Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04262016 - Comp Min PktCALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AGENCIES, AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNED BY THE BOARD BOARD CHAMBERS ROOM 107, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 651 PINE STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 CANDACE ANDERSEN, CHAIR, 2ND DISTRICT MARY N. PIEPHO, VICE CHAIR, 3RD DISTRICT JOHN GIOIA, 1ST DISTRICT KAREN MITCHOFF, 4TH DISTRICT FEDERAL D. GLOVER, 5TH DISTRICT DAVID J. TWA, CLERK OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, (925) 335-1900 PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES. A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR. The Board of Supervisors respects your time, and every attempt is made to accurately estimate when an item may be heard by the Board. All times specified for items on the Board of Supervisors agenda are approximate. Items may be heard later than indicated depending on the business of the day. Your patience is appreciated. ANNOTATED AGENDA & MINUTES April 26, 2016                  9:00 A.M. Convene and announce adjournment to closed session in Room 101. Closed Session Agenda: 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)) Farrow et al. v. Lipetzky, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C12-6495 JCS, U.S. Court of Appeal (9th Cir.) Case No. 13-16781 C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov. Code, § 54956.9(d)(2): One potential case 9:30 a.m. Call to order and opening ceremonies. Inspirational Thought - "If you want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else." ~ Booker T. Washington Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor; Karen April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 1 Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor; Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor; Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Staff Present:David Twa, County Administrator  By unanimous vote, the Board voted to proceed to judicial review in the matter of Farrow et al. v. Lipetzky   CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.54 on the following agenda) – Items are subject to removal from Consent Calendar by request of any Supervisor or on request for discussion by a member of the public. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be considered with the Discussion Items.   PRESENTATIONS (5 Minutes Each)   PRESENTATION recognizing Administrative Professionals Day, which is being observed nationwide on April 27, 2016. (Supervisor Andersen)     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover PRESENTATION honoring the West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer's Respite Center for dedicated and compassionate service to the community. (Supervisor Gioia)     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 PR.3 PRESENTATION by the Elections Department on the Regional Early Voting Program. (Joe Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover DISCUSSION ITEMS   D. 1 PUBLIC COMMENT (2 Minutes/Speaker)    Kathy McLaughlin and Janet Marshall Wilson spoke on converting Contra Costa Regional Medical Center's vacant unit 4-D into a children's inpatient psychiatric unit; Douglas S. Van Raam, Free Soil Society, the HEMP church, is interested in historical preservation of the old jail site on Pine Street, and requested an investigation of government officials parking in restricted zone (20 min) parking outside the courts for the entire day; Eli D., resident of Martinez, spoke on public corruption and concerns on the security of mail-in balloting.   D. 2 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    There were no items removed for discussion.   D.3 HEARING to consider the proposed formation of Zone 212 within County Service Area P-6 (Police Services) in the Bay Point area of the County for County File #SD13-9352. (Jennifer Cruz, Conservation and Development Department)       Speakers: Eli D., resident of Martinez. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 2  Speakers: Eli D., resident of Martinez. CLOSED the hearing; DETERMINED no majority protest exists; and ADOPTED Resolution No. 2016/320 establishing Zone 212 of County Service Area P-6 subject to voter approval of a special tax to fund police protection services within the zone.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.4 HEARING to consider adoption of Resolution No. 2016/321 and Ordinance No. 2016-07, authorizing the levy of a special tax for police protection services in Zone 212 of County Service Area P-6 for Subdivision No. 9352 (County File #SD13-9352) in the Bay Point area, and fixing the date of the election on June 28, 2016, to obtain voter approval. (Jennifer Cruz, Conservation and Development Department)       Speaker: Eli D., resident of Martinez. CLOSED the public hearing; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2016-07; ADOPTED Resolution No. 2016/321; authorizing an election in Zone 212 of County Service Area P-6 to consider approval of Ordinance No. 2016-07; and DIRECTED the County Clerk, Elections Division, to conduct the election required by Government Code Sections 23027 and 53978. This election shall be held on June 28, 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 D.5 RECEIVE update on the status of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (Authority) development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) for a possible sales tax measure in 2016, and CONSIDER actions necessary to communicate Board of Supervisors’ input on the TEP to the Authority. (John Cunningham, Conservation and Development Department)       Speakers: Smitty Schmidt, resident of Alamo; Eli D., resident of Martinez. RECEIVED update on the status of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (Authority) development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) for a possible sales tax measure in 2016 and DIRECTED staff to prepare a letter to the Authority to incorporate to today's commentary, to return to the Board on May 10, 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 D. 6 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   Closed Session       CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4441 to prohibit parking at all times on a portion of Lunada Lane near the Iron Horse Trail, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Alamo area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 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. 2 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute two construction contracts with Statewide Construction Sweeping, Inc., and Tri Valley Water Trucks, Inc., in the amount of $200,000 each, for the 2016 On-Call Sweeping Services Contracts for Various Road Maintenance Work Project, Countywide. (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 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a construction contract with Rosas Brothers Construction, in the amount of $177,660, for the Bay Point Curb Ramp Project, Bay Point area. (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. 4 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective February 1, 2016, with Quincy Engineering, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $20,000 to a new payment limit of $247,000 to complete the design and provide construction support services for the Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike Lane project, Bay Point area. (35% Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds, 16% State Safe Routes to School Funds and 49% 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. 5 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/335 to approve and authorize the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute Master Agreement No. 04-5928F15 with the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for Federal-aid projects and subsequent program supplements for use on local transportation facilities, Countywide. (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 Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 6 RECEIVE report concerning the final settlement of Jeffrey M. Nelson vs. Contra Costa County; and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $155,000, as recommended by the Risk Manager. (100% Workers' Compensation Internal Service 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 DENY claims by Enterprise Damage Recovery Unit, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Samia Jerez-Lupian, Keller Canyon Landfill Company, Mark Lindquist, and Aiden Lupian.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Honors & Proclamations   C. 8 ADOPT Resolution No 2016/160 recognizing Administrative Professionals Day, which is being observed nationwide on April 27, 2016, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.    April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 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. 9 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/317 honoring the West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer's Respite Center for dedicated and compassionate service to the community, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia.        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. 2016/337 recognizing the 45th Anniversary of the Contra Costa National Organization of Women, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff        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. 2016/350 honoring Aram Hodess, Business Manager of Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 159, upon the occasion of his retirement, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia.       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. 12 REAPPOINT Leland Mlejnek Jr, Robert Saydah, Mark Young and Richard Kopf on the County Service Area P-5 Citizens Advisory Committee; ACCEPT the resignation of Michael Marchi, DECLARE a vacancy in the Appointee 6 seat on the County Service Area P-5 Citizens Advisory Committee, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, 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 APPOINT Elaina Petrucci Gunn to the B2 – American Heart Association seat on the Emergency Medical Care Committee, as recommended by the Health Services Director.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 14 REAPPOINT seven members to the Contra Costa Local Planning and Advisory Council, DECLARE vacant the Consumer 2 - Central/South County and Community 1 - West County seats, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancies, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 15 APPOINT Raymond O'Brien to Seat 3 of the Contra Costa County Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appropriation Adjustments   C. 16 Sheriff's Office (0255): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5064 authorizing    April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 5 C. 16 Sheriff's Office (0255): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5064 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $468,500 in the Sheriff's Office (0255) from subscriber fees to the Automated Regional Information Exchange System (ARIES) and appropriating it for the purchase of radio and communication equipment for the expansion of the ARIES project. (100% User 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 Personnel Actions   C. 17 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21851 to reclassify one Administrative Services Assistant III (represented) position and its incumbent to Sheriff’s Director of Support Services (represented), cancel one Sheriff's Director of Support Services (represented) position and add one Administrative Services Assistant III (represented) position in the Office of the Sheriff. (Cost neutral)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 18 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21840 to reallocate the class of Chief Deputy Public Works Director – Exempt (unrepresented) on the Salary Schedule in the Public Works Department. (100% Various funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 19 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21844 to reallocate the class of Business Systems Manager (represented) on the Salary Schedule in the County Administrator's Office. (100% County General Fund, Budgeted)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 20 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21853 to increase the hours of one Pharmacist I position (represented) from permanent-intermittent to part-time 32/40 and one Senior Radiologic Technologist position (represented) from part-time 24/40 to full-time 40/40 in the Health Services Department. (61% County General Fund; 39% 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 Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 21 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Interim County Probation Officer, or designee, to apply for and accept the FY 2016-17 Youthful Offender Block Grant from the California Board of State and Community Corrections in the amount of $4,388,204 to provide custody and care to youthful offenders who previously would have been committed to the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 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 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 6 C. 22 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to apply for and accept grant funding from California Employment Development Department in an amount not to exceed $400,000 for the Supervised Population Workforce Training Program for the period June 30, 2016 through December 31, 2017. (50% 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. 23 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Interim County Probation Officer, or designee, to apply for and accept funds from the State of California, the Board of State and Community Corrections in the estimated base amount of $2,892,113 to continue programs designated under the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act program for the period of 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 C. 24 APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE the Health Officer, or designee, acting as the Medical Health Operational Area Coordinator (MHOAC), to execute a Memorandum of Agreement between the County of San Bernardino and the County of Contra Costa in Response to Emergency Assistance during the Waterman Terrorism Incident through June 30, 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. 25 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the American Academy of Pediatrics in an amount not to exceed $2,500 to support the County’s Emergency Medical Services Pediatric Mental Health Coalition Building Opportunity Project, for the period February 1, 2016 through June 24, 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. 26 APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Public Health to extend the term from September 30, 2016 through June 30, 2017 for the County’s Public Health Ebola Preparedness and Response Project. (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 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 27 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Cardno, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $22,424 to a new payment limit of $456,945 to provide continued service to complete the Environmental Impact Report for the Shell Martinez Refinery's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Project, with no change in the contract term of June 3, 2014 through December 31, 2016. (100% Land Use Permit application 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. 28 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute    April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 7 C. 28 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Family Caregiver Alliance in an amount not to exceed $125,306 for Older American's Act, Title III-E Family Caregiver Provider Program services to support older adults, their caregivers, and families for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% 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. 29 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute a contract with the United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services in an amount not to exceed $39,071 for wildlife damage management, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (60% Unclaimed Gas Tax, 40% County)        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 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Chief Information Officer-Department of Information Technology, (1) a purchase order with MedTel Services, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $275,000 for the renewal of telecommunications software and equipment maintenance for the period April 20, 2015 through April 19, 2016, and (2) Amendment Number 9 to Customer Support Agreement, dated April 19, 2016, between the County and MedTel Services, LLC. (100% User 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. 31 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Information Officer-Department of Information Technology, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with CherryRoad Technologies, Inc., effective April 18, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $161,120 to a new payment limit of $6,620,850 to provide an additional personnel to assist the County with the upgrade to the County's PeopleSoft software system. (100% PeopleSoft Project)        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 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee, to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a purchase order with McCain Traffic Supply in an amount not to exceed $195,000, from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2018, for traffic signal parts and equipment, Countywide. (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. 33 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Animal Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Richard Bachman, DVM (dba Shelter Medicine Support), effective May 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $200,000 to a new payment limit of $1,844,612 for continued veterinarian shelter services, for the period November 1, 2013 through October 31, 2016. (37% User Fees, 54% City Revenues, 9% 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. 34 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with    April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 8 C. 34 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Vivian Price in an amount not to exceed $102,600 to provide residential board and care services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center patients in the Patch Program, for the period April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. (100% County 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. 35 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a construction contract with McNabb Construction, Inc., in the amount of $548,800, for the Livorna Park Improvements, Bocce Courts, Miranda Avenue and Livorna Road, Alamo area. (100% Measure WW 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. 36 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Hawley, Peterson & Snyder, Architects in an amount not to exceed $500,000 to provide as-needed architectural services for various facilities projects for the period April 26, 2016 through April 26, 2018, with a County option to extend the term to April 26, 2019 if elected by the Public Works Director, Countywide. (100% Various Funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Cross Country Staffing, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000, to provide temporary medical and specialty staffing services at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 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. 38 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the Contra Costa County Bar Association to increase the payment limit by $465,000 to a new payment limit of $4,115,000 for the continued provision of criminal conflict defense services, with no change to the term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. (100% County General Fund)       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 (RECUSE) C. 39 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Advanced Medical Personnel Services, Inc., effective April 10, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $200,000 to a new payment limit of $1,200,000 to provide additional hours of temporary help 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. 40 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to amend the purchase order with McKesson Corporation, effective May 1, 2016, to increase the total amount by $3,500,000, to a new total payment of $6,500,000, for pharmaceuticals designated as 340B replenishment inventories at various pharmacies, with no change to the term from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017. (100% Enterprise Fund III)     April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 9    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 41 AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to purchase, on behalf of the Health Services Director, 500 Safeway gift cards at $15.00 each to use as incentives for consumer participation as allowed under Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act, for a total amount of $7,500. (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. 42 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Ujima Family Recovery Services, effective April 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $21,532 to a new payment limit of $1,731,726, to provide additional units of residential and outpatient treatment services for pregnant and parenting women and their small children, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. (83% Federal Perinatal Set-Aside; 17% Drug Medi-Cal 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 Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract containing modified indemnification language with Garda CL West, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $22,500 to provide armored transport services to the Contra Costa Health Services Department, for the period February 1, 2016 through January 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. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE payment to Acusis, LLC in the amount of $107,877.48 for medical transcription services rendered at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center during the period October 1, 2015 through February 29, 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 Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Theresa Kailikole, D.P.M., effective January 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $60,000 to a new payment limit of $585,000, to provide administrative duties in addition to Podiatry services at the Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, with no change in the original term of June 1, 2015 through May 31, 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. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with Dimension Data, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $300,146 for the purchase, support and maintenance of Cisco switches and network infrastructure hardware, for the period April 30, 2016 through April 29, 2017. (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 Other Actions   April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 10 C. 47 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. 48 ACCEPT the Contra Costa County General Plan Annual Progress Report 2015 and DIRECT staff to forward the report to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and Department of Housing and Community Development, 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. 49 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/152 to repeal the Conflict of Interest Codes for the Board's municipal advisory councils and to take related actions, as recommended by the County Administrator. (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. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Public Authority Committee members $24 each per meeting, not to exceed 3 meetings per month, for a total cost not to exceed $5,976 to defray meeting attendance costs for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director. (50% Federal, 50% 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. 51 AUTHORIZE continuation of the Contra Costa County Library Commission for an additional six months, for the period July 1 through December 31, 2016, 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. 52 ACCEPT the March 2016 update of the operations of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, 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. 53 APPROVE the removal of the Richmond Health Center from the Contra Costa Health Services Health Care for the Homeless Program and approved site list due to the facility being replaced by the West County Health Center in 2011, as required by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and recommended by the Health Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 54 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/343 authorizing the issuance and sale of "Acalanes Union High School    April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 11 C. 54 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/343 authorizing the issuance and sale of "Acalanes Union High School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2008, Series 2016C" in an amount not to exceed $15,200,000 by the Acalanes Union High School District on its own behalf pursuant to Sections 15140(b) of the Education Code, as recommended by the County Administrator. (No County 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   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 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. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 12 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. 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 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 13 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 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 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 14 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) 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 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 15 RECOMMENDATION(S): Contra Costa County Election Division will present an elections update, including information about the new Regional Early Voting sites and the 2016 Sample Ballot Photo Contest.(Joe Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters) FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: 2016 has already been busy for the Contra Costa Elections team, as we are now about a little over a month away from the June 7th primary election. Our office is sending out Voter Information Guides this week to about 540,000 registered voters in the county. We also continue to teach classes for those residents who plan to volunteer at polling places on Election Day. The Elections Office is also teaming up with the League of Women Voters from Diablo Valley and West County and the folks at CCTV to broadcast its Election Preview candidate roundtables. Those will be available on the county Website and Contra Costa Elections YouTube page in early May. Preparation is underway for vote-by-mail ballots to be sent out to voters on May 9th. Those voters can vote whenever they want, but their envelope must be postmarked by Election Day. One new program that the Elections Office is excited about is called Regional Early Voting. Starting May 31st, Contra Costa residents will be able to vote a week in advance of Election Day at any APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Gayle Israel (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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: PR.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Presentation by the Elections Department on Regional Early Voting Program April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 16 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of 6 sites. Imagine living in Antioch but being able to vote near your work in San Ramon. The hope is that residents have a wide variety of options to make voting more convenient. A couple of important dates to remember: May 23rd is the last day to register to vote in the Primary, while May 31st is the last day to request a vote-by-mail ballot. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 17 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the hearing on the proposed formation of Zone 212 within County Service Area P-6; CONSIDER all oral and written comments; and CLOSE the hearing. 2. DETERMINE whether a majority protest of the voters residing within the boundaries of proposed Zone 212 exists pursuant to Government Code Section 25217.1(b)(1). In the event that the Board determines a majority protest exists, TERMINATE the proceedings. 3. If the Board determines a majority protest does not exist, ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/320, attached hereto, establishing Zone 212 of County Service Area P-6 subject to voter approval of a special tax to fund police protection services within the zone. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of establishing the Police Service District and the election is paid for by the subdivider. BACKGROUND: Per the conditions of approval for Subdivision #9352 (County File #SD13-9352), prior to recording the final map for the subdivision, the subdivider is required to establish a special police services tax district for the subdivision in order to provide additional funding to augment police services in the area of the subdivision. The property to be placed within the special tax district consists of three parcels, which total approximately 7.52 acres located at East of Driftwood Drive between Port Chicago Highway and Pacifica Avenue in the Bay Point area of the County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena D.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED FORMATION OF ZONE 212 IN THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA OF P-6 IN THE BAY POINT AREA OF THE COUNTY (DISTRICT V) April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 18 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On March 29, 2016, the Board granted conceptual approval for a June 28, 2016, ballot measure seeking approval of a special tax to fund an increase in the level of police protection services that is provided in the Bay Point area of the County. On March 29, 2016, the Board approved Resolution No. 2016/129, as required by Government Code Section 25217, subdivision (b), as the first step in forming a new zone within County Service Area (CSA) P-6. The proposed zone would serve as the vehicle to collect special taxes within the proposed zone if a special tax measure is approved by voters on June 28, 2016. Pursuant to Government Code Section 25217.1, subdivision (a), at the public hearing, the Board is required to hear and consider any protests to the formation of the zone. Pursuant to Government Code Section 25217.1, subdivision (b)(1), in the case of inhabited territory, if at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board determines that more than 50 percent of the total number of voters residing within the proposed zone have filed written objections to the formation, then the Board shall determine that a majority protest exists and terminate the proceedings. If there is no majority protest, the Board may continue the proceedings to form the zone by adopting Resolution No. 2016/320, which would establish Zone 212 subject to voter approval of the special tax. A separate hearing is also scheduled for April 26, 2016, to consider the adoption of an ordinance authorizing the levy of the tax. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Zone 212 would not be formed and the subdivider would be unable to comply with the conditions of approval of the project. The subdivider would be unable to record the final map for the subdivision. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Eli D., resident of Martinez. CLOSED the hearing; DETERMINED no majority protest exists; and ADOPTED Resolution No. 2016/320 establishing Zone 212 of County Service Area P-6 subject to voter approval of a special tax to fund police protection services within the zone. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/320 Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Map Exhibit C - Resolution No. 2016/129 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 19 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/26/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/320 IN THE MATTER OF CREATING ZONE 212 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 IN THE BAY POINT AREA OF THE COUNTY WHEREAS, this Board recognizes the need for increased police protection services in the above subject zone and the difficulty of funding the current or an increased level of services. WHEREAS, establishing the subject zone is a necessary step for the Board of Supervisors to seek voter approval of a special tax for increased police protection services in the zone area. Government Code Sections 25217 and 25217.1 establish procedures for the formation of a zone within a county service area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT BY THE BOARD RESOLVED THAT: 1. It is in the public interest to provide an increased level of police protection services in the area of proposed Zone 212 of County Service Area P-6. 2. A majority protest against the proposed formation of Zone 212 does not exist, pursuant to Government Code Section 25217.1, subdivision (b). 3. Subject to voter approval of Ordinance No. 2016-07 on June 28, 2016, authorizing the levy of a special tax within proposed Zone 212, that portion of Contra Costa County Service Area P-6 described in Exhibit A attached hereto and shown in Exhibit B attached hereto is established as Zone 212 of County Service Area P-6, effective upon this Board’s adoption of a resolution declaring the results of the June 28, 2016, election (“Effective Date”). 4. No affected properties located in Zone 212 will be taxed for any existing bonded indebtedness or contractual obligations as a result of the formation of said zone. 5. On or after the Effective Date, the Clerk of this Board shall cause the filing of a statement of the creation of said zone to be made with the County Assessor and the State Board of Equalization (in Sacramento) pursuant to Government Code Sections 54900-54902. The filing shall include a map or plat indicating the boundaries of said zone. Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena 5 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 20 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 21 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 22 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 23 ARCHIVED RESOLUTION April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 24 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN hearing to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-07, authorizing the levy of a special tax for police protection services in Zone 212 of County Service area P-6 in the Bay Point area of the County; CONSIDER oral and written comments received; and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-07, attached hereto. 3. ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/321, attached hereto, authorizing an election in Zone 212 of County Service Area P-6 to consider approval of Ordinance No. 2016-07. 4. DIRECT the County Clerk, Elections Division, to conduct the election required by Government Code Sections 23027 and 53978. This election shall be held on June 28, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of establishing the Police Service District and election is paid for by the subdivider. BACKGROUND: Per the conditions of approval for Subdivision No. 9352 (County File #SD13-9352), prior to recording the final map for the subdivision, the subdivider is required to establish a special Police Services tax district for the purposes of providing additional funding to augment police services in the area of the subdivision. The property to be subdivided and placed within the proposed special tax district consists of three parcels, which total approximately 7.52 acres located in the Bay Point area of the County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena D.4 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF PROPOSED SPECIAL TAX ORDINANCE AND AUTHORIZE ELECTION TO OBTAIN VOTER APPROVAL (DISTRICT V) April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 25 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On March 29, 2016, the Board approved Resolution No. 2016/129, as required by Government Code Section 25217, subdivision (b), as the first step in forming a new zone within County Service Area (CSA) P-6 in the Bay Point area of the County. The proposed zone would serve as the vehicle to collect special taxes within the boundaries of the zone if a special tax measure is approved by registered voters within the zone area at the June 28, 2016, election. The Board is scheduled to conduct a separate hearing on April 26, 2016, on the formation of the proposed zone. If the Board determines there is no majority protest to the formation of this new zone, and if the Board adopts Resolution No. 2016/320, establishing CSA P-6, Zone 212 subject to voter approval of the special tax, the next step in the process is the hearing on the adoption of a special tax ordinance, the adoption of that ordinance and adoption of a resolution submitting the tax measure to the voters. In this action, the Board is asked to conduct the hearing on, and adopt, the special tax ordinance (Ordinance No. 2016-07), which would authorize the levy of a special tax for police protection services on all taxable parcels in the area of Zone 212 if a special tax ballot measure is approved by a two-thirds majority of the registered voters in the zone area. Resolution No. 2016/321, the adoption of which is also recommended, sets forth appropriate ballot language, directs the County Clerk, Elections Division, to conduct the aforementioned election as part of the June 28, 2016, election, and supplies appropriate ballot language. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The project developer would be unable to comply with the conditions of approval for the project. The developer would be unable to record the final map for the subdivision. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speaker:  Eli D., resident of Martinez. CLOSED the public hearing; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2016-07;  ADOPTED Resolution No. 2016/321; authorizing an election in Zone 212 of County Service Area P-6 to consider approval of Ordinance No. 2016-07; and DIRECTED the County Clerk, Elections Division, to conduct the election required by Government Code Sections 23027 and 53978. This election shall be held on June 28, 2016.  ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/321 Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B- Map Exhibit C - Ordinance 2016-07 Exhibit D - Resolution No. 2016/129 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 26 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/26/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/321 IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL TAX IN PROPOSED ZONE 212 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 WHEREAS, this Board recognizes the need for increased police protection services in the above subject zone and the difficulty of funding the current or an increased level of services. Government Code Sections 50077 and 53978 establish procedures for voter authorization of a special tax in order to provide additional funding for police protection; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. Ordinance No. 2016-07, adopted on this date, is to be presented for approval of the voters of proposed Zone 212 of County Service Area P-6 at the election to be held on June 28, 2016, according to the following ballot proposition: “Shall Ordinance No. 2016-07, to provide additional funding for police protection services, be approved to authorize a special tax on property located in Zone 212 of County Service Area P-6 in the Bay Point area of the County, at an initial annual amount of $200 per parcel for single-family, residential parcels, with higher and lower amounts for properties in other use categories identified in the ordinance, commencing with the tax year beginning July 1, 2017?" 2. The Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters is designated as the Election Official for this election, and the County Clerk, Elections Division, is hereby authorized and directed to provide all notices and take all other actions necessary to hold the election described in this resolution including, but not limited to, providing notices of times within which arguments for and against are to be submitted. 3. The County Administrator, or his designee, shall serve as the Eligible Filer for purposes of filing necessary documents with the Elections Official to facilitate listing of the above ballot proposition. Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena 5 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 27 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 28 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 29 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 30 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 31 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 32 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 33 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 34 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 35 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 36 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 37 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 38 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 39 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 40 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 41 ARCHIVED RESOLUTIONApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors42 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE update on the status of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (Authority) development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) for a possible sales tax measure in 2016, and CONSIDER actions necessary to communicate Board of Supervisors’ input on the TEP to the Authority. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The recommendation addresses an outside agency's actions. BACKGROUND: As established in both the October 21, 2014 and November 3, 2015 letters to the Authority regarding the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP), the Board of Supervisors (BOS) has not yet endorsed the proposed transportation sales tax. That broader issue will be addressed at a future meeting of the BOS. Reports on this issue have been brought to previous BOS meetings. The intent of this report is to provide an update on the subject effort. For background information please reference the last two detailed reports to the BOS: March 8, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting http://64.166.146.245/docs/2016/BOS/20160308_711/721_03-08-16_1627_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=18 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.5 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Update on the Status of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 43 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) September 15, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting http://64.166.146.245/docs/2015/BOS/20150915_640/650_09-15-15_826_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=128 The latest formal County input on the TEP is found in the November 2015 letter from the BOS to the Authority found at this link: http://www.cccounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/40751 Recent Events Since the last update to the BOS in March the TEP development process is moving ahead rapidly. The Authority has been convening their Special TEP Board meetings on an almost weekly basis. The County has been represented by Supervisors Glover, Mitchoff, and Andersen (as alternate). The TEP is being updated based on input from the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee, the Regional Transportation Planning Committees, and the Authority Board. March 8th: The BOS reviewed TEP Initial Draft version 1.1. March 29 th: TEP Initial Draft Version 2.1 is reviewed at the Authority Special TEP Meeting. April 6th: TEP Initial Draft Version 2.2 is reviewed and discussed at the April 6th Authority Special TEP Meeting. Notable at this meeting was the substantial verbal and written testimony from various interest groups including the following: Letter and presentation from the East Bay Leadership Council, Bay Area Council, and the Building Industry Association: Attachment 2: Bus-Econ-Dev-TEPcomments Letter and handout from Save Mount Diablo, Greenbelt Alliance, and Bike East Bay: Attachment 3: Bike-Env-TEPcomments+handout Letter from Public Advocates and TRANSDEF: Attachment 4: TRANSDEF - Public Advocates.pdf East county residents testifying in support of TriLink/239 and the Vasco-Byron Connector Road Advocates for increased bicycle transportation spending including representation from Bike Concord, Bike Walnut Creek and Bike East Bay. April 8: DRAFT Transportation Expenditure Plan "Version 4-8-16" (Attachment 1) is released by the Authority. April 20: TEP Version 4-8-16 was reviewed by the Authority Board. The consultant to the process distributed a memo that proposed revisions to the 4-8-16 TEP, Attachment 5: 4-20-16 CCTA Handout Gray, Bowen, Scott Memo Also distributed was information from the City of Brentwood, Attachment 6: Brentwood's Vision for Open Space, Farming, and Agriculture. Next Steps - Schedule: A detailed schedule for BOS, City, and Authority review of the TEP will be presented by staff at the April 26 BOS meeting. Update Below are comments from staff regarding changes of note seen in the current TEP version (Attachment 1) from earlier TEP versions. General comments are immediately below with page by page comments following. General Comments Term of the Measure: Recent dialog at the Regional Transportation Planning Committees include discussion of extending the proposed tax measure from the currently proposed 25 years to 30 in order to generate additional revenue. That proposal was also included in the 4-20-16 memo from the Authority's consultant on the TEP, Gray, Bowen, Scott. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 44 consultant on the TEP, Gray, Bowen, Scott. Project Listings: Early versions of the TEP included extensive transportation project lists provided by Authority member agencies, transit districts, etc. More recent versions of the TEP have removed the project listings. Removing the project list is to increase flexibility, which some believe is important because of 1) rapid changes in mobility related technology combined with the fact that 2) we are working with a 25-30 year time span. Page 4 of 34 Advance Mitigation Program: The Advance Mitigation Program was removed as a standalone category. The program continues in that capital programs are listed as "Advance Mitigation Program eligible". This program is discussed in more detail below. Page 6 of 34: Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements (LSM): Not shown in the redline/strikeout is the deletion of the phrase, "...and to comply with the GMP requirements." seen in previous TEP versions. The intent of this revision was to restrict the use of the funds to maintenance. County staff prefers to retain the flexibility in the current Measure J but can work with the proposed restriction. Currently, LSM funds are eligible for use on any project or activity authorized under Measure J. These projects and activities include maintenance in addition to matching grants for capital projects and to implement complete streets. Staff continues to be concerned with the amount of funding being provided for local streets in the TEP relative to deferred maintenance levels. The recent drop in gas tax revenue and storm related damage to roads and road related, non-pavement infrastructure have substantially magnified concerns. In addition, County staff will work with the authority to ensure the definition of maintenance includes the well-documented funding need for road-related, non-pavement infrastructure including but not limited to signage, lighting, water conveyance infrastructure, pavement delineation, traffic signals, environmental mitigation, guardrails, vegetation, storm damage, traffic control devices, ADA obligations, and road maintenance equipment. Page 7 of 34 Complete Streets: Not seen in redline strikeout but new since the March 8th BOS review, is the following language: "20% of the program funding will be allocated to four Complete Streets demonstration projects within five years of the Measure’s passage, one in each subregion, recommended by the relevant RTPC and approved by Authority, to demonstrate the successful implementation of Complete Streets projects. Demonstration projects will be required to strongly pursue the use of separated bike lane facilities in demonstration project program. The purpose of these demonstration projects is to create examples of successful complete street projects in multiple situations throughout the county." How these four demonstration projects will be selected is currently unknown. Page 7 of 34 BART Capacity, Access, and Parking: As seen in the attached draft, there have been substantial revisions to this category to clarify the intent of the program, ensure participation from other funding partners, and to define the use of the funds in the event the planned BART car purchase is not successful. A date certain is set (December 31,2026) for the regional funding approach to be established. County staff recommendation: The BOS may wish to consider, in addition to the deadline of a single date, interim milestone requirements or targets to demonstrate progress towards the regional funding solution. Page 9 of 34 East County Corridor (Vasco Rd and/or Byron Highway Corridors): Significant changes were made to this category since the last BOS review, revised/added text is shown below. These changes were made to: April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 45 Prioritize the Vasco Road/Byron Highway connector portion of the Tri-Link program of projects. Provide additional mitigation detail. Language was also added to make ineligible the use of funds for new roadways on new alignments. Prioritization of Byron Highway/Vasco Road Connector "For the Byron Highway (TriLink) corridor, the Authority shall prioritize funding for the design and construction of a new 2-lane limited access Byron Highway / Vasco Road connector south of Camino Diablo Road improving access to the Byron Airport," Environmental Mitigation "Prior to the use of any local sales tax funds to implement capacity improvements to either or both of these corridors, the Authority must find that the project includes measures to prevent growth outside of the Urban Limit Lines (ULL). Such measures might include, but are not necessarily limited to, limits on roadway access in areas outside the ULL, purchase of abutters’ rights of access, preservation of critical habitat and/or the permanent protection / acquisition of agricultural and open space." Limitation on Use of Funds "With the exception of the new connection between Vasco Road, the Byron Airport and the Byron Highway, funding from this category is not intended to be used for the construction of new roadways on new alignments" Page 10 of 34 Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit: The term “bus transit” was added to make explicit that conventional busses were eligible for funds. Additional detail was added to clarify the use of the funds (fare offsets, alternative non-rail transportation, etc) and how the program would be administered, (input from Regional Transportation Planning Committees, etc). Of note to the BOS is the removal of the language, “Recipients of funding under this category are required to participate in the development of the Accessible Transportation Services Strategic Plan included in Category 13 - Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities.” from this programs description. In order to ensure implementation of accessible transit recommendations, the BOS requested this requirement be included relative to all transit funding. The requirement still exists under the Transportation for Seniors & People with Disabilities category. Page 11 of 34 Transportation for Seniors & People With Disabilities: Detail was added to respond to questions from the 3-29 Authority meeting regarding the conduct of the Accessible Transit Strategic (ATS) Plan. Also included is a requirement that the study be adopted within 12 months of the passage of the sales tax Measure. In order to meet this deadline the study will likely need to be substantially expedited. Supervisor Karen Mitchoff at a recent Authority Board meeting suggested that the study move ahead prior to the Measure going to the voters. Staff has been investigating this option. Page 11 of 34 Safe Transportation for Children: Detail was added to include Authority establishment of guidelines and priorities. Page 12 of 34 Community Development Transportation Program: This is the renamed, “Community Development Incentive Program” largely unchanged since the early versions of the TEP with some exceptions detailed below. This program was, in part, developed in response to BOS comments regarding a program to address “…the need for economic development and balancing jobs and housing to make more efficient use of our transportation infrastructure.” April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 46 Details on how the program will be administered will be developed at a later date. The 4/20/16 memo from Gray, Bowen, Scott proposes to: 1) reduce the funding from 6% to 3%, 2) allow funds to be used as match for state Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities grants and 3) to merge the program with the existing Transportation for Livable Communities Program in Measure J (5% of Measure J revenues). These two programs have similar goals and would allow the Authority to focus a more significant amount of resources on the combined, restructured program. Staff recommended revisions: Funds from this category will be used implement this new Community Development Transportation Program, administered by the Authority’s Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPC’s). Funds will be allocated on a competitive basis to transportation projects or programs that promote economic development, job creation (targeting high job multiplier)and/or housing within established (or planned) transit supportive community centers. Project sponsors must demonstrate that at least 20% of the project is funded from other than local transportation sales tax revenue and the Authority will prioritize funding to projects that demonstrate over 50% funding from other sources. Additional priority will be given to projects where the sponsor can demonstrate that the project supports and facilitates development of housing for all income levels or supports creating jobs in areas with a deficit of proximate, well paying employment opportunities. Working with the RTPCs, the Authority will prepare guidelines and establish overall criteria for the program including the recognition of localized jobs/housing imbalances and the consequential impacts, including: imbalanced and excessive commute times; quality of life, higher vehicle miles traveled/greenhouse gas and; under-utilized transportation infrastructure. Page 13 of 34 Innovative Transportation Technology / Connected Communities Program County staff comment: Potentially, this program could be subsumed in to other relevant programs similar to how the Advanced Mitigation Program was handled. In theory, all of the various programs and projects could have technology components. Expenditures fitting this category could be eligible under each relevant category. Page 14 of 34 Regional Transportation Priorities: This is a catch-all program that was included to provide some ongoing flexibility in the funding program. Eligible expenditures include any project or program eligible under the entire measure. The Growth Management Program Page 16 of 34 Address Housing Options: Housing staff has commented that these requirements would be duplicative and already being met by submitting the "Annual Element Progress Report: Housing Element Implementation" (California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6202). Page 20 of 34 Urban Limit Line: Since the last BOS review, this program has undergone substantial discussion and revisions at the Authority. Of particular note see the following changes/additions below: 4 . Local jurisdictions may, without voter approval, enact a Minor Adjustments to their applicable ULL subject to a vote of at least 4/5 of the jurisdiction’s legislative body and the following requirements: a. Minor adjustment may include one or several parts that in total shall not exceed 30 acres; b . Adoption of at least one of the findings listed in the County’s Measure L (§82- 1.018 of County Ordinances 2006-06 § 3, 91-1 § 2, 90-66 § 4); c. The Minor Adjustment is not contiguous to one or more non-voter approved Minor Adjustments that in total exceed 30 acres; d . The Minor Adjustment does not create a pocket of land outside the existing urban limit line, specifically to avoid the possibility of a jurisdiction wanting to fill in those subsequently through separate adjustments; e. If the local jurisdiction is a City or a Town, then that City or Town shall not have approved another Minor Adjustment without voter approval in the previous 5 years. If the local jurisdiction is the County, then the County shall not approve more than 3 Minor Adjustments in any 5 year period and no more than 1 per April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 47 subregion of the County. … These conditions shall replace the conditions regarding the ULL outlined in Measure J. These changes were made to ensure consistency in ULL requirements throughout the County and be responsive to concerns of the environmental community. At the April 20th Authority meeting, the consultant recommended removal of the cap on the number of non-voter approved amendments to the ULL. Page 25 of 34 Advance Mitigation Program: This program was the subject of substantial dialog at the March 29th Authority Special TEP meeting. In response to questions about the program, Authority staff included a report in the April 7 th Authority Board packet (Attachment 7), “Development of a Potential Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) – Consideration to Adopt a Policy to Include an Advance Mitigation Program in the Draft TEP” and included the revised text seen in the attachment. Because this program is related to the ongoing, regional effort being conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the specific policy will be developed after the passage of the measure. Due to the somewhat unknown nature of the MTC program, and by extension the Authority's program, a contingency policy is provided, "If this approach (advance mitigation) cannot be fully implemented, then the identified funds shall be used for environmental mitigation purposes on a project by project basis." Page 30 of 34 Performance Audits: This existing requirement has been substantially expanded in the draft TEP. The impact on programs is unknown at this time as the performance criteria are to be established by the Authority at a later date. "Performance Audits: The following funding categories shall be subject to performance audits by the Authority: Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements (No. 1), Major Streets/Complete Streets/Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (No. 2), Advance Mitigation Program (No. 11), Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements (No. 12), Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities (No. 13), Safe Transportation for Children (No. 14), Intercity Rail and Ferry Service (No. 15), Pedestrian and Bicycle, and Trail Facilities (No. 16), Community Development Transportation Program (No. 17), and Innovative Transportation Technology / Connected Communities Program (No. 18). Each year, the Authority shall select and perform a focused performance audit on two or three of the funding categories listed above, so that at the end of the fourth year all funding categories listed above are audited. . This process shall commence two years after passage of the new sales tax measure. Additional Performance Audits shall continue on a similar cycle for the duration of the Plan. The performance audits shall provide an accurate quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the funding categories to determine the effectiveness in meeting the performance criteria established by the Authority. In the event that any performance audit determines that a funding category is not meeting the performance requirements established by the Authority, the audit shall include recommendations for corrective action including but not limited to revisions to Authority policies or program guidelines that govern the expenditure of funds." CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If direction is not provided to the County’s Authority Board representatives or staff, the County may forego an opportunity to provide input on the development of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Transportation Expenditure Plan. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Smitty Schmidt, resident of Alamo; Eli D., resident of Martinez. RECEIVED update on the status of April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 48 Speakers: Smitty Schmidt, resident of Alamo; Eli D., resident of Martinez. RECEIVED update on the status of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (Authority) development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) for a possible sales tax measure in 2016 and DIRECTED staff to prepare a letter to the Authority to incorporate to today's commentary, to return to the Board on May 10, 2016. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - DRAFT Transportation Expenditure Plan Version 4-8-2016 Attachment 2 - Bus-Econ-Dev-TEPcomments Attachment 3 Bike-Env-TEPcomments+handout. Attachment 4: TRANSDEF - Public Advocates.pdf Attachment 5 - 4-20-16 CCTA Handout GBS Memo Attachment 6 - Brentwood's Vision for Open Space, Farming, and Agriculture Attachment 7 - Advance Mitigation Program Report from CCTA 4-6 Final_Agenda_Packet April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 49 DRAFT Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan (TEP) (April 8 , 2016) Attachment A - Clean April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 50 TEP Outline • Preface • Executive summary (to be completed at a later date) • The Contra Costa Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan o Table of Expenditure Plan Allocations o Summary of Projects and Programs (to be completed at a later date) o Detailed Descriptions of Funding Categories o Growth Management Program  Attachment A - Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line o Complete Streets Program o Advance Mitigation Program o Governing Structure o Implementing Guidelines April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 51 Preface This Sales Tax Augmentation promotes a healthy environment and strong economy that will benefit all Contra Costa residents through: 1) enhancing a balanced, safe and efficient transportation network; 2) facilitating cooperative planning among the regions of Contra Costa County and with surrounding counties, and 3) managing growth and sustaining the environment. The Sales Tax Augmentation helps to build and operate a transportation network that includes all transportation modes used by Contra Costa residents. To achieve this vision, the Sales Tax Augmentation enhances our ability to achieve six goals that are embodied in the current work of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 1. Support the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods using all available transportation modes 2. Maintain the current transportation system 3. Influence how growth occurs to build Contra Costa’s economy, preserve our environment, and support local communities; 4. Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single occupant vehicle; 5. Promote environmental sustainability; 6. Invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 52 TABLE OF EXPENDITURE PLAN ALLOCATIONS Notes • Draft TEP does not reallocate funding between Funding Category 1 and Funding Category 2, pending reconsideration by WCCTAC • Community Development Transportation Program is a new category. It is intended for transportation projects or programs that promote economic development, job creation and housing (see details on following pages). • There are four subregions within Contra Costa: Central, West, Southwest and East County each represented by a Regional Transportation Planning Commission (RTPC). Central County (TRANSPAC subregion) includes Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and the unincorporated portions of Central County. West County (WCCTAC subregion) includes El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo and the unincorporated portions of West County. Southwest County (SWAT subregion) includes Danville, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, San Ramon and the unincorporated portions of Southwest County. East County (TRANSPLAN subregion) includes Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Pittsburg and the unincorporated portions of East County. The above projects and programs are necessary to address current and future transportation needs in Contra Costa. The proposed funding allocation represents “fair share” distribution based on proportional share of population in year 2030 by subregion. Distribution of Funding By Subregion No. Funding Category $ millions %Central Southwest West East (a) (b) (c)(d) 1 Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements 540.0 23.1% 156.1 120.0 119.0 144.9 1a Add'l Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements 17.0 0.7% 17.0 2 Major Streets and Complete Streets Project Grants 200.0 8.6% 108.3 29.3 19.4 42.9 3 BART Capacity, Access and Parking Improvements 300.0 12.8% 88.1 57.4 69.8 84.7 4 East Contra Costa Transit Extension 70.0 3.0%70.0 5 High Capacity Transit Improvements along the I-80 Corridor in West County 20.0 0.9%20.0 6 I-80 Interchange Improvements at San Pablo Dam Road and Central Avenue 60.0 2.6%60.0 7 Improve traffic flow & implement high capacity transit in the I-680 corridor & SR 24 140.0 6.0% 40.0 100.0 8 Improve traffic flow along the SR 242 & SR 4 Corridors in Central and Eastern County 70.0 3.0% 40.0 30.0 9 Interstate 680 and State Route 4 Interchange Improvements 60.0 2.6% 60.0 10 East County Corridor (Vasco Rd and/or Byron Highway Corridors)117.0 5.0%117.0 11 Bus and Non-Rail Transit Enhancements 240.0 10.3% 50.0 50.0 90.0 50.0 12 Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities 77.6 3.3% 20.1 4.7 22.9 29.9 13 Safe Transportation for Children 52.0 2.2% 7.0 16.3 21.3 7.4 14 Intercity Rail and Ferry Service 50.0 2.1% 8.0 35.0 7.0 15 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities 66.7 2.9% 12.4 24.7 21.5 8.1 16 Community Development Transportation Program 140.0 6.0% 41.1 26.8 32.6 39.5 17 Innovative Transportation Technology / Connected Communities Grant Program 53.2 2.3% 20.0 5.5 16.7 11.0 18 Transportation Planning, Facilities & Services 23.4 1.0% 6.9 4.5 5.4 6.6 19 Regional Transportation Priorities 18.7 0.8% 5.0 3.7 5.0 5.0 20 Administration 23.4 1.0% 6.9 4.5 5.4 6.6 TOTAL 2339.0 100.0% 686.9 447.4 544.0 660.7 Population Based Share 2339 686.9 447.4 544.0 660.7 Population Share (2030 Estimate) of Total 29.37% 19.13% 23.26% 28.25% April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 53 Detailed Descriptions of Funding Categories The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) is responsible for maintaining and improving the county’s transportation system by planning, funding, and delivering critical transportation infrastructure projects and programs. The funding categories detailed below will provide needed improvements to connect our communities, foster a strong economy, increase sustainability, and safely and efficiently get people where they need to go. Funding Categories 1. Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements ----- 23.1% ($540m) Funds from this category will fund maintenance and improvement projects on local streets and roads and may be used for any eligible transportation purposes as defined under the Act. The Authority will distribute 23.1 percent of the annual sales tax revenues to all local jurisdictions with a base allocation of $100,000 for each jurisdiction, the balance will be distributed based 50 percent on relative population and 50 percent on road miles for each jurisdiction, subject to compliance with the Authority’s reporting, audit and GMP requirements. Population figures used shall be the most current available from the State Department of Finance. Road mileage shall be from the most current information included in the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Funds shall be used by each jurisdiction to maintain and enhance existing roadway and other transportation facilities. Jurisdictions shall comply with the Authority’s Maintenance of Effort (MOE) policy as well as Implementation Guidelines of this TEP. Local agencies will report on the use of these funds, such as the amount spent on roadway maintenance, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, and other roadway improvements. 1.a – Additional Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements ---- $17m An additional $17m will be allocated to Central Contra Costa County jurisdictions based on the formula of 50 percent on relative population and 50 percent on road miles for each jurisdiction and subject to program requirements detailed above. 2. Major Streets/ Complete Streets/ Traffic Signal Synchronization Grant Program ----- $200m Funds from this category shall be used to fund improvements to major thoroughfares throughout Contra Costa to improve the safe, efficient and reliable movement of buses, vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians along said corridors (i.e. traffic smoothing). Eligible projects shall include a variety of components that meet the needs of all users and respond to the context of the facility. Projects may include but are not limited to installation of bike and pedestrian facilities, installation of “smart” parking management programs, separated bike lanes, synchronization of traffic signals and other technology solutions to manage traffic, traffic calming and pedestrian safety improvements, shoulders, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, streetscapes April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 54 and bus transit facility enhancements such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities. As an element of this program, the Authority will adopt a ‘traffic signal synchronization’ program and award grants for installation of ‘state of the art’ technology oriented at smoothing the flow of traffic along major arterial roadways throughout the county. Funding from this program will be prioritized to projects that improve access for all modes to job, commercial and transit, and whose design process included opportunity for public input from existing and potential users of the facility. Priority will be given to projects that can show a high percentage of “other funding” allocated to the project (i.e. – leverage). All projects funded through this program must comply with the Authority’s Complete Streets Policy and include complete street elements whenever possible. 20% of the program funding will be allocated to four Complete Streets demonstration projects within five years of the Measure’s passage, one in each subregion, recommended by the relevant RTPC and approved by Authority, to demonstrate the successful implementation of Complete Streets projects. Demonstration projects will be required to strongly pursue the use of separated bike lane facilities in demonstration project program. The purpose of these demonstration projects is to create examples of successful complete street projects in multiple situations throughout the county. Advanced Mitigation Program eligible project. 3. BART Capacity, Access and Parking Improvements ---- $300m This category is intended to provide funding to increase the capacity and ridership of public transit on the BART corridors and for BART station, access and parking improvements. Funds in this category may be allocated by the Authority for the acquisition of new BART cars and associated advanced train control systems that can be shown to increase capacity and ridership on BART lines serving Contra Costa, provided that 1) BART agrees to fund a minimum of $100 million in BART station, access and parking improvements in Contra Costa County from other BART revenues, and 2) a regional approach, that includes commitments of equal funding shares from both Alameda and San Francisco counties and additional regional funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, is developed no later than December 31, 2026. BART station, access and parking improvements may include station capacity, safety and operational improvements; infrastructure improvements that facilitate Transit Oriented Development at or near BART stations; additional on or off site parking; last mile shuttle or shared vehicles that provide alternatives to driving single-occupant vehicles to BART stations; and bicycle/ pedestrian facilities that provide access to BART stations. Funds not used for BART cars or associated advance train controls, or for BART station, access and parking improvements may be used for alternate public transit services that that operate along the BART corridors. 4. East Contra Costa Transit Extension (BART or alternative) ---- $70m Funding from this category shall be used to extend high capacity transit service easterly from the Hillcrest BART Station in Antioch through Oakley to a new transit station in Brentwood. To the greatest degree possible, local funds generated by this measure shall be used to leverage additional regional, state and/or federal funds for this April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 55 project. Funds from this category may be used to complete an interim transit station in Brentwood. Advance Mitigation Program eligible project. 5. High Capacity Transit Improvements along the I-80 Corridor in West Contra Costa County ---- $20m Funding from this category shall be allocated by the Authority to projects / programs for high capacity transit improvements along the I-80 corridor. Final determination on the scope of the improvements to be constructed will be based on the final recommendations in the West County High Capacity Transit Study and in consultation with the subregion. To the greatest degree possible, local funds generated by this measure shall be used to leverage additional regional, state and/or federal funds for this project. Advance Mitigation Program eligible project. 6. Interstate 80 Interchange Improvements at San Pablo Dam Road and Central Avenue ---- $60m Funding allocations from this category shall be approved by the Authority to improve the I-80 interchanges at San Pablo Dam Road, Central Avenue, and other locations along I- 80 in consultation with the subregion. Advance Mitigation Program eligible project. 7. Improve traffic flow and implement high capacity transit along the Interstate 680 and State Route 24 corridors in Central and Southwest Contra Costa County ---- $140m Funding from this category shall be used to implement the I-680 corridor express lane and operational improvement project to facilitate carpools and increase transit use in the corridors as an alternative to single occupant vehicle travel. Funding may also be used to implement high capacity transit improvements in the corridor (including those identified in the I-680 Transit Investment and Congestion Relief Options and other relevant studies). Funding may also be used to complete improvements to the mainline freeway and/or local interchanges along I-680 and SR 24 as may be required to implement express lane and/or transit projects as well as advanced traffic management programs and/or other projects or programs that encourage the use of connected vehicle and/or autonomous vehicles in the corridor provided that the project sponsor can show that they reduce congestion, increase mobility and provide alternatives to single occupant vehicle travel. Selection of final projects to be based on a performance analysis of project alternatives consistent with Authority requirements. Projects funded from this category must be physically on or near the I-680 or the SR 24 corridors. Of the funds assigned to this category in Southwest County, $20 million will be eligible for interchange improvements on the SR 24. To the greatest degree possible, local funds generated by this measure shall be used to leverage additional regional, state and/or federal funds for this project. Advance Mitigation Program eligible project. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 56 8. Improve traffic flow along the SR 242 and SR 4 Corridors in Central and Eastern Contra Costa County ----- $70m Funding from this category shall be used to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion between Concord and Brentwood along State Route 242 and State Route 4 to reduce congestion, increase mobility and provide alternatives to single occupant vehicle travel. To the greatest degree possible, local funds generated by this measure shall be used to leverage additional regional, state and/or federal funds for this project. Advanced traffic management programs and/or other projects or programs that encourage the use of connected vehicle and/or autonomous vehicles in the corridor are eligible for funding from this category provided that the project sponsor can demonstrate that they reduce congestion, increase mobility and provide alternatives to single occupant vehicle travel. Projects funded from this category must be physically on or near the SR 242 or SR 4 corridors. Selection of final project to be based on a performance analysis of project alternatives consistent with Authority requirements. Advance Mitigation Program eligible project. 9. Interstate 680 / State Route 4 Interchange ----- $60m Funding from this category shall be used to implement the Interstate 680/ State Route 4 interchange improvement project as necessary to improve traffic flow and enhance traffic safety along both the I-680 and SR 4 corridors. To the greatest degree possible, local funds generated by this measure shall be used to leverage additional regional, state and/or federal funds for this project. Authority shall prioritize local funding commitments to this project in such a way as to encourage carpools and vanpools, public transit usage and other alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. Advance Mitigation Program eligible project. 10. East County Corridor (Vasco Rd and/or Byron Highway Corridors) ----- $117m Funding from this category shall be used to complete safety improvements to Vasco Road and safety and / or capacity improvements to the Byron Highway (Tri-Link) Corridors oriented at providing better connectivity between eastern Contra Costa and the Interstate 205/580 corridors in Alameda and San Joaquin counties. For the Byron Highway (TriLink) corridor, the Authority shall prioritize funding for the design and construction of a new 2-lane limited access Byron Highway / Vasco Road connector south of Camino Diablo Road improving access to the Bryon Airport, and other improvements to the Byron Highway that increase safety and facilitate an improved goods movement network for East Contra Costa County. For the Vasco Road corridor, the Authority shall prioritize funding for safety improvements and other improvements oriented at high-capacity transit or high occupancy carpools. To the greatest degree possible, local funds generated by this measure shall be used to leverage additional regional, state and/or federal funds for these projects. Prior to the use of any local sales tax funds to implement capacity improvements to either or both of these corridors, the Authority must find that the project includes measures to prevent growth outside of the Urban Limit Lines (ULL). Such measures might include, but are not necessarily be limited to, limits on roadway access in areas outside the ULL, purchase of abutters’ rights of access, preservation of critical April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 57 habitat and/or the permanent protection / acquisition of agricultural and open space. With the exception of the new connection between Vasco Road, the Byron Airport and the Byron Highway, funding from this category is not intended to be used for the construction of new roadways on new alignments. The Authority will work with Alameda and/or San Joaquin Counties to address project impacts in those jurisdictions. Advance Mitigation Program eligible project. 11. Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements ---- 10.3% ($240m) This category is intended to provide funding to existing bus transit operators and for future non-rail transit service alternatives. Funding will be provided for bus transit operations to increase or maintain ridership, including incentivizing transit use by offsetting fares; and improve the frequency and capacity of high demand routes connecting housing with job, commercial, transit, and medical centers. In addition, funding can be used to support other non-rail transit services/projects that can demonstrate innovative approaches to maximizing the movement of people efficiently and in a manner that reduces VMT and GHG. Funding will be allocated by the Authority throughout the County based on input from each Regional Transportation Planning Committee and on performance criteria established by the Authority in consultation with local and regional bus transit operators, providers of alternate non-rail transportation, and stakeholders. Funding allocations will be reviewed on a regular basis. Said performance criteria shall require a finding that any proposed new or enhanced services demonstrate the ability to improve regional and/or local mobility for Contra Costa residents. Funds may be used for transit capital projects or to operate service improvements identified in the adopted plans of an operator or of the Authority. Guidelines will be established so that revenues will fund service enhancements in Contra Costa. The guidelines may require provisions, such as: operational efficiencies requiring greater coordination, promoting and developing a seamless service; increasing service frequencies on appropriate routes; and specified performance criteria and reporting requirements. Services funded in this program will be reviewed in accordance with implementing guidelines described in this expenditure plan. 12. Transportation for Seniors & People With Disabilities ----- 3.3% ($78m) Funding in this category is to support mobility opportunities for seniors and people with disabilities who, due to age or disability, cannot drive or take other transit options. To ensure services are delivered in a coordinated system that maximizes both service delivery and efficiency an Accessible Transportation Service (ATS) Strategic Plan will be developed and periodically updated during the term of the measure. No funding under this category will be allocated until the ATS Strategic Plan has been developed and adopted. An overarching component in the development and delivery of the ATS Strategic Plan is using mobility management to ensure coordination and April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 58 efficiencies in accessible service delivery. The plan will evaluate the appropriate model for our local structure including how accessible services are delivered by all agencies and where appropriate coordination can improve transportation services, eliminate gaps in service and find efficiencies in the service delivered. The ATS Strategic Plan would also determine the investments and oversight of the program funding and identify timing, projects, service delivery options, administrative structure, and fund leverage opportunities. The ATS Strategic Plan will be developed by the Authority with participation from publicly operated transit and paratransit providers and selected non-profit and citizen stakeholders representing seniors and people with disabilities. Public transit operators in Contra Costa must participate in the ATS planning process to be eligible to receive funding in this category. The ATS Strategic Plan must be adopted within 12 months of the passage of this Measure. 13. Safe Transportation for Children ----- 2.2% ($52m) Programs and projects which promote safe transportation options for children to access schools or after school programs. Eligible projects include but are not limited to reduced fare transit passes and transit incentive programs, school bus programs, and projects for pedestrian and bicycle safety that provide school-related access. Authority will allocate funds and will establish guidelines (in cooperation with project sponsors) to define priorities and maximize effectiveness. The guidelines may require provisions such as parent contributions; operational efficiencies; specific performance criteria and reporting requirements. 14. Intercity Rail/ Ferries ---- $50m Funds from this category shall be used to construct station and/or track improvements to the Capitol Corridor and/or the San Joaquin corridors as well as to implement new or improved ferry services (including both capital and operations) in Richmond, Hercules, Martinez and/or Antioch. Projects that increase ridership using existing capacity by incentives including offsetting fares or other methodologies may also be considered. To the greatest degree possible, local funds generated by this measure shall be used to leverage additional regional, state and/or federal funds for this project. Any projects funded in this category will be evaluated by the Authority and demonstrate progress toward the Authority’s goals of reducing VMT and green- house gas reductions. Selection of final projects to be based on a performance analysis of project alternatives consistent with Authority requirements. Sponsors of projects requesting funding from this category will be required to demonstrate to the Authority that sufficient funding is available to operate the proposed project and/or service over a long period of time. 15. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities ---- 2.9% ($67m) Two-thirds of the funds from this program will be used implement projects in the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, consistent with the current Measure J program. These funds will be allocated competitively to projects that improve safety for April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 59 pedestrians and bicyclists, serve the greatest number of users and significant destinations, and remove missing segments and existing barriers to walking and bicycling. The review process shall also consider project feasibility and readiness and the differing needs of the sub-regions when identifying projects for funding. Funding available through this program shall be primarily used for the construction, maintenance, and safety or other improvements of bicycle, pedestrian and trail projects. Design, project approval, right-of-way purchase and environmental clearance may not be funded as part of a construction project. Planning to identify a preferred alignment for major new bicycle, pedestrian or trail connections may also be funded through this program. One third of the funds are to be allocated to the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) for the development and rehabilitation of paved regional trails. EBRPD is to spend its allocation proportionally in each sub-region, subject to the review and approval of the applicable sub-regional committee, prior to funding allocation by the Authority. The Authority in conjunction with EBRPD will develop a maintenance- of-effort requirement for funds under this component of the funding category. Consistent with the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and the complete streets policy established in this expenditure plan, project sponsors receiving funding through other funding categories in this Plan shall incorporate, whenever possible, pedestrian, bicycle, and trail facilities into their projects. 16. Community Development Transportation Program----- 6.0% ($140m) Funds from this category will be used implement this new Community Development Transportation Program, administered by the Authority’s Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPC’s). Funds will be allocated on a competitive basis to transportation projects or programs that promote economic development, job creation and/or housing within established (or planned) transit supportive community centers. Project sponsors must demonstrate that at least 20% of the project is funded from other than local transportation sales tax revenue and the Authority will prioritize funding to projects that demonstrate over 50% funding from other sources. Additional priority will be given to projects where the sponsor can demonstrate that the project supports and facilitates development of housing for all income levels. Working with the RTPCs, the Authority will prepare guidelines and establish overall criteria for the program. 17. Innovative Transportation Technology / Connected Communities Program ----- 2.3% ($53m) Funding from this category will be allocated for the planning and development of projects and programs that include innovative solutions intended to (a) develop and demonstrate transportation innovation through real-world applications, (b) reduce GHG emissions, and (c) implement connected transportation solutions and integrate this approach with other community services such as public safety, public services, water, communications and energy to promote economic development and jobs opportunities by increasing government efficiency and reducing consumption. Examples of eligible April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 60 projects include but are not limited to expanding opportunities for zero emission vehicle charging; smart rideshare, carshare and bikeshare services; on-demand and personal transit services that compliment traditional fixed-route transit; smart and automated parking; intelligent, sensor-based infrastructure; smart payment systems; and data sharing to improve mobility choices for all users. Projects are intended to promote connectivity between all users of the transportation network (cars, pedestrians, bikes, buses, trucks, etc.) and automation technologies that collectively facilitate the transformation toward connected communities. Funding is intended to match State, federal, or regional grants and private-sector investment to achieve maximum benefits. By investing in these solutions Contra Costa County can become a national model in sustainable, technology-enabled transportation. A minimum of twenty-five percent shall be allocated to each sub-program (a, b and c above) over the life of the measure. The Authority will prepare guidelines and establish overall criteria for the Innovative Transportation Technology / Connected Communities Program and provide technical resources to project sponsors. The RTPC’s will submit programs/projects for the Authority to consider allocating funds to on a competitive basis for each of the sub-programs. Project sponsors must demonstrate that the programs provide highly efficient services that are cost effective, integrated and responsive to the needs of the community. 18. Transportation Planning, Facilities and Services ---- 1.0% ($23m) Implement the countywide GMP, prepare the countywide transportation plan; and support the programming and monitoring of federal and state funds, as well as the Authority’s Congestion Management Agency functions. 19. Regional Transportation Priorities ---- $19m Funding from this category shall be used for any project or program identified in the Expenditure Plan or eligible under the provisions of the Act, including activities that promote alternatives to commuting in single occupant vehicles. Program and project recommendations shall be made by each subregion for consideration and funding by the Authority. 20. Administration ---- 1.0% ($23m) Funds administration of new measure. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 61 The Growth Management Program Goals and Objectives The overall goal of the Growth Management Program is to preserve and enhance the quality of life and promote a healthy, strong economy to benefit the people and areas of Contra Costa through a cooperative, multi-jurisdictional process for managing growth, while maintaining local authority over land use decisions.1 The objectives of the Growth Management Program are to: • Assure that new residential, business and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth. • Require cooperative transportation and land use planning among Contra Costa County, cities, towns, and transportation agencies. • Support land use patterns within Contra Costa 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. Components To receive its share of Local Transportation Maintenance and Improvement funds and to be eligible for Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities funds, each jurisdiction must: 1. Adopt a Growth Management Element Each jurisdiction must adopt, or maintain in place, a Growth Management Element as part of its General Plan that outlines the jurisdiction’s goals and policies for managing growth and requirements for achieving those goals. The Growth Management Element must show how the jurisdiction will comply with sections 2–7 below. The Authority will refine its model Growth Management Element and administrative procedures in consultation with the Regional Transportation Planning Committees to reflect the revised Growth Management Program. Each jurisdiction is encouraged to incorporate other standards and procedures into its Growth Management Element to support the objectives and required components of this Growth Management Program. 1 The Authority will, to the extent possible, attempt to harmonize the Growth Management and the State-mandated Congestion Management Programs. To the extent they conflict, Congestion Management Program Activities shall take precedence over Growth Management activities. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 62 2. Adopt a Development Mitigation Program Each jurisdiction must adopt, or maintain in place, 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. The jurisdiction’s local development mitigation program shall ensure that revenue provided from this measure shall not be used to replace private developer funding that has or would have been committed to any project. The regional development mitigation program shall establish fees, exactions, assessments or other mitigation measures to fund regional or subregional transportation improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of planned or forecast development. Regional mitigation programs may adjust such fees, exactions, assessments or other mitigation measures when developments are within walking distance of frequent transit service or are part of a mixed-use development of sufficient density and with necessary facilities to support greater levels of walking and bicycling. Each Regional Transportation Planning Committee shall develop the regional development mitigation program for its region, taking account of planned and forecast growth and the Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives and actions to achieve them established in the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. Regional Transportation Planning Committees may use existing regional mitigation programs, if consistent with this section, to comply with the Growth Management Program. 3. Address Housing Options Each jurisdiction shall demonstrate reasonable progress in providing housing opportunities for all income levels as part of a report on the implementation of the actions outlined in its adopted Housing Element. The report will demonstrate progress by: a. 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 jurisdiction’s Housing Element; or b. 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 c. Illustrating how a jurisdiction’s General Plan and zoning regulations facilitate the improvement and development of sufficient housing to meet those objectives. In addition, each jurisdiction shall 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, and shall incorporate policies and standards into its development approval process that support transit, bicycle April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 63 and pedestrian access in new developments. 4. Participate in an Ongoing C ooperative, M ulti-J urisdictional P lanning P rocess. Each jurisdiction shall participate in an ongoing process with other jurisdictions and agencies, the Regional Transportation Planning Committees and the Authority to create a balanced, safe and efficient transportation system and to manage the impacts of growth. Jurisdictions shall work with the Regional Transportation Planning Committees to: a. Identify Routes of Regional Significance, and establish Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives for those routes and actions for achieving those objectives. b. Apply 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 objectives. c. Create the development mitigation programs outlined in section 2 above. d. Help develop other plans, programs and studies to address other transportation and growth management issues. In consultation with the Regional Transportation Planning Committees, each jurisdiction will use the travel demand model to evaluate changes to local General Plans and the impacts of major development projects for their effects on the local and regional transportation system and the ability to achieve the Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives established in the Action Plans. Jurisdictions shall also participate in the Authority’s ongoing countywide comprehensive transportation planning process. As part of this process, the Authority shall support countywide and subregional planning efforts, including the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance, and shall maintain a travel demand model. Jurisdictions shall help maintain the Authority’s travel demand modeling system by providing information on proposed improvements to the transportation system and planned and approved development within the jurisdiction. 5. Continuously Comply with an Urban Limit Line (ULL) In order to be found in compliance with this element of the Authority’s Growth Management Program, all jurisdictions must continually comply with an applicable voter approved Urban Limit Line (ULL). Said ULL may either be the Contra Costa County voter approved ULL (County ULL) or a locally initiated, voter approved ULL (LV- ULL). Additional information and detailed compliance requirements for the ULL are fully defined in the ULL Compliance Requirements, which are incorporated herein as Attachment A. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 64 Any of the following actions by a local jurisdiction will constitute non-compliance with the Growth Management Program: 1. The submittal of an annexation request to LAFCO for lands outside of a jurisdictions applicable ULL. 2. Failure to conform to the Authority’s ULL Compliance Requirements (Attachment A). 6. Develop a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Each jurisdiction shall prepare and maintain a capital improvement program that outlines the capital projects needed to implement the goals and policies of the jurisdiction’s General Plan for at least the following five-year period. The Capital Improvement Program shall include approved projects and an analysis of the costs of the proposed projects as well as a financial plan for providing the improvements. The jurisdiction shall forward the transportation component of its capital improvement program to the Authority for incorporation into the Authority’s database of transportation projects. 7. Adopt a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Ordinance or Resolution To promote carpools, vanpools and park and ride lots, each jurisdiction shall adopt a local ordinance or resolution that conforms to the model Transportation Systems Management Ordinance that the Transportation Authority has drafted and adopted. Upon approval of the Authority, cities with a small employment base may adopt alternative mitigation measures in lieu of a TSM ordinance or resolution. Allocation of Funds Portions of the monies received from the retail transaction and use tax will be returned to the local jurisdictions (the cities and the county) for use on local, subregional and/or regional transportation improvements and maintenance projects. Receipt of all such funds requires compliance with the Growth Management Program as described below. The funds are to be distributed on a formula based on population and road miles. Each jurisdiction shall demonstrate its compliance with all of the components of the Growth Management Program in a completed compliance checklist. The jurisdiction shall submit, and the Authority shall review and make findings regarding the juris- diction’s compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Program, consistent with the Authority’s adopted policies and procedures. If the Authority determines that the jurisdiction complies with the requirements of the Growth Management Program, it shall allocate to the jurisdiction its share of Local Street Maintenance and Improvement funding (No. 1). Jurisdictions may use funds allocated under this provision to comply with these administrative requirements. If the Authority determines that the jurisdiction does not comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Program, the Authority shall withhold those funds and also April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 65 make a finding that the jurisdiction shall not be eligible to receive Community Development Transportation Program funds (No. 16) until the Authority determines the jurisdiction has achieved compliance. The Authority’s findings of noncompliance may set deadlines and conditions for achieving compliance. Withholding of funds, reinstatement of compliance, reallocation of funds and treatment of unallocated funds shall be as established in adopted Authority’s policies and procedures. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 66 Attachment A Urban Limit Line (ULL) Definitions and Compliance R equirements Definitions - the following definitions apply to the GMP ULL requirement: 1. Urban Limit Line (ULL): An urban limit line, urban growth boundary, or other equivalent physical boundary judged by the Authority to clearly identify the physical limits of the local jurisdiction’s future urban development 2. Local Jurisdictions: Includes Contra Costa County, the 19 cities and towns within Contra Costa, plus any newly incorporated cities or towns established after April 1, 2017. 3. County ULL: A ULL placed on the ballot by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, approved by voters at a countywide election, and in effect through the applicable GMP compliance period. The current County ULL was established by Measure L approved by voters in 2006. The following local jurisdictions have adopted the County ULL as its applicable ULL: City of Brentwood Town of Moraga City of Clayton City of Oakley City of Concord City of Orinda Town of Danville City of Pinole City of El Cerrito City of Pleasant Hill City of Hercules City of Richmond City of Lafayette City of San Pablo City of Martinez City of Walnut Creek 4. Local Voter ULL (LV-ULL): A ULL or equivalent measure placed on the local jurisdiction ballot, approved by the jurisdiction’s voters, and recognized by action of the local jurisdiction’s legislative body as its applicable, voter-approved ULL. The LV-ULL will be used as of its effective date to meet the Authority’s GMP ULL requirement and must be in effect through the applicable GMP compliance period. The following local jurisdictions have adopted a LV-ULL: City of Antioch City of San Ramon City of Pittsburg April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 67 5. Minor Adjustments: An adjustment to the ULL of 30 acres or less. 6. Other Adjustments: Other adjustments that address issues of unconstitutional takings, and conformance to state and federal law. Revisions to the ULL 1. A local jurisdiction which has adopted the County ULL as its applicable ULL may revise its ULL with local voter approval at any time during the term of the Authority’s GMP by adopting a LV-ULL in accordance with the requirements outlined for a LV-ULL contained in the definitions section. 2. A local jurisdiction may revise its LV-ULL with local voter approval at any time during the term of the Authority’s GMP if the resultant ULL meets the requirements outlined for a LV-ULL contained in the definitions section. 3. If voters, through a countywide ballot measure, approve a revision to the County ULL, the legislative body of each local jurisdiction relying on the County ULL shall: a. Accept and approve its existing ULL to continue as its applicable ULL, or b. Accept and approve the revised County ULL as its applicable ULL, or c. Adopt a LV-ULL in accordance with the requirements outlined for a LV-ULL contained in the definitions section. 4. Local jurisdictions may, without voter approval, enact a Minor Adjustments to their applicable ULL subject to a vote of at least 4/5 of the jurisdiction’s legislative body and the following requirements: a. Minor adjustment may include one or several parts that in total shall not exceed 30 acres; b. Adoption of at least one of the findings listed in the County’s Measure L (§82- 1.018 of County Ordinances 2006-06 § 3, 91-1 § 2, 90-66 § 4); c. The Minor Adjustment is not contiguous to one or more non-voter approved Minor Adjustments that in total exceed 30 acres; d. The Minor Adjustment does not create a pocket of land outside the existing urban limit line, specifically to avoid the possibility of a jurisdiction wanting to fill in those subsequently through separate adjustments; e. If the local jurisdiction is a City or a Town, then that City or Town shall not have approved another Minor Adjustment without voter approval in the previous 5 years. If the local jurisdiction is the County, then the County shall not approve more than 3 Minor Adjustments in any 5 year period and no more than 1 per subregion of the County. 5. A local jurisdiction may revise its LV-ULL, and the County may revise the County ULL, to address issues of unconstitutional takings or conformance to State or federal law, if the revision does not exceed 30 acres and the revision is approved by at least 4/5 of the members of the legislative body. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 68 Conditions of Compliance 1. Submittal of an annexation request of greater than 30 acres by a local jurisdiction to LAFCO outside of a voter-approved ULL will constitute non-compliance with the GMP. 2. For each jurisdiction, an applicable ULL shall be in place through each GMP compliance reporting period in order for the local jurisdiction to be found in compliance with the GMP requirements. 3. These conditions shall replace the conditions regarding the ULL outlined in Measure J. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 69 Complete Streets Policy Vision This Plan envisions a transportation system in which each component provides safe, comfortable and convenient access for every user allowed to use it. These users include pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, automobile drivers and their passengers, and truckers, and people of varying abilities, including children, seniors, people with disabilities and able-bodied adults. The goal of every transportation project is to provide safer, more accessible facilities for all users and shall be planned, designed, constructed and operated to take advantage of that opportunity. By making streets more efficient and safe for all users, a complete streets approach will expand capacity and improve mobility for all users, giving commuters convenient options for travel and minimizing need to widen roadways. Policy To achieve this vision, all recipients of funding through this Plan shall consider and accommodate, wherever possible, the needs of all users in the planning, design, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation and maintenance of the transportation system. This determination shall be consistent with the exceptions listed below. Achieving this vision will require balancing the needs of different users, and may require reallocating existing right of way for different uses. The Authority shall revise its project development guidelines to require the consideration and accommodation of all users in the design and construction of projects funded with Measure funds and shall adopt peer review and design standards to implement that approach. The guidelines will allow flexibility in responding to the context of each project and the needs of users specific to the project’s context, and will build on accepted best practices for complete streets and context-sensitive design. To ensure that this policy is carried out, the Authority shall prepare a checklist that sponsors of projects using Measure funds must submit that documents how the needs of all users were considered and how they were accommodated in the design and construction of the project. In the checklist, the sponsor will outline how they provided opportunity for public input, in a public forum, from all users early in the project development and design process. If the proposed project or program will not provide context appropriate conditions for all users, the sponsor shall document the reasons why in the checklist, consistent with the following section on “exceptions” below. The completed checklist shall be made part of the approval of programming of funding for the project or the funding allocation resolution. Recipients of Local Street Maintenance and Improvement funds shall adopt procedures that ensure that all agency departments consider and accommodate the needs of all users for projects or programs affecting public rights of way for which the agency is responsible. These procedures shall: 1) be consistent with and be designed to implement each agency’s general plan policies once that plan has been updated to comply with the Complete Streets Act of 2008, 2) involve and coordinate the work of all agency departments and staff whose projects will April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 70 affect the public right of way, 3) consider the complete street design standards adopted by the Authority, and 4) provide opportunity for public review by all potential users early in the project development and design phase so that options can be fully considered. This review could be done through an advisory committee such as a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee or as part of the review of the agency’s capital improvement program. As part of their biennial Growth Management Program checklist, agencies shall list projects funded by the Measure and detail how those projects accommodated users of all modes. As part of the multi-jurisdictional planning required by the Growth Management Program, agencies shall work with the Authority and the Regional Transportation Planning Committees to harmonize the planning, design and construction of transportation facilities for all modes within their jurisdiction with the plans of adjoining and connecting jurisdictions. Exceptions Project sponsors may provide a lesser accommodation or forgo complete street accommodation components when the public works director or equivalent agency official finds that: 1. Pedestrians, bicyclists, or other users are prohibited by law from using the transportation facility, 2. The cost of new accommodation would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use, or 3. The sponsor demonstrates that, such accommodation is not needed, based on objective factors including: a. current and projected user demand for all modes based on current and future land use, and b. lack of identified conflicts, both existing and potential, between modes of travel. Project sponsors shall explicitly approve exceptions findings as part of the approval of any project using measure funds to improve streets classified as a major collector or above.1 Prior to this project sponsors must provide an opportunity for public input at an approval body (that regularly considers design issues) and/or the governing board of the project sponsor. 1 Major Collectors and above, as defined by the California Department of Transportation California Road System (CRS maps); April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 71 Advance Mitigation Program The Authority is committed to participate in the creation and funding of an Advance Mitigation Program as an innovative way to advance needed infrastructure projects more efficiently and provide more effective conservation of our natural resources. As a global biodiversity hot spot, the Bay Area and Contra Costa County hosts an extraordinarily rich array of valuable natural communities and ecosystems that provide habitat for rare plants and wildlife, and support residents’ health and quality of life by providing clean drinking water, clean air, opportunities for outdoor recreation, protection from disasters like flooding, landslides, and adaptation to climate change. The Advance Mitigation Program aims to integrate conservation into infrastructure agencies’ plans and project development well in advance and on a regional scale to reduce potential impacts of transportation projects, as well as to drive mitigation dollars to protect regional conservation priorities and protect important ecological functions that are at threat of loss. The Advance Mitigation Program will be focused on environmental mitigation activities required under CEQA, NEPA and applicable regulations in the implementation of the major highway, transit and regional arterial and local streets and roads projects identified in the Plan. The Authority's participation in an Advance Mitigation Program is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of a Regional Conservation Assessment / Framework for Contra Costa County that identifies conservation priorities and mitigation opportunities. The Regional Conservation Framework will include opportunities and strategies that are consistent with the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Program. The Authority will review and approve the Regional Conservation Assessment / Framework prior to the allocation of funds for Advance Mitigation Program. 2. Development of a Project Impacts Assessment that identifies the portfolio of projects to be included in the Advance Mitigation Program and the estimated costs for mitigation of the environmental impacts of the projects. The Authority will review and approve the Project Impacts Assessment prior to the allocation of funds for Advance Mitigation Program 3. Development of the legislative and regulatory framework necessary to implement an Advance Mitigation Program in Contra Costa County. 4. The identification of the Implementing Agency to administer the Advance Mitigation Program for Contra Costa County or portions of the Bay Area Including Contra Costa County. The Authority will determine the amount of funds to be dedicated to this Program following the satisfaction of the above conditions. Funds from the Plan will be allocated consistent with the Regional Conservation Framework to fund environmental mitigation activities required in the implementation of the major highway, transit and regional arterial and local streets and roads projects identified in the Plan. The intent is to establish a program to provide for large-scale acquisition and management of critical habitat areas and to create a reliable approach for funding required mitigation for future transportation improvements thereby reducing future costs and accelerating project delivery. If this approach cannot be fully implemented, these funds shall be used for environmental mitigation purposes on a project by project basis. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 72 Governing Structure Governing Body and Administration Authority is governed by a Board composed of 11 members, all elected officials, with the following representation: • Two members from the Central County Regional Transportation Planning Commission (RTPC) also referred to as TRANSPAC • Two members from the East County RTPC, also referred to as TRANSPLAN • Two members from the Southwest County RTPC, also referred to as SWAT • Two members from the West County RTPC, also referred to as WCCTAC • One member from the Conference of Mayors • Two members from the Board of Supervisors The Authority Board also includes three (3) ex-officio, non-voting members, appointed by the MTC, BART and the Public Transit Operators in Contra Costa County. Public Oversight Committee The Public Oversight Committee (Committee) shall provide diligent, independent and public oversight of all expenditures of Measure funds by Authority or recipient agencies (County, cities and towns, transit operators, etc). The Committee will report to the public and focus its oversight on the: • Review of allocation and expenditure of Measure funds to ensure that all funds are used consistent with the Measure. • Review of fiscal audits of Measure expenditures. • Review of performance audits of projects and programs relative to performance criteria established by the Authority, and if performance of any project or program does not meet its established performance criteria, identify reasons why and make recommendations for corrective actions that can be taken by the Authority Board for changes to project or program guidelines. • Review of the maintenance of effort compliance requirements of local jurisdictions for local streets, roads and bridges funding. • Review of each jurisdiction’s Growth Management Checklist and compliance with the Growth Management Plan policies. The Committee shall prepare an annual report including an account of the Committee's activities during the previous year, its review and recommendations relative to fiscal or performance audits, and any recommendations made to the Authority Board for implementing the expenditure plan. The report will be noticed in local media outlets throughout Contra Costa County, posted to the Authority Website and continuously available for public inspection at Authority offices. The report shall be composed of easy to understand language not in an overly technical format. The Committee shall make an annual presentation to the Authority Board summarizing the annual report subsequent to its release. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 73 Committee members shall be selected to reflect community, business organizations and other interests within the County. The goal of the membership makeup of the Public Oversight Committee is to provide a balance of viewpoints including but not limited to geography, age, gender, ethnicity and income status to represent the different perspectives of the residents of Contra Costa County. One member will be chosen at-large from each of the four subregions with the RTPC representing each subregion nominating the members. The Board of Supervisors will nominate four members, with each of these four members representing one of the county’s four subregions. Seven members will be nominated by each respective organization detailed here, with each having one representative: League of Women’s Voters, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, East Bay Leadership Council, Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council, Paratransit Coordinating Council, Bike East Bay, and Save Mount Diablo. About one half of the initial member appointments will be for two years and the remaining appointments will be for three year terms. Thereafter, members will be appointed to two year terms. Any individual member can serve on the Committee for no more than 6 consecutive years. Committee members will be private residents who are not elected officials at any level of local government, nor public employees from agencies that either oversee or benefit from the proceeds of the Measure. Membership is limited to individuals who live in Contra Costa County. Membership is restricted to individuals with no economic interest in any of Authority’s projects or programs. If a member's status changes so that he/she no longer meet these requirements, or if a member resigns his/her position on the Committee, the Authority Board will issue a new statement of interest from the same stakeholder category to fill the vacant position. The Committee shall meet up to once a month to carry out its responsibility, and shall meet at least once every 3 months. Meetings shall be held at the same location as the Authority Board meetings are usually held, shall be open to the public and must be held in compliance with California's open meeting law (Brown Act). Meetings shall be recorded and the recordings shall be posted for the public. Members are expected to attend all meetings. If a member, without good reason acceptable to the Chair of the Committee, fails to attend either (a) two or more consecutive meetings or (b) more than 3 meetings a year, the Authority Board will request a replacement from the stakeholder categories listed above. Authority commits to support the oversight process through cooperation with the Committee by providing access to project and program information, audits, and other information available to the Authority, and with logistical support so that the Committee may effectively perform its oversight function. The Committee will have full access to Authority's independent auditors, and may request Authority staff briefings for any information that is relevant to the Measure. The Committee Chair shall inform the Authority Board Chair and Executive Director of any concern regarding Authority staff’s commitment to open communication, the timely sharing of information, and teamwork. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 74 The Committee shall not have the authority to set policy or appropriate or withhold funds, nor shall it participate in or interfere with the selection process of any consultant or contractor hired to implement the expenditure plan. The Committee shall not receive monetary compensation except for the reimbursement of travel or other incidental expenses, in a manner consistent with other Authority advisory committees In order to ensure that the oversight by the Committee continues to be as effective as possible, the efficacy of the Committee's Charter (ie this document) will be evaluated on a periodic basis and a formal review will be conducted by the Authority Board, Executive Director and the Committee a minimum of every five years to determine if any amendments to this Charter should be made. The formal review will include a benchmarking of the Committee's activities and charter with other best-in-class oversight committees. Amendments to this Charter shall be proposed by the Committee and adopted or rejected by the Authority Board. The Committee replaces the Authority's existing Citizens Advisory Committee. Advisory Committees The Authority will continue the committees that were established as part of the Transportation Partnership Commission organization as well as other committees that have been utilized by the Authority to advise and assist in policy development and implementation. The committees include: • The Regional Transportation Planning Committees that were established to develop transportation plans on a geographic basis for sub-areas of the County, and • The Technical Coordinating Committee that will serve as the Authority's technical advisory committee. • The Paratransit Coordinating Council • The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee • The Transit Committee April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 75 Implementing Guidelines This Transportation Expenditure Plan (Plan) is guided by principles that ensure the revenue generated by the sales tax is spent only for the purposes outlined in this Plan in the most efficient and effective manner possible, consistent with serving the transportation needs of Contra Costa County. The following Implementing Guidelines shall govern the administration of sale tax revenues by the Authority. Additional detail for certain Implementing Guidelines is found elsewhere in this Plan. Duration of the Plan The duration of the Plan shall be for 25 years from April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2042. Administration of the Plan 1. Funds only Projects and Programs in the Plan: Funds collected under this Measure may only be spent for purposes identified in the Plan, as it may be amended by the Authority governing body. 2. All Decisions Made in Public Process: The Authority is given the fiduciary duty of administering the transportation sales tax proceeds in accordance with all applicable laws and with the Plan. Activities of the Authority will be conducted in public according to state law, through publically noticed meetings. The annual budgets of Authority, strategic plans and annual reports will all be prepared for public review. The interest of the public will be further protected by a Public Oversight Committee, described previously in the Plan. 3. Salary and Administration Cost Caps: Revenues may be expended by the Authority for salaries, wages, benefits, overhead and those services including contractual services necessary to administer the Measure; however, in no case shall the expenditures for the salaries and benefits of the staff necessary to perform administrative functions for the Authority exceed one percent (1%) of revenues. The allocated costs of Authority staff who directly implement specific projects or programs are not included in the administrative costs. 4. Expenditure Plan Amendments Require Majority Support: The Authority may review and propose amendments to the Expenditure Plan and the Growth Management Program to provide for the use of additional federal, state and local funds, to account for unexpected revenues, or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances. Affected Regional Transportation Planning Committee(s) will participate in the development of the proposed amendment(s). A majority of the Authority Board is required to approve an amendment and all jurisdictions within the county will be given a 45 day period to comment on any proposed Expenditure Plan amendment. 5. Augment Transportation Funds: Funds generated pursuant to the Measure are to be used to supplement and not replace existing local revenues used for transportation purposes. Any funds already allocated, committed or otherwise included in the financial plan for any project in the Plan shall be made available for project development and implementation as required in the project's financial and implementation program. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 76 Taxpayer Safeguards, Audits and Accountability 6. Public Oversight Committee: The Public Oversight Committee will provide diligent, independent and public oversight of all expenditures of Measure funds by Authority or recipient agencies (County, cities and towns, transit operators, etc). The Committee will report to the public and focus its oversight on annual audits, the review and allocation of Measure funds, the performance of projects and programs in the Plan, and compliance by local jurisdictions with the maintenance of effort and Growth Management Program described previously in the Plan 7. Fiscal Audits: All Funds expended by Authority directly and all funds allocated by formula or discretionary grants to other entities are subject to fiscal audit. Recipients of Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements (No. 1) or transit (Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements (No. 11), Transportation for Seniors & People With Disabilities (No. 12) programs) funding (County, cities and towns and transit operators) will be audited at least once every five (5) years, conducted by an independent CPA. Any agency found to be in non-compliance shall have its formula sales tax funds withheld, until such time as the agency is found to be in compliance. 8. Performance Audits: The following funding categories shall be subject to performance audits by the Authority: Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements (No. 1), Major Streets/Complete Streets/Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (No. 2), Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements (No. 12), Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities (No. 12), Safe Transportation for Children (No. 13), Intercity Rail and Ferry Service (No. 14), Pedestrian and Bicycle, and Trail Facilities (No. 15), Community Development Transportation Program (No. 16), and Innovative Transportation Technology / Connected Communities Program (No. 17). Each year, the Authority shall select and perform a focused performance audit on two or three of the funding categories listed above, so that at the end of the fourth year all funding categories listed above are audited. This process shall commence two years after passage of the new sales tax measure. Additional Performance Audits shall continue on a similar cycle for the duration of the Plan. The performance audits shall provide an accurate quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the funding categories to determine the effectiveness in meeting the performance criteria established by the Authority. In the event that any performance audit determines that a funding category is not meeting the performance requirements established by the Authority, the audit shall include recommendations for corrective action including but not limited to revisions to Authority policies or program guidelines that govern the expenditure of funds. 9. Maintenance of Effort (MOE): Funds generated by the new sales tax Measure are to be used to supplement and not replace existing local revenues used for streets and highways purposes. The basis of the MOE requirement will be the average of expenditures of annual discretionary funds on streets and highways, as reported to the Controller pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2151 for the three most recent fiscal years before the passage of the Measure where data is available. The average dollar amount will then be increased once every three years by the construction cost index of that third year. Penalty for non-compliance of meeting the minimum MOE is immediate loss of all Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements funds (No. 1 and 1a) until MOE April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 77 compliance is achieved. The audit of the MOE contribution shall be at least once every five years. Any agency found to be in non-compliance shall be subject to annual audit for three years after they come back into compliance. Any local jurisdiction wishing to adjust its maintenance of effort requirement shall submit to the Authority a request for adjustment and the necessary documentation to justify the adjustment. The Authority staff shall review the request and shall make a recommendation to the Authority. Taking into consideration the recommendation, the Authority may adjust the annual average of expenditures reported pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2151. The Authority shall make an adjustment if one or more of the following conditions exists: 1. The local jurisdiction has undertaken one or more major capital projects during those fiscal years, that required accumulating unrestricted revenues (i.e. revenues that are not restricted for use on streets and highways such as general funds) to support the project during one or more fiscal years. 2. A source of unrestricted revenue used to support the major capital project or projects is no longer available to the local jurisdiction and the local jurisdiction lacks authority to continue the unrestricted funding source. 3. One or more sources of unrestricted revenues that were available to the local jurisdiction is producing less than 95 percent of the amount produced in those fiscal years, and the reduction is not caused by any discretionary action of the local jurisdiction. 10. Annual Budget and Strategic Plan: Each year, the Authority will adopt an annual budget that estimates expected sales tax receipts, other anticipated revenue and planned expenditures for the year. On a periodic basis, the Authority will also prepare a Strategic Plan which will identify the priority for projects; the date for project implementation based on project readiness and availability of project funding; the state, federal and other local funding committed for project implementation, and other relevant criteria. The annual budget and Strategic Plan will be adopted by the Authority Board at a public meeting. 11. Requirements for Fund Recipients: All recipients of funds allocated in this expenditure plan will be required to sign a Master Cooperative Agreement that defines reporting and accountability elements and as well as other applicable policy requirements. All funds will be appropriated through an open and transparent public process. 12. Geographic Equity: The proposed projects and programs to be funded through the Plan constitute a “balanced” distribution of funding allocations to each subregion in Contra Costa County. However, through the course of the Measure, if any of the projects prove to be infeasible or cannot be implemented, the affected subregion may request that the Authority reassign funds to another project in the same subregion, as detailed in an Authority Fund Allocations policy, and to maintain a “balanced” distribution of funding allocations to each subregion. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 78 Restrictions On Funds 13. Expenditure Shall Benefit Contra Costa County: Under no circumstance may the proceeds of this transportation sales tax be applied for any purpose other than for transportation improvements benefitting residents of Contra Costa County. Under no circumstance may these funds be appropriated by the State of California or any other local government agency as defined in the implementing guidelines. 14. Environmental Review: All projects funded by sales tax proceeds are subject to laws and regulations of federal, state, and local government, including the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 15. Performance based review: Before the allocation of any measure funds for the actual construction of capital projects with an estimated capital construction cost in excess of $25 million, the Authority will verify that the project was selected using a performance based review of project alternatives. 16. Complete Streets: The Authority has adopted a policy requiring all recipients of funding through this Plan to consider and accommodate, wherever possible, the needs of all users in the planning, design, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, maintenance, and operation of the transportation system. Achieving this vision will require balancing the needs of different users, and may require reallocating existing right of way for different uses. 17. Compliance with the Growth Management Program: If the Authority determines that a jurisdiction does not comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Program, the Authority shall withhold funds and also make a finding that the jurisdiction shall not be eligible to receive Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements (No. 1) or Community Development Transportation Program (CDTP)(No. 16) funding until the Authority determines the jurisdiction has achieved compliance, as detailed in the Growth Management Program section of the Plan. 18. Local Contracting and Good Jobs: Authority will develop a policy supporting the hiring of local contractors and businesses, apprenticeship programs for Contra Costa residents, and good jobs. 19. New Agencies: New cities or new entities (such as new transit agencies) that come into existence in Contra Costa County during the life of the Plan may be considered as eligible recipients of funds through a Plan amendment. Project Financing Guidelines and Managing Revenue 20. Fiduciary Duty: Funds may be accumulated for larger or longer term projects. Interest income generated will be used for the purposes outlined in the Plan and will be subject to audits. 21. Project and Program Financing: The Authority has the authority to bond for the purposes of expediting the delivery of transportation projects and programs. Authority will develop a policy to identify financing procedures for the entire plan of projects and programs. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 79 22. Programming of Variations from the Expected Revenue: Actual revenues may, at times be higher or lower than expected in this Plan due to changes in receipts. Additional funds may become available due to the increased opportunities for leveraging or project costs less than expected. Revenue may be lower than expected as the economy fluctuates. Determination of when the contingency funds become excess will be established by a policy defined by the Authority. Funds considered excess will be prioritized first to expenditure plan projects and programs, and second to other projects of regional significance that are consistent with the expenditure plan. The new project or program will be required to be amended into the expenditure plan. 23. Fund Allocations: Through the course of the Measure, if any of the projects do not require all funds programmed for that project or have excess funding, or should a planned project become undeliverable, infeasible or unfundable due to circumstances unforeseen at the item the expenditure plan was created, funding for that project will be reallocated to another project or program. The subregion where the project or program is located may request that the Authority reassign funds to another project in the same subregion. In the allocation of the released funds, the Authority will in priority order consider: 1) a project or program of the same travel mode (i.e. transit, bicycle/pedestrian, or road) in the same subregion, 2) a project or program for other modes of travel in the same subregion, 3) other expenditure plan projects or programs, and 4) other projects or programs of regional significance. The new project or program or funding level may be required to be amended into the expenditure plan. 24. Leveraging Funds: Leveraging or matching of outside funding sources is strongly encouraged. Any additional transportation sales tax revenues made available through their replacement by matching funds will be spent based on the principles outlined for fund allocations describe above. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 80 DATE: April 1, 2016 TO: Contra Costa Transportation Authority TEP Chairman Don Tatzin FROM: East Bay Leadership Council President and CEO Kristin Connelly Bay Area Council Senior Vice President for Public Policy Michael Cunningham BIA|Bay Area East Bay Governmental Affairs Executive Director Lisa Vorderbrueggen RE: Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, Version 2.1 Dear Chair Tatzin, In an effort to help develop consensus around a potential $2.3 billion transportation expenditure plan (TEP) measure, we were among six members of CCTA’s Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee who have been meeting weekly during the past several months. Despite intense efforts, the six sub-EPAC members were unable to reach agreement on a comprehensive TEP proposal. But we are confident that the sub-EPAC’s hard work has not been for naught. Our discussions helped us understand each other’s diverse perspectives and will serve as a solid foundation based on mutual respect in the upcoming deliberations around the development of a final TEP. Priorities for the measure are diverse among stakeholders, but all can agree on the need to improve mobility in our county in a way that facilitates the residents of Contra Costa County getting to work, to school and to all the places they need to be in a safe, efficient manner that helps our region’s economy thrive while protecting our extraordinary environmental assets. To achieve these objectives, the jurisdictions in Contra Costa need to plan for the future in a manner that begins to address the nearly four decades of inadequate housing production at all income levels while encouraging economic development. Strategies that support the creation of high-skill and high-wage jobs across Contra Costa can have transformational benefits on infrastructure when commutes are shortened, placing fewer burdens on roads, highways and all forms of transit. In the spirit of continued collaboration and our common pursuit of an improved quality of life for all Contra Costa residents, our three organizations recommend the following changes to the draft TEP Version 2.1: April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 81 Funding allocation In summary, we recommend linking a portion of return to source dollars to housing production, increasing funds for the I-680 and I-80 corridors, eliminating the Community Development and Investment Grant Program, and increasing funding for the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail categories. Our recommended changes are shown in red below. # FUNDING CATEGORY QUALITY OF LIFE ALLOCATION $ millions % 1a Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements: return to source formula $ 423.00 18.1% 1b Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements: housing production return to source $ 117.00 5.0% 1c Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements: increase for Central County $ 17.00 0.7% 2 Major Streets/Complete Streets/Traffic Signal Synchronization Grants Program $ 200.00 8.6% 3 BART Capacity, Access and Parking Improvements $ 300.00 12.8% 4 East Contra Costa Transit Extension $ 70.00 3.0% 5 Optimize HOV and express transit on I-80 $ 66.50 2.8% 6 I-80 Interchange Improvements at San Pablo Dam Road and Central Ave. $ 60.00 2.6% 7 Improve traffic flow & implement high capacity transit in the I-680 corridor & SR 24 $ 230.00 9.8% 8 Improve traffic flow along the SR 242 & SR 4 Corridors in Central and Eastern County $ 70.00 3.0% 9 Interstate 680 and State Route 4 Interchange Improvements $ 60.00 2.6% 10 East County Corridor (Vasco Road, Byron Highway, airport connector) $ 117.00 5.0% 11 Advance Mitigation Program TBD TBD 12 Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements $ 230.00 9.8% 13 Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities $ 77.80 3.3% 14 Safe Transportation for Children $ 52.00 2.2% 15 Intercity Rail and Ferry Service $ 50.00 2.1% 16 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities $ 117.00 5.0% 17 Community Development Investment Grant Program $ - 0.0% 18 Innovative Transportation Technology / Connected Communities Grant Program $ 35.00 1.5% 19 Transportation Planning, Facilities & Services $ 23.40 1.0% 20 Regional Transportation Priorities $ - 0.0% 21 Administration $ 23.40 1.0% Total $ 2,339.10 100.0% April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 82 Add funds for I-680 corridor improvements There is broad support within the business community for the measure to facilitate enhanced connectivity for multiple travel modes along the I-680 corridor. This corridor is a critical link between many communities and employment centers, and the ever-increasing congestion along the corridor has widespread effects. Funding improvements on the I-680 corridor with at least $230 million in the measure is critical to providing needed improvements to achieve this important goal. Using the latest technology as a strategy to increase the capacity of all of the major commute corridors in Contra Costa, including the I-680 corridors and encouraging the inclusion of conduits (for broadband and other technologies) with the construction or reconstruction of highway improvements to facilitate connectivity will have significant benefits on economic developments. In order to realize the mobility benefits so badly needed along I-680, funding must be included in the measure to implement any recommendations the Authority wants to implement from the most recent study of the corridor. Add funds to Improve Commutes in I-80 Corridor Interstate 80 is a critical commute corridor for Contra Costa residents to access growing job centers, yet it is consistently rated as the worst commute corridor in the Bay Area. The I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility project should, when fully implemented, provide a degree of improvement. It must, however, be combined with an ambitious effort to optimize the performance and throughput of the HOV lane. We believe that the proposed $20 million allocation for High Capacity Transit Improvements in the corridor reflects an insufficient ambition and commitment to improve commutes in this corridor. Accordingly, we propose that the allocation be increased to $50 million and that CCTA develop a plan for, and leverage this funding to implement, a world-class HOV or express lane system with attractive and reliable express transit service. Add infill incentives to increase housing production If Contra Costa County hopes to achieve the widely publicized benefits of building new homes near existing transportation infrastructure – including convenient commutes, cost-effective transit, and environmental benefits – it must take seriously its commitment to infill development. To demonstrate this commitment, $117 million (5%) of Local Streets Maintenance and Improvement funds should be allocated to address transportation impacts in communities that undertake new infill development. CCTA will allocate these funds on a rolling three-year average of the number of housing units permitted within each jurisdiction. Each housing unit permitted will be rewarded with corresponding increments of local streets and road maintenance funds. Affordable units and those located within ½-mile of quality transit will receive double increments. Allocations will be made annually and qualified jurisdictions may spend the proceeds on any eligible transportation project or program. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 83 Maintain funds for East Contra Costa County corridor We strongly support the identified funding for the design and construction of a new two-lane limited access Byron Highway that will improve goods movement into a region that needs to attract jobs. We also strongly endorse funding for a Vasco Road connector to the Byron airport and Vasco road safety and high-occupancy vehicle enhancements. These projects will save lives and directly improve the quality of life for thousands of Contra Costans who commute or live along these critical transportation routes. Increase funds for pedestrian, bicycle and trail facilities Local streets and roads funds are inadequate to build modern bikeways or add sidewalks where needed, especially with dwindling state gas tax revenues. Additional dedicated funding is needed to improve and construct walking and bicycling facilities throughout the county through projects such as the Marsh Creek Trail between Brentwood and Clayton. Increase senior/disabilities funding We support increased funding for transportation for seniors and those with disabilities. This will ensure that Contra Costa County can provide accessible transportation options for people of all abilities and ages, especially as demographic changes occur and more residents of the county choose to age in place. We also strongly support the full funding and implementation of a mobility management system that will ensure that these services are delivered in the best way possible across the entire county and to connections throughout the region. Reduce Transportation Technology/Connected Communities Tremendous opportunities exist to use technology to improve transportation performance, and as technology continues to develop rapidly there will be even greater opportunity over time. We believe that every project and investment made by the Authority should fully embrace opportunities of technology and that, therefore, there is little need for a dedicated allocation for technology projects. Recognizing that there may be some technology investments, such as electric vehicle charging, that would not be covered by existing projects, we propose to leave a reduced allocation of $30 million that the Authority would use for an open and competitive grant program to deploy truly innovative and advanced technology. Eliminate the Community Development Grant program While the intent of this fund is laudable, grant programs of this type (such as the Transportation For Livable Communities) have not proven to be very effective at achieving their stated objectives. To the extent that local jurisdictions identify transportation investments that will spur job and housing April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 84 creation, we propose that CCTA and local jurisdictions focus the use of existing Measure J TLC and One Bay Area Grant funds for this purpose. Strengthen the Urban Limit Line Contra Costa County’s Urban Limit Line is popular with voters and must remain an integral part of the new measure. We support the draft TEP language that tightens and standardizes the conditions under which jurisdictions may seek a 30-acre ULL exemption. However, we are concerned that setting a cap on the number of exemptions a jurisdiction may approve within a five-year period may actually encourage its use. Given that the exemption has been used only once since its inception, we recommend that CCTA remove the caps and rely on the strengthened rules. Otherwise, we support maintaining the Growth Management Program as specified in TEP Version 2.1. Make the performance criteria count Voters want assurances that limited transportation funds will be spent on projects that address their highest priorities. For some communities, that may be enhanced transit or safer bike and pedestrian lanes. In other cities, the most critical need may be access to jobs or safer highways. The local needs must also account for mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Voters deserve to have both. The draft TEP already incorporates 10 broad performance criteria that will be used to evaluate the expenditure plan’s investments: (1) reduce per capita CO2 by 15 percent; (2) house 100 percent of the region’s population; (3) reduce exposure to particulate emissions; (4) reduce injuries and fatalities from collisions; (5) increase walking and biking; (6) maintain the Urban Limit Line; (7) reduce percentage of housing and transportation costs for low income households; (8) increase gross regional product; (9) reduce vehicle miles traveled; and (10) maintain the system in a state of good repair. However, the TEP also describes the performance review (page 29 of 30, Item No. 14) as informational and states that the findings cannot be used to restrict the ability of a jurisdiction to allocate funding to a project. We propose the following compromise: CCTA, with input from sub-regions and the public advisory committee, will develop a mutually agreed upon set of performance criteria and scoring system. Sub- regions would still be free to allocate funds as they see fit but CCTA would prioritize funding based on the project’s performance score. High-scoring projects will receive full allocations. Low scoring projects will be required to provide a higher local match, depending on the score. Applicants with low-scoring projects will be encouraged to modify their plans in such a way to increase the scores. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 85 Advance mitigation We support CCTA staff implementing the TNC/MTC RAMP pilot program in Contra Costa County. We again thank you for the opportunity to participate in the planning for this critical source of funding for Contra Costa County’s transportation improvements. We look forward to working with CCTA in the coming weeks as the agency finalizes the TEP. To that end, we have attached the East Bay Leadership Council’s “East Bay Transportation Vision.” Please don’t hesitate to contact us individually if you have additional questions. Sincerely yours, Kristin Connelly President and CEO, East Bay Leadership Council kconnelly@eblcmail.org or 925-246-1880 Michael Cunningham Senior Vice President for Public Policy, Bay Area Council mcunningham@bayareacouncil.org or 415-981-6600 Lisa Vorderbrueggen East Bay Executive Director for Governmental Affairs, BIA|Bay Area lvorderbrueggen@biabayarea.org or 925-348-1956 cc: Ron Brown, Save Mount Diablo Joel Devalcourt, Greenbelt Alliance Dave Campbell, Bike East Bay Dave Hudson, CCTA Board of Directors Ross Chittenden, CCTA Bill Gray, Gray Bowen Scott Attachment: “East Bay Transportation Vision,” by the East Bay Leadership Council Transportation Task Force April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 86 1April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors87 2Introduction•Roger M. Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP•Leo Scott, Gray Bowen ScottApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors88 3Where are we now?•5 Major East Bay Corridors are congested•Transit system is inefficient and incomplete•Many local arterials are gridlocked during commute hours•Costs to our economy and quality of life–wasted time–Increased stress–reduced productivity–increased cost of goods delivery–reduced miles per gallon will idling in congestion–increased air pollutionApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors89 4Hope for the Future•Technology and multi-modal transit centers will improve mode connections •Connecting short haul to long haul trips will increase multi-passenger trips•Emerging generation favors use of multiple modes•Express Lanes offer the opportunity to provide Bus Rapid Transit•The Bay and Delta offer alternative routesApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors90 5What’s possible?Image from Washington PostApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors91 6Constraints•We enjoy the freedom of driving our own vehicle•Freeway capacity is limited to current right of way•Current transit centers do not enable efficient connections between multiple modes•Pooled driverless vehicles (carpools) are not available to reduce single occupant tripsApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors92 7What is needed?A transportation vision that will: 1. plan for efficient, connected, diverse and affordable transportation systems critical to economic vitality and quality of life; 2. serve as the blueprint for policy and funding advocacy locally, regionally and beyond; 3. leverage the plans and funds of multiple agencies (e.g. TVTC, ACTC, Altamont Regional Rail Working Group, etc.).April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors93 8Basic Principles of the Vision1. Increased occupancy will reduce congestion2. Increasing occupancy requires mode shifts3. Short-haul trips connected to long-haul multi-passenger trips at multi-modal transit centers can make mode shifts work 4. Driverless pooled and shared vehicles provide easy guaranteed rides home and first/last mile connections5. Existing infrastructure (e.g. BART stations, HOV lanes) can be improved to increase the attractiveness of multi-passenger vehicle trips6. Communication technology (V2V, V2I, passenger to vehicle) will improve system safety and efficiency7. Affordable housing near employment reduces vehicle tripsApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors94 9Components of the Vision - Connections•Build strategically located transit centers along the major corridors to connect 3 or more modes and multiple •Provide multi-passenger driverless vehicles to serve a high number of short haul trips •Create transit centers that facilitate convenient mode switches with quick in/out for busses, trains, cars, bikes, etc.•Connect ride sharing to transit centers for individuals and businesses•Deploy driverless shared fleets, scooters and bikes at each transit center to promote first and last mile connectivity April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors95 10Components of the Vision - Connections•Increase long-haul trips through the use of rail and/or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): –Richmond Port to Hercules–I-80/San Pablo corridor–SR-4–East County Corridor –I-580 through the Livermore Valley–I-680 from Dublin to MartinezApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors96 11Components of the Vision - Technology•Driverless cars and mini-vans for short and long haul trips•Automated trip planning and connection notification to improve on-the-go mode switches•Smart caravans of connected vehicles for long hauls of both people and goods to increase highway efficiency•Seamless coordination of traffic lights to reduce unnecessary waiting•Provide alternate routes for automated way findingApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors97 12Components of the Vision – Smart Growth•Housing–Promote housing-jobs balance–Increase in-fill housing–Require housing to support connected transportation–Promote greater use of bikes –Provide full spectrum of housing choices to support business growth•Environment–Protect agreed upon environmentally significant areas–Advocate Complete Streets to provide alternatives to driving–Minimize congestion that increases GHG emissions•Agriculture–Support local sourcing of foodApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors98 13Components of the Vision – Economic Development•Guard against increased cost of doing business–Maintain local roads to a minimum standard of good repair–Address congestion on major, local arterials•Work collectively on development of job centers–Northern Waterfront–Naval Weapons Station–Port of Richmond•Create transportation connections–Improve freight/goods movement, especially via rail and water–Increase shared trips between housing and jobs –Connect job centers with multiple modes–Use connected vehicles to provide goods movementApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors99 14Slide provided by R. Iwasaki, CCTAApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors100 15Multi-modal Transit Center – BART OACApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors101 16Multi-modal Transit Center – Transbay TerminalApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors102 17VisionVisionApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors103 18Vision Roll Out1. Central I-680 Corridor to provide good backbonea. BART upgraded via proposed measureb. Transit Center at WC BARTc. Transit Center at Dublin BARTd. I-680 BRT2. BART/eBART to East Livermore Transit Center3. I-80 Corridor connectionsa. Hercules Transit Centerb. Port of Richmond Transit Centerc. West County Transit connection4. East County connectionsa. Improve Byron Highwayb. Extend eBART to Brentwood Transit Centerc. BART/eBART/BRT to East Livermore Area Transit Center5. Transit Center at North ConcordApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors104 19Current Funding Initiatives•State bills (subject of future presentation)•CCTA additional 1/2¢ sales tax measure•BART System Renewal (Fix it First) measureApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors105 20Overall Funding Climate (from Will Kempton)•$57 billion = ten-year shortfall in system repairs forthe existing State Highway System•$78 billion = ten-year shortfall for taking care of ourlocal streets and roads•$754 million = reduction in the current StateTransportation Improvement Program (STIP) –impacting our ability to provide funding for newtransportation projects•Similar lack of investment in rail and transitoperators•Higher costs due to deferred maintenanceApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors106 21April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors107 22April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors108 23April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors109 24CCTA Transportation Expenditure Plan Considerations•Repair local streets•RTPCs and cities request for 30+% return to source without restrictions•Regional equity•Signature project to help promote the new measure with voters•BART request for $300M for new train cars•Urban Limit Line exemption•Agricultural land protection•Greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction desired•Guidelines for greater accountability and transparency on decisions and expendituresApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors110 2525BART is 40 years old!25Slide provided by BARTApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors111 2631%69%TODAY"Poor to Very Poor""Fair to Good"Slide provided by BART2646%54%10 YEARS"Poor to Very Poor""Fair to Good"BART Equipment is at End of Useful LifeApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors112 27Repair and replace critical safety infrastructure $3.165 B90%Relieve crowding, reduce traffic congestion, & expand opportunities to safely access stations$335 M10%$3.5 BTotal27System Renewal Measure with 2 CategoriesSlide provided by BARTApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors113 28Renew trackRenew power infrastructureRepair tunnels and structures$625 M18%$1.225 M35%$570 M16%28BONDFUNDSREMAINING NEEDFully funded50% unfunded66% unfundedEXAMPLE PROJECTS•Refurbish/replace substations•Replace backup power•Replace 90 miles of rail•Rebuild interlockings•Repair water damage intrusion in Market Street tunnels•Repair Berkeley Hills Tunnel fault creepRepair & Replace Critical Safety Infrastructure (1 of 2)Slide provided by BARTApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors114 29Renew mechanical infrastructureRenew stationsReplacetrain control$135 M3.8%$210 M6%$400 M11.4%29BONDFUNDSREMAINING NEED63% unfunded81% unfundedFully fundedEXAMPLE PROJECTS•Refurbish/replace fire safety infrastructure•Refurbish/replace repair shop infrastructure•Modernize train control infrastructure•Expand rail car storage and maintenance capacity•Invest in safety, security & reduce fare evasion•Repair/replace escalators elevatorsRepair & Replace Critical Safety Infrastructure (2 of 2)Slide provided by BARTApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors115 30Expand opportunities to safely access stationsFuture crowding relief$135 M3.9%$200 M5.7%30BONDFUNDSREMAINING NEED57% unfundedN/AEXAMPLE PROJECTS•Enhance access for seniors/disabled•Improve parking availability/bike access•Add more crossovers•2ndTransbay crossingRelieve Crowding, reduce traffic…Slide provided by BARTApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors116 31How the two measures work together•BART System Renewal Property Tax assessment will:–Bring 40-year old system up to a better state of repair–Enable increased level of service–Help improve station access•CCTA’s new ½¢ sales tax measure will:–Provide option to purchase BART cars–Improve connections at BART stations–Help extend eBART to Brentwood•Combined they will:–Help accomplish the vision–Provide local funds to leverage state and federal funds–Mitigate much greater costs in the futureApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors117 32Feedback•Reactions•Questions and AnswersApril 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors118 April 6, 2016 Contra Costa Transportation Authority Attn: TEP Chairman Don Tatzin RE: Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) Dear Chairman Tatzin, We are concerned about lack of vision, goals or clarity in the development of a new ½ cent transportation sales tax in Contra Costa. This lack of focus and direction have made it difficult, if not impossible, for the Authority Board, the cities, the stakeholders, or the EPAC to achieve consensus on the creation of a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP). We have been representing a diverse coalition that is a cross-section of the community that is supported by tens of thousands of residents of Contra Costa County. We have been participating faithfully in CCTA’s process to develop the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) and a new TEP, taking advantage of every opportunity for public participation, and spending hundreds of collective hours to provide thoughtful responses and input to CCTA, RTPCs, and the public. We very much are in favor of creating a measure that can and will be approved by the county’s voters this November. However, we believe that this measure must go well beyond “business as usual.” A new TEP must make a significant contribution to reduce VMT and GHGs, creating vibrant, livable communities, and help to protect our community’s farms, rangelands, watersheds and open spaces. The State of California’s transportation and land use policy framework, as well as the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy provide clear direction on how to achieve these goals. The current CCTA TEP v2.2 is going down the wrong path for Contra Costa County, the Bay Area region, and the State of California. We provide the following TEP allocations and rationale for our policy and funding recommendations. This is reflective of funding the priorities in our Community Vision and Transformative Policy document. FUNDING ALLOCATION We are recommending a series of changes to the funding allocations presented in the draft TEP. SUB-EPAC PROPOSED FUNDING ALLOCATION Funding category $ millions % Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements (5% dedicated to infill incentives) $ 538.00 23.0% Major Streets and Complete Streets Project Grants $ 200.00 8.6% BART Capacity and Access Improvements $ 400.00 17.1% East County High Performance Corridor (Express Bus from Antioch E- BART/Brentwood to Tri-Valley Transit stations; Goods movement by rail; safety improvements) $ 100.00 4.3% West County High Performance Corridor (Transit improvements along I-80; interchange improvements) $ 110.00 4.7% South County High Performance Corridor (680 Express Bus from West Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Martinez) $ 150.00 6.4% April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 119 Central County High Performance Corridor (including 680 Express Bus from West Dublin/Pleasanton BART to Martinez (approx. $75 million); I-680/SR 4 interchange improvements) $ 150.00 6.4% Advance Mitigation Program (6% of entire measure) To be calculated Bus and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements $ 300.00 12.8% Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities $ 117.00 5.0% Safe Transportation for Children $ 46.00 2.0% Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities $ 117.00 5.0% Community Development Investment Grant Program $ 69.00 2.9% Innovative Transportation Technology / Connected Communities Grant Program $ 14.03 0.6% Transportation Planning, Facilities & Services $ 29.70 1.3% Administration $ 23.40 1.0% Add Infill Incentives to Local Streets and Roads If Contra Costa County hopes to achieve the widely publicized benefits of building new homes near existing transportation infrastructure – including convenient commutes, cost-effective transit, and environmental benefits – it must take seriously its commitment to infill development. To demonstrate this commitment, the TEP will allocate 5 percent of the measure to address transportation impacts in communities that are undertaking new infill development. CCTA will allocate these funds on a rolling three-year average of the number of housing units permitted within each jurisdiction. Each unit of infill housing will be rewarded with corresponding increments of local streets and road maintenance funds. In addition, units that fall into the following categories will be given additional weight: · Affordable units to very-low to low income families (2x base allocation) · Located within ½-mile of quality transit (2x base allocation) · Multi-family units with parking ratios of 1:1 or less (1.5x base allocation) Allocations will be made annually and qualified jurisdictions may spend the proceeds on any eligible transportation project or program. Revise Community Development Incentive Grant Program Some jurisdictions may find it difficult to develop infill housing based on certain market conditions, while other jurisdictions may need exemplary projects — such as enhanced transportation infrastructure to reduce traffic concerns — to achieve community support for new infill development. Likewise, some jurisdictions may want to attract quality jobs that help to address a jobs-housing imbalance and reduce congestion throughout the county. Therefore, we recommend that the CDI Grant Program fund infrastructure that supports specific infill development projects near existing transit and transportation networks. Priority shall be given to projects that provide affordable homes for low- and/or very low-income people, leverage California Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program resources, and/or improve the jobs-housing balance within sub-regions by increasing quality job density that can be accessible by transit. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 120 Projects will compete countywide. CCTA will develop the grant criteria and scoring system with input from the sub-regions and public advisory committee. High Performance Corridor Improvements There is broad support for a measure that facilitates enhanced transit connectivity along important corridors in Contra Costa County. CCTA must now operate within the new era of transportation funding as shaped by CalTrans’ new framework, including the California Transportation Plan 2040. This new state approach has correctly identified that highway expansions are counterproductive to solving our complex transportation issues, especially with severely constrained financial resources. Contra Costa now has a great opportunity to shape our entire transportation system to meet this challenge head on. By adding transit ridership to our existing highway system, we can make it function better, reduce congestion, and broadly serve commuters/residents/workers in the county. Much of the current corridor studies have pointed to the express bus model as best serving residents in each part of the county. This will help to alleviate traffic and feed the BART transit system so that ridership can increase on a variety of modes other than single-occupant vehicles. As an example, our TEP recommendation for the 680 corridor is to have express bus service from Martinez Amtrak to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. This provides for enhanced bus service throughout the entire Central/South County Corridor, closes gaps in service, and makes BART stations more accessible to transit riders throughout the county. This is a more complete package that gives commuters and transit-dependent riders competitive options. This high performance corridor approach creates transit options that are more viable and dependable. Make the Performance Criteria Count Voters want assurances that limited transportation funds will be spent on projects that address their highest priorities. For some communities, that may be enhanced transit or safer bike and pedestrian lanes. In other cities, the most critical need may be access to jobs or safer streets and roads. The local needs must also account for mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and state directives to invest within the existing transportation system. Voters deserve to have both. The draft TEP already incorporates 10 broad performance criteria that will be used to evaluate the expenditure plan’s investments: (1) reduce per capita CO2 by 15 percent; (2) house 100 percent of the region’s population; (3) reduce exposure to particulate emissions; (4) reduce injuries and fatalities from collisions; (5) increase walking and biking; (6) maintain the Urban Limit Line; (7) reduce percentage of housing and transportation costs for low income households; (8) increase gross regional product; (9) reduce vehicle miles traveled; and (10) maintain the system in a state of good repair. However, the TEP also describes the performance review (page 29 of 30, Item No. 14) as informational and states that the findings cannot be used to restrict the ability of a jurisdiction to allocate funding to a project. We propose the following compromise: CCTA, with input from sub-regions and the public advisory committee, will develop a scoring system based on the 10 performance criteria. All RAMP-eligible projects and those within the Major Streets and Complete Streets category will be subject to a competitive performance review process. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 121 Sub-regions would still be free to allocate funds as they see fit but CCTA will adjust the eligible dollar amounts based on the project’s performance score. High-scoring projects will receive full allocations. Low scoring projects will be required to provide 50 percent to 100 percent local funding, depending on the score. Applicants with low-scoring projects will be encouraged to modify their plans in such a way to increase the scores to achieve better projects and reduce the potential for sprawl-inducing projects. CCTA will develop the grant criteria and scoring system with input from the sub-regions and public advisory committee. Revise Major Streets and Complete Streets Project Grants The current draft TEP contemplates awarding funds from this category based on existing project requests and unequal sub-regional project submissions. We recommend CCTA allocate the funds in the four regions based on CCTA's geographic and population distribution formula; establish a competitive grant cycle and award the funds based on the performance criteria described above. We also support the language in the Major Streets Complete Streets Program version 2.2 released to the CCTA Board on March 16, 2016, with the pilot program requiring protected bike lanes. Increase Pedestrian, Bicycle & Trail Facilities Many communities throughout California are dedicating between 5 to 10 percent of their transportation sales tax measure proceeds to pedestrian, bicycle and trail facilities. We believe Contra Costa County should do the same. Local streets and roads funds are inadequate to build modern bikeways or add sidewalks where needed, especially with dwindling state gas tax revenues. Additional dedicated funding is needed to complete and maintain a trail network and improve walking and bicycling throughout the county. Increase Senior/Disabilities Funding We support increased funding for transportation for seniors and those with disabilities. This will ensure that Contra Costa County can provide accessible transportation options for people of all abilities and ages, especially as demographic changes occur and more residents of the county choose to age in place. We also strongly support the full funding and implementation of a mobility management system that will ensure that these services are delivered in the best way possible across the entire county and to connections throughout the region. Increase BART and Bus Transit Funding We support $400 million for BART that will ensure access improvements at stations throughout the county, which polls well with voters. This includes the $300 million that is being negotiated between CCTA and BART. We also support $300 million for capital and operating costs for bus and non-rail transit that relieves congestion, provides commute alternatives, serves transit-dependent residents, reduces pollutant emissions, supports infill housing and employment, demonstrates innovative approaches, and/or improves service effectiveness and efficiency. In order to ensure the most beneficial use of these funds, CCTA should prepare a Countywide Transit Strategic Plan that identifies goals, strategies and metrics, and should allocate transit funds to the projects, services and providers in accordance with the plan. High priority should be given to achieving 15-minute headways in high- ridership travel corridors. Because the transit needs of county residents, as well as transportation technology April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 122 and means of servicing transit needs, will evolve over time, CCTA should update its strategic plan and re- evaluate its allocations on a regular cycle. Strengthen the Urban Limit Line & Growth Management Program Contra Costa County’s Urban Limit Line (ULL) and Growth Management Program (GMP) are popular with voters and must be enhanced as part of the new measure. We recommend that CCTA remove the 30-acre exemption policy for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa. The policy has not proven useful and removing it will provide clarity for all stakeholders and provide direction for focusing development within the ULL. Protecting Contra Costa County’s farms and rangelands is a high priority for county voters and for consumers around the region. To build on previous efforts in Contra Costa County, namely the City of Brentwood, all jurisdictions with agricultural land within their planning area, including rangelands, must adopt a model Agricultural Protection Ordinance, with the intent to permanently preserve farms and rangelands and mitigate for impacts and the loss of those lands. Applicable jurisdictions will be required to adopt Agricultural Protection Ordinances to receive Return to Source funding as part of an amended Growth Management Checklist. In addition, any loss of farmland outside of the current boundaries of the ULL should be required to be mitigated through permanent protection of farmland in Contra Costa at a rate of three acres preserved for every acre lost. We also recommend that smart planning policies be considered in the checklist for public information as affirmed by the CCTA board. This will help to provide consistency between jurisdictions and reduce land use conflicts. These policies include: a) Hillside development ordinance b) Ridgeline protection ordinance c) Open space system with major ridgelines defined d) Protection of wildlife corridors e) Plan to conserve buffers around open space and agriculture f) Prohibitions on culverting blueline creeks for anything more than road crossings in the shortest length possible g) No development of major subdivisions, urban development, or urban services allowed in non-urban Priority Conservation Areas. Support RAMP The Advanced Mitigation Program is a win-win solution for Contra Costa County. It saves time for project delivery. It is cost-effective. And it also ensures the proactive and strategic conservation of species, habitats (including watershed protection), as well as farms and rangelands, impacted by publicly subsidized transportation projects. We support CCTA staff implementing the TNC/MTC RAMP pilot program in Contra Costa County with the additional inclusion of agricultural mitigations, recognizing that transportation and development projects may significantly impact these lands and they are otherwise unprotected by state and federal policy. Sincerely yours, Ron Brown, Save Mount Diablo, Retired Executive Director Joel Devalcourt, Greenbelt Alliance, East Bay Regional Representative Dave Campbell, Bike East Bay, Advocacy Director April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 123 0 2 1 2-2 -1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >50 -1 Targets ScoreBenefit/Cost Ratio1 Interregional Road Expansion Congestion Pricing Rail Expansion Local Streets Maintenance Highway Maintenance ITS Intraregional Road Expansion Bike/Ped Rail Eiciency Ferry Express Bus Network Bus Frequency Improvements BRT Rail Maintenance Bus Maintenance Plan Bay Area 2040 ProjectPerformance Assessment: Overall Draft ResultsbyProjectType Project assessment of all express lane investments is not yet complete and therefore is not reflected on this chart; these projects will be added when evaluation is complete in April 2016. State of good repair (SGR) investment bubbles on this chart reflect the evaluation of preserve conditions vs. no funding. Bubble sizerepresents thetotal annual benefits for all projects of that type. Local Streets and Roads Maintenance (Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding) Local Streets and Roads Maintenance (Preserve Conditions vs. Local Funding)TriLink Tollway + Expressways Treasure Island Congestion Pricing SR-152 Tollway Highway Pavement Maintenance (Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding) Highway Pavement Maintenance (Ideal Conditions vs. Preserve Conditions) SR-84 Widening + I-680/SR-84 Interchange Improvements Downtown San Francisco Congestion Pricing Columbus Day Initiative Plan Bay Area 2040 ProjectPerformance Assessment: Draft Results for Road Projects Project assessment of all express lane investments is not yet complete and therefore is not reflected on this chart. These projects will be added when evaluation is complete in April 2016. Bubble sizerepresents thetotal annual benefits for the project. San Pablo BRT Geary BRT El Camino Real BRT Capitol Expressway LRT – Phase 2 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 + Phase 2 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 + Caltrain to Transbay Transit Center Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 Vallejo-San Francisco + Richmond-San Francisco Ferry Frequency Improvements Sonoma County Service Frequency Improvements BART to Silicon Valley – Phase 2 BART Metro Program Rail Maintenance Bus Maintenance Plan Bay Area 2040 ProjectPerformance Assessment: Draft Results for Transit Projects Road SGR Investment Transit SGR Investment Road Project Transit Project Sum of Annual Benefit Project Mode $500 $10 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 mtc graphics.pb — 3.15.16ATTACHMENT A April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 124 0 2 1 2-2 -1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >50 -1 Targets ScoreBenefit/Cost Ratio1 Interregional Road Expansion Congestion Pricing Rail Expansion Local Streets Maintenance Highway Maintenance ITS Intraregional Road Expansion Bike/Ped Rail Eiciency Ferry Express Bus Network Bus Frequency Improvements BRT Rail Maintenance Bus Maintenance Plan Bay Area 2040 ProjectPerformance Assessment: Overall Draft ResultsbyProjectType Project assessment of all express lane investments is not yet complete and therefore is not reflected on this chart; these projects will be added when evaluation is complete in April 2016. State of good repair (SGR) investment bubbles on this chart reflect the evaluation of preserve conditions vs. no funding. Bubble sizerepresents thetotal annual benefits for all projects of that type. Local Streets and Roads Maintenance (Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding) Local Streets and Roads Maintenance (Preserve Conditions vs. Local Funding)TriLink Tollway + Expressways Treasure Island Congestion Pricing SR-152 Tollway Highway Pavement Maintenance (Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding) Highway Pavement Maintenance (Ideal Conditions vs. Preserve Conditions) SR-84 Widening + I-680/SR-84 Interchange Improvements Downtown San Francisco Congestion Pricing Columbus Day Initiative Plan Bay Area 2040 ProjectPerformance Assessment: Draft Results for Road Projects Project assessment of all express lane investments is not yet complete and therefore is not reflected on this chart. These projects will be added when evaluation is complete in April 2016. Bubble sizerepresents thetotal annual benefits for the project. San Pablo BRT Geary BRT El Camino Real BRT Capitol Expressway LRT – Phase 2 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 + Phase 2 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 + Caltrain to Transbay Transit Center Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 Vallejo-San Francisco + Richmond-San Francisco Ferry Frequency Improvements Sonoma County Service Frequency Improvements BART to Silicon Valley – Phase 2 BART Metro Program Rail Maintenance Bus Maintenance Plan Bay Area 2040 ProjectPerformance Assessment: Draft Results for Transit Projects Road SGR Investment Transit SGR Investment Road Project Transit Project Sum of Annual Benefit Project Mode $500 $10 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 mtc graphics.pb — 3.15.16April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 125 0 2 1 2-2 -1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >50 -1 Targets ScoreBenefit/Cost Ratio1 Interregional Road Expansion Congestion Pricing Rail Expansion Local Streets Maintenance Highway Maintenance ITS Intraregional Road Expansion Bike/Ped Rail Eiciency Ferry Express Bus Network Bus Frequency Improvements BRT Rail Maintenance Bus Maintenance Plan Bay Area 2040 ProjectPerformance Assessment: Overall Draft ResultsbyProjectType Project assessment of all express lane investments is not yet complete and therefore is not reflected on this chart; these projects will be added when evaluation is complete in April 2016. State of good repair (SGR) investment bubbles on this chart reflect the evaluation of preserve conditions vs. no funding. Bubble sizerepresents thetotal annual benefits for all projects of that type. Local Streets and Roads Maintenance (Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding) Local Streets and Roads Maintenance (Preserve Conditions vs. Local Funding)TriLink Tollway + Expressways Treasure Island Congestion Pricing SR-152 Tollway Highway Pavement Maintenance (Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding) Highway Pavement Maintenance (Ideal Conditions vs. Preserve Conditions) SR-84 Widening + I-680/SR-84 Interchange Improvements Downtown San Francisco Congestion Pricing Columbus Day Initiative Plan Bay Area 2040 ProjectPerformance Assessment: Draft Results for Road Projects Project assessment of all express lane investments is not yet complete and therefore is not reflected on this chart. These projects will be added when evaluation is complete in April 2016. Bubble sizerepresents thetotal annual benefits for the project. San Pablo BRT Geary BRT El Camino Real BRT Capitol Expressway LRT – Phase 2 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 + Phase 2 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 + Caltrain to Transbay Transit Center Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 Vallejo-San Francisco + Richmond-San Francisco Ferry Frequency Improvements Sonoma County Service Frequency Improvements BART to Silicon Valley – Phase 2 BART Metro Program Rail Maintenance Bus Maintenance Plan Bay Area 2040 ProjectPerformance Assessment: Draft Results for Transit Projects Road SGR Investment Transit SGR Investment Road Project Transit Project Sum of Annual Benefit Project Mode $500 $10 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 mtc graphics.pb — 3.15.16April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 126 ROW ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION (COUNTY) PROJECT TYPE ANNUAL BENEFIT ANNUAL COST B/C RATIO TARGETS SCORE 1 1503 Highway Pavement Maintenance (Ideal Conditions vs. Preserve Conditions)Multi-County Highway Maintenance $638 ($1) 2 1502 Highway Pavement Maintenance (Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding)Multi-County Highway Maintenance $2,433 $144 3 1301 Columbus Day Initiative Multi-County ITS $421 $38 4 209 SR-84 Widening + I-680/SR-84 Interchange Improvements (Livermore to I-680)Alameda Intraregional Road Expansion $116 $13 5 501 BART to Silicon Valley – Phase 2 (Berryessa to Santa Clara)Santa Clara Rail Expansion $472 $62 6 306 Downtown San Francisco Congestion Pricing (Toll + Transit Improvements)Multi-County Congestion Pricing $84 $11 7 302 Treasure Island Congestion Pricing (Toll + Transit Improvements)San Francisco Congestion Pricing $56 $8 8 1651 Public Transit Maintenance - Rail Operators (Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding)Multi-County Rail Maintenance $1,351 $198 9 506 El Camino Real BRT (Palo Alto to San Jose)Santa Clara BRT $85 $13 10 207 San Pablo BRT (San Pablo to Oakland)Multi-County BRT $106 $16 11 301 Geary BRT San Francisco BRT $124 $20 12 505 Capitol Expressway LRT – Phase 2 (Alum Rock to Eastridge)Santa Clara Rail Expansion $77 $12 13 518 ACE Alviso Double-Tracking Santa Clara Rail Efficiency $36 $6 14 1650 Public Transit Maintenance - Bus Operators (Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding)Multi-County Bus Maintenance $623 $103 15 1203 Vallejo-San Francisco + Richmond-San Francisco Ferry Frequency Improvements Multi-County Ferry $29 $5 16 1001 BART Metro Program (Service Frequency Increase + Bay Fair Operational Improvements + SFO Airport Express Train)Multi-County Rail Efficiency $430 $80 17 203 Irvington BART Infill Station Alameda Rail Efficiency $30 $6 18 903 Sonoma County Service Frequency Improvements Sonoma Bus Frequency Improvements $75 $15 19 523 VTA Service Frequency Improvements (15-Minute Frequencies)Santa Clara Bus Frequency Improvements $103 $23 20 211 SR-262 Widening (I-680 to I-880)Alameda Intraregional Road Expansion $22 $5 21 1403 Local Streets and Roads Maintenance (Preserve Conditions vs. No Funding)Multi-County Local Streets Maintenance $1,875 $428 22 210 I-580 ITS Improvements Alameda ITS $44 $11 23 504 Stevens Creek LRT Santa Clara Rail Expansion $144 $38 24 1101 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 (Electrification + Service Frequency Increase)Multi-County Rail Efficiency $195 $56 25 605 Jepson Parkway (Fairfield to Vacaville)Solano Intraregional Road Expansion $17 $5 26 1202 Oakland-Alameda-San Francisco Ferry Frequency Improvements Multi-County Ferry $16 $5 27 1102 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 + Phase 2 (Electrification+ServiceFrequencyIncrease+CapacityExpansion) Multi-County Rail Efficiency $236 $77 >50 2.5 17 2.5 11 3.5 9 -0.5 8 8.5 7 7.5 7 4.5 7 9.5 7 6.0 6 5.5 6 6.0 6 5.5 6 -0.5 6 8.0 6 5.0 5 9.0 5 3.5 5 5.0 4 5.0 4 -0.5 4 3.5 4 1.0 4 5.5 3 8.0 3 1.0 3 2.5 Plan Bay Area 2040 PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT DRAFT RESULTS all benefits and costs are in millions of 2017 dollars March 16, 2016 DRAFTATTACHMENT B April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 127 ROW ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION (COUNTY) PROJECT TYPE ANNUAL BENEFIT ANNUAL COST B/C RATIO TARGETS SCORE261202Oakland-Alameda-San Francisco Ferry Frequency Improvements Multi-County Ferry $16 $5 27 1102 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 + Phase 2 (Electrification + Service Frequency Increase + Capacity Expansion)Multi-County Rail Efficiency $236 $77 28 411 SR-4 Auxiliary Lanes - Phases 1 + 2 (Concord to Pittsburg)Contra Costa Intraregional Road Expansion $44 $15 29 507 Vasona LRT – Phase 2 (Winchester to Vasona Junction)Santa Clara Rail Expansion $30 $11 30 515 Tasman West LRT Realignment (Fair Oaks to Mountain View)Santa Clara Rail Expansion $48 $18 31 517 Stevens Creek BRT Santa Clara BRT $29 $11 32 503 SR-152 Tollway (Gilroy to Los Banos)Santa Clara Interregional Road Expansion $95 $37 33 307 Caltrain Modernization - Phase 1 (Electrification + Service Frequency Increase) + Caltrain to Transbay Transit Center Multi-County Rail Expansion $290 $113 34 1206 Alameda Point-San Francisco Ferry Multi-County Ferry $12 $5 35 1204 Berkeley-San Francisco Ferry Multi-County Ferry $10 $4 36 206 AC Transit Service Frequency Improvements Multi-County Bus Frequency Improvements $248 $120 37 513 North Bayshore LRT (NASA/Bayshore to Google)Santa Clara Rail Expansion $42 $22 38 604 Solano County Express Bus Network Multi-County Express Bus Network $21 $12 39 522 VTA Service Frequency Improvements (10-Minute Frequencies)Santa Clara Bus Frequency Improvements $177 $99 40 407 SR-4 Auxiliary Lanes - Phase 1 (Concord to Pittsburg)Contra Costa Intraregional Road Expansion $13 $8 41 402 eBART – Phase 2 (Antioch to Brentwood)Contra Costa Rail Expansion $21 $12 42 311 Muni Forward Program San Francisco Bus Frequency Improvements $60 $36 43 331 Better Market Street San Francisco BRT $32 $19 44 901 US-101 Marin-Sonoma Narrows HOV Lanes – Phase 2 Multi-County Intraregional Road Expansion $31 $19 45 409 I-680/SR-4 Interchange Improvements + HOV Direct Connector Contra Costa Intraregional Road Expansion $42 $27 46 103 El Camino Real Rapid Bus (Daly City to Palo Alto)San Mateo Bus Frequency Improvements $54 $36 47 401 TriLink Tollway + Expressways (Brentwood to Tracy/Altamont Pass)Multi-County Interregional Road Expansion $75 $51 48 801 Golden Gate Transit Frequency Improvements Multi-County Express Bus Network $11 $8 49 313 Muni Service Frequency Improvements San Francisco Bus Frequency Improvements $89 $79 50 312 19th Avenue Subway (West Portal to Parkmerced)San Francisco Rail Efficiency $30 $27 51 1413 Local Streets and Roads Maintenance (Preserve Conditions vs. Local Funding)Multi-County Local Streets Maintenance $194 $198 52 516 VTA Express Bus Frequency Improvements Santa Clara Express Bus Network $18 $19 53 202 East-West Connector (FremonttoUnionCity) Alameda Intraregional Road Expansion $10 $12 3 8.0 3 1.0 3 4.0 3 5.0 3 5.0 3 -1.0 3 8.0 2 0.0 2 3.0 2 7.0 2 4.0 2 2.5 2 7.5 2 2.0 2 4.0 2 6.5 2 6.0 2 1.0 2 2.5 2 1.0 1 -1.5 1 4.5 1 6.0 1 6.0 1 3.5 0.9 4.5 Plan Bay Area 2040 PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT DRAFT RESULTS all benefits and costs are in millions of 2017 dollars March 16, 2016 DRAFT April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 128 ROW ID PROJECT NAME LOCATION (COUNTY) PROJECT TYPE ANNUAL BENEFIT ANNUAL COST B/C RATIO TARGETS SCORE52516VTA Express Bus Frequency Improvements Santa Clara Express Bus Network $18 $19 53 202 East-West Connector (Fremont to Union City)Alameda Intraregional Road Expansion $10 $12 54 406 I-680/SR-4 Interchange Improvements Contra Costa Intraregional Road Expansion $18 $22 55 304 Southeast Waterfront Transportation Improvements (Hunters Point Transit Center + New Express Bus Services)San Francisco Express Bus Network $16 $27 56 410 Antioch-Martinez-Hercules-San Francisco Ferry Multi-County Ferry $9 $16 57 403 I-680 Express Bus Frequency Improvements Multi-County Express Bus Network $12 $21 58 404 SR-4 Widening (Antioch to Discovery Bay)Contra Costa Interregional Road Expansion $9 $17 59 510 Downtown San Jose Subway (Japantown to Convention Center)Santa Clara Rail Efficiency $10 $18 60 308 San Francisco Express Bus Network Multi-County Express Bus Network $5 $14 61 104 Geneva-Harney BRT + Corridor Improvements Multi-County BRT $15 $46 62 508 SR-17 Tollway + Santa Cruz LRT (Los Gatos to Santa Cruz)Santa Clara Interregional Road Expansion $57 $200 63 519 Lawrence Freeway Santa Clara Intraregional Road Expansion $7 $34 64 204 Broadway Streetcar Alameda Rail Expansion $2 $14 65 601 I-80/I-680/SR-12 Interchange Improvements Solano Intraregional Road Expansion $5 $32 66 1304 Bay Bridge West Span Bike Path San Francisco Bike/Ped $4 $30 67 905 SMART – Phase 3 (Santa Rosa Airport to Cloverdale)Sonoma Rail Expansion $0 $12 68 1201 San Francisco-Redwood City + Oakland-Redwood City Ferry Multi-County Ferry $0 $8 69 205_15 Express Bus Bay Bridge Contraflow Lane Multi-County Express Bus Network $0 $10 70 1407 Local Streets and Roads Maintenance (Ideal Conditions vs. Preserve Conditions)Multi-County Local Streets Maintenance TBD TBD 71 102 US-101 HOV Lanes (San Francisco + San Mateo Counties)Multi-County Express Lanes TBD TBD 72 201 ACTC Express Lane Network Alameda Express Lanes TBD TBD 73 101 US-101 Express Lanes (San Francisco + San Mateo Counties)Multi-County Express Lanes TBD TBD 74 502 VTA Express Lane Network Santa Clara Express Lanes TBD TBD 75 1302 MTC Express Lane Network Multi-County Express Lanes TBD TBD 76 1305 Managed Lanes Implementation Plan Multi-County Express Lanes TBD TBD 0.9 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.6 6.0 0.6 1.5 0.6 3.0 0.5 -1.0 0.5 5.5 0.3 4.0 0.3 5.0 0.3 0.5 0.2 2.0 0.2 2.5 0.2 1.0 0.1 2.0 0 4.0 0 2.0 0 5.0 TBD 3.5 TBD 0.5 TBD 1.5 TBD 0.0 TBD 3.0 TBD 2.5 TBD 6.0 Plan Bay Area 2040 PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT DRAFT RESULTS all benefits and costs are in millions of 2017 dollars March 16, 2016 DRAFT April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 129 Attachment C: Identifying Projects Subject to Evaluation Projects Subject to Evaluation Committed projects and programs, as defined by MTC Resolution No. 4182 in April 2015, are not subject to project performance assessment. Of the uncommitted projects submitted in the Call for Projects by the September 2015 deadline, MTC staff evaluated projects that met the following criteria: 1.The project impacts can be evaluated with the regional travel demand model. 2.The total project costs are at least $100 million (as measured in 2017 dollars). Examples of projects that were evaluated: •New/enhanced transit service, including travel time savings of rapid bus or bus rapid transit (BRT) infrastructure •Freeway-to-freeway interchanges •Freeway widenings, including HOV lanes & auxiliary lanes •Capacity-increasing improvements to state highways and major arterials •State of good repair investments for state highways and local streets & roads •State of good repair investments for public transit systems Examples of projects that were not evaluated even if met the cost threshold: •Intersection improvements or other non-capacity-increasing improvements •Freeway-to-freeway interchanges that do not include mainline widening •Local interchanges •Transit center improvements and parking expansion •Transit projects that increase capacity within trains and on platforms but that do not result in increased frequency or travel time improvements •Grade separations Unlike Plan Bay Area 2013, staff did not evaluate uncommitted regional programs for Plan Bay Area 2040. These programs will be considered during the investment strategy separately from the performance assessment. Staff also did not evaluate any project with total costs less than $100 million. These projects will be prioritized by Congestion Management Agencies, subject to fiscal constraint. Per this evaluation criteria, all committed projects and projects that are currently under construction are exempt from the project performance evaluation for Plan Bay Area 2040. A list of major capacity increasing projects that we are not evaluating is included in Table C-1 on the following page. A full accounting of which projects were assessed in Plan Bay Area and that are no longer subject to the evaluation will be provided as an online resource (see Attachment D). April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 130 Table C-1: Committed Capacity-Increasing Projects (exempt from performance assessment) Committed Category Project Name Notes Analyzed in PBA and committed in PBA40 SR-4 Bypass (Antioch to Brentwood) Now has full funding - reclassified as committed. East Bay BRT (Oakland to San Leandro) Now has EIR/EIS + full funding - reclassified as committed. Van Ness BRT Now has EIR/EIS + full funding - reclassified as committed. Dumbarton Express Bus Frequency Improvements Now has full funding - reclassified as committed. Richmond-San Francisco Ferry Now has full funding - reclassified as committed. SMART – Phase 2 (San Rafael to Larkspur) Now has full funding - reclassified as committed. Committed in PBA & PBA40 SR-4 Widening (Pittsburg to Antioch) Central Subway (Caltrain to Chinatown) BART to Silicon Valley – Phase 1 (South Fremont/Warm Springs to Berryessa) eBART – Phase 1 (Pittsburg/Bay Point to Antioch) Project renaming reflects existence of Phase 2 proposal. Transbay Transit Center Project will be complete in 2017. SR-4/SR-160 Direct Connector Project will be complete in 2017. King Road Rapid Bus (Berryessa to Downtown San Jose) Project was merged into BART to Silicon Valley (Phase 1). Completed or construction underway Presidio Parkway Project will be complete in 2016. Oakland Airport Connector Project was completed in 2014. BART to Warm Springs Project will be complete in 2016. Caldecott Tunnel Project was completed in 2013. SMART Initial Operating Segment Project will be complete in 2016. Marin-Sonoma Narrows (Phase 1: Interchanges in Novato & Petaluma) Project was completed in 2015. Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT Project will be complete in 2016. SR-12 Widening (Jameson Canyon) Project was completed in 2014. SR-238 Hayward Operational Improvements Project was completed in 2013. US-101 HOV Lanes (Santa Rosa Avenue to Pepper Road) Project was completed in 2013. US-101 Auxiliary Lanes (SR-85 to Embarcadero Road) Project was completed in 2014. I-880 HOV Lanes (SR-237 to US-101)Project was completed in 2013. I-80 ITS Improvements Project will be complete in 2016. Tasman Double-Tracking (Mountain View to Alum Rock Direct LRT Service) Project will be complete in 2016. I-580 Altamont Pass Truck Climbing Lane Project will be complete in 2016. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 131 Attachment D: Detailed Project and State of Good Repair Performance Documentation Online For more information on all aspects of the project performance assessment and the state of good repair performance assessment, please take advantage of our online resources on the following website: http://metropolitantransportationcommission.github.io/performance/ Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance Dashboard Data available includes: •Complete list of project and state of good repair performance results (sortable by project location) •Interactive bubble chart •Breakdown of quantified project benefits •Breakdown of targets score •Confidence results by project •Equity results by project Plan Bay Area 2040 Project-Level Equity Map This interactive tool allows sponsors, stakeholders, and members of the public to explore all of the major uncommitted transportation investments analyzed – and see which projects provide access to the draft Plan Bay Area 2040 Communities of Concern. Reference Documentation 1.Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance - Approach to Benefits and Costs – describes methodology for estimating benefits using the travel model, provides valuations for benefits, and describes the calculations for project costs 2.Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance - Targets Score Methodology – provides a table of the targets criteria and explains the methodology 3.Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance - Confidence Assessment Methodology – highlights the overall framework of the benefit-cost confidence assessment discloses potential limitations in the benefit-cost assessment related to travel model accuracy, project purpose considerations, and project implementation timeline 4.Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance - Highway and Local Streets State of Good Repair Methodology – draft methodology document for road state of good repair discussed with the Local Streets and Roads Working Group in February 2016 5.Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance - Public Transit State of Good Repair Methodology – draft methodology document for road state of good repair discussed with the Transit Asset Management Steering Committee in February 2016 6.Plan Bay Area 2040 Performance - Sensitivity Testing – explores sensitivity of benefit-cost results (not currently available; will be released by the end of April) 7.Comparison of Plan Bay Area and Plan Bay Area 2040 Project Performance Lists April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 132 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 133 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 134 April 1, 2016 BY EMAIL: mre@ccta.net Martin Engelman, Deputy Executive Director, Planning Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2999 Oak Road, Suite 100 Walnut Creek, CA, 94597 Re: Environmental Review of Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan Dear Mr. Engelman: For nearly a year, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) has committed to integrating its development of the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) for a new sales tax measure within the larger development of a fiscally-constrained Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). In particular, the Authority promised to conduct an analysis of alternatives for the TEP as part of its study of CTP alternatives in an Environmental Impact Report. We write on behalf of the Sierra Club, Urban Habitat and Public Advocates to express deep concern that the Authority appears to be on the brink of reneging on this important commitment. By way of background: On May 20, the Board effectuated a fundamental reorientation of CCTA’s process for adopting its new CTP. A central part of that decision was the Board’s approval of staff’s recommendation to treat “the CTP and the TEP as part of the same overall CEQA ‘project’ and analyz[e] their impacts together in one CEQA document.” (Staff rep., 5/20/15, p. 1.) Consistent with this reorientation, the July 31, 2015 Notice of Preparation stated that the alternatives to be analyzed in the new SEIR were “specifically intended to inform the development of a 2015 Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan (Draft TEP).” (NOP, p. 4.) Since then, CCTA identified three alternatives for inclusion in the EIR’s analysis, and stated that the draft EIR would be made available in January or February of this year – something that has not yet occurred. The draft, as CCTA confirmed, would analyze the three alternatives not only for important environmental impacts, including GHG reduction, but also against regional performance measures, as required by MTC’s Guidelines on Countywide Transportation Plans. CCTA also confirmed Board of Governors Joan Harrington, Chair Santa Clara University School of Law Fred W. Alvarez Jones Day Alina Ball UC Hastings College of the Law Barbara J. Chisholm Altshuler Berzon LLP Martin R. Glick Arnold & Porter LLP Bruce Ives LifeMoves Dolores Jimenez Kaiser Permanente Leo P. Martinez UC Hastings College of the Law Anita D. Stearns Mayo Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Robert H. Olson Squire Patton Boggs (retired) Rohit K. Singla Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Abdi Soltani ACLU of Northern California Staff Guillermo Mayer President & CEO John T. Affeldt Richard A. Marcantonio Managing Attorneys Isabel Alegría Director of Communication Liz Guillen Director of Legislative & Community Affairs Deborah Harris Director of Development Sumi Paik Director of Finance & Administration Angelica K. Jongco Samuel Tepperman-Gelfant Senior Staff Attorneys Rigel S. Massaro Chelsea Tu David Zisser Staff Attorneys Anne Bellows Attorney & Equal Justice Works Fellow Angela Perry Law Fellow Patty Leal Finance Manager Karem Herrera Legal Administrative Coordinator Madelyn Wargowski Development & Administrative Assistant Jesse White Communication Coordinator April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 135 Brad Beck April 1, 2016 Page 2 that the EIR would include the equity analysis of those alternatives, also required by MTC. As we noted in a May 27 letter to Chair Pierce and Planning Committee Chair Abelson – and reiterated in our initial comments on the NOP on August 7 – this approach makes good sense, both for ensuring legal compliance and for developing a performance-based and cost-effective sales tax plan through a process that provides agencies, stakeholders and the broader public with meaningful information about alternative sets of investment priorities. The NOP states this rationale even more pointedly: “[t]he results of this recirculated [SEIR] are also expected to assist the Regional Transportation Planning Committees and the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee in consideration of their development of an upcoming Transportation Expenditure Plan.” (NOP, p. 6.) It is now becoming increasingly evident that the Authority may have abandoned its previous commitments, and may proceed to adopt a TEP that has neither been studied against alternatives nor subjected to any environmental review whatsoever. Leaving aside for now the legal implications of such a breach of CCTA’s prior commitments to the public,1 we urge the Board to complete the promised analysis of alternatives prior to taking any action to put a new sales tax measure on the ballot. Should a measure that will commit sales tax revenues for many years come before the voters in November without any analysis of distinct alternatives against environmental, performance and equity criteria, voters will face questions of trust as well as questions about whether the proposed TEP makes wise use of their taxpayer dollars. Questions of trust will arise as CCTA is viewed as having broken important promises by voters who will be asking themselves whether they can trust CCTA to keep its current promises about how it will use these new funds. Those same voters, when they ask whether the priorities established in the TEP have risen to the top in performance analysis against alternative approaches, will find no answers. Many will be dismayed to learn that even the most basic environmental review of the proposed TEP has not been conducted. Very truly yours, Richard A. Marcantonio Managing Attorney Cc: David Hudson, Chair (dhudson@sanramon.ca.gov) Janet Abelson, Chair, Planning Committee (jabelson@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us) 1 Notwithstanding Sustainable Transportation Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, 179 Cal. App. 4th 113 (2009), we believe that under the circumstances present here, CCTA’s adoption of a TEP pursuant to Pub. Util. Code §§ 180201, 180206 without prior certification of a proper EIR under CEQA may be unlawful. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 136 Brad Beck April 1, 2016 Page 3 Randell H. Iwasaki, P.E., Executive Director (riwasaki@ccta.net) Ross Chittenden, Deputy Executive Director, Projects (rchittenden@ccta.net) Mala Subramanian, Esq. (Malathy.Subramanian@bbklaw.com) April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 137 GRAY· BOWEN· scon April 20, 2016 TO: Ross Chittenden, Chief Deputy Executive Director, Projects FR: William R. Gray, Principal RE: Review of the Draft TEP (dated AprilS, 2016) Identified Issues and Recommendations The CCTA Authority Board (Authority), in a special meeting session on April 6, 2016 reviewed, discussed and authorized staff to release the Draft TEP (dated April 8,2016). The Draft TEP considers the collective input received from the Regional Transportation Planning Committees, the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC), the Public Manager's Association (PMA), and the public through a comprehensive outreach program. In addition, correspondence was received just prior to the April 6, 2016 meeting from two subgroups of EPAC members with recommendations related to the proposed TEP programs, projects and policies. Concurrent with the Board's release of the Draft TEP, the Gray-Bowen-Scott team (GBS) was asked to review the Draft TEP (April 8, 2016 version) in relation to the input received from all sources, including the two recent letters from the EPAC subgroups. Our team was asked to provide the Board with recommendations related to changes and/or modifications to the draft TEP that might improve public support of the TEP as relates to a possible November 2016 ballot measure. Considering all of the input received to date, including that received during the Authority 's extensive public outreach efforts as well as public opinion surveys and input received through the EPAC and at various Authority and RTPC meetings, the GBS team recommends consideration of the following proposed changes/edits to the draft TEP and that these changes be incorporated into the next version of the TEP (anticipated to be released May 4, 2016). Because a number of the recommendations propose increased funding for projects and programs, it is recommended that the Authority extend the term of the proposed measure from 25-years to 30- years . Corridors I Projects: 1. Increase the total allocation to the I-680 corridor to $250 million. Additional funding in this corridor is warranted. As noted above, it is recommended the Authority revise the TEP to reflect a measure with a 30-year term to provide the necessary capacity to increase the allocation on the 680 corridor to $250 million. 1 .2-1 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 138 April 20 , 2016 RE : Review of the Draft TEP (dated April 8, 2016 ) Identified Issues and Recommendations Page 2 of4 2. Allocate additional funds to improve commutes in the 1-80 corridor. Shifting to a 30-year term provides sufficient capacity to increase funding in the High Capacity Transit category to $55m. In addition, our team would recommend that the two 1-80 related items (High Capacity Transit Improvements along the 1-80 corridor and the 1-80 IC Improvements) be merged (as they were in an earlier version of the TEP) providing a total of $115m for this category. WCCTAC's recommendation to 'split out' the IC improvements from the 1-80 Corridor Improvements could be interpreted as prioritizing one mode over another. In this regard, the TEP should make it clear that the IC improvements are eligible for funding and their completion is a priority for WCCT AC. 3. Allocate additional funds to the 24214 corridor category. Shifting to a measure with a 30-year term provides sufficient capacity to increase funding to this important corridor. Programs: 4. Increase funding in the Transportation for Seniors & People with Disabilities category to 4% total and allocate the additional funds in a manner that better balances the program countywide. Honor the various RTPC requests as 'minimums' in this category. 5. Provide additional funding for the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities program and allocate the additional funding in a manner that better balances the program countywide. Shifting to a 30-year term measure provides sufficient capacity to increase funding in this category to 4%. As previously noted, it is recommended that the Authority honor the existing RTPC requests per sub-region as minimums in this category. 6 . Reallocate a portion (3%) of the funds now allocated to the CDI program to the Major Streets/ Complete Streets/ Traffic Signal Synchronization Grant Program to better balance the program countywide. As with the other categories, the existing RTPC requests per sub- region should be treated as a minimum allocation per sub-region. In central county, additional funds should be allocated to Improve Traffic Flow along the SR 242 and SR 4 Corridors in Central and Eastern Contra Costa County funding category . Policies: 7. The CDI program as proposed in the Draft TEP (dated April 8, 2016) has received little support from stakeholders with some suggesting dropping the program and others suggesting a reduced program focused onjob creation . The GBS team recommends 3% of the total revenue be allocated to the proposed new CDI program (compared to the 6% identified in the Draft TEP). We recommend that the Authority consider combining this new program with a restructured Measure J TLC program. This would allow the Authority to focus a significant amount of resources on an enhanced program with the goal of pro-actively assisting jurisdictions with the development of transportation infrastructure that can be demonstrated to incentivize the development of housing and jobs within their communities . It is recommended that the Authority make funds from this category available to jurisdictions seeking funding from the State's Strategic Growth Council (SGC) for Affordable Housing 1.2-2 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 139 April 20 , 2016 RE: Review of the Draft TEP (dated April 8, 2016) Identified Issues and Recommendations Page 3 of4 Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grants from this program as well as other similar programs. CCTA staff should work with PMA and other stakeholders to refine the proposal for an updated / combined CDV TLC program. The TEP should require the Authority to define and adopt this new program within 12 months of the passage of the new measure. 8 . A number of stakeholders have suggested that a portion of the funding proposed to be allocated to the jurisdictions for Local Streets and Road Maintenance and Improvements be allocated based on the number of housing units permitted by that jurisdiction over some period oftime (3 years) with 'bonuses' for certain types of housing and/or proximity to 'quality transit'. The GBS team does not recommend this approach, but as noted above would suggest that 3% of the total revenue from this measure be allocated to the proposed new CDr program. 9. A number of stakeholders have suggested the inclusion of meaningful 'Performance Criteria' to 'screen' project alternatives. The GBS team recommends that the TEP require projects with a capital cost of over $25m be subject to review using defined performance criteria. The TEP should include provisions requiring the Authority to adopt and apply said performance criteria within 12 months of the effective date of this measure. 10. The language in the current Draft TEP reflects efforts by the Authority to respond to previous comments regarding the ULL and should be maintained. Our team does recommend removing the proposed 5-year 'cap' on the number of non-voter approved amendments to the ULL. 11. Require jurisdictions that might be considering a non-voter approved amendment to their ULL that would impact defined Agricultural lands outside of the ULL to adopt an Agricultural Protection Ordinance and/or mitigate the loss of designated Agricultural lands by permanently protecting farmland . 12. With respect to the Growth Management Program, the GBS team recommends that the Authority add additional disclosure items (not requirements) to its Growth Management Checklist to include whether or not a jurisdiction has adopted any or all of the following - a Hillside Development Ordinance, a Ridgeline Protection Ordinance, an Open Space System with Ridgelines defined, protections for wildlife corridors , a plan to conserve buffers around open space and agriculture, prohibitions on the culverting of 'blue-line creeks' for anything other than road crossings and prohibitions on development in designated 'non-urban Priority Conservation Areas. 13. In addition, the GBS team would recommend that provisions be added to the TEP requiring the Authority to establish policies requiring the paymen t of prevailing wages on all projects funded using measure funds , apprenticeship programs where appropriate and a helmets to hardhats program . 14. A number of stakeholders have suggested the inclusion of a more comprehensive vision statement in the final TEP . As part of a ta sk to revise the format of the TEP into a more voter 1.2-3 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 140 Apri120,2016 Page 4 of4 RE : Review of the Draft TEP (dated April 8, 2016) Identified Issues and Recommendations friendly/ modem looking document, we recommend that the Authority direct the staff/ consultant team to include a vision statement into the final draft for consideration by the Authority. The attached tables reflect the changes recommended herein and indicates how the allocations to the various projects and programs (as well as the allocations to the regions) would change. Attachment 1.2-4 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 141 N in TABLE OF EXPENDITURE PLAN FUNDING ALLOCATIONS No . IFunding Category April 20, 2016 RE : Review of the Draft TEP (dated April 8, 2016) Identified Issues and Recommendations Attachment (Page 1 of 2) -Summary of Draft TEP with Inclusion of Proposed Revisions (30 years of revenue) Distribution of Funding By Subregion $ millions % Central Southwest West (a) (b) (e) East (d) 1 Local Streets Ma intenance and Improvements 663 .5 2~.09% 192.0 147.5 145.6 178.4 -__ ._. ____ • ___ ... _____ • __ .... _. ___ ..... __ • ____ ...... _ .. _._ .. ____ ----.------_ ... I~ ____ ' ~ ................. .:...__~~~-.... --__ ..... _ _ ~! ....... __ ~ .. ~9..'~.!:~5~ .. ~!!:~7..~~~~.~~~_"~!:~ .. ~_~!:9 . .!..~P~~~.~~.~. __ . ___________ . __ 1..D~ 0.70% 2(1 .0 .....:_"""---'-_. _. _. __ ..... __ _ 2 Maj or Streets and Complete Streets Project Grants 290.0 10.09% 108.4 46.4 56.6 78 .6 _...... . .... _. __ .. ' ......... _._ ..... _ ................ _ .... _ ... __ .. _ .. ,..._ ...... _ ....... __ .... ___________________ _.. __ . -_----..0-- .. )_. ~~~ .. : .. f~E~.~~Y!~~!:.~~.~~ .. c;i!~.~~~~[.~~P.~~~.~_~~~~ ___ ._._._ ...... __ . ___ .. _ ... _ .. __ . __ .. 300.0 10.44% 88 .1 57.4, 69 .. 8 84}, I 4 East Con tra Costa Trans it Extension 70 .0 2.44% 70 .0 ______ ._ ..... _ ... __ .. __ . ____ .04_. __ ._ .. _ ... _ ..... _._ .... __ .... __ ._. ____ ... ___ ~-.... _,.,-._-~--__ -..... "'_._"'_,_ __ _ __ . ___ .__. ____________ . __ . _ 5 High Capacity Transit Improvements along the 1-80 Corridor in West County 55 .0 1.91%' , 5S .0 ' ...... -. __ ... _ ......... -.. ---_ .... __ ..... ' ................... _ ... _ .................... ~ ......... -.......... -.. -.-... -.. ---.--.. ------.-.. ---'----_.... -_ . ..;-"" ... +-------_. -.-'" --'-'--.-"~":"""" ... , ....... -_._-_ .. -- 6 1 .. 80 Interchange Improvements at San Pablo Dam Road and Central Avenue 60 .0 2.09% 60 .0 .. _ .. _. _._ .. _._ ........ _____ .~ ... _ .............. _ ............................. _ .. __ .~ ... _ ... _ ... _ ........ __ ... _._, ... ___ . .J_. ____ .. .,.. __ '" .. _._. '_' __ __.~.~._-___ · _____ 010. ____ _ .. 2.. I~SE~~_~~.~~!!?.~~.~.~.P~~~~_~!_~~.~.~.p.!:7.!!y .. ~:.~_~.~~!.~~_~~..!~.~80 co~!:!.~:...~2~~___ _~Q:3. __ ... _ ... ~2~ ...... ~ ,-" .. E~~~_ 1?5,:~ __ ... ___ ._;... __ ..;.._ .. 8 Improve traffic flow along the SR 242 & SR 4 Corridors in Central and Eastern County 122.0 4.25% 44.0 ' .' 78.0 . __ ._._ ....... __ .... _____ ..... _ .... _ ... _ ... ______ ._. __ .. __ . ___ ... ___ .. __ .. ____ l.o__ _ ___ . . ___ ............ __ .... _~ 9 Int erstate 680 and State Rout e 4 Interchange Improvements 60,0 . 2.09% 60.0 , . 10 E·~~t·C~~~ty·c;~~id;;~ .. iv;~~-a"Rd;~·d/o;By;~ .. ~-H-;gh;~-y"C';;~;id-;;~-;)'-'--'---"--l'i7.0"·-4';:Oio/~;""· -~----............... ---........ ----·~-·-i-i7.0- 11" B~~-;;;-dN-~-;,~R·~iiT~~·~itE~h~~~·~·;;~~t~ .. ·-·· ...... · ........ · ...... ·--... ---.-.......... --.-.-.... ----.-----, --"295.0----1D.26%"-· --'6'1.5"'-61.5 -iliJ.6---"'61.S "'i';' T~~~p;·,1.;;ti~~fu;-S~~i;·~~ .. ~·~·d .. P~·;;p·i~ .. ;;th··Di;~b .. i·iiti;~·-.. -.. · .. -.. -· ........ ·-·--·-.. ·-~·-·--.. -.... ·~ .... --i15.(j-.. · .. -4~60% --·30·:s-~·193 .. --·28.i---·36.8--.. ~ .... -~--..... --.---.. --... -.......... -....... ---.... -.... -.... , ... -... _ ...... _-_ ............. ---... _-. __ ... _ ... _ ... _--_ .. _ .. __ .-----_ .. _ .. _--_ ... _ .. _ .. _.......... -~ . ---'-.-- 13 Safe Transportation for Children 64.0 2.23% 8 .7 20.0 26 .1 9 .1 "'1'4" l;t;;~itv'Rai'j .. ;~d-F·~·;;y·s;;:;;i;;·-· .. -· .. -.... -·-.. -...... -·----·--....... -.... -~-.. -.--... -.-.. ---~-.... --soT" ", 1. 74% ·--8:·0-.. -.,..........,.·35"jj-----.. 7-:O ~-- •• _ •• _ ••• -... ... ___ ._ ..... ._ ___ ._ ............. _ •• _._ ..... __ ..... _ .... _ ••• _ ... _._ ..... ___ • ____ .____ __ ..... _ .. _..... .. .. ___ .. _. __ .....0..-i .~_ ..... __ ._._._ ... __ 15 P~~_~!~i.~_~:y..s!!.!'2.?.!!!:!~.~'!.s!~!!!:.~._ .. _. _____ .. ______ . ___ . ___ ~_ .. _.!.!?..:.!!.. __ ~9r~ .. _..2.[1._...29.:~ .. _"""'._~~ ____ .1~ .. "'- 16 Community Dev e lopm ent Tran s portation Program 86.0 2.99% , 25.3 . 16.4 20.0... 24.3 17 In-;,~~~t~;;;-~~rt~·t·i~~ .. T;~h·~~i~g .. y .. TCon~-;;ct;d C~;;;:;_~~iti~~Gr~t·p;;;g;;~---"'2:260/.-n~-lT.O"~" 16 .7 '15:'2-' .... __ ••• _ •• __ ._-_. __ .................. -. ... t-............. ....:. ••• _ •• _ .... -••• ____ .... ~_ ... _. ___ ...... ___ .. __ •• _ •• _ ....... _ •• _. ___ • • • & ..... .... ~-- 18 Transportation Planning, Facilities & Services 1.00% 8.4 5.5 6.7 8.1 =~~. ~~];;-~·~!l~~jp.?~~~~~~~~li~~~=~~:=:~~=:=-._._.=-~~:~-:~~:-..:::=~::-':-~~ , __ ~ -.J1S% . ..,. 5:0 ~ __ ,_:3.7.· S .O '. -'5.0- 20 Administration 28.7 1.00% 8.4 5 .5 6.7 8.1 •• _ ......................... _ .............. _ .......... .: ... _.,...-.......... -•• __ ...... __ •• _ ... _ ....... --:....._. ____ ... _. _. ____ -~_._~~ "'~...,....,.. d O;? (J I ,."1. (f . -+-~~~ Population Based Share Population 5hare (2030 Estimate) of Total TOTAL 2873.5 100.0% 843.9 549.6 668.3 811.7 843.9 29 .37% 549.6 19_1 3% 668.3 23.26% 811.7 28.25% April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 142 '" cr, TABLE OF EXPENDITURE PLAN FUNDING ALLOCATIONS Distribution of Funding By Subregion No.1 Funding Category dlff. from S millionsl 25-Yr TEP % diff. from 25-Yr TEP Central (a) Southwest (b) West (c) East (d) 1 Loca l St ree ts Maintena nce and Im prov em e nts 663.5 123 .5 23.09%. ;L9,z .0 .147 .5 145 .6 178.4 -l~ ~~==3d"d:.!.!:~~;I-Si~~!~~~~t~~~·~·~cj"~p·~~~.~ ___ ~________ 20.0 3.0 0.70% -~::-:J~.' _.~._= 2 Major Streets and Complete Streets Project Grants 290.0 90.0 10.09% 1.54% 108.4 46.4 56 .6 78 .6 ~T ~~~:.S.~~T.ti~~~~ces ;.~_~~!!~~g Impr O V ;;;~~!.~_ •... _._._ .• :=._ .. _ .. __ ...... ___ . _____ .. _ -"~~f--"":'--' ..2..~4% -2.39% ~~~ . S7:~ , 6,9 .~~:~. 84 .7 ... . 4 Eas t Contra Co sta Tra ns it Ext e nsi on 70.0 -2.44% -0 .56 % 70 .0 I ..... _ ....... _.-. ..... _ ................... ...;... ....... io ... _ .... _ ..... _ ............. __ • __ ..... __ ._. __ ••• _._ ...... _ ... _ ..... _ ••• _._ ••••• _~ ...... _ ... ;-.:..._ • .....:;....I: _ ... __ ol-_ .. __ ~~ ~_ ... _._.-. _.~ ......... _ , ...... ~ ... ~I 5 High Capacity Transit Improvements along the 1-80 Corridor in West County '," 55.0 35.0 1.91% 1.06% 55 .0 '-6" 1-80 I n t e rch~·~;;.:;·p~~7e·m~nt~-;t .. San-P;;·blo Da m Road and C ;;;t~'jA;e-;;-;;;-----··-· .. ..:... -'60]) _ 2.09% -0 .48%····"·?, " : . . i 60 .0-"'·-~-----_.- 1-' ---... --... ".--, ...... -... ' .. -........... , ... -..... -.-... -.--.... -.--.. -.. -.... -..... -.--.. --.. -.-.---.-----_ .. --.-----.--... ------.. --.-----........ ~-........ ------.-.,-. -. 7 Improve traffic flow & Implement high capacity transit In the 1-680 corridor & SR 24 250.0 110.0 8.70% 2 .71%' l i 5.a -125 :0 -.. --, .. -.--.. -.. -....... --.. -... ---.. -.----.-.--w.--.r-----~- 8 Improv e tr affic flow along the SR 242 & SR 4 Corridors In Central and Eastern County 122.0 52 .0 4.25% 1.25% 44 .0 ' 78 .0 --9 ~t~rs t ~t e 680 '~'~dSt~t~'R~~~'~;ha'~ge Impr ove me nts -------~-60.0 _ . 2.09%' ·b.48% .,. '60 .0 ' , ---~..,....-.-...".,.........,-, . ........ ..... --.-.----------.. -.-.. -.. ,,-.-.. -.... -................ -.............. -... -.--... ---.--.-.. -.• ---.----'--.-.-.. -.~-~ _ . ..,..... :!7"" .---• ...,...,..,..,. .. ~--.. -----.-.. -.. --10 East Coun ty Co rridor (V asco Rd and/or Byron Highway Corridors) ·1ii.0 -' 4.07%"" -0 .93% ' . ~ -117.0 -Ii B~~-an·;rNo;:;·~R·~·ii·Tr·~·~';it .. E·n·h~·n·~'~';;:;~;:;t;-· .. · ............ -.-......... __ .•• _--... _-.,_ ................. , ........ _ ...... --'295.0"-' -55.·0"·"! '-101'6%' -'"'61.-5-' 61.5 110.'6 ' 61 .5'-- "ii T ;a·~;p;;;:t-a .. t i(i~-io;~S~·nio;;·;~dP~opi ;·~ith-Di~;bi li tie7 · .. -·-··-··-·::-·--·-:-·";-·······~··-· .. -··-·-'-"U5:0'''-' .... -37~4 .. --'--4:00% . 0.68% .-30 .8 193---Ts-:-i~-' 36 .ii-:-- .... ----... -----... --.-.---•. -.. -.... -.---....... --.-----.-----,---'-'---'~ ---:..:...... _. .--.----.•• --.~.-,...;;;:.:.:;... __ .;:..:;.;..::..--l 13 Safe Tra ns po rtati on fo r Ch ildre n -64.0 12.0 2.23% 8 .7 20 .0 26 :1 9 .1 ........ --.-...... -..... -.. --------.---.-.--.~ ......... -.............. _._--_.,.. __ .. _. __ .. __ ._._-----._-----.-"~ ---------.~ . 14 Int erci ty Rail and Ferry Se rvi ce 50.0 . 1.74% -0.40% 8.0 35 .0 7.0 15-ped;;t rla-;;-:BkYcJ;;;;ciT-;;;iiF;~--'-'-... -...... ----.--.•. ---.--....... -•• -.. ------.• -115.0 48.3 ----4:00% 1.15% ·"""28.3---3'ii:3' '. 26,4 , 29 .9 1--:-"" -... ----.---.... -.. ----.. ----.-------.---... -.. -.--.--. . --.. ~ .... --........ 16 Community Development Transportation Program 86.0 .54.0 2.99% ·2.99% 25.3 16.4 20.0 24 .3 17' 1~-;~fu~p ;rt~tio;Te~h ;;i~g·yTc;-~~-cte-;·ic-;;;;,mun iti e s Gr a nt Program . .. -65.0 -----u.g -2.Z6%·· . 2i.111.0 16.7 --"-i5:2'~-, .... ,. .._ ..... _ .... __ ... _ ....................... _ .. _ .... _ .... _ ...... __ ...... .-..... ....-.. ___ ._ .. ____ .. _ ....... __ ••••• _ .. __ •• _ ... __ ~. ____ .. -...-:;.-.::..-_. ____ .............. .. ..... _ ..... __ .. ___ .. __ .. ......1... -.4.00'0-.1 18 Transp o rta ti on Plannin g. Facili ti es & Servi ces 28.7 5.3 . 1.00% 8.4 5.5 6.7 8.1 ~~I ~"iit~·~;r~~~~i!~E~ .. ~!;riti~i.~~~ __ . ____ .~._._-==~~~~:~~=.:=-____ --!!-.? __ . "_ 0.65!!__ -0.15%., 1:2.-",-3.7 ;;.0 , 5 ,~ .3..~_ A~.~i nistra.!~'?!!...-___ · ___ . ___ .. ...::...:~ ... _____ _ ______ . ___ -' .28.1 .:;......§.J_. ~~1.' -. ~<4 " 5.L.. . 9 ,J~"~ •.. -.8l-;1, Popula t ion Ba se d Share Popul ation Share (20~O Estim ate) of Total Categories with recomm e nded in crea se in dollars amounts and/or percentages Category with re commend ed re du ction in do llars amount and percentage TOTAL 2873.5 534.5 ' 100.0% 0.0% 843.9 549 .6 668.3 811.7 April 20, 2016 843.9 29.37% RE : Rev iew of the Draft TEP (dated April 8, 2016) Identified Issu e s and Recommendations 549.6 19.13% 668.3 23.26% Attachment (Page 2 of 2) • Summary of Draft TEP with Inclusion of Proposed Revisions (30 years of revenue) and Relation to the Draft TEP (dated April 8, 2016) (25 years of revenue) 811.7 28.25% April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 143 Mayor's Information: Brentwood's Vision for Open Space. Farming and Agriculture How much funding has the City of Brentwood provided to Brentwood Agriculture Land Trust (BALT) and to Agricultural-Natural Resources Trust (ANRT) for Ag preservation? A total of over $9.9 million has been paid by the City of Brentwood for the purchase of conservation easements in the Ag Core. BALT: $7.7 million ANRT : $2.2 million How many acres have been preserved with the funding provided to BALT? Total easements purchased for all land trusts : 992 acres (all in the Ag Core). BAL T: 790 acres ANRT: 202 acres The City of Brentwood has an Agriculture Preservation Program Ordinance as well as a Right to Farm Ordinance. The Agricultural Preservation Program ordinance is contained in Chapter 17.730 of the Municipal Code (separate attachment). This ordinance established the agricultural conservation easement fee (today is approximately $6,200 per acre). The City's Right to Farm ordinance is in Chapter 8.01 (separate attachment). This ordinance establishes that agricultural operations in the city may not be deemed a public nuisance and cannot be the subject of public nuisance complaints. How much money/funding, if any, have we provided to the Marsh Creek House or trust? The John Marsh Home Rehabilitation , CIP project # 352 52340 was completed in 2011 . The amount of City funds for this project was $1 ,098,992 . How many miles of bike lanes and/or trails do we have in Brentwood? 17 .5 miles of trails 60 miles of bike lanes How many city parks do we have? 69 parks , plus 17 pocket parks and trail heads 2.4-1 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 144 Mayor's Information: Brentwood's Vision for Open Space. Farming and Agriculture How much funding has the City of Brentwood provided to Brentwood Agriculture Land Trust (BALT) and to Agricultural-Natural Resources Trust (ANRT) for Ag preservation? A total of over $9.9 million has been paid by the City of Brentwood for the purchase of conservation easements in the Ag Core. BALT: $7.7 million ANRT : $2.2 million How many acres have been preserved with the funding provided to BALT? Total easements purchased for all land trusts : 992 acres (all in the Ag Core). BAL T: 790 acres ANRT: 202 acres The City of Brentwood has an Agriculture Preservation Program Ordinance as well as a Right to Farm Ordinance. The Agricultural Preservation Program ordinance is contained in Chapter 17.730 of the Municipal Code (separate attachment). This ordinance established the agricultural conservation easement fee (today is approximately $6,200 per acre). The City's Right to Farm ordinance is in Chapter 8.01 (separate attachment). This ordinance establishes that agricultural operations in the city may not be deemed a public nuisance and cannot be the subject of public nuisance complaints. How much money/funding, if any, have we provided to the Marsh Creek House or trust? The John Marsh Home Rehabilitation , CIP project # 352 52340 was completed in 2011 . The amount of City funds for this project was $1 ,098,992 . How many miles of bike lanes and/or trails do we have in Brentwood? 17 .5 miles of trails 60 miles of bike lanes How many city parks do we have? 69 parks , plus 17 pocket parks and trail heads 2.4-1 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 145 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT Meeting Date:April 6, 2016 Subject Development of a Potential Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) – Consideration to Adopt a Policy to Include an Advance Mitigation Program in the Draft TEP Summary of Issues Authority staff has been participating on a Technical Advisory Committee in an effort to assess the potential for a Regional Advance Mitigation Program (RAMP) in the Bay Area. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Coastal Conservancy are sponsoring an effort to scope and implement a RAMP in the Bay Area with the target of including RAMP in MTC’s update of Plan Bay Area 2040. The effort, being facilitated by The Nature Conservancy, includes the MTC, several Congestion Management Agencies, regulatory and permitting agencies, and the Coastal Conservancy working together over the past 15 months to develop the tools and mechanisms, as well as the science-based conservation and mitigation framework to enable RAMP in the Bay Area. RAMP provides an opportunity to align conservation and infrastructure planning in the Bay Area to meet both conservation and economic development goals and provide a model for other regions in California and beyond. Contra Costa and Alameda County has been identified as one of two potential areas to pilot the RAMP approach. However, there are many issues to address, such as structure, funding, regulatory support, management, and coordination and support of existing conservation plans - like Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and Natural Communities Conservation Plans (NCCPs) in the Bay Area. Recommendations Staff recommends the Authority develop and adopt a policy to include advance mitigation in the Draft TEP. Financial Implications The advance mitigation program carries a to-be-determined administrative cost.The Authority's cost for administration will depend on the model developed under the proposed Contra Costa/Alameda County pilot. The mitigation fees to fund the advance mitigation program should equal or approximate the project mitigation costs under a traditional project-by- project mitigation approach.An advance mitigation approach should include 1.1.1-1April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 146 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT April 6, 2016 Page 2 of 2 unknown savings and efficiencies as a result of streamlined project delivery. Options The Authority Board may decide to not adopt an advance mitigation policy and continue to mitigate project impacts on a project-by-project approach. Attachments A.Regional Advance Mitigation Planning in the San Francisco Bay Area - Effort to implement RAMP in the Bay Area for Environmental and Infrastructure Benefits B.MTC Fact Sheet - RAMP: Regional Advance Mitigation Planning A Win- Win for Transportation and Environment C.RAMP Timeline - February 2016 Changes from Committee N/A Authority staff has been participating on a Technical Advisory Committee in an effort to assess the potential for a RAMP in the Bay Area. The MTC and the Coastal Conservancy are sponsoring an effort to scope and implement a RAMP in the Bay Area with the target of including RAMP in MTC’s update of Plan Bay Area 2040. The MTC being facilitated by The Nature Conservancy, several Congestion Management Agencies, regulatory agencies, and the Coastal Conservancy have been working together over the past 15 months to develop the tools and mechanisms, as well as the science-based conservation and mitigation framework to enable RAMP in the Bay Area. RAMP provides an opportunity to align conservation and infrastructure planning in the Bay Area to meet both conservation and economic development goals and provide a model for other regions in California and beyond. Contra Costa and Alameda County has been identified as one of two potential areas to pilot the RAMP approach. However, there are many issues to address, such as structure, funding, regulatory support, management, and coordination and support of existing conservation plans - like Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and Natural Communities Conservation Plans (NCCPs) in the Bay Area. Staff recommends that the Authority consider adopting an advance mitigation policy for inclusion in the Draft TEP. Staff will provide additional background material as well as the benefits and risks in adopting an advance mitigation program in a potential TEP for discussion and consideration by the Authority Board on April 6, 2016. Members of The Nature Conservancy and its consulting team may be able to attend and provide additional information at the Authority Board Special Meeting on April 20, 2016. 1.1.1-2April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 147 Regional Advance Mitigation Planning in the San Francisco Bay Area Effort to implement RAMP in the Bay Area for Environmental and Infrastructure Benefits Transportation agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area plan to implement over 680 transportation projects over the next 20 years—roads, bridges, transit, and rail lines to serve the growing population and thriving economy. As a global biodiversity hot spot, the Bay Area hosts an extraordinarily rich array of valuable natural communities and ecosystems that provide habitat for rare plants and wildlife, and support residents’ health and quality of life by providing clean drinking water, clean air, opportunities for outdoor recreation, protection from disasters like flooding, landslides, and adaptation to climate change. As the Bay Area grows, it is important that it happens in a manner that protects and enhances the state’s natural resources. Transportation and natural resource agencies are working together to develop an innovative way to advance needed infrastructure projects more efficiently and provide more effective conservation of our natural resources through Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP). Plan Bay Area articulates this vision, with its balanced approach toward regional growth patterns and conservation of the region’s parks, open spaces, farms, and ranches. RAMP is consistent with Plan Bay Area as it incorporates a regional and coordinated approach to infrastructure development and natural resources and working lands conservation, delivering benefits to both sectors. An assessment conducted by researchers from U.C. Davis and The Nature Conservancy of the potential impact of the transportation projects in the approved Plan Bay Area identified 188 projects that may directly impact between 8,400 – 11,000 acres of the Bay Area’s important species, habitat, farmlands and rangelands, rivers and streams. Many of those projects will have impacts that may result in increased fragmentation and degradation of existing habitats and species. Most transportation projects require environmental mitigation (avoidance, minimization, offset) as prescribed in each project’s environmental document to r educe the potential impact as well as compensate for any impacts that do occur. These mitigation measures may include purchasing land or retaining land rights for certain affected species or activities. In the Bay Area, mitigation activities often occur on a per-project basis, with each project individually satisfying its own mitigation purchase requirements. This approach is often expensive, not integrated with a regional conservation vision, and done late in the project delivery cycle, thereby losing valuable conservation opportunities to conversion to other land uses. RAMP aims to integrate conservation into infrastructure agencies’ plans and project development well in advance and on a regional scale to reduce potential impacts of transportation projects, as well as to drive mitigation dollars to protect regional conservation priorities and protect important ecological functions that are at threat of loss. There are Attachment A 1.1.1-3April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 148 significant benefits to transportation agencies – they can plan comprehensively for project delivery and reduce costs attributed to mitigation, achieve significant conservation benefits, and accelerate project delivery. Not only can RAMP reduce infrastructure project costs, expedite project delivery, and improve relationships among agencies, it also ensures mitigation funds are being put to their utmost and highest use by protecting land with high habitat and connectivity value to create larger scale, more functional ecosystems linked to the conservation priorities of the region. In this same way RAMP can also help reduce GHG emissions through land use changes and carbon sequestration and provide communities with watershed protection, cleaner air, and open space for recreation. RAMP itself is not a regulatory process and does not change CEQA in any way. However by planning strategically on a larger scale and implementing mitigation in advance of project impacts or project delivery, RAMP allows both resource agencies and CMAs to work together to implement mitigation and conservation to be more cost effective, efficient, and successful. Other regions, such as Orange County and San Diego County, have programs for advance mitigation and are seeing the cost, project delivery, and environmental conservation benefits. Opportunity The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is sponsoring an effort to scope and implement RAMP in the Bay Area with the target of including RAMP in MTC’s update of Plan Bay Area 2040. The MTC, Congestion Management Agencies, regulatory agencies, and the Coastal Conservancy are working together to develop the tools and mechanisms, as well as the science-based conservation and mitigation framework to enable RAMP in the Bay Area. There are many issues to address, such as structure, funding, regulatory support, management, and coordination and support of existing conservation plans—like Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and Natural Communities Conservation Plans (NCCPs)—in the Bay Area. This is an opportunity to align conservation and infrastructure planning in the Bay Area to meet both conservation and economic development goals and provide a model for other regions in California and beyond. 1.1.1-4April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 149 M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N Joseph P Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700 TEL 510 817 5700 TDD/TTY 510 817 5769 FAX 510 817 5848 E-MAIL info@mtc ca gov WEB www mtc ca gov F A C T S H E E T RAMP: Regional Advance Mitigation Planning A Win-Win for Transportation and Environment Integrated RAMP is an innovative collaboration between transportation and resource agencies to advance Conservation & new transportation projects more efficiently and to more effectively preserve the Bay Area’s Project Planning natural resources. This new approach spurns traditional project-by-project mitigation deals to incorporate regional-scale conservation planning into the earliest stages of transportation agencies’ project planning and development. Higher Efficiency, Most transportation projects require environmental mitigation — avoidance, minimization or Lower Costs offsets such as buying land or retaining land rights for certain affected species or activities. Traditional project-by-project mitigation is frequently expensive, often occurs late in the delivery process, and may have no connection with regional conservation goals. RAMP helps transportation agencies cut costs, speed project delivery and achieve major conservation benefits by developing a comprehensive delivery plan that includes mitigation from the start. No New Regs or RAMP is not a regulatory process, and does not change CEQA in any way. RAMP helps the CEQA Changes transportation agencies get the biggest bang for their mitigation buck by protecting land with high habitat and connectivity value to create larger, more functional ecosystems linked to regional conservation priorities. RAMP helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions through land- use changes and carbon sequestration, and provides communities with watershed protection and open space for recreation. Bay Area Eyes MTC aims to use RAMP in the development of Plan Bay Area 2040, the long-range regional Statewide Model transportation and land-use plan slated for adoption in 2017. The Commission is collaborating with county congestion management agencies, state and federal regulatory agencies and the state Coastal Conservancy to develop the tools, mechanisms and science-based conservation and mitigation framework needed to implement RAMP in the Bay Area establish a model for use across the state and beyond. Orange County and San Diego County already are seeing cost, delivery and conservation benefits from advance mitigation programs. Thousands of Researchers from U.C. Davis and the Nature Conservatory reviewed the nearly 700 projects Acres at Stake included in the current Plan Bay Area and identified 188 projects that could directly affect up to 11,000 acres of the Bay Area’s most important species habitats, farm and range lands, and rivers and streams. RAMP provides an opportunity to protect much of this land from fragmentation and habitat degradation. Plenty of Work Implementation of RAMP in the Bay Area remains a work in progress. Ongoing challenges Still to be Done include funding, organizational structure, management, regulatory support, and coordination with existing Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Plans. But the RAMP initiative is an important opportunity to align infrastructure and conservation planning to achieve mobility, economic development and environmental goals simultaneously. 11/2015 Attachment B 1.1.1-5April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 150 2016 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2017 Q1 Q2 Outreach and engagement Work plan Development and Launch Regional Assessment Pilot projects Mitigation framework and program development Timeline: A Snapshot February 2016 PBA 2040 Adoption Attachment C 1.1.1-6 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 151 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/335 to approve and authorize the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute Master Agreement No. 04-5928F15 with the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for Federal-aid projects and subsequent program supplements for use on local transportation facilities as required in the State Agreement, Countywide. (All Districts) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. The proposed agreement will allow the County to apply and receive State and Federal funds. BACKGROUND: On December 5, 2006, the Board of Supervisors approved Master Cooperative Agreement No. 04-5928R with the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The agreement outlines the responsibility of the County and Caltrans in the use and distribution of any State and Federal funds awarded to the County. To keep up with ever changing Federal-aid APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Nancy Wein 925 313-2275 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/335 to execute Master Agreement No. 04-5928F15 with the State of California, Department of Transportation. (All Districts) April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 152 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) regulations, the Federal Master Agreement has been revised by Caltrans to reflect the recent changes created by the "Supercircular," otherwise known as 2 CFR 200, “UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS” issued by the Federal government. When 2 CFR 200 was published over a year ago, it consolidated several Office of Management and Budget directives and eliminated other regulations. In addition, it has been 10 years since the last Federal Master Agreement revision. To address references to obsolete Federal regulations, Caltrans has revised the Master Agreement to bring it into compliance. So that the County is able to apply for State and Federal funds for road and bridge projects, the State requires that the Master Agreement be in place. This new Federal Master Agreement will be required for any new requests for authorization for a new project. For existing projects, Caltrans plans to issue revised program supplement agreements. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not executed the County will not be eligible to receive any State or Federal funds to repair or build County roads. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/335 Master Agreement 04-5928F15 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/335 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 153 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/26/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/335 IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING and AUTHORIZING the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute Master Agreement No. 04-5928F15 with the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for Federal-aid projects and subsequent program supplements for use on local transportation facilities as required in the State Agreement, Countywide. (All Districts) WHEREAS, the County is eligible to receive Federal and/or State funding for certain Transportation Projects, through the California Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements and/or Fund Transfer Agreements need to be executed with the California Department of Transportation before such funds could be claimed; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA wishes to delegate authorization to execute these agreements and any amendments thereto to the Public Works Director; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Public Works Director be authorized to execute all Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, Fund Transfer Agreements and any amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation. Contact: Nancy Wein 925 313-2275 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: 5 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 154 Page 1 of 26 04 Contra Costa County -------- ---------------------------------------------- District Administering Agency Agreement No. 04-5928F15 This AGREEMENT, is entered into effective this _______ day of ____________, 20 , by and between Contra Costa County, hereinafter referred to as "ADMINISTERING AGENCY," and the State of California, acting by and through its Department of Transportation (Caltrans), hereinafter referred to as "STATE", and together referred to as "PARTIES" or individually as a "PARTY." RECITALS: 1. WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has enacted the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and subsequent Transportation Authorization Bills to fund transportation programs; and 2. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted legislation by which certain federal-aid funds may be made available for use on local transportation related projects of public entities qualified to act as recipients of these federal-aid funds in accordance with the intent of federal law; and 3. WHEREAS, before federal funds will be made available for a specific program project, ADMINISTERING AGENCY and STATE are required to enter into an agreement to establish terms and conditions applicable to the ADMINISTERING AGENCY when receiving federal funds for a designated PROJECT facility and to the subsequent operation and maintenance of that completed facility. NOW, THEREFORE, the PARTIES agree as follows: MASTER AGREEMENT ADMINISTERING AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL-AID PROJECTS April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 155 Page 2 of 26 ARTICLE I - PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 1. This AGREEMENT shall have no force or effect with respect to any program project unless and until a project-specific "Authorization/Agreement Summary", herein referred to as "E-76" document, is approved by STATE and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2. The term "PROJECT", as used herein, means that authorized transportation related project and related activities financed in part with federal-aid funds as more fully-described in an "Authorization/ Agreement Summary" or "Amendment/Modification Summary", herein referred to as "E-76" or "E-76 (AMOD)" document authorized by STATE and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 3. The E-76/E-76 (AMOD) shall designate the party responsible for implementing PROJECT, type of work and location of PROJECT. 4. The PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT sets out special covenants as a condition for the ADMINISTERING AGENCY to receive federal-aid funds from/through STATE for designated PROJECT. The PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT shall also show these federal funds that have been initially encumbered for PROJECT along with the matching funds to be provided by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and/or others. Execution of PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT by the PARTIES shall cause ADMINISTERING AGENCY to adopt all of the terms of this AGREEMENT as though fully set forth therein in the PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT. Unless otherwise expressly delegated in a resolution by the governing body of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, and with written concurrence by STATE, the PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT shall be approved and managed by the governing body of ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 5. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to execute and return each project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT within ninety (90) days of receipt. The PARTIES agree that STATE may suspend future authorizations/obligations and invoice payments for any on-going or future federal-aid project performed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY if any project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT is not returned within that ninety (90) day period unless otherwise agreed by STATE in writing. 6. ADMINISTERING AGENCY further agrees, as a condition to the release and payment of federal funds encumbered for the PROJECT described in each PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT, to comply with the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT and all of the agreed-upon Special Covenants or Remarks incorporated within the PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT, and Cooperative/Contribution Agreement where appropriate, defining and identifying the nature of the specific PROJECT. 7. Federal, state and matching funds will not participate in PROJECT work performed in advance of the approval of the E-76 or E-76 (AMOD), unless otherwise stated in the executed project- specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees that it will only proceed with the work authorized for that specific phase(s) on the project-specific E-76 or E-76 (AMOD). ADMINISTERING AGENCY further agrees to not proceed with future phases of PROJECT prior to receiving an E-76 (AMOD) from STATE for that phase(s) unless no further federal funds are needed or for those future phase(s). April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 156 Page 3 of 26 8. That PROJECT or portions thereof, must be included in a federally approved Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) prior to ADMINISTERING AGENCY submitting the "Request for Authorization". 9. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall conform to all state statutes, regulations and procedures (including those set forth in the Local Assistance Procedures Manual and the Local Assistance Program Guidelines, hereafter collectively referred to as "LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES") relating to the federal-aid program, all Title 23 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) and 2 CFR part 200 federal requirements, and all applicable federal laws, regulations, and policy and procedural or instructional memoranda, unless otherwise specifically waived as designated in the executed project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT. 10. If PROJECT is not on STATE-owned right of way, PROJECT shall be constructed in accordance with LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES that describes minimum statewide design standards for local agency streets and roads. LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES for projects off the National Highway System (NHS) allow STATE to accept either the STATE's minimum statewide design standards or the approved geometric design standards of ADMINISTERING AGENCY. Additionally, for projects off the NHS, STATE will accept ADMINISTERING AGENCY- approved standard specifications, standard plans, materials sampling and testing quality assurance programs that meet the conditions described in the then current LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES. 11. If PROJECT involves work within or partially within STATE-owned right-of-way, that PROJECT shall also be subject to compliance with the policies, procedures and standards of the STATE Project Development Procedures Manual and Highway Design Manual and, where appropriate, an executed Cooperative Agreement between STATE and ADMINISTERING AGENCY that outlines the PROJECT responsibilities and respective obligations of the PARTIES. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its contractors shall each obtain an encroachment permit through STATE prior to commencing any work within STATE rights of way or work which affects STATE facilities. 12. When PROJECT is not on the State Highway System but includes work to be performed by a railroad, the contract for such work shall be prepared by ADMINISTERING AGENCY or by STATE, as the PARTIES may hereafter agree. In either event, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall enter into an agreement with the railroad providing for future maintenance of protective devices or other facilities installed under the contract. 13. If PROJECT is using STATE funds, the Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect, or its designee, shall review the contract PS&E for the construction of buildings, structures, sidewalks, curbs and related facilities for accessibility and usability. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not award a PROJECT construction contract for these types of improvements until the State Architect has issued written approval stating that the PROJECT plans and specifications comply with the provisions of sections 4450 and 4454 of the California Government Code, if applicable. Further requirements and guidance are provided in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. 14. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will advertise, award and administer PROJECT in accordance with the current LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES unless otherwise stated in the executed project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 157 Page 4 of 26 15. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall provide or arrange for adequate supervision and inspection of each PROJECT. While consultants may perform supervision and inspection work for PROJECT with a fully qualified and licensed engineer, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall provide a full-time employee to be in responsible charge of each PROJECT who is not a consultant. 16. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall submit PROJECT-specific contract award documents to STATE's District Local Assistance Engineer within sixty (60) days after contract award. A copy of the award documents shall also be included with the submittal of the first invoice for a construction contract by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 17. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall submit the final report documents that collectively constitute a "Report of Expenditures" within one hundred eighty (180) days of PROJECT completion. Failure by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to submit a "Report of Expenditures" within one hundred eighty (180) days of project completion will result in STATE imposing sanctions upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY in accordance with the current LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES. 18. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall comply with: (i) section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in federally assisted programs; (ii) the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability irrespective of funding; and (iii) all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to both the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. 19. The Congress of the United States, the Legislature of the State of California and the Governor of the State of California, each within their respective jurisdictions, have prescribed certain nondiscrimination requirements with respect to contract and other work financed with public funds. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with the requirements of the FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ADDENDUM (Exhibit A attached hereto) and the NONDISCRIMINATION ASSURANCES (Exhibit B attached hereto). ADMINISTERING AGENCY further agrees that any agreement entered into by ADMINISTERING AGENCY with a third party for performance of PROJECT-related work shall incorporate Exhibits A and B (with third party's name replacing ADMINISTERING AGENCY) as essential parts of such agreement to be enforced by that third party as verified by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 158 Page 5 of 26 ARTICLE II - RIGHTS OF WAY 1. No contract for the construction of a federal-aid PROJECT shall be awarded until all necessary rights of way have been secured. Prior to the advertising for construction of PROJECT, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall certify and, upon request, shall furnish STATE with evidence that all necessary rights of way are available for construction purposes or will be available by the time of award of the construction contract. 2. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to indemnify and hold STATE harmless from any liability that may result in the event the right of way for a PROJECT, including, but not limited to, being clear as certified or if said right of way is found to contain hazardous materials requiring treatment or removal to remediate in accordance with Federal and State laws. The furnishing of right of way as provided for herein includes, in addition to all real property required for the PROJECT, title free and clear of obstructions and encumbrances affecting PROJECT and the payment, as required by applicable law, of relocation costs and damages to remainder real property not actually taken but injuriously affected by PROJECT. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall pay, from its own non- matching funds, any costs which arise out of delays to the construction of PROJECT because utility facilities have not been timely removed or relocated, or because rights of way were not available to ADMINISTERING AGENCY for the orderly prosecution of PROJECT work. 3. Subject to STATE approval and such supervision as is required by LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES over ADMINISTERING AGENCY's right of way acquisition procedures, ADMINISTERING AGENCY may claim reimbursement from federal funds for expenditures incurred in purchasing only the necessary rights of way needed for the PROJECT after crediting PROJECT with the fair market value of any excess property retained and not disposed of by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 4. When real property rights are to be acquired by ADMINISTERING AGENCY for a PROJECT, said ADMINISTERING AGENCY must carry out that acquisition in compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations, in accordance with State procedures as published in State's current LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES and STATE's Right-of-Way Manual, subject to STATE oversight to ensure that the completed work is acceptable under the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. 5. Whether or not federal-aid is to be requested for right of way, should ADMINISTERING AGENCY, in acquiring right of way for PROJECT, displace an individual, family, business, farm operation, or non-profit organization, relocation payments and services will be provided as set forth in 49 CFR, Part 24. The public will be adequately informed of the relocation payments and services which will be available, and, to the greatest extent practicable, no person lawfully occupying real property shall be required to move from his/her dwelling or to move his/her business or farm operation without at least ninety (90) days written notice from ADMINISTERING AGENCY. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will provide STATE with specific assurances, on each portion of the PROJECT, that no person will be displaced until comparable decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing is available within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement, and that ADMINISTERING AGENCY's relocation program is realistic and adequate to provide orderly, timely and efficient relocation of PROJECT-displaced persons as provided in 49 CFR, Part 24. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 159 Page 6 of 26 6. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall, along with recording the deed or instrument evidencing title in the name of the ADMINISTERING AGENCY or their assignee, also record an Agreement Declaring Restrictive Covenants (ADRC) as a separate document incorporating the assurances included within Exhibits A and B and Appendices A, B, C and D of this AGREEMENT, as appropriate. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 160 Page 7 of 26 ARTICLE III - MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT 1. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will maintain and operate the property acquired, developed, constructed, rehabilitated, or restored by PROJECT for its intended public use until such time as the parties might amend this AGREEMENT to otherwise provide. With the approval of STATE, ADMINISTERING AGENCY or its successors in interest in the PROJECT property may transfer this obligation and responsibility to maintain and operate PROJECT property for that intended public purpose to another public entity. 2. Upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY's acceptance of the completed federal-aid construction contract or upon contractor being relieved of the responsibility for maintaining and protecting PROJECT, ADMINISTERING AGENCY will be responsible for the maintenance, ownership, liability, and the expense thereof, for PROJECT in a manner satisfactory to the authorized representatives of STATE and FHWA and if PROJECT falls within the jurisdictional limits of another Agency or Agencies, it is the duty of ADMINISTERING AGENCY to facilitate a separate maintenance agreement(s) between itself and the other jurisdictional Agency or Agencies providing for the operation, maintenance, ownership and liability of PROJECT. Until those agreements are executed, ADMINISTERING AGENCY will be responsible for all PROJECT operations, maintenance, ownership and liability in a manner satisfactory to the authorized representatives of STATE and FHWA. If, within ninety (90) days after receipt of notice from STATE that a PROJECT, or any portion thereof, is not being properly operated and maintained and ADMINISTERING AGENCY has not satisfactorily remedied the conditions complained of, the approval of future federal-aid projects of ADMINISTERING AGENCY will be withheld until the PROJECT shall have been put in a condition of operation and maintenance satisfactory to STATE and FHWA. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a PROJECT that has been vacated through due process of law with STATE's concurrence. 3. PROJECT and its facilities shall be maintained by an adequate and well-trained staff of engineers and/or such other professionals and technicians as PROJECT reasonably requires. Said operations and maintenance staff may be employees of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, another unit of government, or a contractor under agreement with ADMINISTERING AGENCY. All maintenance will be performed at regular intervals or as required for efficient operation of the complete PROJECT improvements. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 161 Page 8 of 26 ARTICLE IV - FISCAL PROVISIONS 1. All contractual obligations of STATE are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the allocation of resources by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). 2. STATE'S financial commitment of federal funds will occur only upon the execution of this AGREEMENT, the authorization of the project-specific E-76 or E-76 (AMOD), the execution of each project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT, and STATE's approved finance letter. 3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY may submit signed invoices in arrears for reimbursement of participating PROJECT costs on a regular basis once the project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT has been executed by STATE. 4. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees, as a minimum, to submit invoices at least once every six (6) months commencing after the funds are encumbered on either the project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT or through a project-specific finance letter approved by STATE. STATE reserves the right to suspend future authorizations/obligations, and invoice payments for any on-going or future federal-aid project by ADMINISTERING AGENCY if PROJECT costs have not been invoiced by ADMINISTERING AGENCY for a six (6) month period. 5. Invoices shall be submitted on ADMINISTERING AGENCY letterhead that includes the address of ADMINISTERING AGENCY and shall be formatted in accordance with LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES. 6. ADMINISTERING AGENCY must have at least one copy of supporting backup documentation for costs incurred and claimed for reimbursement by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to submit supporting backup documentation with invoices if requested by State. Acceptable backup documentation includes, but is not limited to, agency's progress payment to the contractors, copies of cancelled checks showing amounts made payable to vendors and contractors, and/or a computerized summary of PROJECT costs. 7. Payments to ADMINISTERING AGENCY can only be released by STATE as reimbursement of actual allowable PROJECT costs already incurred and paid for by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 8. Indirect Cost Allocation Plans/Indirect Cost Rate Proposals (ICAP/ICRP), Central Service Cost Allocation Plans and related documentation are to be prepared and provided to STATE (Caltrans Audits & Investigations) for review and approval prior to ADMINISTERING AGENCY seeking reimbursement of indirect costs incurred within each fiscal year being claimed for State and federal reimbursement. ICAPs/ICRPs must be prepared in accordance with the requirements set forth in 2 CFR, Part 200, Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedural Manual, and the ICAP/ICRP approval procedures established by STATE. 9. Once PROJECT has been awarded, STATE reserves the right to de-obligate any excess federal funds from the construction phase of PROJECT if the contract award amount is less than the obligated amount, as shown on the PROJECT E-76 or E-76 (AMOD). 10. STATE will withhold the greater of either two (2) percent of the total of all federal funds encumbered for each PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT or $40,000 until ADMINISTERING AGENCY submits the Final Report of Expenditures for each completed PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT PROJECT. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 162 Page 9 of 26 11. The estimated total cost of PROJECT, the amount of federal funds obligated, and the required matching funds may be adjusted by mutual consent of the PARTIES hereto with a finance letter, a detailed estimate, if required, and approved E-76 (AMOD). Federal-aid funding may be increased to cover PROJECT cost increases only if such funds are available and FHWA concurs with that increase. 12. When additional federal-aid funds are not available, ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees that the payment of federal funds will be limited to the amounts authorized on the PROJECT specific E-76 / E-76 (AMOD) and agrees that any increases in PROJECT costs must be defrayed with ADMINISTERING AGENCY's own funds. 13. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall use its own non-federal funds to finance the local share of eligible costs and all expenditures or contract items ruled ineligible for financing with federal funds. STATE shall make the determination of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's cost eligibility for federal fund financing of PROJECT costs. 14. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will reimburse STATE for STATE's share of costs for work performed by STATE at the request of ADMINISTERING AGENCY. STATE's costs shall include overhead assessments in accordance with section 8755.1 of the State Administrative Manual. 15. Federal and state funds allocated from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) are subject to the timely use of funds provisions enacted by Senate Bill 45, approved in 1997, and subsequent STIP Guidelines and State procedures approved by the CTC and STATE. 16. Federal funds encumbered for PROJECT are available for liquidation for a period of six (6) years from the beginning of the State fiscal year the funds were appropriated in the State Budget. State funds encumbered for PROJECT are available for liquidation only for six (6) years from the beginning of the State fiscal year the funds were appropriated in the State Budget. Federal or state funds not liquidated within these periods will be reverted unless a Cooperative Work Agreement (CWA) is submitted by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and approved by the California Department of Finance (per Government Code section 16304). The exact date of fund reversion will be reflected in the STATE signed finance letter for PROJECT. 17. Payments to ADMINISTERING AGENCY for PROJECT-related travel and subsistence (per diem) expenses of ADMINISTERING AGENCY forces and its contractors and subcontractors claimed for reimbursement or as local match credit shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid rank and file STATE employees under current State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules. If the rates invoiced by ADMINISTERING AGENCY are in excess of DPA rates, ADMINISTERING AGENCY is responsible for the cost difference, and any overpayments inadvertently paid by STATE shall be reimbursed to STATE by ADMINISTERING AGENCY on demand within thirty (30) days of such invoice. 18. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirement for Federal Awards. 19. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees, and will assure that its contractors and subcontractors will be obligated to agree, that Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the allowability of individual PROJECT cost items. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 163 Page 10 of 26 20. Every sub-recipient receiving PROJECT funds under this AGREEMENT shall comply with 2 CFR, Part 200, 23 CFR, 48 CFR Chapter 1, Part 31, Local Assistance Procedures, Public Contract Code (PCC) 10300-10334 (procurement of goods), PCC 10335-10381 (non-A&E services), and other applicable STATE and FEDERAL regulations. 21. Any PROJECT costs for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 2 CFR, Part 200, 23 CFR, 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31, and other applicable STATE and FEDERAL regulations, are subject to repayment by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to STATE. 22. Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY fail to refund any moneys due upon written demand by STATE as provided hereunder or should ADMINISTERING AGENCY breach this AGREEMENT by failing to complete PROJECT without adequate justification and approval by STATE, then, within thirty 30 days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed to in writing between the PARTIES, STATE, acting through the State Controller, the State Treasurer, or any other public entity or agency, may withhold or demand a transfer of an amount equal to the amount paid by or owed to STATE from future apportionments, or any other funds due ADMINISTERING AGENCY from the Highway Users Tax Fund or any other sources of funds, and/or may withhold approval of future ADMINISTERING AGENCY federal-aid projects. 23. Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY be declared to be in breach of this AGREEMENT or otherwise in default thereof by STATE, and if ADMINISTERING AGENCY is constituted as a joint powers authority, special district, or any other public entity not directly receiving funds through the State Controller, STATE is authorized to obtain reimbursement from whatever sources of funding are available, including the withholding or transfer of funds, pursuant to Article IV - 22, from those constituent entities comprising a joint powers authority or by bringing of an action against ADMINISTERING AGENCY or its constituent member entities, to recover all funds provided by STATE hereunder. 24. ADMINISTERING AGENCY acknowledges that the signatory party represents the ADMINISTERING AGENCY and further warrants that there is nothing within a Joint Powers Agreement, by which ADMINISTERING AGENCY was created, if any exists, that would restrict or otherwise limit STATE's ability to recover State funds improperly spent by ADMINISTERING AGENCY in contravention of the terms of this AGREEMENT. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 164 Page 11 of 26 ARTICLE V AUDITS, THIRD PARTY CONTRACTING, RECORDS RETENTION AND REPORTS 1. STATE reserves the right to conduct technical and financial audits of PROJECT work and records and ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees, and shall require its contractors and subcontractors to agree, to cooperate with STATE by making all appropriate and relevant PROJECT records available for audit and copying as required by paragraph three (3) of ARTICLE V. 2. ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and subcontractors shall establish and maintain a financial management system and records that properly accumulate and segregate reasonable, allowable, and allocable incurred PROJECT costs and matching funds by line item for the PROJECT. The financial management system of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and all subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices sent to or paid by STATE. 3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY, ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contractors and subcontractors, and STATE shall each maintain and make available for inspection and audit by STATE, the California State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of STATE or the United States all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts and ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall furnish copies thereof if requested. All of the above referenced parties shall make such AGREEMENT, PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT and contract materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the entire PROJECT period and for three (3) years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report by the STATE to the FHWA. 4. ADMINISTERING AGENCY is required to have an audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 2 CFR 200 if it expends $750,000 or more in Federal Funds in a single fiscal year. The Federal Funds received under a PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT are a part of the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 20.205. 5. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to include all PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTS adopting the terms of this AGREEMENT in the schedule of projects to be examined in ADMINISTERING AGENCY's annual audit and in the schedule of projects to be examined under its single audit prepared in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200. 6. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not award a non-A&E contract over $5,000, construction contract over $10,000, or other contracts over $25,000 (excluding professional service contracts of the type which are required to be procured in accordance with Government Code sections 4525 (d), (e) and (f)) on the basis of a noncompetitive negotiation for work to be performed under this AGREEMENT without the prior written approval of STATE. Contracts awarded by ADMINISTERING AGENCY, if intended as local match credit, must meet the requirements set forth in this AGREEMENT regarding local match funds. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 165 Page 12 of 26 7. Any subcontract entered into by ADMINISTERING AGENCY as a result of this AGREEMENT shall contain provisions 5, 6, 17, 19 and 20 of ARTICLE IV, FISCAL PROVISIONS, and provisions 1, 2, and 3 of this ARTICLE V, AUDITS, THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTING RECORDS RETENTION AND REPORTS, 8. To be eligible for local match credit, ADMINISTERING AGENCY must ensure that local match funds used for a PROJECT meet the fiscal provisions requirements outlined in ARTICLE IV in the same manner as required of all other PROJECT expenditures. 9. In addition to the above, the pre-award requirements of third-party contractor/consultants with ADMINISTERING AGENCY should be consistent with the LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 166 Page 13 of 26 ARTICLE VI - FEDERAL LOBBYING ACTIVITIES CERTIFICATION 1. By execution of this AGREEMENT, ADMINISTERING AGENCY certifies, to the best of the signatory officer's knowledge and belief, that: A. No federal or state appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any STATE or federal agency, a member of the State Legislature or United States Congress, an officer or employee of the Legislature or Congress, or any employee of a Member of the Legislature or Congress in connection with the awarding of any STATE or federal contract, including this AGREEMENT, the making of any STATE or federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative contract, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any STATE or federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative contract. B. 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 federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this AGREEMENT, grant, local, or cooperative contract, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Rep Lobbying," in accordance with the form instructions. C. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this AGREEMENT and each PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT was or will be made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this AGREEMENT imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, United States Code. Any party who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 2. ADMINISTERING AGENCY also agrees by signing this AGREEMENT that the language of this certification will be included in all lower tier sub-agreements which exceed $100,000 and that all such sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 167 Page 14 of 26 ARTICLE VII - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 1. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to use all state funds reimbursed hereunder only for transportation purposes that are in conformance with Article XIX of the California State Constitution and the relevant Federal Regulations. 2. This AGREEMENT is subject to any additional restrictions, limitations, conditions, or any statute enacted by the State Legislature or adopted by the CTC that may affect the provisions, terms, or funding of this AGREEMENT in any manner. 3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and the officers and employees of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, when engaged in the performance of this AGREEMENT, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees or agents of STATE or the federal government. 4. Each project-specific E-76 or E-76 (AMOD), PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT and Finance Letter shall separately establish the terms and funding limits for each described PROJECT funded under the AGREEMENT. No federal or state funds are obligated against this AGREEMENT. 5. ADMINISTERING AGENCY certifies that neither ADMINISTERING AGENCY nor its principals are suspended or debarred at the time of the execution of this AGREEMENT. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees that it will notify STATE immediately in the event a suspension or a debarment occurs after the execution of this AGREEMENT. 6. ADMINISTERING AGENCY certifies, by execution of this AGREEMENT, that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this AGREEMENT upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by ADMINISTERING AGENCY for the purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty, STATE has the right to annul this AGREEMENT without liability, pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or in STATE's discretion, to deduct from the price of consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. 7. In accordance with Public Contract Code section 10296, ADMINISTERING AGENCY hereby certifies under penalty of perjury that no more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against ADMINISTERING AGENCY within the immediate preceding two (2) year period because of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's failure to comply with an order of a federal court that orders ADMINISTERING AGENCY to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board. 8. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with STATE, FHWA or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) that may have an impact upon the outcome of this AGREEMENT. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall also list current contractors who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this AGREEMENT. 9. ADMINISTERING AGENCY hereby certifies that it does not have nor shall it acquire any financial or business interest that would conflict with the performance of PROJECT under this AGREEMENT. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 168 Page 15 of 26 10. ADMINISTERING AGENCY certifies that this AGREEMENT was not obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration either promised or paid to any STATE employee. For breach or violation of this warranty, STATE shall have the right, in its discretion, to terminate this AGREEMENT without liability, to pay only for the work actually performed, or to deduct from the PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT price or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback, or other unlawful consideration. 11. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by the STATE's Contract Officer who may consider any written or verbal evidence submitted by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. The decision of the Contract Officer, issued in writing, shall be conclusive and binding on the PARTIES on all questions of fact considered and determined by the Contract Officer. 12. Neither the pending of a dispute nor its consideration by the Contract Officer will excuse ADMINISTERING AGENCY from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. 13. Neither ADMINISTERING AGENCY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE, under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction arising under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the ADMINISTERING AGENCY and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation and other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under this AGREEMENT. 14. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under, or in connection with, any work, authority or jurisdiction arising under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless STATE and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this AGREEMENT. 15. STATE reserves the right to terminate funding for any PROJECT upon written notice to ADMINISTERING AGENCY in the event that ADMINISTERING AGENCY fails to proceed with PROJECT work in accordance with the project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT, the bonding requirements if applicable, or otherwise violates the conditions of this AGREEMENT and/or PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT, or the funding allocation such that substantial performance is significantly endangered. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 169 Page 16 of 26 16. No termination shall become effective if, within thirty (30) days after receipt of a Notice of Termination, ADMINISTERING AGENCY either cures the default involved or, if not reasonably susceptible of cure within said thirty (30) day period, ADMINISTERING AGENCY proceeds thereafter to complete the cure in a manner and time line acceptable to STATE. Any such termination shall be accomplished by delivery to ADMINISTERING AGENCY of a Notice of Termination, which notice shall become effective not less than thirty (30) days after receipt, specifying the reason for the termination, the extent to which funding of work under this AGREEMENT is terminated and the date upon which such termination becomes effective, if beyond thirty (30) days after receipt. During the period before the effective termination date, ADMINISTERING AGENCY and STATE shall meet to attempt to resolve any dispute. In the event of such termination, STATE may proceed with the PROJECT work in a manner deemed proper by STATE. If STATE terminates funding for PROJECT with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, STATE shall pay ADMINISTERING AGENCY the sum due ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT and/or STATE approved finance letter prior to termination, provided, however, ADMINISTERING AGENCY is not in default of the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT or the project-specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT and that the cost of PROJECT completion to STATE shall first be deducted from any sum due ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 17. In case of inconsistency or conflicts with the terms of this AGREEMENT and that of a project- specific PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT, the terms stated in that PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT shall prevail over those in this AGREEMENT. 18. Without the written consent of STATE, this AGREEMENT is not assignable by ADMINISTERING AGENCY either in whole or in part. 19. No alteration or variation of the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the PARTIES, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the PARTIES. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have executed this AGREEMENT by their duly authorized officers. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Contra Costa County By______________________________ By________________________________ ________________________________ _________________________________ Chief, Office of Project Implementation _________________________________ Division of Local Assistance Contra Costa County Representative Name & Title (Authorized Governing Body Representative) Date __________________________ Date _____________________________ April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 170 Page 17 of 26 EXHIBIT A FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ADDENDUM 1. In the performance of this Agreement, ADMINISTERING AGENCY will not discriminate against any employee for employment because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ancestry or national origin, physical disability, medical condition, marital status, political affiliation, family and medical care leave, pregnancy leave, or disability leave. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will take affirmative action to ensure that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, sex, sexual orientation, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin, physical disability, medical condition, marital status, political affiliation, family and medical care leave, pregnancy leave, or disability leave. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment; upgrading; demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall post in conspicuous places, available to employees for employment, notices to be provided by STATE setting forth the provisions of this Fair Employment section. 2. ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractor(s) and all subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code Section 1290-0 et seq.), and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (California code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 7285.0 et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code, Section 12900(a-f), set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations are incorporated into this AGREEMENT by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. Each of the ADMINISTERING AGENCY'S contractors and all subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreements, as appropriate. 3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all contracts and subcontracts to perform work under this AGREEMENT. 4. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will permit access to the records of employment, employment advertisements, application forms, and other pertinent data and records by STATE, the State Fair Employment and Housing Commission, or any other agency of the State of California designated by STATE, for the purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with the Fair Employment section of this Agreement. 5. Remedies for Willful Violation: (a) STATE may determine a willful violation of the Fair Employment provision to have occurred upon receipt of a final judgment to that effect from a court in an action to which ADMINISTERING AGENCY was a party, or upon receipt of a written notice from the Fair Employment and Housing Commission that it has investigated and determined that ADMINISTERING AGENCY has violated the Fair Employment Practices Act and had issued an order under Labor Code Section 1426 which has become final or has obtained an injunction under Labor Code Section 1429. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 171 Page 18 of 26 (b) For willful violation of this Fair Employment Provision, STATE shall have the right to terminate this Agreement either in whole or in part, and any loss or damage sustained by STATE in securing the goods or services thereunder shall be borne and paid for by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and by the surety under the performance bond, if any, and STATE may deduct from any moneys due or thereafter may become due to ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the difference between the price named in the Agreement and the actual cost thereof to STATE to cure ADMINISTERING AGENCY's breach of this Agreement. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 172 Page 19 of 26 EXHIBIT B NONDISCRIMINATION ASSURANCES ADMINISTERING AGENCY HEREBY AGREES THAT, as a condition to receiving any federal financial assistance from the STATE, acting for the U.S. Department of Transportation, it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d-42 U.S.C. 2000d-4 (hereinafter referred to as the ACT), and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, "Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation - Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964" (hereinafter referred to as the REGULATIONS), the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1973, and other pertinent directives, to the end that in accordance with the ACT, REGULATIONS, and other pertinent directives, no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY receives federal financial assistance from the Federal Department of Transportation. ADMINISTERING AGENCY HEREBY GIVES ASSURANCE THAT ADMINISTERING AGENCY will promptly take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement. This assurance is required by subsection 21.7(a) (1) of the REGULATIONS. More specifically, and without limiting the above general assurance, ADMINISTERING AGENCY hereby gives the following specific assurances with respect to its federal-aid Program: 1. That ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees that each "program" and each "facility" as defined in subsections 21.23 (e) and 21.23 (b) of the REGULATIONS, will be (with regard to a "program") conducted, or will be (with regard to a "facility") operated in compliance with all requirements imposed by, or pursuant to, the REGULATIONS. 2. That ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall insert the following notification in all solicitations for bids for work or material subject to the REGULATIONS made in connection with the federal-aid Program and, in adapted form, in all proposals for negotiated agreements: ADMINISTERING AGENCY hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively insure that in any agreement entered into pursuant to this advertisement, minority business enterprises will be afforded full opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability in consideration for an award. 3. That ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall insert the clauses of Appendix A of this assurance in every agreement subject to the ACT and the REGULATIONS. 4. That the clauses of Appendix B of this Assurance shall be included as a covenant running with the land, in any deed effecting a transfer of real property, structures, or improvements thereon, or interest therein. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 173 Page 20 of 26 5. That where ADMINISTERING AGENCY receives federal financial assistance to construct a facility, or part of a facility, the Assurance shall extend to the entire facility and facilities operated in connection therewith. 6. That where ADMINISTERING AGENCY receives federal financial assistance in the form, or for the acquisition, of real property or an interest in real property, the Assurance shall extend to rights to space on, over, or under such property. 7. That ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall include the appropriate clauses set forth in Appendix C and D of this Assurance, as a covenant running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, permits, licenses, and similar agreements entered into by the ADMINISTERING AGENCY with other parties: Appendix C; (a) for the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under the federal-aid Program; and Appendix D; (b) for the construction or use of or access to space on, over, or under real property acquired, or improved under the federal-aid Program. 8. That this assurance obligates ADMINISTERING AGENCY for the period during which federal financial assistance is extended to the program, except where the federal financial assistance is to provide, or is in the form of, personal property or real property or interest therein, or structures, or improvements thereon, in which case the assurance obligates ADMINISTERING AGENCY or any transferee for the longer of the following periods: (a) the period during which the property is used for a purpose for which the federal financial assistance is extended, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits; or (b) the period during which ADMINISTERING AGENCY retains ownership or possession of the property. 9. That ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall provide for such methods of administration for the program as are found by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, or the official to whom he delegates specific authority, to give reasonable guarantee that ADMINISTERING AGENCY, other recipients, sub-grantees, applicants, sub-applicants, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants of federal financial assistance under such program will comply with all requirements imposed by, or pursuant to, the ACT, the REGULATIONS, this Assurance and the Agreement. 10. That ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees that the United States and the State of California have a right to seek judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under the ACT, the REGULATIONS, and this Assurance. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 174 Page 21 of 26 11. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, age, disability, color, national origin or sex in the award and performance of any STATE assisted contract or in the administration on its DBE Program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure non- discrimination in the award and administration of STATE assisted contracts. ADMINISTERING AGENCY'S DBE Implementation Agreement is incorporated by reference in this AGREEMENT. Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the recipient of its failure to carry out its approved DBE Implementation Agreement, STATE may impose sanctions as provided for under 49 CFR Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 USC 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1985 (31USC 3801 et seq.) THESE ASSURANCES are given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all federal grants, loans, agreements, property, discounts or other federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to ADMINISTERING AGENCY by STATE, acting for the U.S. Department of Transportation, and is binding on ADMINISTERING AGENCY, other recipients, subgrantees, applicants, sub-applicants, transferees, successors in interest and other participants in the federal-aid Highway Program. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 175 Page 22 of 26 APPENDIX A TO EXHIBIT B During the performance of this Agreement, ADMINISTERING AGENCY, for itself, its assignees and successors in interest (hereinafter collectively referred to as ADMINISTERING AGENCY) agrees as follows: (1) Compliance with Regulations: ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall comply with the regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs of the Department of Transportation, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the REGULATIONS), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement. (2) Nondiscrimination: ADMINISTERING AGENCY, with regard to the work performed by it during the AGREEMENT, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability in the selection and retention of sub-applicants, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the REGULATIONS, including employment practices when the agreement covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the REGULATIONS. (3) Solicitations for Sub-agreements, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by ADMINISTERING AGENCY for work to be performed under a Sub-agreement, including procurements of materials or leases of equipment, each potential sub-applicant or supplier shall be notified by ADMINISTERING AGENCY of the ADMINISTERING AGENCY's obligations under this Agreement and the REGULATIONS relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin. (4) Information and Reports: ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall provide all information and reports required by the REGULATIONS, or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to ADMINISTERING AGENCY's books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by STATE or FHWA to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such REGULATIONS or directives. Where any information required of ADMINISTERING AGENCY is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall so certify to STATE or the FHWA as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts ADMINISTERING AGENCY has made to obtain the information. (5) Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this agreement, STATE shall impose such agreement sanctions as it or the FHWA may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: (a) withholding of payments to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the Agreement within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 90 days; and/or (b) cancellation, termination or suspension of the Agreement, in whole or in part. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 176 Page 23 of 26 (6) Incorporation of Provisions: ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (6) in every sub-agreement, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the REGULATIONS, or directives issued pursuant thereto. ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall take such action with respect to any sub-agreement or procurement as STATE or FHWA may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance, provided, however, that, in the event ADMINISTERING AGENCY becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a sub-applicant or supplier as a result of such direction, ADMINISTERING AGENCY may request STATE enter into such litigation to protect the interests of STATE, and, in addition, ADMINISTERING AGENCY may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. APPENDIX B TO EXHIBIT B April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 177 Page 24 of 26 The following clauses shall be included in any and all deeds effecting or recording the transfer of PROJECT real property, structures or improvements thereon, or interest therein from the United States. (GRANTING CLAUSE) NOW, THEREFORE, the U.S. Department of Transportation, as authorized by law, and upon the condition that ADMINISTERING AGENCY will accept title to the lands and maintain the project constructed thereon, in accordance with Title 23, United States Code, the Regulations for the Administration of federal-aid for Highways and the policies and procedures prescribed by the Federal Highway Administration of the Department of Transportation and, also in accordance with and in compliance with the Regulations pertaining to and effectuating the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252; 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-4), does hereby remise, release, quitclaim and convey unto the ADMINISTERING AGENCY all the right, title, and interest of the U.S. Department of Transportation in, and to, said lands described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. (HABENDUM CLAUSE) TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said lands and interests therein unto ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its successors forever, subject, however, to the covenant, conditions, restrictions and reservations herein contained as follows, which will remain in effect for the period during which the real property or structures are used for a purpose for which federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits and shall be binding on ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its successors and assigns. ADMINISTERING AGENCY, in consideration of the conveyance of said lands and interests in lands, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land for itself, its successors and assigns, (1) that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination with regard to any facility located wholly or in part on, over, or under such lands hereby conveyed (;) (and) * (2) that ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall use the lands and interests in lands so conveyed, in compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Non-discrimination in federally-assisted programs of the Department of Transportation - Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations may be amended (;) and (3) that in the event of breach of any of the above-mentioned nondiscrimination conditions, the U.S. Department of Transportation shall have a right to re-enter said lands and facilities on said land, and the above-described land and facilities shall thereon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the U.S. Department of Transportation and its assigns as such interest existed prior to this deed.* * Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 178 Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX C TO EXHIBIT B The following clauses shall be included in any and all deeds, licenses, leases, permits, or similar instruments entered into by ADMINISTERING AGENCY, pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(a) of Exhibit B. The grantee (licensee, lessee, permittee, etc., as appropriate) for himself, his heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree (in the case of deeds and leases add "as covenant running with the land") that in the event facilities are constructed, maintained, or otherwise operated on the said property described in this (deed, license, lease, permit, etc.) for a purpose for which a U.S. Department of Transportation program or activity is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.), shall maintain and operate such facilities and services in compliance with all other requirements imposed pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in federally-assisted programs of the Department of Transportation - Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations may be amended. (Include in licenses, leases, permits, etc.)* That in the event of breach of any of the above nondiscrimination covenants, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall have the right to terminate the (license, lease, permit etc.) and to re-enter and repossess said land and the facilities thereon, and hold the same as if said (license, lease, permit, etc.) had never been made or issued. (Include in deeds)* That in the event of breach of any of the above nondiscrimination covenants, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall have the right to re-enter said land and facilities thereon, and the above- described lands and facilities shall thereupon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its assigns. * Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 179 Page 26 of 26 APPENDIX D TO EXHIBIT B The following shall be included in all deeds, licenses, leases, permits, or similar agreements entered into by the ADMINISTERING AGENCY, pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7 (b) of Exhibit B. The grantee (licensee, lessee, permittee, etc., as appropriate) for himself, his personal representatives, successors in interest and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree (in the case of deeds, and leases add "as a covenant running with the land") that: (1) no person on the ground of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age or disability, shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities; (2) that in the construction of any improvements on, over, or under such land and the furnishing of services thereon, no person on the ground of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination; and (3) that the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.,) shall use the premises in compliance with the Regulations. (Include in licenses, leases, permits, etc.)* That in the event of breach of any of the above nondiscrimination covenants, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall have the right to terminate the (license, lease, permit, etc.) and to re-enter and repossess said land and the facilities thereon, and hold the same as if said (license, lease, permit, etc.) had never been made or issued. (Include in deeds)* That in the event of breach of any of the above nondiscrimination covenants, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall have the right to re-enter said land and facilities thereon, and the above- described lands and facilities shall thereupon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, and its assigns. _____________________________________________ * Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 180 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors181 RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE plans, specifications, and design for the Bay Point Curb Ramp Project. Project No. 0662-6R4031-16 (2) DETERMINE that Rosas Brothers Construction (“Rosas Brothers”) the lowest monetary bidder, has complied with the requirements of the project specifications, and the Board WAIVES any irregularities in Rosas Brothers compliance with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program contained in the project specifications; and FURTHER DETERMINE that Rosas Brothers has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the project and has complied with the Mandatory Subcontracting Minimum for the project. (3) AWARD the construction contract for the above project to Rosas Brothers in the listed amount ($177,660.00) and the unit prices submitted in the bid, and DIRECT that Rosas Brothers 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 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Construction Contract for the Bay Point Curb Ramp Project, Bay Point area. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 182 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) designee, is authorized to sign the contract for this Board. (5) ORDER that, in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon signature of the contract by the Public Works Director, or designee, 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 Rosas Brothers 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 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 Rosas Brothers Construction: $177,660.00; Payment: $177,660.00; Performance: $177,660.00 FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc.: $196,322.75 NorCal Concrete: $218,830.00 R&S Construction Management, Inc.: $224,056.00 Wayne E. Swisher Cement Contractor, Inc.: $280,395.20 The bidder listed first above, Rosas Brothers, submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $18,662.75 less than the next lowest bid. The Public Works Director has reported that Rosas Brothers documented an adequate good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program, as provided in the project specifications, and the Public Works Director recommends that the construction contract be awarded to Rosas Brothers. The Public Works Director recommends that the bid submitted by Rosas Brothers is the lowest responsive and responsible bid, and this Board concurs and so finds. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 183 The Board of Supervisors previously determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as a Class 3d 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 the project would be delayed, and the project might not be built. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 184 RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE the specifications for the 2016 On-Call Sweeping Services Contract(s) for Various Road Maintenance Work Project, Countywide. Project No. 0672-6U2301 (2) DETERMINE that Statewide Construction Sweeping, Inc. (Statewide), the lowest monetary bidder, has complied with the project specifications, and FURTHER DETERMINE that Statewide has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the contract. (3) DETERMINE that Tri Valley Water Trucks, Inc. (Tri Valley), the second lowest monetary bidder, has complied with the requirements of the project specifications, and FURTHER DETERMINE that Tri Valley has submitted the second lowest responsive and responsible bid for the contract. (4) AWARD on-call contracts to the following two contractors in the following priority for Job Orders, as provided in the project specifications: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 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 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Construction Contracts for the 2016 On-Call Sweeping Services Contract(s) for Various Road Maintenance Work Project, Countywide. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 185 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) (A) Statewide, in a not to exceed amount ($200,000.00) and the unit prices submitted in the bid ($330.00 Total Unit Price). (B) Tri Valley, in a not to exceed amount ($200,000.00) and the unit prices submitted in the bid ($465.00 Total Unit Price). (5) DIRECT that the Public Works Director, or designee, shall prepare the contracts. (6) ORDER that after the contractors have signed the contracts and returned them, together with any required certificates of insurance and other required documents, and the Public Works Director has reviewed and found them to be sufficient; the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign the contracts for this Board. (7) ORDER that, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign any escrow agreements prepared for this project to permit the direct payment of retentions into escrow or the substitution of securities for moneys withheld by the County to ensure performance under the contract, pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 22300. (8) 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. (9) DECLARE that, should the award of the contract to Statewide or Tri Valley be invalidated for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contracts to any other bidder, but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received. Nothing in this Board Order shall prevent the Board from re-awarding the contract to another bidder in cases where the successful bidder establishes a mistake, refuses to sign the contract, or fails to furnish required bonds or insurance (see Public Contract Code Sections 5100-5107). FISCAL IMPACT: The contracts, for a maximum amount of $200,000 each, will be funded by 100% Local Road Funds. BACKGROUND: The above project was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, specifications were filed with and approved by the Board, and bids were invited by the Public Works Director. On April 5, 2016, the Public Works Department received bids from the following contractors: BIDDER, TOTAL UNIT AMOUNT Statewide Construction Sweeping, Inc.: $330.00 Total Unit Price Tri Valley Water Trucks, Inc.: $465.00 Total Unit Price Statewide submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $135.00 less (Total Unit Price) less than the next lowest bid. Tri Valley submitted the second lowest responsive and responsible bid. The Public Works Director has reported that the bids submitted by Statewide and Tri Valley comply with the requirements provided in the project specifications, and recommends that contracts be awarded to Statewide and Tri Valley in that order. The Public Works Director recommends that the bids submitted by Statewide and Tri Valley are the lowest responsive and responsible bids, and this Board so concurs and finds. As provided in the project specifications, the two on-call contracts would be awarded in the following priority for Job Orders: (1) Statewide; and (2) Tri Valley. The general prevailing rates of wages, which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project, have been filed with the Clerk of the Board, with copies to be made available to any party upon request. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 186 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Public Works Department may be unable to complete routine road maintenance work in a timely manner. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 187 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute Contract Amendment No. 1, effective February 1, 2016, to the Consulting Services Agreement with Quincy Engineering, Incorporated., (Quincy) to increase the payment limit by $20,000 to a new payment limit of $247,000, to complete the design and provide construction support services for the Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike Lane project, Bay Point area. (Project No. 0662-6R4062) FISCAL IMPACT: This project, including work performed under this amendment, is funded by 35% Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds, 16% State Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Funds, and 49% Local Road Funds. BACKGROUND: The consulting services for this project consist of preparing plans, specifications, and estimates, including providing topographic survey services, and providing construction support services for the Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike Lane Project in the Bay Point area. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment No. 1 with Quincy Engineering, Incorporated, Bay Point area. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 188 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Professional engineering services were required for the proper and satisfactory execution of the Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike Lane Project. Quincy was selected to provide these services after completing a request for qualifications solicitation and interview process that put them on a short list with four other firms to provide consulting services for future projects. The County requested and received technical proposals from two of the five short listed firms to provide consulting services for this project. Quincy was selected by a selection committee as the firm that was best able to address the County’s needs for the project. Through the course of the design of the project the amount of effort initially assumed for the contract scope and budget has been exceeded. The primary area which required more effort than initially anticipated was the extent of the storm drain systems that were required as part of this project. Proposed Amendment No. 1 will amend the payment limits in order to compensate for this additional effort. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the contract amendment is not approved, the consultant may not get compensated for their work and we will not have the design expertise available during construction to address any issues that may arise. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 189 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4441 to prohibit parking at all times on a portion of Lunada Lane (Road No. 4237H), from a point 590 feet west of the west curbline of Danville Boulevard (Road No. 5301A) at its intersection with Stone Valley Road West (Road No. 4237H), and continuing westerly and northerly for a distance of 270 feet, Alamo area. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Lunada Lane begins as the continuation of Stone Valley Road West at its intersection with the Iron Horse Trail. The roadways alignment immediately enters a horizontal curve featuring a directional change (90 degree) going westbound to northbound. Residents in the area have complained that trail users often park on the north side of Lunada Lane around this curve forcing pedestrians into the traveled portion of the roadway on a blind curve. Due to the curvature of the roadway, motorists would have difficulty seeing pedestrians in the travel lane ahead of them. There is no sidewalk on either side of this portion of Lunada Lane. Based on these factors, we recommend prohibiting parking around this curve to improve sight lines near the Iron Horse Trail. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Monish Sen (925) 313-2187 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 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 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Prohibit parking on a portion of Lunada Lane (Road No. 4237H), Alamo area. (District II) April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 190 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Vehicles may continue to be parked on the north side of the curving roadway, resulting in pedestrians entering the traveled way and inhibited sight lines near the trail. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2016/4441 Lunada Lane MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Traffic Resolution 2016/4441 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 191 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Traffic Resolution on April 26, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4441 Supervisorial District II TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4441 SUBJECT: Prohibit parking at all times on a portion of Lunada Lane (Road No. 4237H), Alamo area. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: Based on the recommendations by the County Public Works Department’s Transportation Engineering Division and pursuant to County Ordinance Code Sections 46-2.002 – 46-2.012, the following traffic regulation is established: Pursuant to Section 22507 of the California Vehicle Code, parking is hereby declared to be prohibited at all times on the north side of Lunada Lane (Road No. 4237H), beginning at a point 590 feet west of the west curbline of Danville Boulevard (Road No. 5301A) at its intersection with Stone Valley Road West (Road No. 4237U) and continuing westerly and northerly for 270 feet, Alamo area. MS:mbt Orig. Dept.: Public Works (Traffic) Contact: Monish Sen (925-313-2187) c: California Highway Patrol Sheriff’s Department G:\transeng\2016\BO - TR\TR Lunada Lane no parking.doc I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: DAVID TWA, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By , Deputy April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 192 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors193 RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims by Enterprise Damage Recovery Unit, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Samia Jerez-Lupian, Keller Canyon Landfill Company, Mark Lindquist, and Aiden Lupian. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Joellen Balbas (925) 335-1906 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:CLAIMS April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 194 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE this report concerning Jeffrey M. Nelson vs. Contra Costa County and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $155,000, less permanent disability advances. FISCAL IMPACT: Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund payment of $155,000, less permanent disability advances. BACKGROUND: Attorney Tom M. Hinton, defense counsel for the County, has advised the County Administrator that within authorization an agreement has been reached settling the workers' compensation claim of Jeffrey M. Nelson vs. Contra Costa County. The Board's April 12, 2016 closed session vote was: Supervisors Gioia, Andersen, Peipho, Mitchoff - Yes. Supervisor Glover -Non participating. This action is taken so that the terms of this final settlement and the earlier April 12, 2016 closed session vote of this Board authorizing its negotiated settlement are known publicly. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Sharon Hymes-Offord 925.335.1450 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 26, 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:Sharon Offord Hymes, Risk Manager Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Settlement of Claim, Jeffrey Nelson v. Contra Costa County April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 195 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Case will not be settled. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 196 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Kate Rauch 510-231-8691 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 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:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Honoring Aram Hodess on His Retirement April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 197 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/350 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/350 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 198 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/350 Honoring Aram Hodess on His Retirement Whereas, Aram Hodesss joined the Plumbers/Steamfitters Local 159, located in Martinez, California, in 1972, completing a plumber/steamfitter apprenticeship in 1977; and Whereas, in 1989, Aram Hodess was elected Assistant Business Manager/Financial-Secretary Treasurer of Local 159, and Business Manager in 2001; and Whereas, Aram Hodess served as a member and chair of Local 159's Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (JATC), a joint Labor-Management Committee overseeing a 5-year training program for apprentices as well as upgrading, training and recertification classes; and Whereas, Aram Hodess served on EBMUD's Future Water Supply Committee, where he helped advise the utility on how to meet the East Bay's water needs; and Whereas, Mr. Hodess served as an appointee of Senate Pro Tem John Burton on the State Employment Training Panel, a successful performance-based vocational training program which gives training grants to California businesses; and Whereas, Aram Hodess represented the California Department of Education and State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson, on the California Apprenticeship Council, which oversees California Apprenticeship programs; and Whereas, Mr. Hodess is a strong supporter of vocational training including union apprenticeships as a pathway to good paying careers; and Whereas, Aram Hodess has also served on the Contra Costa Workforce Development Board, and has helped plan and fundraise for building trades pre-apprenticeship programs in Contra Costa County;and Whereas, after a devoted, long career of helping younger generations achieve the living wages, job security, and dignity of union careers, Aram Hodess is retiring. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby congratulate and recognize Aram Hodess on his retirement, thank him for his dedicated service to the community, and wish him well in future endeavors. ___________________ 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 199 C.11 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 200 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Kate Rauch 510-231-8691 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Honoring the West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer's Respite Center for Dedicated and Compassionate Service to the Community April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 201 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/317 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/317 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 202 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/317 Honoring the West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer's Respite Center WHEREAS, in April 1985, the West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer’s Respite Center was established to support and assist low-income West Contra Costa families caring for at-risk elders at home; and WHEREAS, this program provides comprehensive adult day services to frail elders and those with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias so that their family caregivers may work outside the home, have time to manage other responsibilities, and enjoy much-needed respite; and WHEREAS, this program, originally sponsored by Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP) and Contra Costa County Aging and Adult Services, became its own 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in1998; and WHEREAS, West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer’s Respite Center is the only West Contra Costa adult day center open ten hours a day, five days a week; and WHEREAS, the program continues to flourish under the direction of Executive Director, Deborah Price Janke, M.A. for these 30 years. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby honor the West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer's Respite Center on their compassionate and dedicated service to seniors, their families, and their caregivers. Let It Be Further Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa honors Deborah Price Janke, M.A., Executive Director of West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer's Respite Center, for her 30 years of devoted leadership. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA MARY N. PIEPHO District I Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 203 PR.2, C.9 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 204 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Linda Lavendar 925-521-7100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 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:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Recognizing the 45th Anniversary of the Contra Costa National Organization of Women April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 205 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/337 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/337 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 206 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/337 Recognizing the 45th anniversary of the Contra Costa National Organization for Women WHEREAS, The National Organization for Women, known as NOW, is the largest grassroots organization of feminist activists in the United States; and WHEREAS, Contra Costa (CA) NOW was founded in 1971 by four local women Grace Blood, Susan Seaborne Bonner, Sally Phetteplace Johnson and Catherine Walters, who had decided, “Enough is Enough”; and WHEREAS, the Contra Costa National Organization for Women’s primary issues include reproductive rights, marriage equality, ending violence against women and promoting equal opportunity for girls and women; and WHEREAS, the Contra Costa National Organization for Women works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society; and WHEREAS, the Contra Costa National Organization for Women is committed to community education opportunities such as placing women’s history displays in the Walnut Creek and San Ramon Libraries; and WHEREAS, the Contra Costa National Organization for Women has a long standing history of activism and has worked to better the lives of women locally and nationally. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby recognize the 45th anniversary of the Contra Costa National Organization of Women and urges all residents to participate in the efforts to enhance equality in our homes, in our schools, and in our 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. ATTESTED: April 26, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 207 C.10 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 208 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution recognizing Administrative Professionals Day April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 209 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/160 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/160 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 210 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/160 recognizing Administrative Professionals' Day, also known as Secretaries' Day. WHEREAS, Administrative Professionals’ Day — also known as Secretaries’ Day — was created in 1952 to recognize the significance of the professions of supportive services, and acknowledge the importance and value of the support positions to America’s companies, businesses and institutions both large and small, including public schools and government; and WHEREAS, County government Clerical positions have required an increased level of dedication, knowledge and overall commitment to the support of all services utilized by County clients, especially notable during increasingly harder times, in our County, founded in 1850; and WHEREAS, all Secretarial, Clerical and similar support staff are critical to the continued delivery of services and are often unrecognized by the public, but that our County Board of Supervisors supports and appreciates their efforts, on the front lines and behind the counters every day; and WHEREAS, the County operates several hundred different locations throughout Contra Costa, with approximately 3,000 direct front line support employees, who deliver countless services to over 1 million residents of Contra Costa County; and WHEREAS, Secretaries Day is being observed Nationwide this year on April 27th, 2016 and government Clerical staff have largely become the Secretaries, as well as the trained and knowledgeable first responders to every nature of service we perform. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors encourages all of its Administrative staff to thank their Secretaries, Clerks and front line employees and celebrate the exemplary work of county government and the continued delivery of critical services to our 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. ATTESTED: April 26, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 211 PR.1, C.8 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 212 RECOMMENDATION(S): REAPPOINT the following individuals to the indicated seats for a two-year term with an expiration date of December 31, 2017, as recommended by Supervisor Candace Andersen: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jill Ray, 925-957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: District 2 Supervisor, Maddy Book, CSA P-5 CAC, Appointees C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT AND RESIGNATION ON THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-5 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 213 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) Appointee 2 Leland Mlejnek, Jr. Alamo, CA 94507 Appointee 3 Robert Saydah Alamo, CA 94507 Appointee 4 Mark Young Alamo, CA 94507 Appointee 8 Richard Kopf Alamo, CA 94507 ACCEPT the resignation of the following person from the Appointee 6 Seat of the County Service Area P-5 Citizens Advisory Committee effective immediately: Michael Marchi Alamo, CA 94507 DECLARE a vacancy in the Appointee 6 Seat of the County Service Area P-5 Citizen Advisory Committee effective immediately, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by Supervisor Candace Andersen. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Established on April 18, 1972, by Resolution Number 72/257, the purpose of the County Service Area P-5 Citizen Advisory Committee is to act as a liaison between the citizens of the P-5 Police District and the Office of the Sheriff of Contra Costa County by: Advising the Board of Supervisors and the Office of the Sheriff of the community's needs and desires regarding police protection; Promoting public safety in the areas of home safety, traffic safety, vacation security and crime prevention through the neighborhood watch program; and maintaining oversight of expenditures of the public funds accruing in the P-5 Police District. Mr. Marchi moved from the P-5 Police District, therefore he resigned his seat. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The CSA P-5 CAC will be challenged with attaining a quorum. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 214 RECOMMENDATION(S): Appoint Contra Costa County Historical Society nominee Mr. Raymond O’Brien to vacant Seat #3 of the Contra Costa County Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee (HLAC) to a term expiring August 12, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On July 5, 1966, the Board of Supervisors named the Contra Costa County Parks & Recreation Commission (CCCPRC) and the Contra Costa County Historical Society (CCCHS) jointly as the HLAC. On February 12, 2002, the membership of the HLAC was revised to include the Community Development Director, along with four members nominated by the Contra Costa County Historical Society, as the CCCPRC was no longer in existence. The HLAC is to serve as an advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors to propose points of historical interest for registration by the State Department of Parks and Recreation and other applicable governmental agencies, as well as maintaining the County Historical Resources Inventory. On April 12, 2016, Seat #3 was declared vacant by the Board of Supervisors due to the prior member’s relocation of residence outside of the county. In a letter dated March 22, 2016, Mr. Scott Saftler, President of the Contra Costa County Historical Society, nominated Mr. O’Brien to Seat #3 to serve the remaining term. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appointment to Seat 3 of the Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 215 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: There will be one vacant seat on the committee. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: There will be no impact. ATTACHMENTS Contra Costa County Historical Society Letter Candidate Application April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 216 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 217 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 218 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 219 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 220 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 221 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 222 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 223 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 224 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Elaina Petrucci Gunn to the Emergency Medical Care Committee (EMCC) seat B2 – American Heart Association, as recommended by Dr. William Walker, with a term expiration date of September 30, 2016: American Heart Association Authorized Representative: Elaina Petrucci Gunn, 426 17th Street, Suite 300, Oakland, CA 94612. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The EMCC is a multidisciplinary committee appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, to provide advice and recommendations on EMS-related matters to the Board, Health Services Director and its EMS Agency. Membership consists of consumer representatives, and representatives of EMS-related organizations and groups. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 Frost, 646-4690 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, M Wilhelm, Leticia Andrea C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appointment to the Emergency Medical Care Committee April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 225 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In March 2016, the former B2 seat holder Mick Smith from the American Heart Association resigned his seat, and nominated Elaina Petrucci Gunn. The seat was declared vacant at the Board of Supervisors meeting on March 8, 2016. The mandatory ten days of vacancy have passed, and no other candidate has been nominated for this seat. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Board Order is not approved, this position on the EMCC will not be filled. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS Application April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 226 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 227 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 228 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 229 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 230 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. REAPPOINT the following members to the Contra Costa Local Planning and Advisory Council for Early Care and Education with terms expiring April 30, 2019: • Crystal McClendon-Gourdine to the Consumer 1 - West County seat, • Silvana Mosca-Carreon to the Child Care Provider 1 - West County seat, • Luis Arenas to the Child Care Provider 3 - Central/South County seat, • Joan Means to the Public Agency 3 - Central/South County seat, • Deborah Penry to the Community Agency 2 - Central/South County seat, • Janeen Rockwell-Owens to the Community Agency 4 - East County seat, and • Aurora Ruth to the Discretionary 4 - Central/South County seat. 2. DECLARE vacant the Consumer 2 - Central/South County and Community 1 - West County seats on the Contra Costa Local Planning and Advisory Council for Early Care and Education and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancies. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Reappointments and Vacancies on the Local Planning and Advisory Council for Early Care and Education April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 231 BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Local Planning Council for Child Care and Development (LPC) was established in April 1998. Required by AB 1542, which was passed in 1993, thirty members of the LPC were appointed by the County Board of Supervisors and the County Superintendent of Schools. Childcare consumers and providers, public agency representatives, and community representatives each comprise 20% of the LPC. The remaining 20% are discretionary appointees. Membership is for a three-year term. On January 7, 2003, membership was decreased from 30 to 25 members, and on September 11, 2012 it was further reduced from 25 to 20 members. Appointments to the Contra Costa County Local Planning and Advisory Council for Early Care and Education (LPC) are subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors and County Superintendent of Schools. The Board of Supervisors designated the Family and Human Services Committee to review and recommend appointments on their behalf. Dr. Pamela Comfort , Associate Superintendent, Educational Services has been designated to review and recommend appointments on behalf of the County Superintendent of Schools. The recommendation is that seven current members of the advisory body be reappointed. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The LPC may not meet quorum requirements and be able to conduct the Council's business. ATTACHMENTS LPC Memo and Applications 2 Appointments and 2 Vacancies LPC Memo and Applications 5 Reappointments April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 232 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors233 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors234 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors235 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors236 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors237 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors238 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors239 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors240 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors241 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors242 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors243 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors244 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors245 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors246 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors247 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors248 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors249 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors250 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors251 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors252 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors253 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors254 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors255 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors256 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors257 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors258 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors259 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors260 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors261 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors262 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors263 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors264 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors265 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors266 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors267 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors268 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors269 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors270 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors271 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors272 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors273 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors274 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors275 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors276 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors277 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors278 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors279 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors280 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors281 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors282 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors283 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors284 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors285 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors286 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors287 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors288 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors289 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors290 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors291 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors292 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors293 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors294 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors295 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors296 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors297 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors298 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors299 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors300 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors301 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors302 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors303 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors304 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5064 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $468,500 in the Sheriff's Office (0255) from subscriber fees to the Automated Regional Information Exchange System (ARIES) and appropriating it for the purchase of radio and communication equipment for the expansion of the ARIES project. FISCAL IMPACT: This action increases revenue and appropriations by $468,500, with no change in net county cost. The new revenue is funded through fees collected from subscribing agencies to ARIES. BACKGROUND: The Automated Regional Information Exchange System (ARIES) is a software application owned by Contra Costa County, and used by the Office of the Sheriff and other law enforcement agencies to manage arrest and parolee data collected from law enforcement agencies. ARIES manages arrest and parole data provided by local law enforcement agencies that is stored on a County Server. ARIES serves more than 8,900 users from over 93 different agencies. The purpose of this purchase is to support multiple projects which ARIES will APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Liz Arbuckle, Heike Anderson, Tim Ewell C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appropriation Adjustment - ARIES April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 305 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) implement in FY 15/16 and FY 16/17. The projects serve to renew critical infrastructure, enhance system security and expand capacity for growing demand. Dell is the vendor who will supply the equipment to support these projects. Dell has experience partnering with government agencies of all sizes to help deliver IT services that improve delivery and reduce costs. In addition to Dell's reputation among government agencies, Office of the Sheriff - Technical Services has a long history of working with Dell's equipment and infrastructure environment. It would be advantageous for ARIES to leverage the knowledge, skills and experience that the Technical Services staff has accumulated over the years by working with Dell. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Sheriff's Office will be unable to create appropriations and estimated revenue related to the ARIES project for in recognition of user fee revenue and anticipated expenditures. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5064 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5064 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 306 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors307 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors308 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors309 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors310 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21853 to increase the hours of Pharmacist I (VYWA) permanent intermittent position #12932 to permanent part-time 32/40 at salary level QT5-1998 ($8,048 - $9,316) and Senior Radiologic Technologist (V8VA) position #12306 from 24/40 to 40/40 at salary level QT5-1737 ($6,215 - $7,555) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, there is an annual cost of approximately $109,493, which includes pension cost of $44,622. Some of the increased costs are cost neutral since the incumbents have been working the increased hours. (61% County General Fund; 39% Hospital Enterprise Fund I) BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to increase the hours of two (2) positions per the Memorandum of Understanding with the Public Employees Union, Local One. The positions are Pharmacist I position #12932 from permanent intermittent 32/40 to permanent part-time 32/40 at the Martinez Detention Facility and Senior Radiologic Technologist position #12306 from 24/40 to 40/40 in Contra Costa Regional Medical Center's Diagnostic Imaging Unit. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Jacqueline Kidd 925-957-5240 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 26, 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:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Increase the hours of two positions in the Health Services Department April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 311 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The incumbents have been working the increased hours for the past six months and these additional hours are certified by their respective managers as being operationally necessary to continue the mandated functions of the department. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, Martinez Detention Facility and the Diagnostic Imaging Unit at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center will not have adequate staffing to fulfill the mandated functions of the department, which impacts patient care services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21853 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21853 signed April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 312 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21853 DATE 4/13/2016 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. VARY Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Increase the hours of permanent intermittent Pharmacist I (VYWA) position #12932 at salary level ($8,048 - $9,316) to permanent part-time 32/40 and part-time Senior RadiologicTechnologist (V8VA) position #12306 at salary level ($6,215 - $7,555) from 24/40 to full time 40/40 in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 5/1/2016 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 $109,492.77 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $18,248.80 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT County General Fund 61%, Hospital Enterprise Fund I 39% Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Jacqueline Kidd ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 4/20/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/20/2016 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 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 313 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/20/2016 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 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 314 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors315 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21844 to reallocate the class of Business Systems Manager (LTNE) (represented) on the Salary Schedule from ZA5 1884 ($7,188.91 - $8,738.17) to the five-step range of ZA5 2124 ($9,155.17 - $11,128.17) in the Law and Justice Systems Division of the County Administrator's Office, effective May 1, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund, budgeted in Dept. 0235, Law and Justice Systems Project budget. The maximum cumulative annual impact is $25,911, of which $6,294 is increased retirement cost. BACKGROUND: The Business Systems Manager job class is a single-position class utilized within the Law and Justice Systems Division of the County Administrator's office. The position is responsible for directing, planning and managing the functional development of the County's law and justice information systems (LJIS), and conducting business analysis, change management and system re-engineering activities on behalf of the County's justice departments (District Attorney, Probation, and Public Defender). This position coordinates, on behalf of the County Administrator, with all local law enforcement agencies and the California Department of Justice to ensure that the LJIS and the County's automated warrant system are meeting the information needs and requirements of the agencies. The County's LJIS is an integrated legacy ‘green screen’ mainframe system developed in the 1980s that allows for the sharing of data between the County's justice departments and the Superior Court. The Sheriff’s Department and other APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Julie Enea C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:REALLOCATE THE CLASS OF THE BUSINESS SYSTEMS MANAGER ON THE SALARY SCHEDULE April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 316 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) local agencies also query this system for information. In September 2008, the Board of Supervisors authorized the County Administrator to invite proposals for a new computer system to replace the County’s aging LJIS. The proposal was precipitated by the Superior Court’s announced intention to switch to a new statewide calendaring and court management system by 2012. Where in 2008 the initiative to move the Justice Partners’ case management system off of the County mainframe was considered a strategic planning decision, it is now essential to do so for reasons extending beyond the Superior Court's planned switch. The LJIS has served the County incredibly well for 30 years but is quickly becoming obsolete. The employees with the institutional knowledge and technical know-how to maintain the archaic mainframe system have recently retired and the requisite technical skill sets are difficult to attract into public service and take many years to develop. Consequently, it is imperative to migrate all County mainframe systems to modern platforms and the County Administrator's Office has been working ambitiously with the justice departments to do so. The adopted strategy is to migrate these systems in a manageable sequence, beginning with the District Attorney's Prosecutor by Karpel system, of which the first phase was implemented in 2015, and followed by the Probation Department's implementation of the Capita Case Management System, which was approved by the Board in March 2014 and is currently in the planning phase. A public defender case management system will follow, as well as replacement of the automated warrant system. With the waning of the County's mainframe system and the advent of modern, stand-alone justice systems that must be integrated to work seamlessly with both the current mainframe system and with whatever system the Superior Court decides to implement, the job responsibilities and duties of the Business Systems Manager have rapidly increased in complexity, required knowledge, and consequence of error. The implementation of modern, vendor-developed systems requires the Business Systems Manager to assume the additional duties of contract negotiation and management, managing multiple systems on different technology platforms, managing multiple large data conversion and system roll-out projects, developing and managing multiple system interfaces, and coordinating system modifications across separate but integrated systems. The Human Resources Department conducted a salary study of this classification and recommends that the class be reallocated on the Salary Schedule to reflect the significant evolution of responsibility and complexity of the job. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Should this action not be approved, the County will be unable to appropriately compensate the Business Systems Manager classification which has rapidly increased in complexity, required knowledge, and consequence of error. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 21844 Reallocate Salary Bus Sys Mgr MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21844 signed April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 317 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21844 DATE 3/24/2016 Department No./ Department County Administrator Budget Unit No. 0235 Org No. 1095 Agency No. 3 Action Requested: Reallocate salary of Business Systems Manager (LTNE) and its incumbent from ZA5 1884 ($7,188.91- $8,738.17) to the five-step range of ZA 2124 ($9,155.17-$11,128.17). Proposed Effective Date: 5/1/2016 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 $7,975.00 Net County Cost $7,975.00 Total this FY $1,329.00 N.C.C. this FY $1,329.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% County General Fund, Dept 0235, LJIS project budget Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea 3/25/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 3/30/2016 Reallocate the class of Business Systems Manager (LTNE) (represented) on the Salary Schedule from ZA5 1884 ($7,188.91 - $8,738.17) to the five-step range of ZA5 2124 ($9,155.17 - $11,128.17) effective May 1, 2016. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. 5/1/2016(Date) Lisa Lopez 3/30/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 318 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 3/31/2016 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 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 319 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors320 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21840 to reallocate on the Salary Schedule the class of Chief Deputy Public Works Director – Exempt (NAB1) (unrepresented) from a one-step salary plan and grade B85 2462 ($12,746) to a three-step salary plan and grade B85 2462 ($12,746 - $14,053) in the Public Works Department. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost increase will be approximately $26,506 annually, including pension costs of $7,952. The cost of this action will be covered by various funds including special revenue and special district funds. BACKGROUND: The Chief Deputy Public Works Director position is the principal assistant to the Public Works Director in administering the operational activities of the Public Works Department. This position is responsible for directing and coordinating activities of major operational divisions of the department, as well as acting for the Public Works Director in her absence. Though this position has been vacant since 2008, it is critical to the overall succession planning of the Public Works Department and will be key support to the Public Works Director and overall administration of the Department. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kelli Zenn, 925-313-2108 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Kelli Zenn C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Reallocate the Salary of Chief Deputy Public Works Director April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 321 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Currently, this classification has only one salary step. The recommended salary reallocation adds two additional salary steps, modifying this single step classification to a three (3) step salary range and maintaining the current step one as step one of the new range. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Public Works Department will continue to operate without adequate personnel, and may be unable to respond to requests of customer departments and the general public in a timely manner. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 21840 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21840 signed April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 322 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21840 DATE 3/14/2016 Department No./ Department Public Works Budget Unit No. 0650 Org No. 4504 Agency No. 65 Action Requested: ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21840 to reallocate on the Salary Schedule the class of Chief Deputy Public Works Director – Exempt (NAB1) (unrepresented) from a one-step salary plan and grade B85 2462 ($12,746) to a three-step salary plan and grade B85 2462 ($12,746 - $14,053) in the Public Works Department. Proposed Effective Date: 4/1/2016 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $26,506.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $0.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Special Revenue and Special District Funds Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Julie Bueren ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Laura Strobel 3/14/16 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 4/7/2016 Reallocate on the Salary Schedule the class of Chief Deputy Public Works Director – Exempt (NAB1) (unrepresented) from a one-step salary plan and grade B85 2462 ($12,746) to a three-step salary plan and grade B85 2462 ($12,746 - $14,053) in the Public Works Department. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedul e. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Lisa Lopez 4/15/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/15/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Laura Strobel Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 323 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/15/2016 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 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 324 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors325 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21851 to reclassify one (1) Administrative Services Assistant III (APTA) (represented) position #12370 at salary plan and grade ZB5 1631 ($5,595-$6,801) and its incumbent to a Sheriff’s Director of Support Services (6AFE) (represented) at salary plan and grade ZA5 1784 ($6,511- $7,914); cancel one (1) Sheriff’s Director of Support Services (6AFE) (represented) vacant position # 2906 at salary plan and grade ZA5 1784 ($6,511- $7,914) and add one (1) Administrative Services Assistant III (APTA) (represented) position at salary plan and grade ZB5 1631 ($5,595-$6, 801) in the Office of the Sheriff. FISCAL IMPACT: Cost neutral BACKGROUND: Over the past three years, the Office of the Sheriff's Personnel and Finance units underwent a reorganization to streamline operations and provide a more comprehensive staffing model to meet the needs of the Office. A significant change in the reorganization was the combining of the Contracts Unit and the Payroll Units. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Marcie Clark 925-335-1545 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: MJ Robb C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Reclassify Administrative Services Assistant III and its incumbent to Sheriff's Director of Support Services April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 326 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) This request to upgrade the position is justified due to the increase in responsibility, management duties, and the addition of supervisory of five (5) subordinate staff members. Currently Sheriff's Office administration has a vacant Director of Support Services position which will be canceled. An Administrative Services Assistant III position will be added to fill the resulting Grant unit vacancy. Fiscal Impact: Zero Net County Cost due to change in the organizational structure. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the request would impede the organization structure of the Office of the Sheriff’s Personnel and Finance units. This could result in inaccurate payroll processing that would impact every employee within the Office of the Sheriff. This could also disrupt the Contract process with our outside vendors. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No Impact AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21851 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21851 signed April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 327 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21851 DATE 12/21/2015 Department No./ Department Office of the Sheriff Budget Unit No. 0255 Org No. 2500 Agency No. 25 Action Requested: Reclassify Administrative Services Assistant III ( APTA) position # 12370 and its incumbant to Sheriff's Director of Support Services (6AFE) position. Downgrade position Sheriff's Director of Support Services(6AFE) position # 2906 to an Administrative Services Assistant III (APTA). Proposed Effective Date: 2/1/2015 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $0.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $0.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% General Fund Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Mary Jane Robb ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Timothy Ewell 4/6/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 4/6/2016 Reclassify an Administrative Services Assistant III (APTA) (represented) position #12370 and its incumbent to Sheriff’s Director of Support Services (6AFE) (represented); cancel one Sheriff’s Director of Support Services (6AFE) (represented) vacant position # 2906 and add one Administrative Services Assistant III (APTA) (represented) position. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. 4/1/2016(Date) Lisa Lopez 4/18/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/20/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Timothy Ewell Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 328 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/20/2016 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 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 329 April 26, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors330 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Interim County Probation Officer, or designee, to apply for and accept the FY 2016-17 Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) from the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) in the amount of $4,388,204 for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $4,388,204 is the projected allocation for fiscal year 2016/2017; 100% funded through State revenue. There are no match requirements for this award. BACKGROUND: The Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) program provides state funding for counties to deliver custody and care (i.e., appropriate rehabilitative and supervisory services) to youthful offenders who previously would have been committed to the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Individual county allocation amounts are based on a statutory formula that gives equal weight to county juvenile population and juvenile felony dispositions. By May 1st of each year, every county is required to submit a Funding Application that identifies how it plans to spend YOBG funds in the upcoming fiscal year. In prior years, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 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:Todd Billeci, Interim County Probation Officer Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR FUNDING UNDER THE YOUTHFUL OFFENDER BLOCK GRANT (YOBG) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 331 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Contra Costa County Probation has used this funding for the Youthful Offender Treatment Program (YOTP) a self-contained, phased, behavioral treatment unit for 30 residents, with enriched staffing that includes a mental health specialist, teacher, and three deputy probation officers in addition to counseling staff, who work together running groups and reviewing the residents' progress to see if they are ready to move forward to the next phase. The program is cognitively based and requires the young men to work their way through and out of the program. Additional programs include school, anger replacement, victim awareness, life skills, substance abuse counseling, family counseling and enrichment programs. Custodial time is significant; sentencing to the maximum confinement time or age 21, whichever comes first. The phased program addresses a common institutional problem of residents not participating and "waiting out their time." For FY 2016-17, the estimated allocation exceeds the program cost of the YOTP program so the balance of the funds will be used to offset the cost of a girls treatment unit in the Juvenile Hall known as Girls in Motion (GIM). The mission of the Girls in Motion Treatment Program is to provide a safe and structured environment that will allow adolescent female residents to achieve positive change and personal growth. These goals will be accomplished through individualized treatment plans, individual counseling and group programming focused to strengthen pro-social values/attitudes and restructure anti-social behaviors. The girls attend both individual and group counseling. Probation Staff receive training on gender specific issues and lead many of the girl’s groups. Counseling is provided by Mental Health Therapists, as well as, Community Violence Solutions, Project Success and other community based organizations. The counseling/treatment groups address trauma issues, relationship development, anger management/conflict resolution, and substance abuse. Treatment is also provided for youth who have been identified as being sexually exploited to address CSEC issues (Commercially Sexually Exploited Children). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Absent this funding from the State of California, the County would suffer a reduction in rehabilitative and supervisory services available to youthful offenders in Contra Costa County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) program provides state funding for counties to deliver custody and care to youthful offenders who previously would have been committed to the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 332 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, on behalf of the Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa, to apply for and accept grant funding from California Employment Development Department in an amount not to exceed $400,000 for the Supervised Population Workforce Training Grant Program for the period June 30, 2016 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: County to receive an amount not to exceed $400,000 from California Employment Development Department (100% State). (50% cash match from AB 109 funds) BACKGROUND: The grant will fund programs to help develop workforce training programs for individuals on probation, mandatory supervision, and post release community supervision. The goal is to assist these populations in obtaining marketable industry or apprenticeship certifications, credentials, or degrees. The grant encourages collaboration among partners in development of service deliver strategies and alignment of resources to better connect the supervised populations with APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:California Employment Development Department Supervised Population Workforce Training Grant April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 333 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) employment; innovation that creates new and adapts existing approaches or accelerate application of promising practices in workforce development; and, system change that utilizes the grants to encourage adoption of proven strategies and innovations that can be sustained beyond the grant period. Funding will allow programs to create new and expand existing regional partnerships that include Local Workforce Development Boards, community colleges, community-based organizations, labor organizations, and industry associations and coalitions of employers. Funds may be used to provide training, "earn and learn" activities, support services, and job placement assistance. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Programs designed to expand existing regional partnerships could be delayed or withdrawn due to lack of funding. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 334 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Grant (Amendment) Agreement #28-878-1 (State #15-10351, A-01) with the California Department of Public Health, effective June 30, 2016, with no change in the original amount payable to County up to $86,948 in funding, and to extend the termination date from September 30, 2016 to June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this Amendment Agreement will result in no change in the amount of $86,948 of funding from the California Department of Public Health for the Public Health Ebola Project through June 30, 2017. No County match required. BACKGROUND: The California Department of Public Health has agreed to fund the County’s Public Health Ebola Emergency Preparedness activities collaborating with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) preparedness activities, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg, M Wilhelm C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Grant (Amendment) Agreement #28-878-1 with the California Department of Public Health April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 335 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI) activities, State General Fund Pandemic Influenza preparedness and Hospital Emergency Preparedness Program activities, for the County’s Public Health Emergency Preparedness Response Program. Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) will utilize these funds to respond to any disease outbreaks, including Pandemic Influenza (Pan Flu) in Contra Costa County. On July 28, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Grant Agreement #28-878 with the California Department of Public Health for the Public Health Ebola Preparedness and Response Project for the period from July 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. This Agreement included agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless the State for claims arising out of County’s performance under this Contract. Approval of this Amendment Agreement #28-878-1 will allow County to continue to receive funding for the Public Health Ebola Preparedness and Response Program, through June 30, 2017, including continuation of mutually agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless the State for claims arising out of County’s performance under this Contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, County will not be able to continue to develop and test all hazards health emergency preparedness activities and hospital preparedness in response to any Ebola disease outbreaks in Contra Costa County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 336 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County grant award, #28-362-1 from the American Academy of Pediatrics, in an amount not to exceed $2,500 to support the County’s Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Pediatric Mental Health Coalition Building Opportunity Project, for the period from February 1, 2016 through June 24, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this grant award will result in an amount of $2,500 from the American Academy of Pediatrics for County’s Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Pediatric Mental Health Coalition Building Opportunity Project. (No County match required) BACKGROUND: In 2014, more than 1,000 children were hospitalized for mental health issues and nearly 30% of adolescents reported symptoms of depression at some time during middle school and high school (kidsdata.org, 2015). It is well published that disasters affect every child in some way, and as resources and support are provided, there is an improvement in the level of function, and continued support strengthens the child’s ability to recover. Without proper resources and APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 Frost (925) 313-9554 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg, M Wilhelm C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Grant Award #28-362-1 from the American Academy of Pediatrics April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 337 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) support for the mental health needs of children during disasters, the children will ultimately fall into the already inundated EMS and hospital system during a disaster. The goal of the project will be to broaden the existing coalition’s preparedness for caring for children in disasters. Through training and development of a pediatric mental health provider strike team to deploy when requested to the disaster area, thereby meeting the needs of children and adolescents during the response and recovery phase of a disaster. On February 2, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved grant application #28-362. Approval of this grant award #28-362-1 will allow EMS funding for training and development of a pediatric mental health strike team in Contra Costa County to meet the mental health needs of children during disasters through June 24, 2016, including agreeing to indemnify the grantor for claims arising out of County’s performance under this contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this grant award is not accepted, the County will not receive funds to support needs of children and adolescents during the response and recovery phase of a disaster. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 338 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Interim County Probation Officer, or designee, to apply for and accept funds from the State of California, the Board of State and Community Corrections in the estimated base amount of $2,892,113 to continue programs designated under the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) program for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $2,892,113 is projected revenue for the fiscal year 2016/2017, 100% funded through State revenue. There is no match requirement for this award. BACKGROUND: The State of California, pursuant to the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (SCHIFF-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000, Assembly Bill 1913) as signed into law by the Governor of the State of California on September 7, 2000, is estimating a total allocation of $2,892,113 to enable our local government to continue developing and working towards the Comprehensive Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan. This Legislation requires that this plan be developed by the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Ted Martell, 925-695-6269 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:Todd Billeci, Interim County Probation Officer Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 339 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act requires that the local Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council be chaired by the County Probation Officer and that the Comprehensive Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice plan developed by this body be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Funding from the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) will allow Contra Costa County to maintain significant children services. JJCPA funds for the fiscal year 2016/2017 will allow for the continuation of the important children services established during the initial year of the grant. The following summarizes the programs proposed for ongoing funding under JJCPA: I. The Deputy Probation Officers in the High Schools Program Initially funded through the Challenge Grant. The Deputy Probation Officers in the High Schools Program has been continued with funding from JJCPA. The high school program places Deputy Probation Officers in selected high schools and special necessary schools to provide supervision and intervention services for juvenile offenders and other at-risk youth. The program stresses collaboration among schools, police agencies and the Probation Department to provide supervision and treatment services for youth. II. The Community Probation Program Continued JJCPA funding will allow Deputy Probation Officers currently stationed in various police agencies throughout the County to continue their focus on high risk youth and chronic offenders. The Deputy Probation Officers implementing this program work non-traditional hours and collaborate closely with police agencies, schools, and community based organizations to help prevent offending behavior and provide appropriate accountability. III. The Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF) Aftercare Aftercare Deputy Probation Officers will provide community supervision and support to the minors after their graduation from the OAYRF. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Absent this funding from the State of California, the County would suffer a reduction in delinquency prevention and supervision services available for youth in Contra Costa County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program funds delinquency prevention for certain juveniles within Contra Costa County. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 340 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE the Health Officer acting as the Medical Health Operational Area Coordinator (MHOAC) or designee to execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the County of San Bernardino and the County of Contra Costa in Response to Emergency Assistance Re: Waterman Terrorism Incident. FISCAL IMPACT: The MOA accompanying this board order is required by the State of California so that Contra Costa County can get reimbursed by the County of San Bernardino for all reasonable costs associated with the mutual aid support provided during the Waterman Terrorism Incident. BACKGROUND: On December 2, 2015, a mass shooting occurred at the Inland Regional Center, 1365 S. Waterman Avenue, San Bernardino, resulting in the death and injury to several San Bernardino County Environmental Health Services employees (“Waterman Terrorism Incident”). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 Frost, 646-6490 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, M Wilhelm, Patricia Frost C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the County of San Bernardino in Response to the Waterman Terrorism Incident April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 341 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Following the incident, mutual aid resources were requested by the San Bernardino County Public Health Officer and by the State in accordance with the California Department of Public Health Regional Disaster Medical and Health Coordination (RDMHC) program, to provide mutual aid to San Bernardino County so that it could continue its Environmental Health Services. Contra Costa County provided and will continue to provide mutual aid to San Bernardino County Environmental Health Services including personnel, equipment, and or materials, through June 30, 2016. The MOA accompanying this board order is required by the State of California so that Contra Costa County can get reimbursed for the aid it provided. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County would not be reimbursed for mutual aid support consisting of Environmental Health Services personnel equipment, and/or materials during December 2, 2015 through June 30, 2016. The County would have to use other County funds to replace those spent by Environmental Health Services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS Mutual Aid MOA April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 342 *Electronic FEMA forms are available at www.fema.gov/forms. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA IN RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE RE WATERMAN TERRORISM INCIDENT WHEREAS, this event and associated conditions will collectively be referred to as the Waterman Terrorism Incident; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2015 at or about 11:04 a.m., a terrorist attack occurred at the Inland Regional Center, 1365 S. Waterman Avenue, San Bernardino, resulting in a significant number of County employees, specifically in Environmental Health Services (EHS), a Division of the County’s Department of Public Health, being the victims of this mass shooting; and WHEREAS, the terrorist attack impacted all of EHS’s 97 employees, ending the lives of 13 employees, injuring/wounding another 26 employees, with the remaining EHS employees impacted as witnesses and victims of the terrorist attack; and WHEREAS, the “Inter-Region Cooperative Agreement for Emergency Medical and Health Disaster Assistance” was activated among the signatories within Mutual Aid Regions I and VI of the California Office of Emergency Services; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Public Health also activated its Regional Disaster Medical Health Coordination program (RDMHS) for mutual aid support; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2015, San Bernardino County proclaimed the existence of a local emergency for the Waterman Terrorism Incident; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2015, the Governor of the State of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., declared a State of Emergency in accordance with the California Emergency Services Act, and authorized disaster funding to reimburse for costs incurred due to mutual aid needs for the Waterman Terrorist Incident (CDAA-2015-06); and WHEREAS, mutual aid resources were requested by the San Bernardino County Public Health Officer in accordance with the “Inter-Region Cooperative Agreement for Emergency Medical and Health Disaster Assistance” for Mutual Aid Regions I and VI, and in accordance with the California Department of Public Health RDMHS program, to provide mutual aid in support of the Waterman Terrorism Incident; and WHEREAS, County of CONTRA COSTA provided mutual aid support consisting of Environmental Health Services and/or Public Health Services and/or Behavioral Health Services personnel, equipment, and/or materials during the period of December 2, 2015 through June 30, 2016; and WHEREAS, County of CONTRA COSTA agrees to document all of its mutual aid assistance costs related to the Waterman Terrorism Incident (see attached) by first submitting this MOA with original signatures to the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, by close of business on June 30, 2016. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 343 *Electronic FEMA forms are available at www.fema.gov/forms. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the County of San Bernardino and the County of CONTRA COSTA that the County of San Bernardino may reimburse all reasonable costs associated with the mutual aid support offered to San Bernardino County during the Waterman Terrorism Incident. Providing County: By_____________________________________ (Signature) Name: Title: County: Date: Requesting County: By: ___________________________________ (Signature) Name: Gregory C. Devereaux Title: Chief Executive Officer County: San Bernardino Date: April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 344 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the Contra Costa County Bar Association to increase the payment limit by $465,000, from $3,650,000 to a new payment limit of $4,115,000 for the continued provision of criminal conflict defense services with no change to the term July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: $465,000, 100% County General Fund. BACKGROUND: Since 1983, the County has contracted with the Contra Costa County Bar Association for the provision of conflict defense services. The original contract was in response to the escalating cost of conflict defense services under the old system of court-appointed counsel. Subsequently, in FY 1991/92, the Public Defender created an Alternate Defender’s Office to handle conflict cases. The cases referred to the Bar Association generally represent multiple co-defendant cases in which the Alternate Defender’s Office can represent only one co-defendant. The contract with the Bar Association for APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 RECUSE:Candace Andersen, District II 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH CONTRA COSTA BAR FOR CRIMINAL CONFLICT DEFENSE SERVICES April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 345 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) conflict defense services includes only the costs associated with representing criminal and delinquency cases referred to the Bar Association through a written affidavit of conflict by the Public Defender and the Alternate Defender. In prior years, the contract also provided for legal representation in juvenile dependency cases. County-provided juvenile dependency services were terminated by the Superior Court in July 2008. The current contract with the Bar Association covers the two-year period of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017 with payment limits of $3,650,000 for each fiscal year 2015/16 and 2016/17. The proposed contract amendment will increase the payment limit by an additional $465,000 to reflect costs associated with increased attorney caseloads referred by the Public Defender or Alternate Defender. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Payment of criminal conflict attorney services is a mandated County cost. If the recommended action is not approved, the contract with the Bar Association the County will remain obligated to pay the Bar for cases assigned and still in progress. The appointment and payment of private attorneys for new conflict cases that cannot be handled by the Alternate Defender’s Office will revert to the court-appointed method used prior to the Bar Association contract. All active and new criminal and delinquency conflict cases will be referred to the courts for appointment of defense counsel with the County fiscal responsible for all costs involved. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 346 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #26-641-21, with Advanced Medical Personnel Services, Inc., a corporation, effective April 10, 2016, to amend Contract #26-641-19, to provide additional hours of temporary therapists and increase the payment limit by $200,000, from $1,000,000 to a new payment limit of $1,200,000, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On July 21, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-641-19 with Advanced Medical Personnel Services, Inc., for the provision of temporary therapists at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Due to an unexpected increase in utilization and demand for patient care services, the County requested, and the Contractor agreed to provide additional hours of temporary therapy services at CCRMC. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-641-21 will allow the Contractor to provide additional hours of temporary help services at CCRMC through June 30, 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-641-21 with Advanced Medical Personnel Services, Inc. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 347 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, patients requiring therapy services will not have access to Contractor’s services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 348 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment #26-924-19 with Theresa Kailikole, D.P.M., an individual, effective January 1, 2016, to amend Contract #26-924-17, to modify the service plan and payment provisions to include administrative duties and to increase the payment limit by $60,000, from $525,000 to a new payment limit of $585,000, with no change in the original term of June 1, 2015 through May 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. This amendment includes an additional rate of $125 per hour for Administrative Duties. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On July 7, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-924-17 with Theresa Kailikole, D.P.M., for the provision of podiatry care including but not limited to: consultation, training, and medical and/or surgical procedures at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from June 1, 2015 through May 31, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-924-19 with Theresa Kailikole, D.P.M. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 349 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Due to an increase in demand for administrative duties, the County requested and the Contractor agreed to provide additional services to include administrative duties with no disruption in services. Approval of Contract Amendment #26-924-19 will allow the Contractor to provide administrative duties in addition to podiatry services at CCRMC through May 31, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, contractor will not provide administrative duties to CCRMC for Podiatry patients. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 350 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee, to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a purchase order with McCain Traffic Supply in an amount not to exceed $195,000, from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2018, for traffic signal parts and equipment, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: This cost is to be funded through Public Works Facilities budget. (100% General Funds) BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services, Traffic Signal Section is responsible for maintaining the traffic signals located at County intersections. Parts and equipment for this maintenance was solicited as Bid sync #1603-174. McCain Traffic Supply and Cal Signal were the lowest responding and responsible vendors for this commodity. The bid was for a duration of two years with three possible one year extensions. This request represents the initial two year term. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, then purchasing traffic signal parts and accessories through McCain Traffic will discontinue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Stan Burton, 925 313-7077 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 26, 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:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE a Purchase Order with McCain Traffic Supply April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 351 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Animal Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Richard Bachman, DVM, dba Shelter Medicine Support, a Sole Proprietor, effective May 1, 2016, increasing the payment limit by $200,000 to a new payment limit of $1,844,612 for continued veterinarian shelter services for the period of November 1, 2013 through October 31, 2016. (37% User Fees, 54% City Revenues, 9% County General Fund) FISCAL IMPACT: Projected FY 2015-2016 contract costs are $614,871.(37% User Fees, 54% City Revenues, 9% County General Fund) BACKGROUND: Shelter Medicine Support is responsible for providing all of the Animal Services Department's general veterinarian medical care, after hours urgent care and emergency care, as well as spay and neuter services for both public and shelter animals. The proposed amendment will add $200,000 to the contract for additional medical services provided by the contractor, necessitated by higher live release rates for healthy and adoptable animals. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve this amendment will result in the loss of critically required medical services for public spay and neuter services along with healthy and adoptable shelter animals. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Arturo Castillo, 925-335-8308 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:Beth Ward, Animal Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ASD - Amendment to Bachman DVM Contract April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 352 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 353 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the design, plans, and specifications for the above project. 1. DETERMINE that the bid submitted by McNabb Construction, Inc. complied with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program for this project, as provided in the project specifications, and FURTHER DETERMINE that McNabb Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for this project. 2. AWARD the construction contract for the above project to McNabb Construction, Inc. in the amount of $548,800.00 (Base Bid) and DIRECT that the Public Works Director, or designee, prepare the contract. 3. DIRECT that McNabb Construction, Ins. shall submit two good and sufficient security bonds (performance and payment bonds) in the amount of $548,800.00 each. 4. ORDER that, after the contractor has signed the contract and returned it, together with the bonds, evidence of insurance, and other required documents, and the Public Works Director has reviewed and found them to be sufficient, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign the contract for this Board. 5. 6. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Jason Chen, (925) 313-2299 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 26, 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:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Award Construction Contract for Livorna Park Improvements, Bocce Courts, Miranda Avenue and Livorna Road, Alamo, California 94507 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 354 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) ORDER that, in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon signature of the contract by the Public Works Director, or designee, any bid bonds posted by the bidders are to be exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for security shall be returned. AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, 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. AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to order changes or additions to the work pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20142. 8. 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. 9. DECLARE that, should the award of the contract to McNabb Construction, Inc. 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). 10. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Measure WW Grant funds. BACKGROUND: Voter-approved Measure WW allocated grant funds to local parks for improvements. Special Districts staff met with the Alamo Municipal Advisory Committee to develop the proposed improvements at Livorna Park. The improvements generally include removing the existing volleyball court and installing a bocce ball court. Specific items of work involve removal of trees, protecting trees to remain, excavation and off-haul of sand, remove and replace drainage system, designing and installing shade structure, installing site furnishing including benches, tables and chairs, installing railing and fencing, and installing electrical, irrigation and planting. Plans and specifications for the project have been prepared for the Public Works Department by Stantec Architects, Inc. and filed with the Clerk of the Board by the Public Works Director. Bids were received and opened by the Public Works Department on March 10, 2016, and bids were as follows: BIDDER TOTAL BASE BID McNabb Construction, Inc.$548,800.00 Vila Construction Co.$575,000.00 Empire Landscaping $585,000.00 Bay Construction $597,000.00 Redwood Engineering Construction $649,000.00 Suarez & Munoz $724,780.00 All the bids received were more than the Architect's Estimate of $527,000.00. Staff has determined that the bids are within the normal range for projects of this nature and that sufficient funds are available. Staff has evaluated the low bid submitted by McNabb Construction, Inc. and their good faith effort documentation. McNabb Construction’s bid is responsive and their good faith effort documentation is in compliance with the County's Outreach Program. The Public Works Director recommends that the Board award the construction contract to McNabb Construction, Inc., the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, in the amount of $548,800.00. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 355 The general prevailing rates of wages, which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project, are on file with the Clerk of the Board, and copies are available to any party upon request. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the construction contract is not awarded, the project will not be constructed and the grant funds may be diverted to another project. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 356 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Information Officer, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with CherryRoad Technologies Inc, effective April 18, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $161,120 to a new payment limit of $6,620,850 for the contractor to provide an additional resource to assist the County with the upgrade to the County's PeopleSoft software system. FISCAL IMPACT: The $6,620,850 is budgeted under Org #1695 FY 2014-2015, FY 2015-2016, and FY 2016-2017, 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. The original contract with CherryRoad Technologies, Inc., provided for the contractor to perform a fit/gap analysis, infrastructure assessment and initial upgrade tasks to upgrade PeopleSoft HCM version 8.8 to version 9.2, at a cost up to $1,200,000. The County and contractor first amended the contract in September 2015 to provide that the Contractor would host nine application test environments, at a cost of up to $150,000. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 Woo 925-383-2688 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 26, 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:Ed Woo, Chief Information Officer Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:CherryRoad Technologies Inc. Contract Amendment No. 5. Change Management Resource April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 357 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The County and contractor amended the contract a second time in November 2015 to begin the upgrade tasks to upgrade PeopleSoft HCM version 8.8 to version 9.2 at a cost of up to $4,334,950. The County and contractor amended the contract a third time in December 2015 to purchase licenses and implement the Taleo Recruitment and Onboarding application, which will be hosted by Oracle on its servers and interface with the PeopleSoft HCM system at a cost of up to $467,360. The County and contractor amended the contract a fourth time February 2016 to acquire additional Contractor systems analysis services at a cost of up to $307,420. The proposed fifth amendment is to acquire an additional Contractor resource that will lead the organizational change management. The change management activities will include will include (1) establishing a Department Readiness focus group and coordinators; (2) performing a Stakeholder Analysis; (3) creating a Change Impact Analysis, (4) developing a Communication Plan; (5) leading the Department Readiness Coordination and Assessment, and (6) facilitating a Lessons Learned Assessment. 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: Failure to approve the contract amendment will decrease the success of the PeopleSoft upgrade project, with a lack of organization and communication between the departments, which may affect payroll. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 358 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Hawley, Peterson & Snyder, Architects in an amount not to exceed $500,000 to provide as-needed architectural services for various facilities projects for the period of April 26, 2016 through April 26, 2018, with a County option to extend the Agreement to April 26, 2019 if elected by the Public Works Director, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% various funds. Projects will be assigned to the as-needed architect when there is an approved project and funding. Having an as-needed services agreement in place will save the County time and money when compared to the time and expense involved in conducting a consultant selection process on a project-by-project basis. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: PW Accounting, PW CPM Division Manager, PW CPM Clerical, Auditor's Office, County Counsel's Office, County Administrator's Office, County Administrator's Office C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Consulting Services Agreement with Hawley, Peterson & Snyder, Architects for As-Needed Architectural Services April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 359 BACKGROUND: The purpose of this as-needed architectural services agreement is to provide architectural services for various County facilities projects as they occur during the agreement period. When the Public Works Department receives a project request, it will be determined at that time whether or not it would be prudent to utilize this as-needed architect. The as-needed architect will provide typical architectural services, such as programming, design, and construction administration. The types, sizes, and locations of projects will vary. Typical projects may include remodels, tenant improvements, additions, modernization, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing upgrades, and code-related improvements. Projects may also include investigations, studies, and reports. Some of the anticipated projects include those identified in the County's facilities life-cycle investment program ("FLIP”) under the recent budget allocation for capital projects and deferred maintenance. Having an as-needed agreement in place will allow the design phase to commence sooner and provide for a shorter project completion schedule. Hawley, Peterson & Synder, Architects was selected through a competitive qualifications-based selection process. The Public Works Department requested Statements of Qualifications (“SOQs”), and received 28 SOQs, and ten firms were short-listed. A selection committee comprised of County staff conducted interviews and ranked the short-listed firms. It is recommended that the above firm be awarded the agreement and that the as-needed agreement be approved at this time. The agreement includes a one year extension option that can be exercised by the Public Works Director if she chooses. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the agreement is not approved, the County will not be able to take advantage of the time and cost savings possible through the utilization of as-needed architectural services agreements. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 360 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Cardno, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $22,424 to a new payment limit of $456,945 to provide continued service to complete the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Shell Martinez Refinery's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Project, with no change in the contract term of June 3, 2014 through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the General Fund. All application, environmental review, and project processing fees to be paid by the project applicant. BACKGROUND: The Department of Conservation and Development received an application from Shell Oil Products U.S. for a Land Use Permit for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Project (County File #LP14-2006) proposed at its Martinez refinery, which will require physical and operational changes to several of the refinery's hydrocarbon processing units. The Department of Conservation and Development determined that this project required the preparation of an EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The County solicited qualified independent contractors to prepare the EIR for the project, and Contract #C47772 was awarded to Cardno, Inc., who is currently preparing the document. Several revisions to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas sections of the EIR were required due to Air District requirements resulting in multiple reviews and significant expenditure of funds, therefore, the additional contract amount of $22,424 is needed in order to finish the environmental review. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 925-674-7799 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment to Increase the Payment Limit with Cardno Inc. to Complete the Preparation of an EIR for the Shell Greenhouse Gas Reduction Project April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 361 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the contract amendment is not approved, the contractor will be unable to complete the environmental review for the pending application. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 362 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #24-429-59 with Ujima Family Recovery Services, a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2016, to amend Contract #24-429-58, to increase the payment limit by $21,532, from $1,710,194 to a new payment limit of $1,731,726, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This Amendment is funded 83% Federal Perinatal Set-Aside; 17% Drug Medi-Cal funds. No rate increase. BACKGROUND: On August 18, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-429-58 with Ujima Family Recovery Services for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, to provide residential and outpatient treatment for pregnant and parenting women and their small children. At the time of negotiations, the payment limit was based on target APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment #24–429–59 with Ujima Family Recovery Services April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 363 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) levels of utilization. However, the utilization and services units during the term of the Contract were higher than originally anticipated. Approval of Contract Amendment #24-429-59 will allow contractor to continue to provide additional service units, through June 30, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, pregnant and parenting women will not receive the alcohol and drug treatment services they need, which may result in perinatal substance abuse and additional risk to their babies. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This Alcohol and Drug Abuse program supports the Board of Supervisors’ “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing” community outcome by providing parenting education, stability, and safety for mothers (and their children) and pregnant women who are alcohol and drug dependent, while they are in substance abuse treatment. Expected outcomes include delivery of drug-free babies, decreased use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, reduction in the number of relapses, and creation of a sober social network. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 364 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Family Caregiver Alliance in an amount not to exceed $125,306 for Older American's Act, Title III-E Family Caregiver Provider Program services to support older adults, their caregivers, and families for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $125,306.00: 100% Federal Older American's Act, Title III-E Funding BACKGROUND: Family Caregiver Alliance provides support services to older adults, their caregivers, and families through a Multi-Faceted Respite and Education Program with a broad array of comprehensive services to caregivers of persons over 60 years old who have functional impairments. Family Caregiver Alliance must adhere to the Area Agency on Aging Special Conditions, Definitions for the meaning of program terms. FCA provides services in the three (3) service areas of Contra Costa County: West, East and Central County. Services including:Public Information on Caregiving; Community Education on Caregiving; Caregiver Outreach; Caregiver Information and Assistance; Caregiver Assessment; Caregiver Counseling; Caregiver Training; Caregiver Case Management; Respite In-Home Personal Care; and Caregiver Legal Resource Information. (#40-368-1) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Family Caregiver Alliance for the Family Caregiver Provider Program April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 365 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Training, home modification, and assisted living services in support of older adults and their caregivers will not be available. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 366 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #23-448-5 with Garda CL West, Inc., a corporation, in the amount of $22,500, for the provision of armored transport services to the Contra Costa County Health Services Department for the period February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017 FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On March 31, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-448-3 with Garda CL West, Inc. for the provision of armored transport services to Contra Costa Health Services Department, for the period from February 1, 2015 through January 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #23-448-5 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide armored transport services to the Contra Costa Health Services Department through January 31, 2017. This contract includes changes to the County Standard General Conditions, Paragraph 18 (Indemnification). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Contra Costa County Health Services Department will not have access to Contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Pat Godley, 925-957-5405 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23-448-5 with Garda CL West, Inc. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 367 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 368 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-347-27 with Cross Country Staffing, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000, to provide temporary medical and specialty staffing services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 16, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-347-25 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-347-26), with Cross Country Staffing, Inc., for the provision of temporary medical staffing services including registered nursing, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) nursing, therapy, radiology, and pharmacy services at CCRMC for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Approval of Contract #26-347-27 will allow Contractor to continue providing temporary medical and specialty staffing services through June 30, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-347-27 with Cross Country Staffing, Inc. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 369 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring medical and specialty staffing services at CCRMC will not have access to Contractor’s services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 370 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #76-537 with Vivian Price, an individual, in an amount not to exceed $102,600, to provide residential board and care services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) patients in the Patch Program, for the period from April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% County Patch Program Funds. BACKGROUND: The County’s Patch Program provides residential board and care for post medical, surgical and/or custodial care patients who have been discharged from CCRMC and would otherwise not have appropriate follow up care. Under Contract #76-537, Contractor will provide residential board and care services for CCRMC patients in the Patch Program for the period from April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, these post-surgery patients would not have access to Contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr`, M Wilhelm C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-537 with Vivian Price April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 371 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 372 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order to Dimension Data, Inc. in the amount of $300,146 for the purchase, support and maintenance of Cisco switches and network infrastructure hardware for the period from April 30, 2016 through April 29, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: Much of the existing Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) network infrastructure equipment which supports the hospital, clinics, and ancillary sites has reached the end of life support with the manufacturer. This request will begin the process to replace that aging equipment, and includes the purchase, support and maintenance of the new equipment. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to replace aging and end of support equipment increases the risk of an unexpected failure, and possibly an extended outage. This could impact productivity at some locations including patient care at the hospital and health clinic locations. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Runt, 313-6228 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, David Runt C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Dimension Data, Inc. Purchase Order April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 373 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to amend the Purchase Order with McKesson Corporation #F-000345 effective May 1, 2016 to increase the total amount by $3,500,000 for a new total amount not to exceed $6,500,000 for the purchase of pharmaceuticals designated as 340B replenishment inventories dispensed through ten (10) Rite Aid pharmacies and one (1) City Center pharmacy located within Contra Costa County, for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Funding is included in the Enterprise Fund III budget. Participation in the 340B program allows the Health Plan to maximize savings. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) has entered into the 340B pharmacy program through the Federal Government’s Office of Pharmacy Affairs (OPA). CCHP received OPA approval to contract with ten (10) local Rite Aid pharmacies and one (1) City Center pharmacy in the 340B program. This program supplies prescription medications to CCHP members at a significantly reduced price structure governed by the OPA. The APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wihelm, Mary Buscaglia C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:McKesson Corporation Purchase Order amendment April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 374 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) increased funding to the existing purchase order, is necessary due to the Affordable Care Act Medi-Cal expansion program which continues to enroll Medi-Cal members at a higher than planned rate and unforeseen higher specialty drug costs. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: This Purchase Order allows the County to purchase drugs under the 340B Drug Pricing Program, resulting in savings of approximately 70% compared to traditional pharmacy pricing. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 375 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Chief Information Officer, (1) a purchase order with MedTel Services, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $275,000 for the renewal of telecommunications software and equipment maintenance for the period April 20, 2015 through April 19, 2016, and (2) Amendment Number 9 to Customer Support Agreement, dated April 19, 2016, between the County and MedTel Services, LLC. FISCAL IMPACT: $250,000 (100% User Fees); the entire cost is included in DoIT's Fiscal Year 2016/17 budget and reimbursed by user departments via DoIT's billing process. BACKGROUND: The Department of Information Technology initiates the renewal of the OMNIWorks, Netpath, IRISnGEN and Private Branch Exchange (PBX) maintenance each year. This equipment and software maintenance is essential for the ongoing operation of several of the County's telephone systems including those used by Child Protective Services, the Superior Court's Traffic Department, Elections, and the Tax Collector's Office. These products are all manufactured and sole-sourced directly from MedTel Services, LLC, and the ongoing maintenance is required to maintain compliance and support. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 WOO (925) 383-2688 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 26, 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:Ed Woo, Chief Information Officer Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Medtel Equipment and Software Maintenance Renewal April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 376 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: This support is a critical component to maintaining several of the County's telephone systems. Without it, DoIT may be unable to resolve issues that arise during the course of normal County business. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 377 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or his designee, to pay $107,877.48 to Acusis, LLC for medical transcription services rendered at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers during the period October 1, 2015 through February 29, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I budget. BACKGROUND: Acusis, LLC provides medical transcription services at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC). Due to a delay in contract negotiations, the Division was not able to finalize the Contract terms, yet continued to receive services from the contractor to ensure no disruption in service. During the period of the contract lapse, Acusis, LLC continued to provide vital medical transcription of health assessments. Hospital Administration has therefore determined that Acusis, LLC is entitled to payment for the reasonable value of their services under the equitable relief theory of quantum meruit. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Payments for Services Provided by Acusis, LLC April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 378 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) That theory provides that where a person has been asked to provide services without a valid contract, and the provider does so to the benefit of the recipient, the provider is entitled to recover the reasonable value of those services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Acusis, LLC will not be paid for services rendered in good faith to patients of the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 379 RECOMMENDATION(S): Authorize the Purchasing Agent to purchase, on behalf of the Health Services Department, Safeway Gift Cards to use as incentives for consumer participation as allowed under Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), in the amount of $7,500.00 (500 cards at $15.00/ea) FISCAL IMPACT: Funded 100% by the Mental Health Services Act - Proposition 63. No County General Funds. BACKGROUND: Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act, was passed by voters on November 2, 2004. This proposition imposes an additional 1% tax on taxable personal income above $1 million to provide dedicated funding for expansion of mental health services and programs. Gift Cards are provided to mental health consumers and family members as an incentive for ongoing and meaningful participation and involvement as full partners in the MHSA planning processes, from the inception of the planning through implementation and evaluation of identified activities. State Department of Mental Health Letter Number 05-01 requires the participation of mental health consumers and family APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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, 957-5501 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Lisa Cabral, T Scott, M Wilhelm C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase of Safeway Gift Cards for Consumer Input of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA)-Prop 63 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 380 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) members in this process. Additionally, counties must continue to be engaged in ongoing community planning processes for MHSA annual plan updates and for any new MHSA plan. As such, in order to obtain broader stakeholder input, gift cards allow the county to provide a way to reward those mental health consumers and their family members who so willingly volunteer many hours to participate in the myriad MHSA planning processes. Gift cards enable the volunteer participants to cover the expenses of their transportation to/from planning meetings and also covers the expenses of their meals when they need to be away from home. The gift cards allow the county to relieve the financial burden of those volunteer mental health consumer and family members who may not have the extra funds to allow their participation. The gift cards will be administered in accordance with the requirements outlined in Administrative Bulletin #615. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If there are no incentives available, Consumer and Family member participation and involvement will decrease during the Community Program Planning Process, which is a required component for the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Three-Year Program and Expenditure Plan. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 381 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute a contract with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wildlife Services in an amount not to exceed $39,071 for wildlife damage management for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement is paid with Unclaimed Gas Tax (60%) and County General Fund (40%). BACKGROUND: The work plan defines the objectives, plan of action, resources and budget for the maintenance of an Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM) program to protect residents, property, livestock, crops and natural resources from damage caused by predators and other nuisance wildlife to be conducted from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services - Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) is a federal agency with a broad mission that includes carrying out wildlife damage management activities. In recent years, USDA-APHIS has maintained an effective IWDM program to resolve conflicts with wildlife throughout the County. APHIS-WS is available APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: Agriculture Dept. (925) 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 26, 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:Chad Godoy, Director of Agriculture/Weights & Measures Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:USDA INTEGRATED WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT #16-73-06-0251-RA April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 382 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and qualified to conduct the wildlife damage management services necessary to accomplish the county's goal. Wildlife Service's overall goal is to maintain a biologically sound IWDM program to assist property owners, businesses, private citizens, and governmental agencies in resolving wildlife damage problems and conduct control activities in accordance with applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations. Assistance may be in the form of providing technical assistance or direct control activities. To accomplish this goal, the following general field services will be provided: (1) technical assistance through demonstration and instruction of wildlife damage prevention and/or control techniques; (2) predator identification and removal when livestock, crop or natural resource damage is verified; (3) nuisance wildlife technical assistance including removal, if necessary, when property damage is identified; (4) removal of wildlife displaying aggressive behavior or causing actual injury to county residents. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to accept Agreement #16-73-06-0251-RA will mean that the Department will be unable to afford actions to prevent wildlife damage and take corrective actions on existing wildlife damage problems. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. ATTACHMENTS Wildlife Services 2016 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 383 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 384 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 385 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 386 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 387 RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE continuation of the Contra Costa County Library Commission for an additional six months, for the period July 1 through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Library Commission was established 25 years ago on March 12, 1991, originally for a two-year period, and was subsequently reauthorized through June 30, 2016, when it is next scheduled to sunset. The reauthorization process requires the concurrence of the Board of Supervisors and the Mayors’ Conference. The County Library Commission was established to provide advice to the BOS and the County Librarian on library services. The Commission also serves to: Provides a community linkage to the County Library by exchanging and providing information about the library to a variety of community organizations Provides a forum for the community to express its views regarding the goals and operations of the County Library Provides a link between the cities and towns and the County and Library Administration through the appointees from the cities and towns APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Reauthorization of the County Library Commission for Six Months: July 1 - December 31, 2016 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 388 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > Keeps the Board of Supervisors informed about library needs and community expectations for the Library Provides leadership in all efforts to insure a stable and adequate funding level for the libraries in the County Improves the public’s understanding of library services and provides Library Administration with a better understanding of the public’s needs The County Library Commission was reviewed as part of the regular Triennial Advisory Body Review conducted by the County Administrator's Office under the oversight of the Internal Operations Committee. When the Triennial Review came before the IOC in 2015, the IOC asked the new County Librarian, who is also staff to the Commission, to complete the Triennial Review questionnaire and prepare a status report on the Commission and its work for the IOC. The review (Attachment 1) was submitted to the CAO in January 2016 and is on public file with the Clerk of the Board's office. The Commission is currently composed of 29 members and 29 alternates. Each BOS office and each of the 19 cities in the county appoints one member and one alternate. In addition there are “special representative” members who are appointed by the Superintendent of Schools, the Contra Costa Central Labor Council, the Contra Costa Council, the Friends’ Council or the Contra Costa Community College District. According to the report from the County Librarian, the Commission's primary work and outputs during the time she has worked with them has been to advocate for State funding (with BOS approval), share reports and information with other Commission members that are specific to their local communities on library activities, and provide a sounding board to County Library staff. The County Librarian recommended to the IOC on March 28, 2016 that the Commission either be allowed to automatically sunset on June 30, 2016 or reconfigured to reduce the size of the membership and/or the frequency of the meetings and restructure their charge/duties. The reasons for the recommendation include the following: The large number of the members and alternates has made it extremely difficult to recruit and keep seats filled; Also due to the large size of the membership, it has been very difficult for the Commission to develop a work plan and complete work projects; and Many of the current members serve on their local Friends groups in addition to being an appointed member of the Commission, so their advocacy and volunteer efforts have other established avenues to positively affect literacy efforts and library programs throughout the county. The County Librarian has shared these recommendations with the Library Commission and the City Managers. The County Librarian is scheduled to make presentations at the April Public Manager’s Association meeting and the May 26 Library Commission meeting. To allow the Commission to continue to function while its future configuration is being examined and discussed, the IOC is recommending that the Commission be extended for six months, through December 31, 2016. Below is a table showing the prior history on the Board authorization of the County Library Commission: Extension Board Action (in years, apprx)New Sunset 3/12/1991 2 3/14/1993 2/23/1993 1 3/14/1994 1/25/1994 1 3/14/1995 3/14/1995 2 3/14/1997 1/28/1997 1 3/15/1998 8/17/1999 1 6/30/2000 7/18/2000 1 6/30/2001 7/17/2001 5 6/30/2006 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 389 7/17/2001 5 6/30/2006 5/2/2006 5 6/30/2011 5/24/2011 5 6/30/2016 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board takes no action, the County Library Commission will sunset effective June 30, 2016. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Library Commission Triennial Review April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 390 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 2015 Triennial Sunset Review of Appointed Boards, Committees & Commissions April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 391 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 1 INTRODUCTION Contra Costa County is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors elected by the citizens of our County. The work of the Board of Supervisors is augmented by various advisory boards, committees, or commissions, comprised of citizens who are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. These appointed bodies are formed to provide support and citizen input by making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on various issues (such as service delivery problems or community needs). County committees are created as a result of State and Federal legislation, contractual agreements with other public agencies, or in response to specific community needs. These citizens' advisory bodies serve as direct links between the Board of Supervisors and our community, expand forums for communication between the public and County government, and enhance the quality of life for our residents. SUMMARY OF THE TRIENNIAL SUNSET REVIEW PROCESS The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2012/261 on June 26, 2012 establishing a "triennial sunset review process" for most County boards, committees and commissions whose members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Each year the Clerk of the Board will schedule one-third of these committees for review by the County Administrator's Office and the Internal Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors. The purpose of the triennial sunset review is to provide the Board of Supervisors with a method to periodically evaluate the ongoing purpose, performance and effectiveness of the advisory committees. For additional information about the review procedure, please refer to Resolution 2012/261 of June 26, 2012, and to the Advisory Body Handbook. SUBMISSION OF THE TRIENNIAL SUNSET REVIEW REPORT The triennial sunset review report (to be completed using this questionnaire) must be signed by the advisory body chairperson and by the County staff person currently serving as liaison to the committee. The completed and signed questionnaire should be submitted, along with the additional materials listed below, to: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Attn: Advisory Body Sunset Review 651 Pine Street, Rm. 106 Martinez, CA 94553 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 392 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 2 List of materials to include with Triennial Sunset Review report: 1. Copies of the advisory body meeting agendas and minutes from the last 12 meetings. 2. A copy of the advisory body bylaws that are currently in effect. 3. A copy of the most recent Annual Report that was submitted to the Board of Supervisors. 4. A brief, informal statement of the advisory committee's overall priorities, recent efforts, and current focus; and, 5. A recommendation, from the Department Head that oversees the committee, whether to continue or discontinue the committee, as well as recommendations, from the County staff or Department Head, concerning any changes to the committee that might increase its effectiveness or impact. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 393 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 3 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Advisory Body Triennial Sunset Review I. Advisory Body Contact Information Contra Costa County Library Commission a. Name of Advisory Body (i.e. Committee, Commission or Board) Rodger Lum b. Name of Advisory Body Chairperson Jessica Hudson c. Name of Advisory Body Staff 1750 Oak Park Blvd, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 d. Staff Business Address 925-646-6423 e. Staff Telephone Number JHudson@ccclib.org f. Staff E-mail Address http://guides.ccclib.org/Commission g. Advisory Body Website Address, if applicable, if not, write “N/A”. II. Advisory Body History and Meeting Events Please provide the following information: a. Number of advisory body members appointed in the last 36 months. 30 b. Number of advisory body members who resigned in the last 36 months. 30 c. Number of advisory body meetings scheduled in the last 36 months. 18 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 394 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 4 d. Number of advisory body meetings cancelled for lack of quorum in the last 36 months. 0 e. Number of advisory body meetings cancelled for reason other than lack of quorum in the last 36 months. 0 f. Number of advisory body meetings held in the last 36 months. 18 III. Advisory Body Mission, Objectives, and Major Events a. State the original purpose and responsibility of the advisory body. The Contra Costa County Library Commission was original established in March 1991 for a two year period and has been reauthorized by both the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s Conference for continuance. The original purpose and responsibility of the Commission is five part: 1) To serve in an advisory capacity to the Board of Supervisors and the County Librarian; 2) To provide a community linkage to the County Library; 3) To establish a forum for the community to express its views regarding the goals and operations of the County Library; 4) To assist the Board of Supervisors and County Librarian to provide library services based on assessed public need; and 5) To develop and recommend proposals to the Board of Supervisors and County Librarian for the betterment of the County Library including, but not limited to, such efforts as insuring a stable and adequate funding level for the libraries in the County. b. Please describe any major changes to advisory body responsibility which have occurred over time, e.g. change in legal mandates or in the major activities that it has undertaken. There have been no major changes to the responsibilities of the Library Commission over time. The Library Commission is not legally mandated. c. Identify the target population or communities served by the advisory body. The Library Commission serves as an advisory body to the County Board of Supervisors and the County Librarian. In that capacity, their target population is all current and regular library users, which encompasses the whole of the County excepting the City of Richmond which has its own municipal library. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 395 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 5 d. List regular and ongoing activities, services, and/or programs the advisory body provides to achieve its current mission. If applicable, also list one-time or special projects offered to achieve the mission. The Library Commission achieves its mission through having six meetings per year, all of which are open to the public. The Library Commission receives presentations from Library staff on various projects and operations, so that Commissioners are aware of and able to ask questions regarding those projects and operations. The Library Commission meetings offer a public comment section to allow for open feedback and communication. Library Commissioners also frequently serve on community-specific Friends of the Library or Library Foundation groups, which helps strengthen the linkage between the communities and the County Library. In the past 36 months, the Library Commission has also hosted/participated in various Town Hall meetings to encourage community feedback on the Library’s strategic planning process. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 396 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 6 IV. Advisory Body Organization and Structure a. Please describe any staffing issues/challenges, i.e., vacancy rates, efforts to fill seats, member turnover, recruitment and retention efforts. 1) The Library Commission has one Library staff person that acts as liaison, secretary, etc for the Commission. The responsibilities for that position currently lie with a vacant position, and the Department Head has been the main staff person for the Commission for the past thirteen months. 2) With 29 seats and 24 appointing agencies (5 seats are through the Board of Supervisors and the remaining 24 are dividing between the 19 cities and the 5 special districts), there are often gaps in filled seats for different jurisdictions. Over the last 36 months, 30 Commissioners have either resigned during their term or have elected not to ask for another term. Over the last 36 months, 30 new Commissioners have been appointed, with 8 leaving during that same period of time. It can be difficult to keep up with vacancies and member turn over. For perspective, 16 Commissioners were Commissioners at the start of the period 36 months ago and still sit on the Commission. b. Please describe any changes or potential changes you could suggest in the committee's organization, structure, number of seats, qualifications, meeting schedule, or any other area that you believe might improve the Committee's performance. The Library Commission is a large organization, with 29 Library Commissioner seats and 29 Alternate Commissioner seats. Although the Commission is not usually full, there are regularly 35-40 members present at meetings. The structure of the organization was set up to be provide 1:1 representation from the different Cities, Board jurisdictions and special organizations in the County but that may also give more seats to the “cities” than to the “county”. The Library Commission meets every other month; some months there are multiple presentations to the Commission and some months less depending on topics of interest to the Commission. A concern for the Commission is its purpose; although the Commissioners complete their task well and with passion for libraries, there is not always much accomplished through the process that would not have already been accomplished at the local (Friends, Foundation) level. It would be Library staff’s recommendation to look at either a sunset for the Commission or a reduction in the number of meetings held per year plus a reduction in the amount of seats on the Commission. c. What information is regularly presented to the advisory body members to keep them informed of the body’s performance? The Library Commission has several regular agenda items; approval of minutes, sharing of books, State Library Funding as well as “Items of Interest to the Commission”. This last item allows the various Commissioners to speak about what is going on in their jurisdiction and to share successes that might be replicated in other locations. Yearly, the Commission also includes agenda items regarding their April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 397 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 7 annual report to the Board of Supervisors and their work plan for the coming calendar year. d. Are the advisory body current bylaws reflective of the body’s current mission and purpose? Yes but meeting topics/agenda could be matched up more concisely with the mission. e. Do you recommend changes to the advisory body bylaws (e.g., adjustment to term length, required qualifications, number of meetings, or primary focus)? If yes, please state why? No, Library staff does not recommend changes to the bylaws. The bylaws are an accurate representations of what the Board Order requires the Commission to complete. f. Does the advisory body have a sufficient number of members to achieve its mission? Do you recommend an adjustment to the number of advisory body seats (an increase or decrease)? The Advisory Board has a sufficient membership. Library staff would recommend a decrease in the advisory board seats to create a more flexible Commission. g. If you recommend making an adjustment to the number of advisory body seats, please indicate which seats and why? Library staff’s first recommendation would be to sunset the Commission as their parts of their objective are being completed at the local level and other parts can be completed via the library sites themselves (ie, public input through the Library Administration email, the chat service, the 1-800 line, or the Ask email instead of just through the Library Commission email). Library staff’s second recommendation would be to reduce seats assigned to the special districts, moving total seat count from 29 to 24. Staff see difficulty in reducing seats assigned to either the cities or the County, as each currently has one representative per jurisdiction (5 seats for the County, one per Board seat). Library staff would recommend removing the seat for the City of Richmond, as the County Library does not serve the City of Richmond. Another option is to look at removing alternate seats, as many meeting see both the Library Commissioner and the Alternate Library Commissioner attending. h. If special requirements or prerequisites exist for members to serve on the advisory body, do you believe the requirements are important and necessary, or do they limit the recruitment of potential candidates? There are no special requirements to serve on the Library Commission. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 398 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 8 Advisory Body Public Information Policies a. How does the advisory body engage stakeholders and the general public about issues and programs within the body’s area of responsibility? The Library Commission posts its agenda and supplemental materials on the Commission’s website, at all library locations and copies of the agenda are sent to all city partners, the Clerk of the Board’s Office and various other locations for public consumption. Library Commission meetings are open the public, with a public comment period at the beginning of the meeting. Library Commissioners tend to also be Friends of the Library or Library Foundation members, outside of their Commission responsibilities. b. How is stakeholder and public input incorporated into the advisory body’s mission and objectives? Please also describe any outreach efforts to encourage public participation in advisory body meetings and sponsored activities The Library Commission’s mission and objectives are set out in their bylaws. Bylaws have been reviewed and amended in 1992, 1999, and 2012. The Commission’s mission and purpose is based on the Board Order that created the Commission. c. How far in advance of the meeting date does the advisory body post its meeting notice? Notices are required to be posted 96 hours in advance but tend to be posted one week in advance of the meeting. Full packet information is also posted on the Library Commission website one week in advance of the meeting. d. Where are meeting notices posted (please note all locations)? Official posting locations are at the Pleasant Hill Library, Library Administration, the Walnut Creek Library and the Clerk of the Board’s Office. Agenda are also sent to each Board of Supervisor’s office, the County Administrator’s Office, all Community Libraries, the City of Richmond Library, and City offices. The meeting notice and agenda packet are also uploaded onto the Commission website. V. Advisory Body Budget (if applicable) a. Please provide the advisory body’s source of revenue (if any) for the past 36 months. Rounded figures can be used. (Add additional sheets or documents if needed.) Sources of Revenue Source Amount April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 399 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 9 Total $0 b. Provide a summary of the committee's actual or estimated expenditures for the past 36 months. Types of Expenditures Category Amount Total $0 *The Library Commission does not have a revenue source or expenditures. The Library Department, on behalf of the Commission, pays for staff time and printing/mailing costs for agendas and agenda packets. VI. Advisory Body Current Issues (if applicable) Are there any additional issues or problems that the Committee wishes to bring to the attention of CAO and/or the Board of Supervisors, or that the Committee has been unable to resolve? Provide a brief description of the issue: Include enough information to give context for the issue. Helpful information includes: i. What is the specific problem or concern? The only concerns are those noted above; the size of the Commission and what can be accomplished by the Commission that is not already accomplished through other means. ii. Whom does this issue affect? Click here to enter text. iii. What is the advisory body’s current role related to the issue? Click here to enter text. iv. What policy or program changes, or other recommendations, has the committee considered in response? Click here to enter text. VII. Advisory Body Comments and Suggestions April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 400 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 10 a. Describe the effect the advisory body has made on the target population. The Library Commission has been able to assist the County Librarian through its comments and feedback on presentations provided throughout the 36 month review period. It assisted with Town Hall meetings in support of the Library’s Strategic Plan and provides community-level support and advocacy for library services. b. Describe the specific impact the work of the advisory body has made in achieving its mission. The Library Commission has made specific impact in advocacy. A regular agenda item is State Library Funding. The Library Commission regularly reviews upcoming concerns regarding State and Federal Library funding, creates letters to be approved/signed by the Board of Supervisor Chair, and advocates with their local politicians to support stable or increased State and Federal funding. c. Additional Comments Please use the following space to share additional comments about the work of the advisory body, its effectiveness, the services it provides, or any other related subject. The Library Commission will be meeting on November 19th, 2015 and will include this as a topic for discussion. It is planned for an ad hoc group to be formed at that meeting to discuss the Commission’s continuance, purpose, structure, etc. Preliminary recommendations from that ad hoc committee are expected back to the Commission at the January meeting, with final review and approval at the March 2016 meeting. This information will be shared back with the County Administrator’s Office at that time for inclusion in this final review. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 401 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 11 Thank you for your cooperation. (1) Chairperson of your advisory committee or commission: x__________________________________________________ (please print name):___________________________________ (2) County Staff or Liaison who coordinated survey: x__________________________________________________ (please print name):___________________________________ Required signatures: April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 402 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/343 authorizing the issuance and sale of "Acalanes Union High School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2008, Series 2016C" in an amount not to exceed $15,200,000 by the Acalanes Union High School District on its own behalf pursuant to Sections 15140(b) of the Education Code. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the County. BACKGROUND: The Acalanes Union High School District intends to issue General Obligation bonds to fund capital improvements throughout the District. The District has requested that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution authorizing the direct issuance and sale of bonds by the District on its own behalf as authorized by Section 15140(b) of the Education Code. The District adopted a resolution on April 20, 2016 authorizing the sale and issuance of the bonds (copy attached). This issuance was approved by the voters as part of a bond measure listed on the November 4, 2008 ballot. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorization, the School District would not be able to issue the bonds. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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: 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Acalanes Unified High School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2008, Series 2016C April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 403 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following Children's Report Card outcome: Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/343 District Resolution April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 404 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/26/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/343 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT TO SELL ELECTION OF 2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2016C ON ITS OWN BEHALF IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,200,000 WHEREAS, a duly called municipal election was held in the Acalanes Union High School District (the “District”), Contra Costa County (the “County”), State of California on November 4, 2008 (the “Election”) and thereafter canvassed pursuant to the law; and WHEREAS, at the Election there was submitted to and approved by the requisite vote of fifty-five percent or more vote of the qualified electors of the District a question as to the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds of the District for the various purposes set forth in the ballot submitted to the voters, in the maximum amount not-to-exceed $93,000,000, payable from the levy of an ad valorem tax against the taxable property in the District (the “Authorization”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution (the “District Resolution”) of the Board of Trustees of the District adopted on April 20, 2016, the District authorized the issuance of the third series of bonds under the Authorization, designated as “Acalanes Union High School District (Contra Costa County, California) Election of 2008 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016C” (the “Bonds”); WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (the “Act”), the Bonds are authorized to be issued by the District, for the purposes set forth in the ballot submitted to voters at the Election; and WHEREAS, California Education Code Section 15140(b) authorizes a county board of supervisors to adopt a resolution providing that, in specified circumstances, the governing board of a school district or community college district over which the county superintendent of schools has jurisdiction may issue and sell bonds on its own behalf and without further action by the board of supervisors or other offices of the county; provided the District has not received a qualified or negative certification in its most recent interim report; and WHEREAS, the District has represented and warranted to the County that it has not received a qualified or negative certification in its most recent interim report; and WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa (the “Board”) desires to make such procedures available to the Board of Trustees of the District with regard to the Bonds; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the District Resolution, the District has formally requested to have the Auditor-Controller of the County (the “Auditor-Controller”) levy ad valorem taxes in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due, and to place on its 2016-17 tax roll, and all subsequent tax rolls, taxes sufficient to fulfill a portion of the requirements of the debt service schedule for the Bonds that will be provided to the Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector of the County (the “Treasurer”) by the District following the sale of the Bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, as follows: 5 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 405 California, as follows: Section 1. Application of Section 15140(b) to Bonds sold under the Authorization by the District . Pursuant to Section 15140(b) of the Education Code, this Board authorizes the District to issue and sell the Bonds on its own behalf, in one or more series of bonds, and in the maximum principal amount of $15,200,000, without further action by this Board; provided, however, that the District shall comply with all legal requirements applicable to the issuance and sale of the Bonds. Section 2. Levy and Collection of Tax for Payment of Bonds. This Board authorizes the levy and collection, on all taxable property in the County situated within the District, during the period when any of the Bonds are outstanding, of ad valorem taxes in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due. Such taxes, when collected, shall be paid into the County Treasury pursuant to Section 15251 of the Education Code. Section 3. Other Actions. The Board Chair, the Clerk of the Board, the Auditor-Controller, the County Counsel, and the Treasurer and the deputies and designees of such officers, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all certificates, representations or agreements as may be acceptable to County Counsel, and which are deemed necessary and desirable to accomplish the transactions authorized herein or to otherwise comply with the terms of this Resolution. Such actions heretofore taken by such officers, officials and staff are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. Section 4. No Liability of the County. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the District Resolution or herein, the Bonds shall not be a debt of the County, and neither the Board nor the County, nor their respective officers, officials, agents or employees, shall have any obligation to repay the Bonds. Neither the County, nor the Board, nor their respective officers, officials, agents or employees, shall have any obligation or liability hereunder or in connection with the transactions contemplated herein. The Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from ad valorem taxes levies in respect thereof. The County shall have no responsibility and assumes no liability whatsoever arising from the expenditure of proceeds of the Bonds by the District. Section 5. Indemnification of County. The County acknowledges and relies upon the fact that the District has represented that it shall indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent permitted by law, the County and its officers and employees (“Indemnified Parties”), against any and all losses, claims, damages or liabilities, joint or several, to which such Indemnified Parties may become subject because of action or inaction related to the adoption of this resolution, or related to the proceedings for sale, award, issuance and delivery of the Bonds in accordance herewith and with the District’s resolution and that the District shall also reimburse any such Indemnified Parties for any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with investigating or defending any such claims or actions. Section 6. Limited Responsibility for Official Statement. Neither the Board of Supervisors nor any officer of the County has prepared or reviewed the official statement of the District describing the Bonds (the “Official Statement”), and this Board of Supervisors and the various officers of the County take no responsibility for the contents or distribution thereof; provided, however, that solely with respect to a section contained or to be contained therein describing the County’s investment policy, current portfolio holdings, and valuation procedures, as they may relate to funds of the District held by the County Treasurer, the County Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and review such information for inclusion in the District’s Official Statement and in a preliminary Official Statement, and to certify in writing prior to or upon the issuance of the Bonds that the information contained in such section does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading. Section 7. Investment of Bond Proceeds. If the proceeds of the Bonds are deposited with the County, the proceeds, and any interest earnings thereon, whether maintained in a building fund or debt service fund, shall be invested by the County in any one or more investments generally permitted to school districts under the laws of the State of California, consistent with the investment policy of the County and this Resolution (the “Permitted Investments”). The Permitted Investments shall specifically include: (a) the County Pooled Investment Fund maintained by the County Treasurer, and (b) at the request of the District, (i) the Local Agency Investment Fund maintained by the Treasurer of the State of California; (ii) other investments permitted under section 53601 of the California Government Code; and (iii) investment agreements with financial institutions with senior unsecured credit ratings in one of the two highest rating categories (without regard to any refinement or gradation of such rating category by a plus or minus or a numeral) from one or more nationally recognized statistical rating organization. In regard to any investments requested by the District specified in clauses (b)(i), (b)(ii) or (b)(iii) above, the County may decline the request of the District upon any reasonable basis, including, specifically, any concerns of the County regarding the legality, structure or appropriateness of the investment vehicle generally or the process proposed for the bidding or the execution of the investment. Consent by the County to a request by the District to use any investments requested by the District specified in clauses (b)(i), (b)(ii) or (b)(iii) above shall in no way imply any endorsement by the County of such investment and the County assumes no liability for the results of such investment or of the provider thereof. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 406 liability for the results of such investment or of the provider thereof. 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 407 RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA) ELECTION OF 2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2016C, AND ACTIONS RELATED THERETO WHEREAS, a duly called municipal election was held in the Acalanes Union High School District (the “District”), Contra Costa County (the “County”), State of California, on November 4, 2008 (the “Election”) and thereafter canvassed pursuant to law, at which the following proposition (the “Bond Measure”) was submitted to the qualified electors of the District: “Acalanes Union High School District Improvement. To establish a ten-year technology fund, upgrade instructional classroom technology, replace worn, aging roofs, convert obsolete facilities into additional classroom space, upgrade electrical and energy management systems to improve efficiency and repair, construct, equip or upgrade school facilities, shall the Acalanes Union High School District issue $93 million in bonds at interest rates within the legal limit, with all expenditures reviewed by an independent citizens’ oversight committee without increasing current tax rates?” WHEREAS, at the Election there was submitted to and approved by the requisite fifty-five percent or more vote of the qualified electors of the District a question as to the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds of the District for the various purposes set forth in the ballot submitted to the voters, in the maximum amount not-to-exceed $93,000,000, payable from the levy of an ad valorem tax against the taxable property in the District (the “Authorization”); WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 1 of Title 1, Division 1, Part 10, of the Education Code of the State of California, entitled “Bonds of School Districts and Community College Districts” (the “Notes Act”), and in particular pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 15150 of the Notes Act, the governing board of a school district may, by resolution, upon such terms and conditions as it shall prescribe, issue notes, on a negotiated or competitive-bid basis and maturing within a period not-to- exceed five years, in anticipation of the sale of general obligation bonds authorized at the time such notes are issued; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Notes Act the proceeds from the sale of such notes shall be used only for authorized purposes of the anticipated general obligation bonds or to repay outstanding notes authorized thereby; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Authorization, on April 30, 2009, the District caused the issuance of the two series of general obligation bond anticipation notes under the Authorization in an aggregate principal amount of $15,000,000, styled as “Acalanes Union High School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2009 General Bond Anticipation Notes, Series A & Series B”; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Authorization, on March 30, 2010, the District caused the issuance of the first series of bonds under the Authorization in an aggregate principal amount of April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 408 2 $29,999,817.55, styled as Acalanes Union High School District (Contra Costa County, California) Election of 2008 General Obligation Bonds, Series A; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Authorization, on July 20, 2011, the District caused the issuance of the second series of bonds under the Authorization in an aggregate principal amount of $37,999,105.55, styled as Acalanes Union High School District (Contra Costa County, California) Election of 2008 General Obligation Bonds, Series B; WHEREAS, on November 26, 2014, the District issued the third series of such notes, in the aggregate principal amount of $15,000,000 (the “2014 Notes”), in anticipation of proceeds from the sale of Bonds under the Authorization; WHEREAS, at this time this Board of Trustees (the “Board”) has determined that it is necessary and desirable to issue the third series of bonds under the Authorization in an aggregate principal amount not-to-exceed $15,200,000, and to be styled as “Acalanes Union High School District (Contra Costa County, California) Election of 2008 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016C” (the “Bonds”) for the purpose of providing funds for the payment of the 2014 Notes at their maturity date; WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the “Government Code”), the Bonds are authorized to be issued by the District for purposes set forth in the ballot submitted to the voters at the Election; WHEREAS, this Board desires to authorize the issuance of the Bonds as any combination of Current Interest Bonds, Capital Appreciation Bonds and Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds, to be issued in one or more Series of Taxable Bonds or Tax-Exempt Bonds (as such terms are defined herein); WHEREAS, the District has not filed with nor received from the County Office of Education having jurisdiction over the District a qualified or negative certification in its most recent interim financial report pursuant to Section 42131 of the California Education Code (“Education Code”); WHEREAS, this Board desires to appoint certain professionals to provide services related to the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, all acts, conditions and things required by law to be done or performed have been done and performed in strict conformity with the laws authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds of the District, and the indebtedness of the District, including this proposed issue of Bonds, is within all limits prescribed by law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Authorization for Issuance of the Bonds. To provide funds for the payment of the 2014 Notes through their maturity date and to pay all necessary legal, financial, engineering and contingent costs in connection therewith, the Board hereby authorizes the issuance of the Bonds pursuant to Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code in one or more Series of Taxable Bonds or Tax-Exempt Bonds, with appropriate designations if more than one Series is issued, and as any combination of Current Interest Bonds, Capital Appreciation April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 409 3 Bonds and Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds, all as more fully set forth in the fully executed Purchase Contract (as defined herein). The Board further orders such Bonds sold such that the Bonds shall be dated as of a date to be determined by an Authorized Officer (as defined herein), shall be payable upon such terms and provisions as shall be set forth in the Bonds, and shall be in an aggregate principal amount not-to-exceed $15,200,000. SECTION 2. Paying Agent. This Board hereby appoints the Paying Agent, as defined herein, to serve as the paying agent, bond registrar, transfer agent and authentication agent for the Bonds on behalf of the District. This Board hereby approves the payment of the reasonable fees and expenses of the Paying Agent as they shall become due and payable. The fees and expenses of the Paying Agent which are not paid as a cost of issuance of the Bonds may be paid in each year from ad valorem property taxes levied and collected for the payment thereof, insofar as permitted by law, including specifically by Section 15232 of the Education Code. SECTION 3. Terms and Conditions of Sale. The Bonds shall be sold upon the direction of the Superintendent (the “Superintendent”), the Chief Business Official (the “Chief Business Official”) of the District, or such other officers or employees of the District as the Superintendent or the Chief Business Official may designate (collectively, the “Authorized Officers”), and pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Contract. The Board hereby authorizes the sale of the Bonds at a negotiated sale, which is determined to provide more flexibility in the timing of the sale, an ability to implement the sale in a shorter time period, an increased ability to structure the Bonds to fit the needs of particular purchasers, and a greater opportunity for the Underwriter (as defined herein) to pre-market the Bonds to potential purchasers prior to the sale, all of which will contribute to the District’s goal of achieving the lowest overall cost of funds. The Bonds shall be sold pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Contract, as described below. SECTION 4. Approval of Purchase Contract. The form of contract for purchase and sale of the Bonds (the “Purchase Contract”) by and between the District and RBC Capital Markets, LLC (the “Underwriter”), substantially in the form on file with the Clerk of or Secretary to the Board, is hereby approved and the Authorized Officers, each alone, are hereby authorized and directed to execute such Purchase Contract at the time the Bonds are sold; provided, however, that the maximum interest rate on the Bonds shall not exceed the maximum rate permitted by law and the underwriting discount thereon, excluding original issue discount and reimbursable expenses of the Underwriter, shall not exceed 0.215% of the aggregate principal amount of Bonds issued. The Authorized Officers, each alone, are further authorized to determine the principal amount of the Bonds to be specified in the Purchase Contract for sale by the District up to $15,200,000 and to enter into and execute the Purchase Contract with the Underwriter, if the conditions set forth in this Resolution are satisfied. The Board estimates that the costs associated with the issuance of the Bonds, excluding compensation to the Underwriter (and fees of the Bond Insurer, if any), will equal approximately 1.30% of the principal amount of the Bonds. SECTION 5. Certain Definitions. As used in this Resolution, the terms set forth below shall have the meanings ascribed to them (unless otherwise set forth in the Purchase Contract): (a) “Accreted Interest” means, with respect to Capital Appreciation Bonds and Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds prior to the Conversion Date, the Accreted Value thereof minus the Denominational Amount thereof as of the date of calculation. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 410 4 (b) “Accretion Rate” means, unless otherwise provided by the Purchase Contract, that rate which, when applied to the Denominational Amount of a Capital Appreciation Bond or a Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond prior to the Conversion Date, and compounded semiannually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, produces the Maturity Value on the maturity date (with respect to Capital Appreciation Bonds) and the Conversion Value on the Conversion Date (with respect to Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds). (c) “Accreted Value” means, as of the date of calculation, with respect to Capital Appreciation Bonds and Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds through to the Conversion Date, the Denominational Amount thereof plus Accreted Interest thereon to such date of calculation, compounded semiannually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, 2016 (unless otherwise provided for in the Purchase Contract), at the stated Accretion Rate to maturity thereof, assuming in any such semiannual period that such Accreted Value increases in equal daily amounts on the basis of a 360-day year of 12, 30-day months. (d) “Beneficial Owner” means, when used with reference to book-entry Bonds registered pursuant to Section 6 hereof, the person who is considered the beneficial owner of such Bonds pursuant to the arrangements for book entry determination of ownership applicable to the Depository. (e) “Bond Insurer” means any insurance company which issues a municipal bond insurance policy insuring the payment of Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of and interest on the Bonds. (f) “Bond Payment Date” means, as applicable (and unless otherwise provided by the Purchase Contract), (i) with respect to the Current Interest Bonds, February 1 and August 1 of each year commencing August 1, 2016 with respect to interest thereon, and the stated maturity dates thereof with respect to the Principal payments thereof, (ii) with respect to interest on the Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds, February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing the first February 1 or August 1 following the respective Conversion Dates thereof, and the stated maturity dates thereof with respect to the Conversion Value of the Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds, and (iii) with respect to the Capital Appreciation Bonds, the stated maturity dates thereof. (g) “Bond Register” means the registration books which the Paying Agent shall keep or cause to be kept on which the registered ownership, transfer and exchange of Bonds shall be recorded. (h) “Capital Appreciation Bonds” means the Bonds, the interest component of which is compounded semiannually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, 2016 (unless otherwise provided in the Purchase Contract) to maturity as shown in the table of Accreted Value for such Bonds in the Official Statement or Purchase Contract, as the case may be. (i) “Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Reference to any particular section of the Code shall be deemed to be a reference to any successor to any such section. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 411 5 (j) “Continuing Disclosure Certificate” means that certain contractual undertaking in connection with the Bonds, executed by the District pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12 adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, dated as of the date of issuance of the Bonds, as amended from time to time in accordance with the provisions thereof. (k) “Conversion Date” means, with respect to Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds, the date from which such Bonds bear interest on a current, periodic basis. (l) “Conversion Value” means, with respect to Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds, the Accreted Value as of the Conversion Date. (m) “Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds” means the Bonds the interest component of which is compounded semiannually to the respective Conversion Dates thereof as shown in the table of Accreted Values for the Bonds in the Official Statement or Purchase Contract, as the case may be, and which bear interest from such respective Conversion Dates on the Conversion Value thereof, payable semiannually thereafter on each Bond Payment Date. (n) “Current Interest Bonds” means Bonds, the interest on which is payable semiannually on each Bond Payment Date specified therefor, and maturing in the years and amounts set forth in the Purchase Contract. (o) “Dated Date” means the date of initial issuance and delivery of the Bonds, or such other date as shall appear in the Purchase Contract or Official Statement. (p) “Denominational Amount” means the initial Principal Amount of any Capital Appreciation Bond or Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond. (q) “Depository” means the entity acting as securities depository for the Bonds pursuant to Section 6(c) hereof. (r) “DTC” means The Depository Trust Company, 55 Water Street, New York, New York 10041, a limited purpose trust company organized under the laws of the State of New York, in its capacity as the initial Depository for the Bonds. (s) “Fair Market Value” means the price at which a willing buyer would purchase the investment from a willing seller in a bona fide, arm's length transaction (determined as of the date the contract to purchase or sell the investment becomes binding) if the investment is traded on an established securities market (within the meaning of section 1273 of the Code) and, otherwise, the term “Fair Market Value” means the acquisition price in a bona fide arm's length transaction (as referenced above) if (i) the investment is a certificate of deposit that is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations under the Code, (ii) the investment is an agreement with specifically negotiated withdrawal or reinvestment provisions and a specifically negotiated interest rate (for example, a guaranteed investment contract, a forward supply contract or other investment agreement) that is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations under the Code, (iii) the investment is a United States Treasury Security—State and Local Government Series that is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations of the United States Bureau of Public Debt, or (iv) any commingled investment fund in which the District and related parties do not own more than a ten percent (10%) April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 412 6 beneficial interest therein if the return paid by the fund is without regard to the source of the investment. (t) “Holder” or “Owner” means the registered owner of a Bond as set forth on the Bond Register maintained by the Paying Agent pursuant to Section 8 hereof. (u) “Information Services” means Financial Information, Inc.’s Financial Daily Called Bond Service; Mergent, Inc.’s Called Bond Department; or Standard & Poor’s J.J. Kenny Information Services’ Called Bond Service. (v) “Long Current Interest Bonds” means Current Interest Bonds which mature more than 30 years from the date of issuance thereof, but not greater than 40 years. (w) “Maturity Value” means the Accreted Value of any Capital Appreciation Bond on its maturity date. (x) “Moody’s” means Moody’s Investors Service, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, its successor and assigns or, if such corporation shall be dissolved or liquidated or no longer shall perform the functions of a securities rating agency, such other nationally recognized securities rating agency as may be designated by the District. (y) “Nominee” means the nominee of the Depository, which may be the Depository, as determined from time to time pursuant to Section 6(c) hereof. (z) “Non-AMT Bonds” means obligations the interest on which is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103(a) of the Code and not treated as an item of tax preference under Section 57(a)(5)(C) of the Code, that are legal investments pursuant to Section 53601 of the Government Code of the State of California. (aa) “Official Statement” means the Official Statement for the Bonds, as described in Section 17 hereof. (bb) “Outstanding” means, when used with reference to the Bonds, as of any date, Bonds theretofore issued or thereupon being issued under this Resolution except: (i) Bonds canceled at or prior to such date; (ii) Bonds in lieu of or in substitution for which other Bonds shall have been delivered pursuant to Section 8 hereof; or (iii) Bonds for the payment or redemption of which funds or Government Obligations in the necessary amount shall have been set aside (whether on or prior to the maturity or redemption date of such Bonds), in accordance with Section 19 of this Resolution. (cc) “Participants” means those broker-dealers, banks and other financial institutions from time to time for which the Depository holds book-entry certificates as securities depository. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 413 7 (dd) “Paying Agent” means, initially, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Compnay, N.A., and afterwards any successor thereto, acting as the authenticating agent, bond registrar, transfer agent and paying agent for the Bonds. (ee) “Permitted Investments” means (i) any lawful investments permitted by Section 16429.1 and Section 53601 of the Government Code, including Non-AMT Bonds and Qualified Non-AMT Mutual Funds, (ii) shares in a California common law trust established pursuant to Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5 of the Government Code which invests exclusively in investments permitted by Section 53635 of the Government Code, but without regard to any limitations in such Section concerning the percentage of moneys available for investment being invested in a particular type of security, (iii) a guaranteed investment contract with a provider rated in at least the second highest category by each Rating Agency then rating the Bonds, and approved by the Bond Insurer, if any, (iv) the Local Agency Investments Fund of the California State Treasurer, (v) the County investment pool maintained by the Treasurer, and (vi) United States Treasury Securities, State and Local Government Series. (ff) “Principal” or “Principal Amount” means, with respect to any Current Interest Bond, the Principal Amount thereof, with respect to any Capital Appreciation Bond or Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond, the Denominational Amount thereof. (gg) “Qualified Non-AMT Mutual Fund” means stock in a regulated investment company to the extent that at least 95% of the income of such regulated investment company is interest that is excludable from gross income under Section 103 of the Code and not an item of tax preference under Section 57(a)(5)(C) of the Code. (hh) “Qualified Permitted Investments” means (i) Non-AMT Bonds, (ii) Qualified Non-AMT Mutual Funds, (iii) other Permitted Investments authorized by an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that such investment would not adversely affect the tax-exempt status of the Bonds, and (iv) Permitted Investments of proceeds of the Bonds, and interest earned on such proceeds, held not more than thirty days pending reinvestment or Bond redemption. A guaranteed investment contract or similar investment agreement (e.g. a forward supply contract, GIC, repo, etc.) does not constitute a Qualified Permitted Investment. (ii) “Record Date” means the close of business on the 15th day of the month preceding each Bond Payment Date. (jj) “Securities Depository” means The Depository Trust Company, 55 Water Street, New York, New York 10041. (kk) “Series” means any Bonds executed, authenticated and delivered pursuant to the provisions hereof which are identified as a separate series of Bonds. (ll) “S&P” means Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services, a Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC business, its successor and assigns, or if such entity shall be dissolved or liquidated or shall no longer perform the functions of a securities rating agency, such other nationally recognized securities rating agency as may be designated by the District. (mm) “Taxable Bonds” means any Bonds the interest on which is not excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 414 8 (nn) “Tax-Exempt Bonds” means any Bonds the interest in which is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not treated as an item of tax preference for purposes of calculating the federal alternative minimum tax, as further described in an opinion of Bond Counsel supplied to the original purchasers of such Bonds. (oo) “Term Bonds” means those Bonds for which mandatory redemption dates have been established in the Purchase Contract. (pp) “Transfer Amount” means, (i) with respect to any Outstanding Current Interest Bond, the Principal Amount, (ii) with respect to any Outstanding Capital Appreciation Bond, the Maturity Value, and (iii) with respect to any Outstanding Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds, the Conversion Value. (qq) “Treasurer” means the Treasurer-Tax Collector of Contra Costa County. (rr) “Underwriter” means RBC Capital Markets, LLC, as underwriter of the Bonds. SECTION 6. Terms of the Bonds. (a) Denominations, Interest, Dated Dates and Terms. The Bonds shall be issued as fully registered book-entry bonds in the following denominations: (i) with respect to the Current Interest Bonds, $5,000 Principal Amount or any integral multiple thereof, (ii) with respect to the Capital Appreciation Bonds, $5,000 Maturity Value, or any integral multiple thereof (except for one odd denomination, if necessary), and (iii) with respect to Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds, $5,000 Conversion Value or any integral multiple thereof. The Bonds will initially be registered in the name of “Cede & Co.,” the Nominee of the Depository Trust Company, New York, New York. Each Current Interest Bond shall be dated as of the Dated Date, and shall bear interest from the Bond Payment Date next preceding the date of authentication thereof unless it is authenticated during the period from the 16th day of the month next preceding any Bond Payment Date to that Bond Payment Date, inclusive, in which event it shall bear interest from such Bond Payment Date, or unless it is authenticated on or before the first Record Date, in which event it shall bear interest from its Dated Date. Interest shall be payable on the respective Bond Payment Dates and shall be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of 12, 30-day months. The Capital Appreciation Bonds shall mature in the years, shall be issued in aggregate Principal Amounts, and shall have Accretion Rates and denominations per each $5,000 in Maturity Value (except for one odd denomination, if necessary) as shown in the Accreted Value Table attached to the Official Statement or Purchase Contract. The Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds shall mature in the years, shall be issued in the aggregate Principal Amounts, and shall have Accretion Rates and denominations per each $5,000 in Conversion Value as shown in such Accreted Value Table; provided, however, that in the event that the amount shown in such Accreted Value Table and the Accreted Value caused to be calculated by the District and approved by the Bond Insurer, if any, by application of the definition of Accreted Value set forth in Section 5 differ, the latter amount shall be the Accreted Value of such Capital Appreciation Bond or Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond, as applicable. Each Capital Appreciation Bond shall be dated, and shall accrete interest from, its date of initial delivery. Capital Appreciation Bonds will not bear interest on a current or periodic basis. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 415 9 Prior to their respective Conversion Dates, each Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond shall not bear current, periodic interest but shall accrete in value through the Conversion Date thereof, from its Denominational Amount on the Date of Delivery thereof to its Conversion Value on the applicable Conversion Date. No payment will be made to the Owners of Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds on the respective Conversion Dates thereof. From and after its Conversion Date, each Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond will bear current, periodic interest, and such interest will accrue based upon the Conversion Value of such Bonds at the Conversion Date. Following their respective Conversion Dates, each Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond shall bear interest from the Bond Payment Date next preceding the date of authentication thereof, unless it is authenticated during the period from the 16th day of the month next preceding any Bond Payment Date to that Bond Payment Date, inclusive, in which event it shall bear interest from such Bond Payment Date, or unless it is authenticated on or before the first Record Date after the Conversion Date, in which event it will bear interest from the Conversion Date. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the ratio of total debt service to principal for each Series of Bonds shall not exceed four-to-one, and Capital Appreciation Bonds and Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds may not mature more than 25 years from their respective dates of issuance. (b) Redemption. (i) Terms of Redemption. The Bonds shall be subject to optional or mandatory sinking fund redemption prior to maturity as provided in the Purchase Contract or the Official Statement; provided, however, that, notwithstanding any other provision herein, any Capital Appreciation Bond or Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond maturing more than 10 years after its date of issuance shall be subject to redemption before its fixed maturity date, with or without premium, at any time, or from time to time, at the option of the District, beginning no later than the 10th anniversary of the date such Bond is issued. (ii) Selection of Bonds for Redemption. Whenever provision is made in this Resolution for the optional redemption of Bonds and less than all Outstanding Bonds are to be redeemed, the Paying Agent, upon written instruction from the District, shall select Bonds for redemption as so directed and if not directed, in inverse order of maturity. Within a maturity, the Paying Agent shall select Bonds for redemption as directed by the District and, if not so directed, by lot. Redemption by lot shall be in such manner as the Paying Agent shall determine; provided, however, that (A) the portion of any Current Interest Bond to be redeemed in part shall be in the Principal Amount of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, (B) the portion of any Capital Appreciation Bond to be redeemed in part shall be in integral multiples of the Accreted Value per $5,000 Maturity Value thereof, and (C) the portion of any Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond to be redeemed in part shall be in integral multiples of the Accreted Value per $5,000 Conversion Value thereof. The Purchase Contract may provide that (i) in the event that any portion of Term Bonds subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption is optionally redeemed prior to maturity, the remaining mandatory sinking fund payments with respect to such Bonds shall be reduced proportionately, or as otherwise directed by the District, in integral multiples of $5,000 Principal Amount (or Maturity Value or Conversion Value, as applicable), in respect of the portion of such Bonds optionally redeemed, and (ii) within a maturity, Bonds shall be selected for redemption on a “Pro Rata Pass-Through Distribution of Principal” basis in accordance with DTC procedures, provided further that, such redemption is made in accordance with the operational arrangements of DTC then in effect. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 416 10 (iii) Notice of Redemption. When redemption is authorized or required pursuant to Section 6(b) hereof, the Paying Agent, upon written instruction from the District, shall give notice (a “Redemption Notice”) of the redemption of the Bonds. Such Redemption Notice shall specify: the Bonds or designated portions thereof (in the case of redemption of the Bonds in part but not in whole) which are to be redeemed, the date of redemption, the place or places where the redemption will be made, including the name and address of the Paying Agent, the redemption price, the CUSIP numbers (if any) assigned to the Bonds to be redeemed, the Bond numbers of the Bonds to be redeemed in whole or in part and, in the case of any Bond to be redeemed in part only, the Principal Amount, Accreted Value or Conversion Value, as applicable, to be redeemed, and the original issue date, interest rate or Accretion Rate and stated maturity date of each Bond to be redeemed in whole or in part. Such Redemption Notice shall further state that on the specified date there shall become due and payable upon each Bond or portion thereof being redeemed at the redemption price thereof, together with the interest accrued or accreted to the redemption date, and that from and after such date, interest thereon shall cease to accrue or accrete. The Paying Agent shall take the following actions with respect to each such Redemption Notice: (a) At least 20 but not more than 45 days prior to the redemption date, such Redemption Notice shall be given to the respective Owners of Bonds designated for redemption by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, at their addresses appearing on the Bond Register. (b) At least 20 but not more than 45 days prior to the redemption date, such Redemption Notice shall be given by (i) registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, (ii) telephonically confirmed facsimile transmission, or (iii) overnight delivery service, to the Securities Depository. (c) At least 20 but not more than 45 days prior to the redemption date, such Redemption Notice shall be given by (i) registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, or (ii) overnight delivery service, to one of the Information Services. (d) Such Redemption Notice shall be given to such other persons as may be required pursuant to the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. A certificate of the Paying Agent or the District that a Redemption Notice has been given as provided herein shall be conclusive as against all parties. Neither failure to receive any Redemption Notice nor any defect in any such Redemption Notice so given shall affect the sufficiency of the proceedings for the redemption of the affected Bonds. Each check issued or other transfer of funds made by the Paying Agent for the purpose of redeeming Bonds shall bear or include the CUSIP number identifying, by issue and maturity, the Bonds being redeemed with the proceeds of such check or other transfer. Such Redemption Notice may state that no representation is made as to the accuracy or correctness of CUSIP numbers printed thereon, or on the Bonds. With respect to any notice of optional redemption of Bonds (or portions thereof) pursuant to Section 6(b)(i) hereof, unless upon the giving of such notice such Bonds or portions thereof shall be deemed to have been defeased pursuant to Section 19 hereof, such notice shall state that such redemption shall be conditional upon the receipt by an independent escrow agent selected by the District on or prior to the date fixed for such redemption of the moneys necessary and sufficient to pay April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 417 11 the Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of, premium, if any, and interest on, such Bonds (or portions thereof) to be redeemed, and that if such moneys shall not have been so received said notice shall be of no force and effect, no portion of the Bonds shall be subject to redemption on such date and such Bonds shall not be required to be redeemed on such date. In the event that such Redemption Notice contains such a condition and such moneys are not so received, the redemption shall not be made and the Paying Agent shall within a reasonable time thereafter (but in no event later than the date originally set for redemption) give notice to the persons to whom and in the manner in which the Redemption Notice was given that such moneys were not so received. In addition, the District shall have the right to rescind any Redemption Notice, by written notice to the Paying Agent, on or prior to the date fixed for redemption. The Paying Agent shall distribute a notice of rescission of such Redemption Notice in the same manner as such Redemption Notice was originally provided. (iv) Partial Redemption of Bonds. Upon the surrender of any Bond redeemed in part only, the Paying Agent shall execute and deliver to the Owner thereof a new Bond or Bonds of like tenor and maturity and of authorized denominations equal in Transfer Amount to the unredeemed portion of the Bond surrendered. Such partial redemption shall be valid upon payment of the amount required to be paid to such Owner, and the District shall be released and discharged thereupon from all liability to the extent of such payment. (v) Effect of Redemption Notice. Notice having been given as aforesaid, and the moneys for the redemption (including the interest accrued to the applicable date of redemption) having been set aside as provided in Section 19 hereof, the Bonds to be redeemed shall become due and payable on such date of redemption. If on such redemption date, money for the redemption of all the Bonds to be redeemed as provided in Section 6(b) hereof, together with interest accrued to such redemption date, shall be held in trust as provided in Section 19 hereof so as to be available therefor on such redemption date, and if a Redemption Notice thereof shall have been given as aforesaid, then from and after such redemption date, interest on the Bonds to be redeemed shall cease to accrue or accrete and become payable. All money held for the redemption of Bonds shall be held in trust for the account of the Owners of the Bonds so to be redeemed. (vi) Bonds No Longer Outstanding. When any Bonds (or portions thereof), which have been duly called for redemption prior to maturity under the provisions of this Resolution, or with respect to which irrevocable instructions to call for redemption prior to maturity at the earliest redemption date have been given to the Paying Agent, in form satisfactory to it, and sufficient moneys shall be held irrevocably in trust for the payment of the redemption price of such Bonds or portions thereof, and, in the case of Current Interest Bonds and Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds after the Conversion Date, accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption, all as provided in this Resolution, then such Bonds shall no longer be deemed Outstanding and shall be surrendered to the Paying Agent for cancellation. All Bonds paid at maturity or redeemed prior to maturity pursuant to the provisions of this Section 6 shall be cancelled upon surrender thereof and be delivered to or upon the order of the District. All or any portion of a Bond purchased by the District shall be cancelled by the Paying Agent. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 418 12 (c) Book-Entry System. (i) Election of Book-Entry System. The Bonds shall initially be delivered in the form of a separate single fully-registered bond (which may be typewritten) for each maturity date of such Bonds in an authorized denomination. The ownership of each such Bond shall be registered in the Bond Register in the name of the Nominee, as nominee of the Depository and ownership of the Bonds, or any portion thereof may not thereafter be transferred except as provided in Section 6(c)(i)(4). With respect to book-entry Bonds, the District and the Paying Agent shall have no responsibility or obligation to any Participant or to any person on behalf of which such a Participant holds an interest in such book-entry Bonds. Without limiting the immediately preceding sentence, the District and the Paying Agent shall have no responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of the Depository, the Nominee, or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in book-entry Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any other person, other than an Owner as shown in the Bond Register, of any notice with respect to book-entry Bonds, including any Redemption Notice, (iii) the selection by the Depository and its Participants of the beneficial interests in book-entry Bonds to be prepaid in the event the District redeems the Bonds in part, or (iv) the payment by the Depository or any Participant or any other person, of any amount with respect to Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of, premium, if any, or interest on the book-entry Bonds. The District and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each book-entry Bond is registered in the Bond Register as the absolute Owner of such book-entry Bond for the purpose of payment of Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of, premium and interest on and to such Bond, for the purpose of giving notices of redemption and other matters with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bond, and for all other purposes whatsoever. The Paying Agent shall pay all Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to or upon the order of the respective Owner, as shown in the Bond Register, or his respective attorney duly authorized in writing, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the District’s obligations with respect to payment of Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of, and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than an Owner, as shown in the Bond Register, shall receive a certificate evidencing the obligation to make payments of Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of, and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. Upon delivery by the Depository to the Owner and the Paying Agent, of written notice to the effect that the Depository has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of the Nominee, and subject to the provisions herein with respect to the Record Date, the word Nominee in this Resolution shall refer to such nominee of the Depository. 1. Delivery of Letter of Representations. In order to qualify the book-entry Bonds for the Depository’s book-entry system, the District and the Paying Agent shall execute and deliver to the Depository a Letter of Representations. The execution and delivery of a Letter of Representations shall not in any way impose upon the District or the Paying Agent any obligation whatsoever with respect to persons having interests in such book-entry Bonds other than the Owners, as shown on the Bond Register. By executing a Letter of Representations, the Paying Agent shall agree to take all action necessary at all times so that the District will be in compliance with all representations of the District in such Letter of Representations. In addition to the execution and delivery of a Letter of Representations, the District and the Paying Agent shall take such other actions, not inconsistent with this Resolution, as are reasonably necessary to qualify book-entry Bonds for the Depository’s book-entry program. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 419 13 2. Selection of Depository. In the event (i) the Depository determines not to continue to act as securities depository for book-entry Bonds, or (ii) the District determines that continuation of the book-entry system is not in the best interest of the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds or the District, then the District will discontinue the book-entry system with the Depository. If the District determines to replace the Depository with another qualified securities depository, the District shall prepare or direct the preparation of a new single, separate, fully registered bond for each maturity date of such Outstanding book-entry Bond, registered in the name of such successor or substitute qualified securities depository or its Nominee as provided in subsection (4) hereof. If the District fails to identify another qualified securities depository to replace the Depository, then the Bonds shall no longer be restricted to being registered in such Bond Register in the name of the Nominee, but shall be registered in whatever name or names the Owners transferring or exchanging such Bonds shall designate, in accordance with the provisions of this Section 6(c). 3. Payments and Notices to Depository. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to the contrary, so long as all Outstanding Bonds are held in book-entry form and registered in the name of the Nominee, all payments by the District or the Paying Agent with respect to Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds and all notices with respect to such Bonds, including Redemption Notices, shall be made and given, respectively to the Nominee, as provided in the Letter of Representations or as otherwise required or instructed by the Depository and agreed to by the Paying Agent notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions herein. 4. Transfer of Bonds to Substitute Depository. (A) The Bonds shall be initially issued as described in the Official Statement described herein. Registered ownership of such Bonds, or any portions thereof, may not thereafter be transferred except: (1) to any successor of DTC or its nominee, or of any substitute depository designated pursuant to Section 6(c)(i)(4)(A)(2) (“Substitute Depository”); provided that any successor of DTC or Substitute Depository shall be qualified under any applicable laws to provide the service proposed to be provided by it; (2) to any Substitute Depository, upon (1) the resignation of DTC or its successor (or any Substitute Depository or its successor) from its functions as depository, or (2) a determination by the District that DTC (or its successor) is no longer able to carry out its functions as depository; provided that any such Substitute Depository shall be qualified under any applicable laws to provide the services proposed to be provided by it; or (3) to any person as provided below, upon (1) the resignation of DTC or its successor (or any Substitute Depository or its successor) from its functions as depository, or (2) a determination by the District that DTC or its successor (or Substitute Depository or its successor) is no longer able to carry out its functions as depository. (B) In the case of any transfer pursuant to Section 6(c)(i)(4)(A)(1) or (2), upon receipt of all Outstanding Bonds by the Paying Agent, together with a written request of the April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 420 14 District to the Paying Agent designating the Substitute Depository, a single new Bond, which the District shall prepare or cause to be prepared, shall be executed and delivered for each maturity of Bonds then Outstanding, registered in the name of such successor or such Substitute Depository or their Nominees, as the case may be, all as specified in such written request of the District. In the case of any transfer pursuant to Section 6(c)(i)(4)(A)(3), upon receipt of all Outstanding Bonds by the Paying Agent, together with a written request of the District to the Paying Agent, new Bonds, which the District shall prepare or cause to be prepared, shall be executed and delivered in such denominations and registered in the names of such persons as are requested in such written request of the District, provided that the Paying Agent shall not be required to deliver such new Bonds within a period of less than sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of such written request from the District. (C) In the case of a partial redemption or an advance refunding of any Bonds evidencing a portion of the Principal, Maturity Value, or Conversion Value maturing in a particular year, DTC or its successor (or any Substitute Depository or its successor) shall make an appropriate notation on such Bonds indicating the date and amounts of such reduction in Principal, Maturity Value or Conversion Value, in form acceptable to the Paying Agent, all in accordance with the Letter of Representations. The Paying Agent shall not be liable for such Depository’s failure to make such notations or errors in making such notations. (D) The District and the Paying Agent shall be entitled to treat the person in whose name any Bond is registered as the Owner thereof for all purposes of this Resolution and any applicable laws, notwithstanding any notice to the contrary received by the Paying Agent or the District; and the District and the Paying Agent shall not have responsibility for transmitting payments to, communicating with, notifying, or otherwise dealing with any Beneficial Owners of the Bonds. Neither the District nor the Paying Agent shall have any responsibility or obligation, legal or otherwise, to any such Beneficial Owners or to any other party, including DTC or its successor (or Substitute Depository or its successor), except to the Owner of any Bonds, and the Paying Agent may rely conclusively on its records as to the identity of the Owners of the Bonds. SECTION 7. Execution of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be signed by the President of the Board, or other member of the Board authorized to sign on behalf of the President, by his or her manual or facsimile signature and countersigned by the manual or facsimile signature of the Secretary to or Clerk of the Board, or the designee thereof, all in their official capacities. No Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or shall be entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until the certificate of authentication printed on the Bond is signed by the Paying Agent as authenticating agent. Authentication by the Paying Agent shall be conclusive evidence that the Bond so authenticated has been duly issued, signed and delivered under this Resolution and is entitled to the security and benefit of this Resolution. SECTION 8. Paying Agent; Transfer and Exchange. So long as any of the Bonds remain Outstanding, the District will cause the Paying Agent to maintain and keep at its principal office all books and records necessary for the registration, exchange and transfer of the Bonds as provided in this Section. Subject to the provisions of Section 9 below, the person in whose name a Bond is registered on the Bond Register shall be regarded as the absolute Owner of that Bond for all purposes of this Resolution. Payment of or on account of the Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of, premium, if any, and interest on any Bond shall be made only to or upon the order of such Owner; neither the District nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice to the contrary, but the April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 421 15 registration may be changed as provided in this Section. All such payments shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the District’s liability upon the Bonds, including interest, to the extent of the amount or amounts so paid. Any Bond may be exchanged for a Bond of like Series, tenor, maturity and Transfer Amount upon presentation and surrender at the principal office of the Paying Agent, together with a request for exchange signed by the Owner or by a person legally empowered to do so in a form satisfactory to the Paying Agent. A Bond may be transferred on the Bond Register only upon presentation and surrender of the Bond at the principal office of the Paying Agent together with an assignment executed by the Owner or by a person legally empowered to do so in a form satisfactory to the Paying Agent. Upon exchange or transfer, the Paying Agent shall complete, authenticate and deliver a new bond or bonds of like tenor and of any authorized denomination or denominations requested by the Owner equal to the Transfer Amount of the Bond surrendered and bearing or accruing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date. Current Interest Bonds, Capital Appreciation Bonds and Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds may not be exchanged for one another. If any Bond shall become mutilated, the District, at the expense of the Owner of said Bond, shall execute, and the Paying Agent shall thereupon authenticate and deliver, a new Bond of like Series, tenor, maturity and Transfer Amount in exchange and substitution for the Bond so mutilated, but only upon surrender to the Paying Agent of the Bond so mutilated. If any Bond issued hereunder shall be lost, destroyed or stolen, evidence of such loss, destruction or theft may be submitted to the Paying Agent and, if such evidence be satisfactory to the Paying Agent and indemnity for the Paying Agent and the District satisfactory to the Paying Agent shall be given by the Owner, the District, at the expense of the Owner, shall execute, and the Paying Agent shall thereupon authenticate and deliver, a new Bond of like Series, tenor, maturity and Transfer Amount in lieu of and in substitution for the Bond so lost, destroyed or stolen (or if any such Bond shall have matured or shall have been called for redemption, instead of issuing a substitute Bond the Paying Agent may pay the same without surrender thereof upon receipt of indemnity satisfactory to the Paying Agent and the District). The Paying Agent may require payment of a reasonable fee for each new Bond issued under this paragraph and of the expenses which may be incurred by the District and the Paying Agent. If signatures on behalf of the District are required in connection with an exchange or transfer, the Paying Agent shall undertake the exchange or transfer of Bonds only after the new Bonds are signed by the authorized officers of the District. In all cases of exchanged or transferred Bonds, the District shall sign and the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver Bonds in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. All fees and costs of transfer shall be paid by the requesting party. Those charges may be required to be paid before the procedure is begun for the exchange or transfer. All Bonds issued upon any exchange or transfer shall be valid obligations of the District, evidencing the same debt, and entitled to the same security and benefit under this Resolution as the Bonds surrendered upon that exchange or transfer. Any Bond surrendered to the Paying Agent for payment, retirement, exchange, replacement or transfer shall be cancelled by the Paying Agent. The District may at any time deliver to the Paying Agent for cancellation any previously authenticated and delivered Bonds that the District may have acquired in any manner whatsoever, and those Bonds shall be promptly cancelled by the Paying Agent. Written reports of the surrender and cancellation of Bonds shall be made to the District by the Paying Agent as requested by the District. The cancelled Bonds shall be retained for three years, then returned to the District or destroyed by the Paying Agent as directed by the District. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 422 16 Neither the District nor the Paying Agent will be required to (a) issue or transfer any Bonds during a period beginning with the opening of business on the 16th day next preceding either any Bond Payment Date or any date of selection of Bonds to be redeemed and ending with the close of business on the Bond Payment Date or any day on which the applicable Redemption Notice is given or (b) transfer any Bonds which have been selected or called for redemption in whole or in part. SECTION 9. Payment. Payment of interest on any Current Interest Bond or Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond after its respective Conversion Date, shall be made on any Bond Payment Date to the person appearing on the registration books of the Paying Agent as the Owner thereof as of the Record Date immediately preceding such Bond Payment Date, such interest to be paid by wire transfer or check mailed to such Owner on the Bond Payment Date at his or her address as it appears on such registration books or at such other address as he or she may have filed with the Paying Agent for that purpose on or before the Record Date. The Owner in an aggregate Principal Amount, Conversion Value or Maturity Value of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) or more may request in writing to the Paying Agent that such Owner be paid interest by wire transfer to the bank and account number on file with the Paying Agent as of the Record Date. The Principal, and redemption premiums, if any, payable on the Current Interest Bonds, the Accreted Value and redemption premiums, if any, on the Capital Appreciation Bonds, and the Conversion Value and redemption premiums, if any, on Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds shall be payable upon maturity or redemption upon surrender at the principal office of the Paying Agent. The Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of, and premiums, if any, and interest on, the Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. The Paying Agent is hereby authorized to pay the Bonds when duly presented for payment at maturity, and to cancel all Bonds upon payment thereof. The Bonds are obligations of the District payable solely from the levy of ad valorem property taxes upon all property within the District subject to taxation, which taxes shall be without limit as to rate or amount. The Bonds do not constitute an obligation of the County except as provided in this Resolution, and no part of any fund of the County is pledged or obligated to the payment of the Bonds. SECTION 10. Forms of Bonds. The Bonds shall be in substantially the form as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, allowing those officials executing the Bonds to make the insertions and deletions necessary to conform the Bonds to this Resolution and the Purchase Contract. SECTION 11. Delivery of Bonds. The proper officials of the District shall cause the Bonds to be prepared and, following their sale, shall have the Bonds signed and delivered, together with a true transcript of proceedings with reference to the issuance of the Bonds, to the Underwriter upon payment of the purchase price therefor. SECTION 12. Deposit of Proceeds of Bonds. The purchase price received from the Underwriter pursuant to the Purchase Contract, to the extent of the Principal Amount thereof, shall be paid to the County to the credit of the fund hereby authorized to be created to be known as the “Acalanes Union High School District Election of 2008 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016C Building Fund” (the “Building Fund”) of the District, shall be kept separate and distinct from all other District and County funds, and those proceeds shall be used solely for the purpose for which the Bonds are being issued and provided further that such proceeds shall be applied solely to the purposes authorized by the voters of the District at the Election. The County shall have no responsibility for assuring the proper use of the Bond proceeds by the District. The Building Fund may contain subaccounts if the Bonds are issued in more than one Series. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 423 17 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the proceeds of the Bonds received by the District allocable to the repayment of the 2014 Notes, and other funds of the District lawfully available for the purpose of repaying the 2014 Notes, are authorized to be deposited into an escrow fund created for the purpose therefor. The escrow agreement for the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds designated for the payment of the 2014 Notes, by and between District and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Compnay, N.A., as escrow agent therefor, substantially in the form on file with the Secretary to the Board, is hereby approved and the Authorized Officers, each alone, are hereby authorized to execute and deliver the Escrow Agreement, with such changes therein, deletions therefrom and modifications thereto as the Authorized Officer executing the same may approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by his or her execution and delivery thereof. The purchase price received from the Underwriter pursuant to the Purchase Contract, to the extent of any accrued interest and any net original issue premium, shall be kept separate and apart in the fund hereby authorized to be created and designated as the “Acalanes Union High School District Election of 2008 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016C Debt Service Fund” (the “Debt Service Fund”) for the Bonds and used for payment of Principal of and interest on the Bonds, and for no other purpose. The Debt Service Fund may contain subaccounts if the Bonds are issued in more than one Series. Interest earnings on monies held in the Building Fund shall be retained in the Building Fund. Interest earnings on monies held in the Debt Service Fund shall be retained in the Debt Service Fund. Any excess proceeds of the Bonds not needed for the authorized purposes set forth herein for which the Bonds are being issued upon written notice from the District shall be transferred to the Debt Service Fund and applied to the payment of the Principal of and interest on the Bonds. If, after payment in full of the Bonds, there remain excess proceeds, any such excess amounts shall be transferred to the general fund of the District. The costs of issuance of the Bonds are hereby authorized to be paid either from premium withheld by the Underwriter upon the sale of the Bonds, or from the Principal Amount of the Bonds received from the Underwriter. To the extent costs of issuance are paid from such Principal Amount, the District may direct that a portion thereof, in an amount not-to-exceed 2.0% of such Principal Amount, in lieu of being deposited into the Building Fund, be deposited in a costs of issuance account to be held by a fiscal agent of the District appointed for such purpose. Any excess moneys in the cost of issuance account remaining after payment of all costs of issuance shall be transferred to the County for deposit into the Building Fund or Debt Service Fund, as appropriate. (b) Moneys in the Debt Service Fund and the Building Fund shall be invested in Permitted Investments. If at the time of issuance the District determines to issue the Bonds as Tax-Exempt Bonds without regard to the Internal Revenue Code “temporary period” restrictions, all investment of Bond proceeds shall be subject to paragraph (1) below; and the District, in consultation with the County, may provide for an agent to assist the County in investing funds pursuant to paragraph (1) below. If the District fails to direct the County or its agent, as the case may be, the County or its agent shall invest or cause the funds in the Building Fund to be invested in Qualified Permitted Investments, subject to the provisions of paragraph (1) below, until such time as the District provides written direction to invest such funds otherwise. Neither the County nor its officers and agents, as the case may be, shall have any responsibility or obligation to determine the tax consequences of any investment. The interest earned on the moneys deposited to the Building Fund shall be applied as set forth in subparagraph (1)(C) below: (1) Covenant Regarding Investment of Proceeds. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 424 18 (A) Permitted Investments. Beginning on the delivery date, and at all times until expenditure for authorized purposes, not less than 95% of the proceeds of the Bonds deposited in the Building Fund, including investment earnings thereon, will be invested in Qualified Permitted Investments. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Section, for purposes of this paragraph, amounts derived from the disposition or redemption of Qualified Permitted Investments and held pending reinvestment or redemption for a period of not more than 30 days may be invested in Permitted Investments. The District hereby authorizes investments made pursuant to this Resolution with maturities exceeding five years. (B) Recordkeeping and Monitoring Relating to Building Fund. i. Information Regarding Permitted Investments. The District hereby covenants that it will record or cause to be recorded with respect to each Permitted Investment in the Building Fund the following information: purchase date; purchase price; information establishing the Fair Market Value of such Permitted Investment; face amount; coupon rate; periodicity of interest payments; disposition price; disposition date; and any accrued interest received upon disposition. ii. Information in Qualified Non-AMT Mutual Funds. The District hereby covenants that, with respect to each investment of proceeds of the Bonds in a Qualified Non-AMT Mutual Fund pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) above, in addition to recording, or causing to be recorded, the information set forth in paragraph (1)(B)(i) above, it will retain a copy of each IRS information reporting form and account statement provided by such Qualified Non-AMT Mutual Fund. iii. Monthly Investment Fund Statements. The District covenants that it will obtain, at the beginning of each month following the delivery date, a statement of the investments in the Building Fund detailing the nature, amount and value of each investment as of such statement date. iv. Retention of Records. The District hereby covenants that it will retain the records referred to in paragraph (1)(B)(i) and each IRS information reporting form referred to in paragraph (1)(B)(ii) with its books and records with respect to the Bonds until three years following the last date that any obligation comprising the Bonds is retired. (C) Interest Earned on Permitted Investments. The interest earned on the moneys deposited in the Building Fund shall be deposited in the Building Fund and used for the purposes of that fund. Except as required to satisfy the requirements of Section 148(f) of the Code, interest earned on the investment of moneys held in the Debt Service Fund shall be retained in the Debt Service Fund and used by the County to pay the Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of and interest on the Bonds when due. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 425 19 SECTION 13. Rebate Fund. The following provisions shall apply to any Bonds issued as Tax-Exempt Bonds. (a) The District shall create and establish a special fund designated the “Acalanes Union High School District Election of 2008 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016C Rebate Fund” (the “Rebate Fund”). All amounts at any time on deposit in the Rebate Fund shall be held in trust, to the extent required to satisfy the requirement to make rebate payments to the United States (the “Rebate Requirement”) pursuant to Section 148 of the Code, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder (the “Treasury Regulations”). Such amounts shall be free and clear of any lien hereunder and shall be governed by this Section and by the Tax Certificate to be executed by the District in connection with the Tax-Exempt Bonds (the “Tax Certificate”). (b) Within 45 days of the end of each fifth Bond Year (as such term is defined in the Tax Certificate), (1) the District shall calculate or cause to be calculated with respect to the Bonds the amount that would be considered the “rebate amount” within the meaning of Section 1.148-3 of the Treasury Regulations, using as the “computation date” for this purpose the end of such Bond Year, and (2) the District shall deposit to the Rebate Fund from amounts on deposit in the other funds established hereunder or from other District funds, if and to the extent required, amounts sufficient to cause the balance in the Rebate Fund to be equal to the “rebate amount” so calculated. The District shall not be required to deposit any amount to the Rebate Fund in accordance with the preceding sentence, if the amount on deposit in the Rebate Fund prior to the deposit required to be made under this subsection (b) equals or exceeds the “rebate amount” calculated in accordance with the preceding sentence. Such excess may be withdrawn from the Rebate Fund to the extent permitted under subsection (g) of this Section. The District shall not be required to calculate the “rebate amount” and shall not be required to deposit any amount to the Rebate Fund in accordance with this subsection (b), with respect to all or a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds (including amounts treated as proceeds of the Bonds) (1) to the extent such proceeds satisfy the expenditure requirements of Section 148(f)(4)(B) or Section 148(f)(4)(C) of the Code or Section 1.148-7(d) of the Treasury Regulations, whichever is applicable, and otherwise qualify for the exception to the Rebate Requirement pursuant to whichever of said sections is applicable, (2) to the extent such proceeds are subject to an election by the District under Section 148(f)(4)(C)(vii) of the Code to pay a one and one-half percent (1½%) penalty in lieu of arbitrage rebate in the event any of the percentage expenditure requirements of Section 148(f)(4)(C) are not satisfied, or (3) to the extent such proceeds qualify for the exception to arbitrage rebate under Section 148(f)(4)(A)(ii) of the Code for amounts in a “bona fide debt service fund.” In such event, and with respect to such amounts, the District shall not be required to deposit any amount to the Rebate Fund in accordance with this subsection (b). (c) Any funds remaining in the Rebate Fund after redemption of all the Bonds and any amounts described in paragraph (2) of subsection (d) of this Section, or provision made therefor satisfactory to the District, including accrued interest, shall be remitted to the District. (d) Subject to the exceptions contained in subsection (b) of this Section to the requirement to calculate the “rebate amount” and make deposits to the Rebate Fund, the District shall pay to the United States, from amounts on deposit in the Rebate Fund, (1) not later than 60 days after the end of (i) the fifth Bond Year, and (ii) each fifth Bond Year thereafter, an amount that, together with all previous rebate payments, is equal to at least 90% of the “rebate amount” calculated as of the end of such Bond Year in accordance with Section 1.148-3 of the Treasury Regulations; and April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 426 20 (2) not later than 60 days after the payment of all Bonds, an amount equal to 100% of the “rebate amount” calculated as of the date of such payment (and any income attributable to the “rebate amount” determined to be due and payable) in accordance with Section 1.148-3 of the Treasury Regulations. (e) In the event that, prior to the time any payment is required to be made from the Rebate Fund, the amount in the Rebate Fund is not sufficient to make such payment when such payment is due, the District shall calculate (or have calculated) the amount of such deficiency and deposit an amount equal to such deficiency into the Rebate Fund prior to the time such payment is due. (f) Each payment required to be made pursuant to subsection (d) of this Section shall be made to the Internal Revenue Service, on or before the date on which such payment is due, and shall be accompanied by Internal Revenue Service Form 8038-T, such form to be prepared or caused to be prepared by the District. (g) In the event that immediately following the calculation required by subsection (b) of this Section, but prior to any deposit made under said subsection, the amount on deposit in the Rebate Fund exceeds the “rebate amount” calculated in accordance with said subsection, the District may withdraw the excess from the Rebate Fund and credit such excess to the Debt Service Fund. (h) The District shall retain records of all determinations made hereunder until three years after the complete retirement of the Bonds. (i) Notwithstanding anything in this Resolution to the contrary, the Rebate Requirement shall survive the payment in full or defeasance of the Bonds. SECTION 14. Security for the Bonds. There shall be levied on all the taxable property in the District, in addition to all other taxes, a continuing direct ad valorem property tax annually during the period the Bonds are Outstanding in an amount sufficient to pay the Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of and interest on the Bonds when due, which moneys when collected will be deposited in the Debt Service Fund of the District, and which fund is hereby designated for the payment of the Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of and interest on the Bonds when and as the same shall fall due, and for no other purpose. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 5450 and 5451, moneys on deposit in the Debt Service Fund are hereby pledged to the payment of the Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of and interest on the Bonds. The District covenants to cause the County to take all actions necessary to levy such ad valorem property tax in accordance with this Section 14. The Bonds shall, pursuant to Government Code Section 53515, be secured by a statutory lien on all revenues received pursuant to the levy and collection of ad valorem taxes for the payment of the Bonds. Pursuant to Government Code sections 5450 and 5451, the District hereby pledges all revenues received from the levy and collection ad valorem taxes for the payment of the Bonds and all amounts on deposit in the Debt Service Fund to the payment of the Bonds. Such pledge shall constitute a lien on and security interest in such taxes and amounts in the Debt Service Fund. This pledge shall constitute an agreement between the District and the Owners of the Bonds to provide security for the payment of the Bonds in addition to any statutory lien that may exist. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 427 21 The moneys in the Debt Service Fund, to the extent necessary to pay the Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due and payable, shall be transferred by the Treasurer to the Paying Agent which, in turn, shall pay such moneys to DTC to pay such Principal, Accreted Value, Conversion Value and interest. DTC will thereupon make payments of Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of and interest on the Bonds to the DTC Participants who will thereupon make payments of such Principal, Accreted Value, Conversion Value and interest to the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds. Any moneys remaining in the Debt Service Fund after the Bonds and the interest thereon have been paid in full, or provision for such payment has been made, shall be transferred to the general fund of the District, pursuant to Education Code Section 15234. SECTION 15. Arbitrage Covenant. The District covenants that it will restrict the use of the proceeds of the Bonds in such manner and to such extent, if any, as may be necessary, so that the Bonds will not constitute arbitrage bonds under Section 148 of the Code and the applicable regulations prescribed thereunder or any predecessor section. Calculations for determining arbitrage requirements are the sole responsibility of the District. SECTION 16. Conditions Precedent. The Board determines that all acts and conditions necessary to be performed by the Board or to have been met precedent to and in the issuing of the Bonds in order to make them legal, valid and binding general obligations of the District have been performed and have been met, or will at the time of delivery of the Bonds have been performed and have been met, in regular and due form as required by law; and that no statutory or constitutional limitation of indebtedness or taxation will have been exceeded in the issuance of the Bonds. SECTION 17. Official Statement. The Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds, substantially in the form on file with the Clerk of or Secretary to the Board is hereby approved and the Authorized Officers, each alone, are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the District, to deliver such Preliminary Official Statement to the Underwriter to be used in connection with the offering and sale of the Bonds. The Authorized Officers, each alone, are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the District, to deem the Preliminary Official Statement “final” pursuant to 15c2-12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, prior to its distribution and to execute and deliver to the Underwriter a final Official Statement, substantially in the form of the Preliminary Official Statement, with such changes therein, deletions therefrom and modifications thereto as the Authorized Officer executing the same shall approve. The Underwriter is hereby authorized to distribute copies of the Preliminary Official Statement to persons who may be interested in the purchase of the Bonds and is further directed to deliver copies of any final Official Statement to the purchasers of the Bonds. Execution of the Official Statement shall conclusively evidence the District’s approval of the Official Statement. SECTION 18. Insurance. In the event the District purchases bond insurance for the Bonds, and to the extent that the Bond Insurer makes payment of the Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of or interest on the Bonds, it shall become the Owner of such Bonds with the right to payment of such Principal, Accreted Value, Conversion Value or interest, and shall be fully subrogated to all of the Owners’ rights, including the Owners’ rights to payment thereof. To evidence such subrogation (i) in the case of subrogation as to claims that were past due interest components, the Paying Agent shall note the Bond Insurer’s rights as subrogee on the Bond Register for the Bonds maintained by the Paying Agent upon receipt of a copy of the cancelled check issued by the Bond Insurer for the payment of such interest to the Owners of the Bonds, and (ii) in the case of subrogation as to claims for past due Principal, Conversion Value or Accreted Value, the Paying Agent shall note the Bond Insurer as April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 428 22 subrogee on the Bond Register for the Bonds maintained by the Paying Agent upon surrender of the Bonds by the Owners thereof to the Bond Insurer or the insurance trustee for the Bond Insurer. SECTION 19. Defeasance. All or any portion of the Outstanding maturities of the Bonds may be defeased prior to maturity in the following ways: (a) Cash: by irrevocably depositing with an independent escrow agent selected by the District an amount of cash which together with amounts transferred from the Debt Service Fund, if any, is sufficient to pay all Bonds Outstanding and designated for defeasance (including all Principal, Accreted Value or Conversion Value thereof, accrued interest thereon and redemption premiums, if any) at or before their maturity date; or (b) Government Obligations: by irrevocably depositing with an independent escrow agent selected by the District noncallable Government Obligations together with cash, if required, and amounts transferred from the Debt Service Fund, in such amount as will, together with interest to accrue thereon, in the opinion of an independent certified public accountant, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge all Bonds Outstanding and designated for defeasance (including all Principal, Accreted Value or Conversion Value thereof, accrued interest thereon and redemption premiums, if any) at or before their maturity date; then, notwithstanding that any of such Bonds shall not have been surrendered for payment, all obligations of the District with respect to all such designated Outstanding Bonds shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the independent escrow agent selected by the District to pay or cause to be paid from funds deposited pursuant to paragraphs (a) or (b) of this Section, to the Owners of such designated Bonds not so surrendered and paid all sums due with respect thereto. For purposes of this Section, Government Obligations shall mean: Direct and general obligations of the United States of America, or obligations that are unconditionally guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States of America (which may consist of obligations of the Resolution Funding Corporation that constitute interest strips). In the case of direct and general obligations of the United States of America, Government Obligations shall include evidences of direct ownership of proportionate interests in future interest or principal payments of such obligations. Investments in such proportionate interests must be limited to circumstances where (i) a bank or trust company acts as custodian and holds the underlying United States obligations; (ii) the owner of the investment is the real party in interest and has the right to proceed directly and individually against the obligor of the underlying United States obligations; and (iii) the underlying United States obligations are held in a special account, segregated from the custodian’s general assets, and are not available to satisfy any claim of the custodian, any person claiming through the custodian, or any person to whom the custodian may be obligated; provided that such obligations are rated or assessed at least as high as direct and general obligations of the United States of America by either Moody’s or S&P. SECTION 20. Nonliability of County. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the Bonds or in any other document mentioned herein, neither the County, nor its officials, officers, employees or agents shall have any liability hereunder or by reason hereof or in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby, the Bonds are not a debt of the County or a pledge of the County’s full faith and credit, and the Bonds and any liability in connection therewith shall be paid April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 429 23 solely from ad valorem property taxes lawfully levied to pay the Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of or interest on the Bonds, which taxes shall be unlimited as to rate or amount. SECTION 21. Reimbursement of County Costs. The District shall reimburse the County for all costs and expenses incurred by the County, its officials, officers, agents and employees in issuing or otherwise in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. SECTION 22. Indemnification. The District shall indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent permitted by law, the County and its officers and employees (“Indemnified Parties”), against any and all losses, claims, damages or liabilities, joint or several, to which such Indemnified Parties may become subject because of action or inaction related to the adoption of a resolution by the County Board of Supervisors providing for the issuance and sale of the Bonds, or related to the proceedings for sale, award, issuance and delivery of the Bonds in accordance therewith and herewith. The District shall also reimburse any such Indemnified Parties for any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with investigating or defending any such claims or actions. SECTION 23. Request to County to Levy Tax. The Board of Supervisors and officers of the County are obligated by statute to provide for the levy and collection of ad valorem property taxes in each year sufficient to pay all Principal, Accreted Value and Conversion Value of and interest coming due on the Bonds in such year, and to pay from such taxes all amounts due on the Bonds. The District hereby requests the Board of Supervisors to annually levy a tax upon all taxable property in the District sufficient to pay all such Principal, Accreted Value, Conversion Value and interest coming due on the Bonds in such year, and to pay from such taxes all amounts due on the Bonds. The Board hereby finds and determines that such ad valorem taxes shall be levied specifically to pay the Bonds being issued to finance specific projects authorized by the voters of the District at the Election. SECTION 24. Other Actions. (a) Officers of the Board and District officials and staff are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they may deem necessary or advisable in order to proceed with the issuance of the Bonds and otherwise carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution. Such actions heretofore taken by such officers, officials and staff are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. (b) The Board hereby appoints Keygent LLC, as the Financial Advisor, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, as the Underwriter, and Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, as Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel, each with respect to the issuance of the Bonds. (c) Notwithstanding any other provisions contained herein, the provisions of this Resolution as they relate to the Bonds may be amended by the Purchase Contract and the Official Statement. (d) Attached as Exhibit B is disclosure regarding the estimated term and time of maturity, repayment ratio and estimated change in assessed valuation of taxable property within the District over the term of the Bonds. Such disclosure is appended in satisfaction of Section 15146(b)(1)(E) of the Education Code, and shall not abrogate or otherwise limit any provision of this Resolution. (e) To the extent the issuance of Bonds includes Long Current Interest Bonds, the useful life of any facility financed with such Long Current Interest Bonds will equal or exceed the maturity of April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 430 24 such Long Current Interest Bonds, as shall be further evidenced by a certificate of the District substantially to such effect. SECTION 25. Resolution to County Treasurer. The Secretary to this Board is hereby directed to provide a certified copy of this Resolution to the Treasurer immediately following its adoption. SECTION 26. Continuing Disclosure. The District hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of that certain Continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the District and dated as of the Dated Date, as originally executed and as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof. The Board hereby approves the form of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate appended to the form of the Preliminary Official Statement on file with the Secretary to the Board, and further authorizes the Authorized Officers, each alone, to execute and deliver the Continuing Disclosure Certificate with such changes therein or modifications thereto as shall be approved by the Underwriter and the Authorized Officer executing the same, such latter approval to be conclusively evidenced by such execution and delivery. Any Bond Holder may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the District to comply with its obligations under this Section. Noncompliance with this Section shall not result in acceleration of the Bonds. SECTION 27. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. SECTION 28. Further Actions Authorized. It is hereby covenanted that the District, and its appropriate officials, have duly taken all actions necessary to be taken by them, and will take any additional actions necessary to be taken by them, for carrying out the provisions of this Resolution. SECTION 29. Recitals. All the recitals in this Resolution above are true and correct and this Board so finds, determines and represents. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 20th day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: MEMBERS NOES: MEMBERS ABSTAIN: MEMBERS ABSENT: MEMBERS President of the Board of Trustees ATTEST: ____________________________ Secretary to the Board of Trustees April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 431 25 SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE I, John Nickerson, Ed.D., Secretary to the Board of Trustees of the Acalanes Union High School District, Contra Costa County, California, hereby certify as follows: The foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of said District duly and regularly and legally held at the regular meeting place thereof on April 20, 2016, of which meeting all of the members of the Board of said District had due notice and at which a quorum was present. I have carefully compared the same with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office and the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the original Resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes. Said Resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption, and the same is now in full force and effect. Dated: April ____, 2016 Secretary to the Board of Trustees of the Acalanes Union High School District April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 432 A-1 EXHIBIT A FORMS OF BONDS (Form of Current Interest Bond) REGISTERED REGISTERED NO. $ ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA) ELECTION OF 2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2016C INTEREST RATE: MATURITY DATE: DATE OF DELIVERY: CUSIP ___% per annum August 1, 20__ _______, 2016 REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: The Acalanes Union High School District (the “District”) in Contra Costa County, California (the “County”), for value received, promises to pay to the Registered Owner named above, or registered assigns, the Principal Amount on the Maturity Date, each as stated above, and interest thereon until the Principal Amount is paid or provided for at the Interest Rate stated above, on February 1 and August 1 of each year (the “Bond Payment Dates”), commencing August 1, 2016. This bond will bear interest from the Bond Payment Date next preceding the date of authentication hereof unless it is authenticated as of a day during the period from the 16th day of the month next preceding any Bond Payment Date to the Bond Payment Date, inclusive, in which event it shall bear interest from such Bond Payment Date, or unless it is authenticated on or before July 15, 2016, in which event it shall bear interest from the Date of Delivery. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of 12, 30-day months. Principal and interest are payable in lawful money of the United States of America, without deduction for the paying agent services, to the person in whose name this bond (or, if applicable, one or more predecessor bonds) is registered, such owner being the Registered Owner, on the Register maintained by the Paying Agent, initially The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Compnay, N.A. Principal is payable upon presentation and surrender of this bond at the principal office of the Paying Agent. Interest is payable by check or draft mailed by the Paying Agent on each Bond Payment Date to the Registered Owner of this bond (or one or more predecessor bonds) as shown and at the address appearing on the Register at the close of business on the 15th day of the calendar month next preceding that Bond Payment Date (the “Record Date”). The Owner of Bonds in the aggregate Principal Amount of $1,000,000 or more may request in writing to the Paying Agent that the Owner be paid interest by wire transfer to the bank and account number on file with the Paying Agent as of the Record Date. This bond is one of an authorization of bonds approved to raise money for the purposes authorized by voters of the District at the Election (as defined herein) and to pay all necessary legal, financial, engineering and contingent costs in connection therewith under authority of and pursuant to April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 433 A-2 the laws of the State of California, and the requisite vote of the electors of the District cast at a general election held on November 4, 2008 (the “Election”), upon the question of issuing bonds in the amount of $93,000,000 and the resolution of the Board of Trustees of the District adopted on April 20, 2016 (the “Bond Resolution”). This bond is being issued under the provisions of Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code. This bond and the issue of which this bond is one are payable as to both principal and interest solely from the proceeds of the levy of ad valorem taxes on all property subject to such taxes in the District, which taxes are unlimited as to rate or amount in accordance with California Education Code Sections 15250 and 15252. The bonds of this issue (the “Bonds”) comprise (i) $________ principal amount of Current Interest Bonds, of which this bond is a part, (ii) Capital Appreciation Bonds, of which $_________ represents the Denominational Amount and $__________ represents the Maturity Value, and (iii) Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds, of which $_________ represents the Denominational Amount and $_________ represents the Conversion Value. This bond is exchangeable and transferable for a bond of like Series, tenor, maturity and principal amount and in authorized denominations at the designated office of the Paying Agent, by the Registered Owner or by a person legally empowered to do so, in a form satisfactory to the Paying Agent, all subject to the terms, limitations and conditions provided in the Bond Resolution. All fees and costs of transfer shall be paid by the transferor. The District and the Paying Agent may deem and treat the Registered Owner as the absolute owner of this bond for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of principal or interest and for all other purposes, and neither the District nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Neither the District nor the Paying Agent will be required to (a) issue or transfer any Bond during a period beginning with the opening of business on the 16th day next preceding either any Bond Payment Date or any date of selection of Bonds to be redeemed and ending with the close of business on the Bond Payment Date or day on which the applicable Redemption Notice is given or (b) transfer any Bond which has been selected or called for redemption in whole or in part. The Current Interest Bonds maturing on or before August 1, 20__ are not subject to redemption prior to their fixed maturity dates. The Current Interest Bonds maturing on or after August 1, 20__ are subject to redemption at the option of the District, as a whole or in part, on any date on or after August 1, 20___ at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Current Interest Bonds to be redeemed, plus interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption, without premium. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 434 A-3 The Current Interest Bonds maturing on August 1, 20__, are subject to redemption prior to maturity from mandatory sinking fund payments on August 1 of each year, on and after August 1, 20__, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium. The principal amount represented by such Current Interest Bonds to be so redeemed and the dates therefor and the final principal payment date is as indicated in the following table: Redemption Dates Principal Amounts TOTAL If less than all of the Bonds of any one maturity shall be called for redemption, the particular Bonds or portions of Bonds of such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by Paying Agent as directed by the District, and if not so directed, by lot. Redemption by lot shall be in such manner as shall be determined by the Paying Agent, provided, however, that (a) the portion of any Current Interest Bond to be redeemed in part shall be in the Principal Amount of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, (b) the portion of any Capital Appreciation Bond to be redeemed in part shall be in integral multiples of the Accreted Value per $5,000 Maturity Value thereof, and (c) the portion of any Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond to be redeemed in part shall be in integral multiples of the Accreted Value per $5,000 Conversion Value thereof. If less than all of the Bonds stated to mature on different dates shall be called for redemption, the particular Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed shall be called by the Paying Agent in any order directed by the District and, if not so directed, in the inverse order of maturity. Reference is made to the Bond Resolution for a more complete description of certain defined terms used herein, as well as the provisions, among others, with respect to the nature and extent of the security for the Bonds of this series, the rights, duties and obligations of the District, the Paying Agent and the Registered Owners, and the terms and conditions upon which the Bonds are issued and secured. The Registered Owner of this bond assents, by acceptance hereof, to all of the provisions of the Bond Resolution. It is certified and recited that all acts and conditions required by the Constitution and laws of the State of California to exist, to occur and to be performed or to have been met precedent to and in the issuing of the Bonds in order to make them legal, valid and binding general obligations of the District, have been performed and have been met in regular and due form as required by law; that no statutory or constitutional limitation on indebtedness or taxation has been exceeded in issuing the Bonds; and that due provision has been made for levying and collecting ad valorem property taxes on all of the taxable property within the District in an amount sufficient to pay principal and interest when due. This bond shall not be valid or obligatory for any purpose and shall not be entitled to any security or benefit under the Bond Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication below has been signed. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 435 A-4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Acalanes Union High School District, Contra Costa County, California, has caused this bond to be executed on behalf of the District and in their official capacities by the manual or facsimile signature of the President of the Board of Trustees of the District, and to be countersigned by the manual or facsimile signature of the [Secretary to/Clerk of] the Board of Trustees of the District, all as of the date stated above. ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT By: (Facsimile Signature) President of the Board of Trustees COUNTERSIGNED: (Facsimile Signature) [Secretary to/Clerk of] the Board of Trustees CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This bond is one of the bonds described in the Bond Resolution referred to herein which has been authenticated and registered on ________, 2016. By: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPNAY, N.A., as Paying Agent ______________________________________________ Authorized Officer April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 436 A-5 ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers to (print or typewrite name, address and zip code of Transferee): ___________________________________________________ this bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney to transfer this bond on the books for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: ________________________ _____________________________ Signature Guaranteed: _____________________________ Notice: The assignor’s signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the within bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever, and the signature(s) must be guaranteed by an eligible guarantor institution. Social Security Number, Taxpayer Identification Number or other identifying number of Assignee: _________________ Unless this bond is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company to the issuer or its agent for registration of transfer, exchange or payment, and any bond issued is registered in the name of Cede & Co. or such other name as requested by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company and any payment is made to Cede & Co., ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL since the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein. LEGAL OPINION The following is a true copy of the opinion rendered by Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation in connection with the issuance of, and dated as of the date of the original delivery of, the bonds. A signed copy is on file in my office. (Facsimile Signature) [Secretary to/Clerk of] the Board of Trustees (Form of Legal Opinion) April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 437 A-6 (Form of Capital Appreciation Bond) REGISTERED REGISTERED NO. $ ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA) ELECTION OF 2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2016C ACCRETION RATE: MATURITY DATE: DATED AS OF: CUSIP ______% August 1, 20__ ______, 2016 REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. DENOMINATIONAL AMOUNT: MATURITY VALUE: The Acalanes Union High School District (the “District”) in Contra Costa County, California (the “County”), for value received, promises to pay to the Registered Owner named above, or registered assigns, the Maturity Value on the Maturity Date, each as stated above, such Maturity Value comprising the Denominational Amount and interest accreted thereon. This bond will not bear current interest but will accrete interest, compounded on each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, 2016, at the Accretion Rate specified above to the Maturity Date, assuming that in any such semiannual period the sum of such compounded accreted interest and the Denominational Amount (such sum being herein called the “Accreted Value”) increases in equal daily amounts on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of 12, 30-day months. Accreted Value and redemption premium, if any, are payable in lawful money of the United States of America, without deduction for the paying agent services, to the person in whose name this bond (or, if applicable, one or more predecessor bonds) is registered, such owner being the Registered Owner, on the Register maintained by the Paying Agent, initially The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Compnay, N.A. Accreted Value and redemption premium, if any, are payable upon presentation and surrender of this bond at the principal office of the Paying Agent. This bond is one of an authorization of bonds approved to raise money for the purposes authorized by voters of the District at the Election (as defined herein) and to pay all necessary legal, financial, engineering and contingent costs in connection therewith under authority of and pursuant to the laws of the State of California, and the requisite vote of the electors of the District cast at a general election held on November 4, 2008 (the “Election”), upon the question of issuing bonds in the amount of $93,000,000 and the resolution of the Board of Trustees of the District adopted on April 20, 2016 (the “Bond Resolution”). This bond is being issued under the provisions of Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code. This bond and the issue of which this bond is one are payable as to both principal and interest solely from the proceeds of the levy of ad valorem taxes on all property subject to such taxes in the District, which taxes are unlimited as to rate or amount in accordance with California Education Code Sections 15250 and 15252. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 438 A-7 The bonds of this issue (the “Bonds”) comprise (i) $________ principal amount of Current Interest Bonds, (ii) Capital Appreciation Bonds, of which this bond is a part, and of which $________ represents the Denominational Amount and $______ represents the Maturity Value, and (iii) Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds, and of which $_________ represents the Denominational Amount and $_________ represents the Conversion Value. This bond is exchangeable and transferable for a bond of like Series, tenor, maturity and Transfer Amount (as defined in the Bond Resolution) and in authorized denominations at the principal office of the Paying Agent, by the Registered Owner or by a person legally empowered to do so, in a form satisfactory to the Paying Agent, all subject to the terms, limitations and conditions provided in the Bond Resolution. All fees and costs of transfer shall be paid by the transferor. The District and the Paying Agent may deem and treat the Registered Owner as the absolute owner of this bond for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of principal or interest and for all other purposes, and neither the District nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Neither the District nor the Paying Agent will be required to (a) issue or transfer any Bond during a period beginning with the opening of business on the 16th day next preceding either any Bond Payment Date or any date of selection of Bonds to be redeemed and ending with the close of business on the Bond Payment Date or day on which the applicable notice of redemption is given or (b) transfer any Bond which has been selected or called for redemption in whole or in part. The Capital Appreciation Bonds maturing on or before August 1, 20__ are not subject to redemption prior to their fixed maturity dates. The Capital Appreciation Bonds maturing on or after August 1, 20__ are subject to redemption at the option of the District, as a whole or in part, on any date on or after ______, 20__ at a redemption price equal to the Accreted Value of such Capital Appreciation Bonds to be redeemed as of the date set for such redemption, without premium. The Capital Appreciation Bonds maturing on August 1, 20__, are subject to redemption prior to maturity from mandatory sinking fund payments on August 1 of each year, on and after August 1, 20__, at a redemption price equal to the Accreted Value of such Capital Appreciation Bonds as of the dates set for such redemption, without premium. The Accreted Value represented by such Bonds to be so redeemed and the dates therefor and the final payment date is as indicated in the following table: Redemption Dates Accreted Value TOTAL If less than all of the Bonds of any one maturity shall be called for redemption, the particular Bonds or portions of Bonds of such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by Paying Agent as directed by the District, and if not so directed, by lot. Redemption by lot shall be in such manner as shall be determined by the Paying Agent, provided, however, that (a) the portion of any Current Interest Bond to be redeemed in part shall be in the Principal Amount of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, (b) the portion of any Capital Appreciation Bond to be redeemed in part shall be in integral multiples of the Accreted Value per $5,000 Maturity Value thereof, and (c) the portion of any Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond to be redeemed in part shall be in integral multiples of the Accreted Value per $5,000 Conversion Value thereof. If less than all of the Bonds stated to mature on April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 439 A-8 different dates shall be called for redemption, the particular Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed shall be called by the Paying Agent in any order directed by the District and, if not so directed, in the inverse order of maturity. Reference is made to the Bond Resolution for a more complete description of certain defined terms used herein, as well as the provisions, among others, with respect to the nature and extent of the security for the Bonds of this series, the rights, duties and obligations of the District, the Paying Agent and the Registered Owners, and the terms and conditions upon which the Bonds are issued and secured. The Registered Owner of this bond assents, by acceptance hereof, to all of the provisions of the Bond Resolution. It is certified and recited that all acts and conditions required by the Constitution and laws of the State of California to exist, to occur and to be performed or to have been met precedent to and in the issuing of the Bonds in order to make them legal, valid and binding general obligations of the District, have been performed and have been met in regular and due form as required by law; that no statutory or constitutional limitation on indebtedness or taxation has been exceeded in issuing the Bonds; and that due provision has been made for levying and collecting ad valorem property taxes on all of the taxable property within the District in an amount sufficient to pay principal and interest when due. This bond shall not be valid or obligatory for any purpose and shall not be entitled to any security or benefit under the Bond Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication below has been signed. [REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK] April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 440 A-9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Acalanes Union High School District, Contra Costa County, California, has caused this bond to be executed on behalf of the District and in their official capacities by the manual or facsimile signature of the President of the Board of Trustees of the District, and to be countersigned by the manual or facsimile signature of the [Secretary to/Clerk of] the Board of Trustees of the District, all as of the date stated above. ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT By: (Facsimile Signature) President of the Board of Trustees COUNTERSIGNED: (Facsimile Signature) [Secretary to/Clerk of] the Board of Trustees CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This bond is one of the bonds described in the Bond Resolution referred to herein which has been authenticated and registered on ________, 2016. By: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPNAY, N.A., as Paying Agent ______________________________________________ Authorized Officer April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 441 A-10 ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers to (print or typewrite name, address and zip code of Transferee): ___________________________________________________ this bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney to transfer this bond on the books for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: ________________________ _____________________________ Signature Guaranteed: _____________________________ Notice: The assignor’s signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the within bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever, and the signature(s) must be guaranteed by an eligible guarantor institution. Social Security Number, Taxpayer Identification Number or other identifying number of Assignee: _________________ Unless this bond is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company to the issuer or its agent for registration of transfer, exchange or payment, and any bond issued is registered in the name of Cede & Co. or such other name as requested by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company and any payment is made to Cede & Co., ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL since the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein. LEGAL OPINION The following is a true copy of the opinion rendered by Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation in connection with the issuance of, and dated as of the date of the original delivery of, the bonds. A signed copy is on file in my office. (Facsimile Signature) [Secretary to/Clerk of] the Board of Trustees April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 442 A-11 (Form of Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond) REGISTERED REGISTERED NO. $ ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA) ELECTION OF 2008 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2016C ACCRETION RATE TO CONVERSION DATE CONVERSION DATE INTEREST RATE AFTER THE CONVERSION DATE MATURITY DATE: DATED AS OF: CUSIP ______ ______ 1, 20__ ______% August 1, 20__ ______, 2016 ______ REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. DENOMINATIONAL AMOUNT: CONVERSION VALUE : The Acalanes Union High School District (the “District”) in Contra Costa County, California (the “County”), for value received, promises to pay to the Registered Owner named above, or registered assigns, the Conversion Value on the Maturity Date, each as stated above, such Conversion Value comprising the Denominational Amount and interest accreted thereon to the Conversion Date. Prior to the Conversion Date, this bond will not bear current interest but will accrete interest, compounded on each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, 2016, at the Accretion Rate specified above to the Conversion Date, assuming that in any such semiannual period the sum of such compounded accreted interest and the Denominational Amount (such sum being herein called the “Accreted Value”) increases in equal daily amounts on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of 12, 30- day months. After the Conversion Date, the District promises to pay to the Registered Owner named above, interest on the Conversion Value from the Conversion Date until the Conversion Value is paid or provided for at the Interest Rate stated above, on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing ______ 1, 20__ (the “Bond Payment Dates”). This bond will bear such interest from the Bond Payment Date next preceding the date of authentication hereof unless it is authenticated as of a day during the period from the 16th day of the month next preceding any Bond Payment Date to the Bond Payment Date, inclusive, in which event it shall bear interest from such Bond Payment Date, or unless it is authenticated on or before ______ 15, 20__, in which event it will bear interest from the Conversion Date. Conversion Value and interest are payable in lawful money of the United States of America, without deduction for the paying agent services, to the person in whose name this bond (or, if applicable, one or more predecessor bonds) is registered (the “Registered Owner”) on the Register maintained by the Paying Agent, initially The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Compnay, N.A. Accreted Value or Conversion Value and redemption premium, if any, are payable upon presentation and surrender of this bond at the principal office of the Paying Agent. Interest following the April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 443 A-12 Conversion Date is payable by check or draft mailed by the Paying Agent on each Bond Payment Date to the Registered Owner of this bond (or one or more predecessor bonds) as shown and at the address appearing on the Register at the close of business on the 15th day of the calendar month next preceding that Bond Payment Date (the “Record Date”). The Owner of Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds in the aggregate Conversion Value of $1,000,000 or more may request in writing to the Paying Agent that the Owner be paid interest by wire transfer to the bank and account number on file with the Paying Agent as of the Record Date. This bond is one of an authorization of bonds approved to raise money for the purposes authorized by voters of the District at the Election (as defined herein) and to pay all necessary legal, financial, engineering and contingent costs in connection therewith under authority of and pursuant to the laws of the State of California, and the requisite vote of the electors of the District cast at a general election held on November 4, 2008 (the “Election”), upon the question of issuing bonds in the amount of $93,000,000 and the resolution of the Board of Trustees of the District adopted on April 20, 2016 (the “Bond Resolution”). This bond is being issued under the provisions of Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code. This bond and the issue of which this bond is one are payable as to both principal and interest solely from the proceeds of the levy of ad valorem taxes on all property subject to such taxes in the District, which taxes are unlimited as to rate or amount in accordance with California Education Code Sections 15250 and 15252. [The bonds of this issue comprise (i) $________ principal amount of Current Interest Bonds, (ii) Capital Appreciation Bonds of which $________ represents the Denominational Amount and $______ represents the Maturity Value, and (iii) Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds, of which this bond is a part, and of which $_________ represents the Denominational Amount and $_________ represents the Conversion Value.] This bond is exchangeable and transferable for a bond of like Series, tenor, maturity and Transfer Amount (as defined in the Bond Resolution) and in authorized denominations at the designated office of the Paying Agent, by the Registered Owner or by a person legally empowered to do so, in a form satisfactory to the Paying Agent, all subject to the terms, limitations and conditions provided in the Bond Resolution. All fees and costs of transfer shall be paid by the transferor. The District and the Paying Agent may deem and treat the Registered Owner as the absolute owner of this bond for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of principal or interest and for all other purposes, and neither the District nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Neither the District nor the Paying Agent will be required to (a) issue or transfer any bond during a period beginning with the opening of business on the 16th day next preceding either any Bond Payment Date or any date of selection of bonds to be redeemed and ending with the close of business on the Bond Payment Date or day on which the applicable notice of redemption is given or (b) transfer any bond which has been selected or called for redemption in whole or in part. The Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds maturing on or before August 1, 20__ are not subject to redemption prior to their fixed maturity dates. The Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds maturing on or after August 1, 20__ are subject to redemption at the option of the District, as a whole or in part, on any date on or after ______, 20 __ at a redemption price equal to either (i) the Accreted Value thereof as of the date set for redemption, without premium, if redeemed prior to the Conversion Date, or (ii) the Conversion Value thereof, together with interest accrued thereon to the date set for redemption, without premium, if redeemed on and after the Conversion Date. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 444 A-13 The Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds maturing on August 1, 20__, are subject to redemption prior to maturity from mandatory sinking fund payments on August 1 of each year, on and after August 1, 20__, at a redemption price equal to the Conversion Value of such Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds, together with interest accrued thereon to the date set for redemption, without premium. The Conversion Value represented by such Bonds to be so redeemed and the dates therefor and the final payment date is as indicated in the following table: Redemption Dates Conversion Value TOTAL If less than all of the Bonds of any one maturity shall be called for redemption, the particular Bonds or portions of Bonds of such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by Paying Agent as directed by the District, and if not so directed, by lot. Redemption by lot shall be in such manner as shall be determined by the Paying Agent, provided, however, that (a) the portion of any Current Interest Bond to be redeemed in part shall be in the Principal Amount of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, (b) the portion of any Capital Appreciation Bond to be redeemed in part shall be in integral multiples of the Accreted Value per $5,000 Maturity Value thereof, and (c) the portion of any Convertible Capital Appreciation Bond to be redeemed in part shall be in integral multiples of the Accreted Value per $5,000 Conversion Value thereof. If less than all of the Bonds stated to mature on different dates shall be called for redemption, the particular Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed shall be called by the Paying Agent in any order directed by the District and, if not so directed, in the inverse order of maturity. Reference is made to the Bond Resolution for a more complete description of certain defined terms used herein, as well as the provisions, among others, with respect to the nature and extent of the security for the Bonds of this series, the rights, duties and obligations of the District, the Paying Agent and the Registered Owners, and the terms and conditions upon which the Bonds are issued and secured. The Registered Owner of this bond assents, by acceptance hereof, to all of the provisions of the Bond Resolution. It is certified and recited that all acts and conditions required by the Constitution and laws of the State of California to exist, to occur and to be performed or to have been met precedent to and in the issuing of the Bonds in order to make them legal, valid and binding general obligations of the District, have been performed and have been met in regular and due form as required by law; that no statutory or constitutional limitation on indebtedness or taxation has been exceeded in issuing the Bonds; and that due provision has been made for levying and collecting ad valorem property taxes on all of the taxable property within the District in an amount sufficient to pay principal and interest when due. This bond shall not be valid or obligatory for any purpose and shall not be entitled to any security or benefit under the Bond Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication below has been signed. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 445 A-14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Acalanes Union High School District, Contra Costa County, California, has caused this bond to be executed on behalf of the District and in their official capacities by the manual or facsimile signature of the President of the Board of Trustees of the District, and to be countersigned by the manual or facsimile signature of the [Secretary to/Clerk of] the Board of Trustees of the District, all as of the date stated above. ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT By: (Facsimile Signature) President of the Board of Trustees COUNTERSIGNED: (Facsimile Signature) [Secretary to/Clerk of] the Board of Trustees CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This bond is one of the bonds described in the Bond Resolution referred to herein which has been authenticated and registered on ________, 2016. By: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPNAY, N.A., as Paying Agent ______________________________________________ Authorized Officer April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 446 A-15 ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers to (print or typewrite name, address and zip code of Transferee): ___________________________________________________ this bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney to transfer this bond on the books for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: ________________________ _____________________________ Signature Guaranteed: _____________________________ Notice: The assignor’s signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the within bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever, and the signature(s) must be guaranteed by an eligible guarantor institution. Social Security Number, Taxpayer Identification Number or other identifying number of Assignee: _________________ Unless this bond is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company to the issuer or its agent for registration of transfer, exchange or payment, and any bond issued is registered in the name of Cede & Co. or such other name as requested by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company and any payment is made to Cede & Co., ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL since the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein. LEGAL OPINION The following is a true copy of the opinion rendered by Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation in connection with the issuance of, and dated as of the date of the original delivery of, the bonds. A signed copy is on file in my office. (Facsimile Signature) [Secretary to/Clerk of] the Board of Trustees April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 447 B-1 EXHIBIT B DISCLOSURE REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE SECTIONS 15146(b)(1)(E) and 15146(c) April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 448 B-2 AB182 EXHIBIT DISCLOSURE REQUIRED BY EDUCATION CODE SECTION 15146(b)(1)(E) 1. Financing term and time of maturity of the bonds (the entire series of bonds). Illustrative Option 1 includes only current interest bonds (“CIBs”), while Illustrative Option 2 includes only capital appreciation bonds (“CABs”). 2. Repayment ratio for the bonds (the entire series of bonds). - Illustrative Option 1: 1.35 to 1 - Illustrative Option 2: 1.55 to 1 3. Estimated change in assessed value (“AV”) of taxable property within the District over the term of the bonds. - 6.00% for 2016-17, 5.50% for 2017-18, 5.00% for 2018-19 and 4.75% annually thereafter. 4. Total overall cost of the CABs. - In Illustrative Option 2, the estimated principal amount of CABs is $15,199,936 (or 100% of the financing) with an estimated debt service cost of $23,600,000. This is a repayment ratio for the CABs of 1.55 to 1. 5. Comparison of #4 to overall cost if instead of CABs, the District issued CIBs. - The difference in the overall debt service cost between the two illustrative options is estimated at $3,122,395. However, Illustrative Option 1 is not a legal option because it results in an increase in tax rates in fiscal years 2018 through 2024. Date Principal Interest Debt Service Fund Net Debt Service Principal Interest Net Debt Service 8/1/16 -$ 121,430$ (121,430)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8/1/17 - 553,350 (553,350) - - - - 8/1/18 - 553,350 (387,345) 166,005 - - - 8/1/19 - 553,350 - 553,350 - - - 8/1/20 - 553,350 - 553,350 - - - 8/1/21 - 553,350 - 553,350 - - - 8/1/22 - 553,350 - 553,350 - - - 8/1/23 - 553,350 - 553,350 - - - 8/1/24 - 553,350 - 553,350 - - - 8/1/25 2,600,000 553,350 - 3,153,350 2,226,578 928,422 3,155,000 8/1/26 2,865,000 475,350 - 3,340,350 2,269,697 1,070,303 3,340,000 8/1/27 3,265,000 389,400 - 3,654,400 2,388,378 1,261,623 3,650,000 8/1/28 3,605,000 258,800 - 3,863,800 2,553,799 1,311,201 3,865,000 8/1/29 2,865,000 114,600 - 2,979,600 2,558,031 1,546,969 4,105,000 8/1/30 2,565,418 1,779,582 4,345,000 8/1/31 638,035 501,965 1,140,000 Total 15,200,000$ 6,339,730$ (1,062,125)$ 20,477,605$ 15,199,936$ 8,400,064$ 23,600,000$ Illustrative Option 1 - CIBs Only Illustrative Option 2 - CABs April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 449 B-3 6. Reason for recommending CABs. - CABs are being recommended in order to (i) prepay the District’s 2014 Bond Anticipation Notes using general obligation bonds and (ii) avoid increasing the existing tax rates in fiscal years 2018 through 2024. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 450 B-4 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 451 B-5 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 452 B-6 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 453 B-7 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 454 B-8 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 455 B-9 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 456 B-10 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 457 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: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Continue Extension of Emergency Declaration Regarding Homelessness April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 458 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the Board to continue the declaration of a local emergency regarding homelessness. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 459 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ACCEPT the annual progress report by the Department of Conservation and Development on implementation of the County General Plan (2005-2020), as required under California Government Code §65400. 2. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to forward the annual progress report on the County General Plan to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), as required under California Government Code §65400. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The report on the County's progress in implementing its General Plan is being funded 100% from Land Development fund, FY 2015/2016. BACKGROUND: California Government Code §65400 requires the planning agency for certain cities and all 58 counties to submit an annual report to their legislative body, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the status of their General Plan and progress in its implementation, providing the annual progress report on the General Plan to OPR and HCD fulfills statutory requirements. The annual report provides the local legislative body (e.g., Board of Supervisors) with information regarding the status of its General Plan and gives OPR the opportunity to identify statewide trends in land use decision making, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:General Plan Annual Report for Calendar Year 2015 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 460 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > including how local planning and development activities relate to statewide planning goals and policies. Additionally, it enables OPR to track progress on a local jurisdiction’s General Plan in terms of its comprehensiveness and consistency with the current OPR General Plan Guidelines and other State mandates. There is no standardized form or format for preparation of the General Plan annual progress report. OPR leaves it up to each jurisdiction to determine what locally relevant issues are important to include, but they do suggest general content to cover within the report. The attached report covering calendar year 2015 follows the general guidance of OPR in terms of content. Staff notes that under a separate section of the Government Code, all local jurisdictions are required to submit to HCD a report on certain housing information, including the jurisdiction’s progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the development of housing. On April 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors accepted the County's Housing Element implementation report for 2015 and the Department of Conservation and Development submitted the report to HCD. Information in that report to HCD is incorporated into the attached General Plan annual progress report. Staff calls to the Board’s attention the County’s progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs. Current data indicates that through calendar year 2015, the first year of the current eight-year Housing Element cycle, the County has issued building permits for 25.5 percent of its allocated share of the region’s housing needs. While the data indicates the County has made significant progress in achieving gross housing production goals, production of housing available to those in the low- and very low-income categories has been stagnant, constituting only 2.2 percent of building permits issued for new residential units in 2015. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Board of Supervisors on General Plan implementation, as required by State law. ATTACHMENTS Contra Costa County 2015 General Plan Annual Progress Report April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 461 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2015 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT Submitted to: Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County April 26, 2016 Prepared By: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 462 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE OF ANNUAL REPORT ..................................................... 1 II.GENERAL PLAN STATUS AND IMPLEMENTATION .................................................... 1 A. GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 1 TABLE 1: STATUS OF ELEMENTS TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN...................................................................................................................... 2 B. ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, CALENDAR YEAR 2015 .............. 2 C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES RELATED TO GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION INITIATED IN 2015 ............................. 3 D. COMPLIANCE WITH OPR’S GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES AND OTHER OPR DIRECTIVES .................................................................................... 3 III. HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTION AND PROGRESS IN MEETING SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ................................................................................. 4 A. SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ............................................................. 4 TABLE 2: SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ................................................... 5 B. HOUSING PRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 5 TABLE 3: UNINCORPORATED COUNTY HOUSING PRODUCTION (UNITS) .............. 5 C. BARRIERS TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITY IN CALENDAR YEAR 2015 ................................................. 6 IV. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND WORK ACTIVITIES RELATED TO GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTION FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2016.................................................. 7 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 463 I. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE OF ANNUAL REPORT The intent of this report is to demonstrate the County’s compliance with California Government Code section 65400(b)(1), which mandates that all cities and counties submit to their legislative bodies an annual report on the status of the General Plan and progress in its implementation. A copy of this report will, as required under the statute, be provided to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). A separate report was provided to HCD on April 12, 2016, in fulfillment of another statutory requirement to report certain housing information, including the County’s progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the development of housing, as defined in Government Code sections 65584 and 65583(c)(3). In compliance with Section 65400(b)(1) of the Government Code, this report covering calendar year 2015 has been prepared for the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors’ consideration and acceptance. This report: 1. Summarizes the status of the Contra Costa County General Plan and describes steps that have been taken to implement General Plan policies in calendar year 2015; 2. Provides a summary of General Plan Amendments (GPAs) that were approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2015; 3. Describes Housing Element implementation, specifically the County’s progress in meeting its share of the regional housing needs over the current reporting period (current Housing Element cycle) and on the efforts to remove governmental constraints to maintenance, improvement, and development of housing pursuant to Government Code Section 65583; and 4. Concludes with a discussion on goals, objectives, and work activities related to General Plan implementation for calendar year 2016. II. GENERAL PLAN STATUS AND IMPLEMENTATION A. GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUND The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) is a division of the planning agency for the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, and it is responsible for the proper preparation and administration of the General Plan (County Ordinance Code § 26-2.808(1)). The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted a comprehensive General Plan in January 1991 following an extensive public outreach and participation process initiated in 1986. This comprehensively updated General Plan superseded the County’s prior General Plan (and each of the previously adopted elements), and consolidated several area- specific General Plans into one plan document. The General Plan was re-adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July 1996 to consolidate General Plan Amendments approved between 1991 to 1995 and to correct minor errors and omissions discovered in the original 1991 General Plan text. This reconsolidation of the County General Plan covered the period from 1995 through 2010. The General Plan was re-adopted again by the Board of Supervisors in January 2005 to consolidate General Plan Amendments adopted between 1995 and 2004, to revise text and maps to reflect the 1999 incorporation of the City of Oakley (formerly an unincorporated community that was covered under the County April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 464 General Plan), and to incorporate the Housing Element updated in 2001. The second County General Plan reconsolidation covers the period from 2005 through 2020. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65302, there are seven mandatory elements to a General Plan. Each of the mandatory elements in the Contra Costa County General Plan was prepared and/or updated in full compliance with the General Plan Guidelines, as established by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Table 1 indicates the status of the seven mandatory elements for the Contra Costa County General Plan, including the year the element was first adopted and the year the element was last revised: TABLE 1: STATUS OF MANDATORY GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS General Plan Element First Adopted Last Revised Land Use 1963 2005 Transportation/Circulation 1963 2005 Housing 19701 2014 Conservation 1973 2005 Open Space 1973 2005 Safety 1975 2005 Noise 1975 2005 B. ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, CALENDAR YEAR 2015 The Board of Supervisors adopted four amendments to the Contra Costa County General Plan during calendar year 2015. The following summarizes these amendments. 1st Consolidated General Plan Amendment Heritage Point Mixed-Use Project (County File GP#13-0004): Changed the General Plan land use designations from Commercial (CO) and Single-Family Residential – High Density (SH) to Mixed Use (MU). GPA was combined with applications for a minor subdivision and final development plan for a mixed-use project consisting of 42 multiple- family residential units and approximately 3,500 square feet of commercial space. Approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 5, 2015. 2nd Consolidated General Plan Amendment QLC – Pomona Street/Rolph Park Subdivision (County File GP#09-0002): Changed the General Plan land use designation from Open Space (OS) to Single-Family Residential – High Density (SH). GPA was combined with an application for a major subdivision for a nine-unit single-family residential project. Approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 28, 2015. 3rd Consolidated General Plan Amendment Driftwood Estates (County File GP#13-0002): Changed the General Plan land use designation from Single-Family Residential – Medium Density (SM) to Single-Family Residential – High Density (SH). GPA was combined with applications for a major 1 A preliminary Housing Element was approved in 1970 - one year after State legislation established the Housing Element as a mandatory element to the General Plan. Following new statutory requirements for Housing Elements established in the mid- 1970s, the Housing Element was formally adopted by the Board of Supervisors in December 1980. The element was subsequently updated through the State-mandated Housing Element update process in 1985, 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2009. The current Housing Element, adopted on December 2, 2014, was certified by HCD in March 11, 2015. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 465 subdivision and final development plan for a 50-unit single-family residential project. Approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 28, 2015. 4th Consolidated General Plan Amendment Pantages Bays (County File #GP99-0008): Changed General Plan land use designations from Agricultural Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation (DR) to Single-Family Residential – Medium Density (SM) and Single-Family Residential – High Density (SH). General Plan Amendment was combined with applications for a rezoning, major subdivision, and final development plan for a 292-unit single-family residential project. Approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 2015. C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES RELATED TO GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION INITIATED IN 2015 DCD maintains the County General Plan and oversees its implementation. Proposals to amend the General Plan, either from the private sector or County-initiated, must be authorized by the Board of Supervisors acting in its capacity as the legislative body for unincorporated Contra Costa County. In calendar year 2015 the Board of Supervisors authorized the following General Plan Amendment study:  Sterling Consultants GPA Study (County File: GP#15-0002): Consider a change to the General Plan Land Use Element Map to re-designate a 1.02-acre site from Single-Family Residential – Medium Density (SM) to Single-Family Residential – High-Density (SH) in support of applications to develop six single-family residential units at 2424 Olympic Boulevard, Walnut Creek, CA. D. COMPLIANCE WITH OPR’S GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES AND OTHER OPR DIRECTIVES Section 65400 of the Government Code requires jurisdictions to discuss the degree to which the adopted General Plan complies with the State of California General Plan Guidelines as issued by OPR. The Guidelines provide a definitive interpretation of State statutes and case law as they relate to the General Plan. Additionally, the Guidelines outline the general framework for preparation and revision of a General Plan, Attorney General Opinions, and the relationship of the General Plan to the requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The State’s Guidelines are advisory in nature rather than prescriptive, and thereby preserve opportunities for a local jurisdiction to address contemporary planning topics in a locally appropriate manner. Staff has reviewed the latest set of General Plan Guidelines, issued by OPR in October 2003, and determined that the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) is consistent with and meets the mandatory requirements described therein. In addition to General Plan Guidelines, OPR has issued other advisories and guidance related to State planning law requirements for cities and counties. DCD has endeavored to incorporate these advisories into the County’s planning process. Specifically, in November 2005 OPR issued a supplement to the General Plan Guidelines, providing advisory guidance to cities and counties on the process for consulting with California Native American tribes during the adoption or amendment of local General Plans or Specific Plans for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Places (also known as SB 18 Tribal Consultation). DCD has established a protocol for SB 18 Tribal Consultation on General Plan Amendments and Specific Plans in accordance with the November 2005 supplemental issued by OPR. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 466 Also, OPR has worked to improve communication and encourage collaboration between local governments and the United States military on land use planning and development issues in response to passage in 2002 of SB 1468 (Knight) and SB 1462 (Kuehl) in 2004. SB 1462 requires local jurisdictions to establish a notification process to inform the United States military of certain local land use proposals to avoid conflicts with military installations and training activities. SB 1468 resulted in the preparation of the California Advisory Handbook for Community and Military Compatibility Planning to encourage collaboration between cities, counties, builders, and military personnel by providing tools and guidance regarding compatibility planning between communities and military installations and activities. Since there is a limited number of military installations in Contra Costa County, and only two in the unincorporated area, the impact of these new requirements for the County to notify the U.S. Military of pending land use planning and development applications has been negligible. Nevertheless, DCD has established a protocol to determine whether notification to the U.S. military is necessary if a project is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation or within special airspace as defined in the Public Resources Code § 21098. DCD has been using the California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst, which was prepared by the State Resources Agency in conjunction with OPR to help cities and counties find the location of military installations and training facilities within their jurisdiction and to determine if a project triggers notification to the U.S. Military. III. HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTION AND PROGRESS IN MEETING SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS The County Housing Element was preliminarily approved in 1970, approximately one year after State law established the element as one of the mandatory elements to the General Plan, and it was formally adopted by the Board of Supervisors in December 1980 following new mandated requirements for the Housing Element established into State law in the mid-1970s. It has been subsequently updated as part of the mandated cycle of Housing Element updates adopted by the State legislature beginning in 1985. The Housing Element was updated when it was incorporated as part of the comprehensive update to the General Plan (1990-2005) adopted in January 1991. Subsequently, the Housing Element was updated in 1995 and included in the 1996 General Plan reconsolidation (1995-2010), updated in December 2001 and included in the 2005 General Plan reconsolidation (2005-2020), updated in 2009, and updated most recently in 2014 (pursuant to SB 375). The current Housing Element (2014) sets forth the County’s housing goals, objectives, policies, and implementation measures, and was reviewed and certified by HCD on March 11, 2015. The attached tables listed as A through C are taken from Contra Costa County’s Annual Housing Element Progress Report for 2015. The tables contain more detailed information pertaining to progress and implementation activities for the 5th cycle Housing Element (2015- 2023) which began January 31, 2015. A. SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEED The following table, derived from information in the County’s Housing Element, summarizes the County’s share of projected regional housing needs in the San Francisco Bay Area over the 5th cycle, Housing Element, planning period that covers 2015 to 2023: April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 467 TABLE 2: SHARE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) By Income Category for San Francisco Bay Area, 2015-2022 State Identified Affordability - Income Category SF Bay Area Total RHNA Contra Costa County Total RHNA (Unincorporated + Cities) Contra Costa County RHNA (Unincorporated only) Very-Low Income 46,680 5,264 374 Low-Income 28,940 3,086 218 Moderate-Income 33,420 3,496 243 Above-Moderate Income 78,950 8,784 532 TOTAL Housing Need 187,990 20,630 1,367 The RHNA for the 5th cycle was adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in July 2013.2 B. HOUSING PRODUCTION Table 3 provides a breakdown by income level of the County’s housing production for 2015 along with a running total for the current Housing Element cycle: TABLE 3: UNINCORPORATED COUNTY HOUSING PRODUCTION (UNITS) Income Level RHNA by Income Level Units Added in 2015 (Percentage)3 Total 5th Cycle Units (Percentage)4 Total Remaining RHNA Units Very Low Deed Restricted 374 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 374 Non-Restricted 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Low Deed Restricted 218 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 210 Non-Restricted 8 (3.6%) 8 (3.6%) Moderate 243 65 (26.7%) 65 (26.7%) 178 Above Moderate 532 276 (51.9%) 276 (51.9%) 256 TOTAL 1,367 349 (25.5%) 349 (25.5%) 1,018 As indicated, the County issued 349 permits for new residential units in 2015, equaling 25.5 percent of the entire 5th cycle RHNA. However, only 73 were for units which would be affordable to low- and moderate-income households [8 available to low-income households (income at 51 to 80 percent of the area median income, or AMI, for Contra Costa County) and 65 available to moderate-income households (81 to 120 percent AMI)]. 2 Source: ABAG Website, Regional Housing Need Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022 3 Indicates percentage of units constructed during the current reporting year relative to the total RHNA for each income category. 4 Indicates cumulative percentage of units constructed for the 5th cycle relative to the total RHNA for each income category. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 468 C. BARRIERS TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITY IN CALENDAR YEAR 2015 Market factors such as the high cost of land suitable for residential development and high construction costs continue to be the most significant constraints on the development of affordable housing in Contra Costa County. The County attempts to counter these factors with strategies and subsidy programs to develop affordable rental housing and homeownership opportunities. In 2015 the County continued implementation of its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which was adopted in late 2006. One application that was filed in 2015 is subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The applicant has opted to pay fees in-lieu of constructing the affordable units. In 2015, the total amount of in-lieu fees collected upon issuance of building permits for development of approved subdivision projects within the county totaled $130,913.58. The in-lieu fees will be used to support future affordable housing development. In addition, the County has access to financial resources available for affordable housing activities. Some of the funding resources available include programs from federal, State, local, and private resources. The key housing funding sources currently utilized in the County include the following programs: Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships Act, Emergency Solutions Grant Funds, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, Mental Health Services Act, Housing Successor (former Redevelopment Set-Aside) Funds, bond financing, mortgage credit certificates, low-income housing tax credits, and Section 8 Assistance. Elimination of the redevelopment agency resulted in an annual loss of $3.4 million in local funds. Additional actions undertaken by the County to decrease development costs and eliminate barriers to affordable housing include the following:  The County provided 55 Mortgage Credit Certificates throughout the county and cities for first-time home buyers.  The County provided funding for a project for very-low-income housing for women leaving prison.  The County continues to use Planned Unit District (P-1) zoning to permit the use of flexible design standards for residential projects.  The County provides a density bonus incentive program to support affordable housing development.  The County continues to promote the Second Unit Review process to assist applicants in integrating attached or detached independent living facilities on the same lot as a primary residence as a means of increasing the supply of needed rental housing. Finally, barriers to affordable housing also exist in the form of discrimination. Contra Costa County affirmatively furthers fair housing through the ongoing support of fair housing counseling, education, and outreach activities. In addition, all housing projects funded by the County are required to undertake broad marketing activities in a manner consistent with federal and State fair housing laws, including outreach to underserved populations. The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2010 with a major effort to update the AI initiated in 2015. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 469 IV. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND WORK ACTIVITIES RELATED TO GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTION FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2016 AND 2017 In 2016 and 2017 DCD will continue a significant work effort associated with General Plan implementation in response to the following State mandates: Safety Element  Flood Hazards – As required under Assembly Bill (AB) 162 (Wolk), the Safety Element, and likely the Land Use and Conservation elements, must be updated to reflect, among other things, new information regarding flood hazards based on potential for a 200-year flood event instead of the current 100-year event standard. Accordingly, General Plan goals, objectives, policies, and implementation measures will have to be updated. Related legislation, Senate Bill (SB) 5 (Machado), required the California Department of Water Resources and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board to prepare and adopt the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP). Follow-up legislation (Senate Bill 1278) set the deadline for cities and counties within the jurisdiction of the CVFPP to amend their General Plan and zoning ordinance to conform to the CVFPP within 24 and 36 months, respectively, of the CVFPP’s adoption date of July 2013. A large section of eastern Contra Costa County falls within the jurisdictional boundaries of the CVFPP where, under SB 5, 200-year protection is to be the minimum level of flood protection for urban and urbanizing areas. SB 5 restricts approval of development agreements, subdivision maps, discretionary entitlements, and ministerial permits for residences in 200-year flood hazard zones until the General Plan and zoning ordinance have been amended to conform with the CVFPP unless certain findings are made. The County is required to submit its draft Safety Element amendments to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board prior to adoption. DCD anticipates that work activities related to updating the Safety Element, and likely the Land Use and Conservation elements, in response to AB 162 and SB 5 will be a significant undertaking through calendar year 2016.  Fire Hazard Severity Map – As required under Senate Bill (SB) 1241, the Fire Hazard Severity Map in the Safety Element will be updated to reflect new mapping by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) of wildland fire hazards and risks, and to identify State responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones in Contra Costa County. Accordingly, the Safety Element’s goals, policies, and implementation measures related to wildland fire hazards will be reviewed and updated, as necessary. Work in response to SB 1241 requirements will continue through 2016. Land Use Element  Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities – SB 244 (Wolk, 2011) requires cities and counties to address the infrastructure and service needs of unincorporated disadvantaged communities (DUCs) in their respective General Plans. Disadvantaged unincorporated communities are defined under SB 244 as:  Containing 10 or more dwelling units in close proximity to one another;  Within a city Sphere of Influence (SOI), or is an island surrounded by a city, or is geographically isolated and has existed for more than 50 years; and,  Having a median household income that is 80 percent or less than the statewide median household income. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 470 SB 244 requires that the Land Use Element be updated to identify DUCs and analyze the water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and structural fire protection deficiencies and needs for each. Funding alternatives for extension of services to the DUCs must also be identified. The County’s SB 244 DUC analysis was initiated in 2014 in conjunction with the 5th cycle Housing Element update, and it is anticipated this work will be completed by the end of 2016. General Plan Update The term of the current County General Plan extends through calendar year 2020. In 2016 and 2017 DCD anticipates performing preliminary work toward a General Plan update. List of Attachments (Tables from 2015 Housing Element Progress Report to HCD) Table A: Annual Building Activity Report Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income Units and Mixed Income Multi-Family Projects Table A3: Annual Building Activity Report for Above Moderate Income Units (not including those units reported in Table A) Table B: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Table C: Program Implementation Status April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 471 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 472 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 473 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 474 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 475 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 476 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 477 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 478 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the request of the Health Services Department to remove the Richmond Health Center, at 100 38th St in Richmond, from the Scope of the Health Care for the Homeless Project, due to the West County Health Center replacing the Richmond Health Center in 2011. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: As the governing board for the CCHS Health Care for the Homeless (HCH) Program, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors needs to approve all requests for change in scope of project through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). This request is to remove the Richmond Health Center, located at 100 38th St in Richmond, CA, from the CCHS Scope of Project. The Richmond Health Center was replaced by the West County Health Center in 2011 and should no longer be included on the HRSA-approved site list. Removing unused and vacant health centers from the list of HRSA-approved sites is standard process when sites are no longer used for health services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Board Order is not approved, the HCH Program list would be inaccurate. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wihelm, Rachel Birch C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Health Care for Homeless Approved Site List Update April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 479 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 480 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Public Authority Advisory Committee members $24 per meeting not to exceed three (3) meetings per month for a total cost $5,976 in stipends to defray meeting attendance costs for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: $5,976: In-Home Supportive Services funds (50% Federal, 50% State). BACKGROUND: The In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority Advisory Committee members receive $24-stipends to attend Committee meetings paid through the Auditor-Controller to defray attendance costs of members. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without stipends, meeting costs may be prohibitive to member attendance. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:In-Home Supportive Services, Public Authority Advisory Committee stipends April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 481 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the March 2016 update of the operations of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department submits a monthly report to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) to ensure ongoing communications and updates to the County Administrator and BOS regarding any and all issues pertaining to the Head Start Program and Community Services Bureau. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Not applicable. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Operations Update of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 482 ATTACHMENTS CSB Mar 2016 CAO Report CSB Mar 2016 HS Fiscal Report CSB Mar 2016 EHS Fiscal Report CSB Mar 2016 Partnership Fiscal Report CSB Mar 2016 Credit Card Report CSB Mar 2016 LIHEAP CSB Mar 2016 Monitoring Report CSB Mar 2016 Menu CSB Mar 2016 CACFP Report April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 483 Camilla Rand, M.S. Director 1470 Civic Court, Suite 200 Concord, CA 94520 Tel 925 681 6300 Fax 925 313 8301 www.cccounty.us/ehsd To: David Twa, Contra Costa County Administrator From: Kathy Gallagher, EHSD Director Subject: Community Services Monthly Report Date: March 2016 I. Good News Update/Accomplishments: Community Services received its letter from Danya International confirming the week of May 2nd as the date for the Federal Comprehensive Services and School Readiness (CSSR) monitoring review. This review will focus on four program performance areas: identifying child and family strengths and needs, addressing child and family needs, providing high-quality teaching and learning, and planning for transition. A Team of reviewers will visit CSB, partner and delegate classrooms to review files and management systems, monitor classrooms, and interview staff and parents. CSB staff eagerly anticipates this review. The Comprehensive Services team is preparing to enroll children ages 0-5 for the 2016-17 school year. We continue to find it challenging to enroll 4 year old children due to TK and Preschool expansion in this county; therefore we are focusing on serving more 2 year olds, where the need is high. Plans are in the works to change the format for our annual Policy Council and Board of Supervisors Joint Training. We are planning to hold the training in the fall of 2016, and are excited about the new format that will include an afternoon tea with time for participants to network and take part in an engaging presentation and interactive workshop facilitated by Interaction Associates. Ongoing dental treatment continues to be offered to children enrolled in the Head Start program. During the month of February, Lifelong Medical Care visited the Balboa and Crescent Park Children’s center to provide dental exams, fluoride varnish, cleanings and treatment to 18 children. The teaching staff early closures days in March focused on Math. The preschool teaching staff had the opportunity to explore, create, and share ideas about sample materials and tools that children use in the classroom. Teachers facilitate the children’s learning about math concepts and implement new ideas to enhance the classroom environment and activities such as counting objects numbers, matching the numbers with numerals and words. March marks the conclusion of a six month effort by Camilla Rand, Director, Katharine Mason, Division Manager, and Janissa Rowley, Lead Assistant Director to hold Communication Circles at all fifteen CSB child care centers. It took some time but was well worth the effort as they had the opportunity to meet face to face with all CSB site supervisors, teaching staff and Comprehensive Services team members. George Miller III Children’s Center was visited by Community Care Licensing for an unannounced comprehensive annual visit on March 7, 2016. This April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 484 2 comprehensive visit, including the center tour and review of files, took four hours to complete and resulted in GMIII passing with flying colors without any deficiencies, citations or concerns. CSB staff are engaged in the exciting process of planning for the Week of the Young Child. The theme for this year is Celebrating our Youngest Learner. Week of the Young Child is an annual celebration sponsored by the National Association for the Education of Young Children and will take place the week of April 11th -15th. The purpose of this special week is to focus attention on the needs of young children and their families and to recognize programs such as CSB that meet those needs. II. Status Updates: a. Caseloads, workload (all programs) Head Start enrollment: 99.84 % Early Head Start enrollment: 102.09% Head Start Average Daily Attendance for December: 83.3% Early Head Start Average Daily Attendance for December: 85.2% Stage 2: 368 families and 575 children CAPP: 72 families and 101 children In total: 440 families and 676 children Incoming transfers from Stage 1: 22 families and 26 children LIHEAP: 384 households have been assisted Weatherization: 18 units b. Staffing: o During the month of March the Bureau hired an Administrative Analyst, a Comprehensive Services Assistant Manager and two Intermediate Clerk-Project positions. More interviews have been scheduled to fill vacant clerical positions, and to bring in county and agency temporary employees to provide support in the program. c. Legal/lawsuits N/A d. Union Issues: o A Step 3 Grievance has been scheduled with PEU Local 1 on behalf of an employee requesting to be paid for performance in a higher classification. III. Emerging Issues and Hot Topics: CSB continues to face challenges as it relates to enrolling four year old children in both its center-based and Home Based programs. Staff are been working diligently to plan services that will continue to serve the needs of the community while also complying with both the State and Head Start mandates. More information will be forthright as we plan deeper into the 2016-17 school year. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 485 3 cc: Policy Council Chair Family & Human Services Committee Maureen Burns Vermette, ACF April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 486 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 664,785$ 3,874,284$ 3,209,499$ 17% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 335,942 2,680,138 2,344,196 13% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 48,220 294,639 246,419 16% f. CONTRACTUAL 59,264 6,466,986 6,407,722 1% g. CONSTRUCTION - - - 0% h. OTHER 118,591 1,571,708 1,453,117 8% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 1,226,801$ 14,887,755$ 13,660,954$ 8% j. INDIRECT COSTS 55,828 801,975 746,147 7% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 1,282,630$ 15,689,730$ 14,407,101$ 8% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)110,831$ 3,922,433$ 3,811,602$ 3% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 HEAD START PROGRAM February 2016 Expenditures April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 487 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Jan-16 Feb-15 Actual Budget Budget YTD a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 234,558 279,239 513,797 3,318,309 2,804,512 15% Temporary 1013 52,472 98,516 150,988 555,975 404,987 27% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)287,030 377,755 664,785 3,874,284 3,209,499 17% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b)- - - - Fringe Benefits 168,620 167,322 335,942 2,680,138 2,344,196 335,942 b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)168,620 167,322 335,942 2,680,138 2,344,196 335,942 e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)- - - 1. Office Supplies 1,374 2,307 3,681 70,620 66,939 5% 2. Child and Family Services Supplies (Includesclassroom Supplies)782 2,170 2,952 15,000 12,048 20% Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Computer Replacement - 24,884 24,884 186,370 161,486 13% Health/Safety Supplies 355 400 755 3,237 2,482 23% Mental helath/Diasabilities Supplies - - - 2,128 2,128 0% Miscellaneous Supplies - 13,526 13,526 13,955 429 97% Emergency Supplies - 727 727 1,000 273 73% Household Supplies - 1,694 1,694 2,329 635 73% TOTAL SUPPLIES (6e)2,511 45,709 48,220 294,639 246,419 16% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)- 1. Adm Svcs (e.g., Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)- 6,705 6,705 62,182 55,477 11% 2. Health/Disabilities Services - - - - - Estimated Medical Revenue from Medi-Cal (Org 1432 - credit)- - - (254,816) (254,816) 0% Health Consultant 3,674 1,837 5,510 44,800 39,290 12% 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 - Interaction - - - 1,500 1,500 0% Diane Godard ($50,000/2)- - - 5,700 5,700 0% Josephine Lee ($35,000/2)- 645 645 9,700 9,055 7% 7. Delegate Agency Costs - First Baptist Church Head Start PA22 - - - 2,044,356 2,044,356 0% First Baptist Church Head Start PA20 - - - 8,000 8,000 0% 8. Other Contracts - FB-Fairgrounds Partnership (Wrap)- 6,093 6,093 74,823 68,730 8% FB-Fairgrounds Partnership - 15,300 15,300 183,600 168,300 8% FB-E. Leland/Mercy Housing Partnership - 4,500 4,500 54,000 49,500 8% Martinez ECC (18 HS slots x $225/mo x 12/mo)- 9,000 9,000 108,000 99,000 8% Little Angels Country School - 2,199 2,199 37,565 35,366 6% YMCA of the East Bay (20 HS slots x $225/mo x 12/mo) - 4,500 4,500 54,000 49,500 8% Child Outcome Planning and Administration (COPA/Nulinx)- 2,403 2,403 19,625 17,222 12% Enhancement/wrap-around HS slots with State CD Program - 2,408 2,408 4,013,951 4,011,543 0% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)3,674 55,590 59,264 6,466,986 6,407,722 1% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 2,855 20,785 23,641 312,000 288,359 8% (Rents & Leases/Other Income)- - - - - 4. Utilities, Telephone 8,750 31,589 40,339 226,670 186,331 18% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - 3,155 3,155 3,300 146 96% 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 1,263 2,034 3,297 65,000 61,703 5% 7. Incidental Alterations/Renovations - - - - - 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile effective 1/1/2012)88 3,519 3,607 43,410 39,803 8% 9. Nutrition Services - Child Nutrition Costs - 40,281 40,281 493,500 453,219 8% (CCFP & USDA Reimbursements)- (28,676) (28,676) (281,660) (252,984) 10% 13. Parent Services - Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - - 4,400 4,400 0% Parent Resources (Parenting Books, Videos, etc.) - PA11 - - - 3,100 3,100 0% PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 72 1,556 1,628 7,000 5,372 23% Policy Council Activities - 497 497 2,900 2,403 17% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation - - - 7,100 7,100 0% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement - - - 11,500 11,500 0% 14. Accounting & Legal Services - - - - - Audit - - - - - Legal (County Counsel)- - - - - Auditor Controllers 1,256 - 1,256 3,600 2,344 35% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies - 1,690 1,690 29,500 27,810 6% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing - - - - - Outreach/Printing - - - 600 600 0% Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)962 - 962 1,100 138 87% 16. Training or Staff Development - Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC, etc.)175 750 925 13,500 12,575 7% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 - 231 231 9,700 9,469 2% 17. Other - - - 11,098 11,098 0% Site Security Guards - 4,437 4,437 44,900 40,463 10% Dental/Medical Services - - - 500 500 0% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair - 5,101 5,101 137,000 131,899 4% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental 3,125 6,323 9,448 57,000 47,552 17% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)839 - 839 10,200 9,361 8% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)- 5,935 5,935 354,790 348,855 2% Other Departmental Expenses - - - - - h. OTHER (6h)19,386 99,206 118,591 1,571,708 1,453,117 8% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)481,221 745,581 1,226,801 14,887,755 13,660,954 8% j. INDIRECT COSTS - 55,828 55,828 801,975 746,147 7% k. TOTALS (ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES)481,221 801,409 1,282,630 15,689,730 14,407,101 8% Donación de mercancías y servicios (In- Kind)62,000 48,831 110,831 3,922,433 3,811,602 3% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 HEAD START PROGRAM February 2016 Expenditures April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 488 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 78,413$ 551,705$ 473,292$ 14% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 45,860 377,472 331,612 12% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 6,476 25,000 18,524 26% f. CONTRACTUAL 186,767 2,280,836 2,094,069 8% g. CONSTRUCTION - 0% h. OTHER 3,319 94,618 91,299 4% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 320,834$ 3,329,631$ 3,008,797$ 10% j. INDIRECT COSTS 11,052 114,203 103,151 10% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 331,887$ 3,443,834$ 3,111,947$ 10% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)-$ 860,958$ 860,958$ 0% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM February 2016 Expenditures April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 489 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Jan-16 Feb-16 Actual Budget Budget YTD Expenditures a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 38,459 29,784 68,243 466,356 398,113 15% Temporary 1013 5,677 4,493 10,170 85,349 75,179 12% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)44,136 34,277 78,413 551,705 473,292 14% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b)- Fringe Benefits 25,117 20,743 45,860 377,472 331,612 12% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)25,117 20,743 45,860 377,472 331,612 12% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies - 16 16 2,600 2,584 1% 2. Child and Family Serv. Supplies/classroom Supplies - 1 1 10,700 10,699 0% 4. Other Supplies - - - - Transition Supplies - - - - - Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Comp Replacemnt - 4,198 4,198 9,700 5,502 43% Health/Safety Supplies - 2,226 2,226 100 (2,126) 2226% Mental helath/Diasabilities Supplies - - - - - Miscellaneous Supplies - - - 1,700 1,700 0% Emergency Supplies - - - - - Employee Morale - - - - - Household Supplies - 34 34 200 166 17% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)- 6,476 6,476 25,000 18,524 26% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f) 1. Adm Svcs ( Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)- - - 10,100 10,100 0% 2. Health/Disabilities Services - - - - Health Consultant 1,574 787 2,362 19,200 16,838 12% Other Health/Dental Services Costs - - - - - 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 Interaction - - - 1,500 1,500 0% Josephine Lee ($35,000/2)- 645 645 8,300 7,655 8% Susan Cooke ($60,000/2)- - - 8,000 8,000 0% 8. Other Contracts FB-Fairgrounds Partnership - 4,900 4,900 58,800 53,900 8% FB-E. Leland/Mercy Housing Partnership - 5,600 5,600 67,200 61,600 8% Apiranet - - - 283,200 283,200 Brighter Beginnings - - - 96,000 96,000 0% Cameron School - - - 58,800 58,800 0% Crossroads - - - 77,000 77,000 0% Martinez ECC - 5,600 5,600 67,200 61,600 8% Child Outcome Planning & Admini. (COPA/Nulinx)- 405 405 3,000 2,595 14% Enhancement/wrap-around HS slots with State CD Prog.- 167,255 167,255 1,522,536 1,355,281 11% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)1,574 185,192 186,767 2,280,836 2,094,069 8% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h)- - - 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases - 243 243 3,800 3,557 6% (Rents & Leases/Other Income)- - - - - 4. Utilities, Telephone - 343 343 2,300 1,957 15% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - - - - 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy - 17 17 1,700 1,683 1% 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile)- 351 351 7,000 6,649 5% 9. Nutrition Services - (CCFP & USDA Reimbursements)- - - - - 13. Parent Services Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - - 600 600 0% Parent Resources (Parenting Books, Videos, etc.) - PA11 - - - - - PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 - 386 386 5,238 4,852 7% Policy Council Activities - - - 3,000 3,000 0% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation - - - 3,200 3,200 0% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement - - - 1,900 1,900 0% 14. Accounting & Legal Services Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies - 285 285 2,900 2,615 10% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- - - 100 100 0% 16. Training or Staff Development Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC)- - - 9,000 9,000 0% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 - 3 3 31,106 31,103 0% 17. Other Site Security Guards - - - 2,000 2,000 0% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair - 1,202 1,202 9,600 8,398 13% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental - 30 30 2,800 2,770 1% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)- - - - - Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)- 460 460 8,374 7,914 5% Other Departmental Expenses - - - - - h. OTHER (6h)- 3,319 3,319 94,618 91,299 4% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)70,827 250,007 320,834 3,329,631 3,008,797 10% j. INDIRECT COSTS - 11,052 11,052 114,203 103,151 10% k. TOTALS - ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 70,827 261,060 331,887 3,443,834 3,111,947 10% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM February 2016 Expenditures April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 490 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Jan-16 Feb-16 Actual Budget Budget YTD CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM February 2016 Expenditures Non-Federal Match (In-Kind)- - - 860,958 860,958 0% April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 491 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 418,113$ 416,766$ (1,347)$ 100% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 253,535 328,828 75,293 77% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - 0% e. SUPPLIES 6,483 16,200 9,717 40% f. CONTRACTUAL 156,552 623,797 467,245 25% g. CONSTRUCTION - 0% h. OTHER 160,206 359,483 199,277 45% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 994,888$ 1,745,074$ 750,186$ 57% j. INDIRECT COSTS 90,372 86,270 (4,102) 105% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 1,085,260$ 1,831,344$ 746,084$ 59% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)39,000$ 457,836$ 418,836$ 9% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU Jan 2015 - June 2016 EARLY HEAD START - CC PARTNERSHIP February 2016 Expenditures April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 492 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Jan-16 Feb-16 Actual Budget Budget YTD Expenditures a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 62,038 67,243 389,350 396,766 7,416 98% Temporary 1013 3,175 2,017 28,762 20,000 (8,762) 144% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)65,212 69,260 418,113 416,766 (1,347) 100% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b) Fringe Benefits 41,779 44,855 253,535 328,828 75,293 77% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)41,779 44,855 253,535 328,828 75,293 77% c. TRAVEL (Object Class 6c)- - - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies 14 12 869 1,800 931 48% 2. Child and Family Serv. Supplies/classroom Supplies - 1 1 3,600 3,599 0% 4. Other Supplies - - Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Comp Replacemnt - 1,931 2,848 8,600 5,752 33% Health/Safety Supplies - 1,008 1,781 1,000 (781) 0% Mental helath/Diasabilities Supplies - - - - - 0% Miscellaneous Supplies 3 8 883 1,200 317 74% Household Supplies 13 16 103 - (103) 0% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)30 2,975 6,483 16,200 9,717 40% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f) 1. Adm Svcs ( Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)- - 425 12,000 11,575 4% Health Consultant - - - 4,300 4,300 0% 8. Other Contracts - 0% FB-Fairgrounds Partnership - 57,359 110,576 497,497 386,921 22% FB-E. Leland/Mercy Housing Partnership 9,000 9,000 45,000 109,500 64,500 41% Brighter Beginnings - 184 551 500 (51) 0% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)9,000 66,542 156,552 623,797 467,245 25% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 149 165 735 1,000 265 0% 4. Utilities, Telephone 114 222 1,299 14,552 13,253 9% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - 222 300 78 0% 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 15 21 36 - (36) 0% 8. Local Travel (54 cents per mile)21 - 796 10,200 9,404 8% 13. Parent Services - Policy Council Activities - - - 1,000 1,000 0% 14. Accounting & Legal Services - Audit - - - 1,800 1,800 0% Legal (County Counsel)- - - 2,000 2,000 0% Auditor Controllers - - - 2,600 2,600 0% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies 129 129 775 4,000 3,225 19% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing - Outreach/Printing - - - - - 0% Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- - - 1,000 1,000 0% 16. Training or Staff Development - Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC)- - - - - 0% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 - 15,346 22,879 142,831 119,952 16% 17. Other - Start-Up Expenses-Child Care Council(org.# 2479)- - 116,000 116,000 - 100% Start-Up Expenses-First Baptist (org.# 2479)- - 5,500 5,500 - 100% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair - - - 5,400 5,400 0% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental 302 328 1,567 4,500 2,933 35% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)- - - - - 0% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)520 583 7,778 31,200 23,422 25% County Indirect Cost (A-87)0 0 2,618 15,600 12,982 0% h. OTHER (6h)1,250 16,793 160,206 359,483 199,277 45% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)117,272 200,425 994,888 1,745,074 750,186 57% j. INDIRECT COSTS 14,503 13,994 90,372 86,270 (4,102) 105% k. TOTALS - ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 131,775 214,419 1,085,260 1,831,344 746,084 59% Non-Federal Match (In-Kind)4,000 - 39,000 457,836 418,836 9% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU Jan 2015 - June 2016 EARLY HEAD START - CC PARTNERSHIP February 2016 Expenditures April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 493 A - 4 Authorized Users C. Rand, Bureau Dir xxxx8798 Month: February 2016 K. Mason, Div Mgr xxxx2364 C. Reich, Div Mgr xxxx4959 Credit Card: Visa/U.S. Bank C. Johnson, AD xxxx0220 J. Rowley, AD xxxx2391 P. Arrington, AD xxxx3838 R. Radeva, PSA III xxxx1899 S. Kim, Interim Div Mgr xxxx1907 C. Rand, Bureau Dir xxxx5045 I. Renggenathen xxxx2423 Acct. code Stat. Date Card Account #Amount Program Purpose/Description 2100 02/22/16 xxxx1907 905.40 Indirect Admin Costs Office Exp 2100 02/22/16 xxxx1907 90.50 Child Care Svs Program Office Exp 995.90 2102 02/22/16 xxxx8798 155.92 HS Basic Grant Books, Periodicals 2102 02/22/16 xxxx8798 155.93 EHS Basis Grant Books, Periodicals 2102 02/22/16 xxxx1899 377.57 Indirect Admin Costs Books, Periodicals 689.42 2132 02/22/16 xxxx4959 455.45 EHS-CC Partnership Minor Computer Equipment 455.45 2303 02/22/16 xxxx4959 1,441.62 EHS T & TA Other Travel Employees 2303 02/22/16 xxxx1907 162.40 Indirect Admin Costs Other Travel Employees 2303 02/22/16 xxxx8798 509.88 CSD Liheap PGE Assistance Other Travel Employees 2303 02/22/16 xxxx8798 487.20 EHS-CC Partnership Other Travel Employees 2303 02/22/16 xxxx1899 758.00 Operations (C2AP)Other Travel Employees 2303 02/22/16 xxxx2391 1,686.80 Child Dev Misc Grants Other Travel Employees 5,045.90 2467 02/22/16 xxxx4959 1,190.00 Com Svc Block Grant Training & Registration 2467 02/22/16 xxxx1899 45.00 Child Dev Misc Grants Training & Registration 2467 02/22/16 xxxx1899 400.00 Indirect Admin Costs Training & Registration 2467 02/22/16 xxxx0220 15.00 Child Dev Misc Grants Training & Registration 1,650.00 2477 02/22/16 xxxx4959 1,632.28 EHS-CC Partnership Educational Supplies 2477 02/22/16 xxxx2423 91.55 Child Dev Misc Grants Educational Supplies 2477 02/22/16 xxxx2391 (19.50) Child Dev Misc Grants Educational Supplies 2477 02/22/16 xxxx2391 1,101.91 Child Dev Misc Grants Educational Supplies 2,806.24 2490 02/22/16 xxxx1907 832.33 HS Basic Grant Misc Services/Supplies 2490 02/22/16 xxxx1907 519.19 George Miller III Misc Services/Supplies 2490 02/22/16 xxxx1899 189.77 Indirect Admin Costs Misc Services/Supplies 2490 02/22/16 xxxx0220 549.05 HS Basic Grant Misc Services/Supplies 2,090.34 Total 13,733.25 Agency: Community Services Bureau COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU SUMMARY CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURE C:\DOCUME~1\DESTIN~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 7\@BCL@3811DDE0\@BCL@3811DDE0.xlsxApril 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 494 CAO Monthly Report CSBG and Weatherization Programs Year-to-Date Expenditures As of February 29, 2016 1. 2015 LIHEAP WX Contract # 15B-3005 Term: Jan. 1, 2015 - Sept. 30, 2016 Amount: WX $ 1,204,143 Total Contract 1,204,143$ Expenditures (929,812) Balance 274,331$ Expended 77% 2. 2015 LIHEAP ECIP/EHA 16 Contract # 15B-3005 Term: Jan. 1, 2015 - Sept. 30, 2016 Amount: EHA 16 $ 1,018,161 Total Contract 1,018,161$ Expenditures (984,683) Balance 33,478$ Expended 97% 3. 2015 LIWP (LOW INCOME WX) Contract # 15K-6003 Term: Jan 1, 2015 - Jan 31, 2017 Amount: $ 537,538 Total Contract 537,538$ Expenditures (146,478) Balance 391,060$ Expended 27% 4. 2016 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) Contract # 16F-5007 Term: Jan. 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016 Amount: $ 797,709 Total Contract 797,709$ Expenditures (34,973) Balance 762,736$ Expended 4% fldr/fn:CAO Monthly Reports/WX YTD Exp-CAO Mo Rprt 2-2016 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 495 Community Services Bureau Monitoring Report Summary February 2016 2015-2016 Ongoing Monitoring Report 1st Period Semi-Annual Summary Report (July-December)-Final February 2016 Description: Community Services Bureau implements a process of ongoing monitoring of its operations and services that includes: (1) using measures, tools, or procedures to implement the system of ongoing monitoring; (2) assigning staff and consultants to the ongoing monitoring of each service; (3) collecting, analyzing and reporting on the program’s progress towards its own goals for quality; and (4) following-up on and correcting any weaknesses identified through ongoing monitoring. This summary report reflects the compiled results of the monitoring conducted for the period of July 2015 through December 2015. Summary of Monitoring Activities: Monitoring was conducted for directly operated CSB centers, partner agency centers, and the Delegate Agency, First Baptist Head Start. This report highlights the monitoring results in the areas of Health and Safety, Comprehensive Services, Education, and Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) for preschool classrooms. Data sources utilized by the team included: child and family files, classroom observations, CLOUDS database reports, and parent and staff interviews. 788 Child and Family Files Reviewed 22 classrooms sampled for Health and Safety 48 directly operated, partner and delegate agency infant, toddler, and preschool classroom environments observed 37 classrooms received CLASS Observations completed between November-December April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 496 Community Services Bureau Monitoring Report Summary February 2016 2015-2016 Ongoing Monitoring Report 1st Period Semi-Annual Summary Report (July-December)-Final February 2016 HEALTH AND SAFETY Top 3 Strengths:  Head counts are completed, current & accurate; counts in binder are complete.  Children brush teeth (w/ breakfast for AM classes, w/ lunch for PM and Full-Day classes).  Adult/child ratios are in compliance for age of children served and program model. Concerns:  No concerns. NEED AND ELIGIBILITY Top 3 Strengths:  Verification of age present and matches CLOUDS child data sheet.  Child meets eligibility criteria established by the funding source(s).  Parental declaration(s) are complete and signed. Concerns:  Notice of Action complete, current, and matches 9600/9600S and Admissions Agreement.  E-filed eligibility and recertification documents are current on CLOUDS and match the file.  Next due dates on CLOUDS under the Enrollment/Recertification tab are accurate and match documents in the file. Corrective Actions: Corrective actions were taken and validated. COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES Top 3 Strengths:  Child and family files are locked to ensure confidentiality.  Discipline policy and positive guidance plan are followed and in file.  Re-screens are completed within 2 weeks of the first screening and within 45 days of enrollment. Concerns:  Physical exam form is current, completed, signed, date stamped with date received and entered on CLOUDS.  CLOUDS Health History with consents section is completed.  Dental assessment is part of “well-baby/child check” (physical exam) and entered into CLOUDS. Corrective Actions: Corrective actions were taken and validated. PRESCHOOL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT Top 3 Strengths:  Personal Care Routines: Meals/Snacks  Interaction: Staff-child interactions  Language Reasoning: Encouraging children to use language Concerns:  Activities: Understanding written numbers.  Activities: Math materials and activities April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 497 Community Services Bureau Monitoring Report Summary February 2016 2015-2016 Ongoing Monitoring Report 1st Period Semi-Annual Summary Report (July-December)-Final February 2016 INFANT/TODDLER EDUCATION Top 3 Strengths:  Activities: Promoting acceptance of diversity.  Program Structure: Provisions for children with disabilities.  Listening & Talking: Helping children use language. Concerns:  Program Structure: Lesson Plans Corrective Actions: Corrective action plans were developed and validated. CLASS Domain CSB Average Score Current DRS Threshold Based on lowest 10% of CLASS Scores of programs reviewed in 2015. Emotional Support 6.35 5.6562 Classroom Organization 5.81 5.2708 Instructional Support 3.27 2.2261 CSB average scores exceed current Designation Renewal System threshold. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 498 1 MARCH 2016 – COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU PRESCHOOL MENU MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ALL BREAKFAST & LUNCH SERVED WITH 1% LOW-FAT MILK *Indicates vegetable included in main dish WATER IS OFFERED THROUGHOUT THE DAY 1 BREAKFAST BRAN FLAKES FRESH TANGERINE LUNCH GLAZED TURKEY HAM BAKED SWEET POTATOES & APPLES FRESH KIWI WHOLE GRAIN DINNER ROLL PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE ANTS ON A LOG (fresh celery, sunbutter & raisins) 1% LOW-FAT MILK 2 BREAKFAST WHOLE WHEAT BAGEL HALF LOW-FAT CREAM CHEESE PINEAPPLE CUBES LUNCH *WHITE CHICKEN CHILI (diced chicken, white beans, tomatoes, cheese & lite sour cream) FRESH APPLE HOMEMADE WHOLE GRAIN CORNBREAD SQUARE PM SNACK HAPPY BIRTHDAY DR. SEUSS ONE FISH TWO FISH WHOLE GRAIN FISH CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 3 BREAKFAST WHOLE WHEAT CINNAMON TOAST FRESH KIWI LUNCH CUBAN BLACK BEANS BABY GREENS & VINAIGRETTE DRESSING FRESH ORANGE BROWN RICE PM SNACK WHOLE WHEAT CRACKERS MOZZARELLA STRING CHEESE 4 BREAKFAST CHEERIOS FRESH BANANA LUNCH *HAWAIIAN CHICKEN WRAP (diced chicken, broccoli, carrots, pineapple, & spinach) FRESH PEAR WHOLE GRAIN TORTILLA PM SNACK HOMEMADE BLUEBERRY BREAD SQUARE 1% LOW-FAT MILK 7 BREAKFAST CORN CHEX CEREAL FRESH RED APPLE LUNCH MACARONI & CHEESE WITH WHOLE WHEAT ELBOW NODODLES GREEN BEANS FRESH MANDARIN ORANGE PM SNACK WHOLE GRAIN DINO GRAHAM CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 8 BREAKFAST CORNFLAKE CEREAL FRESH BANANA LUNCH *JAMMIN JAMBALAYA (diced chicken, brown rice, tomatoes, bell peppers, celery, onion) FRESH PEAR PM SNACK PINEAPPLE TIDBITS COTTAGE CHEESE 9 BREAKFAST SUNBUTTER ON WHOLE WHEAT TOAST FRESH KIWI LUNCH BLACKEYE PEAS SPINACH SALAD WITH ITALIAN DRESSING FRESH ORANGE HOMEMADE WHOLE GRAIN CORNBREAD SQUARE PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE CARROT STICKS & CUCUMBER SLICES VEGETABLE DRESSING WHEAT THINS 10 BREAKFAST HOMEMADE WHOLE GRAIN OVEN BAKED PANCAKE UNSWEETEND APPLESAUCE LUNCH TURKEY ENCHILADA CASSEROLE WITH CORN TORTILLAS CHOPPED ROMAINE SALAD WITH VINAIGRETTE FRESH PEAR PM SNACK COWBOY QUINOA SALAD (“KEEN-WAH”) 1% LOW-FAT MILK 11 BREAKFAST RICE CHEX CEREAL FRESH BANANA LUNCH TUNA SALAD BROCCOLI FLORETS LOW-FAT RANCH DRESSING MANGO CHUNKS WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK CHEDDAR CHEESE STICK FRESH APPLE 14 BREAKFAST KIX CEREAL FRESH TANGERINE LUNCH *MEXICAN PIZZA (refried beans, tomato paste & salsa) REDUCED FAT MOZZARELLA CHEESE WHOLE WHEAT TORTILLA FRESH KIWI PM SNACK LEMON GRAHAM CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 15 BREAKFAST RICE KRISPY CEREAL FRESH BANANA LUNCH *VIETNAMESE CHICKEN SALAD (diced chicken, cabbage, carrots, & chili peppers FRESH PEAR WHOLE WHEAT PITA POCKET BREAD PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE MIXED FRUIT HOMEMADE NUT FREE GRANOLA LOW-FAT PLAIN YOGURT 16 BREAKFAST WHOLE WHEAT CHEESE TOAST FRESH APPLE LUNCH GROUND TURKEY & SPANISH RICE TOSSED GREEN SALAD ITALIAN DRESSING FRESH ORANGE PM SNACK FRIENDS TRAIL MIX (kix, cheerios, corn chex, raisins, pretzels, & dried apricots) 1% LOW-FAT MILK 17 BREAKFAST - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE WHOLE WHEAT ENGLISH MUFFIN HALF SUNBUTTER FRESH BANANA LUNCH *IRISH STEW (stew meat, potatoes & carrots) LUCKY LEPRECHAN GREENS (spinach, red bell peppers & diced pears) BALSAMIC DRESSING DINNER ROLL PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE FRESH BROCCOLI FLORETS & ZUCCHINI STICKS LOW-FAT RANCH DRESSING WHOLE GRAIN SALTINE CRACKERS 18 BREAKFAST - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE BREAKFAST BURRITO (scrambled eggs & salsa) SPROUTED WHEAT TORTILLA FRESH KIWI LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE MAKE YOUR OWN SANDWICH DAY SLICED TURKEY & CHEDDAR CHEESE MAYO & MUSTARD DRESSNG GREEN LEAF LETTUCE & TOMATO FRESH MANDARIN ORANGE WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK HOMEMADE BREAD PUDDING WITH RAISINS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 21 BREAKFAST RICE CHEX CEREAL FRESH APPLE LUNCH CHILI SANS CARNE (pinto beans, tomatoes, bell pepper, soy sauce, & onion) SPINACH WITH SHREDDED CARROTS ITALIAN DRESSING FRESH TANGERINE WHOLE GRAIN SALTINE CRACKERS PM SNACK ANIMAL CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 22 BREAKFAST CHEERIOS FRESH BANANA LUNCH CHICKEN CHILAQUILES WITH CORN TORTILLAS CHOPPED ROMAINE SALAD BLENDS BALSAMIC VINAIGRETTE MANGO CHUNKS PM SNACK LETS GO FISHING TRAIL MIX (crispix, pretzels, fish crackers, & cheese crackers) 1% LOW-FAT MILK 23 BREAKFAST WHOLE WHEAT BAGEL HALF SUNBUTTER FRESH KIWI LUNCH LIMA BEANS WITH CARROTS MUSTARD GREENS FRESH APPLE HOME MADE CORNBREAD SQUARE PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE HUMMUS & WHEAT CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 24 BREAKFAST WHOLE WHEAT CINNAMON TOAST PINEAPPLE CUBES LUNCH CHICKEN RAGU WITH GRATED PARMESIAN CHEESE & WHOLE WHEAT SPAGHETTI RAINBOW COLESLAW (no cheese) FRESH APPLE PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE PEAR BUNNY SALAD PEAR HALF 1% LOW-FAT MILK 25 BREAKFAST BRAN CEREAL FRESH ORANGE LUNCH – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE MAKE YOUR OWN SANDWICH DAY TURKEY HAM & SWISS CHEESE MAYO & MUSTARD DRESSING GREEN LEAF LETTUCE & TOMATO SLICE FRESH KIWI WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK HARDBOILED EGG 1% LOW-FAT MIK 28 BREAKFAST CORN CHEX CEREAL FRESH APPLE SLICES LUNCH *VEGETABLE CHILI (yogurt, kidney beans, tomatoes, bulgur wheat & cheddar cheese) FRESH KIWI SLICES WHEAT CRACKERS PM SNACK GRAHAM CRACKERS SUNBUTTER 29 BREAKFAST BRAN CEREAL FRESH TANGERINE LUNCH CHICKEN BBQ SANDWICH (diced chicken, tomato sauce & fresh celery) TOSS GREEN SALAD WITH ITALIAN DRESSING FRESH PEAR SLICES WHOLE WHEAT HAMBURGER BUN PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE CELERY & CARROT STICKS HERBED COTTAGE CHEESE 30 BREAKFAST – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE FRESH BANANA SUNBUTTER WHOLE WHEAT TORTILLA LUNCH *BROCCOLI, CAULIFLOWER & CHEESE SOUP FRESH APPLE SLICES HOMEMADE WHOLE WHEAT CORNBREAD PM SNACK DICED PEACHES LOW-FAT YOGURT 31 BREAKFAST HOMEMADE OVEN BAKED BLUEBERRY PANCAKE UNSWEETEND APPLESAUCE LUNCH *CHICKEN LO MEIN WITH WHOLE WHEAT SPAGHETTI NOODLES (diced chicken, cabbage, carrots, & green peas) FRESH ORANGE PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE HONEY WHOLE WHEAT BREAD STICK PIZZA SAUCE 1% LOW-FAT MILK NATIONAL READ ACROSS AMERCIA DAY NATIONAL BREAKFAST WEEK 2-6 DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME BEGINS MARCH 8 JOHNNY APPLESEED DAY MARCH 11 ST.PATRICK DAY MARCH 17 NATIONAL CACFP WEEK 15-21 NATIONAL NUTRITION MONTH MARCH 20, FIRST DAY OF SPRING April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 499 2016 Month covered February Approved sites operated this month 15 Number of days meals served this month 20 Average daily participation 865 Child Care Center Meals Served: Breakfast 12,816 Lunch 17,307 Supplements 12,735 Total Number of Meals Served 42,858 fldr/fn:2016 CAO Monthly Reports FY 2015-2016 EMPLOYMENT & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU CHILD NUTRITION FOOD SERVICES CHILD and ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM MEALS SERVED April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 500 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/152 to repeal any and all existing Conflict of Interest Codes of County Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs). 1. UPDATE the Board's MAC Policies document, as attached, to clarify that: MACs are not legally required to maintain Conflict of Interest Codes or to require their members to file annual financial disclosure (Form 700) statements. A. MAC members, as Board appointees, shall continue to follow Resolution No. 2002/376, Policy for Board Appointees, Concerning Conflict of Interest and Open Meetings. B. 2. AMEND the bylaws of all MACs to delete any and all references to Conflict of Interest Codes; DIRECT MACs to reprint their bylaws in conformance with this amendment. 3. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/26/2016 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: CAO, County Counsel, Clerk of the Board C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:REPEAL OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES FOR THE BOARD'S MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCILS April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 501 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) > FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: In recognition of the need by unincorporated communities for increased influence with the Boards of Supervisors, the Board has established municipal advisory councils under authorization of a 1971 legislative statute (ref Government Code section 31010). Such a council is an advisory body of local citizens appointed by the board of supervisors with the purpose of representing the community to the board. A municipal advisory council has no fiscal or administrative authority. Because it lacks authority to implement its position directly, it seeks to accomplish its goals through county government. These councils face two ways: toward the county, offering the views of the community; and toward the community, supplying information about county proposals and a place where individuals can air opinions on community problems and perhaps receive assistance and guidance. The councils hold public meetings, survey community opinion and speak for the community to the board of supervisors. The most common subject of activity is land-use planning. In 2006, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2006/395 specifying that, effective July 1, 2006, all County MAC members shall be selected and appointed by the Board of Supervisors (rather than elected) upon nomination by the District Supervisor who represents the unincorporated area served by the council. Prior to that action, MAC members comprised a mix of elected and appointed members depending on how the MAC was established. MACs, at that time, were generally considered to be public bodies and their members public officials. However, since the County's MAC members are now appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors, and because their role is purely advisory to the Board, they are no longer considered public officials as defined in the Political Reform Act and are not required to maintain a Conflict of Interest Code nor file annual financial disclosure (Form 700) statements. MACs members remain, however, Board of Supervisors appointees and, as such, must follow the Policy for Board Appointees Concerning Conflict of Interest and Open Meetings (Resolution No. 2002/376), which states: "All Board Appointees should so conduct the public business as to avoid even any appearance of conflict of interest." This requirement has been added to the Board's Municipal Advisory Council Policies as Section 10(h), attached hereto, for clarification. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Should the Board elect not to approve the recommendations, then MACs, which are solely advisory, will continue to be subject to their Conflict of Interest Codes and their members will file annual financial disclosure statements, even though this is not legally required. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/152 MAC Policies as Amended on 4-19-16 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 502 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/26/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/152 IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES FOR THE BOARD'S MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCILS WHEREAS due to their advisory role, the County's Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs) are not legally required to maintain Conflict of Interest Codes or to require their members to annually file financial disclosure statements pursuant to the California Political Reform Act; and WHEREAS, as Board of Supervisors appointees, MAC members are required to follow Resolution No. 2002/376, the Policy for Board Appointees on Conflict of Interest and Open Meetings , which states, "All Board Appointees should so conduct the public business as to avoid even any appearance of conflict of interest"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT any and all existing Conflict of Interest Codes of County Municipal Advisory Councils are hereby repealed. 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 26, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: CAO, County Counsel, Clerk of the Board 5 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 503 MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL POLICIES Originally adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on December 16, 2008 Upon the recommendation of the Ad Hoc MAC Committee: Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V and amended by the Board on January 14, 2014 and April 19, 2016 Upon the recommendation of the County Administrator April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 504 4/19/16 2 Contra Costa County Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 MAC Member Appointments .......................................................................................... 3 MAC Member Termination ............................................................................................. 4 MAC Alternate Positions ................................................................................................. 5 MAC Membership Size .................................................................................................... 5 MAC Committees.............................................................................................................. 6 MAC Meeting Location, Frequency, and Length .......................................................... 6 MAC Training Requirements .......................................................................................... 7 Administrative Staff Support of MACs .......................................................................... 8 MAC Funding.................................................................................................................... 8 MAC Operating Procedures--Creating Agendas, Posting Agendas, Records of Action, and File Storage ................................................................................................... 9 MAC External Communications and Representations ............................................... 10 MAC Annual Reports, Including Work Plans ............................................................. 11 MAC Boundaries ............................................................................................................ 11 Community Service District Board Members as MAC Members .............................. 12 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 505 4/19/16 3 Contra Costa County Introduction In recognition of the need by unincorporated communities for increased influence with their county boards of supervisors, municipal advisory councils have been organized in some counties under authorization of a 1971 legislative statute. Such a council is an advisory body of local citizens appointed by the board of supervisors with the purpose of representing the community to the board. Although a municipal advisory council is a Board of Supervisors-established advisory body, it has no fiscal authority or administrative organization. Because it lacks authority to implement its position directly, it seeks to accomplish its goals through county government. These councils face two ways: toward the county, offering the views of the community; and toward the community, supplying information about county proposals and a place where individuals can air opinions on community problems and perhaps receive assistance and guidance. The councils hold public meetings, survey community opinion and speak for the community to the board of supervisors. The most common subject of activity is land-use planning. The following policy was adopted for the purpose of improving consistency among the County’s Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs). Previously, there had been little consistency in the membership composition, method of member selection, staff support, activities conducted, methods of community outreach, and fiscal resources among the MACs. While some of these variances may have appropriately reflected the inherent differences in the communities served, a policy framework for the operating rules and procedures of the MACs ensure that the MACs are effectively serving their advisory purpose and, in that regard, are accurately representing the concerns and recommendations of the community. 1. MAC Member Appointments Resolution No. 2011/497 (“Appointments to, Formation of, and Requirements for Board Advisory Bodies”) states: “Except for county officers and employees serving in an official capacity, all advisory body members shall have specific terms of appointment as prescribed by statute or as fixed by the Board. Unless otherwise specified, appointees shall serve four-year terms, and terms should be staggered to limit the number of scheduled vacancies at any one time.” MAC members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, upon nomination by the District Supervisor. Often, after the expiration of a member term, the member continues to serve in the seat until re-appointment or dismissal. Although the continuation of service may seem efficient from the perspective of having a seat filled, it can create the impression that re-appointment is an automatic process. a. There should be no automatic re-appointment of MAC members. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 506 4/19/16 4 Contra Costa County b. At the expiration of the term, the MAC member appointment should be terminated, and the MAC member should not hold over. c. The District Supervisor may choose whether to re-nominate an incumbent member or nominate a new member. Any re-nomination or nomination must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. d. Effective January 2009, MAC member terms shall be coterminous to the term of office of the District Supervisor nominating the member. Appointments should be made within 60 days of the beginning of the District Supervisor‟s term. e. In the case of newly-elected Supervisors, MAC members can carry over their positions for a period not to exceed 90 days, to allow time for a Supervisor to recruit and make position selections and nominations to the Board of Supervisors. 2. MAC Member Termination Each appointed member of the MAC serves at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors and may be removed, at will, by a majority vote of the Board. The rescission of an appointment by the Board is rare. However, policies should be in place in the event that a MAC member acts inappropriately toward other MAC members, staff, or the public; acts outside the authority of the MAC; or has persistent problems with attendance. a. MAC members may be removed from their appointments at will upon recommendation by the District Supervisor to the Board of Supervisors. b. MAC members should express concerns about any inappropriate behavior by a member to the District Supervisor. c. If an issue arises, a District Supervisor may meet with or send a letter to the MAC member and the MAC Chair, advising the member of the concern and indicating that a failure to correct the inappropriate behavior may lead to removal. d. The MAC member should receive written notice of a recommendation for removal, of the date and time of the meeting at which the Board will consider the matter, and of the opportunity for public comment to the Board before action on the matter. e. If a MAC member or alternate has been absent from two consecutive meetings, the secretary or administrative support staff should advise the member or alternate that absence from three consecutive regular meetings of the MAC may result in a recommendation of termination to the Board of Supervisors. f. Where it appears that there will be sufficient members to hold a meeting but at the actual time of the meeting a quorum cannot be reached and the meeting is April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 507 4/19/16 5 Contra Costa County canceled, those members or alternates who are absent will have an absence counted against them. 3. MAC Alternate Positions Alternates can serve a useful purpose by assisting with the achievement of a quorum. However, a policy of automatic appointment of the alternate in the event of a vacancy may discourage other interested individuals from applying for appointment. Moreover, appointments should not be made automatically, in respect of District Supervisor responsibility for member nominations. a. Alternate positions do not automatically assume a member position when a vacancy arises. Alternates, however, may be nominated to fill a member vacancy to the Board of Supervisors by the District Supervisor. b. The District Supervisor may recommend to the Board establishment of up to two alternate positions for a 5 member MAC and one alternate position for a 7 member MAC. 4. MAC Youth Representative The District Supervisor may recommend to the Board establishment of one non-voting youth representative position on any MAC. This non-voting position shall not affect quorum requirements. 5. MAC Membership Size MACs are currently comprised of either 5 or 7 voting members with one, two, or no alternates, and are sized to correlate with the size of the community they represent, represent toand to provide greater consistency among the MACs and equalize administrative support requirements. MACs that represent unincorporated communities whose population is less than 4,000 should have a membership of no more than 5 voting members. MAC District Current Size Alamo Bay Point II V 7 7 Bethel Island III 5 Byron III 5 Contra Costa Centre IV 7 Diablo III 5 El Sobrante I 7 April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 508 4/19/16 6 Contra Costa County Kensington I 5 & 2 alts.* Knightsen III 5 North Richmond I 7 Pacheco V 5 & 1 alt.* Rodeo V 7 5. MAC Committees Some MACs have established committees (or subcommittees) to address particular subject areas considered by the MAC. However, contrary to requirements, the committees have not always operated in accordance with MAC operating procedures, the Brown Act, and the County‟s Better Government Ordinance. Unless these policies and procedures are followed, the MAC, the public and the Board of Supervisors may not be well served by the committees. a. MACs may establish a single-purpose committee (or subcommittee) when needed. The committee (or subcommittee) shall be composed solely of less than a quorum of the MAC and chaired by one of its members. Members of the public who are not MAC members may not serve on a committee or subcommittee. b. A specific charge or outline of responsibilities shall be established for the committee (or subcommittee) by the MAC in its Board-approved annual work plan. A target date shall be established through the annual Work Plan for report back to the MAC. The maximum life of the committee (or subcommitee) shall be one year, with annual review, and possible extension by the MAC through the annual Work Plan. c. The committee (or subcommittee) shall operate in accordance with MAC operating procedures, the Brown Act, and the County‟s Better Government Ordinance. d. Meeting agendas for committees (or subcommittees) shall be posted and records of action should be maintained and posted as well. 6. MAC Meeting Frequency, Location, Length, Operations Current policy in the MAC establishing resolutions indicates that MACs “shall hold regular meetings at least monthly at an established time and place.” (Italics added.) Many MACs meet twice a month, with additional committee meetings. The frequency and length of meetings increase the cost and requirements of administrative support for the MACs. However, MACs should meet as needed to ensure timely and effective input on land use matters. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 509 4/19/16 7 Contra Costa County a. MACs shall establish a standard meeting schedule for the year as part of its Board of Supervisors-approved annual work plan, making changes in consultation with the District Supervisor‟s office. b. MAC meetings should be held at a time and place convenient and accessible to MAC members, the community, and administrative support staff. c. Generally, MAC meetings should not exceed three (3) hours in length. d. MACs shall fully comply with the Board of Supervisors‟ policy concerning conflict of interest and open meetings (Resolution No. 2002/376). e. The MACs shall agendize and respond to items that are referred to them in a timely manner (i.e., within 30 days of referral) such that their review does not delay the County consideration of the matter. f. Time limits may be imposed in the course of the meeting by the Chair. In general, speakers should be prepared to make their points known within three minutes. g. The agenda should reflect and the MAC Chair should remind the public at the start of each meeting that the MAC is an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors. 7. MAC Training Requirements The staffs of the County Administrator‟s Office (CAO), Auditor-Controller and County Counsel annually train advisory body and MAC members on operating procedures, fiscal procedures, the Brown Act, the County‟s Better Government Ordinance, and County government in general. Training provides MAC members with resources and knowledge to operate efficiently and effectively. a. MAC members must attend a training offered by the CAO staff at least once during the first two years of his/her term, preferably in the first year, and must view the video training “The Brown Act and Better Government Act—What You Need to Know” within 60 days of their appointment by the Board of Supervisors. b. MAC members are encouraged to attend the annual advisory body training and should receive an orientation on MAC member duties and responsibilities by District and/or CAO staff before their first meeting. CAO staff will develop and distribute a MAC Handbook to members, as well as a guide to the Brown Act. c. Within three months of appointment, each MAC member shall complete the prescribed training on compliance with conflict of interest and open meeting laws and shall certify that he or she has completed such training. Training certificates should be maintained by the District administrative support staff. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 510 4/19/16 8 Contra Costa County d. MAC chairs and/or treasurers must receive fiscal training offered by the Auditor- Controller‟s Office and CAO staff before assuming their position. 8. Administrative Staff Support of MACs Administrative support resources have varied widely among MACs. Some MACs have handled their own administrative matters; others have been supported by District staff or a contractor. To ensure effectiveness, all MACs need some level of administrative support services provided by either District staff or through an independent contractor. a. Each District Supervisor should determine if their MACs will receive administrative support services from District staff or an independent contractor retained by the District. b. In all cases, District staff should be responsible for fiscal oversight of the MACs. c. Administrative support services to the MACs could include some or all of the following: i. MAC agenda preparation, posting, and distribution. ii. Attendance at MAC meetings and arranging for County staff attendance, as needed. iii. Preparing responses to inquiries made during public comment. iv. Preparing responses of requests from MAC members. v. Records of action posting and distribution. vi. Filing and maintaining training certifications. vii. Fiscal oversight of the MAC budget and establishment of Petty Cash fund. 9. MAC Funding a. Each District Office should be provided $3,000 annually per MAC for support of MAC operations. Prior to FY 2014/15, funding was not available for this purpose; however, the Board allocated operations funding for FY 2014/15. Non- General Fund support for MAC operations should be identified during those periods when County General Fund support is unavailable. b. Funding will be restricted to the following uses: clerical support, telephone expenses, post office box expenses, postage, print and mailing services, and community meeting expenses. Funding may not be expended on other items not directly related to the functions and activities specified in the Board-approved annual work plan. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 511 4/19/16 9 Contra Costa County c. MACs are encouraged to seek and apply for funding from other non-County sources to supplement their budget. 10. MAC Operating Procedures--Creating Agendas, Posting Agendas, Records of Action, and File Storage Not every MAC has consistently operated in adherence with a set of operating rules, the Brown Act, the County‟s Better Government Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors‟ policy concerning conflict of interest and open meetings (Resolution No. 2002/376), and the Board‟s policy governing appointments to boards, committees, and commissions (Resolution 2011/497). Without adherence to policies and rules, public participation and the provision of public information is hampered. In addition, the District Supervisor and Board of Supervisors may not be well served by a lack of timely and accurate information. a. The agenda for a MAC meeting should be created by the MAC Chair in consultation with the administrative support staff. The County Administrator‟s Office will provide an agenda template. (See Attachment A.) The Agenda should include a statement that the MAC is an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors. b. The agenda for a MAC meeting shall be posted in accordance with the Brown Act and the County‟s Better Government Ordinance. c. District staff is encouraged to post the agenda and record of actions on the District webpage. d. Materials distributed for the meeting must be available for viewing at a specified location that is a public place, accessible during normal business hours, at least 96 hours before a scheduled meeting. In addition, a sufficient number of copies of meeting materials (a minimum of 10) should be available at the meeting for MAC members and the public. e. The MAC should keep a record of its actions in a form prescribed by the County‟s Better Government Ordinance: “Each County body must keep a record of its meeting. Though the record need not be verbatim, i.e., a tape-recording, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting.” (Ord. § 25- 2.205). f. The Record of Actions should be approved by the MAC and submitted to the District Supervisor office no later than one month after their approval. The County Administrator‟s Office will provide a template for Records of Actions. (See Attachment B.) April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 512 4/19/16 10 Contra Costa County g. Storage space for MAC files should be provided at District Supervisor offices where feasible. For transition purposes, District Supervisors should have access to at least two years of records. If there is insufficient space in the District offices, the County Administrator‟s Office can assist with the provision of storage space at a centralized location. h. MACs will not maintain Conflict of Interest Codes; however, as Board of Supervisors appointees, MAC members are required to follow Resolution No. 2002/376, the Policy for Board Appointees on Conflict of Interest and Open Meetings, which states, "All Board Appointees should so conduct the public business as to avoid even any appearance of conflict of interest." 11. MAC External Communications and Representations MACs advise the Board of Supervisors on land use and planning matters affecting their communities of interest and may represent their communities before the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator on such issues as land use, planning, and zoning. MACs may also represent the community before the Local Agency Formation Commission on proposed boundary changes affecting the community. MACs may advise the Board of Supervisors on services which are or may be provided to the community by Contra Costa County or other local government agencies. Such services include, but are not limited to, public health, safety, welfare, public works, and planning. MACs may also provide input and reports to the Board, County staff or any County hearing body on issues of concern to the community. However, it is understood that the Board of Supervisors is the final decision making authority with respect to issues concerning the community and that the Council shall serve solely in an advisory capacity. a. Except as specified, the MAC and its individual members acting on behalf of the MAC, may not represent the community to any federal, state, other county, city, special district or school district, agency or commission, or any other organization on any matter concerning the community. b. Individual MAC members cannot represent the MAC‟s positions unless such representation has been expressly authorized by a vote of the MAC. When an individual member is authorized to represent the MAC‟s position to the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or LAFCo, that member should speak only to those topics which have been expressly authorized by the MAC and only with respect to the issues MACs are authorized to address. c. The MAC may not, as a body, take positions on candidates for any public office or take positions on any legislative matter. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 513 4/19/16 11 Contra Costa County d. On any business cards, letterhead, or printed material from the MAC, the MAC should be identified as an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors, and the contact information for the District Supervisor should be included. 12. MAC Annual Reports, Including Work Plans Work Plans had not been regularly submitted by the MACs; however, they are a good planning tool and help focus the MAC‟s time and attention. With respect to “Responsibilities of Advisory Bodies,” Board Resolution 2011/497 states: “Each advisory body shall submit an Annual Report to the Board on its activities, accomplishments, membership attendance, required training/certification (if any), and proposed work plan or objectives for the following year, in December.” a. In January 2014, the Board expanded the scope of the annual report to include a section on receipt and expenditure of funds, by line item/expenditure category. b. Each MAC should be reminded of its annual reporting responsibilities by administrative staff support. c. MAC annual reports, including work plans, should be reviewed by the District Supervisor who will recommend appropriate action by the Board of Supervisors. d. Each MAC should consult with District staff when developing its annual work plan. e. Failure to submit the required annual report and work plan may result in consideration of MAC dissolution. 13. MAC Boundaries The current MAC boundaries do not necessarily reflect the “community of interest” for every MAC. A few MACs are surrounded by a combination of established boundaries (city or special district boundaries) or natural boundaries. However, others are partially surrounded by cities but may include industrial or agricultural land outside the Urban Limit Line. Others include lesser inhabited rural areas or government-owned areas (such as an airport, special district lands, transitional military bases, etc.). In addition, there had previously been no apparent common or consistent rationale for the MAC boundaries. There are unique characteristics of each area; however, the boundaries should reflect the true "community of interest” for each MAC. Therefore, the following April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 514 4/19/16 12 Contra Costa County criteria are established to redraw the MAC boundaries, as necessary, to achieve this objective. The area for which the MACs will serve and discharge their duties and powers is the unincorporated area described on the attached maps which reflect the following criteria: a. Use of Borders: The unincorporated community of interest may be bounded by established borders such as county and city limit lines, special district boundaries (including, but not limited to, park and water districts), census tracts, geographic features such as highways or waterways, and/or the adopted Urban Limit Line. Borders are followed to the extent practicable and to the extent that they reflect the generally recognized “community of interest.” b. Population Density and Community Affiliation: Population density and recognized population centers should be considered in determining boundaries (where established borders do not exist). The unincorporated community of interest should also include the neighborhoods or residential areas commonly or traditionally affiliated with the name of the community. Uninhabited or sparsely populated rural or agricultural areas should generally be excluded unless there are known or anticipated matters of public health, safety, welfare, public works, and/or planning. c. Areas of special interest: When an unincorporated community of interest is adjacent to industrial areas or facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, gas fields), these areas should be included if there are known or anticipated matters of public health, safety, welfare, public works, and/or planning. When an unincorporated community of interest is adjacent to government-owned lands (e.g., airports, special district lands, transitional military bases, etc.), these areas should be included only if there are known or anticipated matters of public health, safety, welfare, public works, and/or planning. 14. Community Service District (CSD) Board Members as MAC Members The MAC and the CSD are separate bodies and cannot be combined into a single public entity1. However, the Board of Supervisors can create a MAC and specify that the members of the MAC shall be those persons serving as Directors of the CSD. (This was accomplished in April 2007 for the Diablo MAC.) 1 At its March 12, 1997 meeting, the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) passed Resolution 96-19 that addressed termination of the Discovery Bay Municipal Advisory Council and stated that its advisory functions would be assumed by the Discovery Bay CSD Board of Directors. Subsequent to that action, the Board of Supervisors passed Resolution 97-295 terminating the Discovery Bay Municipal Advisory Council effective December 1, 1998 and acknowledging that DBCSD would assume the advisory functions previously performed by the MAC: “In order to create a smooth transition of „in - progress‟ advisory functions to the newly created DBCSD, the Discovery Bay Municipal Advisory Council shall be terminated on December 1, 1998, and its advisory responsibilities shall be assumed by the DBCSD Board of Directors.” April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 515 4/19/16 13 Contra Costa County In April 2009, the Board amended its Better Government Ordinance (BGO) to exempt MACs whose membership composition is the same as the elected members of a CSD in order to eliminate any conflicts in open meeting and operating requirements between the County and a CSD. The exemption relates only to the BGO; MACs whose membership comprises a CSD board must still comply with the Brown Act and Public Records Act. When the Board of Supervisors designates that a MAC shall have the same membership composition as a CSD Board, the CSD Board can then submit an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to activate its latent power to finance the operation of a MAC. After receiving LAFCo‟s approval, the Board of Directors may, by ordinance, order the exercise of that power. (Gov. Code §§ 61100 (ad); 61106). For such bodies: a. The “Membership” provision of the MAC‟s establishing resolution should be amended to specify that the Council would consist of five members who shall be the current elected members of the CSD, appointed by the Board of Supervisors, upon nomination by the District Supervisor. b. The “Term of Office” provision of the MAC‟s establishing resolution should be amended to specify that a MAC member‟s term shall be the same as his or her term of office on the CSD Board of Directors. Also, vacancies would not be filled through the Board of Supervisors appointment process. Rather, they would be filled based upon the result of CSD elections. c. The “Removal from Office” provision of the MAC‟s establishing resolution should be deleted, as it would not be consistent with representation by elected CSD Board members serving ex officio as members of the MAC. d. The “Quorum and Vote Necessary for Action” provision of the MAC‟s establishing resolution should be deleted, as it is more efficient for the MAC members to operate pursuant to the quorum and vote requirements of the CSD. e. The MAC‟s “Territorial Area,” or boundaries, should be modified to be coterminous with that of the CSD unless there are compelling reasons for separate boundaries owing to the CSD‟s service requirements or the identification of the MAC‟s “community of interest.” f. Notwithstanding the above amendments, the MAC should continue to operate as a County advisory body, subject to the County‟s operating procedures and policies for MACs and other advisory bodies, including the County‟s Better Government Ordinance. April 26, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 516