIBIT A “CHABOT-LAS POSITAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT JOB TRAINING, CLASSROOM REPAIR AND STUDENT SAFETY MEASURE. To upgrade aging classrooms and technology/science labs for career education to prepare students, veterans and workers for good jobs and university transfer, remove asbestos/retrofit buildings for earthquake safety, acquire, construct and repair sites/facilities/equipment, and improve campus safety/security, shall Chabot-Las Positas Community College District issue $950,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, no money for administrators’ salaries/pensions, independent financial audits, and all funds used locally?” Bonds - Yes Bonds – No April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 919 B-1 EXHIBIT B FULL TEXT BALLOT PROPOSITION CHABOT-LAS POSITAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT BOND MEASURE ELECTION JUNE 7, 2016 “CHABOT-LAS POSITAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT JOB TRAINING, CLASSROOM REPAIR AND STUDENT SAFETY MEASURE. To upgrade aging classrooms and technology/science labs for career education to prepare students, veterans and workers for good jobs and university transfer, remove asbestos/retrofit buildings for earthquake safety, acquire, construct and repair sites/facilities/equipment, and improve campus safety/security, shall Chabot-Las Positas Community College District issue $950,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, no money for administrators’ salaries/pensions, independent financial audits, and all funds used locally?” Bonds - Yes Bonds – No PROJECTS The Board of Trustees of the Chabot-Las Positas Community College District, to be responsive to the needs of its community, evaluated each of Chabot College’s and Las Positas College’s urgent and critical facility needs, and its capacity to provide students, active military, and Veterans with support and job training facilities, an affordable education and prepare them for success in college and careers. Job training facilities, safety issues, class size and offerings, and information and computer technology were each considered in developing the scope of projects to be funded, as such are outlined in the District’s 2012 Facilities Master Plan, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety (the “Master Plan”), and available for review on the District’s website (www.clpccd.org). In developing the scope of projects, basic repairs, job training facilities, campus safety, facilities supporting Veterans, and the expansion of opportunities for local students to receive an affordable, quality education, were prioritized. If these facility needs are not addressed now, the District’s Colleges would be unable to remain competitive in preparing students for jobs in high demand industries and university transfer. The Board of Trustees determines that Chabot College and Las Positas College MUST: (i) Increase opportunities for local students to earn college credits, certifications and job skills at reasonable prices and transfer to four-year colleges and universities; (ii) Upgrade and expand Veteran services and job training so returning Veterans receive the support they need to complete their education and enter the civilian workforce; (iii) Expand essential job training and workforce preparation for students of all ages and local residents; (iv) Provide local students with an affordable, low-cost, high-quality education; (v) Adhere to stringent FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY safeguards including: (a) All expenditures will be subject to annual independent financial audits, (b) No funds will be used for administrators’ salaries and pensions, (c) ALL FUNDS WILL BE SUBJECT TO LOCAL CONTROL, April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 920 B-2 (d) An independent citizens’ oversight committee will be appointed to ensure that all funds are spent only as authorized. The following types of projects are authorized to be undertaken at Chabot College and Las Positas College: PROVIDING AN AFFORDABLE EDUCATION FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS AND VETERANS: Basic Repair Projects Needed To Make Chabot College and Las Positas College a Safer Place to Learn Goals and Purposes: The cost to attend California's public universities has risen to at least six times that of attending a community college. As a result, more local students and their families rely on Chabot College and Las Positas College to save tens of thousands of dollars. Additional funds are needed to increase opportunities for local students to earn college credits, certifications, and job skills at a reasonable price and transfer to four-year colleges and universities. To make sure that Cabot College and Las Positas College are safe places to learn, funds will be used to upgrade campus security emergency communication systems, campus lighting, signage, cameras, and door locks, ensuring the safety and security of students. Many of Chabot’s and Las Positas’ buildings, classrooms, science labs, and job training equipment are deteriorating and outdated. This measure will address urgent and basic repairs such as upgrading electrical wiring, gas and sewer lines, fixing leaky roofs, repairing bathrooms, and replacing outdated plumbing and wiring to make our local college clean and safe for learning. Replace outdated electrical wiring. Repair deteriorating gas, electrical, water and sewer lines. Improve campus safety and security. Make campus buildings more energy efficient. Improve emergency communication systems. Improve water conservation efforts. Update campus facilities to improve handicapped accessibility. Repair to the aging plumbing system to prevent flooding and water damage. Remove asbestos. Improve earthquake safety. Repair deteriorating firewater lines and sprinkler systems. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 921 B-3 PROVIDING JOB TRAINING AND COLLEGE TRANSFER: Facility Improvements To Help Students and Veterans Transfer to Four-Year Universities or be Trained For High Demand Jobs Goals and Purposes: Chabot College and Las Positas College have served thousands of military veterans, many of whom have recently returned from war zones and face challenges including post-traumatic stress disorder and permanent disability. Upgraded and expanded veteran services and job training are needed so returning Service Members receive the support they need to complete their education and enter the civilian workforce. Chabot College and Las Positas College provide essential job training and workforce preparation for students, veterans, and local residents. This measure will upgrade classrooms, facilities and technology, and expand access to training programs that help students learn new skills and find better paying jobs in jobs in business, technology, nursing, early childhood education, public safety, and other high demand careers. Thus the District requires funds that are locally controlled to obtain State matching funds and improve academic facilities which will allow them to continue providing access to affordable, high quality education to local students and veterans, including: Upgrade career and vocational classrooms to better prepare students and workers for good- paying jobs. Upgrade classrooms and labs for science, technology, engineering, and math-related fields. Provide or upgrade facilities and resources for career preparation in healthcare, nursing and early childhood education. Upgrade classroom technology. Provide facilities for student support services such as tutoring and career counseling. Improve classrooms and resources for paramedic, firefighter and public safety programs. Improve vocational classroom and labs for auto repair, agriculture and environmental science programs. Improve and expand facilities which prepare students for transfer to four-year college and universities. * * * FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY This bond measure has strict accountability requirements including: 1. All money will benefit Chabot College and Las Positas College campuses and CANNOT BE TAKEN BY THE STATE. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 922 B-4 2. NO MONEY can be used for ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES or pensions. 3. Require CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT and yearly audits to ensure all funds are used locally, effectively and as promised. 4. NO ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES. Proceeds from the sale of the bonds authorized by this proposition shall be used only for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, and not for any other purpose, including teacher, faculty and college administrator salaries, pensions and other operating expenses. 5. FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY. THE EXPENDITURE OF BOND MONEY ON THESE PROJECTS IS SUBJECT TO STRINGENT FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS. BY LAW, PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL AUDITS WILL BE PERFORMED ANNUALLY, AND ALL BOND EXPENDITURES WILL BE MONITORED BY AN INDEPENDENT CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE TO ENSURE THAT FUNDS ARE SPENT AS PROMISED AND SPECIFIED. THE CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MUST INCLUDE, AMONG OTHERS, REPRESENTATION OF A BONA FIDE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION AND A SENIOR CITIZENS ORGANIZATION. NO DISTRICT EMPLOYEES OR VENDORS ARE ALLOWED TO SERVE ON THE CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. * * * The listed projects will be completed as needed. Each project is assumed to include its share of furniture, equipment, architectural, engineering, and similar planning costs, program/project management, staff training expenses, a customary contingency, and costs associated with the Total Cost of Ownership of facilities and equipment. In addition to the listed projects stated above, authorized projects also include the acquisition of a variety of instructional, maintenance and operational equipment, including interim funding incurred to advance fund projects from payment of the costs of preparation of all facility planning, fiscal reporting, facility studies, assessment reviews, facility master plan preparation and updates, environmental studies (including environmental investigation, remediation and monitoring), design and construction documentation, and temporary housing of dislocated college activities caused by construction projects. In addition to the projects listed above, repair, renovation and construction projects may include, but not be limited to, some or all of the following: renovation of student and staff restrooms; replace aging electrical and plumbing systems; repair and replacement of heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems; acquire vehicles; upgrade of facilities for energy efficiencies, including photovoltaic/solar installations; repair and replacement of worn-out and leaky roofs, windows, walls doors and drinking fountains; replace or remove outdated buildings and classrooms and construction of new classrooms and support buildings; installation of wiring and electrical systems to safely accommodate computers, technology and other electrical devices and needs; upgrade facilities to meet current environmental sustainability and State compliance standards; repair and replacement of fire alarms, emergency communications and security systems; upgrading, resurfacing, replacing or relocating of hard courts, fields, turf and irrigation systems; install artificial turf on athletic fields; upgrade classrooms; build or upgrade facilities for math, physical sciences, fine arts, theatre arts, and agriculture and environmental science programs; construct, expand or reconfigure facilities to create large lecture classrooms; upgrade, resurfacing and reconditioning existing parking lots; repair, upgrade and install interior and exterior lighting systems; replace water lines and valves, sewer lines and other plumbing systems; construct, upgrade, acquire or expand student dorms on campus, multi-use classrooms and April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 923 B-5 labs, culinary and health services buildings, fine arts and visual and performing arts facilities, learning resources center, physical education/aquatic facilities, locker rooms, field lights, bleachers, press box, track replacement, administrative offices, conference center, maintenance building, student service/campus center and instructional buildings, trades and technology building, library, athletic fields, student services buildings; improve water conservation and energy efficiency; replace or upgrade outdated security and safety systems; replace existing window systems with energy- efficient systems to reduce costs; improve insulation, weatherproofing and roofs to reduce costs; improve access for the disabled; install and repair fire safety equipment, including alarms, smoke detectors, sprinklers, emergency lighting, and fire safety doors; replace broken concrete walks, deteriorated asphalt; replace/upgrade existing signage, bells and clocks; demolition of unsafe facilities; install new security systems, such as security (surveillance) cameras, burglar alarms, handrails, outdoor lighting, fencing, gates and classroom door locks; replace sewer lines and improve drainage systems to prevent flooding; upgrade roadway and pedestrian paths for improved safety and access for emergency vehicles, site parking, utilities and grounds. The project list also includes the refinancing of outstanding lease obligations. The upgrading of technology infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, upgrading classroom technology, the funding of state-of-the-art projectors, portable interface devices, servers, switches, routers, modules, sound projection systems, information systems, printers, digital white boards, upgrade voice-over-IP, communication systems, audio/visual and telecommunications systems, call manager and network security/firewall, Internet connectivity, wireless systems, technology infrastructure, and other miscellaneous IT and instructional equipment, DATA storage, fiber/copper infrastructure, phones, identity access cards and the creation and funding of a technology endowment. At Chabot College, the Project List also includes the construction, expansion or improvement of a new student access center (student union), a biology and allied health science building, learning resources/library, seismic or other upgrades to the arcade, television, radio and performance facilities, administrative offices, workforce development labs and office, faculty offices and vehicle maintenance facility. At Las Positas College, the Project List includes the construction, expansion or improvement of a vocational education center, an integrated learning center, applied arts academic building, student dormitories, faculty housing, library materials and tech equipment. The allocation of bond proceeds will be affected by the District’s receipt of State matching funds and the final costs of each project. In the absence of State matching funds, which the District will aggressively pursue to reduce the District’s share of the costs of the projects, the District will not be able to complete some of the projects listed above. Some projects may be undertaken as joint use projects in cooperation with other local public or non-profit agencies. The budget for each project is an estimate and may be affected by factors beyond the District’s control. The final cost of each project will be determined as plans and construction documents are finalized, construction bids are received, construction contracts are awarded and projects are completed. Based on the final costs of each project, certain of the projects described above may be delayed or may not be completed. Demolition of existing facilities and reconstruction of facilities scheduled for repair and upgrade may occur, if the Board determines that such an approach would be more cost-effective in creating more enhanced and operationally efficient campuses. Necessary site preparation/restoration may occur in connection with new construction, renovation or remodeling, or installation or removal of relocatable classrooms, including ingress and egress, removing, replacing, or installing irrigation, utility lines, trees and landscaping, relocating fire access roads, and acquiring any necessary easements, licenses, or rights of way to the property. Proceeds of the bonds may be used to pay or reimburse the District for the cost of District staff when performing work on or necessary and incidental to bond projects. Bond proceeds shall only be expended for the specific purposes identified herein. The District shall create an account into which proceeds of the bonds shall be deposited and comply with the reporting requirements of Government Code § 53410. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 924 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COUNTIES OF ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 032-15/16 RESOLUTION ORDERING SCHOOL BOND ELECTION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $245,000,000 AND AUTHORIZING NECESSARY ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the Board of Education (the “Board”) of the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (the “District”) is authorized to order elections within the District and to designate the specifications thereof, pursuant to Sections 5304 and 5322 of the Education Code of the State of California (the “Education Code”); and WHEREAS the Board is specifically authorized to order elections for the purpose of submitting to the electors the question of whether bonds of the District shall be issued and sold for the purpose of raising money for the purposes hereinafter specified, pursuant to Education Code Sections 15100 et seq.; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18 of Article XVI and Section 1 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and Education Code Section 15266, school districts may seek approval of general obligation bonds and levy an ad valorem tax to repay those bonds upon a vote of at least 55% of those voting on a proposition for the purpose, provided certain accountability measures are included in the proposition; and WHEREAS, the Board, deems it necessary and advisable to submit a bond proposition to the electors which, if approved by 55% of the votes cast, would permit the District to issue its bonds; and WHEREAS, such a bond election must be conducted concurrently with a statewide primary election, general election, or special election, or at a regularly scheduled local election, as required by Education Code Section 15266; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2016, a statewide primary election is scheduled to be conducted throughout the District; and WHEREAS, the District is located entirely within the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa (each a “County” and together, the “Counties”) and the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools has jurisdiction over the District; and WHEREAS, the District’s boundaries have not changed since the November 3, 2015 Election; and A-I-1 March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 925 WHEREAS, pursuant to Education Code Section 15270, based upon a projection of assessed property valuation, the Board has determined that, if approved by voters, the tax rate levied to meet the debt service requirements of the bonds proposed to be issued will not exceed $60 per year per $100,000 of assessed valuation of taxable property; and WHEREAS, current estimates place the maximum projected tax rate levied to meet the debt service requirements of the bonds at approximately $48 per year per $100,000 of assessed valuation of taxable property; and WHEREAS, Section 9400 et seq. of the Elections Code of the State of California (the “Elections Code”) requires that a tax rate statement be contained in all official materials, including any ballot pamphlet prepared, sponsored or distributed by the District, relating to the election; and WHEREAS, the Board now desires to authorize the filing of a ballot argument in favor of the proposition to be submitted to the voters at the election; and WHEREAS, the Board has found the statements listed under “Findings” in the full text of the measure to be true and correct; and WHEREAS, if the project to be funded by the bonds will require State matching funds for any phase, the sample ballot must contain a statement, in form prescribed by law, advising the voters of that fact; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that completion of all or a portion of certain projects listed in the bond project list will not require State matching funds not yet received by the District; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and correct, and the Board so finds. 2. Specifications of Election Order. Pursuant to Education Code Sections 5304, 5322, 15100 et seq., and 15266, an election shall be held within the boundaries of the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District on June 7, 2016, for the purpose of submitting to the registered voters of the District the proposition contained in Exhibit A-II hereto. 3. Order of Election; Specifications of Ballot Measure; Abbreviation of Proposition: Pursuant to Elections Code Section 13247 and Education Code Sections 5322 and 15122, this Board hereby directs the Registrars of Voters of the Counties (the “Registrars of Voters”) to submit to the voters of the District at said election the proposition contained in Exhibit A-II hereto, and to use as the abbreviation of the bond proposition on the ballot the Abbreviation contained in Exhibit A-I hereto. 4. Required Certification. The Board hereby certifies that it has evaluated safety, class size reduction and information technology needs in developing the Bond Project List of the proposition contained in Exhibit A-II hereto. March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 926 5. Delivery of Order of Election and Tax Rate Statement to County Officers. As soon as practicable following adoption of this Resolution, and in any event no later than March 11, 2016 (which date is not fewer than 88 days prior to the date set for the election), the Clerk of this Board is hereby directed to cause one copy of this Resolution to be filed (1) with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of each County, and (2) with the Registrar of Voters of each County. The copy filed with the Registrar of Voters shall include the Tax Rate Statement (in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B), completed and signed by the Superintendent of Schools for the District. 6. Conduct of Election. (a) Request to Registrar of Voters. Pursuant to Education Code Section 5303, the Registrars of Voters are required to, and are hereby requested to, take all steps to hold the election in accordance with law and these specifications. (b) Ballot and Voter Pamphlet. The Registrars of Voters are requested to cause the exact wording of the Abbreviation of the Measure contained in Exhibit A-I to appear on the ballot, and to print the Full Text of the Measure contained in Exhibit A-II in the voter information pamphlet to be distributed to voters pursuant to Elections Code Section 13307. The full text of the measure is all that text in Appendix A hereto between the indicators: “BEGINNING OF FULL TEXT OF MEASURE --------- >>>>>>” and “<<<<< --------- END OF FULL TEXT OF MEASURE.” (c) Consolidation. Pursuant to Education Code Section 15266(a), the election shall be consolidated with the statewide general election on June 7, 2016, and pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section 10400) of Division 10 of the Elections Code, the Registrars of Voters and the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties are hereby requested to order consolidation of the election with such other elections as may be held on the same day in the same territory or in territory that is in part the same. (d) Canvass of Results. The Boards of Supervisors of the Counties are authorized to canvass the returns of the election pursuant to Elections Code Section 10411. (e) Required Vote. Pursuant to Section 18 of Article XVI and Section 1 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, the proposition contained in Appendix A shall become effective upon the affirmative vote of at least 55% of those voters voting on the proposition. (f) Election Costs. This Board shall pay all costs of the election approved by the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties, pursuant to Education Code Section 5421. 7. [No Requirement of State Matching Funds. The District has determined that the projects to be funded from the proposed bonds will not require State matching funds for any phase thereof, and that Education Code Section 15122.5 does not apply to the proposition, and accordingly, the Registrar of Voters is directed not to include the disclosure otherwise required by that section.] March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 927 8. Ballot Arguments. The President of this Board, or any member or members of this Board as the President shall designate, is hereby authorized, but not directed, to prepare and file with each Registrar of Voters a ballot argument in favor of the proposition contained in Exhibit A hereof, within the time established by such Registrar of Voters, which shall be considered the official ballot argument of this Board as sponsor of the proposition. 9. Further Authorization. The members of this Board, the Superintendent, the Chief Business Officer, and all other officers of the District are hereby authorized and directed, individually and collectively, to do any and all things that they deem necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution in accordance with the terms hereof and of applicable provisions of law. 10. Appointment of Bond Team. Isom Advisors, a division of Urban Futures Incorporated, is hereby appointed financial advisor to the District, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP is hereby appointed bond counsel, both in connection with the bonds issued pursuant to the election called hereby. 11. Effective Date; Required Vote. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Education. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day, March 7, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Bueno____Rogge____Runyon____Wenzel____White____ NOES: Bueno____Rogge____Runyon____Wenzel____White____ ABSTAIN: Bueno____Rogge____Runyon____Wenzel____White____ ABSENT: Bueno____Rogge____Runyon____Wenzel____White____ APPROVED: ATTEST: Signature Signature Print Name Print Name President of the Board of Education of the Clerk of the Board of Education of the Livermore Valley Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District Joint Unified School District [Contra Costa/Alameda] County, California [Contra Costa/Alameda] County, California March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 928 EXHIBIT A-I ABBREVIATION OF THE MEASURE To renovate aging Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District classrooms and school facilities with funding that the State can’t take away; improve fire safety and security systems; repair deteriorating roofs, plumbing, restrooms and electrical systems; modernize outdated classrooms, science labs and instructional technology; upgrade, acquire, construct, equip classrooms/facilities; and qualify for State matching funds, shall Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District issue $245 million in bonds, at legal rates, requiring independent audits and public reports, no money for administrators, and keeping all funds local? March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 929 EXHIBIT A-II FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE BEGINNING OF FULL TEXT OF MEASURE --------- >>>>>> FULL TEXT BALLOT PROPOSITION OF THE LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND MEASURE ELECTION JUNE 7, 2016 This Proposition may be known and referred to as the “[MEASURE NAME]” or as “Measure ____”. [letter designation to be assigned by the County Registrars of Voters] FINDINGS The Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (the “LVJUSD”) is committed to educational excellence and to continuing a strong and varied curriculum that prepares students to graduate and be successful in college and careers. LVJUSD schools are among the highest performing in the State of California. Excellent local schools contribute to the quality of life and help to sustain strong property values in the LVJUSD community. In 2013, the LVJUSD engaged professional consultants to guide a multi-year comprehensive facilities assessment. After three years of study and diligence, the LVJUSD facilities assessment was presented to the Board of Education on February 1, 2016. The facilities assessment evaluated the LVJUSD’s facilities needs related to safety issues, repair and renovation needs, enrollment trends, class sizes, instructional best practices, and changing education/information technology needs in developing the scope of the capital projects to be undertaken. The facilities assessment identified improvements needed to classroom infrastructure and instructional technology to ensure students are prepared for college and 21st-century careers. The facilities assessment identified capital repairs necessary to keep schools well-maintained and safe, and to ensure that all students have equitable access to 21st-century classrooms, labs and school facilities. The facilities assessment also identified energy efficiency improvements and upgrades to heating and ventilation systems that could help save on energy costs. The LVJUSD also solicited and received input from teachers, staff, parents, community members, and the public as part of the facilities needs assessment. The Board of Education has determined that facility repairs and improvements of this magnitude are beyond the scope of the LVJUSD’s operating budget. A-II-1 March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 930 Because the State is unable or unwilling to provide adequate funding for facility repairs and improvements, the Board of Education deems it necessary to seek local funding for school improvements. Every penny of this local funding will benefit LVJUSD schools and cannot be taken by the State or used for administrator salaries. In preparing and approving the Bond Project List, the Board of Education determined that the LVJUSD must: Ensure student access to programs in core academic subjects, career technical education (CTE) and advanced programs that prepare students for college; Update and modernize classrooms, science labs and flexible learning spaces that meet seismic, safety, and accessibility codes; Expand technology infrastructure and instructional technology equipment at all schools to support 21st century learning and skills development in subjects including, but not limited to, science, engineering, math and core academics; Complete basic repairs for projects that improve student safety and energy efficiency and ensure District facilities, which are also available and widely used for community use, are well maintained; Include teachers, staff, parents, students, and other key stakeholders in the planning process for design of the proposed projects on the Bond Project List. BOND AUTHORIZATION By approval of this proposition by at least 55% of the registered voters voting on the proposition, the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (the “District”) shall be authorized to issue and sell bonds of up to $245 million in aggregate principal amount to provide financing for the specific school facilities projects listed in the Bond Project List, and in order to qualify to receive State matching grant funds, subject to all of the accountability safeguards specified below. ACCOUNTABILITY SAFEGUARDS The provisions in this section are specifically included in this proposition in order that the District’s voters and taxpayers may be assured that their money will be spent wisely to address specific facilities needs of the District, all in compliance with the requirements of Article XIII A, Section 1(b)(3) of the California Constitution, and the Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bonds Act of 2000 (codified at California Education Code (the “Education Code”) Sections 15264 and following). Evaluation of Needs. The Board of Education of the District (the “Board of Education”) hereby certifies that it has evaluated the facilities needs of the District, and the priority of addressing each of these needs. In the course of its evaluation, the Board of Education took A-II-2 March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 931 safety, class size reduction and information technology needs into consideration while developing the Bond Project List. Limitation on Use of Bond Proceeds. The State of California does not have the legal authority to take locally approved school district bond funds for any State purposes. The California Constitution allows proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by this proposition to be used only for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities listed in this proposition, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses. Proceeds of the bonds may be used to pay or reimburse the District for the cost of District staff only when performing work on or necessary and incidental to the bond projects. Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee. The Board of Education shall establish an independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee (pursuant to Education Code Section 15278 and following), to ensure bond proceeds are spent only for the school facilities projects listed in the Bond Project List. The Committee shall be established within 60 days of the date on which the Board of Education enters the election results on its minutes. Annual Performance Audits. The Board of Education shall conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the bond proceeds have been expended only on the school facilities projects listed in the Bond Project List. Annual Financial Audits. The Board of Education shall conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the bond proceeds (which shall be separate from the District’s regular annual financial audit) until all of those proceeds have been spent for the school facilities projects listed in the Bond Project List. Special Bond Proceeds Account; Annual Report to Board. Upon approval of this proposition and the sale of any bonds approved, the Board of Education shall take actions necessary pursuant to California Government Code (the “Government Code”) Section 53410 and following to establish an account in which proceeds of the sale of bonds will be deposited. As long as any proceeds of the bonds remain unexpended, the Superintendent or the Chief Business Officer of the District (or such other employee as may perform substantially similar duties) shall cause a report to be filed with the Board of Education no later than January 31 of each year, commencing January 31, 2017, stating (1) the amount of bond proceeds received and expended in that year, and (2) the status of any project funded or to be funded from bond proceeds. The report may relate to the calendar year, fiscal year, or other appropriate annual period as such officer shall determine, and may be incorporated into the annual budget, audit, or other appropriate routine report to the Board. FURTHER SPECIFICATIONS Specific Purposes. All of the purposes enumerated in this proposition shall be united and voted upon as one single proposition, pursuant to Education Code Section 15100, and shall constitute the specific purposes of the bonds, and proceeds of the bonds shall be spent only for such purposes, pursuant to Government Code Section 53410. A-II-3 March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 932 Joint Use. The District may enter into agreements with the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa or other public agencies or nonprofit organizations for joint use of school facilities financed with the proceeds of the bonds in accordance with Education Code Section 17077.42 (or any successor provision). The District may seek State grant funds for eligible joint-use projects as permitted by law, and this proposition hereby specifies and acknowledges that bond funds will or may be used to fund all or a portion of the local share for any eligible joint-use projects identified in the Bond Project List or as otherwise permitted by California State regulations, as the Board of Education shall determine. Rate of Interest. The bonds shall bear interest at a rate per annum not exceeding the statutory maximum, payable at the time or times permitted by law. Term of Bonds. The number of years the whole or any part of the bonds are to run shall not exceed the legal limit, though this shall not preclude bonds from being sold which mature prior to the legal limit. PROJECT LIST The Bond Project List below describes the specific projects the District proposes to finance with proceeds of voter approved bonds. Listed projects will be completed as needed at a particular District site according to Board of Education-established priorities, and the order in which such projects appear on the Bond Project List is not an indication of priority for funding or completion. The final cost of each project will be determined as plans are finalized, construction bids are awarded, and projects are completed. Certain construction funds expected from non-bond sources, including State grant funds for eligible projects, have not yet been secured. Until all project costs and funding sources are known, the Board of Education cannot determine the amount of bond proceeds available to be spent on each project, nor guarantee that the bonds will provide sufficient funds to allow completion of all listed projects. Completion of some projects may be subject to further government approvals by State officials and boards, to local environmental review, and to input from the public. For these reasons, inclusion of a project on the Bond Project List is not a guarantee that the project will be funded or completed. In order to provide flexibility should additional efficiencies be realized or should Board of Education priorities change, the Bond Project List contains more projects than the District currently estimates the Bonds can fund. The Board of Education may undertake repairs, rehabilitations, improvements, acquisitions, or new construction to complete each or any of the projects listed below as may be determined desirable by the District at the time the project is undertaken. Any authorized repairs are limited to capital expenditures. The project list does not authorize non-capital expenditures. The Board of Education may make changes to the Bond Project List in the future consistent with the projects specified in the proposition. Section headings are not part of the project list and are provided for convenience only. The projects listed below are authorized at all District sites including: [Altamont Creek Elementary, Arroyo Seco Elementary, Emma C. Smith Elementary, Jackson Avenue Elementary, Leo Croce Elementary, Marylin Avenue Elementary, Rancho Las Positas Elementary, Sunset Elementary, Joe Michell K-8 School, Junction Avenue K-8 School, Andrew Christensen Middle School, East Avenue Middle School, William Mendenhall Middle School, Granada High School, Livermore High School, Almond Avenue Site, Arroyo Mocho Site, Del Valle/Fifth Street Site, the District Office, Ladd Avenue Property/Maintenance Site, Portola Site, and any sites acquired by the District in the future.] A-II-4 March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 933 SCHOOL SAFETY & CAMPUS SECURITY REPAIRS & UPGRADES THROUGHOUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT School Site Safety Projects Security and safety systems, including, but not limited to, fire alarm systems, intrusion and security systems, security lighting, and telephones and communication systems, etc. Walkways, perimeter fencing and exterior lighting, portable ramps with concrete and handrails. Playground equipment and safety surfacing. Parking lots, pick-up/drop-off zones, including, but not limited to, security fencing. REPAIR, RENOVATE OR REPLACE AGING, DETERIORATED CLASSROOMS, LABS, CORE BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE & EQUIPMENT THROUGHOUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT Core Infrastructure Projects Roofing, flashing, and waterproofing systems. Lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and Energy Management System (EMS) controls/irrigation systems. Site utilities and utility infrastructure, such as power, gas, and electrical water and sewage drainage, valves, back flow prevention, laterals, storm drains, water mains, sinks, water heaters, neutralization tanks, shower heads, and other fixtures, boilers, gas lines, control systems, automation systems, chilled water coils, control valves, etc. General Modernization Classroom, lab, performing arts, and/or physical education building interiors, walls, ceilings, floors, cabinetry, windows, doors and hardware. Student and staff restrooms, food service storage, preparation, and serving areas, food service equipment, administrative areas, counseling areas, student services areas, locker rooms, including lockers, portable classrooms (including acquisition), floors and roofs, structural repairs and improvements, windows, doors, and door locks, asbestos mitigation, façade improvements, etc. Portable classrooms. Multi-purpose rooms. Furniture, fixtures, and equipment. Building exteriors, siding, paint, windows, doors, entrances and hardware – including, but not limited to, classrooms, and other student support spaces. Local, state, and federal building, health, safety, access, and other compliance-related requirements, including, but not limited to, seismic safety requirements, Field Act requirements, and access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Renewable energy and energy-saving systems, improvements and equipment, including, but not limited to, electricity generation and distribution systems, water heating systems, natural light improvements, insulation, lighting, windows and window coverings, A-II-5 March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 934 shade structures, energy management and conservation systems, and structures to support such systems, improvements and/or equipment and related infrastructure. TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT Network infrastructure and technology equipment, including, but not limited to, electrical capacity, and technology infrastructure, classroom and library technology; data ports, switching and cabling, computers, printers, modems, displays, and teaching equipment. UPGRADE OUTDOOR STRUCTURES, HARDSCAPES, FIELDS, LANDSCAPING AND EQUIPMENT ON SCHOOL GROUNDS THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT School grounds, outdoor and sports facilities and structures, including, but not limited to, compliance with local, state, and federal building, health, safety, access, and other related requirements, including seismic safety requirements, Field Act requirements, and requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), new gymnasium and team- room, lighting, tennis courts, tracks and fields, pools and pool equipment (including chlorine rooms), bleachers, etc. Landscape, including but not limited to, walkways, walkway covers, ramps, soil stabilization, soil mitigation, fencing, new or repaired irrigation systems, grass areas, hard courts and playgrounds, etc. Outdoor shade structures and hydration stations. The aforementioned projects are authorized at all District sites, including sites the District may acquire in the future. Incidental Work Authorized At All Sites (at which Projects listed above are undertaken) Each project listed above includes allocable costs such as election and bond issuance costs, architectural, engineering, inspection and similar planning costs, construction management (whether by the District or a third-party), annual financial and performance audits, a contingency for unforeseen design and construction costs, and other costs necessary, incidental or related to the completion of the listed projects and otherwise permitted by law, including but not limited to: Remove hazardous materials, e.g., asbestos, lead, etc., if necessary or desirable Address unforeseen conditions revealed by construction/modernization (e.g., plumbing or gas line breaks, dry-rot, seismic, structural, etc.) Other improvements required to comply with building codes Furnishing and equipping – of newly constructed classrooms and facilities – replace worn/broken/out of date furniture and equipment Acquisition of any of the facilities on the Bond Project List through temporary lease, lease-lease-back, or lease-purchase arrangements, execution of a purchase option under a lease for any of these authorized facilities, or prepayment of lease payments. A-II-6 March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 935 Demolition of existing facilities and reconstruction of facilities scheduled for modernization, if the Board of Education determines that such an approach would be more cost-effective in creating more enhanced and operationally efficient campuses. Rental or construction of temporary classrooms (including modular classrooms), and rental or construction of temporary locations, as needed to house students or administrative offices during construction. Necessary site preparation/restoration in connection with new construction, renovation or remodeling, or installation or removal of modular classrooms, including ingress and egress, removing, replacing, or installing irrigation, utility lines, trees and landscaping, relocating fire access roads, and acquiring any necessary easements, licenses, or rights of way to the property. The Bond Project List shall be considered a part of this ballot proposition, and shall be reproduced in any official document required to contain the full statement of the bond proposition. <<<<< -------- END OF FULL TEXT OF MEASURE. A-II-7 March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 936 EXHIBIT B TAX RATE STATEMENT An election will be held in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (the “District”) on June 7, 2016, to authorize the sale of up to $245,000,000 in bonds of the District to finance school facilities as described in the proposition. If the bonds are approved, the District expects to issue the Bonds in multiple series over time. Principal and interest on the bonds will be payable from the proceeds of tax levies made upon the taxable property in the District. The following information is provided in compliance with Sections 9400 through 9404 of the California Elections Code. 1. The best estimate of the tax which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue during the first fiscal year after the sale of the first series of bonds, based on estimated assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is 4.8 cents per $100 ($48 per $100,000) of assessed valuation in fiscal year 2016-2017. 2. The best estimate of the tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue during the first fiscal year after the sale of the last series of bonds, based on estimated assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is 4.8 cents per $100 ($48 per $100,000) of assessed valuation in fiscal year 2020-2021. 3. The best estimate of the highest tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue, based on estimated assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement, is 4.8 cents per $100 ($48 per $100,000) of assessed valuation in fiscal year 2020-2021. 4. The best estimate of the total debt service, including the principal and interest, that would be required to be repaid if all of the bonds are issued and sold is $520,000,000. The estimated rates presented above apply only to the taxes levied to pay bonds authorized by this measure. Additional taxes will be levied to pay bonds issued pursuant to previous, concurrent, and future authorizations. Voters should note that estimated tax rates are based on the ASSESSED VALUE of taxable property on the County’s official tax rolls, not on the property’s market value, which could be more or less than the assessed value. In addition, taxpayers eligible for a property tax exemption, such as the homeowner’s exemption, will be taxed at a lower effective tax rate than desc ribed above. Certain taxpayers may also be eligible to postpone payment of taxes. Property owners should consult their own property tax bills and tax advisors to determine their property’s assessed value and any applicable tax exemptions. Attention of all voters is directed to the fact that the foregoing information is based upon the District’s projections and estimates only, which are not binding upon the District. The actual tax rates and the years in which they will apply, and the actual total debt service, may vary from those presently estimated, due to variations from these estimates in the timing of bond sales, the amount of bonds sold and market interest rates at the time of each sale, and actual assessed valuations over B-1 March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 937 the term of repayment of the bonds. The dates of sale and the amount of bonds sold at any given time will be determined by the District based on need for construction funds and other factors, including the legal limitations on bonds approved by a 55% affirmative vote. The actual interest rates at which the bonds will be sold will depend on the bond market at the time of each sale. Actual future assessed valuation will depend upon the amount and value of taxable property within the District as determined by the County Assessor in the annual assessment and the equalization process. Dated: _________ , 2016. Superintendent of Schools Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District [Contra Costa/Alameda] County, California March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 938 CLERK’S CERTIFICATE I, Clerk of the Board of Education of the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, California, do hereby certify as follows: The attached is a full, true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted at a special meeting of the Board of Education of the District duly held at the regular meeting place thereof on March 7, 2016, and entered in the minutes thereof, of which meeting all of the members of the Board of Education had due notice and at which a quorum thereof was present. The Resolution was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Bueno____Rogge____Runyon____Wenzel____White____ NOES: Bueno____Rogge____Runyon____Wenzel____White____ ABSTAIN: Bueno____Rogge____Runyon____Wenzel____White____ ABSENT: Bueno____Rogge____Runyon____Wenzel____White____ An agenda of said meeting was posted at least 72 hours before said meeting at 685 East Jack London Blvd., Livermore, California, a location freely accessible to members of the public, and a brief description of said Resolution appeared on said agenda. A copy of said agenda is attached hereto. I have carefully compared the same with the original minutes of the meeting on file and of record in my office. The Resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption, and the same is now in full force and effect. Pursuant to Section 5 of said Resolution, I have caused a certified copy thereof to be filed with the Clerks of the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties. WITNESS my hand this __ day of March, 2016. Signature Print Clerk, Board of Education Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District [Contra Costa/Alameda] County, California March 7, 2016 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 939 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: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 78 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Continue Extension of Emergency Declaration Regarding Homelessness April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 940 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the Board to continue the declaration of a local emergency regarding homelessness. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 941 RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to issue a one-time payment in the amount of $15,000 to the Contra Costa Family Medicine Residency Program. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is available from the Song-Brown Family Physician Training Program grant funds. BACKGROUND: Since 1975 the County has sponsored a nationally-recognized Family Medicine Residency Training Program which currently ranks in the top 10 of 490 such programs in the country (Doximity). Of the over 400 physicians who have trained in our program, fully one-third practiced or currently practice in Contra Costa County either with Contra Costa Health Services or in the local community. To meet the increasing demands of healthcare and remain competitive within our local community, the program has evolved and expanded significantly in size; expectations and costs have increased accordingly. Expected/required aspects of training which require outside facilities or support include but are not limited to the following: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Samir Shah, M.D. (925) 370-5475 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Samir Shah, MD, Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 79 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Family Medicine Residency Program Funding April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 942 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) a two-day annual all residency educational retreat off-site with associated expenses for accommodations and food; annual residency graduation dinner to recognize the achievements of the graduating physicians, teaching faculty and support staff; semi-annual one day residency faculty educational retreats, off-site; annual recruitment and interview season events for 150 residency applicants; annual new resident orientation events, including a two-day ultrasound training course for all entering residents; semi-annual training course for Advanced Life Support in Obstetrics (ALSO) for all first-year residents; and development of a prestigious family medicine point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) curriculum, one of only a handful in the nation. The $15,000 amount will be provided by CCHP community benefits funds to support the costs of the training program events. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Family Medicine Residency Program may not be able to provide specialized, required training to Residents. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 943 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the Health Services Department’s Health Care for the Homeless (HCH) Program’s response to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2015 Operational Site Visit findings as recommended by the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Hospital Joint Conference Committee. Acknowledge the audit findings, audit response and related policy changes were reviewed and approved by the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Hospital Joint Conference Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: The HCH Program is grant-funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the federal government. A condition of this funding includes compliance with 19 Program Requirements. An operational site visit in July 2015 found a number of grant conditions that required attention. If the HCH program does not respond to these conditions, HRSA may restrict the Program’s grant funds, which totaled $2,400,000 per year in January 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg, M Wilhelm, Rachel Birch C. 71 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Health Care for Homeless Program Plan April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 944 BACKGROUND: The actions listed below were presented and discussed with the Hospital Joint Conference Committee (JCC) on March 28, 2016. The JCC approved the actions as presented, and recommended acceptance of the action plan to the full County Board. DISCUSSION: HRSA recently completed an operational site visit and recommended specific actions be taken to address a number of program requirement conditions that were not met. Over the next four to six months the Department will be implementing procedural and policy changes to address these findings. In response to the HRSA findings, the items that require Board approval at this time are as follows (note: the full findings for the program requirements listed below can be found on attachment A): 1. Program Requirement #5 After- Hours Coverage – Finding: The Health Centers lacked documentation on the website and in the health center sites to identify after-hours arrangements. Action: Updates were made to the HCH website and Brochure directing patients seeking after-hours medical assistance to the Advice Nurse, Emergency Department, or to call 911 in case of an emergency. Verbiage on all Health Centers was updated to include the Advice Nurse phone number, Emergency Department address, and instructions to call 911 in case of an emergency. Approval of this action is requested. 2. Program Requirement #7 Sliding Fee Discounts – Finding: The Health Centers did not have HRSA approved signage posted, our existing policy was not explicit on our nominal charge criteria, and our policy was deficient in a number of other procedural areas. Action: Changes were made to the Sliding Fee Discount Schedule Policy to meet the Program Requirement. Attachment B reflects the revised policy that meets HRSA guidelines. Approval of this policy is requested. 3. Program Requirement #8 Quality Improvement/Assurance Program – Finding: Lack of documentation supporting a system-wide focus on the improvement of HRSA Clinical Performance Measures, lack of documentation supporting communication of QI information to the Board of Supervisors relative to HRSA Clinical Measures, and lack of documentation supporting the evaluation process or rapid cycle process for improvement of those Clinical Performance Measures and outcomes. Action: Attachment C includes the Health Care for the Homeless Program 2016/2017 Quality Improvement Plan which outlines monthly quality improvement meetings, a plan to use rapid cycle methodology in evaluative efforts, monthly fiscal updates to the Chief Financial Officer and quarterly clinical updates to the Board of Supervisors. The HCH Program also partnered with the Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) Patient Safety and Performance Improvement Committee (PSPIC) to track Clinical Performance measures on a quarterly basis, and to use this partnership to gain system-wide CCHS support to improve these measures. Approval of the HCH Quality Improvement/Assurance Plan is requested. 4. Program Requirement #13 Billing and Collections Policies and Procedures – Finding: Lack of evidence of Board-approved Billing and Collection Policies. Action: Attachments D-J reflect the CCHS Billing Policies and Procedures. Approval of the Billing and Collection Policies is requested. 5. Program Requirement #15 – Finding: Lack of documentation that CCHS uses EPIC data systems to review and evaluate results and the impact of clinical measures and outcomes to promote management decision-making, and lack of documentation that CCHS periodically reports on selected fiscal measures to management and/or the Board of Supervisors to assist them in reviewing and evaluating fiscal operations. Action: Attachment C Contra Costa Health Care for the Homeless Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan 2016-2017 includes the plan to report measures monthly to the CCHS Chief Financial Officer and quarterly to the Board of Supervisors, and includes a plan for the Health Care for the Homeless Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement committee to meet monthly to review clinical measures and outcomes to promote management decision-making. Approval of this plan is requested. 6. Program Requirement #17 Program Governance – Finding: Lack of documentation of HCH Program evaluation and CEO evaluation. Action: Request Program evaluation in June or July 2016, and evaluation of the CEO of the Healthcare for the Homeless Program in September 2016. Approval of this plan is requested. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the CCHS HCH Program risks being denied $2,400,000 in grant funding for the Homeless. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 945 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - J April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 946 Attachment A April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 947 This report has been prepared on behalf of the Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Primary Health Care (HRSA/BPHC) for the purposes of oversight and guidance of HRSA/BPHC programs. The report contains final findings and recommendations reviewed and approved by HRSA/BPHC. This report identifies any findings of non-compliance with Health Center program requirements and may also include a review of clinical and financial performance. Health Center Program Site Visit Report TA Request Details TA Request Number: TA001290 Grantee Information: Contra Costa County Health Services Dept. 597 Center Ave # 150 Martinez, CA 94553 Contact: Rachael Birch; rachael.birch@hsd.cccounty.us; (925) 313-6167 Type of Visit: Operational Site Visit Date(s) of Visit: July 21 – 24, 2015 Consultants Iris Sewell (Board Authority); rainbow1410@juno.com; (773) 548-1830 David Adams (Team Leader - Clinical); dadams@cp-tel.net; (318) 932-3829 William Turnley, Jr. (Financial); wctbill@aol.com; (972) 276-8770 Site Visit Participants Name Title Interviewed Entrance Exit Rachael Birch HCH Project Director Yes Yes Yes Sue Crosby Director of PHCS Yes Yes Yes Joseph Mega, MD Medical Director HCH Program Yes Yes Yes William Walker, MD Health Director/Health Officer/CCHS No Yes Yes Patrick Godley COO/CFO Yes Yes Yes Chris Farnitano, MD Ambulatory Care Medical Director No Yes Yes Jr Ang Director of Patient Accounting Yes No No Mariano Mendoza Accountant III Yes No No April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 948 This report has been prepared on behalf of the Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Primary Health Care (HRSA/BPHC) for the purposes of oversight and guidance of HRSA/BPHC programs. The report contains final findings and recommendations reviewed and approved by HRSA/BPHC. This report identifies any findings of non-compliance with Health Center program requirements and may also include a review of clinical and financial performance. Ron C. Persevranza Reimbursement Supervisor Yes No No Lucy delos Reyes Accountant III Yes No No Alvin Silva Nurse Program Manager Yes Yes Yes Program Requirement Compliance Review Summary Program Requirement Compliance Review Compliance Status 1. Needs Assessment Met 2. Required and Additional Services Met 3. Staffing Requirement Not Met 4. Accessible Hours of Operation/Locations Met 5. After-Hours Coverage Not Met 6. Hospital Admitting Privileges and Continuum of Care Met 7. Sliding Fee Discounts Not Met 8. Quality Improvement/Assurance Plan Not Met 9. Key Management Staff Met 10. Contractual/Affiliation Agreements Met 11. Collaborative Relationships Met 12. Financial Management and Control Policies Met 13. Billing and Collections Not Met 14. Budget Met 15. Program Data Reporting Systems Not Met 16. Scope of Project Not Met 17.Board Authority Not Met 18.Board Composition Met 19. Conflict of Interest Policy Not Met April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 949 Attachment B April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 950 Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers Policy 1030 Health Services Finance Division Page 1 Patients Accessing Services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) who are Ineligible for the Basic Health Care, Medi-Cal and Commercial Insurance Programs (Sliding Fee Schedule) I. PURPOSE This policy is intended to address a single episode of care only and is not to be used for ongoing patient care requests. Specific benefit plans will be utilized when adults with incomes less than 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), are admitted to CCRMC, receive care in the Emergency Department (ED), or are referred to CCRMC for outpatient care. Individuals must be Contra Costa County residents in order to be eligible for this program. II. REFERENCES Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2009/187 Welfare and Institutions Code Section 17000 Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) III. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY Hospital and Health Centers Administration and Financial Counseling IV. POLICY When authorization for medical services has been granted by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) or designee, the Financial Counselor will financially screen the patient to determine for which program the patient may be eligible and assign the appropriate plan code. Patients may receive medically necessary follow-up appointments, lab & radiology studies and specialty visits through Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) while admitted or immediately upon discharge from CCRMC. Coverage Code 903001 - Administrative Override / Rx Coverage Only will cover costs for prescription medication for patients who are admitted and discharged from CCRMC for a thirty (30) day period or are discharged from the emergency room for a five (5) day period. If it is necessary for follow-up care to go beyond the initial requested timeframe, authorization must be obtained from the CMO or designee. V. PROCEDURE A. Financial Screening - Sliding Fee Schedule for Services 1. The Financial Counselor will conduct an initial screening to determine if the patient is eligible for Presumptive Medi-Cal, which includes PRUCOL, restricted or emergency Medi-Cal, Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Programs and Long Term Care/Kidney Dialysis. Additionally, patients will be screened to April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 951 Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers Policy 1030 Health Services Finance Division Page 2 determine if they are eligible for insurance through Covered California or the Basic Health Care Program (Note: Individuals who fail or have failed to apply for insurance through Covered California, are not eligible for a sliding fee scale adjustment). 2. If found to be ineligible for the programs listed above, patients will be screened by a Financial Counselor to verify their income. Patients will be required to pay a discounted rate for services based upon where their income falls in the current Federal Poverty Level Guidelines and will not be discriminated against on the basis of age, gender, race, creed, disability or national origin. See Attachment A for the sliding fee schedule and income guidelines. 3. Patients with incomes above 200% of the Federal Poverty Level will be evaluated for the Discount Program. See Health Services Policy # 707-C, Discount Payment Program for more information. 4. Patients who are identified as homeless or at risk for homelessness and are ineligible for a coverage program specified in Section I.1, a Financial Counselor will enter the Homeless benefit plan into ccLink. See policy, Homeless Patients Accessing Inpatient, Emergency and Outpatient Services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), for more information about access to health care services for the homeless population. 5. Patients will be required to complete an application for the Sliding Fee Scale Program. Upon receipt of a Verifications Request Notice from the Financial Counseling Unit, patients will be required to provide documentation to verify their residency and income as well as submit a signed Rights and Responsibilities Form. Patients will receive written notification of their Sliding Fee Discount payment or, if applicable, the reason for denial of their application. 6. Patient Accounting will adjust the charges for services per the sliding fee schedule and income guidelines per notes entered by a Financial Counselor in ccLink. 7. If ineligible or if a Financial Counselor does not interview the patient prior to discharge from Inpatient or the ED, the financial coverage will remain Private Pay. 8. Medical services will be provided regardless of one’s ability to pay. The Patient Accounting Director will inform the Health Services Department’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the extenuating circumstance(s) that impacts a patient’s abilty to April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 952 Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers Policy 1030 Health Services Finance Division Page 3 pay the nominal or discounted fee per the Sliding Fee Schedule. The CFO will make the decision to waive the entire or partial amount of what the patient owes for medical services rendered. B. Attending Physician determines that specialty or ancillary follow-up care is REQUIRED after discharge from the Inpatient Unit. 1. Making the decision to provide specialty follow-up care at CCHS should only be done for select patients with complex medical or surgical conditions and in which specialty follow-up care will result in a significantly earlier discharge from the hospital. a. If the attending physician determines that the patient needs follow-up care, the physician is required to send an authorization request to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) or designee indicating the medical necessity. b. The CMO will use the following criteria to approve the requested services: Emergency medical condition means a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity, including severe pain, such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in any of the following: i. Placing the patient’s health in serious jeopardy ii. Serious impairment to bodily functions iii. Serious dysfunction to any bodily organ or part c. The CMO will send the approved authorization to the Financial Counseling Health Services Administrator to verify coverage for the patient and provide final authorization to proceed with the medical services. d. A Financial Counselor will screen the patient to determine for which program the patient may be eligible. If the patient is ineligible for a payment plan, the patient will remain Private Pay. e. Utilization Review (UR) and the attending provider will be notified of the approved authorization if services are provided within the CCRMC system or if an authorization is needed for specialty services outside of CCRMC. 2. Follow-up appointments: The attending physician will submit a referral for CCHS specialty clinics in ccLINK. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 953 Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers Policy 1030 Health Services Finance Division Page 4 3. Discharge medications: When an uninsured patient is discharged from the inpatient unit, the patient will receive a 30 day supply of medication. A Financial Counselor will enter 903001 - Administrative Override / RX Coverage Only coverage into ccLink, which allow the patient to obtain medication from Walgreens. 4. Lab tests and radiology studies: At discharge, patients authorized to obtain specialty follow-up care with CCHS will obtain lab and radiology studies up to one month post-discharge. 5. Discharge medical records: Medical records will send the discharge summary, medication list, and recent labs upon request to a local health care organization or community clinic if the patient chooses to receive follow-up care outside of CCHS. C. Attending Physician determines specialty or ancillary follow-up care is REQUIRED after discharge from the Emergency Room. 1. Making the decision to provide specialty follow-up care at CCHS: Financially eligible patients discharged from the emergency room can obtain authorization to receive specialty clinic visits, labs and studies through CCHS for up to 30 days post ED visit. This should only be done for select patients who have complex medical or surgical issues. a. The attending physician will use the following criteria to determine if the follow-up care is medically necessary: Emergency medical condition means a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity, including severe pain, such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in any of the following: i. Placing the patient’s health in serious jeopardy ii. Serious impairment to bodily functions iii. Serious dysfunction to any bodily organ or part b. The attending physician will send an email to the Financial Counseling Health Services Administrator explaining the need to proceed with the medically necessary services. The Health Services Administrator will verify the patient’s coverage and provide final authorization to proceed with the medical services. c. After an authorization has been granted for follow-up care, the Financial Counselor will financially screen the patient and assign the appropriate April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 954 Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers Policy 1030 Health Services Finance Division Page 5 benefit plan code. If the patient is ineligible for a payment plan, the patient will remain Private Pay. d. The Health Services Administrator will request authorization for follow-up services from the CMO or designee in the event the patient remains Private Pay and there is a question regarding the medical necessity of the services requested by the attending physician based upon the emergency criteria. 2. Follow-up appointments: The attending physician will submit a referral for CCHS specialty clinics in ccLINK. 3. Discharge Medications: When an uninsured patient is discharged from the ED, the patient will receive a 5 day supply of medication. A Financial Counselor will enter 903001 - Administrative Override / RX Coverage Only coverage into ccLink, which will allow the patient to obtain medication from Walgreens. During the hours a Financial Counselor is unavailable, the patient may call the main number for CCRMC between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM to be directed to a Financial Counselor. 4. Lab and radiology studies – At discharge, patients authorized to obtain specialty follow-up care with CCHS will obtain lab and radiology studies up to one month post-discharge. 5. Discharge Medical Records: Medical records will send the discharge summary, medication list, and recent labs upon request to a local health care organization or community clinic if the patient chooses to receive follow-up care outside of CCHS. D. Referrals from External Providers for Specialty Services 1. Referring provider will contact the CMO, Financial Counseling Health Services Administrator and/or the CCRMC UR Unit to request CCRMC to receive a medically necessary transfer for specialty care services. 2. The CMO will use the following criteria to approve the requested services: Emergency medical condition means a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity, including severe pain, such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in any of the following: i. Placing the patient’s health in serious jeopardy ii. Serious impairment to bodily functions iii. Serious dysfunction to any bodily organ or part April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 955 Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers Policy 1030 Health Services Finance Division Page 6 3. If the patient is new to the CCRMC system, the Health Services Administrator will send a request for a new medical record number to the Registration Manager to create a shell Hospital Account Record (HAR). 4. Financial Counseling will verify coverage and the initiation of a PRUCOL application if applicable. 5. A Financial Counselor will update the benefit plan code in e2Search and ccLink. 6. Utilization Review (UR) will be notified of the approved authorization if services are provided within the CCRMC system or if an authorization is needed for specialty services outside of CCRMC. 7. The patient will be advised to receive follow-up primary care with the health care organization from which the patient was referred. Benefit Plan codes: 248001 UNDOC FPL 0-100 248002 UNDOC FPL 101-133 248003 UNDOC FPL 134-150 248004 UNDOC FPL 151-200 248005 UNDOC FPL Above 200 249001 SELF PAY FPL 0-100 249002 SELF PAY FPL 101-133 249003 SELF PAY FPL 134-150 249004 SELF PAY FPL 151-200 249005 SELF PAY Above 200 903001 - Administrative Override / RX Coverage Only Attachments: Attachment A - Sliding Fee Schedule FPL Authored by Health Services Administrator Approved by Chief Operations Officer / Chief Financial Officer April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 956 Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers Policy 1030 Health Services Finance Division Page 7 Original Date: January 2014 Date Revised: January 1, 2016 Note: This policy replaces the August 2013 policy, Patients Accessing Inpatient and Emergency Department Services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC)- Sliding Fee Schedule. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 957 FPL Guidelines with Sliding Fee and Discount SchedulesPoverty Level 100%133% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350%Family SizeAnnual Income$25 65% 50% 45% 35% 35% 35%1 $11,770 $981 $1,305 $1,472 $1,962 $2,453 $2,943 $3,4342 $15,930 $1,328 $1,766 $1,992 $2,656 $3,320 $3,984 $4,6483 $20,090 $1,674 $2,226 $2,511 $3,348 $4,185 $5,022 $5,8594 $24,250 $2,021 $2,688 $3,032 $4,042 $5,053 $6,063 $7,0745 $28,410 $2,368 $3,149 $3,552 $4,736 $5,920 $7,104 $8,2886 $32,570 $2,714 $3,610 $4,071 $5,428 $6,785 $8,412 $9,4997 $36,730 $3,061 $4,071 $4,592 $6,122 $7,653 $9,183 $10,7148 $40,890 $3,408 $4,533 $5,112 $6,816 $8,520 $10,224 $11,928For each additional person add,$4,160NO ASSET TEST REQUIRED ‐ Percent Reduction from ChargesReference: Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 16, January 22,2015https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/01/22/2015-01120/annual-update-of-the-hhs-poverty-guidelinesSLIDING FEE SCHEDULE BY INCOME RANGE (0‐200%)DISCOUNT FEE SCHEDULE BY INCOME RANGE (201‐350%) * Includes Emergency, Inpatient , Outpatient, Specialty and Dental Services2015/2016 FEDERAL HHS POVERTY GUIDELINES [48 States]Monthly Income Thresholds by Sliding Fee and Discount Pay Class and Percent Poverty (At or Below FPL%)Sliding Fee Discount Discount ProgramJanuary 2015April 12, 2016BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES958 Attachment C April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 959 Revised 3/22/2016 1 Contra Costa Health Care for the Homeless, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan 2016-2017 MISSION The mission of the Contra Costa County Health Care for the Homeless Program (HCH) is to improve the health care status of the homeless population in our county by providing accessible, culturally sensitive, non-traditional clinics in the community and to assist the homeless with access to the traditional primary health care system . GOALS The goals of HCH Program are to: increase access to medical, dental, and behavioral health care for the homeless population; to provide high quality medical, dental, and behavioral health care for the homeless population; and to help homeless patients transition into the mainstream health care delivery system with an appropriate primary care provider and a medical home. STRUCTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY Board of Supervisors The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is charged with fiscal and administrative oversight for the Contra Costa Health Services Department (CCHS), which includes the Health Care for the Homeless Program. To that end, the Board of Supervisors approves the CCHS annual budget. The Board of Supervisors (“Board”) retains overall responsibility and accountability for the quality of patient care, including the safety of patients, staff and visitors and the appropriate utilization of resources. The Board holds the Contra Costa Health Care for the Homeless Medical Director and the Public Health Division Director accountable for the quality of patient care. The Project Director and members of the Contra Costa Inter-jurisdictional Council of Homelessness make an annual oral and written report to the County Board of Supervisors Family and Human Services Committee, along with a second written report to the full Board April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 960 Revised 3/22/2016 2 Contra Costa Inter-jurisdictional Council on Homelessness Consumer input to our quality of care is through an advisory board, the “Contra Costa Inter-jurisdictional Council on Homelessness,” (“CCICH” or “the Council”). The Council includes homeless and formerly homeless consumers, staff from interfaith programs, Healthcare for the Homeless, the Homeless Program, Social Services and others. The Council meets monthly and makes written formal reports to the Board of Supervisors at least twice per year. Consumer Advisory Board There is a Consumer Advisory Board that meets at least 10 times a year with Health Care for the Homeless staff. They provide input on the quality of care and Issues from these meetings are taken up the CCICH. FRAMEWORK The framework of the HCH Quality Improvement Program is developed from data: 1) Clinical Audits including Peer Review 2) HRSA Clinical and Financial Measures as part of UDS reporting 3) Patient Satisfaction Surveys 4) Consumer meetings and focus groups 5) Unusual Occurrence Reports 6) Patient Complaints 7) Monthly staff meetings 8) Weekly case rounds at Homeless shelters and clinics Data is reviewed and analyzed by the Medical Director, the Project Director, the Nurse Program Manager and other nursing staff. RISK MANAGEMENT All unusual, unexpected, or untoward occurrences, including “near misses” at HCH sites are reported by staff witnessing the event using an unusual occurrence form. Unusual Occurrences include falls, medication errors, equipment failures, assaults, property theft, treatment events, etc. including events which have the potential to harm a patient even if no harm occurs. HCH is a small program and unusual occurrences and errors are unusual. Unusual occurrences and errors are analyzed immediately by the Nurse Program Manager and sent to the Medical Director as indicated. They are also reviewed for trends annually by the Nurse Program Manager and discussed with the team. Reports are filed for three to five years to trend infrequent occurrences. High risk and high-volume unusual occurrence events are used to identify quality improvement initiatives. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 961 Revised 3/22/2016 3 QUALITY OVERSIGHT The Medical Director and Nurse Program Manager shall be accountable for the quality of patient care: 1. Medical Error Reduction: a. If trends are identified the Medical Director and Nurse Program Manager shall assure there is measurable improvement in indicators with a demonstrated link to the reduction of medical errors. b. The Medical Director and Nurse Program Manager shall review the experiences of other Healthcare for the Homeless Programs as they become available and assure that measures shown to be effective in reducing medical errors are implemented within the organization . 2. Quality Indicators: The Medical Director and Nurse Program Manager shall oversee measurement, and shall analyze and track quality indicators, including adverse patient events and other measures of the effectiveness and safety of services and quality of care. 3. Prioritization: The Medical Director and Nurse Program Manager shall prioritize performance improvement activities to assure they have an appropriate focus. They focus on issues of known frequency, prevalence or severity and shall give precedence to issues affecting health outcomes, quality of care and patient safety. 4. Quality Improvement Projects: The Medical Director and Nurse Program Manager shall oversee quality improvement projects, the number and scope of which shall be proportional to the scope and complexity of the services offered. HCH Clinical Quality of Care Care provided by Nurse Practitioners Care provided by an NP is authorized by their California NP license and as an authorized employee of Contra Costa Health Services. Care by Registered Nurses and Public Health Nurses: RNs and PHNs providing clinical care operate within the scope of their nursing license. For straightforward common situations when there is no doctor or nurse practitioner available, they also operate under Standing Orders from the licensed Medical Director. They also have access to the Medical Director and HCH FNPs who can give verbal orders for urgently needed care. Such orders are cosigned by adding a note to the electronic medical record. Care provided by non-licensed staff: Unlicensed staff such as Community Health Workers, Substance Abuse Counselors, April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 962 Revised 3/22/2016 4 and Mental Health Specialists are restricted to activities permitted for non-licensed personnel and all care is performed under the supervision of licensed personnel. HCH Framework for Chronic Care Improvement A. The Chronic Care Model was developed by the Dr. Ed Wagner and spread by the Improving Chronic Illness Care Group of the MacColl Institute and by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) has been adopted for FQHC sites by the Health Disparities Collaboratives of the Bureau of Primary Care. It has been piloted by numerous collaborative teams within and without of Contra Costa Health Services. In order to improve clinical quality of care Contra Costa HCH strives to implement these sections of the CCM: 1) Community -- identifies resources and collaborations that enhance the system of care 2) Organization of Health Care -- how the organization supports the care of chronic diseases through Board awareness and senior management leadership 3) Clinical Delivery System Design-- how the team operates to provide care 4) Decision Support – knowledge and information for providers in making care decisions 5) Self-Management Support – Skills that staff use to support patients in activities to manage their disease 6) Clinical Information System – comprehensive electronic medical record and patient care registries to track individual patient's progress and healthcare team performance B. The Model for Improvement , popularized by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, is a scientifically tested method of using data to test small changes. Resources for major quality improvement efforts are limited, but to the extent possible HCH improvement projects will be guided by the Model for Improvement. To improve patient outcomes, the organization must design processes well and systematically monitor, analyze, and improve its performance. The essential processes for improvement are Plan, Do, Study Act. PLAN Measure current performance Analyze information gathered Improvement Opportunity identified Design improvement w/ performance expectations DO Test/Implement STUDY Leadership collects, analyzes, and measures against standard Feedback to team Expectations met? April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 963 Revised 3/22/2016 5 ACT Yes, expectations met: educate staff & standardize No, expectations not met: re-design C. Program Evaluation Annually: To assure the appropriate approach to planning processes of improvement; setting priorities for improvement; assessing performance systematically; implementing improvement activities on the basis of assessment; and maintaining achieved improvements, the organizational quality assessment & performance improvement program is evaluated for effectiveness at least annually and revised as necessary. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 964 Revised 3/22/2016 6 HCH Quality Improvement Work Plan 2016-2017 Priorities for 2016-2017: *Improve Self-Management Support to all patients *Improve Chronic Disease care with a focus on Diabetes and Hypertension *Improve outcomes on all HRSA Clinical and Financial Measures *Improve Health Care Maintenance Compliance with a focus on Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screenings Evaluation: 1. Quarterly Case Rounds by Medical Director and Nurse Program Manager & Peer Review 2. HRSA Clinical Measures as part of UDS reporting. ccLink, the CCHS EHR system, will be used to collect patient data and report on the following performance measures. Reports are published on the County’s intranet site. Increase percentage of homeless diabetic patients whose HbA1c levels are less than or equal to 7 percent. Decrease percentage of homeless diabetic patients whose HbA1c levels are greater than or equal to 9 percent. Increase percentage of homeless adult patients with diagnosed hypertension whose most recent blood pressure was less than 140/90. Increase percentage of homeless women who received one or more Pap tests. Increase percentage of homeless pregnant women beginning prenatal care in the first trimester. Decrease percentage of births less than 2,500 grams to health center homeless patients Increase percentage of homeless children with completed appropriate immunizations by 2nd birthday Increase percentage of homeless patients receiving mental health/substance abuse services Increase percentage of patients receiving dental services. Increase percentage of patients aged 2 to 17 years who had a BMI percentile documentation, counseling for nutrition, and counseling for physical activity. Increase the percentage of patients age 18 years or older who had their BMI calculated at the last visit or within the last six months and, if they were overweight or underweight, had a follow-up plan documented. Increase percentage of patients age 18 and older who are users of tobacco and who received advice to quit smoking or tobacco use. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 965 Revised 3/22/2016 7 Increase percentage of patients age 5 to 40 years with a diagnosis of persistent asthma who were prescribed either the preferred long term control medication or an acceptable alternative pharmacological therapy. Increase percentage of patients with a diagnosis of CAD prescribed a lipid lowering therapy. Increase percentage of patients who were discharged alive for AMI, CABG, PRCA or who had a diagnosis of IVD and who had documentation of use of aspirin or another antithrombotic during the measurement year. Increase percentage of patients 50 to 75 years who had appropriate screening for colorectal cancer. Increase percentage of patients screened for depression with appropriate follow-up plan documented if screened positive 3. Patient Satisfaction Surveys: Surveys are conducted by HCH staff at the point of care and are reviewed by managers and program staff to develop planned actions. Results are reported annually to CCICH general council meetings. 4. Consumer meetings are held monthly and used to gather data on reported health needs. Data is analyzed and report to CCICH at monthly meetings. Focus Groups are held bi-monthly. 5. Incident Reports: gathered quarterly and discussed with staff. If trends are identified remediation will be planned. 6. Patient Complaints: are dealt with on an individual basis 7. Staff meetings provide opportunity for identifying real time operational or clinical problems and brainstorming solutions. The HCH QI committee will meet monthly to review UDS Clinical performance measures and evaluate results. Data will be used to promote management decision-making. 8. CCHS Quality Improvement Reports: The HCH team will report quarterly to the CCHS Patient Safety and Performance Improvement Committee to review progress towards selected Clinical Performance measures. Reports to the Board of Supervisors will be made quarterly to include both fiscal and clinical performance measure data. 9. Fiscal Reports: The HCH Program will report on Financial Performance measures to the CCHS CFO monthly and to the Board of Supervisors twice per year. Report will include YTD fiscal data relating to operations and revenue. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 966 Attachment D April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 967 Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Policy 8025 Contra Costa Health Centers Ambulatory Care, ER/Admission Registration and Communication Center 1 Insurance Verification I. PURPOSE The provide guidelines to the clerk during the insurance verification process. II. REFERENCE Refer to internal procedures. III. POLICY The clerk will request insurance information from the patient, patient’s parent, legal guardian or designee presenting for care during the registration process. IV. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY Clerks, Clerical Supervisors and Manager V. PROCEDURE A. The patient, patient’s parent, legal guardian or designee presents to the registration unit to register for a scheduled or unscheduled visit. B. The clerk will screen the patient, patient’s parent, legal guardian or designee for insurance coverage during the registration process. 1. Insurance card is provided. The clerk will: a. Scan the insurance card in the patient’s Electronic Health Record (EHR) if the insurance card is not on file. b. Use the coverage if it exist and is active, or add the coverage to the patient’s EHR and verify the coverage, as applicable 2. Patient has Insurance but the card is NOT provided. The clerk will: a. Use existing coverage if it is still active, OR, add the new insurance information to the patient’s EHR only when sufficient insurance information is provided so that it can be electronically verified. 1) Verify coverage electronically, if applicable. 2) In good faith use the existing coverage if unable to verify coverage electronically and the billers on the backend will confirm if the coverage is still effective for the date of service. b. If the coverage is not active in the patient’s HER, or the coverage could not be electronically verified, the clerk will "self pay" the account and provide the patient, patient’s parent, legal guardian or designee with a Patient Accounting self -addressed envelope and request a copy of the insurance card (front and back) be mailed to Patient Accounting. 3. Patient has NO Insurance. The clerk will: a. Screen the patient, patient’s parent, legal guardian or designee to determine if the patient qualifies for any insurance the clerk can complete during the registration process. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 968 Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Policy 8025 Contra Costa Health Centers Ambulatory Care, ER/Admission Registration and Communication Center 2 b. For a patient who presents to the Emergency Department, or who is admitted to the hospital the clerk and/or Financial Counselor will screen the patient, patient’s parent, legal guardian or designee to determine if the patient qualifies for any insurance. C. CCHS Contra Costa Health Centers Wallet Card with Financial Counselor contact information will be provided to the patient, patient’s parent, legal guardian or designee, as applicable. Authored by Registration and Staffing Manager Approved by Chief Nursing Officer Director, Patient Accounting Date Reviewed 11/12/2015 Date Revised 11/12/2015 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 969 Attachment E April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 970 CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL POLICY NO. #815 HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTERS 1 CLAIMS FILING AND GENERAL A/R COLLECTIONS I.PURPOSE To outline the procedures for filing claims to the payer and collecting monies due to Contra Costa Health Services from payers and patients. II.REFERENCE CAO Bulletin 206 – Accounts Receivable CCRMC/HCs Policy and Procedure Manual, Policy No. 810 – Completion of Patient Encounter for Billing CCRMC/HCs Policy and Procedure Manual, Policy No. 175 – Contract Payment III.POLICY It is the policy of Contra Costa Health Services to attempt to collect the total charges incurred for patient services from a patient’s health insurance carrier. If the patient has no third party coverage, we explore whether the patient is eligible for any program that provides medical coverage or whether they qualify for a self-pay/charity discount. Claims are sent to eligible payer(s) and unpaid balances, including deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance and any non-covered items or services are billed to the patient’s guarantor. IV.AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY Patient Accounting Manager V.PROCEDURE We attempt to collect outstanding balances on the accounts receivable as quickly as possible. We submit claims to the insurance carriers then look at other programs that provide coverage, and then bill the patient for any unpaid account balance. 1.Claim Filing a.Claim Editing – to help expedite claim adjudication/reimbursement and reduce claim denials from payers, claim edits are configured in both Epic and our third party electronic billing system to scrub institutional and professional claims against payer-specific billing edits. Billing staff correct any errors and the clean claims are filed electronically in most cases or hard-copy via mailing. b.Claim Follow-Up – the Epic system is configured to select denied claims and unpaid accounts and place in Work Queues for the biller to follow-up with the payer or the patient. c.Denied Claims – billers appeal specific types of denials and work with medical records, utilization review and third party agencies for assistance in appealing the denial through supporting documentation. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 971 CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL POLICY NO. #815 HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTERS 2 2.Health Coverage Programs – for patients that are eligible for one of the health coverage programs, the balance due is appropriated to the specific program through account adjustments. 3. Self-Pay Billing a.Charity/Discounts – financial counselors screen patients to determine if they qualify for a percentage discount based on family income and/or high out-of- pocket medical expenses. b. Guarantor Statements – guarantors are sent a minimum of 4 monthly statements to collect on the outstanding self-pay balance and are informed of their urgency to remit based on dunning messages that change as the account ages. c.Timed Payments/Contract Payment – payment contracts may be established for patients/guarantors who can settle their balance within three months of initial billing. If the patient requires more than three months to make payments, the account is referred to a 3rd party agency for long-term payment arrangements. d. Delinquent Accounts – are referred to a 3rd party collection agency following their Final Notice statement or when a mail return is received and skip tracing is unsuccessful. VI. RESPONSIBLE STAFF PERSON Chief Financial Officer of Contra Costa Health Services April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 972 Attachment F April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 973 CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL POLICY NO. #820 HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTERS 1 PAYMENT POSTING I.PURPOSE To outline the procedures for posting payments to patient accounts. II.REFERENCE CAO Bulletin 206 – Accounts Receivable III.POLICY It is the policy of Contra Costa Health Services to post payments to patient accounts on either the day the payment is received or the first business day following receipt of payment. IV. AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY Patient Accounting Manager V.PROCEDURE Payments are collected and posted in multiple departments depending on the payee and the time in which the payment is received. 1. Patient Check-Out/Discharge - staff attempts to collect self-pay balances/deposits, share of cost balances, and co-payments at the time of service before the patient is discharged. These payments are posted electronically to the patient’s account using a Point of Sale system and a receipt is issued to the patient. 2.Business Office Window – patients may come to the business office to make a payment and the same process is followed as above with the Point of Sale system. 3. Mail Receipt – payments received in the mail from either an insurance company or patient are sent to a central location in the business office and are batched, scanned and posted to the accounts the same day or by the next business day. 4. Electronic Remittance Advice – payments received electronically from insurance companies are posted to accounts the same day using the Epic ERA application. VI. RESPONSIBLE STAFF PERSON Chief Financial Officer of Contra Costa Health Services April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 974 Attachment G April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 975 CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL POLICY NO. #810 HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTERS 1 COMPLETION OF PATIENT ENCOUNTER FOR BILLING I.PURPOSE To outline the procedures for collecting the information necessary to bill insurance carriers, other programs that provide medical coverage, or the patient for the total charges of the services rendered. II.REFERENCE CAO Bulletin 206 – Accounts Receivable CCRMC/HCs Policy and Procedure Manual, Policy No. 175 – Contract Payment III.POLICY It is the policy of Contra Costa Health Services to complete the patient encounter with the information necessary to bill and collect the total charges incurred for services rendered. This information includes but is not limited to patient and guarantor demographics, insurance coverage information, charges, procedures, diagnoses, and providers. IV.AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY Patient Accounting Manager. Additionally, individual responsibilities reside with the managers of the departments outlined below. V.PROCEDURE We attempt to complete the patient encounter as quickly as possible to ensure timely and accurate billing of services. We rely on different departments to collect and complete the encounter information and we utilize the Epic System to configure and perform the checks and balances to ensure completion of information prior to billing 1.Registration a.Insurance Eligibility Checks – are performed to verify insurance benefits and subscriber information. b.Registration Edits – alert the registrar to correct errors or complete missing information at time of registration check-in and check-out. c.Patient Work Queues – identify missing information or data nconsistencies that still exist after completing the registration. 2.Financial Counselors – work with uninsured patients to enroll them in programs that provide medical coverage, screen them for charity discounts or make payment arrangements for private pay patients 3.Healthcare Providers and Clinicians a.Charge Capture – providers and clinicians are responsible for submitting accurate charges for services rendered and supplies used that are consistent with the documentation on the patient’s medical chart. b.Closing Encounters – In order to generate charges, providers must complete the clinical workflows and documentation to accurately reflect each service rendered to a patient. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 976 CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL POLICY NO. #810 HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTERS 2 4. Medical Records/Health Information Management a. Coding Work Queues – identify accounts that need coding completed or that have coding errors/conflicts that need to be corrected prior to billing. b. Chart Completion Tools – identify incomplete charts so that the medical records staff can work with the providers to ensure completion of required information. 5. Patient Accounting a. Discharged/Not Billed Work Queues – catch accounts that require verification or correction of information prior to billing based on payer-specific billing requirements. b. Claim Editing – claim edits are configured in both Epic and our third party electronic billing system to scrub the claims against payer-specific billing edits. Fixing the errors prior to billing expedites payment and reduces denials.. c. Dashboard Reporting - to help ensure timely billing, reports are configured to allow managers and supervisors to monitor work queue activity and identify work queues that are being neglected, including accounts approaching the payer’s timely filing deadline VI. RESPONSIBLE STAFF PERSON Chief Financial Officer of Contra Costa Health Services April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 977 Attachment H April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 978 CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL POLICY NO. #825 HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTERS 1 REFUND AND OVERPAYMENT PROCESSING I. PURPOSE To outline the procedures for identifying overpayments on accounts and issuing refunds to the payer or patient. II. REFERENCE CAO Bulletin 206 – Accounts Receivable CCRMC/HCs Policy and Procedure Manual, Policy No. 820 – Payment Posting III. POLICY It is the policy of Contra Costa Health Services to refund overpaid accounts when the patient/guarantor notifies us or when we discover them through routine follow-up on credit balance accounts. IV. AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY Patient Accounting Manager V. PROCEDURE We issue refund checks to insurance companies and patient/guarantors as quickly as possible when overpayments are discovered. We assign staff to work credit balance Work Queues to identify overpayments and initiate the refund process. 1. Credit Balance Work Queues – accounts are routed to Credit Balance Work Queues when a credit balance exists on the account. Staff review the accounts and initiate the refund process when an overpayment is confirmed. 2. Refund Request Work Queues – accounts are routed to Refund Request Work Queues when staff has completed the necessary paperwork so that the refund clerk can obtain approvals and forward paperwork to the Auditor-Controller to issue the refund check. Upon receipt of the check from the Auditor-Controller, the refund clerk posts the refund to the patient’s account and mails the check to the payee. 3. Credit Balance Reporting - to help monitor credit balances, the Dashboard includes credit balance totals and totals by credit balance work queues. VI. RESPONSIBLE STAFF PERSON Chief Financial Officer of Contra Costa Health Services April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 979 Attachment I April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 980 Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Policy 8014 Contra Costa Health Centers Ambulatory Care, ER/Admission Registration and Communication Center MEDICARE SECONDARY PAYER SCREENING I. PURPOSE The clerk will screen all Medicare patients to determine if Medicare is a secondary payer to any other health coverage or program. II. REFERENCES Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. III. POLICY The clerk will complete a Medicare Secondary Payer Screening questionnaire for every Medicare patient who presents to register for outpatient or inpatient services. IV. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY Clerks, Lead Specialist, Clerical Supervisors, Manager V. PROCEDURE A. Medicare Secondary Payer Screening questionnaire will be completed for all Medicare patients registering for outpatient and inpatient services. B. Every Medicare patient will be asked the Medicare Secondary Payer Screening questions and answered, as applicable. C. If, during the registration process the clerk determines that there is a primary responsible insurer, a responsible employer or that the patient does have alternate health insurance, then the patient should be registered with the appropriate primary payer. Medicare should be identified in the registration as the secondary payer. E. The Medicare Secondary Payer Screening Questionnaire will be electronically filed as part of the registration visit. Authored by Registration and Staffing Manager Approved by Chief Nursing Officer Director, Patient Accounting Date Reviewed 7/29/2015 Date Revised 7/29/2015 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 981 Attachment J April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 982 Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Policy 8017 Contra Costa Health Centers Ambulatory Care, ER/Admission Registration and Communication Center 1 Registration Intake and Checkout Process I. PURPOSE The provide guidelines to the clerk during the registration intake and checkout process. II. REFERENCE Refer to the internal procedures. III. POLICY All patients who present for care at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers will be checked in and checked out using the Electronic Health Record (EHR) system. IV. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY Clerks, Clerical Supervisors and Manager V. PROCEDURE A. The patient, patient’s parent, legal guardian or designee presents to the registration unit to register for a scheduled or unscheduled visit. B. The clerk will complete the registration intake process. The intake process will consist of the following: 1. Patient Demographic Information 2. Responsible Party Information (Guarantor Account) 3. Emergency Contact Information 4. Insurance Information 5. Visit Information 6. Provide Applicable Notice(s) 7. Sign Applicable Form(s) C. The clerk completes the checkout process once the registration intake process is complete. D. The clerk will direct the patient, patient’s parent, legal guardian or designee to the designated clinical area. Authored by Registration and Staffing Manager Approved by Director, Patient Accounting Date Reviewed: 2/10/2016 Date Revised: New April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 983 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. AUTHORIZE a General Plan Amendment (GPA) study to consider changing the General Plan land use designation for the 0.73-acre parcel located immediately north of the San Pablo Avenue/Crestwood Drive intersection in the San Pablo Area, Assessor's Parcel No. 185-220-023, from Multiple-Family Residential - High Density (MH) to Commercial (CO). 2. ACKNOWLEDGE that granting authorization for this request does not imply any sort of endorsement for the application to amend the General Plan, but only that the matter is appropriate for study. FISCAL IMPACT: None. If authorization is granted, the applicant will pay fees to cover the cost of processing the GPA study. BACKGROUND: The Department of Conservation and Development is in receipt of a letter (Attachment A) from Mr. Jack MacDonald of KOMAC Electric, Inc., requesting a GPA study involving the vacant property located immediately northeast of the San Pablo Avenue/Crestwood Drive intersection in the San Pablo area. The subject parcel is currently designated MH on the Land Use Element Map, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), and zoned Retail Business (R-B) District. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Will Nelson (925) 674-7791 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 69 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:KOMAC Electric, Inc., General Plan Amendment Study April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 984 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > Attached for the Board’s consideration under Attachment B are maps and aerial photos of the site and its surroundings, showing the existing and proposed General Plan land use designations. The subject site is triangular, with the northwest side fronting San Pablo Avenue for approximately 280 feet, the northeast side abutting the rear of a single-family residential neighborhood, and the south side abutting the rear of a multiple-family residential development. Across San Pablo Avenue are single-family residences. The site contains several mature trees of unknown species and the topography is similar to a knoll or mound. Mr. MacDonald’s letter explains his intent to develop the site with a small two-story building containing three retail units on the lower floor and one office unit on the second floor. This necessitates the land use designation change from MH, which does not allow commercial uses. If the Board authorizes the GPA study, then the applicant will also file an application for a final development plan and possibly a land use permit, depending on the uses ultimately proposed. Staff views the request for a GPA study to change the land use designation from MH to CO as reasonable. The project site is an infill opportunity in an area where there are numerous residences and no major retail centers. Neighborhood-serving retail/service uses of the kind envisioned for the proposed project (eateries, dry cleaners, salons, etc.) would be valuable additions to the area, adding convenience for residents and potentially reducing vehicle miles traveled overall. Additionally, the site’s General Plan and zoning designations currently are inconsistent and redesignating the site to CO would remedy the inconsistency. Therefore, staff recommends that the General Plan Amendment study be authorized. Authorization for this study does not imply support or endorsement for the application to amend the General Plan, but only that this matter is appropriate for study. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not authorize the GPA study, then an application to amend the General Plan cannot be filed and the site will retain its MH land use designation. The proposed commercial project could not move forward. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - GPA Request Letter from J. MacDonald Attachment B- GP16-0003 Map and Aerial Photo April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 985 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 986 SH (Single-Family Residential - High Density) CO (Commercial) MH (Multiple-Family Residential - High Density) see City of Richmond's general plan San Pablo Ave Madeline Rd K a y R d Rachel Rd Frances Rd Karen Rd Sh a m r o c k D r M o n t a l v i n D r Sargent Ave Flannery Rd Sh e r y l D r Fitzpatrick St Rim Rd Sullivan St Fis h e r S t Mi c h e l e D r Crestwood Dr D e n i s e D r H e a t h e r D r Ch r i s t i n e C t Zandra Ct Unnamed Street Richmond Richmond Richmond Map Created 11/19/2015by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI0340680170Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation andDevelopment with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. San Pablo Avenue , Richmond AreaGeneral Plan Amendment Study (GP16-0003) SH (Single-Family Residential - High Density) CO (Commercial)MH (Multiple-Family Residential - High Density)see City of Richmond's general plan San Pablo Ave Madeline Rd K a y R d Rachel Rd Frances Rd Karen Rd Sh a m r o c k D r M o n t a l v i n D r Sargent Ave Flannery Rd Sh e r y l D r Fitzpatrick St Rim Rd Sullivan St Fis h e r S t Mi c h e l e D r Crestwood Dr D e n i s e D r H e a t h e r D r Ch r i s t i n e C t Zandra Ct Unnamed Street Richmond Richmond Richmond Current General Plan Proposed General Plan SITE SITE Legend Project Site ParcelsGeneral Plan CO (Commercial) SH (Single Family Res. - High) MH (Multiple Family Res. - High) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 987 San Pablo Ave Madeline Rd Frances Rd Crestwood Dr Sargent Ave Zandra Ct Karen Rd Unnamed Street Richmond Map Created 3/28/2016by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI014028070Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation andDevelopment with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.APN: 405-203-018 San Pablo Avenue, Richmond AreaGeneral Plan Amendment Study (GP16-0003) SITE April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 988 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/157: Approving the issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (the "Bonds") by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) in an amount not to exceed $30,000,000 for the benefit of Miraflores Senior L.P., a California limited partnership, or another partnership or other entity created by Community Housing Development Corporation of North Richmond or Eden Housing Inc., or one or more affiliates thereof (collectively, the “Borrower”), to provide for the financing of the acquisition, rehabilitation, improvement and equipping of an 80-unit multifamily housing development commonly known as Miraflores Senior Apartments located at northeast corner of South 45th Street and Florida Avenue, in the City of Richmond. Such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), the Code and the California Government Code Section 6500 (and following). 1. Authorizing and directing the executing officers, the Clerk of the Board and all other proper officers and officials of the County to execute such other agreements, documents and certificates, and to perform such other acts and deeds, as may be necessary or convenient to effect the purposes of the Resolution and the transactions authorized. 2. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 76 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds - Miraflores Senior Apartments, Richmond April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 989 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) > FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the General Fund. The County will be reimbursed for any costs incurred in the process of conducting the TEFRA Hearing. The CMFA will issue tax-exempt revenue bonds on behalf of the Borrower. Repayment of the bonds is solely the responsibility of the Borrower. BACKGROUND: Miraflores Senior, L.P., with the City of Richmond's support, requested the County to conduct a Tax Equity and Fiscal Equity Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) hearing for the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $30,000,000 to be used to finance the acquisition, development and construction of an 80-unit multifamily rental housing development commonly known as Miraflores Senior Apartments located at the corner of South 45th Street and Florida Avenue, in the City of Richmond, California (the “Project”). A TEFRA hearing must be held by an elected body of the governmental entity having jurisdiction over the area where the project is located in order for all or a portion of the Bonds to qualify as tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the Project. The County is a member of the CMFA and qualifies as an elected body of the governmental entity having jurisdiction over the area where the project is located. The main purposes of the proposed Resolution are to acknowledge that a public hearing was held by the County's Community Development Bond Program Manager on March 28, 2016, where members of the community were given an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the Project and to approve of CMFA's use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the project. No public comments were received. A notice of the hearing was published in the Contra Costa Times (proof of publication attached) on March 14, 2016. The County’s only role in this transaction was to hold the TEFRA hearing and to grant the limited approval described above. Additional actions related to the bond issuance will be the responsibility of CMFA and the Borrower. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negative action would prevent CMFA from providing tax-exempt financing for the Miraflores Senior Apartments project in Richmond. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/157 Miraflores TEFRA Proof of Publication Miraflores TEFRA Hearing Transcipt MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/157 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 990 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/12/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/157 IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING OR REFINANCING THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT AND EQUIPPING OF AN 80-UNIT MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING FACILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF NORTH RICHMOND AND EDEN HOUSING, INC., OR ONE OR MORE AFFILIATES THEREOF WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California (the “Act”), certain public agencies (the “Members”) have entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”) in order to form the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”), for the purpose of promoting economic, cultural and community development, and in order to exercise any powers common to the Members, including the issuance of bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness; and WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa (the “County”) is a Member of the Authority; and WHEREAS, the Authority is authorized to issue and sell revenue bonds for the purpose, among others, of financing or refinancing the construction of capital projects, including multifamily rental housing facilities; and WHEREAS, Miraflores Senior, L.P., a California limited partnership, or another partnership or other entity created by Community Housing Development Corporation of North Richmond or Eden Housing, Inc., or one or more affiliates thereof (collectively, the “Borrower”), has requested that the Authority participate in the issuance of one or more series of revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $30,000,000 (the “Bonds”); and WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of an 80-unit multifamily rental housing facility (the “Project”) to be owned and operated by the Borrower and located in the County of Contra Costa (the “County”) at the corner of South 45th Street and Florida Avenue, Richmond, California, and to pay certain expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, in order for the interest on the Bonds to be tax-exempt, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), requires that an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit, the geographic jurisdiction of which contains the site of facilities to be financed with the proceeds of the Bonds, hold a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds and approve the issuance of the Bonds following such hearing; and WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that the Board of Supervisors of the County (the “Board of Supervisors”) is an “applicable elected representative” for purposes of holding such hearing; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the Board of Supervisors approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, notice of such public hearing has been duly given as required by the Code, and this Board of Supervisors has heretofore held such public hearing at which all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard on all matters relative to the financing of the Project and the Authority’s issuance of the Bonds therefor; and 5 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 991 WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that the Board of Supervisors approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the aforesaid purposes; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct. Section 2. The Board of Supervisors hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority. It is the purpose and intent of the Board of Supervisors that this resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds (a) by the “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located in accordance with Section 147(f) of the Code and (b) by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with Section 4 of the Agreement. Section 3. The issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The Board of Supervisors shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Bonds. Section 4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the Board of Supervisors or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing to acquire or construct the Project or any refinancing of the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipping or operation of the Project; (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (iv) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein. Section 5. The executing officers, the Clerk of the Board and all other proper officers and officials of the County are hereby authorized and directed to execute such other agreements, documents and certificates, and to perform such other acts and deeds, as may be necessary or convenient to effect the purposes of this Resolution and the transactions herein authorized. Section 6. The Clerk of the Board shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Authority in care of its counsel: Ronald E. Lee, Esq. Jones Hall, APLC 475 Sansome Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94111 Section 7. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 992 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 993 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 994 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 995 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 996 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 997 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Coroner, a purchase order with Dell Inc., in an amount not to exceed $196,572 to purchase VMWare Horizon virtual desktop software for the Office of the Sheriff. FISCAL IMPACT: $196,572. 100% General Fund; Budgeted BACKGROUND: Dell's VMWare Horizon is a virtual desktop software which would enable all computer processing to occur on the Office of the Sheriff Tech Services site. The physical network would run at gigabit speed as opposed to the Office of the Sheriff's mobile fleet that currently transfers data across a wireless network at cellular speeds. The virtual desktop software allows for maps and images that are very critical to first responders to be updated very quickly. This also means that there is no data stored on local APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: Liz Arbuckle (925) 335-1529 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Liz Arbuckle, Heike Anderson, Tim Ewell C. 74 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order for Software - Dell April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 998 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) computers, but rather at the Sheriff's Tech Services Data Center. This software gives Tech Services the ability to update computers throughout the department quickly and easily, which enables maintenance of FBI and DOJ compliancy without the need to access each computer individually. The ability to provide these resources to our officers in the field is paramount to officer and public safety, while saving costs and support time. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Sheriff's Office will be unable to execute the purchase order with VMWare. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 999 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT and APPROVE the Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department, Children and Family Services Bureau, System Improvement Plan as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Department Director and AUTHORIZE the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to sign the System Improvement Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: No Fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Passed in fall 2001, Assembly Bill 636, the Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act of 2001, is also known as the California Child and Family Services Review (C-CFSR). The legislation directed counties to undergo a process of self-assessment and system improvement in order to improve performance on key child welfare outcome indicators. Modeled after the Child and Family Services Review process which was designed by the federal government to assess state-level performance on child welfare outcomes, the C-CFSR process consists of three (3) components: 1. Contra Costa County conducted the Peer Quality Case Review (PQCR) in April of 2015. The collaborative process between Children APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2016 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: April 12, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 12, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:System Improvement Plan April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1000 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and Family Services (CFS), Juvenile Probation, Bay Area Academy, and California Department of Social Services was designed to highlight a practice area which CFS and Probation would like to focus to better understand each agency's performance and to plan how to improve services. 2.The County self-assessment (CSA) process presents an opportunity to learn what is and what is not working in the delivery of child welfare services within the county. Contra Costa County conducted its first self-assessment in 2004, others in 2006 and 2010 and the current assessment in December 2015/January 2016. 3. The final component of the process is the System Improvement Plan (SIP) which is the culmination of information that is received as a result of the PQCR and CSA. The SIP is the county's agreement with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) that it will focus its attention and activities on improvements in specific areas utilizing clearly defined outcome indicators. This board order is requesting the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to accept end approve the County Self-Assessment and System Improvement Plan. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: County would be out of compliance the California Child and Family Services Act. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS System Improvement Plan April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1001 California - Child and Family Services Review System Improvement Plan 01/02/2016 – 01/02/2021 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1002 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1003 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 C-CFSR TEAM AND CORE REPRESENTATIVES ................................................................................ 3 OUTCOME MEASURES AND SYSTEMIC FACTORS ............................................................................. 5 PRIORITIZATION AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS ......................................................................... 5 PERFORMANCE IN OUTCOME MEASURES ................................................................................... 6 SELECTED OUTCOMES ......................................................................................................... 7 PRIORITIZATION OF DIRECT SERVICE NEEDS ................................................................................. 23 STRATEGY SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 27 STRATEGY RATIONALE ........................................................................................................ 29 CHILD WELFARE/PROBATION PLACEMENT INITIATIVES .................................................................... 48 PERFORMANCE GOALS ........................................................................................................ 55 APPENDIX 1: FIVE YEAR SIP CHART ......................................................................................... 70 APPENDIX 2: CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF PROGRAM AND EVALUATION DESCRIPTIONS ...................................... 93 APPENDIX 3: CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF EXPENDITURE WORKBOOKS ...................................................... 112 APPENDIX 4: NOTICE OF INTENT .......................................................................................... 114 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1004 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1005 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1006 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 1 Introduction Contra Costa County is located in Northern California across the San Francisco bay and is considered the northern portion of the East Bay region. Contra Costa is considered a large county in California. In population it is the ninth largest county and in geographical area, the 9th smallest county. The county seat is located in Martinez, CA. Geographically the county is divided into 3 areas, referred to as East, Central and West County. West County has traditionally been more urbanized, Central County is suburban, and historically rural East County is the fastest growing part of Contra Costa and now very suburban. The total county population continues to increase and is now well over one million people. The population has grown about 15% in 14 years and the increase has been steady each year; Contra Costa, along with San Joaquin, Monterey, Santa Clara, Yolo and Alameda counties had the largest percentage increases in population, each growing 1.3 is one of (State of California, Department of Finance, E- 2. California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2010 – 2015, December 2015) Total population in 2014 is 1,102.416. As part of the California CFS Case Review (C-CFSR) process and in compliance with the California Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act of 2001 (AB 636), Contra Costa County CFS, in collaboration with Juvenile Probation and OCAP Liaison, and in consultation with California Department of Social Services (CDSS) presents this System Improvement Plan (SIP) to children and families in the county. Assembly Bill 636 was designed to improve outcomes for children in the child welfare system. To measure performance improvement, National and State performance indicators (Outcome Measures) have been identified. Measures monitor safety, reunification, permanency and stability, and well-being of children. Effective October 1, 2015, the CFSR3 measures were implemented. We have evaluated these measures and will be presenting them in this SIP. Quarterly reports documenting outcome performance are generated for each county and for the state to track performance. California’s 2001 Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act established a three prong process to support counties in analyzing strengths and challenges, assessing performance and establishing plans with defined strategies for performance improvement. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1007 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 2 These events are required during the first year of the five year cycle: Peer Review: The host county selects an outcome measure where performance improvement is challenging. Staff from other counties with stronger performance in the outcome are invited to participate in reviewing the host county’s practice and to advise of strategies that have supported good performance in their counties. County Self Assessment (CSA): This is a comprehensive review of child welfare and probation programs from prevention though permanence and after care. County stakeholders are invited to participate. The CSA report documents findings. Systems Improvement Plan (SIP): Findings from the Peer Review and the County Self Assessment inform the generation of a System Improvement Plan that guides performance improvement for the next 4 years in the 5 year cycle. Performance improvement areas are identified and strategies are planned. The SIP is created approximately 5 months after completion of the County Self Assessment. January 2015 began a new cycle for Contra Costa; outcome measures performance for January 2015 sets the baseline by which improvement is measured for the next 5 years. The Peer Review was the first activity required in the first year of the System Improvement Plan cycle. It was completed in April 2015 and the County Self Assessment was subsequently compiled. The SIP focuses on improving practice and performance and begins January 2, 2016 and runs through year 2021. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1008 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 3 C-CFSR TEAM AND CORE REPRESENTATIVES The CFSR activities of the Peer Review, County Self Assessment and SIP have been monitored by the CFSR Team listed below. The SIP has been monitored by the Project Management Team. The Project Management team is made up of the CFS Director, CFS managers, supervisors, analysts, Parent Partner staff, Probation, and Research and Accountability Manager and CWS/CMS Support Staff. This team has met monthly for many years and has been led by Gloria Halverson, lead for the CSA. The SIP strategies and the SIP data have been presented and discussed in the Project Management team on a quarterly basis. Discussions during these meetings ensure that we make needed adjustments. Formerly the Project Management Team focused on coordination of SIP, state and county initiatives and other implementation projects. This group was also responsible for monitoring performance in National and State Outcomes. Beginning in January 2016, the Project Management Team will be transformed into the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Collaborative Meeting, which is a much broader scope that encompasses project management and monitoring activities previously completed but also works toward continuous quality improvement in all aspects of Children and Family Services programs. As we embark upon developing our Continuous Quality Improvement system, this meeting will serve multiple functions including overseeing our SIP data and strategies. The vision for the CQI Collaborative is, “Strive to create a Learning Community that is proactive, collaborative and is responsive to the needs of the organization (staff) and its stakeholders (family, children, community and partners).” Our goals are to 1) Continuously review and interpret quantitative and qualitative data related to child welfare practice, county policy and outcomes; 2) Share and receive information to and from the organization and its stakeholders; 3) Discuss data and develop action plans to improve the practice, policy and outcomes as needed; and 4) Identify training needs for the organization and its partners. At the CQI Collaborative Meeting, on a quarterly basis, we will review and monitor our selected CFSR Outcomes, strategies and selected evaluation modalities. In addition to the Core Team members (listed below), we will include, at minimum, our CQI/Case Review supervisors, Policy Analysts, Staff Development Specialists, Parent Partners, Caregiver Liaison, and Community Contracts staff. Collaboration with agency partners and community based organizations and service providers will be strengthened through the formation of a stakeholder group to address children’s needs (this is one of the SIP strategies addressed in this document). We will be reviewing the current team roster and inviting April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1009 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 4 other key stakeholders such as Representative Social Workers and other CWS staff to participate as SIP strategies are implemented and performance monitored. Core Team Agency Title Name Participation County Welfare Department Director Joan Miller Provided oversight, direction and review. Children’s Services Management Team Various Provided insight, oversight and contributed to writing sections related to focus areas. CFS Division Manager Neely McElroy Lead for SIP CFS Division Manager, retiree Gloria Halverson Facilitated Peer Review and served as lead for CSA OCAP CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Juliana Granzotto Lead for OCAP Parent Representative Family Engagement Supervisor Judi Knittel Represented parent and family view point, consultant for family issues. Probation Department Probation Manager Kimberly Martell Lead for Probation April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1010 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 5 OUTCOME MEASURES AND SYSTEMIC FACTORS Prioritization and Decision Making Process In addition to analysis of data provided in quarterly state CWS Outcomes Systems Summary reports, both Child Welfare and Probation have deployed a number of methods for determining which outcomes measures and systemic factors to address in this System Improvement Plan. First, our CFSR Core Team reviewed and analyzed the key findings from the Peer Review and County Self Assessment. Next, we analyzed the qualitative data procured from our CSA Stakeholder surveys, Peer Review focus groups, FACT Committee Needs Assessment surveys, and by use of UC Berkeley Data Reports. Some of the CSA Key findings that we took into consideration when selecting our measures include: More efficient and accessible service array: More efficiency and support for staff and families in identifying, tracking and promoting available services is critical. Equal treatment for relative caregivers: Feedback from the relative and foster parent focus group calls for equal treatment for relative caregivers. Continued disproportionality of Black children. High Staff turnover in CFS at all levels. Training, coaching and mentoring for new social workers: There are significant challenges in identifying and planning training and support strategies for new Social Workers and then assuring training and follow-up is given. Improved Family engagement: This is needed due to frequent caseworker changes. Enhanced collaboration with families in the creation of the case plan is needed. Stakeholder feedback and agency review of case planning procedures indicates parents are not always fully engaged and involved in planning activities and identifying service providers. For Probation, the following key findings were considered in the development of this SIP. Improve Placement unit culture. A change in the culture of the Placement Unit is necessary to increase the focus on timely and successful reunification. Improve family engagement. Improve use of Family Finding efforts. Reunification is not always possible and / or in the best interest of the minor. Probation will assess the use of Family Findings and explore alternatives to congregate care for youth who will not be reunifying. Improve CWS/CMS data entry. An increase in the amount of information and data entered into CWS/CMS is crucial. Probation’s low performance in several measures – most notably Monthly Caseworker Contacts – is solely a result of a lack of data entry. Training and support for DPO’s. Probation will continue to arrange through CDSS and the UC Davis Resource Center for Family-Focused Practice for ongoing training and support for staff in the use of CWS/CMS. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1011 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 6 During our monthly Project Management Team meetings, we reviewed our qualitative data and performance trends for CFSR federal and state measures as reported in quarterly CWS outcomes Systems Summary reports. This has culminated in the identification of the measures to prioritize, the overarching goals we want to meet, and the strategies to help us meet our goals which will be discussed in the nex t two sections. Performance in Outcome Measures CHILD WELFARE For Quarter 2 2015, Contra Costa County Children and Family Services has met or exceeded the following federal and state performance standards: S1 Maltreatment in foster care S2 Recurrence of Maltreatment P2 Permanency in 12 months (in care 12-23 months) P4 Re-entry to foster care in 12 months P5 Placement Stability 2B Immediate Response Referrals with a timely response 2B 10-Day referrals with a timely response 2D Timely Response (Immediate Response) The County performance was below the federal and state standards, or our own county determined standards (indicated by asterisk), on the following which will be targeted in the SIP: P1 Permanency in 12 months (entering foster care) P3 Permanency in 12 months (in care 24 months or more) 2D Timely Response – Completed (10 day)* 2F Monthly visits (out of home) 2F Monthly visits in residence (out of home) 2S Monthly Visits (in home)* 2S Monthly Visits in Residence (in Home)* Additionally, we will add the following performance measures of 4B Least Restrictive First Entries into Placement and 4B Least Restrictive Point-in-Time Placements, 5B Timely Health and Dental Examinations and 5F Authorizations for Psychotropic Medication. These measures will assist us in tracking our rate of relative placements and timeliness of medical/dental treatment and tracking of psychotropic medications. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1012 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 7 PROBATION For Quarter 2 2015, Contra Costa County Juvenile Probation has met or exceeded the following performance standards: S1 Maltreatment in foster care P5 Placement Stability The County performance was below the state and national standards on the following, of which P1 and 2F will be targeted in the SIP: P1 Permanency in 12 months (entering foster care) P2 Permanency in 12 months (in care 12-23 months) P3 Permanency in 12 months (in care 24 months or more) P4 Re-entry to foster care in 12 months 2F Monthly visits (out of home) 2F Monthly visits in residence (out of home) Probation did not select measures P2, P3, and P4 as specific focus areas for this SIP largely due to the relatively low number of youth impacted in those measures as compared to P1. Probation believes that the strategies planned to address our low performance on measure P1 will also result in an improvement in our performance on measures P2 and P3. Selected Outcomes CHILD WELFARE Based on the needs identified in the 2015 County Self Assessment and an analysis of the current data from Quarter 2, 2015, Child Welfare has selected the following measures to address in the System Improvement Plan. P1 Permanency in 12 months (Entering FC) Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, what percent discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care? Current Performance (Q2 2015) National/State Standard Percent below standard 28.6% >40.5% 11.4% Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1013 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 8 We are currently performing 11.4% below the national standard of 40.5%. This measure tracks children exiting to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. An analysis of this measure over the last five years shows that there has been a downward movement in this measure, from a high of 42.2% in 2008/2009, to the current rate of 28.6%. We has prioritized this measure in our SIP. We will focus specifically on reunification as it is highly unlikely that adoption or guardianship are accomplished within 12 months unless the reunification is not ordered by courts (also referred to as a “bypass” case). The following 2 charts identify permanency within 12 months by type of permanency and age and ethnicity of children for the 12 month period October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014. As indicated in these charts, the 2 age groups least likely to find permanency in 12 months are 1 to 11 months and 16 to 17 year olds. When comparing permanency by ethnicity, Latino’s are slightly more likely to be reunified within 12 months than children of Black and White ethnicity. PERCENT Age Group All <1 mo 1-11 mo '1-2 yr '3-5 yr '6-10 yr '11-15 yr 16-17 yr % % % % % % % % Reunified 29.3 24.4 43.1 31.5 28.7 30.2 . 30.1 Adopted 7.3 . . . . . . 0.7 Guardianship . . 3.1 6.8 2.3 3.5 . 2.9 Emancipated . . . . . 1.2 5.9 0.4 Other 2.4 . . . . 3.5 17.6 1.5 Still in care 61 75.6 53.8 61.6 69 61.6 76.5 64.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1014 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 9 PERCENT Ethnic Group All Black White Latino Asian/P.I. Nat Amer Missing % % % % % % % Reunified 29.3 29 33.9 25 . . 30.1 Adopted 0.6 0.6 0.9 . . . 0.7 Guardianship 1.8 3.9 3.5 . . . 2.9 Emancipated . 0.6 0.9 . . . 0.4 Other 1.8 1.9 . . 33.3 . 1.5 Still in care 66.5 63.9 60.9 75 66.7 . 64.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 . 100 Based on our CSA, there are a number of factors that might be impacting our lower reunification rates. These include the impact of high caseloads, new and inexperienced staff and turnover, delays in court hearings (continuances, contests, etc.), need for more focused engagement of families, and inclusion in the case planning process. Our strategies will address focused supervisor training, mentoring and support for inexperienced staff. Efforts to improve retention of staff are planned. , To address the court related issues, we have already re-instituted the Court Units in our Operational Districts and expectations for early family engagement and involvement in the court hearings are predicted to improve the court process thus reducing court continuances and contests. There are several strategies that address family engagement and improvement in the case planning process including implementation of SDM, continued use of SOP and supporting Social Workers and families in accessing needed services. P3 Permanency in 12 months (24+ months) Of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12- month period, who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more, what percent discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the 12-month period? Current Performance (Q2 2015) National/State Standard Percent below standard 24.4% >30.3% 5.9% Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. We are currently performing 5.9% below the national standard of 30.3%. This measure tracks exits to all types of permanency (reunification, guardianship and adoption) for children who have been in foster care for 24 months or more. As the chart shows below, exits to adoption remain very strong. Guardianships and exits to non-permanency (emancipation, extended foster care) seem to remain steady. Our focus will center on improving reunification and guardianship rates in order to improve this measure. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1015 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 10 In particular, we will focus our attention on increasing the rate and quality of kin placements. With the implementation of Approved Relative Care Funding Option (ARCFO) (See current Initiatives section), and the recent implementation of Fictive KinGAP, we strive to see improved permanency rates. 2D Time to First Completed Referral Contact – 10 days The number of child abuse and neglect referrals that require, and then receive, an in-person investigation (excludes attempted) within the time frame specified by the referral response type. Current Performance (Q2 2015) CCC Standards Percent below standard 49.8% 90% 25.2% Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. 2D Time to First Completed Referral Contact (10-day) April 1 – June 30, 2015 PERCENT Age Group All Under 1 '1-2 '3-5 '6-10 '11-15 16-17 18-20 % % % % % % % % Timely Response 45.1 51.4 51.5 47.3 51 59.6 0 50.2 No Timely Response 54.9 48.6 48.5 52.7 49 40.4 100 49.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. Although this measure is not required and there is no state standard, we have selected it as it is significant to ensuring child safety. We will set our standard at 90% to ensure that more children have actual face to face visits within the 10 day response timeline. There are external factors that impact why children are not seen within the 10 days. One variable may be related to parent’s consent. If a parent 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Still in care Exited to non-permanency Exited to guardianship Exited to adoption Exited to reunification April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1016 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 11 refuses access to a child, an ER social worker will have difficulties having the face to face with the child. We will utilize our strategies and action steps to identify barriers to completing contacts, to improve Social Worker efforts to complete the contact, and to identify and provide creative supportive mechanisms to support the Social Worker in completing contact. Additionally we will address issues of adequate safety for children by completing SDM Safety Assessments and Safety Plans within the required timelines. 2F Monthly Visits (Out of Home) This measure reports the percent of months requiring an in-person contact in which that contact occurred. For each month in the 12-month period, the denominator is the number of children in care who were required to have an in-person contact, i.e., who were in an open placement episode for the full calendar month and the numerator is the number of children in the denominator who had at least one in-person contact during the month. As outlined in ACIN 1-48-15, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act (the Act) of 2006 requires that effective October 2015, 95% of children in foster care under the jurisdiction of the court must be visited each month the child is in foster care and a majority of these visits must occur in the child’s home. We are currently below the national standard by 5.3% but are visiting children in the home more than 50% of the time, higher than the standard. 2F reflects children who reside in out of home placements. 2F by year Current Performance (Q2 2015) National/State Standard Percent below standard Percent Visited 90% 95% 5.3% Percent Visited in Residence 68.6% >50% Above standard Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. 2F Monthly Visits In Residence (Out of Home) This measure reports the percent of months with in-person contacts in which the contact occurred in the residence of the child or youth. The denominator is the number of children in care who had at least one in-person contact during the month and the numerator is the number of children where at least one of that month’s in-person contacts was in the placement facility. 2F by month Current Performance (Q2 2015) National/State Standard Percent below standard Percent Visited 89.7% 95% 5.3% Percent Visited in Residence 73.9% >50% Above standard Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1017 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 12 We have consistently performed well under the previous standard of 90% of visits per month. In order to meet the revised national standard of 95%, we will focus one of our strategies on improving these outcomes. 2S Monthly Visits (In Home) This report considers each month separately, but summarizes this data for a 12-month period. For each month in the 12-month period, three numbers are determined for children receiving in-home services: The number of children receiving in-home services who were required to have an in-person contact, i.e., who received in-home services for the full calendar month; The number and percent of children in Group 1 who had at least one in-person contact during the month; and The number and percent of children in Group 2 where at least one of that month’s in-person contacts was in the child’s residence. Measure 2S tracks children placed in home as opposed to 2S which tracks children in out-of-home placement. There are no state and federal standards for this measure. We will set our own standard of 95% to remain in alignment with Measure 2F. We believe visiting children in in-home cases (Court and non-Court) are as important as visiting children in foster care. 2S by Year Current Performance (Q2 2015) CCC Standard Percent below standard Percent Visited 62.9% 95% 32.1% Percent Visited in Residence 66.1% >50% Above standard Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. We are currently performing 32.1% below our standard of 95%. We will utilize a variety of action steps to improve this measure, one of which is to inform the staff regarding the importance of monthly visits with in-home cases. We will also strive to improve the quality of these visits with a variety of child engagement tools. We will discuss these two strategies in more depth in the following sections. 2S Monthly Visits in Residence (In Home) This report considers each month separately, but summarizes this data for a 12-month period. For each month in the 12-month period, three numbers are determined for children receiving in-home services: The number of children receiving in-home services who were required to have an in-person contact, i.e., who received in-home services for the full calendar month; The number and percent of children in Group 1 who had at least one in-person contact during the month; and The number and percent of children in Group 2 where at least one of that month’s in-person contacts was in the child’s residence. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1018 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 13 2S by Month Current Performance (Q2 2015) CCC Standard Percent below standard Percent Visited 65% 95% 30% Percent Visited in Residence 71.5% >50% Above standard Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. Of the 480 children receiving in-home services in June 2015, 312 (65%) were visited and 223 (71.5%) were visited in the residence. However, when reviewing the methodology of 2S by month, some Family Reunification, Permanent Placement, and Supportive Transition cases are included in this report due to children who were not in a foster placement at any time during the month because they were either on extended trial home visits, had run away from placements, were in non-foster care placements, or had returned home and were awaiting court orders changing their service program types. If we exclude Family Reunification, Emergency Response, Permanent Placement and Supportive Transition, our percent of children visited increases. The table below shows that there were 249 children in Family Maintenance, of which 87.6% were visits monthly and 78% were visited in their residence. Although still not meeting the standard of 95%, it is an improvement. For the purposes of monitoring this measure, we will extrapolate and report only on Family Maintenance cases (both Court and non-Court). Service Component Type Children Receiving In- Home Services Entire Month Children Visited Percent Visited Children Visited in Residence Percent Visited in Residence n n % n % Emergency Response 2 2 100 1 50 Family Maintenance 249 218 87.6 170 78 Family Reunification 58 51 87.9 30 58.8 Permanent Placement 171 41 24 22 53.7 Supportive Transition 0 0 0 0 0 Total 480 312 65 223 71.5 Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1019 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 14 4B Least Restrictive (Entries First Placement: Relative) This measure is derived from a longitudinal database of all entries to out of home care (in care 8 days or more) during the time period specified and computes the percentage of children who have a first placement of "Relative" (labeled "Kin" in UCB data tables). A child’s first out of home placement with "Relatives" is drawn from the CWS/CMS variable plc_fclc and includes the following codes: Relative / NREFM Home (1421) and Tribe Specified Home (1422). (Age 0 to 17 years.) Outcome: 4B Least Restrictive Placement (First Entry) Ethnic Group Total Kin Foster FFA Group Guardian n n n n n n Percent by ethnic group Black 34 54 58 4 11 161 41% White 26 37 36 4 4 107 27% Latino 29 27 41 3 2 102 26% Asian/P.I. 1 4 5 . . 10 3% Nat Amer 1 1 1 1 . 4 1% Missing 1 3 . . 2 6 2% Total By Placement Type 92 24% 126 32% 141 36% 12 3% 19 5% 390 Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. According to Quarter 2 2015 data (above), 24% of our first entries were with kin (relatives/NREFM). The highest ethnic group placed with kin was Black children at 34%. The highest percent of placements with kin by age group is 6 to 10 year olds. Our most frequently used placements at first entry are Foster homes (32%) and Foster Family Agencies (FFA) (36%). While we focus on improving reunification, we can review P1 by First Placement Type. An analysis of this data shows that 24.4% of children placed with kin at first entry exited to Reunification and 4.5% exited to guardianship. We will look to increase kin placements for all ethnicities; .since Black children are disproportionality represented in the foster care system; we will monitor these kin placements by ethnicity. 4B Least Restrictive (Point in Time Placement: Relative) This measure is a point in time count of all children who have an open placement episode of "Relative" in the CWS/CMS system (labeled "Kin" in UCB data tables). On the count day, children are assigned to the county in which they have an open case or referral. Children who have a substitute care provider assignment of ‘relative non-guardian’ are categorized as a "Relative" placement. (Age 0 to 20 years.) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1020 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 15 Outcome: 4B Least Restrictive Placements (Point in Time) Placement Type Total Pre- Adopt Kin Foster FFA Court Specified Home Group Non- FC Transitional Housing Guardian - Dependent Guardian - Other Runaway SILP Other (?) Missing n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Total 37 (3.3%) 277 (25%) 145 (13.1%) 251 (22.7%) 1 (0.1%) 87 (7.9%) 20 (1.8%) 40 (3.6%) 24 (2.2%) 152 (2.2%) 2 (0.2%) 64 (5.8%) 7 (0.6%) 0 1,107 Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. In June 2015, 25% of children were placed in kin placements, compared to 24% of first entries to Kin placements. The percent of children in Foster Homes and FFA’s is less for point in time than first placement entry: More children originally placed in Foster Homes or FFA’s appear to have either found permanency or moved into a variety of other placements such as pre-adoption, Group care, THP, etc. Our strategies will focus on increasing first entries into kin placements, improving resources for kin families, and improving communication between caregivers and social workers as a strategy for stable placements and improved permanency outcomes. 5B (1&2) Timely Health/Dental Exams This report provides the percentage of children meeting the schedule for Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) and Division 31 medical and dental exams. Per California Code of Regulations: "Persons will be considered overdue for an assessment on the first day he or she enters a new age period without assessment having been performed in the previous age period."1 Minors must have a medical and/or dental exam by the end of their age period. From: 4/1/2015 To: 6/30/2015 Rate of timely health exams (%) 75.1% In care 31+ days, age 0-20 (n) 885 Timely health exams (n) 665 Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. From: 4/1/2015 To: 6/30/2015 Rate of timely dental exams (%) 44.2% In care 31+ days, age 3-20 (n) 730 Timely dental exams (n) 323 Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1021 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 16 According to Quarter 2 2015 data (above), we recorded 75.1% of timely health exams and 44.2% dental exams. There has been no change in the requirements for timely exams, however through our assessment; we believe that entry of these exams has diminished due to a lack of focus in HEP entry. Our strategy to improve this component will be to dedicate clerical staff to enter information in a timely fashion. We have a policy that directs staff regarding HEP entry. We will ensure that policy is reissued and monitored. We will also improve our collaboration with the County Public health department CHDP nurses in our offices, receiving center, and foster care clinics. 5F Authorized for Psychotropic Medication This report provides the percentage of children in placement episodes with a court order or parental consent that authorizes the child to receive psychotropic medication. From: 4/1/2015 To: 6/30/2015 Authorized for psychotropic medications (%) 6.2% In care, 0-17 (n) 974 Authorized for psychotropic medications (n) 60 Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. Ethnic Group Total Num of Anti-Psychotic Med Fills Asian/PI 35 4% Black 405 42% Data Not Entered/ 8 1% Latino 199 21% White 306 32% 953 100% Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. Non-A-Psych Ethnic Group Total No Anti-Psych Med Fills Asian/PI 50 3% Black 582 36% Data Not Entered/ 8 0% Latino 412 25% Native American 6 0% White 573 35% Total Non A Psych Fills 1631 100% Data Source: CWS/CMS 2015 Quarter 2 Extract. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1022 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 17 According to CWS/CMS data for Quarter 2, 6.2% of our children have been authorized for psychotropic medication through court order or parental consent. Of those prescribed anti-psychotics, 42% of the children are Black, 32% are White, and 21% are Latino. Of those prescribed non-anti- psychotics, 36% are Black, 35% White and 25% are Latino. At this time, Contra Costa has entered into a data sharing agreement with the state and will spend time analyzing the dissemination of medication. Our strategies will include ensuring our JV220 Psychotropic medication tracking process is effective; deploy recommendations from the state’s QIP workgroup on Use of Psychotropic Medications Systemic Factor: Stakeholder Collaboration This is a Systemic Factor that Contra Costa chooses to address collaboration with Stakeholders; components of this factor include: Enhance and enrich collaboration with agency partners and community providers by re-establishing Systems of Care approach and team. Create a forum for conversations about disparity and disproportionality Addressing prevention and intervention community providers: Available services, gaps in services, accessing available services, and promoting use of available services. We have chosen to focus on improving and broadening our work with our stakeholders and community. We currently have a variety of collaborative efforts (i.e. Katie A., CSEC, Juvenile Justice Commission, etc.) however they are generally topic specific (mental health, sexually exploited children, probation youth). Contra Costa has a long history of engagement including cross agency Systems of Care Policy Council, district Community Partner Meetings and a close collaboration with Mental Health for past federal grants and more recently, state initiatives such as Katie A. It’s time to renew and invigorate collaboration by creating a forum that will focus on family service needs, promotion of the community’s and agencies’ available services, identifying service gaps, and addressing disparity and accessibility barriers in service delivery. We will build upon the work of the Family & Children’s Trust (FACT) Committee and our regional Community Partnership meetings. We will utilize a CQI framework to analyze data, gather feedback, disseminate findings and priorities, and develop mutual plans of action. We intend for this focus to assist us in improving our prioritization of OCAP funds, contracting efforts with the community, and building our relationships on behalf of Contra Costa children. Systemic Factor: Improving the Health and Well-Being of Children April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1023 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 18 This is a Systemic Factor that Contra Costa will address in order to improve the health and well-being of children; components of this factor will include: Ensure timely medical and dental exams Ensure quality data entry of medical and health exams and psychotropic medication use into CWS/CMS. Monitor use of psychotropic medication in children as well as access to mental health. Improve access to medical and mental health services through improved collaboration with public health. Systemic Factor: Workforce Wellness Through the CSA we have identified that we are impacted by the challenge of retaining quality and trained staff. While our recruitment of social workers has significantly improved over the last several years, our ability to compete with surrounding counties has created an inexperienced workforce. We will look to support our staff through a number of strategies including: Supporting our workforce through the use of trauma informed strategies Creating an effective Supervisor framework which can address the realities of the need for supervisors to provide continuous training and oversight to new social workers. Deploy targeted staff retention strategies defined through our internal Staff Retention/County Culture Workgroup. PROBATION Based on the needs identified in the 2015 County Self Assessment and an analysis of the current data from Quarter 2, 2015, Probation has selected the following measures to address in the System Improvement Plan. P1 Permanency in 12 months (Entering FC) Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, what percent discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care? Current Performance (Q2 2015) National/State Standard Percent below standard 4.8% >40.5% 35.7% April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1024 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 19 For the time period of July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, of the 104 Probation youth entering foster care for the first time and remained in care for 8 days or longer, 5 youth (4.8%) reunified in less than 12 months. This is below the National / State standard of 40.5%. Reunification within 12 Months was a focus of the Probation Peer Review in April 2015. Probation historically underperforms in this measure for a variety of reasons. There are circumstances and factors, which are beyond the control of the Probation Department, which can complicate permanency efforts for Probation youth. These factors include the age of the youth, the types of offending behaviors, and the use of foster care in lieu of the other rehabilitative options for some delinquent youth. Given the relatively low number of youth Probation is tasked with placing, the success or lack thereof of in attaining permanency for even 2 – 3 of these youth can significantly the outcome results. . Probation youth are on average older than their CWS counterparts. Many probation youth in placement are 17 years or older by the time they complete the placement program. Many of these youth are availing themselves to Extended Foster Care, even those youth who have suitable and appropriate family homes to return to. Whether a youth is technically eligible for out of home placement, versus whether out of home placement the appropriate course of action for a particular youth, is an area of ongoing struggle between the Courts, the Public Defender, the District Attorney and the Probation Department. Criminally sophisticated and violent offenders are far from ideal candidates for out of home placement, yet a good number of the youth ordered placed in Contra Costa County fall into that category. This population has a detrimental effect on our permanency rates. Many Probation youth present with delinquency and behavioral issues which require a significant period and level of rehabilitative services to adequately address their needs. Rehabilitation of the placed youth is prioritized above permanency within 12 months. It is important to recognize that a significant portion of the youth ordered into out of home placement by the delinquency courts will not be in the community when their placement order is eventually set-aside. They will quite often be committed to secured institutional programs to address their delinquent mindset and behaviors which could not be overcome in the non-secured and less structured therapeutic settings found with foster care. Good portions of placement youth abscond from placement or otherwise violate the terms and conditions of their probation. Many placement youth engage in additional illegal conduct while in placement or while April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1025 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 20 in the community unsupervised after that have absconded placement. These activities result in the filing of additional delinquency petitions and subsequent dispositions by the courts. Youth who cannot or will not be reunified with their family due to the nature of their offenses, are commonly seen in cases of the minor engaging in the sexual abuse of family members, experience great difficulty with establishing permanency at all, let alone within 12 months. In the case of Juvenile Sexual Offenders, the currently accepted treatment model for this population generally consists of 18 months to two years of intensive treatment followed by aftercare. These youth require lengthy residential treatment episodes. A number of these youth will also engage in conduct which results in removal from placement and a commitment to a secured institutional program. Also for those youth who successfully complete their treatment and placement, an increasing number are availing themselves to Extended Foster Care. The placement type chosen for a youth is a factor impacting permanency within 12 months. Probation youth are often placed in congregate care, also known as group homes. These placements are more inclined to accept delinquent youth, but more importantly they generally offer a higher level of structure and supervision for the youth, and are more likely to have the services in place that are needed to aid in the rehabilitation of the youth. Most group homes are currently designed to provide services over the course of many months, generally 12 – 16 months. Less restrictive settings than group homes, are considered by the Placement unit for placement of a youth on a case by case basis, and are in most cases ruled out as first entry options for delinquent youth. Group homes are consistent with the type of placement and services deemed necessary by Probation and the Courts to best serve the needs of the youth. The recent change to California Foster Care that would ideally result in improved performance for Probation in this measure is the implementation of Assembly Bill 403. This bill provides for the reclassification of treatment facilities and the transition from the use of group homes for children in foster care to the use of short-term residential treatment centers. Once implementation of the requirements of this Bill are in place, the Courts, the District Attorney, and the Probation Department will have to reconsider and likely reduce the use of foster care for the purposes of providing rehabilitative services to highly delinquent youth. It is anticipated that other dispositional options and not out of home placement will be imposed in a good number of cases. Removing the highly delinquent youth, those least likely to be successfully rehabilitated through the use of short-term residential treatment centers, from the equation will improve permanency outcomes. Those youth who are not as criminally inclined may benefit greatly from placement in a short-term residential treatment center, and they may be more likely to attain permanency within 12 months. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1026 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 21 2F Monthly Visits (Out of Home) This measure reports the percent of months requiring an in-person contact in which that contact occurred. For each month in the 12-month period, the denominator is the number of children in care who were required to have an in-person contact, i.e., who were in an open placement episode for the full calendar month and the numerator is the number of children in the denominator who had at least one in-person contact during the month. 2F by month Current Performance (Q2 2015) National/State Standard Percent below standard Percent Visited 28.2% 95% 66.8% Percent Visited in Residence 90.7% >50% Above Standard For the time period of July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015, of the total out of home monthly visits Probation was expected to complete (1,338 per CWS/CMS data extracted in early October 2015) Probation’s current performance at 28.2% is far below the National / State standard of 95%. It is important to note that attempts to contact youth and completed contacts with youth are not given the same weight in the F2 measure. At any given time, up to 10% of placement youth may not be successfully contacted in a given month because the youth has absconded from placement and their whereabouts is unknown. Two significant factors impact our statistical performance in this measure, and both involve our historical difficulty with using CWS/CMS. The first factor is the failure to properly input information into the system in a timely fashion when a youth’s Placement Episode ends. The second factor is the failure to enter monthly contacts on a timely and regular basis. The Probation Department implemented the use of CWS/CMS in 2011. It is reasonable to acknowledge that there was some resistance by probation staff to learning and utilizing a case management system that is in addition to the processes and systems the probation department already had in place for monitoring probation youth. Since 2012, several issues contributed to the weak performance with data entry into CWS/CMS. The Placement Unit has experienced ongoing staffing issues. It has proven difficult to keep the unit fully staffed with DPOs. Staff turnover within the Placement Unit and the need to train those new staff on the functions and responsibilities of the Placement Unit, as well as receive training in CWS/CMS, is laborious and time consuming. When the Unit is short staffed or in lack of experienced and fully trained staff, the existing DPOs had to conduct the additional monthly visits, as well as prepare the mandated placement review reports and other court reports, which leave less time for data entry into CWS/CMS. The Unit also twice experienced a change in April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1027 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 22 the Unit Supervisor and Placement Unit Manager. There was also a change of staff in the clerical position assigned to the Placement Unit. Lack of internal oversight by the supervisor and manager, largely due to the other demands upon their time and energies, has allowed the problems with CWS/CMS to multiply. Probation visits the youth in placement every month, which is documented on monthly contact logs with the Placement Supervisor and the Field Notes the Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) maintain for each of their assigned youth. Our need for improved performance is not with conducting the monthly visits; it is with consistently documenting the visits in CWS/CMS. Of the youth whose visits were documented in CWS/CMS, Probation’s performance exceeds the national standard for visiting children in the home more than 50% of the time. Nonetheless, another key finding from the recent CSA was that an increase in the amount of information and data entered into CWS/CMS is crucial. Probation’s low performance in several measures – most notably Monthly Caseworker Contacts – is solely a result of a lack of data entry. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1028 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 23 PRIORITIZATION OF DIRECT SERVICE NEEDS In 1985, Contra Costa County established the Family and Children’s Trust (FACT) Committee. The purpose of the FACT Committee is to establish priorities and make funding recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on the allocation of specific funds for the prevention and amelioration of child abuse and neglect, and the promotion of positive family functioning. The funds include CAPIT, Birth Certificate funds, County Children’s Trust funds, and CBCAP funds. The FACT Committee is comprised of representatives from Mental Health, the Local Planning Council, the First 5 Commission, Child Abuse Prevention Council and early childhood education. At-Large members represent service clubs, faith based organizations, civic groups, ethnic and cultural clubs/groups, Chambers of Commerce and Parent/Teacher Associations. And finally one representative from each of the five Supervisorial Districts is a member. The FACT Committee’s established procedures include establishing a minimum of two specific priority areas for allocating available FACT funds based on the County Self-Assessment, public hearing or other needs assessment mechanism. These funds are for child abuse and neglect prevention and early intervention services which meets the needs of children at high-risk, especially those 0-14 years old, operated by private non-profit organizations. The FACT Committee conducts a needs assessment process every two years via survey (web-based and in-person) to the community in order to establish a minimum of two priority areas. Subsequently, CFS implements a competitive RFP/RFI bid process for the allocation of funds. The FACT Committee conducted an online provider Needs Assessment survey in 2014-2015. The Provider Survey was initiated on December 8, 2014 and the results were compiled in a report on January 20, 2015. A Parent/Caretaker Needs assessment survey was initiated on December 8, 2014 and was offered online in English and in print form in English and Spanish. A report was compiled on March 1, 2015 regarding these results. The need for after school programs ranked number one as the most important service needed in the Parent/Caretaker Survey. Parent education, support for children with special needs and their families, and family support and referral services were found to be nearly equal in importance. Cost of services was most often marked as the greatest barrier to obtaining services. Long waitlists, lack of transportation and language and Cultural Humility were named the highest barriers. The Provider Needs Assessment was similar in responses regarding the cost as the main barrier to after school programs, in addition to the need for drug and alcohol services for families support for children with special needs, and services for families who are homeless. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1029 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 24 PSSF is monitored by the CFS Director and the management team. The priorities are determined using information gathered from a variety of sources such as from our Community Partnership meetings and the FACT surveys. Currently Crossroads High School is funded by CAPIT and CBCAP funds. The Children’s Recovery and Family Education Project, ARC (Attachment, Self-Regulation and Competency framework), and Strengthening Vulnerable Families Supportive Housing are being funded by CAPIT funds. These programs meet the needs of families facing substance abuse, homelessness, pregnant and parenting teen mothers, and unique needs of Spanish Speaking families. Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) is a federal program under Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security Act for states to operate coordinated child and family services including community-based family support services, family preservation services, time-limited family reunification services and adoption promotion and support services to prevent child maltreatment among at-risk families, assure safety and stability of maltreated children, and support adoptive families. The four PSSF Program components: (1) family preservation, (2) community-based family support, (3) time-limited family reunification and (4) adoption promotion and support, are intended to provide coordinated services for children and families across the continuum from prevention to treatment through aftercare. State Family Preservation (SFP) is a state funded program aimed at reducing the necessity of out-of- home placement of children who have experienced child abuse or neglect within the family and, when appropriate, at expediting the reunification of children with their families when the children are in out-of- home placements. PSSF and State Family Preservation funds meet a myriad of other direct service needs. These include providing supportive housing, parenting classes, integrated mental health services, post-adoption supportive services and educational liaison support, community based supervised visitation, and case management services to monolingual Spanish Speaking families as well as Afterschool programming. The parenting classes supported through PSSF and State Family Preservation include evidence- based Triple P Positive Parenting Levels 4 and 5, Triple P support groups, Supporting Father’s Involvement (SFI) parenting classes and Nurturing Parents parenting classes in English and Spanish. These parenting classes are listed on the California Evidence Based Clearinghouse (CEBC). The overall Triple P program is a multi-tiered system of 5 levels of education and support for parents and caregivers of children and adolescents. Although Triple P can be used in parts (e.g., using only one level of the five or April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1030 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 25 a group version versus standard), this entry on the CEBC reviews System Triple P as a whole (i.e., using all 5 levels) in its standard version and only reviewed research evidence that evaluated the whole system. The CEBC also evaluated Level 4 Triple P as a separate program and it is rated”1 - Well-Supported Research Evidence" on the Scientific Rating Scale in the areas of Parent Training and Disruptive Behavior Treatment (Child & Adolescent). As a prevention program, Triple P helps parents learn strategies that promote social competence and self-regulation in children. Parents become better equipped to handle the stress of everyday child rearing and children become better able to respond positively to their individual developmental challenges. As an early intervention, Triple P can assist families in greater distress by working with parents of children who are experiencing moderate to severe behavior problems. Throughout the program, parents are encouraged to develop a parenting plan that makes use of a variety of Triple P strategies and tools. Triple P practitioners are trained to work with parents’ strengths and to provide a supportive, non-judgmental environment where a parent can continually improve their parenting skills. Supporting Fatherhood Involvement (SFI) is a preventive intervention designed to enhance fathers’ positive involvement with their children. The curriculum is based on an empirically-validated family risk model. This model predicts that children’s development is predicted by risks and buffers in five interconnected domains: Family members’ characteristics 3-generational expectations and relationship patterns Quality of parent-child relationship Quality of parents’ relationship Balance of stressors versus social support for the family. Nurturing Parenting curriculum is designed to build nurturing parenting skills that break the intergenerational cycle of child maltreatment and dysfunction. The program provides support and resources for parents. STAND! For Families free of Violence and the Child Abuse Prevention Council offer these evidence-based parenting classes across Contra Costa County in English and in Spanish. The Nurturing Parenting Center-Based program incorporates the Strengthening Families 5 Protective Factors Framework: Parental resilience Social connections Concrete support in times of need April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1031 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 26 Knowledge of Healthy Parenting and Child Development Social and Emotional Competence of Children A recent survey completed by the FACT committee collected information on at-risk populations, target areas, service needs, and gaps in services. Data collected in Contra Costa’s Self Assessment assisted further by identifying populations at risk and service needs and gaps to assure current strategies are meeting needs. Ongoing efforts to collect and evaluate information support continual review of needs and supports the committee work to formulate goals and objectives and develop opportunities for bringing more effective and accessible services for children and families. We will utilize a quality assurance process that measures quality of these services. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1032 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 27 STRATEGY SUMMARY CHILD WELFARE GOAL: STRENGTHEN QUALITY CASE PLANNING AND FAMILY TEAMING TO IMPROVE TIMELY FAMILY REUNIFICATION. Strategy 1: Strengthen quality case planning through the utilization of the SDM Family Needs and Strengths Assessment (FSNA tool) to inform and collaboratively identify critical family needs for individualized case plans. Strategy 2: Improve family teaming through increased use of Team Decision Making meetings (Family Team meetings) that use strength based collaborative strategies such as the Safety Organized Practice framework. Strategy 3: Improve family engagement by expanding and incorporating the strategies of the Safety Organized Practice framework into the casework of Social Workers. GOAL: ASSURE CHILD SAFETY AND INFORM PERMANENCY PLANNING THROUGH IMPROVEMENT IN FREQUENCY, TIMELINESS, AND QUALITY OF SOCIAL WORKER VISITS. Strategy 4: Improve timeliness and quality of child and family visits through the utilization of engagement strategies, by monitoring quality of visits and by tracking compliance of visits. Strategy 5: Improve child safety and increase reunification of families through consistent and quality implementation of Structured Decision Making practice. GOAL: INCREASE TIMELY AND QUALITY COMPLETED FIRST CONTACTS WITH CHILDREN IN 10 DAY REFERRALS TO ASSURE CHILD SAFETY. Strategy 6: Develop and implement policy and practice that ensures that children and families are seen within 10 days of the receipt of child abuse referrals. Strategy 7: Utilize the SDM Safety Assessments to ensure the accurate assessment of children’s immediate safety and develop quality and timely Safety Plans that accurately address threats to a child’s safety to remain in the family home. GOAL: IMPROVE PERMANENCY OUTCOMES BY INCREASING THE RATE AND QUALITY OF RELATIVE/NREFM PLACEMENTS. Strategy 8: Increase the rate of children placed with relatives and NREFM’s by improving the efficiency of the Relative Approval Emergency Placement Process. Strategy 9: Expand Relative Notification and Family Finding efforts in order to increase the pool of available quality approved relatives. Strategy 10: Improve partnerships and communication with caregivers through the efforts of the Caregiver Steering Committee. Strategy 11: Develop and implement a county-wide Specialized Care Increment (SCI) program April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1033 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 28 (called Difficulty of Care in Contra Costa) to enhance support to caregivers for children with special care needs. GOAL: IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN SERVED BY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES AND IMPROVE ACCESS, TIMELINESS AND QUALITY OF THESE SERVICES. Strategy 12: Improve children’s health and mental health well being by evaluating and monitoring to ensure consistent tracking of Mental Health assessments, referrals and services and utilization of psychotropic medications. Strategy 13: Improve access and timeliness to medical services by improving collaboration with county public health department CHDP nurses in CWS offices, Receiving Centers and Foster Care clinics. GOAL: STRENGTHEN STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION IN ORDER TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF DISPARITY AND CULTURALLY SPECIFIC COMMUNITY SERVICES; IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE DIRECT SERVICE RESOURCES AND DELIVERY; AND IMPROVE PARTNERSHIPS ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. Strategy 14: Partner with county agencies and Community Based Organizations to develop a Stakeholder Forum to address issues facing children in Contra Costa including racial disparity and gaps in available services. Strategy 15: Ensure access to community resources and services through more effective systems for locating service providers offering appropriate services. GOAL: DEVELOP A TRAUMA INFORMED WORKPLACE THAT ENSURES A HEALTHY AND COMPETENT WORKFORCE. Strategy 16: Employ trauma informed strategies to create a healthier workplace and address the secondary trauma that staff faces in their daily work. Strategy 17: Develop, prioritize, and implement staff retention strategies such as those created by the CFS County Culture/Staff Retention Workgroup. Strategy 18: Develop a more effective supervision model that addresses the needs o f newly hired social workers in order to support their learning and ensure competency in their child welfare practice. PROBATION STRATEGY 1: Change the culture of the Placement Unit to increase the focus on reunification or other permanency outcome within 12 months. STRATEGY 2: Explore ways to educate parents and legal guardians to increase their understanding and involvement in the process of rehabilitation and reunification. STRATEGY 3: Increase documentation of monthly contacts with youth in CWS/CMS. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1034 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 29 STRATEGY RATIONALE CHILD WELFARE GOAL: STRENGTHEN QUALITY CASE PLANNING AND FAMILY TEAMING TO IMPROVE TIMELY FAMILY REUNIFICATION. PURPOSE AND RATIONALE: Our goal to address Family Reunification is to improve case planning and teaming efforts with families. Through inclusive case plan development, the linkage between family needs and service planning improves. Families involved with Child Welfare face multiple challenges, some of which are related to the reason for Child Welfare involvement (i.e. impact of substance abuse on parenting) and other reasons (i.e. poverty) that complicate a family’s functioning. It is important to drill down to the specific child safety issues when working with families to reunify with their children. Focusing on the harm and danger to the child will focus the social worker and the family to identify the behavioral changes that are needed to create future child safety. The Peer Review, which focused on Reunification within 12 months, identified some challenges related to engaging families. One finding stated: Social workers are not fully engaging with parents, especially if parents are not easy to engage or ambivalent; strategies to motivate hard-to-engage parents should be explored. Family Teaming The field of Child Welfare has long encouraged family teaming. One finding from the Peer Review was “…larger family networks, including connections and relatives are not always engaged as part of the safety network.” Some recommendations from Peer Reviewers included: Work toward engagement of all parents; Improve the social worker’s relationship with parent; Follow good social work principles by monitoring parent behavior and the impact that has on expectations. Engage all family, relatives, and family connections in team meetings, safety planning and case plans. A variety of family team meetings have emerged over the years – Family Group Decision Making (FGDM), Team Decision Making (TDM), Wraparound Meetings, etc. Contra Costa County has primarily utilized TDM’s since 2003 to team with families. We also utilize Wraparound meetings when Mental April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1035 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 30 Health is the primary issue. More recently Child and Family Team meetings have been created to meet the requirements of the Katie A. Settlement. TDM’s have been utilized most frequently on the front end of our system, during the Emergency Response phase. We have dedicated our resources to the target geographical areas in which the most removals have occurred. These regions have expanded with the changing demographics. We also used TDM’s for Placement Change meetings with youth, and created a Youth Transition Meeting (YTM) based off the TDM model. The YTM is used with youth 17 and over and to ensure the 90 day transitional plans are completed. With the implementation of Safety Organized Practice (SOP) in 2013, we have also begun discussions around utilizing SOP Mapping meetings with families. The SOP Mapping meeting was created to ensure that safety and harm are identified, complicating factors (those factors not specifically related to safety and danger) are sorted out and specific Safety plans were created. The SOP Mapping meeting is a meeting where the issues of harm, safety, complicating factors and protective capacities are outlined with the team, charted for the group, and then sorted to develop Safety and Harm statements. The group then can create clear and specific safety plans to address the safety and harm issues. Because the plans are specific, in essence using the SMART technique of case planning, it improves the worker’s ability to measure specific behavioral change in the parent. As TDM is our primary teaming modality, we have begun infusing SOP concepts into our meetings. For example, instead of sorting “Strengths and Concerns,” the TDM Facilitator facilitates “What’s Working Well”, and “Worries” conversations. Case Planning Contra Costa County is shifting from the Comprehensive Assessment Tool (CAT) to Structured Decision Making (SDM). We are in the process of implementing SDM and will begin utilizing the tools in December 2015, prior to the implementation of this SIP. There are several components of the SDM system that will support this strategy and in particular case planning. The social workers will complete the Family Strengths and Needs Assessment (FSNA) prior to every Case Plan and Case Plan update. The FSNA assessment analyses multiple domains including culture, caregiver functioning, and child/youth functioning. Caregiver domains include Resource Management/Basic Needs, Physical Health, Parenting Practices, Social Support System, Household and Family Relationships, Domestic Violence, Substance Abuse, Mental Health, Trauma, and Cognitive/Developmental Abilities. These domains are then prioritized by strengths and needs. The case plan can then be created with the prioritized needs in the forefront. The intention of this strategy is for the social worker to utilize this FSNA and its priorities to April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1036 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 31 work with the family in person to review the needs and develop plans of action (i.e. services) to meet these needs. Families must have some internal need for change. Although social workers cannot “make” a parent change, the engagement process, coaching, and partnership can improve a parent’s internal shift toward change. For the past several years, we have brought SOP and the techniques of motivational interviewing and solution focused questioning to our work. Social workers have been trained to utilize their skills to engage families in focusing on behavioral change. We believe that the confluence of SDM and SOP will strengthen our ability to engage families and thus improve our case planning with families. We will implement the following strategies: Strategy 1: Strengthen quality case planning through the utilization of the SDM Family Needs and Strengths Assessment (FSNA tool) to inform and collaboratively identify critical family needs for individualized case plans. Strategy 2: Improve family teaming through increased use of Team Decision Making meetings (Family Team meetings) that use strength based collaborative strategies such as the Safety Organized Practice framework. Strategy 3: Improve family engagement by expanding and incorporating the strategies of the Safety Organized Practice framework into the casework of Social Workers. Implementation of these strategies requires a systemic change to how we currently develop and create case plans. Although it has been an intention to ensure individualized case plans, actually achieving this goal has been elusive. Through implementation of the above steps and monitoring efforts, we believe we can make system change. ACTION STEPS/EVALUATION: We intend to implement a variety of strategies and action steps in order to realize this goal: Strategy 1 We will ensure that social workers are trained to the use of FSNA and coached to prioritize strengths and needs as they develop case plans with families. We strive to eliminate the “cookie cutter” approach to identify needs and services for families. To support this action step, supervisors will monitor that case plans are tailored to meet the needs of the families as well as ensuring there was a collaborative approach to developing the plans. Initially staff will be trained to FSNA tool completion in November 2015. Supervisors are also trained and being provided coaching and advanced training between April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1037 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 32 November 2015 and April 2016. We will direct our SDM coaches to focus on this strategy with supervisors so they can do the parallel process in conference/supervision time. We will continuously identify further training needs as they arise. We will utilize the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Collaborative to discuss this strategy and make practice adjustments as needed. This action step will be monitored in a variety of ways. First, we will use WebSDM and SafeMeasures to track the number of FSNA tools that completed. Our goal is that 100% of FSNA tools are completed. Second, we will utilize case readings by supervisor and/or the Quality Assurance division to compare the FSNA to the case plans. As we are implementing SDM, we will utilize SDM’s recommended quality implementation target goals as part of our monitoring system. We will monitor timely reunification for the families in which FSNA’s and collaborative case plans were completed. Our goal is to ensure that individualized case plan goals and services are reflected in 95% of the cases that have utilized a FSNA tool. Strategy 2 To improve the case planning process, another step is increasing in-person meetings or series of meetings to develop the case plans. Through a small work group, we will identify the steps to ensuring positive parental collaboration and set forth a set of best practice recommendations. For example, we may identify that the use of Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings are ideal for developing case plans with families. We will also infuse the SOP framework into the TDM. This will ensure better alignment with our full implementation of SOP. Strategy 3 We will complete our implementation of SOP, ensuring that all staff receives the SOP Overview, SOP training modules, and coaching sessions. For tracking and evaluation purposes, we will monitor this strategy in our CQI Collaborative Meeting. We will also develop ways to elicit feedback from our parents about the teaming process and make adjustments as needed. Quantitative measures include ensuring 100% of Reunification Re-assessment tools are completed on a timely basis. We will monitor these cases to track how reunification progresses and whether there any future safety issues that arose. This may be tracked via the safety and reentry measures. Qualitatively, we will monitor the trends that are revealed in our ongoing state Case Reviews. For the implementation of SOP, we will create a baseline survey to establish our level of implementation and then conduct a similar survey 1-2 years post full implementation. Our partners for this strategy include our Parent Partners. Parent Partners are available for all families who are in the Reunification process. This is a voluntary service for families and has show positive results April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1038 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 33 for the past 10 years of implementation. Parent Partners routinely coach and mentor their families to work productively and proactively with Child Welfare and their social worker. We will continue to leverage these relationships in this strategy. GOAL: ASSURE CHILD SAFETY AND INFORM PERMANENCY PLANNING THROUGH IMPROVEMENT IN FREQUENCY, TIMELINESS, AND QUALITY OF SOCIAL WORKER VISITS. PURPOSE AND RATIONALE: Safety of children is first and foremost in our work. The key to ensuring child safety is visiting children in their homes and foster placements. It goes without saying that laying eyes on a child, spending time inquiring about his or her well-being, and ensuring his or her needs are being met will ensure child safety. Social Workers value child visits. They work diligently to ensure they conduct face-to-face visits with the children on their caseloads. Our strategies will address improved federal compliance and improved quality of visits. First, as outlined in the discussion of Measure 2F, federal requirements mandate we visit children monthly 95% of the time. This measure is calculated both monthly and on a rolling annual basis. As noted in our Outcome section, in this current quarter (Q2 2015) we are performing at 89.7%, just slightly below the previous national standard of 90%. We will need to improve this compliance by 5.3% to meet the new standard. Second, we want to ensure our face-to-face interactions with children of sufficient quality to ensure child safety in their homes and out-of-home placements. For placement cases, we are visiting children more than 50% of the time in their residence (73.9% Q2 2015). This is a good start to ensuring our children are safe. While increasing our compliance to 95%, we also want to beef up the interactions social workers have with their children. Some of the ways that we envision improved child engagement is building on the increased use of SOP techniques such as using solution focused interviewing questions, utilizing the “Three question” (worries, what’s working, next steps), and using the Three Houses technique when appropriate. Supervisors expressed in the CSA focus group that “Safety Organized Practice is impacting practice; three quarters of the workers are in training and staff are bringing back the technique of the 3 Houses from training, saying the benefits outweigh the time needed to complete the process with families”. As we have addressed in the CSA, Contra Costa County has a novice workforce. This workforce is primarily comprised of master’s level staff, both MSW and other degrees such as MFT. Despite high April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1039 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 34 levels of education, child welfare is a job that you learn as you go, thus utilizing solid training in CORE and Child Welfare Advances Skills and developing clear policies will help new social workers and supervisors make quality decisions. These strategies should also improve the practice in our workforce, which will in turn, improve our compliance and quality. We will implement the following strategies: Strategy 4: Improve timeliness and quality of child and family visits through the utilization of engagement strategies, by monitoring quality of visits and by tracking compliance of visits. Strategy 5: Improve child safety and increase reunification of families through consistent and quality implementation of Structured Decision Making practice. ACTION STEPS/EVALUATION Strategy 4 Improve timeliness and quality of child and family visits through the utilization of engagement strategies, by monitoring quality of visits and by tracking compliance of visits. In order to implement this strategy, we will issue a Department Memorandum regarding the compliance measure for 2F, formerly 2C. Then we will monitor our compliance through SafeMeasures on a monthly basis. Currently Division Managers review their compliance rates each month and bring them to the management team meeting (CSAT) to discuss. CSAT then will discuss this measure and compliance and make policy recommendations as needed to ensure compliance. To ensure quality visits, we will develop policy regarding utilizing child engagement strategies during home visits. We will build upon current tools and polices we have in place. For example, we have recommended interview questions for children that are given to each social worker. We will develop a workgroup to develop these recommendations and policy. Then we will develop a training plan which will include advanced training on Solution focused questions and SOP child engagement skills. We will engage our SOP Coaches to provide extra support for social workers to implement this strategy. To monitor quality visits, we will utilize our policy of Quality Contacts which dictates supervisors are to review 6 months worth of contacts at the time of every court Status Review hearing. We will add in the review of the child visits to “read” for “quality” which will include the use of the above techniques. The Quality Assurance Division will develop a set of measures to help with this case reading process. We will utilize the CQI Collaborative meeting to develop a schedule and mechanism for reporting on these case reading results. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1040 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 35 We have not utilized Case Reading as an evaluation method in Contra Costa County. Thus this will impact our work at a systemic level. The CQI Collaborative team will be used to support this systemic change as well as utilizing technical assistance from the staff at CRC, who have develop Case Reading approaches. Strategy 5 Strategy 5 will Improve child safety and increase reunification of families through consistent and quality implementation of Structured Decision Making practice. A workgroup will be convened to oversee implementation. Supervisors and Social Workers will be trained. Usage of tools will be monitored using Safe Measures and benchmarks will be tracked as recommended by the Children’s Research Center. GOAL: INCREASE TIMELY AND QUALITY COMPLETED FIRST CONTACTS WITH CHILDREN IN 10 DAY REFERRALS TO ASSURE CHILD SAFETY. PURPOSE AND RATIONALE: Child Welfare is mandated to ensure safety of children. There are two response times required in child abuse investigation referrals, immediate response (respond within 24 hours) and response within 10 days. The compliance standard in California is 90% of in person responses must be within 10 days. Division 31 regulations allows for attempted face to face contacts to count as being in compliance with this standard. Measure 2D eliminates the “attempted” contact in its methodology and only includes completed contacts. This reveals our true rate of face to face investigations. Over the past several years, we have made strides to ensure the Emergency Response staffing has been a priority. We monitor our referral caseloads on a monthly basis. With each hiring round, the management team reviews the referral statistics and ensures the staffing resources are allocated appropriately. For example, our East County Operational division, which covers the cities of Pittsburgh, Antioch, Brentwood, etc. consistently handles 45% of the total referrals countywide. As a result, we have allocated a proportionate amount of staff to East County. Of the 34 Emergency Response Staff, 16 are assigned to East County (45%). Our strategies will blend action steps that address improving timeliness as well as improving quality of those contacts. Strategy 6: Develop and implement policy and practice that ensures that children and families are seen within 10 days of the receipt of child abuse referrals. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1041 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 36 Strategy 7: Utilize the SDM Safety Assessments to ensure the accurate assessment of children’s immediate safety and develop quality and timely Safety Plans that accurately address threats to a child’s safety to remain in the family home. ACTION STEPS/EVALUATION: Strategy 6 The prior standard of including attempts as a measure of compliance has been county practice for many years. These strategies will be implemented in order to make changes to our policy and practice. The current policy will be reviewed and modified to ensure it facilitates the new standard of timeliness. Then we will develop an action plan for providing training and support to social workers and supervisors in order to implement this practice. The implementation of this strategy is a systemic change for our county. As mentioned earlier, the standard has been to consider attempted contacts as being in compliance. We will need to partner with our policy staff, staff development, supervisors and others to ensure improvement in this measure. Strategy 7 To improve quality of contacts, activities to support this strategy include the continued use of the Safety Organized Practice (SOP) approach and monitoring the use of the SDM Safety and Risk Assessment tools and the development of Safety Plans with families. As safety is a priority, the SDM Safety assessment tool and use of a Safety Plan with families will improve our staff’s quality of interaction with families. Additionally utilizing the Risk Assessment tool, the social worker can be guided in his or her decision to open a case or not with the family. We will monitor this measure by tracking our Safe Measures and WebSDM reports and review them on a monthly basis. This will entail a multilevel tracking responsibility that will include tracking by supervisors, managers, the management team, and Quality Assurance Division. Adjustments will be made as needed to ensure improvement in this measure. This may include increased staffing, training, or redistribution of resources. GOAL: IMPROVE PERMANENCY OUTCOMES BY INCREASING THE RATE AND QUALITY OF RELATIVE/NREFM PLACEMENTS. PURPOSE AND RATIONALE: Stakeholder feedback from the CSA revealed a need for more relative caregiver resources. Contra Costa has a lower percent of children in relative placements than foster home placements, FFA, and group homes. We currently have 277 children (25%) in relative Placements. In the current quarter (Q2 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1042 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 37 2015) our first entry into relatives is 24%. The purpose of this strategy is to focus on increasing relative placement options, improving the support to relatives, and overcoming any barriers in the way of arranging elative placements. Being cognizant that Continuum of Care Reform (CCR) and Resource Family Approval (RFA) will impact the landscape of placements, we want to focus our attention on ensuring that relative homes are recruited, supported and utilized for the care of our children. AB403 defines Continuum of Care as the spectrum of care settings for youth in foster care, from the least restrictive and least service-intensive to the most restrictive and most service-intensive. CCR’s goal is to reduce the current way Child Welfare uses congregate care. CCR will reduce placements in congregate care and will require more Resource families. Resource families include non-related foster families, relatives and NREFM families. Under the umbrella of CCR, the Resource Family Approval (RFA) process is being implemented in January 2017. The purpose of the Resource Family Approval Program is to implement a unified, family-friendly, and child- centered resource family approval process to replace the existing multiple processes for licensing foster family homes and approving relatives and non-relative extended family members as foster care providers, and approving families for legal guardianship or adoption. In the near future, relatives will be approved using the RFA as opposed to the Relative Approval process. RFA strives to do the following: Streamline process: It eliminates the duplication of existing processes. Unifies approval standards for all caregivers regardless of the child’s case plan. Includes a comprehensive psychosocial assessment, home environment check and training for all families, including relatives. Prepares families to better meet the needs of vulnerable children in the foster care system. Allows seamless transition to permanency. In 2014, the University of California, Berkeley conducted a descriptive study called “Outcomes and Experiences of children in Family-Based Care Settings”. This study evaluated needs of caregivers in Alameda County and Contra Costa County. Findings discussed the issues facing Contra Costa County caregivers, both kin and non-kin, and what they need to help their work with children. The top three issues were: (1) additional financial resources and/or vouchers; (2) responsive social workers; and (3) services for the child. This study found that relatives are strained financially, frustrated with the lack of communication and support from social workers, and needed easier access to services. Strategies to improve permanency outcomes by increasing the rate and quality of Relative/NREFM placements include: Strategy 8: Increase the rate of children placed with relatives and NREFM’s by improving the efficiency of the Relative Approval Emergency Placement Process. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1043 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 38 Strategy 9: Expand Relative Notification and Family Finding efforts in order to increase the pool of available quality approved relatives. Strategy 10: Improve partnerships and communication with caregivers through the efforts of the Caregiver Steering Committee. Strategy 11: Develop and implement a county-wide Specialized Care Increment (SCI) program (called Difficulty of Care in Contra Costa) to enhance support to caregivers for children with special care needs. To implement this strategy we will partner with our Caregivers, kin and non-kin, Relative Approval staff, Caregiver Liaison, Courts, and policy staff. As barriers are identified, we will identify other partners to assist with improvement in this strategy. ACTION STEPS/EVALUATION: Thus these strategies will focus on improving our work with relatives. We plan to implement a number of action steps that include: Strategy 8 To improve the Emergency placement procedures to increase first entries into relative placements we will develop and implement strategies, practice, and protocol for emergency placements with relatives before Detention hearings. We will develop a workgroup to review the existing Emergency Placement protocols in order to identify gaps and barriers to relative placements. The workgroup will develop a set of recommendations and action plan for improving this process. Strategy 9 To improve Family Finding efforts in order to widen the net to find relative placement options, we will build upon our current Family Finding and Relative Notification policies and procedures and improve how we communicate and document found family. Strategy 10 In May 2015, the CFS Director convened a Caregiver Steering Committee which is comprised of staff, relative caregivers and licensed foster parents. The purpose of this is to focus on improving the relationship between CFS and the care giving community. We will continue this committee’s work to isolate why our social workers struggle with being responsive to caregivers. We will commence a conversation about how to improve communication and develop policy and protocols to support our focus. This will support our efforts to improve the communication and responsiveness between social workers and caregivers. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1044 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 39 Strategy 11 Addressing the allocation of supportive resources such as ensuring all relatives are assessed for Difficulty of Care rates (DOC)1 enhances the ability of caregivers to meet the special needs of children in their care. Since relatives are not as savvy to the Child Welfare system, they often are not aware of the supports available to them, including financial supports. We will focus our attention on ensuring relatives have the same information and access to resources as any other non-kin caregiver. We will look to create supports such as improving how we communicate the supportive services we have. To evaluate all of the above strategies, we will monitor by tracking trends of first entries and least restrictive placements through the UC Berkeley website, SafeMeasures and our county specific Relative Approval data base. We will also monitor qualitative trends through our state Case Review process. We will look for strengths in engaging relatives, how the process is working or not, and identify practice improvements over the life of the SIP. GOAL: IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND MENTAL WELL BEING OF CHILDREN SERVED BY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES AND IMPROVE ACCESS, TIMELINESS AND QUALITY OF THESE SERVICES. PURPOSE AND RATIONALE: Foster children typically have higher rates of serious health, emotional, behavioral, and developmental problems as compared with other children with the same socio-economic background. These children have a tremendous need for access to health care services for evaluation and treatment of complex health problems. Child Welfare is charged with ensuring that its children are seen in a timely and qualitative manner and that issues of health and well-being are addressed. Our data indicates that our tracking of our health screenings has decreased. Through our evaluation in the CSA we know that we want to improve the tracking and input of data into our CWS/CMS system. Additionally, with the passage of Senate Bill 319, there is an increased role in oversight and monitoring of the use of psychotropic medication for youth in foster care. We will be endeavoring to improve our relationship with the Public Health Department to ensure that our children’s health needs as well as oversight of psychotropic medications improves within this partnership. ACTION STEPS/EVALUATION: In order to meet this goal, we will implement the following two strategies: 1 Difficulty of Care (DOC) is the Contra Costa County Specialized Care Increment Program. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1045 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 40 Strategy 12: Improve children’s health and mental health well being by evaluating and monitoring to ensure consistent tracking of Mental Health assessments, referrals and services and utilization of psychotropic medications. Strategy 13: Improve access and timeliness to medical services by improving collaboration with county public health department CHDP nurses in CWS offices, Receiving Centers and Foster Care clinics. Strategy 12 To support improvement in tracking Health and Education as well as authorizations for psychotropic medication, clerical staff will be trained in the use of CWS/CMS for entering and tracking data. CWS/CMS as well as Safe Measures and MediCal will be used to track improvement in recording relevant information. Strategy 13 Improved collaboration with County Public Health Department CHDP Nurses will begin with a revision to the Memorandum of Understanding and ongoing collaboration to enrich the support to the Social Workers though the use of dedicated public health nurses. To evaluate our improvement in these areas, we will utilize our CQI Unit to track our HEP entries, monitor the rate and number of Mental Health assessments, and develop an enhanced tracking of the medication usage rates. We have entered into a Global Data Sharing Agreement with CDSS and anticipate that our tracking and monitoring will be robust going forward. GOAL: STRENGTHEN STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION IN ORDER TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF CHILD WELFARE DISPARITY AND CULTURALLY SPECIFIC COMMUNITY SERVICES; IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE DIRECT SERVICE RESOURCES AND DELIVERY; AND IMPROVE PARTNERSHIPS ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. PURPOSE AND RATIONALE: In both the CSA and FACT Needs Assessment survey, community and parent stakeholders revealed concerns in our service array for different communities. Moving forward, we believe building our collaboration and partnership with agency partners and community stakeholders will be beneficial to address collaboration and Service Array. Although we have continued to have ongoing community collaborations which we call Community Partnership Meetings, they are regionalized. To increase the knowledge base, we will establish a broad collaboration with a wide range of public and private agencies and community based organization, including families, parents, and youth who have been involved with the Child Welfare System from all regions of the county. We will use this Collaborative to enhance our April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1046 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 41 ability to collect information on at-risk populations, target areas, assess service needs, identify gaps in services, select priorities for funding and services, formulate goals and objectives and develop opportunities for bringing more effective and accessible services for children and families. Additionally we will utilize this forum to delve further into reasons why we have disparity in our Child Welfare System. The following comment was made, “The past few years have been difficult for everyone with resources disappearing. We have seen service cuts, reduced staffing and lost community resources both in the county and non-profits. We are coming out of that period and hope to rebuild resources and staff connections. Together we have a lot of training to do. Improved child outcomes are directly related to having a healthy, well-funded system of support.” This comment is related to the fact that many contracts were cut during the recession as well as the fact that non-profits were negatively impacted by the recession with less funding opportunities outside of the county’s resources. In our CSA, social workers shared a frustration with being able to efficiently and in a timely fashion access resources and service referrals for their families. Although we have 211.org, Surviving Parenthood guide, regular Resource Blasts from our Family Engagement unit, staff still struggle with finding specialized, current and relevant services in a timely manner. We will endeavor to develop a system to bring all our resources together under the umbrella of a referral service. Strategy 14: Partner with county agencies and Community Based Organizations to develop a Stakeholder Forum to address issues facing children in Contra Costa including racial disparity and gaps in available services. Strategy 15: Ensure access to community resources and services through more effective systems for locating service providers offering appropriate services. ACTION STEPS/EVALUATION: Strategy 14 The primary action step for addressing this strategy is creating a collaborative forum to facilitate conversations about service resources, needs and gaps, as well as holding critical conversations about disparity in our system. Partners will include OCAP, county child-serving agencies (i.e. mental health, probations, etc.), Culturally-specific Community Based Organizations, Service Providers, parents, and youth. This collaboration will develop a charter, vision and goals. Deliverables may include a County action plan, ideas for partnership for funding, developing service collaborations, and the like. We will allow this group to define itself, but Child Welfare will take the lead in creating the forum, inviting the partners, and facilitating the process. We will also link this collaborative group with our current April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1047 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 42 Community Partnership meetings which are held in the three regional areas of West, East and Central County. An information dissemination mechanism will be created between the two meetings. Measuring increased collaboration is more of a qualitative process. We will use a CQI approach to monitoring our progress. Some ways we may measure change or improvement is to do pre- collaboration surveys, perhaps similar to the stakeholder survey developed in the CSA. Then on a periodic basis, re-implement surveys to measure progress. Another way to measure collaboration is tracking the collaborations that are developed, i.e. two agencies collaboration on a grant. As it relates to disparity, we will continue to monitor our CFSR outcomes, drilling down into our ethnic/racial groups. As we know, making systemic change in this area is difficult as the greater society plans a significant role in why children of color are treated differently in our system. However, we will monitor our data and identify if there are any specific action items that can be implemented to address a specific issue. 1. Broad involvement and consultation with a wide-range of appropriate public and private non-profit agencies and community-based organizations and parents, including families, parents, and youth who have been involved with or are currently receiving child welfare services. Strategy 15 In order to develop a relevant service delivery referral system, we will need to conduct research into what models are currently in use by other counties, fields, or jurisdictions. We will identify resources, including technological and staffing, to make this a robust and user friendly service for our staff and families. GOAL: DEVELOP A TRAUMA INFORMED WORKPLACE THAT ENSURES A HEALTHY AND COMPETENT WORKFORCE. PURPOSE AND RATIONALE: Current best practice supports a coordinated approach to building a responsive trauma informed system of care. According to the Sanctuary Institute (www.thesanctuaryinstitute.org), most organizations, like Child Welfare, are not equipped to manage multiple internal and external stressors, yet are charged with managing the adversity faced by the clients we serve. When an organization cannot manage this adversity, the cost to the agency includes: turnover, loss of productivity, employee satisfaction, poor communication, limited capacity to deliver high quality services and poor outcomes for children and families. As was discussed in our CSA, we have faced the challenge of recruitment and retention of social workers. We have made great strides in our recruitment and hiring process and hired approximately 67 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1048 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 43 social workers in the last year. However, we have seen the same number leave the agency, leaving us back where we started. We have a general idea what impacts our turnover and Exit interviews conducted by our agency and a survey conducted by CalSWEC2 provide further information. Issues include compensation & benefits not being adequate, lack of ability to grow, lack of supervisory support, and high caseloads. As an agency, we are very concerned about the continued turnover and the impact the work is having on our staff. In particular, we believe that if we implement a focus on creating a health workplace that provides the support staff need to handle the stressors of the work as well as learn the job skills, we may see a more competent and stable workforce. We are interested in utilizing a trauma sensitive perspective to develop our framework in this area. In its fact sheet, “Secondary Traumatic Stress: A Fact Sheet for Child -Serving Professionals”, the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (www.NCTSN.org) shares that there are several studies that show that the “development of secondary traumatic stress often predicts that the helping professional will eventually leave the field for another type of work.” They write further that up to 50% of child welfare workers are at high risk of secondary traumatic stress or the related conditions of PTSD and vicarious trauma. Over the past two years, two internal, staff led workgroups have been meeting to address issues affecting our staff. The first convened in 2015 and is called the County Culture Workgroup. This workgroup’s purpose is to look at ways to improve and create a positive CFS culture. The second workgroup, Staff Retention, convened in 2014 to come up with specific ways to retain staff. These two groups merged in mid 2015 and are now combined as County Culture/Staff Retention Workgroup. This workgroup has promoted a variety of strategies to improve retention. We will incorporate these into our SIP. Finally, we also have seen from our Exit Interviews that social workers have noted a lack of supervisory support, particularly in the area of content knowledge and support. As we continue to ride through a variety of upheaval in our offices and bring on newer and more inexperienced social workers, we want to create a flexible and comprehensive Supervisory framework. Many of our supervisors are new to their roles and will benefit from a clear way of conducting supervision which will be aimed at improving our ability to train staff on the job effectively. 2 CalSWEC Child Welfare Workforce Study: Phase 1, Report for Contra Costa County 2015. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1049 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 44 ACTION STEPS/EVALUATION: There are number of strategies that are recommended for prevention and intervention. We will deploy the three strategies below to create a cohesive approach to improving the workplace. Strategy 16: Employ trauma informed strategies to create a healthier workplace and address the secondary trauma that staff faces in their daily work. Strategy 17: Develop, prioritize, and implement staff retention strategies such as those created by the CFS County Culture/Staff Retention Workgroup. Strategy 18: Develop a more effective supervision model that addresses the needs of newly hired social workers in order to support their learning and ensure competency in their child welfare practice. Strategy 16 Activities under Strategy 16 include developing and implementing a 5 year strategy and plan to identify, define and implement strategies that will best support staff in their work with families. Subsequent activities will involve training on identified models that support addressing issues of secondary trauma and engaging staff in conversations that support their well-being and the improve the workplace environment. Strategy 17 Strategy 17 focuses on staff retention ideas being explored by the CFS County Culture/Staff Retention Workgroup and explores ways to recruit more social workers. Continued use of exit interviews to glean information about what is working and what is not will also support efforts to create a desirable work place and environment to increase retention. Strategy 18 Activities will focus on enhancing the role of supervision for efficiency and efficacy through identifying and implementing best and promising practice supervisory models and coaching and on the job training for supervisors. To evaluate these strategies, we will monitor staffing patterns including exits and leaves of absences; track Exit Interview results for improvements; conduct a follow up CalSWEC Workforce survey. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1050 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 45 PROBATION STRATEGY 1: CHANGE THE CULTURE OF THE PLACEMENT UNIT TO INCREASE FOCUS ON REUNIFICATION OR OTHER PERMANENCY OUTCOMES WITHIN 12 MONTHS. PURPOSE AND RATIONALE: One of the key findings from the recent CSA was that a change in the culture of the Placement Unit is necessary to increase the focus on timely and successful reunification. Probation will arrange with various providers, including the UC Davis Resource Center for Family Focused Practice and Bay Area Legal Aid to provide increased training to DPOs about the importance of permanency and the tasks and efforts DPOs can put forth when working with the families and youth that may reduce the period of time in care and increase the rate of reunifications and other types of permanency. As with CFS caseworkers, family engagement can be impacted because of the changes in assigned DPOs. Probation will explore strategies to assure smoother transitions for families when cases are transferred or reassigned between DPOs. Reunification is not always possible and / or in the best interest of the minor. Probation will increase the use of Family Findings and explore alternatives to congregate care for youth who will not be reunifying. ACTION STEPS: Increase training to DPOs about the importance of permanency and the options available to youth DPO to increase attempts to engage with family, relatives and non-relative extended family members Increase number of contacts and attempts to contact with parents, relatives or prospective guardians Increase use of Family Findings Explore strategies to assure smoother transitions for families when cases are transferred or reassigned between DPOs STRATEGY 2: EXPLORE WAYS TO EDUCATE PARENTS AND LEGAL GUARDIANS TO INCREASE THEIR UNDERSTANDING AND INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESS OF REHABILITATION AND REUNIFICATION. PURPOSE AND RATIONALE: The rate of reunification or other forms of permanency for probation youth can be impacted by the youth’s families. Some parents are cooperative, informed, engaged, and actively contributing in the April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1051 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 46 rehabilitation and reunification process of their child. However, for many youth, reunification and efforts to establish other types of permanency is hampered by the family. Many families lack knowledge about the juvenile justice system and do not understand what it means that their child has been declared a ward and ordered into out of home placement. These families frequently do not seek out the information they need. Some parents view Probation as an adversary; the government agency that took their child away. The animosity they harbor interferes with a productive working relationship. A disinterest by some family members in being involved in the rehabilitative process of their children is a reoccurring factor. There are parents who decide to “wash their hands” of their youth and refuse to allow them to return home. Some parents intentionally separate themselves from the process due to their frustration or disappointment with the child and their involvement in delinquent behavior. Many parents and relatives of probation youth are themselves involved in the justice system as consumers. The notion of increasing their contact with Probation and rehabilitative processes is unappealing. For some families, a lack of knowledge of the available resources in the community and the services available at their child’s placement impede their engagement in the rehabilitative process. Commonly observed is a lack of knowledge on the process to obtain services or follow through on obtaining services. Some families report a lack of financial resources, communication technology or transportation as impediments to their ability to visit their child regularly, consistently participate in family counseling sessions, or utilize community based resources. ACTION STEPS/EVALUATION DPO to increase attempts to contact and engage family, relatives and non-relative extended family members in the rehabilitative process of their children through phone calls, letters and emails, and/ or face to face meetings on a monthly basis. Probation will explore ways to educate parents and legal guardians to increase their comfort, understanding and involvement in the process of rehabilitation and reunification. Probation will look for ways to inform parents and legal guardians of the existing resources in the community and to support parents and legal guardians through referrals to providers of services for housing, employment, parenting classes, counseling and substance abuse treatment. Probation can increase support of families by monitoring whether available services are utilized and recognize that assessment of needed services is an ongoing process. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1052 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 47 STRATEGY 3: INCREASE DOCUMENTATION OF MONTHLY CONTACTS WITH YOUTH IN CWS/CMS. PURPOSE AND RATIONALE: In terms of CWS/CMS, if information, specifically monthly contacts, is not noted in the system, it is as if the monthly contact did not happen. As previously mentioned, our need for improved performance with measure 2F F2 is not with conducting the monthly visits, it is with consistently documenting the visits in CWS/CMS. Probation’s biggest barriers have been identified as a lack of competency by some staff with using CWS/CMS, an insufficient work force to perform the data entry, insufficient access to the database when staff are traveling to programs or otherwise away from the office, and a lack of oversight by the supervisor and manager due to other demands had exasperated and prolonged the inadequate performance on mandated data entry in CWS/CMS. In an effort to address some of these items, Probation has already implemented several strategies. Probation has obtained additional trainings through the UC Davis Resource Center for Family-Focused Practice for our DPOs, unit clerks, the unit supervisor and the manager, and clerks, and will continue to do so. Probation has adjusted the assigned duties of a second Probation Clerk to assist the current Placement Clerk with inputting information into CWS/CMS. We have increased accessibility to the CWS/CMS site by adding a second computer monitor to each DPO and clerk workstations. We have purchased laptops, one for each placement DPO, for their use while in the field. We added three additional DPO positions to the Placement Unit, bringing the total number of Placement DPOs from six to nine. Although one position is currently vacant, the goal is to fill the position by March 2016. Conversations about allocating another supervisor to the Placement Unit have also been initiated with Administration. Lastly, a recent reassignment of one of the other major responsibilities of the Probation Manager who oversees the Placement Unit, has allowed the manager to have more time to be dedicated to monitoring the DPOs efforts and compliance with CWS/CMS data entry. ACTION STEPS/EVALUATION Obtain additional trainings through the UC Davis Resource Center for Family-Focused Practice for our DPOs, unit clerks, the unit supervisor and the manager. Establish and maintain a fully staffed unit with fully trained DPOs. This should help create smaller caseload numbers for the DPOs and further improve their ability to input the monthly contacts, as well as other information into CWS/CMS. Management to regularly utilize Safe Measures. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1053 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 48 CHILD WELFARE/PROBATION PLACEMENT INITIATIVES There are myriad initiatives facing the State of California and Contra Costa County is involved with numerous of them. We will describe each initiative below including the extent to which Child Welfare and Probation are involved in the initiative. SAFETY ORGANIZED PRACTICE (SOP) In 2013, Child Welfare began implementation of SOP. Safety-organized practices are both practice strategies and concrete tools for "on-the-ground" child welfare workers, supervisors and managers to enhance family participation and foster equitable decision making. Safety-organized practices are child welfare approaches focused on the safety of the child within the family system. The SOP methodology is informed by a variety of best- and evidence-informed practices, including group supervision, Signs of Safety, Motivational Interviewing, and solution-focused treatment. Safety-organized practice brings a common language and framework for enhanced critical thinking and judgment on the part of all involved with a family in the pursuit of a balanced, complete picture of child welfare issues. To manage the implementation of SOP, an Advisory Group was formed and meets monthly to discuss implementation successes and challenges, as well as develop recommendations for SOP Practice. The Advisory Group developed a Dispo form that incorporates SOP elements. Safety planning and Harm and Danger statements are being worked on currently. KATIE A. PRACTICE MODEL Per the Katie A., Child Welfare and Mental Health have worked collaboratively to meet the requirements set forth by the Settlement Agreement. A Katie A Workgroup has met for several years to create a working collaboration and effective system for our children. In 2014, a new protocol was established that requires a social worker to submit a mental health referral to the mental health liaison for a child on every new and existing child welfare case. The mental health liaison meets with the social worker to discuss the child’s needs and completes a mental health screening tool (MHST). April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1054 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 49 The assessment information, including the child’s trauma history, assists mental health staff in choosing the best mental health interventions/services for the child. Behavioral Health contracts with outside In-Home Behavioral Support (IHBS) services programs to ensure expedited accessibility to IHBS services for eligible children. EXTENDED FOSTER CARE (AB 12) Extended Foster Care (AB 12 Foster Connections Act) was implemented in 2012 by Child Welfare and Probation. Contra Costa’s AB 12 workgroup, which began meeting in 2010, continues to assemble and members participate in a cross county Learning Collaborative to discuss policy, successes, challenges, and strategies with staff in neighboring counties. A desk guide is being created to guide case planning with Non-minor Dependents (NMD). Child Welfare and Probation continue to evaluate organizational alternatives that would best support NMDs. Re-entry cases are primarily focused in a specialized unit but district staff retains cases of youth who transition to NMD status. APPROVED RELATIVE CAREGIVER (ARC) PROGRAM The Approved Relative Caregiver (ARC) Funding Option Program gives counties the option to provide funding equal to the basic foster care rate to an approved relative caregiver with whom a non-federally eligible child is placed. Such a non-federally eligible child must reside in California and be a dependent or ward of the juvenile court. When a child is removed from the physical custody of a parent, federal and state laws require that preferential consideration be given to placing the child with a relative. Although placement with a relative is the preferred least restrictive placement, the funding of that placement depends upon whether the child is eligible to receive federal Foster Care. While Foster Care payments may be made to an approved relative on behalf of a federally eligible child, an approved relative who cares for a non-federally eligible child in foster care is not eligible to receive Foster Care under state law. When a non-federally eligible child is placed with an approved relative caregiver, the relative may apply for California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (Cal Works) payments on behalf of the child. The Cal Works benefits are not a per-child payment, but are based on the size of the family as a whole, and are substantially less than the Foster Care rate. CCC opted into ARC and is in the early stages of implementation. This benefit will impact both Child Welfare and Probation families. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1055 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 50 COMMERCIAL SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN/YOUTH (CSEC) SB 855 modified W&I Code 300(b) to define sexual exploitation as Sexual Abuse and require mandated child abuse reports of CSEC, investigation by Emergency Response and opening a child welfare case if required. CDSS will report to state legislature in 2017 in anticipation that this will become a required program. Contra Costa has opted into the CSEC Program. Research shows that 60-80% of CSEC youth were sexually abused and involved in child welfare. This program requires a countywide, multi-disciplinary approach to CSEC identification, data collection and multi-disciplinary (MDT) case review at macro and case levels. A CSEC Steering Committee was established and is chaired by Child Welfare and Probation. Committee members include the Juvenile Court, County Counsel, DA, PD, victim advocates, service providers, school districts, law enforcement, mental health, and public health. The Committee will develop countywide protocols for identifying and developing a system response for children vulnerable to sexual exploitation and those already being exploited. Advantages of program participation include funding for interagency collaboration, increasing outreach and services to CSEC youth, support to case manage CSEC youth, and prevention and early intervention with at-risk children. CFS is required to be the lead agency in the program to access state funding. Requirements include data tracking, screening and identification of CSEC at risk and in risk youth; MDT development (emergency, initial and ongoing): collaboration with required partners; and training for foster youth, caregivers and staff. Changes will impact the current foster youth population and will create infrastructure and improved services for the CSEC population. Bay Area Academy has provided CSEC 101 training for all social workers, social case work assistants, ILSP staff, supervisors, analysts and managers. The Permanency and Transition Unit will pilot a Screening Tool developed by West Coast Children’s Center. This tool will be used, once validated, throughout CFS. Probation staff have also been trained to CSEC awareness and plan to join the West Coast Children’s Center Pilot research project in the fall of 2015. STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING Child Welfare has been using the Comprehensive Assessment Tool but will transition to Structured Decision Making. SDM tools integrate with Safety Organized Practice (SOP) including providing behaviorally specific definitions of abuse and neglect. Other advantages: April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1056 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 51 Improved training and system support by CRC and State Improved safety for children Decrease in recurrence of abuse and re-entry into foster care Improved and early permanency planning Enhances consistency in decision-making across Operations and district offices Brings CCC in line with 56 other counties using the same Risk Assessment tool. The “Go Live” date for SDM is 12/1/15. This will be a web-based tool that can be accessed by devices in the field such as iPads. An Implementation Committee convened in June 2015 and has developed a training plan which will begin in September 2015. CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM Federal ACF Children’s Bureau Memorandum 12-07 (August 27, 2012) encouraged states to create a Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) plan within their Child Welfare programs. The purpose is to identify and analyze strengths and problems, implement and revise solutions; establish a proactive culture that supports continuous learning. CQI is grounded in mission, vision, and values and involves staff, families, and stakeholder participation. The five key CQI components are foundation and administrative structure, quality data collection, ongoing case review, analysis and dissemination of performance data, and process for feedback. Child Welfare created a CQI Division in July 2015 to develop a CQI System for CCC. CASE REVIEWS (component of CQI system) As part of the CQI System, CDSS requires all California counties to conduct ongoing case reviews. Contra Costa will be required to review 100 cases per year. State level case review data will be reported to the Federal government. CFS will use county level data to create a learning environment, track performance and outcome trends, and improve practice. Child Welfare will complete the case reviews for Probation. Advantages include: Develops a mechanism for identifying trends and best practices Creates a feedback loop for data to all levels of staff Creates a learning environment April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1057 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 52 LINKAGES “Linkages” is the term used in Contra Costa County to name the philosophy and working partnership between Cal Works, Children & Family Services (CFS), and community-based partners - Linkages is a practice, not a program. It enhances connections to agency and community services and resources that provide a network of support for the family. The purpose of Linkages includes the following: To involve family early on in the case coordination process. To streamline case plans, services, goals and timelines which will make more efficient use of time, energy, and resources. To enhance access to services for domestic violence, mental health, alcohol or other drug abuse and other barriers to self-sufficiency. To increase case plan success; higher accountability. To enhance communication. To provide post-CFS support that links families to community resources and services to meet the specific needs of the family and child(ren). Families will attend a Linkages Team Meeting with Cal Works and CFS social workers, service providers and family support to determine who will be responsible for what. The CFS and Cal Works social worker will take the agreements made at the meeting and develop their own state mandated case plan for the parent with clear communication of who is providing what service and what the parent agrees to participate in. IMPROVING SAFETY FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE RECEIVING PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATIONS The Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-34) requires State Title IV-B agencies to improve the oversight and monitoring of psychotropic medication and to include as part of their Health Care Coordination and Oversight Plan comprehensive description of protocols planned to ensure the safe and appropriate use of these medications. California law (Welfare and Institutions Code sections 369.5 and 739.5) requires juvenile court authorization prior to the administration of psychotropic medications to children and youth in foster care. The Psychotropic Medication Protocol, also referred to as the JV220 process, initiates the court authorization of psychotropic medications for dependents of the court. While this process provides a certain level of oversight of psychotropic medication use by children in foster care, additional steps are needed to ensure optimal safety and a more effective delivery of mental health services to these children in care. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1058 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 53 Data measures developed by the Psychotropic Medication Quality Improvement Project are being tested and will be made available to counties. Counties will receive information specific to the children and youth under their supervision. Additionally, de-identified, aggregate information will be made publicly available. These measures, based on the matched data, will provide information on prescribing characteristics that pose the most risk to children and youth. RESOURCE FAMILY APPROVAL (RFA) Previously referred to as Consolidated Home Study, Resource Family Approval will result in a streamlined, family friendly process for approving relatives, foster parents and adoptive parents for foster children. The process will replace existing processes, often repetitive and time consuming, to minimize moves of children in the system and avoid delays thus promoting expedited permanent placements for children. RFA coincides with Quality Parenting Initiative (QPI) goals to recruit and retain high quality caregivers to provide excellent care for children in child welfare. Contra Costa CFS is following this initiative and will be exploring impact on existing policies and practices. CALIFORNIA CHILD WELFARE CORE PRACTICE MODEL Incorporating a variety of initiatives and models such as Katie A. Core Practice Model, California Partners for Permanency Practice Model and Safety Organized Practice, the California Child Welfare Core Practice Model values align with Contra Costa values. The Children’s Services Administrative Team has discussed building a consistent encompassing approach to incorporate initiatives developed independently. CFS formed a Project Management Team Meeting many years ago to coordinate county projects, grants, and initiatives in recognition of a need for a common ground that brings everything together. Director level meetings have recently discussed collaborative approaches in the STOP, WRAP, CSEC, and ILS After Care programs. CALIFORNIA’S CHILD WELFARE CONTINUUM OF CARE REFORM Continuum of Care Reform (SB 1013, Chapter 35, Statutes of 2012) requires CDSS and stakeholder organizations to develop recommendations to revise the State’s current system, services and programs serving children and families across the continuum of foster care placement settings. The intent is to improve assessments of children and families for more informed and appropriate initial placement decisions; emphasize home-based family care placements of children and provide appropriate supports and services; change congregate care placements from long-term placements to Short-Term Residential April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1059 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 54 Treatment Centers as an intervention when children cannot safely stay in a home-based family care setting; and increase transparency and accountability for child outcomes. The plan impacts foster family agency (FFA) services and supports, national accreditation of foster care providers, satisfaction surveys and rate settings for group homes and FFAs. CCR implementation is slated for January 2017; Child Welfare is currently exploring the impact of this overarching change to resource home requirements; recruitment, approval, licensing and retention of homes; and placement decisions. Full impact will be determined when state clarification is available. Probation anticipates being impacted by CCR Reform. CDSS has added a new Bureau to manage CCR and RFA. QUALITY PARENTING INITIATIVE (QPI) The Quality Parenting Initiative (QPI) began in 2009 as a collaborative effort with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA). The goal of QPI is to ensure that every child who is removed from home by a child protection agency receives the love, nurturing, advocacy and support he or she needs for healthy development. Key to QPI is increasing the number of committed families, including kin, who can parent these children, supporting excellent practice and ensuring that every family can and does meet the child’s needs. The QPI approach relies on: 1. Team planning to model mutual respect 2. Use of branding principles to articulate expectations 3. Use of HR principles to implement the brand 4. Use of data to measure progress 5. Advisors to the project to include county and state staff, caregivers, biological parents, community partners, and private agencies. We are not sure if QPI will be adopted in CCC, but it is a promising practice we are exploring. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1060 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 55 PERFORMANCE GOALS CHILD WELFARE Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: P1 Permanency in 12 months (Entering FC) Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, what percent discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care? National Standard: ≥40.5% CSA Baseline Performance (January 2015 Report): 29.4% (11.1% lower than National Standard) Current Performance: According to the October 2015 Quarterly Data Report (Quarter 2 of 2015), Contra Costa CWS performance measure was 31.1%; this is a 1.7% improvement from baseline. This represents 434 entries to care between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014. Of these, 135 were discharged to permanency within 12 months. To meet the National Standard for this quarter, an additional 52 children would have had to exit to Permanency. Target Improvement Goal: The county will improve performance on this measure to meet the National Standard of 40.5% Performance in the companion measure, 3-P4 Re-Entry to Foster Care was 8.6% at CSA Baseline (January 2015) which exceeds the National Standard by .3%. Performance has declined below the National Standard during the past 3 quarters to 7.7% in October 2015. The number of children impacted by this measure the October 2015 quarter is 155 exits to Reunification or Guardianship within 12 months of entry to Foster Care between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013; of these 12 reentered Foster Care. In order to meet the National Standard 1 less child would have re-entered Foster Care. Contra Costa will monitor this measure with the goal of sustaining performance at the National Standard. 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Percent of Children 3-P1 Permanency in 12 Months -- Entering Foster Care Contra Costa State Ave Nat Standard Linear (Contra Costa) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1061 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 56 Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: 3-P3 Permanency in 12 months (24+ months) Of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12- month period, who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more, what percent discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the 12-month period? National Standard: ≥30.3% CSA Baseline Performance (January 2015 Report): 23.2% (7.1% lower than the National Standard) Current Performance: According to the October 2015 Quarterly Data Report (Quarter 2 of 2015), CWS performance measurement was 24.4%; this is a slight improvement from baseline performance. On July 1, 2014, 271 children in care had been in care for more than 24 months. Of these 271 children, 66 were discharged to permanency (Reunification, Guardianship, or Adoptions) between July, 2014 and June 30, 2015. In order to meet the National Standard for this quarter, an additional 17 children would have had to exit to permanency. Target Improvement Goal: Contra Costa CWS will improve performance on this measure from 23.2% to 30.3% which will meet that National Standard. 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Percent of Children 3-P3 Permanency in 12 Months -- In Care 24 Mo or Longer Contra Costa State Ave Nat Standard Linear (Contra Costa) Goal April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1062 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 57 Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: 2D Timely Response – Completed (10-Day Response Compliance) This measure reports the percent of cases in which face-to-face contact with a child occurs within the regulatory time frames in those situations in which a determination is made that the abuse or neglect allegations indicate significant danger to the child (10-day response). Contra Costa Target: ≥75.0% CSA Baseline Performance (January 2015 Report): 61.6% Current Performance: According to the October 2015 Quarterly Data Report (Quarter 2 of 2015), CWS performance in this measure was 50.2%. This is a significant drop from the January 2015 performance, down 11.4%. The state average performance was 65.7% in January and 67.0% in October. The performance rate for the October 2015 report looks at all referrals received April 1, 2015 through October 30, 2015 and calculates the percent of those that had a qualified response. Responses that are qualified include: At least one child, with a maltreatment allegation, included as a “participant;” A contact purpose type of “investigate referral;” A communication method of “in-person;” A contact status of “completed;” A contact party type of “staff person/child”; and A contact visit code for a “contact” or “visit” within 24 hours of the referral receipt date for immediate response type or within 10-days for other referrals. Of the 615 referrals determined for 10-day response during this quarter, only 309 met the above conditions for a qualified response. In order to meet the target goal 90%, 461 would have needed a qualified response, an additional 152 referrals. Target Improvement Goal: Contra Costa CWS will improve performance on this measure from 61.6% as reported in the January 2015 quarterly report to 90% for the January 2020 report. 45 55 65 75 85 95 Percent of Children 2D Timely Response -- 10 Day Contacts Completed Contra Costa State Ave Contra Costa Target Linear (Contra Costa) Goal April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1063 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 58 Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: 2F Monthly Visits (Out of Home) This measure reports the percent of months requiring an in-person contact in which that contact occurred. For each month in the 12-month period, the denominator is the number of children in care who were required to have an in-person contact, i.e., who were in an open placement episode for the full calendar month and the numerator is the number of children in the denominator who had at least one in-person contact during the month. National Standard: ≥ 95.0% CSA Baseline Performance (January 2015 Report): 88.2% Current Performance: According to the October 2015 Quarterly Data Report (Quarter 2 of 2015), CWS performance measurement was 90% compliance in monthly visits. This is an improvement of 1.8% from Baseline. To calculate compliance for this measure, the total number of months between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015 where a compliance visit was required was 9,866. 8,881 visits were completed to meet compliance and 985 were not completed to meet compliance. In order to meet the National Standard, an additional 492 compliant visits would be required for the year, an average of 41 per month. To put this in perspective by determining a monthly average, 822 visits were required, 740 were completed timely and 68 were out of compliance. The most recent monthly data for this measure indicates that during the month of June 2015, 73.9% or 694 of 774 required visits to children in placement met compliance requirements. Target Improvement Goal: Contra Costa CWS will improve performance on this measure from 89.7% to 95.0% to meet the National Standard. 75 80 85 90 95 100 Percent of Children per Year 2F Monthly Visits (Out of Home Care) Contra Costa State Ave Nat Standard Linear (Contra Costa) Goal April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1064 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 59 Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: 2F Monthly Visits In Residence (Out of Home) This measure reports the percent of months with in-person contacts in which the contact occurred in the residence of the child or youth. The denominator is the number of children in care who had at least one in-person contact during the month and the numerator is the number of children where at least one of that month’s in-person contacts was in the placement facility. National Standard: ≥50.0% CSA Baseline Performance (January 2015 Report): 64.3% Current Performance: According to the October 2015 Quarterly Data Report (Quarter 2 of 2015), 68.6% of visits that met compliance between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015 were conducted in the out of home care residence of the child. Compliant visits completed between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015 were 8, 881. Of these 6, 096 were completed in the out of home care residence of the child. This is 1,655 more visits than required to meet the National Standard. The average per month of visits completed in the residence is 508. During the month of June 2015, there were 774 children in placement; 694 or 89.7% were visited. Of those children visited, 513 or 73.9% were visited in residence. Performance for the month of June exceeded the baseline and the current month (October 2015) measurements. Target Improvement Goal: Contra Costa CWS already meets the National Standard of 50.0%; however performs below the state average at baseline of 79%. Contra Costa CWS will improve performance to 80%. 45 55 65 75 85 Percent of Children per Year 2F Monthly Visits in Residence (Out of Home Care) Contra Costa State Ave Nat Standard Linear (Contra Costa) Goal April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1065 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 60 Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: 2S Monthly Visits (In Home) This report considers each month separately, but summarizes this data for a 12-month period. For each month in the 12-month period, three numbers are determined for children receiving in-home services: The number of children receiving in-home services who were required to have an in-person contact, i.e., who received in-home services for the full calendar month; The number and percent of children in Group 1 who had at least one in-person contact during the month; and The number and percent of children in Group 2 where at least one of that month’s in-person contacts was in the child’s residence. State Standard: There is no National or State Standard for this measure; however, CDSS has indicated that the performance marker will follow Measure 2F: ≥95%. CSA Baseline Performance (January 2015 Report): 63.0% Current Performance: According to the October 2015 Quarterly Data Report (Quarter 2 of 2015), CWS performance measured 62.9%. This is well below the National Standard and the October 2015 State Average of 81.1%. The measurement is calculated for a rolling year. The total number of in home services visits required between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015 was 5,330. Of these 3,350 were completed to meet compliance. 1, 980 were not completed to meet compliance. The average number of required visits per month was 444. Of these, an average of 2790 were completed to meet compliance, 165 were not. During the month of June 2015, there were 480 children receiving in-home services. Of these 312 or 65.0% met the standards to meet compliance. Target Improvement Goal: Contra Costa CWS will improve performance on this measure from 89.7% to 95.0% to meet the State Standard. 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of Children per Year 2S Monthly Visits (In Home) Contra Costa State Ave State Standard Linear (Contra Costa) Goal April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1066 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 61 Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: 2S Monthly Visits in Residence (In Home) This report considers each month separately, but summarizes this data for a 12-month period. For each month in the 12-month period, three numbers are determined for children receiving in-home services: The number of children receiving in-home services who were required to have an in-person contact, i.e., who received in-home services for the full calendar month; The number and percent of children in Group 1 who had at least one in-person contact during the month; and The number and percent of children in Group 2 where at least one of that month’s in-person contacts was in the child’s residence. State Standard: There is no National or State Standard for this measure; however, CDSS has indicated that the marker will follow Measure 2F: ≥50%. CSA Baseline Performance (January 2015 Report): 64.4% Current Performance: According to the October 2015 Quarterly Data Report (Quarter 2 of 2015), Contra Costa’s performance is this measure was 66.1%. This is an improvement of 1.7% above Baseline. This performance meets the State Standard of 50% but is well below the State Average of 76.6%. This measure is calculated for a rolling 12 month period: 3,350 visits for children and families receiving in home services were completed to meet compliance between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015. 2,215 of these visits occurred in the residence home of the child and family. The monthly average is 279 visits meeting compliance and 184 occurring in the home. During the month of June 2015, there were 480 children receiving in-home services. Of these 312 or 65.0% met the standards to meet compliance. Of these 312, 223 or 71.5% of the visits were in the residence. This is greater than baseline and indicates improvement in performance. Target Improvement Goal: Contra Costa CWS will improve performance on this measure from 64.4% at Baseline to 80.0%. 45 55 65 75 85 Percent of Children per Year 2S Monthly Visits In Residence (In Home) Contra Costa State Ave State Standard Linear (Contra Costa) Goal April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1067 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 62 Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: 4B Least Restrictive (Entries First Placement: Relative) This measure is derived from a longitudinal database of all entries to out of home care (in care 8 days or more) during the t ime period specified and computes the percentage of children who have a first placement of "Relative" (labeled "Kin" in UCB data tables). A child’s first out of home placement with "Relatives" is drawn from the CWS/CMS variable plc_fclc and includes the following codes: Relative / NREFM Home (1421) and Tribe Specified Home (1422). (Age 0 to 17 years.) Performance Target: Standards are not set for this measure; the goal is to increase the number of first placements with relatives. Contra Costa CWS has set a target of 35.0%. CSA Baseline Performance (January 2015 Report): 27.3% Current Performance: According to the October 2015 Quarterly Data Report (Quarter 2 of 2015), 25.6% first entries to Foster Care for children served by Contra Costa Child Welfare Services were placed with relatives. Of the 508 entries to Foster Care between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015, 130 were placed with relatives. Target Improvement Goal: Contra Costa CWS will improve performance in this measure 7.7% from 27.3% to 35.0% during the SIP period. 20 25 30 35 40 Percent of First Entries in Year 4B Least Restrictive (Entries First Placement: Relative) Contra Costa State Ave Linear (Contra Costa) Goal April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1068 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 63 Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: 4B Least Restrictive (Point in Time Placement: Relative) This measure is a point in time count of all children who have an open placement episode of "Relative" in the CWS/CMS system (labeled "Kin" in UCB data tables). On the count day, children are assigned to the county in which they have an open case or referral. Children who have a substitute care provider assignment of ‘relative non-guardian’ are categorized as a "Relative" placement. (Age 0 to 20 years.) Performance Target: Standards are not set for this measure; the goal is to increase the number of point in time placements with relatives. Contra Costa has set a target of 35.0%. CSA Baseline Performance (January 2015 Report): 24.9% Current Performance: According to the October 2015 Quarterly Data Report (Quarter 2 of 2015), 25.0% of children in placement on July 1, 2015 were placed with relatives. Of the 1,107 children in placement at this time, 277 of them were placed with a relative. 35% of children in placement on July 1, 2015 are 387; to reach the target in the October quarter, an additional 110 children would have had to be placed with relatives. Target Improvement Goal: Contra Costa CWS will improve performance on this measure from 24.9% to 35.0% during the SIP period. 20 25 30 35 40 Percent of Point in Time Placements 4B Least Restrictive (Entires First Placement: Relative) Contra Costa State Ave Linear (Contra Costa) Goal April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1069 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 64 Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: 5B (1 & 2) RATE OF TIMELY HEALTH AND DENTAL EXAMS This report provides the percentage of children meeting the schedule for Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) and Division 31 medical and dental exams. Per California Code of Regulations: "Persons will be considered overdue for an assessment on the first day he or she enters a new age period without assessment having been performed in the previous age period." Minors must have a medical and/or dental exam by the end of their age period; for example, a child must receive one exam while two-years-old. Division 31 counts a child as out of compliance when the child leaves an age period without an exam. The child’s age is calculated at the end of the quarter. Performance Target: Standards are not set for this measure. Contra Costa CWS is setting a goal to increase the percent of children and are recorded as receiving timely medical exams from 75.4% to 90.0% and to increase the percent of children who receive and are recorded as receiving dental exams from 51.3% to 75.0%. CSA Baseline Performance (January 2015 Report): 75.4% for Health Exams and 51.3 for Dental Exams Current Performance: According to the October 2015 Quarterly Data Report (Quarter 2 of 2015), 75.4% of children received timely health exams and 51.3% received timely dental exams. Target Improvement Goal: Contra Costa CWS is setting a goal to increase the percent of children and are recorded as receiving timely medical exams from 75.4% to 90.0% and to increase the percent of children who receive and are recorded as receiving dental exams from 51.3% to 75.0% by the end of the SIP period. 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of Timely Exams 5B Timely Health and Dental Exams Received timely health exam Received timely dental exam Linear (Received timely health exam) Linear (Received timely dental exam) Goal April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1070 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 65 Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: 5F AUTHORIZATION FOR PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION This report provides the percentage of children in placement episodes with a court order or parental consent that authorizes the child to receive psychotropic medication. Children are counted when the Health and Education Passport reflects: Performance Target: Standards are not set for this measure. Contra Costa CWS is setting a goal to improve the process for tracking children referred for psychotropic medication. CSA Baseline Performance (January 2015 Report): 7.4% children are recorded as authorized for psychotropic medication. Current Performance: According to the October 2015 Quarterly Data Report (Quarter 2 of 2015), 7.6% of children are recorded as authorized for psychotropic medication. The percent of children recorded as authorized in quarters in 2012 through April 2014 was in the 9% range. Target Improvement Goal: Contra Costa CWS is setting a goal to improve the accuracy of tracking children authorized to receive psychotropic medication through the reengagement of Public Health Nurse collaboration and examination and monitoring of the referral and tracking process, 0 5 10 15 20 25 Percent of Children 5F Children Authorized for Psychotropic Medication Contra Costa State Ave Linear (State Ave) Goal April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1071 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 66 Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION This is a Systemic Factor that Contra Costa chooses to address. Improvement in collaboration with Stakeholders includes the following actions: Enhance and enrich collaboration with agency partners and community providers by re-establishing a Systems of Care approach and team. Create a forum for conversations about disparity and disproportionality. Address prevention and intervention needs with community providers; this includes available services, gaps in services, access to available services, and promoting use of available services. CSA Baseline Performance: We will establish a baseline for this measure through conducting a Collaboration Satisfaction survey with the Collaboration stakeholder group. We will conduct annual surveys to measure improvements or decreases in satisfaction. Performance Targets: Hold bi-annual stakeholder meetings. Develop and complete deliverables (including developing charter, goals, etc.) Conduct Service Needs assessment and prioritize funding and service needs for OCAP funds. Creating a forum for conversations about disparity and disproportionality and identify disparity goals on which to focus. Target Improvement Goal: Increase in collaborative opportunities. Improved satisfaction with collaboration between stakeholders and agency. OCAP funding will align with identified needs from FACT and Collaboration surveys. Increase in opportunities for disparity conversations thus improvement in selected disparity goals. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1072 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 67 Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: DEVELOP A HEALTHY AND COMPETENT WORKFORCE In order to develop a healthy and competent workforce, we will work on three main strategies: trauma informed paradigm, supervisor framework, and staff retention action steps. In order to measure change, we will employ an evaluation approach that will encompass multiple domains from job satisfaction, to job training and support, to commitment to the agency. Since we have already established a baseline from the CalSWEC Workforce Study in 2015, we will use that as our main evaluation methodology. CSA Baseline Performance: We will utilize the CalSWEC Workforce study as our baseline for comparison and tracking of change. This study surveyed 192 staff. Performance Targets: We will measure change in the following areas: 1. Satisfaction 2. Commitment to Child Welfare 3. Commitment to Agency 4. Satisfaction with Supervisor 5. Staffing Agency 6. Training 7. Growth 8. Personal Efficacy 9. Influence 10. Adaptability 11. Mission 12. Cohesion 13. Autonomy 14. Communications 15. Personal Stress 16. Burnout 17. Organizational Change Ability 18. Leadership 19. Focus on Outcomes 20. Reflective Dialogue 21. Unit 22. Field Education 23. Common Core Training Target Improvement Goal: We will strive to improve all of these domains below with a particular focus on job satisfaction, personal stress and burnout, satisfaction with supervisor, and commitment to the agency. The following is a comparison of the domains above between supervisors and line workers. We will work to improve these areas. Note: Factors are made up of individual items to which staff responded on a scale from 1(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). % Agree include responses of 4 & 5 on the scale and % Disagree include responses of 1 & 2 on the scale. Higher means and more agreement indicate more favorable attitudes. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1073 Contra Costa County - Child and Family Services Review Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 68 3.99 4.17 3.44 3.43 4.23 4.27 4.08 3.43 3.25 2.42 3.48 3.79 3.37 3.77 3.30 3.60 3.89 3.03 3.00 3.99 3.45 3.74 3.24 2.83 2.90 2.98 3.37 3.05 3.36 3.07 Supes (N =31) Line worker (N = 126) April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1074 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 69 PROBATION Priority Outcome Measure or Systemic Factor: 3-P1 Permanency in 12 months (Entering FC) Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, what percent discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care? National Standard: ≥40.5 CSA Baseline Performance (January 2015 Report): For the time period of July 1, to December 31, 2013, of the 80 probation youth entering foster care, 12 youth (15.0%) reunified in less than 12 months. Current Performance: According to the October 2015 Quarterly Data Report (Quarter 2 of 2015) 5 of the 104 probation youth (4.8%) who entered foster care in a 12 month period were discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Target Improvement Goal: Contra Costa Probation will improve performance on this measure from 15.0% by 15.0% to 30.0%, resulting in approximately 26 to 31 children exiting to permanency. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percent of Children Probation 3-P1 Permanency in 12 Months -- Entering Foster Care Contra Costa State Ave Nat Standard Linear (Contra Costa) GoalGoal April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1075 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 70 APPENDIX 1: FIVE YEAR SIP CHART CHILD WELFARE GOAL: STRENGTHEN QUALITY CASE PLANNING AND FAMILY TEAMING TO IMPROVE TIMELY FAMILY REUNIFICATION. CWS STRATEGY 1: Strengthen quality case planning through the utilization of the SDM Family Needs and Strengths Assessment (FSNA tool) to inform and to collaboratively identify critical family needs that should be addressed in the case plan. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): P1 P3 Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project. Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Train social workers and supervisors to use Family Strengths and Needs Assessment (FSNA) tool. January 2016 Ongoing Staff Development B. Utilize coaching through the Bay Area Academy Training to support the Transfer of Learning for Supervisors and social workers. This coaching will instruct them in how to link the tool to the case plan development. January 2016 Ongoing Staff Development C. Train Supervisors to learn the supervisory responsibilities for SDM practice via the Children’s Resource Center’s SDM Advanced training. Supervisors will learn how to support worker’s effectiveness in conducting assessments related to the FSNA, Family Reunification Risk Assessments and other SDM assessments. They will also learn how to utilize the case reading tools associated with their unit assignments to ensure quality documentation February – May 2016 Provided Annually and on an ongoing basis Staff Development April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1076 71 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan and casework D. The SDM Quality Implementation workgroup will develop Case Reading protocols and standards for supervisors in order to ensure and monitor quality case plans. June 2016 ongoing SDM Quality Implementation Workgroup E. Implement Case Reading Protocols and monitor results. Make adjustments to the protocols as needed (i.e. more coaching, focused support to specific units, etc.) January 2017 Ongoing/quarterly Quality Assurance Division F. Track SDM Reunification Risk Assessment tool usage and monitor Safety and Re-entry measures. March 2016 Ongoing/quarterly Quality Assurance CWS STRATEGY 2: Improve family teaming through the increased usage of Team Decision Making meetings that use strength based collaborative strategies such as the Safety Organized Practice framework. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): P1 P3 Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Update TDM meetings to incorporate SOP framework into TDM meetings including use of mapping techniques. July 2016 December 2020 TDM Unit B. Pilot new TDM/SOP meetings. February 2017 July 2017 TDM Unit & Workgroup C. Evaluate Pilot and make adjustments to model. August 2017 Ongoing Quality Assurance TDM/SOP Workgroup D. Update TDM policy May 2017 October 2017 Policy Division April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1077 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 72 E. Train staff and TDM facilitators to new TDM/SOP model October 2017 December 2017 Staff Development F. Launch new TDM/SOP model January 2018 Ongoing TDM Unit G. Establish baseline for average number of TDM meetings and subsequently track rate of TDM/SOP meetings thereafter. February 2017 Ongoing/monthly TDM Unit Quality Assurance H. Track SDM Reunification Risk Assessment tool usage and monitor Safety and Re-entry measures. March 2016 Ongoing/quarterly Quality Assurance CWS STRATEGY 3: Improve family engagement by expanding and incorporating the strategies of Safety Organized Practice framework into the casework of Social Workers. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): P1 P3 Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Continue to provide regular and consistent SOP Overview training and all training modules for all Social Workers and Supervisors. January 2016 Ongoing Staff Development SOP Advisory Group B. Provide SOP Coaching on a regular basis to ensure transfer of learning and competency in the SOP skills. January 2016 June 2017 Staff Development SOP Advisory Group C. Conduct survey with staff regarding SOP knowledge and satisfaction rates to determine level of implementation and direct future training needs. June 2016 December 2017 Quality Assurance April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1078 73 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan GOAL: ASSURE CHILD SAFETY AND INFORM PERMANENCY PLANNING THROUGH IMPROVEMENT IN FREQUENCY, TIMELINESS, AND QUALITY OF SOCIAL WORKER VISITS. CWS STRATEGY 4: Improve timeliness and quality of child and family visits through the utilization of engagement strategies, by monitoring quality of visits and tracking compliance of visits CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): P1 P3 2F 2S Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Convene a workgroup to a vision and create best practice standards for strength-based child engagement interview techniques, home visiting practices, and the use of SOP tools during child and family interactions. Workgroup will review and consider current policies. March 2016 October 2016 Quality Assurance Division SOP Advisory Group B. Workgroup will develop recommendations for training and policy. October 2016 December 2016 Quality Assurance Division Home Visit Workgroup C. Develop and publish best practice Child Engagement & Home Visit policy and protocols. January 2017 March 2017 Policy Division D. Train staff to updated Child Engagement and Home Visit policy. March 2017 July 2017 Staff Development E. Arrange for coaching opportunities for using SOP tools or other practice strategies that enhance home visiting practice. March 2017 Ongoing as needed Staff Development April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1079 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 74 F. Develop Case Reading protocols and standards for supervisors in order to monitor quality home visits including engagement with children and families. January 2017 March 2017 Quality Assurance Division G. Implement Case Reading Protocols and monitor results of child and family engagement on a quarterly basis. April 2017 Ongoing/quarterly Quality Assurance Division H. Issue policy to set expectations and standards for 2F and 2S compliance rates. February 2016 February 2016 Policy Division I. Supervisors will track and report compliance of 2F and 2S on a monthly basis with social workers and Division Manager. January 2016 Ongoing/monthly Operational & Permanency & Transition Division Managers J. Division Managers will report and discuss compliance rates on a monthly basis at CSAT. CSAT will review and make adjustments to policy, monitoring, or resources as needed. February 2016 Ongoing/monthly Operational & Permanency & Transition Division Managers April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1080 75 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan CWS STRATEGY 5: Improve child safety and increase reunification of families through consistent and quality implementation of the Structured Decision Making practice. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): P1 P3 2D 2F 2S Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Commence SDM Quality Implementation workgroup to oversee early implementation of SDM. January 2016 Ongoing Quality Assurance B. Train social workers to Children’s Research Center’s (CRC) recommended training for SDM. January 2016 Ongoing Staff Development C. Train supervisors to SDM Advanced training and provide ongoing coaching. January 2016 Ongoing Staff Development D. Implement SDM Target Benchmarks as recommended by CRC and monitor. January 2016 Ongoing Quality Assurance E. Track tool usage in Safe Measures and WebSDM; report usage rates to CSAT. March 2016 Ongoing/quarterly Quality Assurance F. Conduct Post-implementation Survey with staff to measure change in knowledge and SDM skills. July 2016 Ongoing annually Quality Assurance April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1081 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 76 GOAL: INCREASE TIMELY AND QUALITY COMPLETED FIRST CONTACTS WITH CHILDREN IN 10 DAY REFERRALS TO ASSURE CHILD SAFETY. CWS STRATEGY 6: Develop and implement policy and practice that ensures that children and families are seen within 10 days of the receipt of child abuse referrals. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): 2D Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Convene workgroup to review existing policy and make recommendations to improve compliance in timely completed contacts for 10 day referrals. March 2016 May 2016 Operations B. Write policy. May 2016 July 2016 Policy Division C. C. Train staff to new policy and procedures. August 2016 September 2016 Staff Development D. Track measure 2D and report compliance to CQI Collaborative meeting and CSAT. October 2016 Ongoing/quarterly Quality Assurance Division April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1082 77 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan CWS STRATEGY 7: Utilize the SDM Safety Assessment to ensure the accurate assessment of children’s immediate safety and develop quality and timely Safety Plans that accurately address threats to a child’s safety to remain in the family home. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): P1 Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Train Emergency Response workers regarding the use of SDM Safety Assessment tools and Safety Plans. January 2016 Ongoing Staff Development B. Provide coaching regarding the writing of SDM Safety Plans with Emergency Response units. March 2016 Ongoing Staff Development C. Develop best practice protocols for when a safety plan is to be used and how to practice with a family. February 2016 Ongoing SDM Quality Implementation Team D. Emergency Response Supervisors to read, monitor, adjust and approve all Safety Plans. March 2016 Ongoing District Operational Managers E. Track SDM Safety Plans where Safety Plans are warranted to ensure children are safe in the home. March 2016 Ongoing/quarterly Quality Assurance Division F. Conduct random case reviews of safety plans. Report results and make adjustments as needed. July 2016 Ongoing/semi-annual Quality Assurance Division April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1083 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 78 GOAL: IMPROVE PERMANENCY OUTCOMES BY INCREASING THE RATE AND QUALITY OF RELATIVE/NREFM PLACEMENTS. CWS STRATEGY 8: Increase the rate of children placed with relatives and NREFMs and by improving the efficiency of the Emergency Placement Process. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): P1 P3 4B Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Revise current Emergency Placement process & protocols with Relatives. July 2016 Ongoing May 2016 Policy Division B. Revise policy as needed after implementation of the Resource Family Approval process in January 2017. February 2017 ongoing Policy Division C. Train staff to new policy and procedures. May 2017 ongoing Staff Development D. Monitor Outcomes (4B) for improvement on a quarterly basis. October 2016 Ongoing/quarterly Quality Assurance Division April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1084 79 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan CWS STRATEGY 9: Expand Relative Notification and Family Finding efforts in order to increase the pool of available and quality approved relatives. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): P1 P3 4B Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Review Relative Notification and Family Finding processes and policies; analyze what is working well and identify the gaps. March 2017 June 2017 Resource Division B. Develop enhanced Family Finding and Relative Notification policies and procedures June 2017 September 2017 Policy Division C. Implement policy. October 2017 October 2017 Policy Division D. Train Staff to new procedures. October 2017 Ongoing Staff Development E. Track and report Family Finding related statistics to CSAT on a quarterly basis. October 2017 Ongoing/quarterly Quality Assurance Division Relative Approval/Family Finding Supervisor April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1085 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 80 CWS STRATEGY 10: Improve partnerships and communication with caregivers through the efforts of the Caregiver Steering Committee. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): P3 4B Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. A. Create a subcommittee from the Caregiver Steering committee to address the communication challenges between social workers and caregivers. June 2016 July 2016 Caregiver Steering Committee Resource Division B. B. Caregiver Communication Subcommittee will identify barriers and develop policy recommendations to improve communication. September 2016 February 2017 Caregiver Steering Committee Resource Division C. C. Write policy regarding communication standards. February 2017 April 2017 Policy Division D. D. Train staff to new communication policy. May 2017 July 2017 Staff Development E. E. Track complaints related to communication between caregivers and social workers and report to Resource Division. August 2017 Ongoing/monthly Caregiver Liaison April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1086 81 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan CWS STRATEGY 11: Develop and implement a county-wide Specialized Care Increment (SCI) program (called Difficulty of Care in Contra Costa) to enhance support to caregivers for children with special care needs. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): P3 4B Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Create a centralized DOC program to ensure all relatives and foster parents are equally knowledgeable of their resources and evaluated for enhanced stipends. June 2016 December 2016 Quality Assurance Division Centralized SCA/DOC Supervisor B. Write DOC policy and procedures. January 2017 March 2017 Policy C. Implement centralized DOC program. April 2017 Ongoing Centralized SCA/DOC Supervisor D. Track the number of relatives assessed for DOC and rate of those who are awarded enhanced foster funding. Report to CSAT on a quarterly basis. April 2017 Ongoing/quarterly Quality Assurance Division E. Partner with the Caregiver Liaison and Kinship Centers to identify all the resources available for relatives and develop a communication strategy to disseminate this information. June 2016 December 2016 Caregiver Liaison Kinship Center Contract Monitor DOC Supervisor F. Disseminate this resource information to relatives on an ongoing basis. January 2017 Ongoing Caregiver Liaison Kinship Center Contract Monitor DOC Supervisor April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1087 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 82 GOAL: IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN SERVED BY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES AND IMPROVE ACCESS, TIMELINESS AND QUALITY OF THESE SERVICES. CWS STRATEGY 12: Improve children’s health and mental health well-being by evaluating and monitoring to ensure consistent tracking of mental heath assessments, referrals and services and utilization of psychotropic medications. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): Systemic Factors: 5B 5F Child Well Being Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Improve data entry of medical and dental information entered into the Health and Education Passport (HEP). Monitor data through Safe Measures on a consistent basis. April 2016 Ongoing/quarterly Quality Assurance B. Train HEP clerks and staff to the HEP entry policy on an annual basis to refresh on the basics of HEP entry and focus on any identified areas of improvement. August 2016 Ongoing/Annually Staff Development C. Plan and develop an improved tracking system of psychotropic medications. February 2016 Ongoing Quality Assurance D. Monitor Psychotropic medication data, utilizing SafeMeasures and MediCal data reports from the Global Sharing Agreement. January 2016 Ongoing Quality Assurance April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1088 83 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan CWS STRATEGY 13: Improve access and timeliness to medical services, improving collaboration with County Public Health Department CHDP Nurses in CWS offices, Receiving Centers and Foster Care Clinics. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): Systemic Factors: 5B 5F Child Well Being Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Improve collaboration and partnership with Public Health to ensure the health needs of children in foster care are being met. January 2016 Ongoing Quality Assurance B. Revise and implement a Memorandum of Understanding between CFS and Public Health to ensure the needs of foster children are being met per statute. July 2016 Ongoing Quality Assurance C. Enhance psychotropic medication monitoring, education of foster youth and caregivers through the use of dedicated public health nurses. July 2016 Ongoing Quality Assurance D. Educate foster youth regarding the side effects and benefits of psychotropic medications through the use of communication materials (flyers, FAQs, training, conversations with nurses, etc.) August 2016 Ongoing Policy Division Operational & Permanency and Transition Divisions April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1089 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 84 GOAL: STRENGTHEN STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION IN ORDER TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF DISPARITY AND CULTURALLY SPECIFIC COMMUNITY SERVICES; IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE DIRECT SERVICE RESOURCES AND DELIVERY; AND IMPROVE PARTNERSHIPS ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. CWS STRATEGY 14: Partner with Agency Partners and Community Based Organizations to develop a Stakeholder forum to address issues facing children in Contra Costa County including issues of racial disparity and gaps in available services. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): Systemic Factors: Stakeholder Collaboration Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. A. Convene CCC Community Stakeholder Alliance (placeholder name) that includes a broad range of agency partners and community stakeholders to address issues of disparity, develop future prevention plans, and identify service resources, and support implementation of new initiatives related to disparity and resources. January 2017 Ongoing OCAP Liaison Quality Assurance Division B. B. Develop a structure, vision, charter, and goals. Identify deliverables, dissemination mechanisms and communication structure to include intersection with currently standing Community Partnership Meetings. January 2017 April 2017 OCAP Liaison Quality Assurance Division C. Create and implement a satisfaction survey to measure levels of partnership and services at annual intervals. March 2017 Ongoing/annually Quality Assurance Division D. Monitor deliverables set forth by the collaboration April 2017 Ongoing/quarterly Quality Assurance Division E. Monitor and track disparity trends for children in foster care. January 2016 Ongoing/quarterly Quality Assurance Division April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1090 85 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan F. Identify Community Needs and determine service funding priorities in anticipation of the next RFP Prevention funding cycle. October 2017 Ongoing OCAP Liaison Quality Assurance Division G. Develop and release RFP/RFI for PSSF/SFP/CBCAP/CAPIT funds. Include findings from annual FACT Committee Needs Assessment. January 2018 May 2018 OCAP Liaison H. Contract with selected Service Providers. June 2018 July 2018 OCAP Liaison I. Monitor contracts and report evaluation findings to the CCC Community Stakeholder Alliance. June 2019 – December 2020 Ongoing/annually OCAP Liaison Quality Assurance Division April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1091 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 86 CWS STRATEGY 15: Ensure access to community resources and services through a more effective system for staff and families. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): P1 Systemic Factors: Stakeholder Collaboration Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Research innovative ways to track, house, and disseminate resources to staff and families. January 2018 July 2018 Quality Assurance Resource Division B. Develop system concept including resources needed (technology, staff, etc.) August 2018 December 2018 Quality Assurance Resource Division C. Identify funding resources to support concept. August 2018 December 2018 Quality Assurance Resource Division D. Create work plan to create and implement new system. January 2019 Ongoing Quality Assurance Resource Division April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1092 87 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan GOAL: DEVELOP A TRAUMA INFORMED WORKPLACE THAT ENSURES A HEALTHY AND COMPETENT WORKFORCE. CWS STRATEGY 16: Employ trauma informed strategies to create a healthier workplace and address the secondary trauma that staff faces in their daily work. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): Systemic Factors: Healthy Workforce Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Develop and implement a 5 year strategic plan to address ways to incorporate trauma informed strategies. Consider utilizing external resources such as the Sanctuary Institute for technical assistance. March 2016 Ongoing Quality Assurance Staff Development B. Provide awareness training to staff regarding the phenomenon of secondary trauma, how to identify it and how to manage the trauma. January 2017 Ongoing Staff Development C. Engage staff in dialogue regarding secondary trauma and its effects in focus groups, unit meetings, and other forums to identify and prioritize the top needs staff have. January 2017 Ongoing Staff Development April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1093 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 88 CWS STRATEGY 17: Develop, prioritize, and implement staff retention strategies such as those created by the CFS County Culture/Staff Retention Workgroup. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): Systemic Factors: Healthy Workforce Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. To improve new staff satisfaction, develop a standardized approach to new staff introductions to their new office, such as meet and greets, etc. June/July 2016 Ongoing District Operations Staff Development Staff Retention Workgroup B. To increase numbers of interviewees who accept positions with the agency, provide a tour of the building and an opportunity for the interviewee to talk with a veteran staff person to provide answers to questions they may have about the agency. August 2016 Ongoing Staff Retention Workgroup Staff Development C. Develop strategies for ways that offices can create an inviting and support work atmosphere for employees. Strategies may include developing Social Committees, holding regular staff meetings, and fun activities for staff to be recognized and appreciated. March 2016 Ongoing Staff Retention Workgroup D. Explore ways to recruit more social workers to the agency, considering ways to recruit from colleges and provide orientations to child welfare. March 2017 Ongoing Staff Retention Workgroup E. Continue to conduct employee exit interviews and track trends and results to inform future retention strategies. January 2016 Ongoing Quality Assurance April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1094 89 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan CWS STRATEGY 18: Develop a more effective supervision model that addresses the needs of newly hired social workers in order to support their learning and ensure competency in their child welfare practice. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): Systemic Factors: Healthy Workforce Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Research and explore supervision models and frameworks and select a model or components of a model to implement. July 2016 Ongoing Quality Assurance Staff Development B. Select supervision model and develop expectations and standards for the model. September 2016 November 2016 CSAT management team C. Develop a timeline and strategic plan which includes measures for evaluation and implementation steps. September 2016 Ongoing Quality Assurance Staff Development D. Train supervisors to supervision model. January 2017 Ongoing Staff Development E. Provide coaching and/or on the job training to the supervision model. January 2017 Ongoing Staff Development April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1095 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 90 PROBATION PROBATION STRATEGY 1: Change the culture of the Placement Unit to increase the focus on reunification or other permanency outcome within 12 months CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): P1 Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Contact resources in county and in state for information on topic specific training opportunities for staff. Assign staff to attend and participate in training January 2016 June 2016 Training Unit Supervisor B. Educate and train DPOs to increase the quality and frequency of contacts with family, relatives and non-relative extended family members through phone calls, letters and emails, and/ or face to face meetings on a monthly basis January 2016 June 2016 Placement Unit Supervisor & Manager C. In-house training of placement staff on the use of the Family Findings protocol. Increased use of Family Findings protocol and quicker implementation of the protocol in placement cases January 2016 June 2016 Placement Unit Supervisor & Manager D. Probation will explore and test strategies to assure smoother transitions for families when cases are transferred or reassigned between DPOs July 2016 December 2016 Placement Unit Supervisor & Manager April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1096 91 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan E. Evaluate results: For each placement youth conduct individual case conferences with the assigned DPO prior to each placement review hearing to determine efforts of DPO January 2016 Ongoing Placement Unit Supervisor PROBATION STRATEGY 2: Explore ways to educate parents and legal guardians to increase their understanding and involvement in the process of rehabilitation and reunification. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): P1 Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. A. DPO to increase attempts to contact and engage family, relatives and non-relative extended family members in the rehabilitative process of their children through phone calls, letters and emails, and/ or face to face meetings on a monthly basis June 2016 Ongoing Placement DPOs B. B. Probation will look for ways to inform parents and legal guardians of the existing resources in the community January 2016 March 2016 Placement DPOs C. Probation will support parents and legal guardians through referrals to providers of services for housing, employment, parenting classes, counseling and substance abuse treatment. January 2016 Ongoing Placement DPOs D. Provide assistance to youth and families with transportation barriers through financial assistance via STOP funds January 2016 Ongoing Placement DPOs April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1097 Contra Costa County - 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 92 A. Evaluate results: Review case notes and placement review reports prepared for court hearings for activities and efforts put forth by DPOs and families that support reunification or other permanency January 2016 Ongoing Placement Unit Supervisor PROBATION STRATEGY 3: Increase documentation of monthly contacts with youth in CWS/CMS. CAPIT CBCAP PSSF N/A Applicable Outcome Measure(s) and/or Systemic Factor(s): F2 Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Capped Allocation Project Action Steps: Implementation Date: Completion Date: Person Responsible: A. Arrange for additional trainings on CWS/CMS for our DPOs, unit clerks, the unit supervisor and the manager, and clerks January 2016 June 2016 Placement Unit Manager B. Maintain a fully staffed placement Unit March 2016 Ongoing Placement Unit Manager C. Use Safe Measure to identify specific cases that are lacking data entry January 2016 Ongoing Placement Unit Manager D. Use reports obtained from Safe Measures to inform and guide staff’s efforts in data entry January 2016 Ongoing Placement Unit Supervisor E. Evaluate results: Use of Safe Measures to monitor progress towards meeting the standard for measure F2 January 2016 Ongoing Placement Unit Manager April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1098 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 93 APPENDIX 2: CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF PROGRAM AND EVALUATION DESCRIPTIONS CROSSROADS HIGH SCHOOL Line 1 on Expenditure Workbook SERVICE PROVIDER Mt. Diablo Unified School District PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The program provides supportive services to pregnant and parenting teen mothers and their children ages one month to three years of age at the Crossroads High School campus. Extended family members, often including teen fathers, are encouraged to participate in support services as well. Programs and services include: a high school diploma program, child care, parenting education, mental health counseling, maternal and reproductive health services, and college and career counseling in a safe and supportive environment. FUNDING SOURCES SOURCE LIST FUNDED ACTIVITIES CAPIT Child care; mental health counseling; peer support CBCAP Early, comprehensive support for new teen parents; development of parenting skills PSSF Family Preservation PSSF Family Support PSSF Time-Limited Family Reunification PSSF Adoption Promotion and Support OTHER Source(s): (Specify) IDENTIFY PRIORITY NEED OUTLINED IN CSA Support to parenting and pregnant teens (CSA, pages 32, 57) TARGET POPULATION Pregnant and parenting teens; at risk youth and their families. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1099 94 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan TARGET GEOGRAPHIC AREA Countywide. TIMELINE July 2015 through June 2017 with an RFP in the spring of 2017. Services likely to continue throughout the SIP period. EVALUATION PROGRAM OUTCOME(S) AND MEASUREMENT & QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) MONITORING Desired Outcome Indicator Source of Measure Frequency Increased knowledge of parents’ role in child development including growth in the child’s communication, gross/fine motor skills, and problem solving and personal-social skills. 85% of parents show increase in active engagement with child. Individual Interviews, Progress Reports, Participation counts monitored by county Quarterly Increased confidence and self esteem, including empowerment to share knowledge with peers. 85% of parents show increase in socialization and access to formal and informal resources available. Individual Interviews, Progress Reports Quarterly CLIENT SATISFACTION Method or Tool Frequency Utilization Action Individual Interviews Quarterly Progress on individual needs and goals reviewed with each student in person Reviewed by Principal, Monitored by county on bi-annual site visits April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1100 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 95 THE CHILDREN’S RECOVERY AND FAMILY EDUCATION PROJECT Line 2 on Expenditure Workbook SERVICE PROVIDER Ujima Family Recovery Services PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The project promotes healthier patterns of behavior by providing supportive services to children ages 6 to 16 that are affected by parental substance abuse issues, and services to their families, including foster and kinship families. The program uses a family-centered, counseling-integrated approach to stabilize families by addressing co-occurring family violence issues, dating/peer violence and the effects of bullying, raise awareness of the effects of addiction and family violence on children and break the generational cycles of violence and substance abuse. FUNDING SOURCES SOURCE LIST FUNDED ACTIVITIES CAPIT Parent education and support, domestic violence services, counseling services, behavioral and mental health services CBCAP PSSF Family Preservation PSSF Family Support PSSF Time-Limited Family Reunification PSSF Adoption Promotion and Support OTHER Source(s): County Children’s Trust Raising awareness of the effects of addiction IDENTIFY PRIORITY NEED OUTLINED IN CSA Domestic violence, alcohol and other drug recovery. (CSA pages 11 ,43, 252) TARGET POPULATION Children who are high risk, minority populations. TARGET GEOGRAPHIC AREA Countywide. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1101 96 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan TIMELINE July 2015 through June 2017 with an RFP in the spring of 2017. Services likely to continue throughout the SIP period. EVALUATION PROGRAM OUTCOME(S) AND MEASUREMENT & QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) MONITORING Desired Outcome Indicator Source of Measure Frequency Build resilience in children with substance abusing parents by addressing co-occurring family violence issues, dating/peer violence and the effects of bullying. Education and support to children. 85% of the children of alcoholics/addicts who are in Kids’ Groups will receive age-appropriate alcohol and drug education and recovery support in order to sufficiently intervene and diminish the impact of parental substance abuse and violence in their lives. Pre and post surveys and interviews. At program entry and exit. Work with family members to reduce violence in the home and their lives by increasing their awareness of the effects of addiction and violence on children. 85% of the family members who have completed a monthly Family Violence Prevention workshop will show measurable improvement in understanding the effects of addiction and violence on children. Pre and post surveys and interviews. At program entry and exit. CLIENT SATISFACTION Method or Tool Frequency Utilization Action Kidpower curriculum survey Pre and post Surveys reviewed and discussed in counseling or group sessions Concept reinforcement, goal setting April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1102 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 97 Expect Respect curriculum survey Pre and post Surveys reviewed and discussed in counseling or group sessions Concept reinforcement, goal setting April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1103 98 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan ARC (ATTACHMENT, SELF-REGULATION AND COMPETENCY) PROJECT Line 3 on Expenditure Workbook SERVICE PROVIDER YMCA of the East Bay PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The ARC (Attachment, Self-Regulation and Competency) Project, in partnership with Bay Area Community Resources, will provide mental health counseling services to elementary school students at Lake and Downer Elementary Schools in San Pablo, CA who do not qualify for MediCal and their parents/guardians. Through the provision of direct services and advocacy in English and Spanish the Contractor will provide caregivers with support and information to help them with positive, nurturing parenting; provide students with trauma-informed counseling to improve resiliency and emotional and behavioral health; reduce barriers to treatment by offering services at schools, during after school hours and at home; decrease the risk of abuse and neglect among traumatized students and provide services that are culturally and linguistically appropriate. Services will include but are not limited to: home visiting, emotional support, resource coordination, and education. FUNDING SOURCES SOURCE LIST FUNDED ACTIVITIES CAPIT Parent education and support, counseling services CBCAP PSSF Family Preservation PSSF Family Support PSSF Time-Limited Family Reunification PSSF Adoption Promotion and Support OTHER Source(s): IDENTIFY PRIORITY NEED OUTLINED IN CSA Support to families with mental health needs (CSA pages 8, 10,12,57,59, 60, 157, 185, 252) TARGET POPULATION Children who are high risk, minority populations, mono-lingual Spanish speakers. TARGET GEOGRAPHIC AREA San Pablo, CA April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1104 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 99 TIMELINE July 2015 through June 2017 with an RFP in the spring of 2017. Services likely to continue throughout the SIP period. EVALUATION PROGRAM OUTCOME(S) AND MEASUREMENT & QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) MONITORING Desired Outcome Indicator Source of Measure Frequency Youth in the program will experience an increase in measured resiliency factors, such as connection to positive peers & adults, greater control in life, and increased sense of connection to and safety within their community, school, and family. 80% of youth report an increase in risk avoidance, protective and resiliency factors. Survey questionnaire Completed by participants at program exit Parents/guardians will feel more connected to their child, and will see an improvement in their child's risk avoidance, protective & resiliency factors. 70% of parents report a positive connection to child and perception their child has made improvement in measured assets. Survey questionnaire Post services Parents will feel supported by the clinicians, and will be better connected to services and resources. 70% of parents report a positive and supportive experience with clinicians, and report improvement in connection to services and resources. Survey questionnaire Post services Parents/guardians will have the knowledge, skills and strategies to be effective parents. 80% of families report they have gained or improved the knowledge, skills and Survey questionnaire Post services April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1105 100 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan strategies to be effective parents. Families will have the communication and conflict resolution skills necessary to create positive, safe families. 80% of family’s report they have gained or improved their own and family’s ability to resolve conflicts and communicate in a positive, safe manner. Survey questionnaire Post services Reduction of internal and external parental/family stressors that interfere with healthy family functioning. 70% of families report a reduction in at least 50% of their internal and/or external stressors that interfere with healthy family functioning. Survey questionnaire Post services CLIENT SATISFACTION Method or Tool Frequency Utilization Action Survey questionnaire Post only survey questionnaire completed by participants at program exit Surveys reviewed by provider/program staff Program assessment and adjustments made by provider/program staff based on survey results. Bi-annual monitoring visits and program assessment by county staff. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1106 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 101 STRENGTHENING VULNERABLE FAMILIES – SUPPORTIVE SERVICES Line 4 on Expenditure Workbook SERVICE PROVIDER Contra Costa Interfaith Housing PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Strengthening Vulnerable Families program provides family-centered, culturally appropriate, evidence-based and trauma-informed services in three main categories to formerly homeless and low- income children and their families in their homes or on-site at the supportive housing apartment complexes. The categories of services are: mental health support, parenting and life skills education, and youth enrichment & afterschool academic support. FUNDING SOURCES SOURCE LIST FUNDED ACTIVITIES CAPIT Parent education and support, counseling services, mental health services CBCAP PSSF Family Preservation Basic needs, concrete supports, youth programs PSSF Family Support PSSF Time-Limited Family Reunification PSSF Adoption Promotion and Support OTHER Source(s): IDENTIFY PRIORITY NEED OUTLINED IN CSA Housing support for families (CSA Parent Stakeholder survey) (CSA pages 10, 12, 13, 23, 35, 57, 59, 128, 147, 225, 227, 251) TARGET POPULATION Formerly homeless and low-income children and their families. TARGET GEOGRAPHIC AREA Garden Park Apartments in the Monument Corridor of Pleasant Hill, CA; Lakeside Apartments in the Monument Corridor of Concord, CA; Bella Monte Apartments in Bay Point, CA; and Los Medanos Village in Pittsburg, CA TIMELINE April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1107 102 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan July 2015 through June 2017 with an RFP in the spring of 2017. Services likely to continue throughout the SIP period. EVALUATION PROGRAM OUTCOME(S) AND MEASUREMENT & QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) MONITORING Desired Outcome Indicator Source of Measure Frequency Parents will experience an increased sense of mastery and lowered stress levels due to improved self- sufficiency as reported on the Self Sufficiency Matrix , and as reported on progress with family-set goals. At least 75% of the tenant families served will achieve at least one of their family-set goals. Survey questionnaire as documented by self- reporting and case notes. Completed by participants at program entry and exit Youth will experience an increased sense of confidence and mastery in school work and social skills. At least 75% of youth who are supported by the Homework Club will demonstrate greater mastery of at least one academic benchmark for K-5 youth. Survey questionnaire as determined by school report cards and benchmarks/academic goals set in collaboration with their teachers and in relation to the California State Standards for their grade Completed by participants at program entry and exit Parents/guardians will have the knowledge, skills and strategies to be effective parents. At least 80% of the families who participate in the parenting support groups will demonstrate improved parenting skills and increased nurturing skills. Survey questionnaire as evidenced by post-tests, self reporting and staff observation. Completed by participants at program entry and exit Youth will experience an increased sense of confidence and mastery in school work At least 75% of teen club participants will show improvement in at least one area of their Survey questionnaire - using a standardized self-esteem evaluation tool called the Piers- Harris test to assess Completed by participants at program entry and exit April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1108 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 103 and social skills. self-concept. progress. This is a self- report tool that is evidence-based and reliable and has categories of academic status, behavioral adjustment and social success. CLIENT SATISFACTION Method or Tool Frequency Utilization Action Self Sufficiency Matrix questionnaire Completed by participants at program entry and exit Surveys reviewed and discussed in counseling or group sessions and reviewed by staff Concept reinforcement, goal setting, program assessment Family-set goals Completed by participants at program entry Surveys reviewed and discussed in counseling or group sessions Concept reinforcement, goal setting, program assessment April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1109 104 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS – AMBROSE TEEN CENTER AND GREATER CORONADO ALL THAT COLLABORATIVE Lines 5 and 6 on Expenditure Workbook SERVICE PROVIDER Ambrose Recreation and Parks District and YMCA of the East Bay PROGRAM DESCRIPTION These programs provide afterschool programs every school day with a variety of age and culturally appropriate activities, including but not limited to homework assistance, silent or group reading, computer class, arts and crafts, spirit leading, outdoor education, nutrition workshops, cooking workshops, Yoga, book clubs, Youth on Course Golf Program, leadership opportunities, structured recreation activities and self esteem building activities. FUNDING SOURCES SOURCE LIST FUNDED ACTIVITIES CAPIT CBCAP PSSF Family Preservation Youth programs, counseling PSSF Family Support PSSF Time-Limited Family Reunification PSSF Adoption Promotion and Support OTHER Source(s): State Family Preservation Counseling, family support IDENTIFY PRIORITY NEED OUTLINED IN CSA Afterschool program (CSA pages 39, 51, 54, 60, 128, 130, 252) TARGET POPULATION Low income youth and their families. TARGET GEOGRAPHIC AREA Bay Point and Richmond, CA. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1110 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 105 TIMELINE July 2015 through June 2017 with an RFP in the spring of 2017. Services likely to continue throughout the SIP period. EVALUATION PROGRAM OUTCOME(S) AND MEASUREMENT & QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) MONITORING Desired Outcome Indicator Source of Measure Frequency Increased knowledge of communication skills, problem solving and personal-social skills for youth. Ninety percent (90%) of after school and day camp participants will be able to safely work through conflicts with their peers. Pre and post testing. Quarterly Increased confidence and self esteem for youth. Eighty percent (80%) of parents will report that their child feels more confident in his/her abilities and feels safe in their after school or day camp program. Parent and participant surveys. Quarterly CLIENT SATISFACTION Method or Tool Frequency Utilization Action Individual Interviews Monthly Progress reviewed with each student in person Individual needs and goals assessed and modified as needed. Parent and participant surveys. Quarterly Responses reviewed as received Feedback reviewed and considered by staff to improve ongoing operations. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1111 106 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan PARENTING CLASSES Lines 7 and 8 on Expenditure Workbook SERVICE PROVIDER Counseling Options & Parent Education, Inc. (COPE) and STAND! for Families Free of Violence (STAND!) PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Triple P Positive Parenting Levels 4 and 5 in English, Spanish and Arabic, Triple P support groups, Supporting Fatherhood Involvement parenting classes (all provided by COPE) and Nurturing Parents parenting classes (provided by STAND!) in English and Spanish. The overall Triple P program is a multi- tiered system of 5 levels of education and support for parents and caregivers of children and adolescents. Triple P helps parents learn strategies that promote social competence and self-regulation in children. Supporting Fatherhood Involvement (SFI) is a preventive intervention designed to enhance fathers’ positive involvement with their children. The curriculum is based on an empirically-validated family risk model. The Nurturing Parenting curriculum is designed to build nurturing parenting skills that break the intergenerational cycle of child maltreatment and dysfunction. The program provides support and resources for parents. FUNDING SOURCES SOURCE LIST FUNDED ACTIVITIES CAPIT CBCAP PSSF Family Preservation PSSF Family Support Parenting education PSSF Time-Limited Family Reunification PSSF Adoption Promotion and Support OTHER Source(s): IDENTIFY PRIORITY NEED OUTLINED IN CSA Evidence based parenting classes to support families with children with special needs (CSA pages 29, 32, 57, 60, 128, 225, 252, 254) TARGET POPULATION At risk families. Monolingual Spanish and Arabic speaking families. Low income families. TARGET GEOGRAPHIC AREA Antioch, Concord, Bay Point and Richmond, CA. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1112 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 107 TIMELINE July 2015 through June 2017 with an RFP in the spring of 2017. Services likely to continue throughout the SIP period. EVALUATION PROGRAM OUTCOME(S) AND MEASUREMENT & QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) MONITORING Desired Outcome Indicator Source of Measure Frequency Increased parenting skills. Ninety percent (90%) of parents attending Triple P or SFI parenting classes will improve their parenting skills, including a reduction in dysfunctional discipline practices and an increase in parent’s sense of confidence. Pre and post testing. Quarterly Weekly Increased knowledge of child development and needs. Eighty percent (80%) of parents attending Nurturing Parenting classes will demonstrate a stronger understanding of the dynamics of healthy relationships and increased knowledge of the emotional and cognitive effects on children who witness violence. Parent and participant surveys. Quarterly Weekly CLIENT SATISFACTION Method or Tool Frequency Utilization Action Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory Pre and post Nurturing Parenting services. Surveys reviewed after each session. Effectiveness of program evaluated. Parent and participant surveys. Pre and post Triple P and SFI services. Surveys reviewed after each session. Effectiveness of program evaluated. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1113 108 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan COMMUNITY BASED SUPERVISED VISITATION Line 9 on Expenditure Workbook SERVICE PROVIDER EMQ Families First PROGRAM DESCRIPTION This program provides a safe, comfortable and accessible environment in which supervised visits can take place between children and families at their designated locations or in the community. Priority goes to families in Family Reunification. Community based visitation offers availability of frequent visits with flexible scheduling opportunities outside of the normal workday hours, such as late afternoon, evenings and weekends. FUNDING SOURCES SOURCE LIST FUNDED ACTIVITIES CAPIT CBCAP PSSF Family Preservation PSSF Family Support PSSF Time-Limited Family Reunification Parent visitation PSSF Adoption Promotion and Support OTHER Source(s): State Family Preservation Family reunification, parenting IDENTIFY PRIORITY NEED OUTLINED IN CSA Service for families to support timely family reunification. Foster healthy supportive relationship between parents and children. (CSA pages 9, 12, 116, 146, 167, 215) TARGET POPULATION Children and families involved with Children and Family Services. TARGET GEOGRAPHIC AREA Countywide. TIMELINE July 2015 through June 2017 with an RFP in the spring of 2017. Services likely to continue throughout the SIP period. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1114 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 109 EVALUATION PROGRAM OUTCOME(S) AND MEASUREMENT & QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) MONITORING Desired Outcome Indicator Source of Measure Frequency Safe and timely reunification. Eighty percent (80%) of visiting families will transition to less restrictive visits with the goal of reunifying. Observation sheets and recommendations to court. After each supervised visit. CLIENT SATISFACTION Method or Tool Frequency Utilization Action Observation sheet. After each supervised visit. Observation notes reviewed by CFS staff and court. Recommendations to court for reunification of families. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1115 110 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan REACH AND POST ADOPTIONS EDUCATION LIAISON Lines 10 and 11 on Expenditure Workbook SERVICE PROVIDER AspiraNet and Stephanie Scholer PROGRAM DESCRIPTION REACH Contra Costa (Reaching Out to Assist Post-Adoption Families by Providing: Resources, Education, Advocacy, Crisis Counseling, and Hope – REACH) provides comprehensive, no-cost, pre and post adoption outreach and advocacy, information and referral, crisis intervention, case management, and socialization services to families in Contra Costa County who have adopted or are adopting. The Post Adoptions Educational Liaison is knowledgeable of the education system and the dynamics of adoptive families and works closely with the County’s Adoptions Unit to improve educational accomplishments and opportunities for children who have been adopted or are in the process of being adopted through the Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department. FUNDING SOURCES SOURCE LIST FUNDED ACTIVITIES CAPIT CBCAP PSSF Family Preservation PSSF Family Support PSSF Time-Limited Family Reunification PSSF Adoption Promotion and Support Basic needs, concrete supports, case management OTHER Source(s): IDENTIFY PRIORITY NEED OUTLINED IN CSA Support to families with children with special needs (CSA Stakeholder and parent survey) (CSA pages 29, 32, 57, 60, 128, 225, 252, 254) Support for families with children with mental health needs (CSA Stakeholder survey) (CSA pages 8, 10, 12, 57, 59, 60, 157, 185, 252) TARGET POPULATION Families who have adopted or are adopting. TARGET GEOGRAPHIC AREA April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1116 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 111 Countywide. TIMELINE July 2015 through June 2017 with an RFP in the spring of 2017. Services likely to continue throughout the SIP period. EVALUATION PROGRAM OUTCOME(S) AND MEASUREMENT & QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) MONITORING Desired Outcome Indicator Source of Measure Frequency Increased knowledge of child development and needs. Ninety percent (90%) of families receiving adoption education will show improvement in knowledge of the adoption-related topic. Pre and post surveys. Completed by participants at program entry and exit. Increased family stability. Eighty percent (80%) of families receiving adoption support and/or crisis intervention services will show improvement in stability and safety. Periodic satisfaction surveys. Individualized support plans. Completed by participants at program entry and exit and reviewed as needed throughout program involvement. CLIENT SATISFACTION Method or Tool Frequency Utilization Action Parent and participant surveys. Pre and post services. Surveys reviewed after completion. Effectiveness of program evaluated. April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1117 112 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan APPENDIX 3: CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF EXPENDITURE WORKBOOKS April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1118 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 113 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1119 114 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan APPENDIX 4: NOTICE OF INTENT April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1120 Contra Costa County – 2015 Systems Improvement Plan 115 April 12, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICIAL MINUTES 1121