Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08162016 -CALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AGENCIES, AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNED BY THE BOARD BOARD CHAMBERS ROOM 107, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 651 PINE STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 CANDACE ANDERSEN, CHAIR, 2ND DISTRICT MARY N. PIEPHO, VICE CHAIR, 3RD DISTRICT JOHN GIOIA, 1ST DISTRICT KAREN MITCHOFF, 4TH DISTRICT FEDERAL D. GLOVER, 5TH DISTRICT DAVID J. TWA, CLERK OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, (925) 335-1900 PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES. A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR. The Board of Supervisors respects your time, and every attempt is made to accurately estimate when an item may be heard by the Board. All times specified for items on the Board of Supervisors agenda are approximate. Items may be heard later than indicated depending on the business of the day. Your patience is appreciated. ANNOTATED AGENDA & MINUTES August 16, 2016                  9:00 A.M. Convene and announce adjournment to closed session in Room 101. Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS 1. Agency Negotiators: David Twa and Bruce Heid. Employee Organizations: Contra Costa County Employees’ Assn., Local No. 1; Am. Fed., State, County, & Mun. Empl., Locals 512 and 2700; Calif. Nurses Assn.; Service Empl. Int’l Union, Local1021; District Attorney’s Investigators Assn.; Deputy Sheriffs Assn.; United Prof. Firefighters, Local 1230; Physicians’ & Dentists’ Org. of Contra Costa; Western Council of Engineers; United Chief Officers Assn.; Service Empl. Int’l Union United Health Care Workers West; Contra Costa County Defenders Assn.; Probation Peace Officers Assn. of Contra Costa County; Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorneys’ Assn.; and Prof. & Tech. Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO; Teamsters Local 856. 2. Agency Negotiators: David Twa. Unrepresented Employees: All unrepresented employees. B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov. Code, § 54956.9(d)(1)) Diane Renton, RN v. County of Contra Costa, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. N15-0866 1. 9:30 A.M. Call to order and opening ceremonies. Inspirational Thought- "There are plenty of difficult obstacles in your path. Don't allow yourself to become one of them." ~ Ralph Marston 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 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1 Staff Present:David Twa, County Administrator Sharon Anderson, County Counsel CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.78 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.   DISCUSSION ITEMS   D. 1 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    Item C.8 was removed to allow for discussion and public comment, and adopted as presented.   D. 2 PUBLIC COMMENT (3 Minutes/Speaker)    The following people spoke on the matter of the imminent closure of the Love-A-Child Mission homeless shelter for women and children: Eve Cominos, resident of Martinez; Tiffany M. Lancaster, resident of Bay Point; Jerome Knott, Founder; Marneka Pollan, resident of Bay Point; Teresa Casey, resident of Bay Point; Kim Galletta, resident of Bethel Island; Pastor Eric Yound, resident of Pittsburg; Courney V. Davis, resident of Pittsburg. A gofundme site has been set up to take donations. Supervisor Federal Glover said the county is aware of the imminent foreclosure of the facility and has been working with the Health Services department to find housing for those who would be displaced. The following members of SEIU 1021 spoke on the importance of the social services their workers provide and ongoing contract negotiations: Kim Carter Martinez; Peggy Henderson; Karl Arana; Dan Jameyson; Peggy Bishop; Suzy Porter. Eli Anthony Dominguez, resident of Martinez, spoke on what he believes to be corrupt politics and police services in Contra Costa County and documents received from the Superior Court (attached).   D.3 HEARING to consider adopting Ordinance No. 2016-15 authorizing operators of privately owned off-street parking facilities to regulate unauthorized parking in those facilities, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. (No fiscal impact) (Monish Sen, Public Works Department)       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. 2016/497 to approve the Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program for fiscal year 2015/2016 through 2021/2022, as recommended by the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee, Countywide. (No fiscal impact) (Steve Kowalewski, Public Works Department)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.5 CONSIDER approving termination of the call center contract between the County and the Health Benefit Exchange, effective December 31, 2016, and authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to issue a ninety-day termination notice to the State. (Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 2  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 accepting the final Chevron Richmond Refinery third-party safety evaluation prepared by the Process Improvement Institute in response to the August 6, 2012 Chevron Richmond Fire, as recommended by the Health Services Director. (Randall Sawyer, Health Services Department)       Speaker: Walt Gill, resident of Richmond.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.7 CONSIDER adopting report as the Board of Supervisors' response to Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1606, entitled "Reclaiming Our Water”. (David Twa, County Administrator)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.8 CONSIDER adopting report as the Board of Supervisors' response to Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1607, entitled "Delta Levees in Contra Costa County”. (David Twa, County Administrator)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 9 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   Closed Session    There were no Closed Session announcements.   ADJOURN    Adjourned today's meeting at 1:30 p.m.   CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 APPROVE improvement plans for storm drain repair on Hazel Avenue, as recommended by the Public Works Director, East Richmond Heights area. (51% County General Drainage Funds, 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. 2 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute two construction contracts with Alta Fence Co., Inc., and Crusader Fence Company, Inc., in the amount of $400,000 each, for the 2016 On-Call Fencing Services Contract(s) for Various Road, Flood Control and Facilities Maintenance Work Project, Countywide. (100% Local Road and Flood Control Funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 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. 3 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc., effective July 7, 2015, to extend the term from June 30, 2016 to December 31, 2016 and to increase the payment limit by $20,000 to a new payment limit of $260,000, for construction management services for the Countywide Overlay Project, Byron and Pleasant Hill areas. (57% Local Street & Road Preservation, 43% 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 Engineering Services   C. 4 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/495 accepting completion of landscape improvements for a Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) for SD06-09035, for a project being developed by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Danville area. (100% Developer Fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 5 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/496 accepting completion of the warranty period for the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) and release of cash deposit for faithful performance, for subdivision SD07-8970, for a project developed by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (100% Developer Fees)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 6 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/499 approving the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD16-9301, for a project being developed by Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 7 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/500 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to fully close a portion of Coverntry Road between Berkeley Park Boulevard and Ocean View Avenue, on September 5, 2016 from 12:00 p.m. through 4:00 p.m., for the purpose of a neighborhood block party, Kensington area. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 8 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/502 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to permanently close Dougherty Road from Stoneleaf Road/Ivyleaf Springs Road to Bollinger Canyon Road (South), effective August 29, 2016, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (100% Developer Fees)       Speakers: Shisiro K mohanty Solomon; Nishant Asthana; Ranganathan Madhanagopal; Velu Kandasamy; Viswanathan August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 4  Speakers: Shisiro K mohanty Solomon; Nishant Asthana; Ranganathan Madhanagopal; Velu Kandasamy; Viswanathan Ananthanarayanan. Commentary submitted via email is attached. Resolution 2016/ 502 contained a minor typographical error. The revised version was accepted into the record by unanimous vote.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Special Districts & County Airports   C. 9 ACCEPT a Grant of Easement from the City of Brentwood and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute the amendment to drainage fee collection, right of way, and maintenance agreement between the City of Brentwood and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in connection to Drainage Area 52C, Basin 3/4 (Snowman Basin), Brentwood area. (No Fiscal Impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 10 APPROVE the design and bid documents, including the plans and specifications, for the Montalvin and MonTara Bay Parks Improvements, Denise Drive and 2250 Tara Hills Drive, San Pablo, California and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to solicit bids to be received on or about September 15, 2016. (100% East Bay Regional Park District Measure WW Local Grant Program)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 11 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a construction contract in the amount of $1,559,961 with Granite Rock Company, for the Buchanan Airport Taxiway Echo & Kilo Improvements Project, Concord area. (90% Federal Aviation Administration Funds, 2% Caltrans Funds, 8% Airport Enterprise 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. 12 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Consolidated CM, to extend the term from June 1, 2015 to June 30, 2017 and to increase the payment limit by $50,000 to a new payment limit of $2,607,773, for construction management services for the Upper Sand Creek Basin Project, Antioch area. (100% Flood Control District Drainage Area 130 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. 13 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with Brian Guerin for a T-hangar at Buchanan Field Airport effective August 27, 2016 in the monthly amount of $394.10. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 14 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to amend the Fuel Supply    August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 5 C. 14 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to amend the Fuel Supply Agreement with Ascent Aviation Group, Inc. to extend the contract termination date to purchase and resell branded aviation fuel at Byron Airport from August 31, 2016 to October 31, 2016; and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, to execute on behalf of the Director of Airports, a purchase order amendment with Ascent Aviation Group, Inc., to extend the effective end date from August 31, 2016 to October 31, 2016 for aviation fuel at Byron Airport. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 15 DENY claims filed by Safeco Insurance Company, James Renton, Jeanne Boyd, Andrew McKleroy, Megan Beach, Rebecca Brown, Donald Driver, Nicholas Grant, Eaen Hale, Richard Kite, Mary Mountbatten, Maria Price, Jennifer Rhee, Ralph Scott, State Farm, as subrogee of Donna Watanabe Tamur, and Wunmi Mohammed Kamson & Calvin Kamson; DENY late claim filed by Mary Mountbatten.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Statutory Actions   C. 16 ACCEPT Board members' meeting reports for July 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 Honors & Proclamations   C. 17 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/512 supporting the 2016 East Bay Stand Down to be held September 15 - 18, 2016 at the Alameda County Fairgrounds, 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. 18 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/489 recognizing the contributions of Leo Costa on his 30 years of service to Contra Costa County, as recommended by the Public Works Director. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appointments & Resignations   C. 19 REAPPOINT Harold D'Ambrogia to the District II Seat on the Assessment Appeals Board, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 20 REASSIGN Mark Cordone from the 2nd Alternate Seat on the County Service Area P-5 Citizens    August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 6 C. 20 REASSIGN Mark Cordone from the 2nd Alternate Seat on the County Service Area P-5 Citizens Advisory Committee to the Appointee 5 Seat, DECLARE a vacancy in the 2nd Alternate Seat on the County Service Area P-5 Citizen 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. 21 ACCEPT the resignation of Teri Mountford, DECLARE vacant the Advisory Council on Aging, Member at Large, Seat #19, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy 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. 22 ACCEPT the resignation of Earle Ormiston, DECLARE vacant the Advisory Council on Aging Member At Large, Seat #7, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy 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. 23 APPOINT Jason Tanseco to the District III Family Member seat on the Mental Health Commission, as recommended by Supervisor Piepho.       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 APPOINT Jennifer DeLano Cohen to the District III seat on the Contra Costa Commission for Women, as recommended by Supervisor Piepho.       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 APPOINT William Marz to County Service Area P-2A on the County Service Area P-2A, as recommended by Supervisor Piepho.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 26 APPOINT Michael Ward to the District V - Consumer seat and Meghan Cullen to the District V Member at Large seat on the Mental Health Commission, as recommended by Supervisor Glover.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 27 APPOINT Melissa Jacobson to Seat 1 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 C. 28 APPOINT Juan Pablo Benavente to the Low-Income Seat No. 2 on the Economic Opportunity Council as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III SupervisorAugust 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 7  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Personnel Actions   C. 29 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21879 to reallocate the classification of Animal Clinic Veterinarian-Exempt (unrepresented) position on the Salary Schedule in the Animal Services Department. ( 32% User Fees, 31% City Revenues, 37% 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. 30 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21896 to add one Clerk-Recorder Services Manager (represented) position and one Information Systems Technician I (represented) position; and cancel one Recorder's Operations Manager (represented) position and one Information Systems Specialist II (represented) position in the Clerk Recorder Elections Department. (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. 31 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21904 to add four represented positions for the expansion of dental services in the Health Services Department. (83% Health Care for the Homeless Grant and 17% Federally Qualified Health Care revenues)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 32 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21903 to add six Juvenile Institution Officer III (represented) positions in the Probation Department. (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 Leases   C. 33 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a lease with RIO Properties I, LLC, for 22,746 square feet of rentable office and warehouse space for the Health Services Department – Information Technology Division, at 2400 Bisso Lane in Concord, at an initial annual rent of $313,884 for the first year with an annual increase thereafter, for a term of 12 years with one ten-year renewal term, under the terms and conditions set forth in the lease. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 34 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute a contract in an amount not to exceed $21,599 with the Department of Pesticide Regulation for the County to implement "Enforcement Evaluation and Improvement Project" for the period of July 1, 2016 through February 28, 2017. (No County match)     August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 8    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 35 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District, to provide congregate meal services for County’s Senior Nutrition Program, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, with a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2017. (No County match)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 36 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director or designee, to execute an agreement with University of California, San Francisco, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $11,800 for the Connection to Health Diabetes Self-Management Project at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. (No County match)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment & Human Services Department Director, or designee, to apply for and accept funding in an amount not to exceed $6,250,000 from the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families for Early Head Start supplemental funding for the term January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. (20% in-kind 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. 38 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Bay Area Community Resources, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $60,673 to a new payment limit of $130,673 for additional and enhanced Youth Justice Initiative services in East Contra Costa County for the period of April 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. (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. 39 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract with MRW, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $174,800 to complete a technical study of Community Choice Energy for the period August 17, 2016 through August 16, 2017. (29% General Fund, 71% Various Cities)       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 Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Dudek, Inc., to extend the term from August 18, 2016 through August 18, 2017 with no change in the payment limit of $180,545, to provide continued service to complete the environmental impact report for the Byron Airport General Plan Amendment. (100% Mariposa Energy Project Community Benefits Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 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 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the University of Cincinnati Research Institute (UCRI), to increase the payment limit by $61,000 to a new payment limit of $261,000, for consulting services in the Juvenile Hall. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 42 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Interim Librarian, a purchase order with Bibliotheca, LLC in an amount not to exceed $169,700, and a service and maintenance agreement for library book and media security software and equipment, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Library Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract containing modified indemnification language with Oxford Immunotec, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $10,000, to provide outside clinical laboratory services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period from June 1, 2016 through May 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 the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Debri-Tech, Inc., to increase the payment limit from $500,000 to a new payment limit of $1,000,000, to provide as-needed assistance with trash and abandoned waste cleanup and removal for the Contra Costa County Watershed Program, for the period of August 1, 2015 through July 31, 2018, Countywide. (100% Stormwater Utility Assessment Revenue Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 45 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Accela, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $333,677, to provide data conversion software utilized by the Hazardous Materials and Environmental Health Divisions for the period from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2019. (61% Environmental Health; 39% Hazmat program 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. 46 APPROVE clarification of Board action of July 12, 2016, (C.57), which authorized the Health Services Director, or designee, to contract with People Who Care Children Association to provide Mental Health Services Act prevention and early intervention services, to reflect the correct automatic six month extension term end date of December 31, 2017, not December 31, 2016. (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. 47 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with    August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 10 C. 47 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Community Health for Asian Americans in an amount not to exceed $806,563, to provide mental health services to children in West County, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, with a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017, in an amount not to exceed $403,281. (49% Federal Financial Participation, 49% Mental Health Realignment; 2% Non-Medi-Cal Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 48 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Recovery Innovations, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $3,671,130, to provide community-based mental health support services for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. (78% Mental Health Services Act; 22% Mental Health Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Young Men’s Christian Association of the East Bay, in an amount not to exceed $984,464, to provide on-site school counseling services for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, with a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017, in an amount not to exceed $472,705. (48% Federal Financial Participation; 48% Mental Health Realignment; 4% Non-medical Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Serramonte Pulmonary Asthma & Sleep Clinic, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $200,000, to provide pulmonary care at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period from September 1, 2016 through August 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. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Adolescent Treatment Centers, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $121,304, to provide residential substance use disorder treatment services for Contra Costa County youth, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 52 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay $200,000 to Cross Country Staffing, Inc. for temporary staffing services rendered at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, as recommended by the Health Services Director. (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. 53 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc., an amount not to exceed $95,000 for consultation and technical assistance services provided, as recommended by the Health Services Director. (85% Federal Bioterrorism, 3% State AIDS Program, and 12% County funds)        August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 11  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay Ujima Family Recovery Services in an amount not to exceed $11,899 for outpatient treatment services provided, as recommended by the Health Services Director. (50% Federal Drug Medi-Cal, 50% State Drug Medi-Cal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 55 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Child Therapy Institute of Marin, effective July 1, 2016, to modify the service plan and the rate sheet to include case management and crisis intervention services, in addition to outpatient services, for seriously emotionally disturbed children and youth in East and West county. (50% Federal Financial Participation; 50% County Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Aspira Technologies, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $305,000, to provide consultation and technical assistance to the Department’s Information Systems Unit 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. 57 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Bi-Bett Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $133,488, to provide transitional housing services for homeless adult males for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% AB 109 Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with R House Inc., in an amount not to exceed $119,952, to provide residential treatment services for youth at its Santa Rosa facility, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 59 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Whitehat Security, Inc., effective August 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $100,000, to a new payment limit of $150,000, to continue providing software maintenance and support, consulting, technical support and training to the Department’s Information Systems Unit, and to extend the contract term from August 3, 2016 to August 3, 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. 60 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Consulting    August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 12 C. 60 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Consulting Services Agreement with KMD Architects, subject to approval by the County Administrator and approval as to form by County Counsel, in an amount not to exceed $200,000, for architectural, engineering and other technical services to provide a planning study for the replacement of existing County Administration Building.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 61 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Consulting Services Agreement with Dreyfuss & Blackford Architects, subject to approval by the County Administrator and approval as to form by County Counsel, in an amount not to exceed $200,000, for architectural, engineering and other technical services to provide a five year capital facilities plan.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 62 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Consulting Services Agreement with Ross Drulis Cusenbery Architecture, Inc., subject to approval by the County Administrator and approval as to form by County Counsel, in an amount not to exceed $200,000, for architectural, engineering and other technical services to provide a planning study for preliminary work on a new emergency operations center.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 63 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute contract amendments with Kathy Moniz-Narasaki, Patrice Guillory, and Eugene Jackson in an aggregate amount not to exceed $62,930.19 for Reentry Network Services for the County’s AB 109 Realignment Program Central/East County Network System of Services for the period July 1, 2016 through Sept. 30, 2017, as recommended by the County Administrator. (100% AB 109 Public Safety Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 64 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay $2,269.20 to Patrick Mims for Field Operations Coordinator services rendered for the Central/East County Reentry Network System of Services for the period July 1-8, 2016, as recommended by the County Administrator. (100% AB 109 Public Safety Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 65 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a Master Support Agreement with Tiburon Inc., in an amount not to exceed $223,868 for dispatch and records systems support for the period September 10, 2016 to September 9, 2017. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 66 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 $55,000, from $4,127,000 to a new payment limit of $4,182,000 for the provision of criminal conflict defense services with no change to the term July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. (100% County General Fund)        August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 13  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. 67 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with nThrive Solutions, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $230,000 to provide Tumor and Cancer Registry and oncology interim management services for the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period August 1, 2016 through July 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 Other Actions   C. 68 ACCEPT the Refugee Services Plan for federal fiscal years 2016 through 2019 as required by the California Department of Social Services Refugee Programs Bureau and 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. 69 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/501 accepting as complete the construction contract work performed by Valentine Corporation for the North Richmond Pump Station Diversion Project, Corner of Gertrude Avenue and Richmond Parkway, Richmond, as recommended by the Public Works Director. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 70 ACCEPT the July 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. 71 ACCEPT report on the Public Works Department and Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Accreditation Program, as recommended by the Public Works Director and Chief Engineer, 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 C. 72 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Defender, or designee, to serve as a host organization for the Boston College Law School Public Service Fellows Program, a year-long postgraduate fellowship program that engages graduates in the criminal legal process, for the period September 1, 2016 through August 30, 2017. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 73 ACCEPT the 2014 and 2015 calendar year reports for the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III SupervisorAugust 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 14  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 74 ACCEPT the 2014 and 2015 calendar year reports for North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council (NRMAC), 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. 75 APPROVE the Driveway and Parking Lot Repair Project in the amount of $634,048 at 202 Glacier Drive, Martinez, and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, as recommended by the Public Works Director. (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. 76 ACCEPT quarterly report of the Post Retirement Health Benefits Trust Agreement Advisory Body, as recommended by the Post Retirement Health Benefits Trust Agreement Advisory Body.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 77 APPROVE response to Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1609, entitled "Human Trafficking and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to forward the response to the Superior Court following Board action.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 78 CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16, 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   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. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 15 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. 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. Ad Hoc on Sustainability Committee August 22, 2016 12:30 p.m.See above Airports Committee September 28, 2016 1:30 p.m. See above Family & Human Services Committee September 12, 2016 1:00 p.m. See above Finance Committee September 8, 2016 10:30 a.m. See above Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee September 12, 2016 Canceled October 10, 2016 9:00 a.m.See above Internal Operations Committee August 22, 2016 11:00 a.m. See above August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 16 Legislation Committee September 12, 2016 10:30 a.m. See above Public Protection Committee September 26, 2016 9:00 a.m. See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee September 8, 2016 1:00 p.m. 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 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 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 17 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 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 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 18 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 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 19 RECOMMENDATION(S): OPEN the public hearing on Ordinance No. 2016-15, RECEIVE public testimony, and CLOSE the hearing; ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-15, which authorizes operators of privately owned off-street parking facilities to regulate unauthorized parking in those facilities. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: This ordinance would amend Ordinance Code Chapter 46-14, which regulates private off-street parking facilities. The ordinance includes new dispute resolution procedures that a private parking operator must adopt if it imposes parking charges at its facility. The ordinance was drafted to minimize the County's involvement in disputes between private parking operators and people who contest parking charges. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Monish Sen D.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Adopt County Ordinance No. 2016-15 to regulate private off-street parking facilities August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 20 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Summary of Existing Ordinance Chapter 46-14 authorizes operators of privately owned and maintained off-street parking facilities to impose a parking violation charge on an owner of a vehicle for unauthorized parking. A parking violation charge may not be imposed at an off-street parking facility unless signs that comply with the ordinance have been posted at the facility. The ordinance also establishes requirements that apply to printed notices issued at off-street parking facilities, requires private parking operators that issue notices to register with the Public Works Department, and establishes regulations that apply to the collection of unpaid parking violation charges. Summary of Draft Ordinance The attached draft ordinance amends Chapter 46-14 by establishing new dispute resolution requirements, as mandated by Assembly Bill 451. AB 451 amended Vehicle Code section 21107.8 to require local ordinances to include certain dispute resolution procedures that apply to private parking operators. Under section 46-14.012 of the draft ordinance, each private parking operator must establish a written dispute resolution policy for contesting parking charges. A written dispute resolution policy established by a private parking operator must include: (1) specified time periods for notifications, review, and appeal; (2) an administrative hearing process that includes options for a hearing in person or by mail, a hearing by an independent third-party examiner, and authority for the examiner to allow payment of the parking charges in installments; (3) and a prohibition against incentives based on the number of invoices issued or the number or percent of disputed invoices adjudicated in favor of the operator. To minimize the County's involvement in disputes between private parking operators and people who contest parking charges, section 46-14.012 only requires a private parking operator to file its written dispute resolution procedures with the Public Works Department and to obtain the Public Works Department's approval of the parking operator's administrative hearing process. Section 46-14.012 of the ordinance does not require the County to hold hearings or contract with independent hearing officers. The current ordinance already requires private parking operators to register with the Public Works Department. The ordinance also makes minor changes to section 46-14.008, which governs signs, and section 46-14.010, which governs notices. The ordinance also adds section 46-14.020, which authorizes private parking operators to tow vehicles under specified circumstances. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Not approving this ordinance would maintain the County’s involvement in disputes between privately owned off-street parking facilities and people who contest parking charges. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Private parking facilities amend ord MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance 2016-15 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 21 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 22 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 23 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 24 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 25 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 26 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 27 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 28 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 29 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 30 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 31 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 32 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 33 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 34 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 35 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 36 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 37 RECOMMENDATION(S): HEARING to consider adoption of Resolution No. 2016/497 to approve the Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program (CRIPP) for fiscal year 2015/2016 through 2021/2022, as recommended by the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee, Countywide. (Steve Kowalewski, Public Works Department) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. Approval and adoption of the CRIPP will provide a planning document that will outline the anticipated expenditures of road related capital funds in the next seven years. The CRIPP is a working document that programs funds for capital road improvement projects within the County. Preparation of the CRIPP is a requirement of the Growth Management Program and Measure J funding. BACKGROUND: The CRIPP is a programming document for the funding of capital road improvement projects within unincorporated Contra Costa County. It includes estimated project costs, funding source information, and scheduling information for known potential projects within the next seven fiscal years. It also includes revenue projections APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Angela Villar (925) 313-2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Jerry Fahy, Nancy Wein D.4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 to 2021/2022 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 38 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and a summary of estimated project-related expenditures for each funding source. The Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program (CRIPP) was established by Resolution 89/306 under the County Road Improvement Policy. The Policy was authorized by Government Code Section 66002 and is required under the Growth Management Element of the Contra Costa Transportation and Growth Management Program Ordinance approved by the voters in November 1988 (Measure C-88) and reaffirmed in 2004 with passage of Measure J. Measure J requires that each participating local agency develop a five-year CRIPP to meet and/or maintain traffic service and performance standards. In 1991, the CRIPP was expanded to cover seven years to conform to the Congestion Management Plan, and in 1992 the CRIPP update was changed to a biennial schedule. Approval of the CRIPP by the Board of Supervisors does not automatically approve each individual project listed in the CRIPP. Each project in the CRIPP is subject to a separate public review, engineering feasibility analysis, and environmental assessment and whenever feasible, be consistent with County policies, design guidelines, and regional planning documents. This includes an assessment of opportunities for Green Infrastructure and Complete Streets elements. Some projects may have cost increases and/or project scope changes after these elements are evaluated in more detail. All these things are considered before the Board of Supervisors will consider final approval of the project. As this is a planning level document, adoption of the CRIPP will not preclude development and construction of projects that have not been identified. As more information is gathered about a project, the Public Works Department may determine that the project will cost more than originally estimated for reasons not known at this time. In such a case, the Public Works Department will study various alternatives to find a solution to funding shortfalls. The Public Works Department will adjust subsequent CRIPPs to reflect any changes in project scope or cost. On April 14, 2016, the TWIC accepted a report on the impacts to County transportation projects from the declining State Gas Tax. This impact is reflected in the 2015 CRIPP. If the State Legislature fails to take effective action, the County will likely need to indefinitely delay several projects and lose the already secured grant funds associated with those projects. These changes will need to be reflected in future CRIPP updates. Adopting a CRIPP to guide our capital improvements will do several things for the County: • Increase public awareness of how and where funds will be spent on our road system. • Enhance public trust and increase funding transparency by demonstrating that funds are programmed and expended in accordance with an approved program. • Encourage more public involvement in the programming and expenditure of our capital funds. • Provide accurate “accountability” of whether our transportation system will meet an acceptable level of service to satisfy our growth management policies. • Provide a basis for projecting staffing needs over the next seven years. • Provide a budget tool to track expenditures of each type of funding utilized for capital improvements. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 39 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the CRIPP could adversely affect the schedule of road improvements for the next seven years as this document provides direction for project planning and staff requirements in the coming years. Measure J and the County’s proposed growth management policy requires adoption of a CRIPP be enacted to meet the anticipated needs of new development impacts on the roadway systems. Without an approved CRIPP, the County will not be able to fulfill this requirement, which would jeopardize our Measure J return to source funding. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/497 CRIPP Part 1 CRIPP Part 2 CRIPP Part 3 CRIPP Part 4 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Res 2016/497 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 40 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 08/16/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/497 IN THE MATTER OF the approval of the Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program for fiscal year 2015/2016 to 2021/2022 for unincorporated Contra Costa County. WHEREAS, the Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program (CRIPP) was established by Resolution 89/306 under the County Road Improvement Policy; and WHEREAS, the County Road Improvement Policy was authorized by Government Code Section 66002 and is required under the Growth Management Element of the Contra Costa Transportation and Growth Management Program Ordinance approved by the voters in November 1988 (Measure C-88) and reaffirmed in 2004 with passage of Measure J; and WHEREAS, Measure J requires that each participating local agency develop a five-year CRIPP to meet and/or maintain traffic service and performance standards. In 1991, the CRIPP was expanded to cover seven years to conform to the Congestion Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the CRIPP is a programming document for the funding of capital road improvement projects within unincorporated Contra Costa County; and WHEREAS, each project in the CRIPP is subject to a separate public review, engineering feasibility analysis, and environmental assessment before the Board of Supervisors will consider final approval of the project; and WHEREAS, adoption of the CRIPP will not preclude development and construction of projects that have not been identified; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department will study various alternatives to find a solution to funding shortfalls. The Public Works Department will adjust subsequent CRIPPs to reflect any changes in project scope or cost; and WHEREAS, adopting a CRIPP to guide our capital improvements will do several things for the County: · Increase public awareness of how and where funds will be spent on our road system. · Enhance public trust and increase funding transparency by demonstrating that funds are programmed and expended in accordance with an approved program. · Encourage more public involvement in the programming and expenditure of our capital funds. · Provide accurate “accountability” of whether our transportation system will meet an acceptable level of service to satisfy our growth management policies. · Provide a basis for projecting staffing needs over the next seven years. · Provide a budget tool to track expenditures of each type of funding utilized for capital improvements; and WHEREAS, the CRIPP was reviewed by the County Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on July 14, 2016 and recommended to the Board of Supervisors for adoption. WHEREAS, a hearing was held on August 16, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers; and WHEREAS, the notice of hearing was published and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 66002 and 65090; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County approves the Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 to 2021/2022 Contact: Angela Villar (925) 313-2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Jerry Fahy, Nancy Wein 5 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 41 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 42 Contra Costa County 2015 Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program FISCAL YEAR 2015/16 TO FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4897 (925) 313-2000 www.co.contra-costa.ca.usDRAFT August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 43 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 44 SUMMARY On May 19, 1989, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Capital Road Improvement Policy to guide the development and continuation of the Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program (CRIPP). On April 17, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved the first CRIPP. This CRIPP is updated every other year during the odd years (i.e. 2015, 2017, 2019). The 2015/2016 CRIPP summarizes the County’s road improvement projects for the next seven years (Fiscal Years 2015/16 through 2021/22). The CRIPP conforms to the Congestion Management Plan, which is also a seven-year planning document. It should be noted that the CRIPP is a programming document that, once approved, will provide a strategic plan and a schedule for the Public Works Director to program the engineering work on these projects. Approval of the CRIPP by the Board does not automatically approve each individual project listed in the CRIPP. Each project in the CRIPP must undergo its own individual engineering feasibility analysis and environmental assessment and be consistent with County policies, design guidelines, regional planning documents, whenever feasible, and other policies as my be adopted by the County from time to time. These considerations include an assessment of opportunities for Green Infrastructure and Complete Streets Elements. Some projects may have cost increases and/or project scope changes after thorough environmental studies. The CRIPP, therefore, is expected to change as we learn more about each project. State Gas Tax is the largest source of revenue for the County’s capital road program. It is also a primary funding source used by the County to leverage grant funds. The County has seen a significant reduction in the amount of State Gas Tax it receives to operate and maintain our local unincorporated road network. This impact is reflected in the 2015 CRIPP. To address the Gas Tax revenue reduction, the County is deploying a project delay strategy that delays the construction of several projects for one to two years in anticipation that the State Legislature will agree on a transportation funding fix. However, if the State Legislature fails to take effective action within the two year window, the County will likely need to indefinitely delay several projects and lose the already secured grant funds associated with those projects. These changes will need to be reflected in future CRIPP updates. The CRIPP is organized in two components. Section I shows capital outlays and revenues for each of the County's primary road-related revenue sources over the next seven years. Section II contains the project descriptions for each individual project identified in Section I. The tables showing the anticipated capital outlays for each individual project are included with the individual project descriptions, giving the user of the CRIPP a complete picture of each project all in one place in the document. Section I shows the anticipated revenue and fund expenditures for all road-related funding sources for the next seven years. There is a table for each funding source, showing the estimated expenditures broken down by project, the year when the expenditure is expected to occur, and the projected yearly revenue for the fund. Projects with multiple funding sources are listed under more than one funding source. Section II provides detailed information on each of the projects that are programmed to receive funding in the next seven years. The information provided for each project includes a project name, project location, purpose and need, a brief project description, source of funding, the Supervisor District, and the anticipated expenditure plan. Projects awaiting fund allocation (underfunded) are listed in Section III. Projects are organized alphabetically. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 45 The table of contents lists all funding sources and projects in the order they appear in the CRIPP. A second list cross-references the projects by County Supervisorial District to enable the user to find a project geographically in the context of its Supervisorial District. The appendix includes Board policies and the Area of Benefit project lists. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 46 Table of Contents 1 CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM Table of Contents CRIPP Introduction & Background PAGE # Introduction and Background 1 Figure 1: Projected 7 Year Revenue for the Road Program 6 Table A: Summary of Projected Annual Revenue 8 Table B: Summary of Projected Annual Project Expenditures 10 Table C: Acronyms for Grant Programs and other Funding Sources used in the CRIPP 11 Disclaimer of Liability and Warranties 13 Section I: Funding Sources PAGE # Taxes, Bond Measures, Grants & Other Local Funds Gas Tax Funds I-1 Figure 2: Projected Gas Tax For Capital Improvement Program in 2015 CRIPP I-2 State Match Funds I-3 Measure J: Return to Source Funds I-4 Measure J: Regional Funds I-4 Federal, State and Regional Grant Funds I-5 Other Local Funds I-6 Areas of Benefit Alamo Area of Benefit I-7 Bay Point Area of Benefit I-7 Bethel Island Area of Benefit I-8 Briones Area of Benefit I-8 Central County Area of Benefit I-9 Discovery Bay Area of Benefit I-9 East County (Regional) Area of Benefit I-10 Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett Area of Benefit I-10 Martinez Area of Benefit I-11 North Richmond Area of Benefit I-11 Pacheco (West Concord) Area of Benefit I-12 Richmond/El Sobrante Area of Benefit I-12 South County Area of Benefit I-13 South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit I-13 West County Area of Benefit I-14 County Trust Funds Discovery Bay West Mitigation Funds I-14 Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation Funds I-15 Navy Mitigation Funds I-15 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 47 Table of Contents 2 Section II: Active Projects PAGE # Projects Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - east of Bear Creek Road Intersection II-1 Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - Rancho La Boca Road to Ferndale Road II-2 Bailey Road Overlay Project - SR4 to Keller Canyon Landfill Entrance II-3 Bailey Road/State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Project II-4 Balfour Road Shoulder Widening - Sellers Avenue to Bixler Road II-5 Bay Point Curb Ramp Project II-6 Bay Point Sign Upgrade Project II-7 Bay Point Utility Undergrounding Project II-8 Byron Highway & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements II-9 Byron Highway Bridge Replacement over California Aqueduct (Bridge No. 28C0121) II-10 Byron Highway Traffic Safety Improvements II-11 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project - Finley Road to Windemere Parkway II-12 Camino Tassajara Shoulder Widening - 1.1 mile South of Highland Road to 0.3 mile North of Windemere II-13 Canal Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements II-14 Canal Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0376)II-15 Clifton Court Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0403)II-16 Giaramita Street Sidewalk Replacement II-17 Jersey Island Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0405)II-18 Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes II-19 Main Street, Byron Sidewalk Improvements II-20 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0141)II-21 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0143 & 28C0145)II-22 Marsh Creek Road Safety Improvements - 2.0 to 2.25 miles West of Deer Valley Road II-23 Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements II-24 Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0442)II-25 May Road Sidewalk Extension Project II-26 Miranda Avenue Sidewalk Improvements II-27 Morgan Territory Bridge Scour Repairs II-28 Orwood Road Bridge Replacement Project (Bridge No. 28C0024)II-29 Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure - Windhover Way to Goree Court II-30 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 48 Table of Contents 3 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central and East County II-31 Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements II-32 Port Chicago Highway & Willow Pass Road Bike and Pedestrian Improvements II-33 Rio Vista Elementary School Pedestrian Connection Project II-34 Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure Project II-35 San Pablo Dam Road Sidewalk Gap Project II-36 San Pablo Dam Road Walkability Project II-37 Stormwater Treatment Demonstration Project II-38 Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure Project II-39 County-Wide Projects County-Wide Curb Ramp Projects II-40 County-Wide Operation & Safety Improvements II-41 County-Wide Overlay Project II-42 County-Wide Surface Treatments II-43 County-Wide Traffic Calming II-44 Section III: Underfunded Projects III-1 Appendices PAGE # Appendix A: County Road Improvement Policy A-1 Appendix B: Guidelines For Expenditure of Gas Tax Revenue B-1 Appendix C: Board Order Approving the 2015 CRIPP and TWIC Report C-1 Appendix D: Area of Benefit Maps and Project Lists D-1 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 49 Table of Contents 4 CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM Projects by County Supervisorial District DISTRICT 1 Active Projects PAGE # Giaramita Street Sidewalk Replacement II-17 May Road Sidewalk Extension Project II-26 San Pablo Dam Road Sidewalk Gap Project II-36 San Pablo Dam Road Walkability Project II-37 Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure Project II-39 Underfunded Projects III-1 Alhambra Valley Road Slide Repair – 0.7 miles west of Castro Ranch Road Alhambra Valley Road Slide Repair – 0.4 miles west of Bear Creek Road Appian Way & Pebble Drive Traffic Signal and Safety Improvements Appian Way Complete Streets Project - San Pablo Dam Road to Valley View Road Appian Way Complete Streets Project - Valley View Road to Pinole City Limits Arlington Boulevard & Amherst Avenue & Sunset Drive Intersection Improvements Bear Creek Road & Happy Valley Road Intersection Improvements Brookside Drive Widening – Fred Jackson Way to Union Pacific Railroad Castro Ranch Road Widening - San Pablo Dam Road to Olinda Road Colusa Avenue Complete Streets Project Del Monte Drive Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0207) El Portal Drive Widening - San Pablo City Limits to San Pablo Dam Road Fred Jackson Way Improvements - Grove Avenue to Brookside Drive Fred Jackson Way/Goodrick Avenue Realignment La Paloma Road Pedestrian and Roadway Improvements North Richmond Sidewalk Replacement North Richmond Truck Route - Parr Boulevard to Market Avenue Olinda Road Pedestrian Improvements - Valley View Road to 850 ft south of Valley View Road Parr Boulevard Widening – Richmond Pkwy to Union Pacific Railroad Pitt Way Roadway Improvements Pittsburg Ave Widening - Fred Jackson Way to Richmond Parkway San Pablo Dam Road Improvements (Various Locations) San Pablo Dam Rd & Greenridge Drive Signal Improvements San Pablo Dam Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - Tri Lane to Appian Way Seventh Street Extension to Brookside Drive Tara Hills Drive Complete Streets Project Valley View Road Widening - San Pablo Dam Road to Appian Way August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 50 II-17 II-39 II-39 II-36 II-26 2015 CRIPP – Active Project Map Note: 1) Projects are identified with the page number in Section II. 2) County-wide Projects are not shown on this map. 3) District I contains 121.96 miles of the 666.16 miles of County maintained roadway. Projects are identified with the page number in Section II. August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes51 Table of Contents 6 CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM Projects by County Supervisorial District DISTRICT 2 Active Projects PAGE # Miranda Avenue Sidewalk Improvements II-27 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central and East County II-31 Underfunded Projects III-1 Bear Creek Road & Happy Valley Road Intersection Improvements Boulevard Way Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Bridgefield Road at Olympic Boulevard Intersection Improvement Danville Blvd & Hemme Avenue Intersection Improvements Dewing Lane Pedestrian Bridge Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements Fish Ranch Road Safety Improvements - SR 24 to Grizzly Peak Road Iron Horse Trail Flashers Miranda Ave Improvements - Stone Valley Road to Stone Valley Middle School Newell Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilitation Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvements - Ashbourne Drive to Alameda County Limits Olympic Boulevard & Boulevard Way & Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection ImprovementsOlympic Corridor Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements - Short Term Olympic Corridor Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements - Long Term Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements on Livorna Road, Stone Valley Road, and Danville Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Schools in Alamo Pinehurst Road Bicycle Improvements Pleasant Hill Road Bicycle Improvements - Geary Road to Taylor Boulevard Reliez Valley Road Bicycle Improvements - North of Grayson Road to Withers AvenueSpringbrook Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Stone Valley Road Improvements - High Eagle Road to Roundhill Road Stone Valley Road Improvements - Roundhill Road to Glenwood Court Stone Valley Road Improvements - Stone Valley Way to High Eagle Road Tice Valley Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 52 2015 CRIPP – Active Project Map II-27 Note: 1) Projects are identified with the page number in Section II. 2) II-31 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project is not shown for District II 3) County-wide Projects are not shown on this map. 4) District II contains 100.64 miles of the 666.16 miles of County maintained roadway. August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes53 Table of Contents 8 CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM Projects by County Supervisorial District DISTRICT 3 Active Projects PAGE # Balfour Road Shoulder Widening - Sellers Avenue to Bixler Road II-5 Byron Highway & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements II-9 Byron Highway Bridge Replacement over California Aqueduct (Bridge No. 28C0121) II-10 Byron Highway Traffic Safety Improvements II-11 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project - Finley Road to Windemere Parkway II-12 Camino Tassajara Shoulder Widening - 1.1 mile South of Highland Road to 0.3 mile North of Windemere II-13 Clifton Court Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0403)II-16 Jersey Island Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0405)II-18 Main Street, Byron Sidewalk Improvements II-20 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0141)II-21 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0143 & 28C0145)II-22 Marsh Creek Road Safety Improvements - 2.0 to 2.25 miles West of Deer Valley Road II-23 Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements II-24 Morgan Territory Bridge Scour Repairs II-28 Orwood Road Bridge Replacement Project (Bridge No. 28C0024)II-29 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central and East County II-31 Underfunded Projects III-1 Balfour Road Shoulder Widening - Deer Valley Road to Brentwood City Limits Balfour Road & Byron Highway Intersection Improvements Bethel Island Road Widening - Wells Lane to Sandmound Boulevard Bethel Island Road & Sandmound Road Intersection Improvements Bixler Road Improvements - SR 4 to Byer Road Blackhawk Road Bikeway Project Byer Road Improvements - Bixler Road to Byron Highway Byron Highway & Byer Road Intersection Improvements Byron Highway Safety Improvements (Various Locations) Byron Highway Two-Way Left Turn Lane at Byron Elementary School Byron Highway Widening - Camino Diablo to the Alameda County Line Byron Highway Widening - Delta Road to Chestnut Street Byron Highway Widening - Chestnut Street to SR 4 Byron Highway Widening - SR 4 to Camino Diablo Camino Diablo Widening - Vasco Road to Byron Highway Camino Tassajara Safety Improvements (Various Locations) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 54 Table of Contents 9 Underfunded Projects (cont.) Camino Tassajara Widening - Windemere Parkway to Alameda County Line Chestnut Street Widening - Sellers Avenue to Byron Highway Clipper Drive Improvements - Newport Drive to Discovery Bay Boulevard Deer Valley Road Safety Improvements (Various Locations) Delta Road Widening - Byron Highway to Holland Tract Road Delta Road Widening - Sellers Avenue to Byron Highway Discovery Bay Boulevard & Clipper Drive Intersection Improvements Gateway Road Widening - Bethel Island Road to Piper Road Highland Road Improvements - Camino Tassajara to Alameda County Line Knightsen Avenue & Delta Road Intersection Improvements Knightsen Avenue Widening - East Cypress Road to Delta Road Knightsen Avenue/Eden Plains Road Widening - Delta Road to Chestnut Street Marsh Creek Road & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements Marsh Creek Road & Deer Valley Road Intersection Improvements Marsh Creek Road Realignment & Safety Improvements (Various Locations) Marsh Creek Trail Morgan Territory Road Safety Improvements Piper Road Widening - Gateway Road to Willow Road Point of Timber Road & Byron Highway Intersection Improvements Sandmound Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements - Mariner Rd to Cypress Road Sandmound Boulevard Widening - Oakley City Limits to Mariner Road Sellers Ave & Balfour Road Intersection Improvements Sellers Avenue & Sunset Road Intersection Improvements Sellers Avenue & Chestnut Avenue Intersection Improvements Sellers Avenue & Marsh Creek Road Intersection Improvements Sellers Avenue Widening - Brentwood City Limits to Marsh Creek Road Sellers Avenue Widening - Delta Road to Chestnut Street SR 4 & Byron Highway South Intersection Widening (Phase 2) SR 4 & Newport Drive Signal SR 4 Widening - Bixler Road to Discovery Bay Boulevard SR239/Trilink: Byron Airport Connector Sunset Road Widening - Sellers Avenue to Byron Highway Vasco Road Safety Improvements (Phase 2) Walnut Boulevard Bicycle Improvements - Marsh Creek Road to Vasco Road August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 55 2015 CRIPP – Active Project Map II-18 II-29 II-5 II-9 II-11 II-16 II-20 II-10 II-22 II-23,24 II-21 II-28 II-12 II-13 Note: 1) Projects are identified with the page number in Section II. 2) II-31 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project is not shown for District III 3) County-wide Projects are not shown on this map. 4) District III contains 220.57 miles of the 666.16 miles of County maintained roadway. August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes56 Table of Contents 11 CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM Projects by County Supervisorial District DISTRICT 4 Active Projects PAGE # Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes II-19 Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements II-24 Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0442)II-25 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central and East County II-31 Underfunded Projects III-1 Ayers Road & Concord Boulevard Intersection Improvements Ayers Road & Laurel Avenue Intersection Improvements Ayers Road & Myrtle Drive Intersection Improvements Bailey Road & Myrtle Drive Intersection Improvements Bailey Road Improvements - Myrtle Drive to Concord City Limits Buskirk Avenue Improvements - Treat Blvd to Pleasant Hill City Limits Concord Avenue Bicycle Improvements - I-680 off-ramp to Iron Horse Trail Iron Horse Trail Flashers Las Juntas Way & Coggins Drive Intersection Improvements Marsh Creek Road Realignment & Safety Improvements (Various Locations) Marsh Creek Trail Marsh Drive Improvements - Center Avenue to Iron Horse Trail Mayhew Way Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - 200' west of Oberan Dr to Bancroft Road Mountain View Blvd Pedestrian Improvements - San Miguel Drive to Walnut Boulevard North Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill Area Pavement Rehabilitation Oak Road Improvements - Treat Blvd to Pleasant Hill City Limits Pleasant Hill BART Station Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Reliez Valley Road Bicycle Improvements - North of Grayson Road to Withers Avenue Rudgear Road & San Miguel Drive Intersection Improvements Rudgear Road/San Miguel/Walnut Boulevard/Mountain View Boulevard Safety Improvements San Miguel Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Treat Boulevard & Buskirk Avenue Intersection Improvements Treat Boulevard & Jones Road Intersection Improvements Treat Boulevard Bicycle Improvements - Jones Road to Walnut Creek City Limits Treat Boulevard (I-680 Overcrossing) Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 57 Table of Contents 12 Underfunded Projects (cont.) Walnut Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements - View Lane to 250' west of Walnut Court Wayfinding Signage Placement for Walnut Creek and Iron Horse Trail August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 58 2015 CRIPP – Active Project Map II-19 II-25 II-24 Note: 1) Projects are identified with the page number in Section II. 2) II-31 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project is not shown for District IV 3) County-wide Projects are not shown on this map. 4) District IV contains 40.83 miles of the 666.16 miles of County maintained roadway. August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes59 Table of Contents 14 CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM Projects by County Supervisorial District DISTRICT 5 Active Projects PAGE # Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - east of Bear Creek Road Intersection II-1 Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - Rancho La Boca Road to Ferndale Road II-2 Bailey Road Overlay Project - SR4 to Keller Canyon Landfill Entrance II-3 Bailey Road/State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Project II-4 Bay Point Curb Ramp Project II-6 Bay Point Sign Upgrade Project II-7 Bay Point Utility Undergrounding Project II-8 Canal Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements II-14 Canal Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0376)II-15 Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes II-19 Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure - Windhover Way to Goree Court II-30 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central and East County II-31 Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements II-32 Port Chicago Highway & Willow Pass Road Bike and Pedestrian Improvements II-33 Rio Vista Elementary School Pedestrian Connection Project II-34 Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure Project II-35 Stormwater Treatment Demonstration Project II-38 Underfunded Projects III-1 Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements (Various Locations) Alves Lane Extension - Willow Pass Road to Pacifica Avenue Bailey Road Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements - Canal Road to Willow Pass Road Bella Vista Infrastructure Improvements Center Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - Pacheco Boulevard to Marsh Drive Crockett Area Overlays & Reconstruction Project Cummings Skyway Truck Lane Extension Delta De Anza Trail Gap Closure (Various Locations) Delta De Anza Trail Crossing Project Driftwood Drive Improvements - Port Chicago Highway to Pacifica Avenue Evora Road & Willow Pass Road Intersection Improvements Kirker Pass Road Southbound Truck Lanes Kirker Pass Road Northbound Runaway Truck Ramp Local Road Pedestrian and Bicycle Upgrade at Benicia Bridge Loftus Road Pedestrian Improvements - Canal Road to Willow Pass Road Marsh Drive Improvements - Center Avenue to Iron Horse Trail August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 60 Table of Contents 15 Underfunded Projects (cont.) McNabney Marsh Open Space Connection to Waterfront Road Pacheco Boulevard & Center Avenue Intersection Improvements Pacheco Boulevard & Muir Road Intersection Improvements Pacheco Boulevard Bicycle Improvements - Arnold Drive to Muir Road Pacheco Boulevard Improvements - Morello Avenue to Blum Road Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure - east of Las Juntas Elementary School Pacifica Avenue Extension - Port Chicago Highway to Alves Lane Pacifica Avenue Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0379) Parker Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project Pedestrian Improvements near Rodeo Hills Elementary School Pleasant Hill Road & Taylor Boulevard Intersection Improvements Pomona Street/Winslow Avenue/Carquinez Scenic Drive Safety Alignment Study Port Chicago Highway Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - Driftwood Drive to McAvoy Road Port Chicago Hwy Realignment Project - McAvoy Road to Skipper Road Reliez Valley Road Bicycle Improvements - North of Grayson Road to Withers Avenue San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Project - Rodeo to Crockett Waterfront Road Grade Change Project Willow Pass Road & Bailey Road Intersection Improvements Willow Pass Road (West) & SR 4 Interchange Improvements Willow Pass Road Improvements - Bailey Road to Pittsburg City Limits Willow Pass Road Improvements - Evora Road to SR 4 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 61 2015 CRIPP – Active Project Map II-1 II-2 II-35 II-32 II-4 II-14 II-3 II-8 II-15 II-7, 33 II-6, 34 II-38 II-30 II-19 Note: 1) Projects are identified with the page number in Section II. 2) II-31 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project is not shown for District V 3) County-wide Projects are not shown on this map. 4) District V contains 182.16 miles of the 666.16 miles of County maintained roadway. August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes62 Table of Contents 17 CAPITAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT & PRESERVATION PROGRAM Projects by County Supervisorial District County-Wide Active Projects PAGE # County-Wide Curb Ramp Projects II-40 County-Wide Operation & Safety Improvements II-41 County-Wide Overlay Project II-42 County-Wide Surface Treatments II-43 County-Wide Traffic Calming II-44 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 63 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 64 Introduction & Background August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 65 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 66 Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program (CRIPP) is a programming document for the funding of capital road improvement projects within Contra Costa County. It includes estimated project costs, funding source information, and scheduling information for known potential projects within the next seven fiscal years. It also includes revenue projections and a summary of estimated project-related expenditures for each funding source. Approval of the CRIPP by the Board of Supervisors does not automatically approve each individual project listed in the CRIPP. Each project in the CRIPP is subject to a separate public review, engineering feasibility analysis, and environmental assessment and whenever feasible, be consistent with County policies, design guidelines, and regional planning documents and other policies as may be adopted by the County. This includes an assessment of opportunities for Green Infrastructure and Complete Streets elements. Some projects may have cost increases and/or project scope changes after these elements are evaluated in more detail. All These things are considered before the Board of Supervisors will consider final approval of the project. As more information is gathered about a project, the Public Works Department may determine that the project will cost more than originally estimated for reasons not known at this time. In such a case the Public Works Department will study various alternatives to find a solution to the funding shortfall. The Public Works Department will adjust subsequent CRIPPs to reflect any changes in project scope or cost. The project costs in the CRIPP are for the current year. The CRIPP does not escalate the project costs for future inflation. A large portion of the funding programmed in the CRIPP is from fees associated with the Area of Benefit (AOB) programs, which are adjusted yearly to provide for inflation. Since the ongoing Area of Benefit program inflates the majority of the revenue in the CRIPP, and since the CRIPP is updated every two years, the added complication and expense of inflating revenue and construction costs in the CRIPP is not justified. Anyone using this document, as a planning device, should adjust the project costs as appropriate. HISTORY OF THE CRIPP The CRIPP was established by Resolution 89/306 under the County Road Improvement Policy (attached as Appendix A). The Policy was authorized by Government Code Section 66002 and is required under the Growth Management Element of the Contra Costa Transportation and Growth Management Program Ordinance approved by the voters in November 1988 (Measure C-88). Measure C-88 required that each participating local agency develop a five-year CRIPP to meet and/or maintain traffic service and performance standards. In 1991, the CRIPP was expanded to cover seven years to conform to the Congestion Management Plan, and in 1992 the CRIPP update was changed to a biennial schedule. THE 2015 CRIPP Pursuant to the County Road Improvement Policy, this 2015 CRIPP schedules road improvement projects for fiscal years 2015/2016 through 2021/2022 and balances the estimated project costs with the projected revenues. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 67 Introduction 2 A. REVENUE SOURCES Principal revenue sources for road improvements include local Area of Benefit (AOB) fees (charged to new development), federal and state grants, Measure J funds, State Match funds, Gas Tax Funds, developer contributions, and funds from other agencies in cooperative projects. The amount of AOB funds available to the County at any given time is directly related to development. Measure J, State Match, and Gas Tax funds are largely dependent on the state of the economy, and grant sources are directly affected by federal and state budgets. Many projects are funded by a combination of AOB funds and other funding sources. Shortfalls in AOB revenues can affect scheduling of projects that include federal and state grants. Therefore, when the Public Works Department receives substantial federal and state funding for a particular AOB project, that project is given high priority to prevent the loss of the secured funding. The primary funding sources are as follows: 1. Gas Tax Funds: Gas Tax Funds, also known as the Highway Users Tax Account, are revenues paid by the State to cities and counties from the per-gallon motor vehicle fuel tax. Appendix B of this CRIPP shows the County-adopted guidelines for the expenditure of Gas Tax revenues following passage of Proposition 111 in 1990. The County uses the majority of the Gas Tax funds to enhance road operation and maintenance. To the extent that sufficient funds are available, the funds are used in the Capital Improvement Program to improve traffic safety throughout the County by using them as the required match to leverage funds from other sources. This allows the County to take full advantage of federal and state grant opportunities. Gas Tax Funds are made up of two parts: the Gas Excise Tax and the Price-Based Excise Tax. The Gas Excise Tax portion is based on the amount (gallon) of gas purchased and the Price-Based Excise Tax is dependent on the price of gas. Although the County has seen a slight increase in the Gas Excise Tax over the past several years, this increase is far short of the drastic reduction the County has seen in the Price-Based Excise Tax portion of the Gas Tax. This trend affects the projected revenue as shown in Table A. 2. State Match Funds: State Match Funds are revenues paid by the State to counties from the State Highway Account. The funds are to be used for transportation purposes to match federally funded transportation projects. Funds received are treated as grants with up-front lump sum payments and the unobligated balance of the County’s State Matching monies is paid directly to the County, subject to availability from the State. The County uses the State Match Funds to supplement federally funded projects. 3. Measure J (Measure C): The voters approved the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program Ordinance (Measure C) in November 1988. Measure C provides for a ½-cent sales tax for transportation projects within Contra Costa County. Measure C had a twenty-year life and expired in 2009. In November 2004, voters approved the continuation of the County’s ½ - cent sales tax by August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 68 Introduction 3 passing Measure J and extended the transportation funding for 25 more years. The Measure J funds are composed of Return to Source Funds, Regional Funds, and other grants, such as Transportation for Livable Communities. Return to Source Funds: A portion of the revenue is returned to local jurisdictions to be used for maintenance of existing roadways and construction of new facilities to fix capacity and safety problems in existence before 1988 (those problems that came into existence after 1988 are presumed to be the responsibility of new development). The proposed use for these funds is outlined in this CRIPP. Regional Funds: A portion of the revenue is designated for projects of a regional significance. For the portion of these funds that the County has access to, the proposed use is outlined in this CRIPP. Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC): A portion of the revenue is designated for projects/programs for plans and facilities that support walkable, mixed-use, transit-supportive communities or that encourage more walking, bicycling and transit use. These funds are distributed through a grant program administered by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 4. Area of Benefit Revenues: The unincorporated County is divided into Areas of Benefit. Appendix D has a page for each AOB containing the current Ordinance Number, the project list, and a map. Within each AOB, road improvement projects to alleviate known traffic congestion or traffic safety problems have been identified and prioritized. An AOB fee is charged to all developments that create additional traffic in the area, to pay for these projects. The fee amount varies depending on which AOB the property is located in, the amount of traffic generated by the development, and the cost of the projects identified on that AOB’s Project List. A seven-year revenue estimate was made for each of the AOBs using the past five-year revenue history, development potential and consulting with the Engineering Services and the Finance Divisions of the Public Works Department. The AOB program is constantly being updated. The updates include, revising the AOB project lists, revising the fee schedules, adjusting the fee schedule for inflation, and adjusting the remaining development potential. The updates may have a significant impact on potential project funding. In addition, several AOBs are being merged or incorporated into an adjacent AOB to become more fiscally efficient. Current AOB fees can be accessed on the County web site at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB 5. Trust Funds: When a large development makes a significant impact on the roadway system, the developer may be required to contribute to a road improvement fund to mitigate the impacts of the development. For the 2015 CRIPP, the County has three August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 69 Introduction 4 funds that are held in trust funds to be used for specific projects. Navy Mitigation Funds in the Bay Point Area provided $5 million to help fund new transportation improvements and waterfront access to offset the loss of Port Chicago Highway through the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Other developer fees include the Discovery Bay West Traffic Mitigation Funds, and the Keller Canyon Mitigation Funds. Each of these funds is held in trust by the County and is listed as separate funding sources in this CRIPP. 6. Grants: The Public Works Department continuously submits grant applications due at various times of the year for projects throughout the County. Each type of grant has unique project criteria. Some of these grants and their criteria are listed in Table C at the end of this section. Most applications compete statewide for funding, from the smallest safety project to the largest road extension project. In many cases where Gas Tax funds are used, the Public Works Department looks for grants or other ways to stretch its budget and to increase the number of improvement and maintenance projects. 7. Other Local Funds: The County participates in several Regional Fee programs throughout the County where the fee program is adopted by several participating jurisdictions and is administered jointly through a separate authority. As these Regional Fee programs are not under the authority of the County, the revenue and expenditures for these programs are not included in the CRIPP. The Regional Fee programs include the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA), the Southern Contra Costa (SCC) Fees, West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee Fee (WCCTAC), and the Tri Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee. B. PROJECTED ANNUAL REVENUE Table A represents staff’s future revenue estimate, based on historical trends and current development applications for the road program. Part I of the table (on the first page) shows the projected revenue from all funding sources, Part II (on the second page) shows the projected revenues from the Area of Benefit programs, and Part III (on the second page) shows the project revenue from the County Trust Funds Section 1 of Part I of Table A represents the total funding from various revenue sources available to the road program from Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and non-CIP sources. Section 2 represents that portion of the programs funded by Gas Tax and Measure J, since not all the revenue from these sources is available for CIP projects in the CRIPP. Section 3 represents the actual available funding for CIP projects in the CRIPP by subtracting the funding for the programs in Section 2 from the total available funding in Section 1. Part II of Table A represents the funding sources from the Area of Benefit (AOB) program. The rate at which AOB revenue is generated is tied to the land development rate. As a result of the weakened economy, revenue collected from fees has decreased substantially from 2005 through 2013. Future AOB revenue is expected to generate at a slower rate based August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 70 Introduction 5 upon assumptions of a gradual rebound in the economy as well as slowed growth in areas that are reaching “build-out” conditions. Continued efforts to secure grants and maintain cooperative relationships with other public agencies will allow the County to make the best use of its financial resources for capital improvement projects. Part III of Table A represents the funding sources from the County Trust Funds. Funds held in County Trust Funds are only shown in the CRIPP if they are proposed to be used on specific projects within the CRIPP time period. C. ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES Table B, Summary of Projected Annual Project Expenditures, is a summary of the expenditures expected from each of the identified funding sources. This table is based on the costs of the planned projects within each funding source, and the expected revenue for that funding source. If the revenues in Table A fall short of expectations, the expenditures in Table B will have to be adjusted accordingly. D. DIFFERENCES IN PROGRAMMING OF EARLIER YEARS VERSUS LATER YEARS The years at the beginning of the period covered by this program have more projects programmed in them than the later years. This is because immediate and near future transportation needs are more easily determined than needs farther in the future. The later years within this program have fewer projects programmed because their transportation needs are not foreseen at this time. Additional funding may need to be sought in the later years to offset transportation needs. For example, funds needed for maintenance activities continue to increase as more infrastructure is built and construction costs rise. In addition, projects may have unexpected cost increases and/or project scope changes, therefore, the CRIPP is expected to change as we learn more about each project. As transportation issues arise, projects will be programmed in response to these issues and supplemental funding will be sought to balance the available funding for years. This will be reflected in future CRIPP updates. E. CRIPP OUTLOOK On April 14, 2016, the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors accepted a report on the impacts to County transportation projects from the declining State Gas Tax (See Appendix C). The County is experiencing a significant reduction in the State Gas Tax funding which is used to operate and maintain our local unincorporated road network. To address the Gas Tax revenue reduction, the County is deploying a project delay strategy that delays the construction of several projects for one to two years in anticipation that the State Legislature will agree on a transportation funding fix. However, if the State Legislature fails to take effective action within the two year window, the County will likely need to indefinitely delay several projects and lose the already secured grant funds associated with those projects. These changes will need to be reflected in future CRIPP updates. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 71 Introduction 6 Figure 1: This pie chart shows that 60.8% of the total projected revenue over the next seven year period is Gas Tax Funds. A decline in Gas Tax Funds will reduce the County’s ability to leverage grant opportunities and ultimately construct capital improvement projects. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 72 Introduction 7 (This page was intentionally left blank) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 73 No.Program Element End of FY 14/15 Balance FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected 7 Year (see Fig 1) Estimated Available Funds 60400 Gas Tax Funds (See Section 2)$ 12,929 $ 19,000 $ 19,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 21,000 $ 21,000 $ 21,000 $ 141,000 $ 153,929 State Match Funds (See Section 2)$ 1,750 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 700 $ 2,450 55750 Measure J Return to Source (See Section 2) $ 0 $ 1,900 $ 1,900 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 10,800 $ 10,800 Areas of Benefit (See Part II)$ 19,693 $ 821 $ 772 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 5,703 $ 25,396 County Trust Funds (See Part III)$ 15,841 $ 44 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 326 $ 16,167 Federal, State, & Regional Grant Funds $ 0 $ 12,478 $ 12,135 $ 6,744 $ 15,084 $ 10,988 $ 2,850 $ 2,850 $ 63,129 $ 63,129 Measure J Regional $ 0 $ 533 $ 560 $ 1,584 $ 3,594 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 6,271 $ 6,271 Other Local Funds $ 0 $ 416 $ 1,369 $ 1,050 $ 750 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4,084 $ 4,084 Subtotal $ 50,212 $ 35,292 $ 35,883 $ 31,747 $ 41,797 $ 34,857 $ 26,219 $ 26,219 $ 232,014 $ 282,227 $ per year Gas Tax Measure J $ per year Gas Tax Measure J $ per year Gas Tax Measure J 60500 Traffic Program $ 550 $ 115 $ 115 $ 0 $ 665 $ 665 $ 0 $ 665 $ 665 $ 0 60600 Road Engineering $ 650 $ 685 $ 685 $ 0 $ 1,335 $ 1,335 $ 0 $ 1,335 $ 1,335 $ 0 60700 Advance Engineering $ 750 $ 690 $ 590 $ 100 $ 1,340 $ 1,340 $ 0 $ 1,340 $ 1,340 $ 0 60800 Road Information and Services $ 0 $ 1,920 $ 1,920 $ 0 $ 1,730 $ 1,730 $ 0 $ 1,365 $ 1,365 $ 0 60100 General Road Maintenance $ 4,825 $ 5,663 $ 5,663 $ 0 $ 8,501 $ 7,511 $ 990 $ 9,888 $ 9,888 $ 0 60200 Pavement Maintenance $ 0 $ 3,790 $ 3,790 $ 0 $ 3,889 $ 3,519 $ 370 $ 4,360 $ 4,360 $ 0 Subtotal $ 6,775 $ 12,863 $ 12,763 $ 100 $ 17,460 $ 16,100 $ 1,360 $ 18,953 $ 18,953 $ 0 No.Program Element End of FY 14/15 Balance FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected 7 Year Estimated Available Funds 60400 Gas Tax Funds (See Section 2)$ 6,154 $ 6,238 $ 2,900 $ 1,048 $ 1,048 $ 2,048 $ 2,048 $ 2,048 $ 17,375 $ 23,529 State Match Funds (See Section 2)$ 1,750 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 700 $ 2,450 55750 Measure J Return to Source (See Section 2) $ 0 $ 1,900 $ 540 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 9,440 $ 9,440 Areas of Benefit (See Part II)$ 19,693 $ 821 $ 772 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 5,703 $ 25,396 County Trust Funds (See Part III)$ 15,841 $ 44 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 326 $ 16,167 Federal, State, & Regional Grant Funds $ 0 $ 12,478 $ 12,135 $ 6,744 $ 15,084 $ 10,988 $ 2,850 $ 2,850 $ 63,129 $ 63,129 Measure J Regional $ 0 $ 533 $ 560 $ 1,584 $ 3,594 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 6,271 $ 6,271 Other Local Funds $ 0 $ 416 $ 1,369 $ 1,050 $ 750 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4,084 $ 4,084 Subtotal $ 43,437 $ 22,530 $ 18,423 $ 12,794 $ 22,845 $ 15,905 $ 7,267 $ 7,267 $ 107,029 $ 150,467Section 1Total Projected Revenue for the Road Program (Capital Improvement Program & Non-Capital Improvement Program) Table A: Summary of Projected Annual Revenue (All values shown in thousands of dollars) Part I: Total Revenue Sources Section 2Annual Allotted Revenue for Gas Tax, and Measure J (Non-Capital Improvement Program) No. FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 to FY 21-22 Section 3Projected Revenue Available to the CRIPP for Capital Improvement Program Projects Program End of FY 14/15 Balance Introduction 8August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes74 No.Program Element End of FY 14/15 Balance FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected 7 Year Estimated Available Funds 1260 Alamo Area of Benefit $ 59 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 420 $ 479 1395 Bay Point Area of Benefit $ 937 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 210 $ 1,147 1290 Bethel Island Area of Benefit $ 392 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 70 $ 462 1241 Briones Area of Benefit $ 511 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 7 $ 518 1242 Central County Area of Benefit $ 3,203 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 525 $ 3,728 1390 Discovery Bay Area of Benefit $ 1,642 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 350 $ 1,992 1282 East County Regional Area of Benefit $ 4,635 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 1,750 $ 6,385 1231 Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett Area of Benefit $ 45 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 7 $ 52 1240 Martinez Area of Benefit $ 2,531 $ 150 $ 150 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 1,300 $ 3,831 1234 North Richmond Area of Benefit $ 1,208 $ 1 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 13 $ 1,221 1394 Richmond/El Sobrante Area of Benefit $ 411 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 105 $ 516 1399 Pacheco (West Concord) Area of Benefit $ 464 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 35 $ 499 1270 South County Area of Benefit $ 3,373 $ 150 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 750 $ 4,123 1243 South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit $ 164 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 105 $ 269 1232 West County Area of Benefit $ 118 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 56 $ 174 Subtotal Areas of Benefit $ 19,693 $ 821 $ 772 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 5,703 $ 25,396 No.Program Element End of FY 14/15 Balance FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected 7 Year (see Fig 1) Estimated Available Funds 8192 Discovery Bay West Mitigation Funds $ 8,574 $ 17 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 137 $ 8,711 1106 Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund $ 1,554 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 189 $ 1,743 1114 Navy Mitigation Funds $ 5,713 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 5,713 Subtotal $ 15,841 $ 44 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 47 $ 326 $ 16,167 Table A: Summary of Projected Annual Revenue (Cont.) (All values shown in thousands of dollars) Part II: Itemization of Area of Benefit Projected Revenue Part III: Itemization of County Trust Fund's Projected Revenue Introduction 9August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes75 Program Element FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected 7 Year Expenditures Gas Tax Funds $ 7,397 $ 6,023 $ 10,821 $ 9,006 $ 8,771 $ 6,400 $ 4,400 $ 52,818 State Match Funds $ 100 $ 300 $ 100 $ 1,549 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2,049 Measure J Return to Source $ 1,850 $ 540 $ 560 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 4,950 Total of all Areas of Benefit (AOB) Funds $ 2,575 $ 1,898 $ 2,285 $ 1,325 $ 1,160 $ 570 $ 570 $ 10,383 Total County Trust Funds $ 279 $ 3,703 $ 5,404 $ 804 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 10,191 Federal, State, and Other Regional Grant Funds $ 12,478 $ 12,135 $ 6,744 $ 15,084 $ 10,988 $ 2,850 $ 2,850 $ 63,129 Measure J Regional $ 533 $ 560 $ 1,584 $ 3,594 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 6,271 Other Local Funds $ 416 $ 1,369 $ 1,050 $ 750 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4,084 Total $ 25,629 $ 26,528 $ 28,547 $ 32,613 $ 21,919 $ 10,320 $ 8,320 $ 153,876 Alamo AOB $ 325 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 355 Bay Point AOB $ 130 $ 145 $ 65 $ 95 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 450 Bethel Island AOB $ 15 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 45 Briones AOB $ 15 $ 20 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 40 Central County AOB $ 50 $ 70 $ 65 $ 505 $ 505 $ 505 $ 505 $ 2,205 Discovery Bay AOB $ 50 $ 55 $ 65 $ 505 $ 505 $ 15 $ 15 $ 1,210 East County (Regional) AOB $ 990 $ 306 $ 1,120 $ 75 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 2,506 Hercules/Rodeo/ Crockett AOB $ 15 $ 20 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 5 $ 5 $ 50 Martinez AOB $ 327 $ 494 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 852 North Richmond AOB $ 35 $ 110 $ 505 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 670 Pacheco (West Concord) AOB $ 20 $ 20 $ 5 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 50 Richmond/El Sobrante AOB $ 45 $ 70 $ 65 $ 105 $ 105 $ 5 $ 5 $ 400 South County AOB $ 528 $ 547 $ 350 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 1,446 South Walnut Creek AOB $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 25 West County AOB $ 25 $ 25 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 80 Subtotal $ 2,575 $ 1,898 $ 2,285 $ 1,325 $ 1,160 $ 570 $ 570 $ 10,383 Discovery Bay West Mitigation Funds $ 124 $ 3,468 $ 4,974 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 8,566 Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation Funds $ 0 $ 135 $ 280 $ 800 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,215 Navy Mitigation Funds $ 155 $ 100 $ 150 $ 4 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 410 Subtotal $ 279 $ 3,703 $ 5,404 $ 804 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 10,191 PART III: Itemization of County Trust Fund Expenditures PART II: Itemization of Area of Benefit Expenditures Table B: Summary of Projected Annual Expenditures (CIP) (All values shown in thousands of dollars) PART I: Expenditures from all County Sources Introduction 10August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 76 Acronym Full Name Description Type Alamo AOB Alamo Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local ATP Active Transportation Program Funds for projects/programs that encourage increased use of active modes of transportation.Federal Bay Point AOB Bay Point Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local Bethel Island AOB Bethel Island Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local Briones AOB Briones Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local CCWD Contra Costa Water District Funds contributed by the Contra Costa Water District.Local CDBG Community Development Block Grant Funds that can be used for frontage improvements in economically depressed areas.Federal Cent County AOB Central County Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local Disco Bay AOB Discovery Bay Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local Disco Bay West Discovery Bay West Mitigation Funds Mitigation fees collected for the Discovery Bay West (Subdivision 8023)Local DWR Department of Water Resources Bridge improvements.Local East County Regional AOB East County (Regional) Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local Former RDA Former Redevelopment Agency Bond funds designated for former redevelopment areas.Local Gas Tax Gas Tax Funds Sales tax on gasoline used to enhance road operation and maintenance.Local HBP Highway Bridge Program Funds for bridges in need of replacement, and for seismic retrofit program.Federal Herc/Rodeo/Crock AOB Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local HR3 High Risk Rural Road Program Funds for safety improvements to rural roads defined as high risk.Federal HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program Funds for infrastructure-related highway safety improvements that lead to a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Federal Keller Canyon Mit Fund Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation Funds Mitigation funds from Keller Canyon Landfill.Local Lifeline Grant Lifeline Grant Funds intended to improve mobility for low-income residents.Federal Martinez AOB Martinez Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local Measure J PBTF Measure J Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities Program Funds for pedestrian, bicycle, and trail facilities.Local Measure J Regional Measure J: Regional Funds Portion of sales tax measure designated for projects of regional significance.Local Measure J RTS Measure J: Return to Source Funds Portion of sales tax measure returned to local jurisdictions to be used for transportation projects within Contra Costa County. Local Measure J TLC Measure J Transportation for Livable Communities Program Funds for projects/programs for plans and facilities that encourage more walking, bicycling and transit use. Local N Richmond AOB North Richmond Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local Navy Mit Navy Mitigation Funds Mitigation funds from closure of Port Chicago Highway.Local OBAG One Bay Area Grant Program Grant program that focuses on transportation investments in priority development areas (PDA's).Federal Pacheco AOB Pacheco (West Concord) Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local Phillips 66 funds Conoco Phillips 66 Conoco Phillips grant program to support the community.Local Acronyms for Grant Programs and other Funding Sources used in the CRIPP Table C Introduction 11August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 77 Acronym Full Name Description Type Prop 1B Proposition 1B This act makes safety improvements and repairs to local streets and roads and improves seismic safety of local bridges by providing for a bond issue. State Rich/El Sobr AOB Richmond/El Sobrante Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local RSS Abatement Fund Richmond Sanitary Service Abatement Funds Funds appropriated for the purchase of historic markers on San Pablo Dam Road.Local So County AOB South County Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local So Walnut Cr AOB South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local SR2S Safe Routes to School (State)Funds emphasize construction of infrastructure to aid in safety near schools.Federal State Match State Match Funds Funds to match federally funded transportation projects.State STIP State Transportation Improvement Program Funds transportation projects on and off the State Highway System.Federal TDA Transportation Development Act Funds for construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.State TVTC Fee Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Regional traffic mitigation fees.Local West County AOB West County Area of Benefit Traffic mitigation fees.Local Introduction 12August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 78 SECTION I Funding Sources August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 79 I-1 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 80 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-1 Gas Tax Funds End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 6,154 $ 4,994 $ 1,871 ($ 7,902) ($ 15,860) ($ 22,584) ($ 26,937) ($ 29,289) Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 17,376 $ 6,238 $ 2,900 $ 1,048 $ 1,048 $ 2,048 $ 2,048 $ 2,048 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 52,818 $ 7,397 $ 6,023 $ 10,821 $ 9,006 $ 8,771 $ 6,400 $ 4,400 Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - east of Bear Creek Road Intersection $ 454 $ 454 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Balfour Road Shoulder Widening - Sellers Avenue and Bixler Road $ 340 $ 0 $ 0 $ 340 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Bay Point Sign Upgrade Project $ 100 $ 0 $ 40 $ 40 $ 20 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Bay Point Utility Undergrounding $ 38 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 38 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Byron Highway Bridge Replacement over California Aqueduct (Bridge No. 28C0121) $ 384 $ 40 $ 120 $ 139 $ 50 $ 35 $ 0 $ 0 Byron Highway Traffic Safety Improvements $ 100 $ 52 $ 10 $ 38 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Byron Highway & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements $ 1,057 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,057 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Canal Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements $ 613 $ 286 $ 328 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Canal Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0376) $ 290 $ 100 $ 100 $ 80 $ 10 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Clifton Court Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0403) $ 207 $ 91 $ 116 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 County-Wide Operation & Safety Improvements $ 1,500 $ 300 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 County-Wide Overlay Project $ 768 $ 768 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 County-Wide Surface Treatments $ 31,675 $ 2,838 $ 3,856 $ 5,426 $ 6,259 $ 5,597 $ 3,850 $ 3,850 Giaramita Street Sidewalk Replacement Project $ 190 $ 190 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Jersey Island Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0405) $ 182 $ 68 $ 114 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes $ 7,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 0 Main Street, Byron Sidewalk Improvements $ 365 $ 24 $ 0 $ 341 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C141) $ 834 $ 185 $ 219 $ 360 $ 70 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C143 & 28C145) $ 1,604 $ 200 $ 220 $ 274 $ 120 $ 790 $ 0 $ 0 Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0442) $ 1,088 $ 20 $ 70 $ 100 $ 105 $ 93 $ 350 $ 350 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 81 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-2 Gas Tax Funds (cont.) Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Orwood Road Bridge Replacement Project (Bridge No. 28C0024) $ 845 $ 745 $ 70 $ 30 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central and East County $ 489 $ 0 $ 0 $ 489 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements $ 192 $ 0 $ 0 $ 192 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Rio Vista Elementary School Pedestrian Connection Project $ 20 $ 20 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure Project $ 216 $ 0 $ 0 $ 216 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 San Pablo Dam Road Sidewalk Gap Project $ 292 $ 0 $ 66 $ 35 $ 135 $ 56 $ 0 $ 0 San Pablo Dam Road Walkability Project $ 279 $ 279 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Stormwater Treatment Demonstration Project $ 214 $ 214 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure Project $ 463 $ 0 $ 0 $ 463 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 82 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-3 State Match Funds End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 1,750 $ 1,750 $ 1,550 $ 1,550 $ 101 $ 201 $ 301 $ 401 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 700 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 2,049 $ 100 $ 300 $ 100 $ 1,549 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes $ 1,849 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 1,549 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Canal Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements $ 200 $ 0 $ 200 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 83 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-4 Measure J: Return to Source Funds End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 0 $ 50 $ 50 $ 890 $ 1,790 $ 2,690 $ 3,590 $ 4,490 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 9,440 $ 1,900 $ 540 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 4,950 $ 1,850 $ 540 $ 560 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 Byron Highway & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements $ 240 $ 100 $ 140 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 County-Wide Curb Ramp Projects $ 1,200 $ 0 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 County-Wide Operation & Safety Improvements $ 1,400 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 County-Wide Surface Treatments $ 1,350 $ 1,350 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 County-Wide Traffic Calming $ 500 $ 0 $ 0 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 Port Chicago Highway & Willow Pass Road Bike and Pedestrian Improvements $ 100 $ 100 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure Project $ 160 $ 100 $ 0 $ 60 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Measure J: Regional Funds End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 6,271 $ 533 $ 560 $ 1,584 $ 3,594 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 6,271 $ 533 $ 560 $ 1,584 $ 3,594 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project: Finley Road to Windemere Parkway $ 1,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes $ 5,271 $ 533 $ 560 $ 584 $ 3,594 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 84 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-5 Federal, State, and Regional Grant Funds End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 63,129 $ 12,478 $ 12,135 $ 6,744 $ 15,084 $ 10,988 $ 2,850 $ 2,850 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 63,129 $ 12,478 $ 12,135 $ 6,744 $ 15,084 $ 10,988 $ 2,850 $ 2,850 Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - east of Bear Creek Road Intersection $ 1,510 $ 1,510 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - Rancho La Boca Road to Ferndale Road $ 510 $ 0 $ 510 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Bailey Road/State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Project $ 4,160 $ 0 $ 310 $ 410 $ 3,440 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Bay Point Sign Upgrade Project $ 480 $ 0 $ 55 $ 31 $ 394 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Byron Highway Bridge Replacement over California Aqueduct (Bridge No. 28C0121) $ 12,980 $ 700 $ 795 $ 885 $ 6,000 $ 4,600 $ 0 $ 0 Byron Highway Traffic Safety Improvements $ 515 $ 25 $ 60 $ 7 $ 423 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Byron Highway & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements $ 900 $ 0 $ 0 $ 900 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Camino Tassajara Safety Improvements - 1.1 mile South of Highland Road to 0.3 mile North of to Windemere Parkway $ 606 $ 0 $ 606 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Canal Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements $ 1,134 $ 46 $ 1,088 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Canal Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0376) $ 2,315 $ 140 $ 465 $ 1,520 $ 190 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 County-Wide Overlay Project $ 1,941 $ 1,941 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes $ 2,650 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2,650 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Marsh Creek Rd Safety Improvements - 2.0 to 2.25 miles West of Deer Valley Rd $ 1,365 $ 1,365 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements $ 1,268 $ 0 $ 75 $ 75 $ 62 $ 1,056 $ 0 $ 0 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C141) $ 3,356 $ 165 $ 621 $ 2,140 $ 430 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C143 & 28C145) $ 6,356 $ 400 $ 480 $ 286 $ 530 $ 4,660 $ 0 $ 0 Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0442) $ 6,812 $ 40 $ 130 $ 350 $ 425 $ 167 $ 2,850 $ 2,850 Orwood Road Bridge Replacement Project (Bridge No. 28C0024) $ 11,332 $ 5,680 $ 5,582 $ 70 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 85 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-6 Federal, State, and Regional Grant Funds (cont.) Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central and East County $ 200 $ 101 $ 99 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements $ 120 $ 106 $ 14 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Port Chicago Highway & Willow Pass Road Bike and Pedestrian Improvements $ 1,131 $ 0 $ 1,131 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Rio Vista Elementary School Pedestrian Connection Project $ 600 $ 0 $ 40 $ 45 $ 515 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 San Pablo Dam Road Sidewalk Gap Project $ 614 $ 0 $ 59 $ 25 $ 25 $ 505 $ 0 $ 0 Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure Project $ 15 $ 0 $ 15 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Other Local Funds End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 4,084 $ 416 $ 1,369 $ 1,050 $ 750 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 4,084 $ 416 $ 1,369 $ 1,050 $ 750 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0 Bay Point Area Curb Ramp Project $ 283 $ 0 $ 283 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Byron Highway Bridge Replacement over California Aqueduct (Bridge No. 28C0121) $ 1,586 $ 60 $ 35 $ 241 $ 750 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project: Finley Road to Windemere Parkway $ 1,250 $ 0 $ 866 $ 384 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Marsh Creek Rd Safety Improvements - 2.0 to 2.25 miles West of Deer Valley Rd $ 246 $ 246 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements $ 26 $ 0 $ 0 $ 26 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure Project $ 694 $ 110 $ 185 $ 399 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 86 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-7 Alamo Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 59 ($ 206) ($ 151) ($ 96) ($ 41) $ 14 $ 69 $ 124 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 420 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 355 $ 325 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Alamo AOB Administration $ 45 $ 15 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Miranda Avenue Sidewalk Improvements $ 310 $ 310 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Bay Point Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 937 $ 837 $ 722 $ 687 $ 622 $ 647 $ 672 $ 697 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 210 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 $ 30 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 450 $ 130 $ 145 $ 65 $ 95 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Bailey Road/State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Project $ 220 $ 30 $ 90 $ 10 $ 90 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Bay Point AOB Administration $ 45 $ 15 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Rio Vista Elementary School Pedestrian Connection Project $ 185 $ 85 $ 50 $ 50 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 87 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-8 Bethel Island Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 392 $ 387 $ 392 $ 397 $ 402 $ 407 $ 412 $ 417 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 70 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 45 $ 15 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Bethel Island AOB Administration $ 45 $ 15 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Briones Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 511 $ 497 $ 478 $ 474 $ 475 $ 476 $ 477 $ 478 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 7 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 40 $ 15 $ 20 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Briones AOB Administration $ 40 $ 15 $ 20 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 88 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-9 Central County Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 3,203 $ 3,228 $ 3,233 $ 3,243 $ 2,813 $ 2,383 $ 1,953 $ 1,523 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 525 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 2,205 $ 50 $ 70 $ 65 $ 505 $ 505 $ 505 $ 505 Central County AOB Administration $ 85 $ 30 $ 30 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Future AOB Projects $ 2,120 $ 20 $ 40 $ 60 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 Discovery Bay Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 1,642 $ 1,642 $ 1,637 $ 1,622 $ 1,167 $ 712 $ 747 $ 782 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 350 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 1,210 $ 50 $ 55 $ 65 $ 505 $ 505 $ 15 $ 15 Discovery Bay AOB Administration $ 70 $ 30 $ 15 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Future AOB Projects $ 1,140 $ 20 $ 40 $ 60 $ 500 $ 500 $ 10 $ 10 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 89 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-10 East County (Regional) Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 4,635 $ 3,894 $ 3,838 $ 2,968 $ 3,143 $ 3,388 $ 3,633 $ 3,878 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 1,750 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 2,506 $ 990 $ 306 $ 1,120 $ 75 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Byron Highway & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements $ 1,365 $ 119 $ 211 $ 1,035 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 East County AOB Administration $ 35 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Marsh Creek Rd Safety Improvements - 2.0 to 2.25 miles West of Deer Valley Rd $ 846 $ 846 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements $ 260 $ 20 $ 90 $ 80 $ 70 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 45 $ 31 $ 12 $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 6 $ 2 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 7 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 50 $ 15 $ 20 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 5 $ 5 Hercules/Rodeo/Crockett AOB Administration $ 50 $ 15 $ 20 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 5 $ 5 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 90 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-11 Martinez Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 2,531 $ 2,353 $ 2,009 $ 2,199 $ 2,394 $ 2,589 $ 2,784 $ 2,979 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 1,300 $ 150 $ 150 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 852 $ 327 $ 494 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - Rancho La Boca Road to Ferndale Road $ 764 $ 290 $ 474 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Martinez AOB Administration $ 70 $ 20 $ 20 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure - Windhover Way to Goree Court $ 17 $ 17 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 North Richmond Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 1,208 $ 1,174 $ 1,066 $ 563 $ 560 $ 557 $ 554 $ 551 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 13 $ 1 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 670 $ 35 $ 110 $ 505 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Future AOB Projects $ 610 $ 10 $ 100 $ 500 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 North Richmond AOB Administration $ 60 $ 25 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 91 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-12 Pacheco (West Concord) Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 464 $ 449 $ 434 $ 434 $ 434 $ 439 $ 444 $ 449 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 35 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 50 $ 20 $ 20 $ 5 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Pacheco AOB Administration $ 50 $ 20 $ 20 $ 5 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Richmond/El Sobrante Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 411 $ 381 $ 326 $ 276 $ 186 $ 96 $ 106 $ 116 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 105 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 400 $ 45 $ 70 $ 65 $ 105 $ 105 $ 5 $ 5 Future AOB Projects $ 300 $ 0 $ 40 $ 60 $ 100 $ 100 $ 0 $ 0 Richmond/El Sobrante AOB Administration $ 100 $ 45 $ 30 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 92 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-13 South County Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 3,373 $ 2,995 $ 2,547 $ 2,297 $ 2,392 $ 2,487 $ 2,582 $ 2,677 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 750 $ 150 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 1,446 $ 528 $ 547 $ 350 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project: Finley Road to Windemere Parkway $ 1,000 $ 225 $ 430 $ 345 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Camino Tassajara Safety Improvements - 1.1 mile South of Highland Road to 0.3 mile North of to Windemere Parkway $ 331 $ 258 $ 72 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 South County AOB Administration $ 115 $ 45 $ 45 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 164 $ 174 $ 184 $ 194 $ 204 $ 214 $ 229 $ 244 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 105 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 25 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 South Walnut Creek AOB Administration $ 25 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 93 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-14 West County Area of Benefit End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 118 $ 101 $ 84 $ 82 $ 85 $ 88 $ 91 $ 94 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 56 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 80 $ 25 $ 25 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 West County AOB Administration $ 80 $ 25 $ 25 $ 10 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 Discovery Bay West Mitigation Funds End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 8,574 $ 8,467 $ 5,019 $ 65 $ 85 $ 105 $ 125 $ 145 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 137 $ 17 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 8,566 $ 124 $ 3,468 $ 4,974 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Balfour Road Shoulder Widening - Sellers Avenue and Bixler Road $ 8,566 $ 124 $ 3,468 $ 4,974 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 94 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I-15 Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation Funds End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 1,554 $ 1,581 $ 1,473 $ 1,220 $ 447 $ 474 $ 501 $ 528 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 189 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 1,215 $ 0 $ 135 $ 280 $ 800 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Bailey Road Overlay Project - State Route 4 to Keller Canyon Landfill Entrance $ 1,215 $ 0 $ 135 $ 280 $ 800 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Navy Mitigation Funds End of Year Cash Balance (in 1,000's of Dollars) End of FY 14/15 Balance FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 End of Year Balance $ 5,713 $ 5,558 $ 5,458 $ 5,308 $ 5,303 $ 5,303 $ 5,303 $ 5,303 Projected Revenue (in 1,000's of Dollars) Revenue Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Projected Revenue $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Estimated Project Expenditures (in 1,000's of Dollars) Expenditure Total FISCAL YEAR (F.Y.) FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Total of All Projects $ 410 $ 155 $ 100 $ 150 $ 4 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Bailey Road/State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Project $ 125 $ 125 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Bay Point Utility Undergrounding $ 284 $ 30 $ 100 $ 150 $ 4 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 95 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 96 SECTION II Active Projects August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 97 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 98 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4101 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 129 129 Environmental 354 354 Design Engineering 474 474 Right-of-Way 234 234 Construction 2,235 270 1,964 Total 3,426 1,462 1,964 Gas Tax 1,069 615 454 HR3 796 186 610 HSIP 900 900 Prop 1B 661 661 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - East of Bear Creek Road Intersection 225' west of the intersection to 2,200' east of the intersection with Bear Creek Road Improve safety along Alhambra Valley Road. Realign horizontal and vertical curves; widen travel lanes to County standards; install paved shoulders; relocate roadside obstacles Supervisor District: Safety II-1August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 99 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4097 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 143 141 1 1 Environmental 306 190 66 50 Design Engineering 401 236 105 60 Right-of-Way 142 9 118 15 Construction 858 858 Total 1,850 576 290 984 Gas Tax 139 139 HSIP 600 90 510 Martinez AOB 1,006 242 290 474 Prop 1B 105 105 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements - Rancho La Boca Road to Ferndale Road Rancho La Boca Road to Ferndale Road This segment of roadway has had multiple collisions. The improvements will improve safety. Shoulder widening and relocation of roadside obstacles. Supervisor District: Safety II-2August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 100 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:1046 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 60 60 Environmental 45 45 Design Engineering 110 30 80 Right-of-Way Construction 1,000 200 800 Total 1,215 135 280 800 Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund 1,215 135 280 800 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Bailey Road Overlay Project - State Route 4 to Keller Canyon Landfill Entrance Unincorporated portions of Bailey Road from the State Route 4 westbound on- ramp to Keller Canyon Landfill Entrance. Improve pavement condition along Bailey Road. Overlay Bailey Road Supervisor District: Pavement II-3August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 101 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work Order:4121 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 1,025 750 155 50 70 Environmental 10 10 Design Engineering 650 350 300 Right-of-Way 10 10 Construction 3,560 30 3,530 Total 5,255 750 155 400 420 3,530 ATP 4,160 310 410 3,440 Bay Point AOB 220 30 90 10 90 Gas Tax 7 7 Measure J PBTF 345 345 Measure J RTS 100 100 Navy Mit 423 298 125 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Bailey Road/SR 4 Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements Along Bailey Road from BART Access Road to Canal Road Improve bicycle and pedestrian access along Bailey Road through State Route 4 Interchange Reconfigure interchange to improve bicycle and pedestrian access along Bailey Road Supervisor District: Project Categories:Bicycle, Pedestrian, Signal II-4August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 102 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4002 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 128 100 28 Environmental 204 133 71 Design Engineering 907 881 25 Right-of-Way 810 110 700 Construction 8,082 2,768 5,314 Total 10,130 1,224 124 3,468 5,314 Disco Bay West 9,790 1,224 124 3,468 4,974 Gas Tax 340 340 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Balfour Road Shoulder Widening - Sellers Avenue to Bixler Road Balfour Road between Sellers Avenue and Bixler Road in the Discovery Bay and unincorporated Brentwood Area. Improve safety along Balfour Road. Widen 3 miles of Balfour Road and construct paved shoulders. Supervisor District: Safety II-5August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 103 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work Order 4031 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 50 50 Environmental Design Engineering Right-of-Way Construction 233 233 Total 283 283 Former RDA 283 283 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Bay Point Area Curb Ramp Project Various locations throughout unincorporated Bay Point. Upgrade existing curb ramps to meet current ADA requirements on roadways planned for pavement surface treatment, as required by federal regulation. Install new curb ramps and/or upgrade existing curb ramps to meet current ADA standards. Supervisor District Project Categories:Curb Ramp II-6August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 104 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4024 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 30 20 10 Environmental 35 35 Design Engineering 121 40 61 20 Right-of-Way Construction 394 394 Total 580 95 71 414 Gas Tax 100 40 40 20 HSIP 480 55 31 394 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Bay Point Sign Upgrade Project Various unincorporated roadways throughout Bay Point Increase traffic safety. Replace regulatory and warning roadway signs to increase retroreflectivity within the unincorporated Bay Point area. Supervisor District: Traffic II-7August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 105 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Utility Work Order:1017 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 253 223 30 Environmental Design Engineering 9 9 Right-of-Way 250 100 150 Construction 33 33 Total 545 223 30 100 150 42 Gas Tax 45 7 38 Navy Mit 500 216 30 100 150 4 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Bay Point Utility Undergrounding Project In Bay Point, from the Pittsburg City Limits along Willow Pass Road west to Bailey Road, and south along Bailey Road to Westbound SR 4 on-ramp. Utilities will be placed underground to improve the aesthetics of the Bay Point community near BART. This project includes coordination for relocation of overhead utilities into a trench along the project limits. PG&E is the designated trench lead. Supervisor District: Project Categories: II-8August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 106 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work Order:4094 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 193 190 1 1 1 Environmental 418 103 40 275 Design Engineering 541 436 30 75 Right-of-Way 149 1 148 Construction 2,991 2,991 Total 4,292 730 219 351 2,992 East County Regional AOB 1,365 119 211 1,035 Gas Tax 1,354 297 1,057 HSIP 900 900 Measure J RTS 673 433 100 140 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Byron Highway & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements Intersection at Byron Highway and Camino Diablo, Byron. Construct safety improvements on all four legs of the intersection to include the railroad crossing Construct safety improvements with new traffic signal, left turn pockets, and improve roadway vertical alignment over the railroad crossing Supervisor District Project Categories:Safety, Pedestrian, Railroad, Signal II-9August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 107 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:1048 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15- 16 FY 16- 17 FY 17- 18 FY 18- 19 FY 19- 20 FY 20- 21 FY 21- 22 Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Engineering 2,200 150 800 800 450 Right-of-Way 300 150 150 Construction 12,600 665 6,800 5,135 Total 15,100 150 800 950 1,265 6,800 5,135 DWR 1,616 30 60 35 241 750 500 Gas Tax 434 50 40 120 139 50 35 HBP 13,050 70 700 795 885 6,000 4,600 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Byron Highway Bridge Replacement over California Aqueduct (Bridge No. 28C0121) On Byron Highway, approximately 1.4 miles northwest of Alameda County Line. The existing bridge is approaching the end of its useful life. Bridge replacement. Supervisor District: Bridge II-10August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 108 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4011 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 47 27 10 10 Environmental 35 25 10 Design Engineering 110 25 60 25 Right-of-Way Construction 423 423 Total 615 77 70 45 423 Gas Tax 100 52 10 38 HSIP 515 25 60 7 423 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Byron Highway Traffic Safety Improvements Byron Highway between Byron Hot Springs Road and Contra Costa/Alameda County Line Project needed to improve traffic safety and reduce number of head-on collisions. Restripe centerline with double yellow no passing lines, install centerline rumble strips, and replace signs to meet new retro-reflectivity standards. Supervisor District: Safety II-11August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 109 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4010 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 100 30 40 30 Environmental 250 50 125 75 Design Engineering 280 95 115 70 Right-of-Way 225 50 150 25 Construction 2,395 866 1,529 Total 3,250 225 1,296 1,729 Measure J 1,000 1,000 So County AOB 1,000 225 430 345 TVTC Fee 1,250 866 384 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project: Finley Road to Windemere Parkway On Camino Tassajara from Danville Town limits to Alameda County limits. Complete gaps in the Class 2 bike lanes along Camino Tassajara. Construct safety improvements on Camino Tassajara to improve bicycle and vehicle travel from Danville Town limits to Alameda County limits. Supervisor District: Bicycle II-12August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 110 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4072 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 80 78 2 Environmental 727 471 256 Design Engineering 303 303 Right-of-Way 15 15 Construction 760 82 678 Total 1,885 949 258 678 HSIP 835 229 606 Prop 1B 150 150 So County AOB 900 569 258 72 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Camino Tassajara Safety Improvements - 1.1 mile S. of Highland Road to 0.3 mile N. of to Windemere Parkway 1.1 mile south of Highland Rd to 0.3 miles north of Windemere Pkwy Widen Roadway and adjust grade through an existing S-curve Widen travel lanes and widen shoulders to accommodate Class 2 bike lane. Supervisor District: Bicycle, Safety II-13August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 111 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work Order:4062 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 270 227 43 Environmental 211 178 33 Design Engineering 425 285 140 Right-of-Way 44 3 41 Construction 1,690 75 1,615 Total 2,639 692 332 1,615 Gas Tax 989 376 286 328 Lifeline Grant 1,000 204 46 750 SR2S 450 113 338 State Match 200 200 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Canal Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Canal Road between Loftus Road and Bailey Road in Bay Point. Provide pedestrians and bicyclists safe access to Bel Air Elementary School Construct new sidewalk and stripe new bike lanes along Canal Road. Supervisor District: Project Categories:Bicycle, Pedestrian II-14August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 112 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4080 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 370 370 Environmental Design Engineering 325 180 145 Right-of-Way 180 60 120 Construction 2,100 300 1,600 200 Total 2,975 370 240 565 1,600 200 Gas Tax 410 120 100 100 80 10 HBP 2,565 250 140 465 1,520 190 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Canal Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0376) On Canal Road over Contra Costa Canal, approximately 0.5 miles west of Bailey Road. The existing bridge is approaching the end of its useful life. Bridge replacement. Supervisor District: Bridge II-15August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 113 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4135 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering Environmental 150 35 60 55 Design Engineering 65 26 31 8 Right-of-Way Construction 53 53 Total 268 61 91 116 Gas Tax 268 61 91 116 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Clifton Court Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0403) On Clifton Court Road over Italian Slough, Byron area. Repairs are needed to prevent further deterioration leading to bridge replacement. Repair abutments. Supervisor District: Bridge, Maintenance II-16August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 114 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4126 1 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 16 15 Environmental 7 7 Design Engineering 183 168 15 Right-of-Way 3 3 Construction 347 172 175 Total 556 365 190 CDBG 90 90 Gas Tax 466 275 190 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Giaramita Street Sidewalk Replacement Project Market Avenue to Verde Elementary School The purpose of this project is to improve accessibility to Verde Elementary School along the primary entrance to the school. Install curb ramps and sidewalk. Supervisor District: Pedestrian II-17August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 115 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4134 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering Environmental 80 34 36 10 Design Engineering 115 73 33 10 Right-of-Way Construction 94 94 Total 289 107 68 114 Gas Tax 289 107 68 114 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Jersey Island Road Bridge Repair (Bridge No. 28C0405) On Jersey Island Road over Dutch Slough, Oakley area. Repairs are needed to prevent further deterioration leading to bridge replacement. Repair bridge elements, including blocks, piles, braces, and plates. Supervisor District: Bridge, Maintenance II-18August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 116 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work Order:4052 4 ,5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 140 90 20 20 10 Environmental 469 257 113 100 Design Engineering 1,892 651 500 500 241 Right-of-Way 136 12 40 84 Construction 17,143 2,000 1,350 9,793 2,000 2,000 Total 19,780 3,010 633 660 1,684 9,793 2,000 2,000 Gas Tax 9,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Measure J Regional 6,148 877 533 560 584 3,594 Measure J RTS 33 33 State Match 1,949 100 100 100 100 1,549 STIP 2,650 2,650 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes Clearbrook Drive in the City of Concord to the eastern intersection with Hess Road. Reduce congestion and improve safety along Kirker Pass Road. Widen roadway to add truck climbing lane in the northbound direction. Supervisor District: Project Description:Safety II-19August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 117 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4123 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 30 27 3 Environmental Design Engineering 90 69 21 Right-of-Way Construction 341 341 Total 461 96 24 341 Gas Tax 461 96 24 341 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Main Street, Byron Sidewalk Improvements On Main Street between Holway Drive to Camino Diablo. Improve existing pedestrian facility along Main Street and restore the roadway crown and drainage Construct sidewalk improvements along Main Street. Supervisor District: Pedestrian II-20August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 118 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4079 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 645 645 Environmental Design Engineering 430 250 180 Right-of-Way 160 100 60 Construction 3,600 600 2,500 500 Total 4,835 645 350 840 2,500 500 Gax Tax 1,029 195 185 219 360 70 HBP 3,806 450 165 621 2,140 430 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C141) On Marsh Creek Road over Marsh Creek, approximately 1.8 mi east of Morgan Territory Road. The existing bridge is approaching the end of its useful life. Bridge replacement. Supervisor District: Bridge II-21August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 119 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4019 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Engineering 1,750 90 600 700 360 Right-of-Way 350 200 150 Construction 5,950 500 5,450 Total 8,050 90 600 700 560 650 5,450 Gas Tax 1,670 66 200 220 274 120 790 HBP 6,380 24 400 480 286 530 4,660 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C143 & 28C145) On Marsh Creek Road over Marsh Creek, approximately 7.3 mi east of Morgan Territory Road and 3 mi east of Deer Valley Road. The existing bridges are approaching the end of their useful life. Bridge replacement. Supervisor District: Bridge II-22August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 120 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4025 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 81 81 Environmental 365 365 Design Engineering 649 649 Right-of-Way 243 243 Construction 2,457 2,457 Total 3,795 1,338 2,457 CCWD 260 14 246 East County Regional AOB 1,795 949 846 HR3 900 155 745 HSIP 620 620 Prop 1B 220 220 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Marsh Creek Road Safety Improvements - 2.0 to 2.25 miles West of Deer Valley Road West of Deer Valley Road Improve safety along Marsh Creek Road Realign curve and widen roadway along Marsh Creek Road Supervisor District: Safety II-23August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 121 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4012 3 , 4 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 50 20 20 10 Environmental 70 45 25 Design Engineering 312 100 100 112 Right-of-Way 20 20 Construction 1,076 20 1,056 Total 1,528 20 165 155 132 1,056 East County Regional AOB 260 20 90 80 70 HSIP 1,268 75 75 62 1,056 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements Located on Marsh Creek Road between the city limits of Clayton and Brentwood. Improve roadway infrastructure to improve driver awareness and overall safety. Install centerline rumble strips/stripes; Add lighting at Deer Valley Road and Marsh Creek Road intersection Supervisor District: Safety II-24August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 122 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4119 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Engineering 1,160 60 200 450 450 Right-of-Way 240 80 160 Construction 6,500 100 3,200 3,200 Total 7,900 60 200 450 530 260 3,200 3,200 Gas Tax 1,088 20 70 100 105 93 350 350 HBP 6,812 40 130 350 425 167 2,850 2,850 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Marsh Drive Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0442) On Marsh Drive over Walnut Creek, approximately 0.2 mi west of Solano Way. The existing bridge is approaching the end of its useful life. Bridge replacement. Supervisor District: Bridge II-25August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 123 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4107 1 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 12 11 1 Environmental Design Engineering 157 148 9 Right-of-Way Construction 165 79 86 Total 334 238 96 Gas Tax 234 138 96 TDA 100 100 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars May Road Sidewalk Extension Project May Road across from Sheldon Elementary School This project provides a sidewalk extension along May Road from the end of the existing sidewalk to the pedestrian crosswalk at Sheldon School. Install a sidewalk extension along May Road. Supervisor District: Pedestrian II-26August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 124 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4111 2 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 25 25 Environmental Design Engineering 219 219 Right-of-Way 13 13 Construction 325 16 310 Total 582 272 310 Alamo AOB 494 184 310 TDA 88 88 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Miranda Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Along Miranda Avenue near the intersection with Granite Drive, Alamo. Improve pedestrian infrastructure for students walking to and from school Construct sidewalk improvements along the frontage of Stone Valley Middle School. Supervisor District: Pedestrian II-27August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 125 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4145 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 203 3 200 Environmental Design Engineering 54 54 Right-of-Way 28 28 Construction 640 200 440 Total 926 3 428 494 Gas Tax 926 3 428 494 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Morgan Territory Bridge Scour Repairs Repair of bridges 4.3 and 4.4 on Morgan Territory Road. Repairs are needed to extend the service life of the bridges. Place scour protection and repair bank erosion for bridges 4.3 and 4.4. Supervisor District: Bridge, Maintenance II-28August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 126 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work Order 4076 3 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 1,750 1,750 Environmental Design Engineering 150 150 Right-of-Way 275 200 75 Construction 12,022 70 6,200 5,652 100 Total 14,197 2,020 6,425 5,652 100 Gas Tax 1,560 715 745 70 30 HBP 12,637 1,305 5,680 5,582 70 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Orwood Road Bridge Replacement Project (Bridge No. 28C0024) On Orwood Road over Indian Slough. The existing bridge is approaching the end of its useful life. Bridge replacement. Supervisor District Project Description:Bridge II-29August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 127 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4122 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 45 45 Environmental 17 17 Design Engineering 412 395 17 Right-of-Way 176 175 Construction 453 193 260 Total 1,102 825 277 Gas Tax 38 38 Martinez AOB 440 423 17 Measure J TLC 524 264 260 TDA 100 100 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure - Windhover Way to Goree Court Pacheco Boulevard between Windhover Way and Goree Court Provide pedestrian and bicycle access to Las Juntas Elementary School Construct sidewalk, bike lane and shoulder on north side of Pacheco Boulevard Supervisor District: Bicycle, Pedestrian II-30August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 128 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4112 Various Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 23 7 8 8 Environmental 35 20 15 Design Engineering 94 64 30 Right-of-Way 18 8 10 Construction 526 36 489 Total 696 7 101 99 489 Gas Tax 496 7 489 TDA 200 101 99 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements - Central & East County Various school locations in Central & East County Increase driver awareness at pedestrian crosswalks near schools Construct Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) and ADA curb ramps at designated crosswalks near schools. Supervisor District: Curb Ramp, Pedestrian II-31August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 129 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work Order:4090 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 15 15 Environmental 6 6 Design Engineering 70 70 Right-of-Way 15 15 Construction 232 14 218 Total 338 106 14 218 Gas Tax 192 192 Phillips 66 funds 26 26 TDA 120 106 14 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements The project is located on Pomona Street at 3rd Avenue, Pomona Street at Rolph Avenue. The purpose of this project is to improve pedestrian safety along Pomona Street in the town of Crockett by improving several existing crosswalks. The project will add bulb-outs, pedestrian refuge islands, drainage facilities and curb ramps at the intersection of Pomona Street and 3rd Avenue. Supervisor District: Project Categories:Pedestrian, Safety II-32August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 130 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4054 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 86 81 5 Environmental 54 52 2 Design Engineering 315 285 30 Right-of-Way 8 8 Construction 1,186 55 1,131 Total 1,649 418 100 1,131 ATP 800 800 Bay Point AOB 148 148 Measure J RTS 200 100 100 SR2S 442 111 331 TDA 60 60 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Port Chicago Highway & Willow Pass Road Sidewalk Improvements Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road Intersection. Improve safety of bicyclists and pedestrians along Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road. Construct sidewalk and bike lanes. Reconfigure intersection to remove westbound free right turn lane. Supervisor District: Bicycle, Pedestrian II-33August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 131 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4141 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 71 60 11 Environmental 46 46 Design Engineering 98 48 50 Right-of-Way 95 95 Construction 555 40 515 Total 865 60 105 90 95 515 ATP 600 40 45 515 Bay Point AOB 185 85 50 50 Gas Tax 80 60 20 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Rio Vista Elementary School Pedestrian Connection Project Pacifica Avenue from Mariners Cove Drive to 525 feet west Fill sidewalk gap and improve pedestrian and bicycle safety Provide sidewalk on the north side of Pacifica Avenue from Mariners Cove towards Wharf Drive Supervisor District: Bicycle, Pedestrian II-34August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 132 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4144 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 171 36 20 115 Environmental 30 30 Design Engineering 50 50 Right-of-Way 30 10 20 Construction 665 50 615 Total 946 36 110 185 615 Former RDA 730 36 110 185 399 Gas Tax 216 216 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure Investment Street and Pacific Avenue in downtown Rodeo Provide continuous pedestrian improvements in downtown Rodeo area. Construct sidewalk and curb ramps along Pacific Avenue. Improve access to Rodeo Creek Trail on Investment Street. Supervisor District: Curb Ramp, Pedestrian II-35August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 133 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:1 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 20 20 Environmental 55 55 Design Engineering 140 50 50 40 Right-of-Way 130 10 120 Construction 561 561 Total 906 125 60 160 561 Gas Tax 292 66 35 135 56 HSIP 614 59 25 25 505 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars San Pablo Dam Road Sidewalk Gap Project San Pablo Dam Road from Appian Way to Clark Road Construct pedestrian improvements on San Pablo Dam Road to improve connectivity and safety. Construct sidewalk along San Pablo Dam Road to provide continuous pedestrian path. Supervisor District: Pedestrian II-36August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 134 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4051 1 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 440 436 4 Environmental 18 18 Design Engineering 573 573 Right-of-Way 484 479 5 Construction 2,206 1,937 269 Total 3,722 3,442 279 Gas Tax 1,580 1,300 279 Measure J RTS 200 200 Measure J TLC 1,400 1,400 Prop 1B 500 500 RSS Abatement 42 42 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars San Pablo Dam Road Walkability Project Downtown El Sobrante from Hillcrest Road to Appian Way Provide sidewalk safety improvements in downtown area. Reconstruct sidewalk, relocate bus stops, replace trees, and provide for potted landscaping. Supervisor District: Pedestrian II-37August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 135 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4125 5 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 2 2 Environmental 2 2 Design Engineering 54 47 7 Right-of-Way Construction 210 3 208 Total 268 53 215 Gas Tax 268 53 215 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Stormwater Treatment Demonstration Project Public Works Department parking lot - 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez. Improvements will provide offsite stormwater treatment mitigation. Construct storm water treatment facility. Supervisor District: Other II-38August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 136 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work Order:4211 1 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 24 24 Environmental 5 5 Design Engineering 159 99 60 Right-of-Way 40 40 Construction 538 15 523 Total 765 128 100 15 523 Gas Tax 523 60 463 Measure J RTS 160 100 60 TDA 83 67 15 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure Project Dolan Way, Flannery Road and Shamrock Drive in the Tara Hills area of unincorporated San Pablo. Improve pedestrian infrastructure by providing ADA curb ramps and bulb-outs Install curb ramps along Dolan Way, Flannery Road and Shamrock Drive and pedestrian improvements at the intersection of Dolan Way and Flannery Road. Supervisor District: Project Description:Curb Ramp II-39August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 137 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work Order Various Countywide Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering Environmental 30 5 5 5 5 5 5 Design Engineering 300 50 50 50 50 50 50 Right-of-Way Construction 870 145 145 145 145 145 145 Total 1,200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Measure J RTS 1,200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars County-Wide Curb Ramp Projects Various locations throughout County Upgrade existing curb ramps to meet current ADA requirements and provide ADA access where it may not currently exist. Install new curb ramps and/or upgrade existing curb ramps to meet current standards. Supervisor District Project Categories:Curb Ramp II-40August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 138 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories:Traffic Work Order:60490 Countywide Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 14 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Environmental 21 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Design Engineering 70 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Right-of-Way Construction 2,795 485 385 385 385 385 385 385 Total 2,900 500 400 400 400 400 400 400 Gas Tax 1,500 300 200 200 200 200 200 200 Measure J RTS 1,400 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars County-Wide Operation & Safety Improvements Various locations throughout County. To provide improvements to address operational and safety concerns on County roads. Install traffic signage, striping, signal modifications, and other small operational and safety improvements. Supervisor District: II-41August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 139 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Categories: Work Order:4073 Various Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 41 41 Environmental 54 54 Design Engineering 259 259 Right-of-Way 1 1 Construction 2,709 2,709 Total 3,065 356 2,709 Gas Tax 1,124 356 768 OBAG 1,941 1,941 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars County-Wide Overlay Project Portions of Vasco Road, Pleasant Hill Road, and Byron Highway. Pavement rehabiilitation to extend the life of the existing pavement. Provide pavement rehabilitation on portions of selected roadways. Supervisor District: Pavement II-42August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 140 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work Order:60230 Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 350 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Environmental 700 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Design Engineering 1,400 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Right-of-Way Construction 30,575 3,838 3,506 5,076 5,909 5,247 3,500 3,500 Total 33,025 4,188 3,856 5,426 6,259 5,597 3,850 3,850 Gas Tax 31,675 2,838 3,856 5,426 6,259 5,597 3,850 3,850 Measure J RTS 1,350 1,350 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars County-Wide Surface Treatments Various locations throughout County. 2016 - Alamo, Bay Point 2017 - Walnut Creek, El Sobrante, Kensington, Bay View/Montalvin 2018 - Bay Point, Lafayette & Martinez Area, Kensington, Crockett 2019 - Clyde, North Richmond, Rollingwood, Pacheco, Kensington 2020 - Bay Point, El Sobrante Surface treatment projects will refurbish the existing roadway, extend the life of the road, and reduce the long-term maintenance costs. Surface treatments such as chip seal or slurry seal includes cleaning the road surface, weed removal, sweeping, site cleanup, and placing striping and pavement markings. Supervisor District:Countywide Project Categories:Pavement, Maintenance II-43August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 141 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Work Order:60420 Countywide Phase/Funding Source Cost Cost to Date FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Preliminary Engineering 15 3 3 3 3 3 Environmental 10 2 2 2 2 2 Design Engineering 15 3 3 3 3 3 Right-of-Way Construction 460 92 92 92 92 92 Total 500 100 100 100 100 100 Measure J RTS 500 100 100 100 100 100 Anticipated Project Expenditures Amounts shown in thousands of dollars County-Wide Traffic Calming Various locations throughout County. To make residential streets as quiet and safe as possible, while still providing access for neighbors and local businesses. Plan for, design, and construct traffic calming devices and other neighborhood traffic control devices. Supervisor District: Project Categories:Traffic II-44August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 142 Section III Underfunded Projects August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 143 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 144 III-1 2015 UNDERFUNDED PROJECT LIST 1.Alhambra Valley Road Safety Improvements (Various Locations) 2.Alhambra Valley Road Slide Repair – 0.4 miles west of Bear Creek Road 3.Alhambra Valley Road Slide Repair – 0.7 miles west of Castro Ranch Road 4.Alves Lane Extension - Willow Pass Road to Pacifica Avenue 5.Appian Way & Pebble Drive Traffic Signal and Safety Improvements 6.Appian Way Complete Streets Project - San Pablo Dam Road to Valley View Road 7.Appian Way Complete Streets Project - Valley View Road to Pinole City Limits 8.Arlington Boulevard & Amherst Avenue & Sunset Drive Intersection Improvements 9.Ayers Road & Concord Boulevard Intersection Improvements 10.Ayers Road & Laurel Avenue Intersection Improvements 11.Ayers Road & Myrtle Drive Intersection Improvements 12.Bailey Road & Myrtle Drive Intersection Improvements 13.Bailey Road Improvements - Myrtle Drive to Concord City Limits 14.Bailey Road Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements - Canal Road to Willow Pass Road 15.Balfour Road & Byron Highway Intersection Improvements 16.Balfour Road Shoulder Widening - Deer Valley Road to Brentwood City Limits 17.Bear Creek Road & Happy Valley Road Intersection Improvements 18.Bella Vista Infrastructure Improvements 19.Bethel Island Road & Sandmound Road Intersection Improvements 20.Bethel Island Road Widening - Wells Lane to Sandmound Boulevard 21.Bixler Road Improvements - SR 4 to Byer Road 22.Blackhawk Road Bikeway Project 23.Boulevard Way Bicycle and Pedestrian Project 24.Bridgefield Road at Olympic Boulevard Intersection Improvement 25.Brookside Drive Widening – Fred Jackson Way to Union Pacific Railroad 26.Buskirk Avenue Improvements - Treat Blvd to Pleasant Hill City Limits 27.Byer Road Improvements - Bixler Road to Byron Highway 28.Byron Highway & Byer Road Intersection Improvements 29.Byron Highway Safety Improvements (Various Locations) 30.Byron Highway Two-Way Left Turn Lane at Byron Elementary School 31.Byron Highway Widening - Camino Diablo to the Alameda County Line 32.Byron Highway Widening - Chestnut Street to SR 4 33.Byron Highway Widening - Delta Road to Chestnut Street 34.Byron Highway Widening - SR 4 to Camino Diablo 35.Camino Diablo Widening - Vasco Road to Byron Highway 36.Camino Tassajara Safety Improvements (Various Locations) 37.Camino Tassajara Widening - Windemere Parkway to Alameda County Line 38.Castro Ranch Road Widening - San Pablo Dam Road to Olinda Road 39.Center Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - Pacheco Boulevard to Marsh Drive 40.Chestnut Street Widening - Sellers Avenue to Byron Highway 41.Clipper Drive Improvements - Newport Drive to Discovery Bay Boulevard 42.Colusa Avenue Complete Streets Project August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 145 III-2 43.Concord Avenue Bicycle Improvements - I-680 off-ramp to Iron Horse Trail 44.Crockett Area Overlays & Reconstruction Project 45.Cummings Skyway Truck Lane Extension 46.Danville Blvd & Hemme Avenue Intersection Improvements 47.Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements 48.Deer Valley Road Safety Improvements (Various Locations) 49.Del Monte Drive Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0207) 50.Delta De Anza Trail Crossing Project 51.Delta De Anza Trail Gap Closure (Various Locations) 52.Delta Road Widening - Byron Highway to Holland Tract Road 53.Delta Road Widening - Sellers Avenue to Byron Highway 54.Dewing Lane Pedestrian Bridge 55.Discovery Bay Boulevard & Clipper Drive Intersection Improvements 56.Driftwood Drive Improvements - Port Chicago Highway to Pacifica Avenue 57.El Portal Drive Widening - San Pablo City Limits to San Pablo Dam Road 58.Evora Road & Willow Pass Road Intersection Improvements 59.Fish Ranch Road Safety Improvements - SR 24 to Grizzly Peak Road 60.Fred Jackson Way Improvements - Grove Avenue to Brookside Drive 61.Fred Jackson Way/Goodrick Avenue Realignment 62.Gateway Road Widening - Bethel Island Road to Piper Road 63.Highland Road Improvements - Camino Tassajara to Alameda County Line 64.Iron Horse Trail Flashers 65.Kirker Pass Road Northbound Runaway Truck Ramp 66.Kirker Pass Road Southbound Truck Lanes 67.Knightsen Avenue & Delta Road Intersection Improvements 68.Knightsen Avenue Widening - East Cypress Road to Delta Road 69.Knightsen Avenue/Eden Plains Road Widening - Delta Road to Chestnut Street 70.La Paloma Road Pedestrian and Roadway Improvements 71.Las Juntas Way & Coggins Drive Intersection Improvements 72.Local Road Pedestrian and Bicycle Upgrade at Benicia Bridge 73.Loftus Road Pedestrian Improvements - Canal Road to Willow Pass Road 74.Marsh Creek Road & Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements 75.Marsh Creek Road & Deer Valley Road Intersection Improvements 76.Marsh Creek Road Realignment & Safety Improvements (Various Locations) 77.Marsh Creek Trail 78.Marsh Drive Improvements - Center Avenue to Iron Horse Trail 79.Mayhew Way Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - 200' west of Oberan Dr to Bancroft Road 80.McNabney Marsh Open Space Connection to Waterfront Road 81.Miranda Ave Improvements - Stone Valley Road to Stone Valley Middle School 82.Morgan Territory Road Safety Improvements 83.Mountain View Blvd Pedestrian Improvements - San Miguel Drive to Walnut Boulevard 84.Newell Avenue Area Pavement Rehabilitation 85.Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvements - Ashbourne Drive to Alameda County Limits August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 146 III-3 86.North Richmond Sidewalk Replacement 87.North Richmond Truck Route - Parr Boulevard to Market Avenue 88.North Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill Area Pavement Rehabilitation 89.Oak Road Improvements - Treat Blvd to Pleasant Hill City Limits 90.Olinda Road Pedestrian Improvements - Valley View Road to 850 ft south of Valley View Road 91.Olympic Boulevard & Boulevard Way & Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection Improvements 92.Olympic Corridor Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements - Long Term 93.Olympic Corridor Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements - Short Term 94.Pacheco Boulevard & Center Avenue Intersection Improvements 95.Pacheco Boulevard & Muir Road Intersection Improvements 96.Pacheco Boulevard Bicycle Improvements - Arnold Drive to Muir Road 97.Pacheco Boulevard Improvements - Morello Avenue to Blum Road 98.Pacheco Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure - east of Las Juntas Elementary School 99.Pacifica Avenue Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 28C0379) 100.Pacifica Avenue Extension - Port Chicago Highway to Alves Lane 101.Parker Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project 102.Parr Boulevard Widening – Richmond Pkwy to Union Pacific Railroad 103.Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements on Livorna Road, Stone Valley Road, and Danville Boulevard 104.Pedestrian Improvements near Rodeo Hills Elementary School 105.Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Schools in Alamo 106.Pinehurst Road Bicycle Improvements 107.Piper Road Widening - Gateway Road to Willow Road 108.Pitt Way Roadway Improvements 109.Pittsburg Ave Widening - Fred Jackson Way to Richmond Parkway 110.Pleasant Hill BART Station Bicycle and Pedestrian Access 111.Pleasant Hill Road & Taylor Boulevard Intersection Improvements 112.Pleasant Hill Road Bicycle Improvements - Geary Road to Taylor Boulevard 113.Point of Timber Road & Byron Highway Intersection Improvements 114.Pomona Street/Winslow Avenue/Carquinez Scenic Drive Safety Alignment Study 115.Port Chicago Highway Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - Driftwood Drive to McAvoy Road 116.Port Chicago Hwy Realignment Project - McAvoy Road to Skipper Road 117.Reliez Valley Road Bicycle Improvements - North of Grayson Road to Withers Avenue 118.Rudgear Road & San Miguel Drive Intersection Improvements 119.Rudgear Road/San Miguel/Walnut Boulevard/Mountain View Boulevard Safety Improvements 120.San Miguel Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 121.San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Project - Rodeo to Crockett 122.San Pablo Dam Rd & Greenridge Drive Signal Improvements 123.San Pablo Dam Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements - Tri Lane to Appian Way 124.San Pablo Dam Road Improvements (Various Locations) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 147 III-4 125.Sandmound Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements - Mariner Rd to Cypress Road 126.Sandmound Boulevard Widening - Oakley City Limits to Mariner Road 127.Sellers Ave & Balfour Road Intersection Improvements 128.Sellers Avenue & Chestnut Avenue Intersection Improvements 129.Sellers Avenue & Marsh Creek Road Intersection Improvements 130.Sellers Avenue & Sunset Road Intersection Improvements 131.Sellers Avenue Widening - Brentwood City Limits to Marsh Creek Road 132.Sellers Avenue Widening - Delta Road to Chestnut Street 133.Seventh Street Extension to Brookside Drive 134.Springbrook Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 135.SR 4 & Byron Highway South Intersection Widening (Phase 2) 136.SR 4 & Newport Drive Signal 137.SR 4 Widening - Bixler Road to Discovery Bay Boulevard 138.SR239/Trilink: Byron Airport Connector 139.Stone Valley Road Improvements - High Eagle Road to Roundhill Road 140.Stone Valley Road Improvements - Roundhill Road to Glenwood Court 141.Stone Valley Road Improvements - Stone Valley Way to High Eagle Road 142.Sunset Road Widening - Sellers Avenue to Byron Highway 143.Tara Hills Drive Complete Streets Project 144.Tice Valley Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 145.Treat Boulevard & Buskirk Avenue Intersection Improvements 146.Treat Boulevard & Jones Road Intersection Improvements 147.Treat Boulevard (I-680 Overcrossing) Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 148.Treat Boulevard Bicycle Improvements - Jones Road to Walnut Creek City Limits 149.Valley View Road Widening - San Pablo Dam Road to Appian Way 150.Vasco Road Safety Improvements (Phase 2) 151.Walnut Boulevard Bicycle Improvements - Marsh Creek Road to Vasco Road 152.Waterfront Road Grade Change Project 153.Willow Pass Road & Bailey Road Intersection Improvements 154.Willow Pass Road (West) & SR 4 Interchange Improvements 155.Willow Pass Road Improvements - Bailey Road to Pittsburg City Limits 156.Willow Pass Road Improvements - Evora Road to SR 4 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 148 Appendices August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 149 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 150 Appendix A: County Road Improvement Policy August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 151 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 152 Appendix A - 1August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 153 Appendix A - 2August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 154 Appendix A - 3August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 155 Appendix A - 4August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 156 Appendix A - 5August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 157 Appendix A - 6August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 158 Appendix B: Guidelines for Expenditure of Gas Tax Revenue (Proposition 111 Funds) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 159 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 160 Appendix B - 1August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 161 Appendix B - 2August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 162 Appendix B - 3August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 163 Appendix B - 4August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 164 Appendix B - 5August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 165 Appendix B - 6August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 166 Appendix B - 7August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 167 Appendix B - 8August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 168 Appendix B - 9August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 169 Appendix B - 10August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 170 Appendix C: Board Order Approving the 2015 Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program and the April 2016 TWIC Report August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 171 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 172 Appendix C - 1 (This page is intentionally left blank until the Board of Supervisors approves the 2015 CRIPP) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 173 Appendix C - 2 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 174 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:04/14/2016   Subject:REVIEW reduction in State Gas Tax and the Impact to County of Contra Costa Streets and Roads. Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer  Department:Public Works Referral No.: 1   Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water and infrastructure.  Presenter: Steve Kowalewski, Department of Public Works Contact: Steve Kowalewski (925)313-2225 Referral History: State legislative and financial issues related to transportation are a standing item on the TWIC agenda. The Committee regularly considers and provides recommendations to the BOS on these matters. Referral Update: State gas tax is the primary funding source used by Contra Costa County to fund the operations, maintenance, and improvement of the unincorporated transportation network. What does it pay for? • Operations and Maintenance – Gas tax revenues are used to operate and maintain pavements, road drainage (underground and above ground facilities), culvert inspection and replacement, signs, striping, vegetation control, bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, trails, traffic signals, safety lighting, shoulder grading, slope maintenance, storm response (clean-up, downed trees, clogged drains, etc), hydrauger maintenance, curbs, bike lane sweeping, storm drain debris removal, pothole repair, surface treatment program (slurry seal, chip seal, cape seal, micro-surface, overlays), road reconstruction, bridge maintenance, local bridge inspections, illegal dumping clean-up, clean water treatment facilities, and guardrails. • Capital Projects – Used to construct capital transportation projects such as bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, curb ramps (ADA compliance), safety improvements, shoulder improvements, complete streets, green streets (green infrastructure), traffic calming, and bridge replacement. Local gas tax is also used to leverage local, state and federal grant funds. Last year for every $1 dollar we spent on staff time to prepare grant applications, we were able to get $17 dollars in return. This resulted in successfully securing $5,080,000 at a cost of $300,900. 4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 50 of 107 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 175 Without having gas tax as required local match money to go after grants, the County would miss an opportunity to obtain additional outside funding to help construct much needed safety, maintenance, and multi-modal transportation improvements. • Traffic Operations – Gas tax fully funds the Traffic Operations Section. This section is responsible for traffic safety investigations, traffic operational improvements, traffic signal timing, traffic signal maintenance and upgrades, traffic data collection, Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, traffic collision evaluations, encroachment investigations, speed surveys, traffic resolutions, parking restrictions, traffic impact evaluations from new development, CHP coordination, truck restrictions, permit load requests, State coordination, and public assistance. • Road Administrative Functions – The gas tax funds several administrative functions that support the County’s road program. These include the Development Impact fee program, self-insurance (Risk Management), Road Finance Functions, Transportation Planning (Department of Conservation and Development), Utility Undergrounding Program (Rule 20A Funds), transportation planning studies, interagency coordination, state coordination, public meetings, project development, alignment studies, Road Records, County Counsel, claim investigations, and Public Assistance. What’s currently going on with the gas tax? Two parts to the gas tax exist: Gas Excise Tax (volume based) and Price-Based Excise Tax (price based): • Gas Excise Tax (volume based) – has not been raised since 1993. The Construction Cost Index has increased 71% from 1993. The purchasing power of the 18 cent gas tax in 1993 has been reduced to 9 cents in 2016 due to inflation. The gas excise tax is based on the amount (gallon) of gas purchased and is not based on the price of gas. Although there are more vehicles on the road, the gas tax generated has remained relatively flat due to the improvement in fuel economy in vehicles and more electric vehicles on the road. Electric vehicles are essentially using the road network for free. Although great for the environment, this trend has had a major impact on agencies responsible for properly maintaining and improving the transportation network. • Price-Based Excise Tax – This part of the gas tax is dependent on the price of gas. If the prices are high, the sales tax generated increases. When gas prices drop, so does the sales tax portion of gas tax. So if gas prices have only dropped 50%, why is the County’s gas tax show a decline of 81%? This inequality comes from the gas tax swap agreed to several years ago. From the sales tax based gas tax, the State takes $1 billion off the top to pay for General Obligation Transportation Bonds. During the tough economic times, the State was looking for General Fund relief and switched the obligation for paying these General Obligation Transportation Bonds from the General Fund to Gas Tax. When gas prices are high, the impact of removing $1 billion off the top is minimal, but when gas prices are low, the pot of money is small and is even made smaller by continuing to take the $1 billion off the top. The $1 billion is a fixed amount for bond debt service. The Governor called for a special session of the California Legislature to address transportation funding; however, there has been limited progress in finding a solution. There are currently three proposals to address transportation funding: SBX1 1 (Beall), AB 1591 (Frazier), Governor’s Plan as of September 6, 2015. These proposals would generate $24 million (SBX1 1), $27 million (AB1591), and $12.6 million (Governor’s Plan). These amounts are in addition to the revenues 4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 51 of 107 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 176 currently being received. A detailed description of the three proposals is attached. What are the impacts to unincorporated County roads? • The County has seen a significant reduction in State gas tax used to operate and maintain our local unincorporated road network. Although we have seen a slight increase in the volume based gas tax, this increase is far short of the drastic reduction we have seen in the sales tax portion of gas tax. • To address the gas tax revenue reduction, the Public Works Department is proposing a project delay strategy that delays the construction of several projects for one to two years in anticipation that the State Legislature will agree on a transportation funding fix. However, if the State Legislature fails to act within the two year window, the County will likely need to indefinitely delay several projects and lose the already secured grant funds associated with those projects. • The following are the main projects and road program activities impacted by the proposed project delay strategy:  - Delay construction of Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes one year with work beginning in 2019; Reduce gas tax allocations for local match starting this fiscal year and next. If State Transportation Improvement Funds (also gas tax) are permanently cut by the California Transportation Commission for this project, the County will not have the capacity to make up the difference and the project will be delayed indefinitely. - Delay the Byron Main Street Sidewalk Improvement Project, Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety Enhancements, and Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure Project one year. Continue funding the completion of the design of the project, but delay construction funding. - Eliminate seed money for Vasco Road Safety Improvement Project Phase II. - Delay the Bay Point Asphalt Rubber Cape Seal project. The bids were recently opened for the project. However, with the new gas tax revenue projections, we did not have the $1.7 million funding to move this project forward. We will move forward with the ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades Project in the same Bay Point neighborhood in preparation for when the delayed Rubber Cape Seal project will be put out to bid in the next couple of years if the State Legislature finds a transportation funding fix. - Reduce the gas tax allocation for Orwood Bridge Construction Engineering overage reserve. Caltrans has been disputing project expenditures for both the Construction Engineering and Environmental expenditures. At this moment, it appears only $600,000 in Environmental expenditures are in dispute. If the Environmental expenditures dispute is resolved, that would free up the $600,000 reserve. - Reduced insurance reserve to $500,000. This amount is difficult to predict and in the recent past has come in at $1.6 million and $1.8 million. - Holding off on back-filling vacated positions supported by the State gas tax. - Will be shifting some County Road Crews from gas tax supported road work to Flood Control District facilities to reduce gas tax expenditures. Gas tax allocation to Road 4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 52 of 107 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 177 Control District facilities to reduce gas tax expenditures. Gas tax allocation to Road Maintenance has been reduced by $2.5 million from historic levels. - Reduce grant match funding and forego applying for some upcoming grants. • The actions summarized above are the main highlights. With these actions along with other minor budget adjustments, we have balanced the current fiscal year road budget. We are currently short approximately $700,000 for the fiscal year 2016/17 road budget. We will continue to seek additional budget adjustments and funding to make up the difference. • We realize that these actions will have an impact to motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, transit operations, and goods movement and we will continue to look for efficiencies and strategic allocations of the limited gas tax to keep the unincorporated County road network operating safely, efficiently, and reliably. [Note from TWIC Staff: Information regarding transportation funding proposals at the state are also addressed under Item 7: Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues] Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): ACCEPT report on the impacts to County transportation projects from the declining State gas tax; DIRECT the Public Works Director to make modifications to the current draft of the Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program currently being routed for review to reflect the reduced gas tax revenues; and ACKNOWLEDGE that unless the State approves a transportation funding fix, the projects currently recommended to be delayed, will be deferred indefinitely, road deferred maintenance will continue to increase and our aging transportation infrastructure will cost more to fix in the future. Fiscal Impact (if any): If the projects move forward, there will be insufficient funds to pay contractors for work performed. Attachments Summary 2016 4-14-16 TWIC Packet Page Number 53 of 107 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 178 Appendix D: Area of Benefit Maps and Project Lists August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 179 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 180 HOW DOES THE AREA OF BENEFIT PROGRAM FIT INTO THE CRIPP? As explained in the CRIPP Introduction and Background section, the CRIPP is a planning document for known potential projects in the next 7 years. The Area of Benefit Program (AOB) is just one potential funding source for County road projects. Some of these road improvement projects are funded by AOB revenues, provided those projects are on the approved AOB project list. Not all projects on the AOB project lists will appear in the CRIPP. Some of the projects on the AOB project lists fall outside of the 7 year planning window and therefore are not included in the CRIPP project lists. Each AOB project list was approved with each respective AOB ordinance. In order to update an AOB project list, a separate update process will need to occur. Projects within each AOB program may be removed or added when each AOB ordinance is updated and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The update of a CRIPP is not the process in which the County updates an AOB. For reference, the following information for each adopted Area of Benefit is included: Ordinance number Approved/Proposed Project List Boundary for the Area of Benefit The AOB program is constantly being updated. The updates include revising the AOB project list. At the time of the CRIPP development, several AOB programs were in the process of being updated. The draft proposed project lists for these AOB programs are presented in the 2015 CRIPP. These proposed project lists are in draft form and have not yet been finalized or adopted by the Board of Supervisors. For more information about the Areas of Benefit, contact Mary Halle at (925) 313-2000. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 181 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 182 Appendix D - 1 Alamo Regional Area of Benefit Proposed Project List Schedule Pending Alamo AOB update expected in 2016. Item Location Description Project Status 1 Downtown Alamo Construct pedestrian safety improvements. Incomplete 2 Stone Valley Road from Stone Valley Way to High Eagle Road Widen to accommodate 2 travel lanes and shoulders Complete 3 Stone Valley Road from High Eagle Road to Roundhill Road Widen to accommodate 2 travel lanes and shoulders and a left turn lane at Roundhill Road Complete 4 Stone Valley Road form Roundhill Road to Glenwood Court Widen to accommodate 2 travel lanes and shoulders Complete 5 Livorna Road, Stone Valley Road, and Danville Boulevard Construct pedestrian and bicycle improvements.Incomplete 6 Alamo Schools Construct pedestrian safety improvements at Stone Valley Middle School, Alamo Elementary School, and Rancho Romero Schools. Incomplete 7 Miranda Avenue from Stone Valley Road to Stone Valley Middle School Construct pedestrian and bicycle improvements.Incomplete 8 Danville Boulevard at Hemme Avenue Intersection improvements.Incomplete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB Alamo Area of Benefit Boundary August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 183 Appendix D - 2 Bay Point Area of Benefit Proposed Project List Schedule Pending Bay Point AOB update expected in 2016. Item Location Description Project Status 1 Willow Pass Road Signalize EB and WB off-ramps at west interchange of SR4 Incomplete 2 Willow Pass Road Intersection improvements at Willow Pass Road and Evora Road to facilitate traffic flow to WB SR 4.Incomplete 3 Willow Pass Road Restriping from Bailey Road to Pittsburg City Limits to improve capacity.Incomplete 4 Willow Pass Road Bailey Road intersection improvements.Incomplete 5 Port Chicago Highway Widen to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Driftwood Drive to west of McAvoy Road. Incomplete 6 Port Chicago Highway Realign from west of McAvoy Road to Skipper Road.Incomplete 7 Port Chicago Highway & Willow Pass Rd Intersection Construct multi-modal safety improvements through intersection from Lynbrook Drive to Weldon Street.Incomplete 8 Driftwood Drive Construct pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements from Port Chicago Highway to Alves Lane extension.Incomplete 9 Pacifica Avenue Extend roadway from Port Chicago Highway to Alves Lane extension.Incomplete 10 Alves Lane Extend roadway from Willow Pass Road to Pacifica Avenue extension.Incomplete 11 Bailey Road Bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Willow Pass Road to Canal Road.Incomplete 12 Bailey Road Bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Canal Road to BART.Incomplete 13 Loftus Road Construct bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements from Canal Road to Willow Pass Road.Incomplete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 184 Appendix D - 3 Bay Point Area of Benefit Boundary Clyde Bay Point August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 185 Appendix D - 4 Bethel Island Area of Benefit Proposed Project List Schedule Pending Bethel Island AOB update expected in 2016. Item Location Description Project Status 1 Bethel Island Rd.Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Wells Rd to Sandmound Blvd.Incomplete 2 Sandmound Blvd.Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Oakley City Limits to Mariner Rd.Incomplete 3 Sandmound Blvd.Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Mariner Rd to Cypress Rd.Incomplete 4 Gateway Rd.Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Bethel Island Rd to Piper Rd.Incomplete 5 Piper Rd.Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Gateway Rd to Willow Rd.Incomplete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB Bethel Island Area of Benefit Boundary August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 186 Appendix D - 5 Briones Area of Benefit Project List Schedule Current Ordinance 88-27 Item Location Description Project Status 1 Alhambra Valley Road Realign curves at Ferndale Road (mile post 5.6), Main Road (mile post 6.2), and 4000 feet northwest of Bear Creek road (mile post 2.9) Incomplete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB Briones Area of Benefit Boundary August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 187 Appendix D - 6 Central County Area of Benefit Project List Schedule Current Ordinance 95-32 Item Location Description Project Status 1 Taylor Boulevard Safety and capacity improvements from Pleasant Hill Road to Boyd Road Incomplete 2 Pleasant Hill Road / Taylor Boulevard Safety and Capacity improvements to existing intersection Incomplete 3 Bailey Road Remove and replace existing bridge. New bridge adequate for standard two-lane arterial Complete 4 Rudgear Road / San Miguel Drive / Walnut Boulevard / Mountain View Boulevard Safety Improvements Incomplete 5 San Pablo Dam Road / Bear Creek Road Construct Signal (County share)Complete 6 Paso Nogal / Golf Club Road Improve intersection Complete 7 Evora Road Extension Construct new road from Willow Pass Road (Concord) to Port Chicago Highway Incomplete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB Central County Area of Benefit Boundary August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 188 Appendix D - 7 Discovery Bay Area of Benefit Project List Schedule Current Ordinance 97-27 Item Location Description Project Status 1 Byron Hwy Construction of Improvements at Byron Elementary School Incomplete 2 Byron Hwy at SR4 (Phase 1) Construct signal and interim intersection improvements Complete 3 Byron Hwy at SR4 (Phase 2)Construction of ultimate intersection improvements Incomplete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB Discovery Bay Area of Benefit Boundary August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 189 Appendix D - 8 East County Regional Area of Benefit Project List Schedule Current Ordinance 2013-26 Item Location Description Project Status 1 Vasco Rd/Camino Diablo intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete 2 Marsh Creek Rd Construct safety improvements.Incomplete 3 Chestnut Street Widen roadway from Sellers Avenue to Byron Hwy.Incomplete 4 Delta Road Widen roadway from Byron Highway to Holland Tract Rd.Incomplete 5 Knightsen Ave & Eden Plains Rd Widen roadway from Delta Rd to Chestnut St.Incomplete 6 Sunset Rd Widen roadway from Sellers Ave to Byron Hwy.Incomplete 7 Byron Highway Widen roadway from Camino Diablo to the Alameda County Line.Incomplete 8 Byron Highway Construct two way left turn lane at Byron Elementary School.Incomplete 9 SR 4/Byron Highway intersection Widen southern intersection of Byron Highway with SR 4 (Phase 2).Incomplete 10 Knightsen Avenue Widen roadway from East Cypress Rd to Delta Rd.Incomplete 11 Delta Road Widen roadway from Sellers Ave to Byron Highway.Incomplete 12 Sellers Avenue Widen roadway from Delta Rd to Chestnut St.Incomplete 13 Sellers Avenue Widen roadway from Main canal to Marsh Creek Rd.Incomplete 14 Byron Highway Widen roadway from Delta Rd to Chestnut St.Incomplete 15 Byron Highway Widen roadway from Chestnut St to SR 4.Incomplete 16 Byron Highway Widen roadway from SR 4 to Camino Diablo.Incomplete 17 Camino Diablo Widen roadway from Vasco Rd to Byron Highway.Incomplete 18 Knightsen Ave/Delta Rd intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete 19 Byron Highway/Camino Diablo intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete 20 Byron Highway/SR 4 /Point of Timber intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete 21 Sellers Ave/Marsh Creek Rd intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete 22 Balfour Rd/Byron Highway intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete 23 Sellers Ave/Sunset Rd intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete 24 Sellers Ave/Chestnut St intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete 25 Sellers Ave/Balfour Rd intersection Construct intersection improvements.Incomplete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 190 Appendix D - 9 East County Regional Area of Benefit Boundary August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 191 Appendix D - 10 Hercules / Rodeo / Crockett Area of Benefit Project List Schedule Current Ordinance 88-27 Item Location Description Project Status 1 Pomona Street Widen to provide shoulder from Crockett Boulevard to 2nd street Complete 2 Pomona St / Winslow Ave / Carquinez Scenic Alignment Study Incomplete 3 Crockett Boulevard Widen to three lane arterial to provide for truck climbing lane from Pomona Street to Cummings Skyway Complete 4 San Pablo Ave Modify signal at Union Oil entrance Complete 5 Pomona St Modify signal at 2nd Ave Complete 6 Parker Ave / San Pablo Avenue / Willow Intersection Modify intersection and install signal Complete 7 Parker / Fourth Modify intersection and install signal Complete 8 Willow / Hawthorne Modify intersection and install signal Complete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB Hercules / Rodeo / Crockett Area of Benefit Boundary August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 192 Appendix D - 11 Martinez Area of Benefit Project List Schedule Current Ordinance 95-38 Item Location Description Project Status 1 Alhambra Valley Road Safety and capacity improvements from Martinez City Limits to Ferndale Road Incomplete 2 Alhambra Valley Road Realign curves at Ferndale Road Complete 3 Pacheco Boulevard Realign grade crossing with AT&SF Incomplete 4 Pacheco Boulevard Widen arterial standard Incomplete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB Martinez Area of Benefit Boundary August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 193 Appendix D - 12 North Richmond Area of Benefit Project List Schedule Current Ordinance 94-3 Item Location Description Project Status 1 Parr Blvd Widen road between from Richmond Parkway, east to AT&SF RR tracks Incomplete 2 Brookside Blvd Widen roadway; acquire ult. R/W at some locations; Incomplete 3 Pittsburg Ave / Extension Widen existing road & extend easterly to Third Street* along property lines Incomplete 4 Third St Realignment* Widen and realign Goodrick Avenue or Third Street* to provide north-south circulation with only one intersection with Parr Boulevard Incomplete * Third Street was renamed to Fred Jackson Way Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB North Richmond Area of Benefit Boundary August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 194 Appendix D - 13 Pacheco (West Concord) Area of Benefit Proposed Project List Schedule Pending West Concord AOB update expected in 2016. Item Location Description Project Status 1 Pacheco Boulevard and Muir Road Construct 2nd right turn lane and reconstruct/relocate bike pedestrian and traffic signal improvements Incomplete 2 Pacheco Boulevard and Center Avenue Improve traffic circulation improvements at the intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Center Avenue Incomplete 3 Pacheco Boulevard from Arnold Drive to Muir Road Construct bike lanes from Arnold Drive to Muir Road Incomplete 4 Center Avenue from Pacheco Boulevard to Buchanan Field Road Construct bike lanes on Center Avenue from Pacheco Boulevard to Buchanan Field Road Incomplete 5 Center Avenue from Berry Drive to Marsh Drive Construct sidewalk on Center Avenue from Berry Drive to Marsh Drive Incomplete 6 Marsh Drive from Center Avenue to the bridge near the Iron Horse Regional Trail Construct shoulders and bike lanes along Marsh Drive from Center Avenue to Iron Horse Trail Incomplete 7 Concord Avenue from Contra Costa Boulevard to the Iron Horse Regional Trail Construct a shared-use path along Concord Avenue starting near Contra Costa Boulevard to the Iron Horse Regional Trail Incomplete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB Pacheco (West Concord) Area of Benefit Boundary August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 195 Appendix D - 14 Richmond / El Sobrante Area of Benefit Project List Schedule Current Ordinance 91-27 Item Location Description Project Status 1 San Pablo Dam Road Construct signal at Castro Ranch Rd Complete 2 Appian Triangle Construct new intersection Complete 3 San Pablo Dam Road Dual left turn lanes at Appian Way Complete 4 Appian Way Construct signal at Manor Rd Complete 5 San Pablo Dam Road Construct signal at Milton Drive Complete 6 Valley View Rd.Construct signal at May Rd Complete 7 Appian Way Construct signal at Pebble Drive Incomplete 8 Castro Ranch Road Widen from San Pablo Dam Rd to Olinda Rd Incomplete 9 El Portal Widen from I-80 to San Pablo Dam Rd Incomplete 10 San Pablo Dam Road Construct middle turn lane from Appian Way to Castro Ranch Rd Incomplete 11 Appian Way Construct signal at Allview Ave Complete 12 San Pablo Dam Road Construct signal at Clark Rd Complete 13 Appian Way Construct ultimate improvements from Valley View Rd to Pinole Incomplete 14 San Pablo Dam Rd. Construct improvements from Richmond to Appian Way Incomplete 15 San Pablo Dam Rd. Construct signal at Greenridge Drive Incomplete 16 Appian Way Construct ultimate improvements from Valley View Rd. to San Pablo Dam Rd Incomplete 17 Appian Way Construct signal at La Paloma Rd Complete 18 El Portal Construct signal at Barranca Incomplete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 196 Appendix D - 15 Richmond / El Sobrante Area of Benefit Boundary August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 197 Appendix D - 16 South County Area of Benefit Project List Schedule Current Ordinance 96-27 Item Location Description Project Status 1 Camino Tassajara Improve County portion to two lane rural highway standard Incomplete 2 Crow Canyon Road Various safety and capacity improvements, including a truck climbing lane Incomplete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB South County Area of Benefit Boundary August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 198 Appendix D - 17 South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit Project List Schedule Current Ordinance 94-72 Item Location Description Project Status 1 Olympic Boulevard Widen from Tice Valley Boulevard to I - 680 Complete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit Boundary August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 199 Appendix D - 18 West County Area of Benefit Project List Schedule Current Ordinance 95-37 Item Location Description Project Status 1 Appian Triangle Widen to 4-lane arterial standard Incomplete 2 El Portal Drive Widen to 4-lane arterial standard from San Pablo Dam Road to I-80 Incomplete 3 Milton Drive at San Pablo Dam Rd Construct Signal Complete 4 San Pablo Dam Road at Appian Way Modify intersection to dual left turn onto Appian Way Complete 5 San Pablo Dam Road Construct fifth lane from Appian Way to Castro Ranch Road Incomplete 6 Arlington Improve intersections at Amherst and Sunset and install signals Incomplete Check AOB fees at http://www.cccounty.us/AOB West County Area of Benefit Boundary - Area Excluded from West County AOB August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 200 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE termination of the call center contract between the County and the Health Benefit Exchange (HBEX), effective December 31, 2016, and AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to issue a ninety-day termination notice to the State. 1. ACKNOWLEDGE that the State’s actions to reduce the FY 2016/17 HBEX budget by over $10 million may result in layoffs of County staff; 2. ACKNOWLEDGE and REAFFIRM the Board of Supervisors’ policy prohibiting the use of County General Purpose Revenue to back-fill State revenue cuts; 3. DIRECT the Employment and Human Services Department to work closely with Human Resources and our Union labor partners to transition affected employees to alternative County employment; 4. DIRECT the Employment and Human Services Department to prepare for consideration by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 2016, a lay-off resolution necessary to carryout Board action on the Health Benefit Exchange Call Center contract; and 5. ACKNOWLEDGE Resolution No. 2008/299 adopted May 6, 2008, authorizing the Human Resources Department to implement the Tactical Employment Team Program (TETP), whose objective is to mitigate the negative impact that anticipated layoffs will have on County employees. 6. FISCAL IMPACT: The Health Benefits Exchange contract is 100% State reimbursable, via APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services Director (925) 313-1579 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Labor Relations (for Union distribution), Lisa Lopez, Assistant Director of Human Resources, Enid Mendoza, Senior Deputy County Administrator D.5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:California Health Benefit Exchange Contract August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 201 FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D) Federal funds as authorized under the Affordable Care Act. The FY 2016/17 original budget amount for this contract was up to $14,411,972. The State has reduced the contract to a maximum of $4 million for FY 16/17 (a 72% reduction from the originally approved budget). The $4 million revenue is projected to be sufficient to continue operations through November 30, 2016, followed by the closure of the facility and termination of the contract with Health Benefit Exchange effective December 31, 2016. The Board’s approval to terminate the contract effective December 31, 2016 will support the department’s efforts to prevent impacts to other departmental budgets and the County’s general fund. BACKGROUND: On September 18, 2012, the Board of Supervisor's authorized the Employment and Human Services Interim Director to discuss the parameters of a partnership with the Health Care Exchange Board to establish a Call Center to provide enrollment and eligibility services to consumers, and to bring information gathered back to the Board. On December 4, 2012, the Board of Supervisors accepted an update on the progress made and authorized the Employment and Human Services Interim Director to determine whether to submit a proposal to the State of California for operation of a Health Benefit Exchange (HBEX) Call Center and, if competitive, submit the proposal by the due date. All costs of the program were to be reimbursed by the State of California. On December 7, 2012, the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) submitted a proposal to the State of California's Request for Offers (RFO) to operate a Health Benefit Exchange Call Center within Contra Costa County. On January 18, 2013, the Health Benefit Exchange/Covered California announced their decision to partner with Contra Costa County to operate a County-run Call Center. On March 15, 2013, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Employment and Human Services Director to execute a contract with the State of California for call center services through January 31, 2015. The fiscal impact statement affirmed that 100% of the cost of the Health Benefit Exchange Call Center were to be covered by the State of California, via Federal Funds, authorized under the Affordable Care Act. No County general purpose revenue would be used to support the Call Center. On January 13, 2015, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute a contact with the State of California to continue the providing call center services through June 30, 2017. The following contract payment limits were established in this contract for the following terms: February 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015 - $5,575,464 July 1, 2015 through June 30,2016 - $13,766,962 July 1, 2016 through June 30,2017 - $14,411,999 EHSD has continuously and successfully operated the Call Center, following the contract’s budget detail and payment provisions to ensure no outlay of County general funds. On May 5, 2016 EHSD was notified by Covered California that the call center contract would not be renewed past the June 30, 2017 termination date. At that time, EHSD implemented a "ramp-down" plan, including a transition plan for staff, in collaboration with the Human Resources Department (HR), Workforce Development Board, and State of California Personnel Department. Workshops on “Finding Employment with the State of California”, “Résumé Building”, “Interview Skills and Techniques”, “Networking”, “Tech Tools” have been offered to staff as part of this transition plan. Additional workshops on “Transfers and Promotions” and “Comparable Classifications and Transfers” are scheduled in August. On July 29, 2016 the Employment and Human Services Department received notification from Covered California that the contracted budget amount for this contract will be reduced to a maximum of $4 million for FY 16/17, a 72% reduction from the approved budget of $14,411,972. The reduced revenue is projected to be August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 202 insufficient to continue operations through June 30, 2017. Therefore, the contract must be terminated early under the Termination Without Cause clause of the contract (Exhibit D, Section B), with at least 90 days written notice. Due to the state’s short notice of the contract’s budget reduction the County will need to deploy an expedited “ramp down” plan, which will result in greater staff impacts than previously anticipated with the June 30, 2017 termination date. Although the staff transition plan efforts have already supported transfers within the County and employment opportunities with the State and private employers, many permanent positions are still filled. The County is committed to continue supporting permanent employees impacted by the early termination of the contact, but also recognize the challenges of an expedited “ramp down” and anticipate layoffs may be necessary. The list below specifies the number of affected positions within each classification and labor union. Professional and Technical Engineers, IFPTE, Local 21 Employment and Human Services Division Manager - 2 AFSCME Local 512, Professional and Technical Employees Exchange Customer Service Supervisor – 12 Social Service Staff Development Specialist – 1 Social Service Staff Development Specialist Project – 1 Clerical Supervisor – 1 SEIU Local 1021, Rank and File Unit and Service Line Supervisors Unit Exchange Call Center Quality Assurance Monitor – 1 Exchange Customer Service Agent I – 150 Exchange Customer Service Agent II – 29 AFSCME Local 2700, United Clerical, Technical and Specialized Employees Clerk - Experienced Level – 3 Secretary - Journey Level – 1 Unrepresented Management Personnel Services Assistant III – 1 Tactical Employment Team Program (TETP) - Attached for reference is a copy of Resolution No. 2008/299, adopted May 6, 2008, which authorized implementation of the Tactical Employment Team Program. The TETP was reinstated in 2008 and is still in operation. The objective of this program is to mitigate the negative impact that anticipated layoffs will have on the County’s workforce. The team is up and running and will continue to work towards finding employment for as many laid-off individuals as possible. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Letter of Notification to the California Health Benefits Exchange of the County’s intent to terminate the contract is not issued timely, the County’s general fund could be negatively impacted by expenses of over $10 million with no offsetting revenue. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The California Health Benefits Exchange contract supports all five of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood", 3) "Families that are Economically Self Sufficient"; 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and, "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families" by providing the opportunity for children and families to obtain and retain health care coverage. ATTACHMENTS CCC Covered California Budget Reduction Letter from State Resolution No. 2008/299 - Tactical Employment Team Program August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 203 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes204 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes205 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes206 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes207 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes208 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes209 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 210 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the final Chevron Richmond Refinery third-party safety evaluation. FISCAL IMPACT: No expect fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: After the August 6, 2012 Chevron Richmond Fire where approximately 15,000 people sought medical attention, it was decided that a third-party safety evaluation under the Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance be performed. An oversight committee was established that consisted of representatives from the Richmond community, United Steel Workers, the Building Trades, the City of Richmond and the County Hazardous Materials Programs. The Oversight Committee worked with County staff in developing the Scope of Work, a Request for Proposal, and selecting a third-party consultant, Process Improvement Institute (PII), to perform the safety evaluation. The scope of work included performing a safety culture assessment, assessing Chevron’s Human Factors Program, and evaluating the refinery’s management systems. PII was at the refinery over three weeks during the months of September through APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Randy Sawyer, 925-335-3210 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, M Wilhelm, Randy Sawyer D.6 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Hazardous Materials Incident Notification Policy August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 211 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) November 2013. PII reviewed the refinery’s documentation, performed interviews, and did field inspections and verifications. PII also worked with Towers Watson on performing a Safety Culture survey that was done in November and December 2013. PII completed the draft report on November 20, 2015 after extensive review and verifying that the information was factual. The Hazardous Materials staff presented the report to the Oversight Committee for comment, opened a 45-day public comment opportunity, and held a public meeting on February 10, 2016 to discuss the report. One comment was received from the Chevron Richmond Refinery. The report includes 37 recommendations for Chevron to improve the refinery’s process safety. There were two years between when PII performed its onsite evaluation of the refinery and issuing the final draft of the report. Since that onsite evaluation, Chevron has made multiple changes and in many cases has addressed the concerns raised in the report. Because of the time lapse from the onsite evaluation and this draft, some of the actions that Chevron has already taken or are planning to take to address the findings may not be the same as what PII is recommending. Contra Costa Health Services staff has reviewed the actions that Chevron has taken or is taking to determine if these actions address the findings and the concerns raised in the report, and when the action is different than what PII recommends that action provides equal or better protection than the recommendation from the report. Contra Costa Health Services staff has worked with Chevron staff on developing an action plan to address the findings of the report. Contra Costa Health Services staff is reviewing the actions that have been completed and will continue to following up at Chevron until all actions as laid out in the action plan are complete. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The report will not be accepted by the Board. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speaker:  Walt Gill, resident of Richmond.  ATTACHMENTS Final Report CUSA Letter August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 212 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery August 16, 2016 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 213 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 214 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Conducted on behalf of Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Programs by: Process Improvement Institute, Inc. 1321 Waterside Lane Knoxville, TN 37922 USA Phone: +1-865-675-3458 Fax: +1-865-622-6800 www.piii.com May 16, 2015 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 215 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 ii August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 216 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 iii NOTICE Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Programs (shortened in this report to CCHMP) contracted Process Improvement Institute, Inc. (PII) to lead and to document the Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Refinery in Richmond, CA. To accomplish this, an audit team of PII staff, supported and overseen by CCHMP staff, reviewed documents, interviewed selected personnel, performed surveys, and performed field visits in order to identify existing process safety practices at the refinery. PII prepared this report to document the results of the Safety Evaluation for the benefit of CCHMP and the people of the communities that they represent. Neither PII, CCHMP, nor any person acting in their behalf makes any warranty (express or implied), or assumes any liability to any third party, with respect to the use of any information or methods disclosed in this report. Any third-party recipient of this report, by acceptance or use of this report, releases PII and CCHMP from liability for any direct, indirect, consequential, or special loss or damage, whether arising in contract, tort (including negligence), or otherwise. PII and its employees, subcontractors, consultants, and other assigns cannot, individually or collectively, predict what will happen in the future. Although the Safety Evaluation team made a reasonable effort, based on the scope of work and the information provided by Chevron and its employees, to evaluate the safety implementation, management systems, and culture at the Richmond Refinery, it is statistically likely that there are potential findings and deficiencies that are not addressed in this study. If the recommendations of this study are followed, the frequency and/or consequences of accidents and abnormal events should decrease; however, even if all the recommendations are followed, accidents and abnormal events may still occur in the refinery. Chevron should independently evaluate the recommendations made in this study (and alternatives to them) to ensure that implementing them will not create unacceptable risks and that safe practices and management of change procedures are followed when any change is implemented. This work was performed in accordance with our understanding of best practices in process safety implementation. PII accepts no liability for any regulatory action or legal liability that may occur at the Richmond Refinery or at any other Chevron USA facility. ACRONYM USE – Because of its technical nature, acronyms are used throughout this report. The technical term is spelled out at first use and the acronym is used thereafter. Readers may consult the glossary in the appendices for acronym definitions. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 217 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE ........................................................................................................................................................ III TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. IV 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Objectives.................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Project Timing and Project Report Considerations....................................................................................... 5 2.4 Why Is Process Safety Culture Important ..................................................................................................... 6 2.5 What Is Process Safety Culture .................................................................................................................... 7 2.6 What Are Human Factors (HF) ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.6.1 Definitions Related to Human Factors ........................................................................................................ 8 2.6.2 Types of Human Error ................................................................................................................................. 8 2.6.3 Human Factor Categories ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.6.4 Statistical Limits of Control of Human Error Rates ................................................................................... 11 2.7 What Is Process Safety Management (PSM) and What Are Best Practices in PSM ..................................... 12 3 SCOPE AND APPROACH ............................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Workgroup Definitions .............................................................................................................................. 16 3.3 Evaluation of Management Systems and Human Factors .......................................................................... 16 3.4 Evaluation of Process Safety Culture ......................................................................................................... 17 3.4.1 Field Observation (Site Data) .................................................................................................................... 17 3.4.2 Individual Interviews ................................................................................................................................ 17 3.4.3 Written Process Safety Culture Surveys ................................................................................................... 18 3.5 Data Collection Process and Limitations .................................................................................................... 18 3.5.1 Document Request and Auditor Review Process ..................................................................................... 19 3.5.2 Individual Safety Culture Interviews, Random Selection Process ............................................................ 19 3.5.3 Third-Party Influence on the Field Data Collection................................................................................... 20 3.5.4 General Fulfillment of Interviews, Walk-downs, Control Room Visits, and General Data Requests ........ 21 3.5.5 Constrained and Guarded Responses ....................................................................................................... 21 3.5.6 Overall Limitations of Data Collected and Results .................................................................................... 21 4 EVALUATION AND FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 23 4.1 Process Safety Management Systems ........................................................................................................ 23 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 218 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 v 4.1.1 Leadership, Vision and Goals Alignment .................................................................................................. 23 4.1.2 Employee Involvement in Process Safety Management .......................................................................... 25 4.1.3 Process Safety Information....................................................................................................................... 27 4.1.4 Process Hazard Analysis............................................................................................................................ 27 4.1.5 Mechanical Integrity (MI) ......................................................................................................................... 32 4.1.6 Training ..................................................................................................................................................... 45 4.1.7 Operating Procedures ............................................................................................................................... 49 4.1.8 Incident Investigation (Root Cause Analysis) ............................................................................................ 53 4.2 Human Factors .......................................................................................................................................... 60 4.2.1 Procedure Clarity ...................................................................................................................................... 61 4.2.2 Verbal Communication ............................................................................................................................. 62 4.2.3 Fitness for Duty (FFD) ............................................................................................................................... 63 4.2.4 Human-Machine Interface (HMI) ............................................................................................................. 65 4.2.5 Control of Dependent Error Rates ............................................................................................................ 66 4.2.6 Task Design and Staffing ........................................................................................................................... 66 4.2.7 Risk Analysis of Human Factors ................................................................................................................ 67 4.2.8 Analysis of Human Factors during Investigation of Losses and Near Loss Incidents ................................ 69 4.3 Process Safety Culture ............................................................................................................................... 69 4.3.1 Process Safety Culture — Qualitative Analysis ......................................................................................... 69 4.3.2 Process Safety Culture — Findings/Observations from Process Safety Implementation Evidence ......... 70 4.3.3 Process Safety Culture — Findings/Observations from Individual Safety Culture Interviews .................. 73 4.3.4 Process Safety Culture — Findings/Observations from Safety Culture Written Survey ........................... 85 4.4 Summary of Results From the Written Survey ......................................................................................... 105 5 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 106 5.1 Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 106 6 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................. 115 6.1 Recommended Reading ........................................................................................................................... 115 6.2 Scope of Work for the Safety Evaluation ................................................................................................. 117 6.3 Comments and Responses from Public .................................................................................................... 120 6.4 Glossary of Terms, Acronyms, and Abbreviations .................................................................................... 121 6.5 References (End Notes) ........................................................................................................................... 124 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 219 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In August of 2012, a release of hydrocarbon liquids occurred at Chevron Richmond Refinery. The release vaporized and eventually ignited. This resulted in possible offsite impact from the unburned hydrocarbon vapors and from smoke and combustion byproducts from the ensuing fire. Because of this, Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Programs (shortened in this report to CCHMP) commissioned a third-party safety evaluation of the refinery’s management system and safety culture. An Oversight Committee was formed with representatives from the community, the City of Richmond Fire and Planning Departments, the United Steel Workers Local 5 Union representing the workers at Chevron Richmond Refinery, the Building Trades Unions, and Contra Costa Health Services. Mr. Randall Sawyer, Chief Officer for Contra Costa Health Services Environmental Health and Hazardous Materials Programs, chairs the Oversight Committee. The objectives of this Safety Evaluation are to complete a thorough review of the management practices (management systems and human factors) and safety culture at the Chevron Richmond Refinery. Poor control in these critical areas can and does lead to process safety accidents. With respect to process safety management systems, this evaluation specifically focused on Mechanical Integrity, Operating Procedures, Training, Management of Change (including management of organizational change), Process Safety Information, Pre Start-Up Safety Reviews, Incident Investigation, Employee Participation, and Process Hazard Analysis. The management systems review includes how Chevron follows through on action items from incident investigations (internal and external), audits (internal and external), process hazard analyses, and actions to address enforcement citations. Process Improvement Institute, Inc. (PII) conducted this evaluation. PII performed it in parallel with the Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) and California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal ARP) Program audits conducted by CCHMP every three years. PII is expert in both human factors and process safety management. PII also has a significant understanding of safety culture at all types of chemical and petrochemical processing plants. All PII staff on this project have served in key leadership roles at manufacturing sites and at corporate levels. Mr. William Bridges, President of PII, is the project manager. To minimize the impact on refinery operations and to optimize data collection and staffing requirements, PII staff worked in close collaboration with CCHMP staff to conduct document reviews, interview subject matter experts, obtain field observations, and conduct safety culture interviews. PII oversaw the administration of a written process safety culture survey of the facility for Chevron personnel and contract workers. Any potential regulatory compliance issues were referred to CCHMP for determination. Any potential issues related to best practice management systems, safety culture, and those human factors not covered in the county ISO were referred to PII for determination. Three to four PII staff were on-site each day for a total of four weeks. An average of two CCHMP staff per day provided supplemental support while PII was on-site and completed additional assigned tasks when PII was not there (i.e., during the ISO and Cal ARP Audit by CCHMP staff). This provided additional data collection capabilities for PII’s charter. It also provided an opportunity to cross-train CCHMP staff in process safety culture evaluation, horizontal auditing methods, and procedure/human-factors walk-downs in the field. Details of the data collection can be found in the remainder of this report. In summary, the on- site portion of the data collection was completed on schedule within the four on-site weeks August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 220 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 2 projected. The data collection was slower than expected in many cases, but thanks to the supplemental data gathered by CCHMP staff, the schedule was maintained. The data collected falls into the following categories: Interviews of 65 subject matter experts (SMEs) related to how process safety works or is supposed to work at the Richmond Refinery Walk-down of 38 operating procedures in the units (1) to determine procedure accuracy and clarity and (2) to review the control of human factors in the process units Live navigations of databases for specific evidence of items such as inspection, test, and preventive maintenance and incident data Review and evaluation with operations personnel of actual shift handovers Review with control board operators of human factors issues in the control rooms Evaluation of operator response to critical alarms Reading/review of standards and procedures at the Richmond Refinery Review of process safety work products such as Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) reports and recommendations and resolutions, completed investigations, completed inspection/maintenance reports, etc.; several hundred such documents were reviewed Interviews of about 100 staff related to their impressions on process safety implementation, leadership, and ultimately process safety culture at the refinery Written survey related to process safety culture at the refinery PII completed most of the review of the site-specific documentation outside of the facility, via access to temporary read-only databases set up by Chevron for this purpose. The databases were populated with approximately 1,200 documents based on specific requests from PII. An additional 33 requested documents were uploaded to the data site in early 2015. Details of the conclusions and recommendations can be found in the remainder of this report. In general, PII found that the Chevron Richmond Refinery, with the help of Chevron USA (CUSA), has established a renewed and vigorous effort to implement effective controls of process safety issues to reduce the likelihood of process safety accidents at the site. The management of the site has a clearly stated vision for achieving this goal. Moreover, it has reorganized to better position its in-house expertise to address the weaknesses at the site. Although we do not know the budgets for the refinery, they appear to have significant and perhaps sufficient support from CUSA to achieve the goals. From the data collection, PII found many areas for improvement in control of process safety at the refinery. Site staff and management already recognized many of the weaknesses identified by PII, but additional weaknesses either were not recognized or were not part of the ongoing improvement activities for process safety at the site. Chevron Richmond should focus on the key issues summarized below: August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 221 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 3 Improve operating procedures accuracy. Currently, less than 40% (based on detailed evaluation of a sample of the operating procedures) are accurate enough and clear enough to fulfill the role of written procedures in controlling human error. Expand the risk analyses (PHAs) for the refinery units to more fully address hazards during all modes of operation. In particular, the current PHAs do not adequately find and address accident scenarios that can occur during non-routine operations such as startup, shutdown, and online maintenance. If these scenarios are missed, then the units will likely not have sufficient safeguards in place to prevent those accidents. The refinery has extensive programs outside of PHAs to identify issues caused by damage mechanisms (such as corrosion and erosion of process equipment), and the PHAs cover damage mechanisms to some degree. However, PII believes this portion of the analysis can also be improved to ensure sufficient safeguarding and isolations in subsystems throughout each refinery unit. Greatly increase the reporting and investigating of process safety near misses (called near loss incidents at Chevron) to find root causes that will eventually lead to accidents (process safety loss incidents). The current reporting is 30 to 50 times lower than best in class. A near-term goal would be to increase near miss reporting and subsequent root cause analysis by a factor of 10. To facilitate this change, the site should: o Train more operators and maintenance craft-persons on root cause analysis methods, o Streamline the methods and requirements for such reporting and analysis, and o Allow workers to take more of a leadership role in this data collection and analysis activity. Further, the site needs to adopt only best in class methods for investigations to minimize assigning blame to the worker for human error. Building trust between workers and management is key to closing this observed gap. Implement more effective control of human factors, especially miscommunication on radios, fatigue, labeling (and other human-machine interface issues), and procedure clarity. Note that the site has good control of many human factors, especially when compared to all but one of the other 30+ refineries that PII staff have evaluated. Improve the mechanical integrity programs across the refinery. Many initiatives are ongoing at the refinery related to this concern. But there are still weaknesses. Specific improvements identified include: o Make sure corrosion and other damage mechanisms are thoroughly identified and corrected. Weaknesses in the related programs are evident from a review of the current maintenance and inspection activities and programs that control the identification and correction of corrosion. o Make sure that all components related to causes and safeguards listed in the PHAs are properly maintained and inspected, including safety-related instruments. o Complete the positive identification of the materials of construction in each unit. Without this baseline effort, the site will not know which components and welds are inadvertently of the wrong material or grade. Such deficiencies have caused many accidents in other refineries and petrochemical plants. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 222 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 4 Implement a more formal program (such as for performing drills of response to critical process alarms and retention of the results of such drills) to ensure that operators can effectively respond to process alarms within the process safety time available for response. Expand the Stop Work Authority (SWA) program to include process safety-incident prevention. Currently, workers are very reluctant to request a shutdown of a process unit (and perhaps the cascading of that shutdown to a shutdown of the entire refinery) or to delay a restart. This is true even if they feel there are legitimate process safety concerns. The SWA program appears to be effective for occupational (personal) safety activities (such as during maintenance), but it did not appear (from data collected by PII) to be effectively implemented for process safety concerns. Addressing the issues above will require changes to policies and procedures at the management system level. Also, more process safety activities will need to be delegated to workers. This, in turn, will drive improvements in the actual process safety culture (i.e., how things are done when no one is watching). Significant improvement in each of the areas above is possible within one year of receipt of this report. (It will be almost two years since PII originally made Chevron aware of the preliminary findings and recommendations.) Other sites have closed similar gaps in that period (about two years). However, closing some gaps may take more than two years. This includes, for example, expanding the coverage/scope of the PHA for each unit and or completing the improvements necessary in the site’s control of mechanical integrity issues. Therefore, the refinery should work with CUSA to develop a plan to address these gaps as soon as possible. This schedule should be shared with the public, along with ongoing resolution of the issues listed in more detail in the following sections of this report. - End of Section 1, Executive Summary - August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 223 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 5 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 OBJECTIVES1 The objectives of this Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery are to conduct a review of the management practices (management systems and human factors) and safety culture at the refinery. The deliverables for this project include a draft and final report for the initial study and a report of the follow-up evaluation to determine how the findings of this initial report are addressed. 2.2 BACKGROUND2 Because of the 2012 fire at Chevron Richmond Refinery’s Crude Unit, communities adjacent to the refinery, the Richmond City Council, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, and Contra Costa Health Services are concerned about the safe operation of the refinery. In response, the City of Richmond representatives and Contra Costa Health Services staff arranged for a third-party evaluation at this refinery. This evaluation is not an investigation of any specific incidents, and it is not a Process Safety Management (PSM) audit. Rather, it is an overall review of the management systems in place at the refinery to manage process safety and an evaluation of the safety culture existing at the refinery. PII was contracted to conduct this evaluation. William Bridges, President of PII, is the contractor project manager for the evaluation. Randall L. Sawyer is the client project manager for the evaluation. Mr. Sawyer is Chief Officer of the Contra Costa Environmental Health and Hazardous Materials Programs and Chair of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Safety Evaluation Oversight Committee. The Chevron Richmond Refinery has the capacity to refine approximately 245,000 barrels of crude oil per day. It employs a workforce of approximately 1,200 employees, including management, staff, maintenance, and operating personnel. It has over 32 process units and covers approximately 2,900 acres. 2.3 PROJECT TIMING AND PROJECT REPORT CONSIDERATIONS Key dates for this project: Project initiation within CCHMP – 4/5/2013 Project request for proposal – 5/23/2013 Project award – 8/1/2013 Observations, interviews and data collection – 9/23 through 11/6/2013 Draft Report issued for internal review and for review by Chevron USA (CUSA) – June 23, 2014 Comments received from CUSA September 2014, January 7-8, 2015, and follow-on information throughout March 2015 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 224 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 6 Revised Draft sent to CCHMP on June 2014 and May 2015. Revised Draft sent to Oversight Committee on xxx, 2015. This report summarizes the observations, interviews, and other data collection activities conducted by PII in late 2013 and early 2014 (supplemented by more data collection on specific issues in March 2015). The report represents the technical evaluation and conclusions of Process Improvement Institute (PII) based on the data collected. After this evaluation was initiated but before it was concluded, Chevron Richmond Refinery announced revisions to policies and practices intended to improve process safety performance at the refinery. Therefore, the conclusions, findings and recommendations of this Safety Evaluation report may not reflect progress in the PSM program and safety culture that these revisions are targeted to achieve. A follow-up evaluation is scheduled at the refinery to determine the closure of each recommendation. 2.4 WHY IS PROCESS SAFETY CULTURE IMPORTANT3 On April 2, 2010, the Tesoro Anacortes (WA) refinery experienced a catastrophic rupture of a heat exchanger, fatally injuring seven Tesoro employees working in the immediate vicinity. (Process Safety Culture – Making This a Reality)4 The Draft Investigation Report5 lists “Process Safety Culture” as a key issue and offers the following observations about Tesoro’s culture at the time of the accident: “Refinery management had normalized the occurrences of hazardous conditions,” “The refinery process safety culture required proof of danger rather than proof of effective safety implementation.” On March 23, 2005, the BP Texas City (TX) refinery experienced the most serious U.S. workplace disaster of the past two decades, resulting in 15 deaths and more than 170 injuries. The Baker Panel reported that deficiencies in “BP’s corporate safety culture, corporate oversight of process safety, and process safety management systems” were contributing factors to this and other incidents that had previously occurred at BP facilities. (Baker Report)6 On January 28, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded killing all seven astronauts on board. The Rogers Commission reported that NASA’s organizational culture failed to prevent this accident. Seventeen years later, on February 1, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated upon reentry of the Earth’s atmosphere, killing all seven astronauts on board. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) reported that, “In our view, the NASA organizational culture had as much to do with this accident as the foam.” The CAIB also found “disturbing parallels remaining” from 17 years earlier, making the determination that “NASA had not learned from the lessons of Challenger.”7 History is filled with tragic life-altering and -ending events that can be traced back to phrases like, “we’ve been doing it this way for years” or “this way is good enough” or “this is what our industry peer group is doing.” On the other hand, there is a correlation between improving safety culture and decreasing the number and severity of accidents.8 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 225 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 7 2.5 WHAT IS PROCESS SAFETY CULTURE Merriam-Webster defines “culture” as “the set of shared attitudes, values, goals and practices that characterizes an institution or organization.” Safety culture is a measure of the importance that individuals and organizations exhibit toward working safely. It is the summation of attitudes that people display and the actions they perform late on a Saturday night when no one is watching. An organization can influence employees to embrace positive, shared safety values with consistent policies and practices and by leading through example.9 The best definition of process safety culture, and the one used by PII for this evaluation, is: Safety Culture is not what we feel; it is what we as an organization do. The site leaders (management) create the culture by what they do and what they pay attention to. The repetition by leadership of doing the right thing and making the right decision establishes the culture at a site. This definition is very similar to one stated by Andrew Hopkins and others.10 It also matches the lessons learned by the former operations managers and plant managers at PII. And it matches the observations collected from more than 100 sites where PII staff have deeply evaluated process safety implementation. Therefore, process safety culture is best measured by determining how well process safety is implemented at a site and by considering the decisions leaders at the site make to ensure process safety is implemented effectively. In June 2006, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recognized the importance of a strong process safety culture in minimizing accidents. An amendment was adopted to the Contra Costa County and later to the City of Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinances (ISO) requiring that all covered facilities perform an initial Safety Culture Assessment (SCA) within one year of the issuance of the guidance document, and at least once every five years thereafter.11 2.6 WHAT ARE HUMAN FACTORS (HF) All accidents (or nearly all, if you consider that we either cannot guard against or choose not to guard against some natural phenomena) result from human error. This is because humans govern and accomplish all of the activities necessary to control the risk of accidents. Humans influence other humans in the process – not only do humans cause accidents (unintentionally) by making errors directly related to the process itself, but they also cause errors by allowing (“creating”) deficiencies in the design and the implementation of management systems. That is, we make errors in authorities, accountabilities, procedures, feedback, proof documents, and continual improvement provisions. Ultimately, these management systems govern the human error rate that directly contacts or directly influences the process.12,13 Recent major accidents have highlighted the need for increased focus on Human Factors. The United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) cited human factor deficiencies as one of the main contributors to the catastrophic accident at the BP Texas City Refinery in March 2005.14 The human factor deficiencies included lack of control of worker ALL accidental losses (except for natural disasters) begin with a human error August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 226 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 8 fatigue, poor human-system-interface design, poor communication by radio/phone, out-of-date and inaccurate operating procedures, and poor (no) communication between workers at shift handover. The CSB has cited similar issues from many other accidents and has urged industry and the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (U.S.OSHA) (the regulator) to pay much more attention to human factors. As a result, the recent U.S.OSHA National Emphasis Program for Refineries included human factors as one of the 12 core elements it reviewed in detail across many of the 148 oil refineries in the USA.15 Implementing human factor engineering and policies to prevent accidents is not a new concept. Nearly all (or all, from a more complete perspective) of the causes and root causes of major accidents in the past 30 years have been the result of poor control of human factors. This has been cited in many root cause analysis reports and papers concerning these major accidents.16 PSM systems based on OSHA’s PSM standard 17 are likely lacking the fundamental human factor standards that, if applied across the applicable PSM elements, would work together to reduce human error. Note that Chevron Richmond’s 2013 PSM program is closely modeled after the Cal ARP18 (which copies its process safety elements from the OSHA PSM standard). Human Factors have been a key element of Contra Costa County’s ISO and City of Richmond’s Industrial Safety Ordinance (RISO) since both were originally adopted. In 2006, CCHMP expanded ISO where Human Factors are to be considered. That was adopted in the RISO in 2013.19 The Risk Based Process Safety (RBPS) industry standard 20 from the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), a division of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), does include human factor standards. However, these are presented under several PSM elements instead of under a stand-alone human factor element.21 This does not provide a needed road map to help companies transition to RBPS from the minimum PSM systems defined in OSHA’s PSM standard. One starting point for this transition could be implementing a human factor element comprised of the human factor categories missing from most PSM systems (especially from those based on the OSHA PSM standard). The human factors elements required in RISO from CCHMP are a good initial set of human factors to start with.22 2.6.1 Definitions Related to Human Factors23 In the context of this report, Human Error means the errors that are made during direct interface or direct influence of the process. Human Factors are those aspects of the process and related systems that make it more likely for the human to make a mistake that in turn causes or could cause a deviation in the process or could lead in some indirect way to the increased probability of an accidental loss. Management systems are the administrative controls that an organization puts in place to manage the people and workflow related to the process under consideration. So these systems inherently attempt to control human factors. 2.6.2 Types of Human Error Not all errors will be prevented. Since the beginning of time, humans have tried to control human error rate with more or less success. Human errors have been measured for hundreds of years. Psychologists have studied why humans make mistakes and have gradually built a science around human error probability. Today, the best models for control of human error in the workplace are generally agreed to depend on control of human factors. (In turn, these have grown out of what was previously denoted as “performance shaping factors.”)24 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 227 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 9 In simplest terms, there are only two types of human error: Errors of Omission (someone skips a required or necessary step) and Errors of Commission (someone performs the step wrong). In addition, these errors occur either inadvertently (unintentional error) or they occur because the worker believes his or her way is a better way (intentional error, but not intentional harm). Intentional errors can usually be thought of as errors in judgment. Some believe a “lack of awareness of the risk” causes these errors. In actual practice, the worker who commits an intentional error is usually well aware of the hazard. However, they believe they have/know a better way to accomplish a task, or they believe there are already too many layers of protection (so bypassing one layer will not cause any harm).25 Regardless of type or category of human error, an organization can and should exert considerable control of the errors. In general, PSM is focused on maintaining these human errors at a tolerable level because: All accidents happen due to errors made by humans, including premature failure of equipment. There are a myriad of management systems to control these human errors and to limit their impact on safety, environment, and quality/production. When these management systems have weaknesses, near misses occur. When enough near misses occur, accidents/losses occur.26 2.6.3 Human Factor Categories27 Human errors are sometimes mistakenly called procedural errors. This is not any truer than saying all equipment errors are due to design errors. Over the past five decades of research and observation in the workplace on human error, we have learned that human error probability depends on many factors. These factors (described in more detail in Human Factors Missing from PSM28) include: Procedure accuracy and procedure clarity (the number one most-cited root cause of accidents): 1. A procedure typically needs to have 95% or better accuracy to help reduce human error; workers ignore procedures less than 70% accurate. 2. A procedure must clearly convey the information (there are about 25 rules for structuring and formatting procedures to accomplish this), and the procedure must be convenient to use. 3. Checklist features – These should be included whenever they can be effectively enforced. Training, knowledge, and skills 1. Employees must be selected with the necessary skills before being hired or assigned to a department. 2. Initial Training – There must be effective, demonstration-based training for each task, both proactive (startup of a unit) and reactive (response to an alarm). 3. Ongoing validation of human action is required and usually must be repeated (in either actual performance or in drills/practice) at least once per year. 4. Documentation – The performance of the humans must be documented and reviewed to allow for improvements, as needed. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 228 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 10 Fitness for Duty – This includes control of many sub-factors such as fatigue (a factor in a great many accidents), stress, illness and medications, and substance abuse. Workload Management – Too little workload and one’s mind becomes bored and looks for distraction; too many tasks per hour can increase human error, as one becomes overwhelmed. Personal Stress – In addition to stress from workload and fitness for duty issues, stress caused by anxiety at work or by issues at home can increase human error rates. Communication – Miscommunication (of an instruction, set of instructions or of the status of a process) is the second or third most common cause of human error in the workplace. There are proven management systems for controlling communication errors. Work Environment – Factors to optimize include lighting, noise, temperature, humidity, ventilation, and distractions. Human System Interface – Factors to control include layout of equipment, displays, controls and their integration to displays, alarm nature, frequency, sounds or signals, and control of alarm overload, labeling, color-coding, fool-proofing measures, etc. Task Complexity – Complexity of a task or job is proportional to the: 1. Number of choices available for making a wrong selection among similar items (such as number of similar switches, number of similar valves, number of similar size and shaped icons); 2. Number of parallel tasks that may distract the worker from the task at hand (leading to either an initiating event or failure of a protection layer); 3. Number of individuals involved in the task; and 4. Judgment or calculation/interpolation, if required. For most chemical process environments, the complexity of the task is relatively low (one action per step). But for response actions (human independent protection layers [IPLs] – see Section 2.7) other tasks are almost always underway when the out-of- bounds reading occurs or the alarm is activated. For use of a human response action as an independent layer of protection (IPL), in addition to the human factors listed, the human must have (1) sufficient time to perform the action and (2) the physical capability to perform the action. Human factors must be controlled over the long-term, especially during non-routine modes of operation, such as a maintenance outage. For instance, if the workers are fatigued following many extra hours of work in a two-week period leading up to restart of a process, then the human error rates can increase by a factor of 10 times or 20 times by the end of the outage and into startup. Revealed versus Unrevealed Errors for Humans.29 As with equipment failures, human errors can lead to a revealed fault in the system (the flow does not start, for instance) or to an unrevealed fault (the block valve downstream of a control valve is left closed, but the failure is not revealed until the control is needed/used). If the error is revealed, then the error can be corrected or compensated for. If the restoration/correction time for a revealed error is sufficiently short, then the probability of being in the failed state is much less than for a n unrevealed failure that is only discovered upon testing or inspection. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 229 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 11 2.6.4 Statistical Limits of Control of Human Error Rates It is important to understand that with excellent control of all human factors (requiring excellent design and implementation of management systems for each human factor), a company can approach the observed lower limits for human error.30 The first detailed report of the lower limits was by Alan Swain and H Guttmann (NUREG-1278, 1983) and by others.31 In general, we have found it best to use the following average error probabilities: Error Probability for Rule-Based Tasks (that are not responses to alarms):32 This is for actions that do not have to be accomplished within a specific span of time to be effective. Of course, there is always pressure from the organization (business goals) to accomplish tasks in a timely, efficient manner. The values below are the lower limits for human error rates, assuming excellent control of human factors. These are expressed as the probability of making a mistake on any given step of a task: 1/100 – Process industry; routine tasks performed 1/week to 1/year. This rate assumes excellent control of all human factors. At most places we visit, the workers, managers and engineers believe this is achievable, but not yet achieved. 1/200 – Pilots in the airline industry; routine tasks performed multiple times a day with excellent control of human factors. This average has been measured by a few clients in the airline industry, but for obvious reasons they do not like to report this statistic. 1/1000 – Process industry; routine tasks performed 1/day or more. This is about the probability of someone running a stop sign or stop light. Example: One of the auditors has been working at client sites for 100 days a year for 24 years. This requires use of a laptop each of those days. The laptop is also used in a hotel each evening after work; this is normally with the power cord attached. Therefore, there have been 2,400 opportunities to mistakenly leave the power cord in the hotel room (instead of taking it to the client site). Overall, the power cord has been left in the hotel room four times for an error rate of 1/600. So far, the related error of leaving the power cord at the client site has not occurred, but there have been about three near misses. Coupled Error Rates33,34 This is the probability of repeating an error, i.e., performing a second task wrong after the first task (the same task or one with the same goal) was done wrong: 1/7 to1/20 – If the same tasks are separated in time and if visual cues are not present to reinforce the mistake path. This error rate assumes a baseline error rate of 1/100 with excellent human factors. 1/2 to 1/1 – If the same tasks are performed back-to-back and a strong visual cue is present. Two or more people become the same as one person (with respect to counting of errors from the group), if people are working together for more than three days. (This is because of the trust that can rapidly build.) Response Action (time-driven) Error Rate:35 This is the probability that the correct action will NOT be completed within the time necessary. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 230 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 12 1/1 – If practiced/drilled once per year and there is not sufficient time to accomplish the response task. 1/10 – If practiced/drilled once per year and there is sufficient time (theoretically) to accomplish the response task. 1/100 – If practiced/drilled once per week and there is sufficient time to accomplish response task. As mentioned earlier, the lower limit rates assume excellent (but not perfect) control of human factors. Note that airline pilots have a lower error rate than what we have measured in the process industry. This is due, in part, to the much tighter control by the airlines and regulators on factors such as fitness-for-duty (control of fatigue, control of substance abuse, etc.). Excellent control of human factors is not achieved in most organizations. In those cases, the human error rates will be higher than the lower limit, perhaps as much as 20 times higher. 2.7 WHAT IS PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT (PSM) AND WHAT ARE BEST PRACTICES IN PSM Process Safety Management (PSM) is a collection of management systems and their implementation intended to control the risk of major accidents. PSM focuses on preventing the accidents that originate from process hazards (such as release and explosion of flammable gases or liquids, release of toxic materials, etc.).36 This differs significantly from occupational safety, which focuses instead on preventing personal injury to workers from activities related to a task (such as getting particulate in eyes, injury from a falling object, falling from heights, etc.). PSM systems have been in place for more than 40 years in the toxic chemical industry, with the first formal industry-wide standard (covering refineries as well) being issued by the CCPS in 1985.37 PSM must be coupled with process safety engineering, which is the design of equipment to meet the needs of controlling process safety. In some cases, process safety engineering can yield a process that is inherently safe (meaning, the hazard has been eliminated or cannot credibly cause an accident of concern). Process safety is very different from occupational safety in that process safety issues typically arise from the nature of a complex process. Because of the nature of the hazards of such processes and the equipment and design used in such processes, it is possible to design and use multiple protection layers against many accident scenarios. The exceptions to the multiple layers of protection concept are mechanical failures of piping, vessels, or components because of damage mechanisms such as corrosion, erosion, stress cracking, metal fatigue, etc. Many types of protective layers are possible. A scenario may require one or many protection layers depending on the process complexity and potential severity of a consequence. Note that for a given possible accident scenario, only one layer must work successfully for the consequence to be prevented. However, since no layer is perfectly effective, sufficient protection layers must be provided to render the risk of the accident tolerable. For scenarios such as overpressure, over-temperatures, overflows, blowdown of high-pressure gases and liquids to low-pressure rated systems, etc., the multiple protections can include the ones shown in the following figure:38 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 231 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 13 Extracted from Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA), 2001, CCPS/AIChE So, one goal of process safety is to design and provide enough layers of protection and then maintain each layer sufficiently to assure that the risk of the accident is tolerable. From the start, there was strong emphasis on human factors within process safety, since Human Factors was one of the original 12 elements of the CCPS 1985 standard.39 CCPS revised their PSM standard in 2007, renaming it Risk Based Process Safety (RBPS)40, and now instead of one global element on human factors, the direct control of human factors is spread throughout six elements. Unfortunately, not having a specific element titled “Human Factors” likely diminishes its importance for those companies that are not very familiar already with human factors. For example, if there were an element specifically focused on human factors, then industry would likely invest more in research of how to optimize human factors, how to avoid miscommunication, how to optimize displays, researching the best rules for designing human system interfaces, and researching the best rules for writing work instructions.41 Private industry and research bodies (including universities) are conducting research on some of these human factors, but to date most of the current data has come from the nuclear power industry, U.S. Department of Energy, aviation industry, and various militaries around the world. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 232 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 14 The RBPS elements that address many of the human factors are: Process Safety Culture Workforce Involvement Operating Procedures Training and Performance Operating Readiness Conduct of Operations The PSM standard that was issued by U.S.OSHA (29 CFR 1910.119) in 1992 (and has been essentially unchanged since) and the parallel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations (and identical Cal ARP standards) contain many of the core elements of process safety, such as operating procedures and requirements for process hazard analyses (PHAs). However, these two regulations are missing many critical elements addressed in the CCPS standard. For instance, neither regulation specifically requires elements for the control of human factors. The only direct reference to the term “human factors” is mentioned in paragraph (e), PHA, which states that the PHA team must consider human factors (presumably in the review of the causes and the quality of the safeguards). The other requirement that alludes to human factors is in Operating Procedures (see paragraph (f)), which states “procedures must be written clearly and understandably.” Paragraph (g) defines standards for training but does not directly address how to design training programs to address control of human factors. In summary, PSM systems based on compliance with OSHA’s PSM and EPA’s RMP regulations (and based on API Recommended Practice 750, the PSM standard that immediately preceded the government regulations) control human factors mostly through the operating procedures, training, and PHA element requirements. These regulation-based and API-based PSM systems typically lack the fundamental human factors controls that work together to reduce human error.42 In addition to limited focus on human factors, the OSHA PSM and EPA RMP regulations and API PSM standard do not have elements for: Leadership and Accountability Project Management Facility Siting Key Performance Measurement & Tracking These elements are necessary for any complete control of process safety. - End of Section 2, Introduction - August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 233 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 15 3 SCOPE AND APPROACH 3.1 OVERVIEW Process Improvement Institute, Inc. (PII) conducted this evaluation in parallel with the Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) and California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal ARP) Program audits conducted by the CCHMP every three years. To minimize the impact on refinery staff and operations and to optimize data collection and staffing requirements, PII staff worked in close coordination with CCHMP staff to review documents, interview subject matter experts, obtain field observations, and conduct safety culture interviews. PII also oversaw the administration of a written safety culture survey for Chevron and contractor personnel. Any potential regulatory compliance issues were referred to CCHMP for determination. Any potential issues related to best practice management systems, safety culture, and those human factors not covered in the county ISO were referred to PII for determination. Three to four PII staff were on-site each day for a total of four weeks. An average of two CCHMP staff per day provided supplemental support while PII was on-site and completed additional assigned tasks when PII was not there. This provided additional data collection capabilities. It also offered an opportunity to cross-train CCHMP staff in process safety culture evaluation, horizontal auditing methods, and procedure/human-factors walk-downs in the field. The evaluation team developed and carried out the following plan to do this process safety evaluation: Multiple visits through units with Chevron Richmond Refinery personnel by PII personnel Interviews of a randomly selected sample of refinery personnel A written process safety culture survey conducted among Richmond Refinery employees and contractors (based on the Baker Report survey, which was developed after the large accident in 2005 at the BP Texas City Refinery) Targeted document reviews (to accomplish an evaluation, not an audit) Comparative evaluation of Richmond Refinery policies and practices to refinery and chemical industry best practices Meetings with Chevron Richmond PSM leadership staff PII acknowledges Chevron Richmond’s cooperation and assistance throughout this evaluation process. PII and CCHMP staff wanted to understand WHAT the refinery does to control process safety, WHO does what in process safety, and HOW they use data to track process safety performance. The evaluation team sought to understand the WHY behind observed deficiencies in process safety performance to make recommendations that can enable Chevron Richmond to improve their performance. As chartered to do, the team from PII typically based its findings and recommendations on industry best practices for reducing the risk of catastrophic accidents. “Industry” in this case means all industries with high hazards. Some best practices cut across dissimilar industries; for instance, all industries have to deal with human error and management of human factors to reduce human error rates; so best practices for human factors tend to have more sources. On August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 234 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 16 the other hand, best practices for mechanical integrity and process hazard analysis tend to be more industry-group specific. Note that many industry standards and textbooks are referred to as Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices (RAGAGEP). However, many times RAGAGEP is actually “what the companies will agree to put in print” and are not always best practices. Adherence to best practices should result in improved process safety performance. However, note that many best practices and RAGAGEP do not necessarily have legal effect. The team’s judgments are based on the information developed during the course of this safety evaluation, the collective experience and expertise of the evaluation team members, and their understanding of best practices for process safety, human factors, and safety culture. 3.2 WORKGROUP DEFINITIONS The following Workgroup definitions will be used in this Safety Evaluation report: Management – refinery leadership team, managers and supervisors Non-represented employee – technical (including engineers), office, and other staff Represented employee – operators and maintenance craft employees with third-party (union) representation Contractors – non-Chevron employees authorized to conduct activities at Richmond Refinery long-term and short-term. 3.3 EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND HUMAN FACTORS PII evaluated the refinery’s management systems and human factors through technical interviews with Chevron Richmond Refinery subject matter experts, live navigation of refinery database systems, reviews of electronic and paper documents, field walk-downs of operating procedures, field verifications of PHA recommendation closures, demonstration of response to alarms, observation of shift exchange, observation of control room human factors, observation of control board operator simulator training, and observation of PHA sessions. These activities are summarized in the adjoining table and further explained in the following information: SME Technical Interviews: Subject matter expert (SME) interviews are with individuals responsible for specific processes, policies, and programs. Operating Procedure Walk-downs: A walk-down analysis of a significant operating task explained and demonstrated by an operator who is familiar with and routinely performs this task. The analysis includes an evaluation of procedure accuracy (Are steps accurate? In the correct sequence? Complete?), procedure quality (Easy to keep your place? Clearly understood steps?), and general human factors (equipment and controls layout, labeling, functionality, equipment design, work environment). Live Navigations of Databases: Interactive, guided review of databases and other online resources looking for specific supporting evidence of items such as inspection, test, and On-Site Data Collection Activities: Management Systems and Human Factors Refinery SME Technical Interviews 65 Operating Procedure Walk-downs 38 Live Navigation of Databases 16 Shift Exchange Observations 2 Control Room HF Walk-downs 6 Alarm Response Demonstrations 16 CBO Simulator Training 1 PHA Recommendations Verified 28 PHA Sessions Observed 2 PHA Reports Reviewed 14 Total Documents Received 1,242 Document Pages Received ~17,000 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 235 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 17 preventive maintenance (ITPM), inspection records, SOPs, Contractor Reviews, and Training Materials. Many of the instrumentation and mechanical features searched out were taken from the Cause and Safeguard entries in the corresponding Unit’s PHA. Shift Exchange Observations: Live review and evaluation with operations personnel of the shift exchange process including checklists, document reviews, control panel walk-downs, facility status discussions, and general briefings using a Shift Turnover Checklist adapted from DOE-STD-1038-93 Guide to Good Practices for Operations Turnover.43 Control Room HF Walk-downs: Live review with control board operators evaluating control system human factors such as graphical user interfaces, system grouping and control, alarm management policies, and interlock bypassing protocol. Alarm Response Demonstrations: Live evaluation of operator response to critical alarms drawn from high consequence scenarios identified in the process hazard analysis (PHA) report. The evaluation includes situational awareness, required response, process safety time (PST), training, drills, and process feedback. 3.4 EVALUATION OF PROCESS SAFETY CULTURE PII evaluated the refinery’s process safety culture through a combination of field/site observations and discussions, structured interviews, and a written survey. The adjoining table summarizes these data- collection activities. They are listed in the order of value (importance) of the data in making a determination of the strength (health) of the process safety culture at the Chevron Richmond Refinery. 3.4.1 Field Observation (Site Data) Field observations are considered the strongest process safety culture indicators (1) since safety culture is, as mentioned earlier, what the site/company actually does and (2) since this data is derived from actual implementation of process safety programs and can be observed (verified) with limited bias. 3.4.2 Individual Interviews Safety culture interviews are considered a stronger measure of process safety culture than the written survey, because, unlike surveys, the interviewers can follow initial questions with more questions to gain clarity and to get specific examples from the interviewees. Participants for the safety culture interviews were randomly selected from a blind (names redacted) list of Chevron Richmond Refinery employees. A representative sample was drawn from each of four categories: (1) operations, (2) maintenance, (3) technical, and (4) managers/supervisors. Refinery employees were given the opportunity to decline participation, and many declined. When this occurred, an alternate employee was selected from the blind list. Each interview was conducted by a staff member (PII or CCHMP) trained to ask questions (introduction, open-ended questioning, active listening, covering a list of key issues, asking for On-Site Data Collection Activities: Process Safety Culture 1. Field Observations and Verifications (Site Data) Related to Process Safety Culture (see Table 1) >17,000 2. Safety Culture Individual Interviews 96 3. Written Process Safety Culture Surveys: Represented Workers 489 Individual Contributors 350 First and Second Line Supervisors 175 Managers 61 Other/Non-Data 120 Total Surveys Completed 1195 Overall Response Rate 54% August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 236 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 18 examples) with minimal interviewer bias (avoid judgment and approval, stay neutral, stay on task by reframing questions and asking for examples of the point made by the interviewee). In some cases, third parties were present to observe and document the interview process. Salaried employees were asked if they wanted a CUSA legal representative present. They were also given the opportunity to have a pool attorney or their personal legal counsel present. Most salaried employees chose to have a CUSA lawyer present. Represented employees were also given the option to have a union representative present. Most hourly employees chose to participate in the interview without representation. CUSA legal staff was not in interviews with hourly (represented) employees. There were seven (7) general categories of interview topics for each interview: Accountability (are responsibilities well defined, the challenges for meeting them) Learning (employee and trainer competence, time allocated to training, too much, too little, scheduling and cancellations) Corrective action program (issues are addressed, responses timely and appropriate) Commitment (stated and demonstrated management support, importance of process safety, employee personal involvement) Reporting and the environment for raising concerns (near misses, willingness, practices, hesitation, and retaliation) Change Management (refinery reorganizations, organizational change planning and preparedness, effective implementation) Work control, work practices (empowerment, being able to stop processes, direct instructions, procedure quality) Specific discussions within each category were left to what the employee wanted to discuss about the process safety implementation and therefore safety culture of the refinery. The interviewer ensured that each 1-hour interview covered all seven general categories. 3.4.3 Written Process Safety Culture Surveys PII based the written process safety survey primarily on the instrument used by the Baker Panel in evaluating safety culture at BP following their catastrophic accident in March 2005. The written survey questions were reviewed and minimally customized to better align with Chevron Richmond-specific terminology and organizational structure. Towers Watson (TW) formatted the surveys onto paper and for access from the Internet via computers from work, home, or iPad (the latter provided by PII for this purpose). TW administered the surveys for five weeks and collected the data. TW was directed by all parties to make sure only Richmond Refinery employees and contractors participated in the survey and that the unique identifier of each participant was not identifiable to a specific response. PII received the raw data from the survey after the unique employee identifiers were stripped from the data set. 3.5 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS AND LIMITATIONS It is important to note that Chevron staff continued to be generally cooperative and responsive throughout this evaluation. However, given the nature and significance (breadth) of ongoing inquiries being made in other investigations during this Process Safety and Safety Culture Evaluation, multiple factors influenced and limited our data collection process. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 237 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 19 3.5.1 Document Request and Auditor Review Process To address Chevron USA confidentiality practices for this safety evaluation, an electronic database was established where requested documents were made available for PII staff’s review through a secure web login process. A formal document request process was implemented in which PII auditors made a written request for a specific document (information) or group of documents. The requested information was reviewed by CUSA’s legal team, converted into an electronic format, and posted to the Richmond Safety Evaluation document data site. Information requests were generally fulfilled within three business days, although miscommunication using the written request procedure resulted in frequent errors and subsequent retries, delaying posting of the requested documents. Once posted, documents were available to PII staff for electronic review as images on a page- by-page basis. Navigating within the web-based data site contents (>17,000 pages) page by page increased auditing review time significantly. Collection of (and conventional review of) data site documents was restricted – downloading, printing, copying, notations/mark-ups, sorting, and collective search features were not activated. A document (information) index was maintained on the CUSA data site to catalog these document requests. The data site’s unwieldy document numbering method also increased the time it took auditors to locate a specific document. Process safety tracking information was available online in various Chevron Richmond Refinery databases: CHESM, IMPACT EOM, MOC/PSSR, Meridium, Maximo, and Active Learner. PII reviewed these databases with advance scheduling for “Live Navigation” meetings with Chevron subject matter experts (SME) and a CUSA legal representative. Screenshots were not provided immediately but they were made available for review afterward through the formal document request process; these were uploaded to the data site mentioned above. These factors made it time-consuming to obtain and review Chevron Richmond Refinery process safety management and safety culture data. CUSA legal representatives accompanying auditors' data collection activities and Chevron legal staff’s document review before granting access to auditors were also factors when considering potential bias in and limits to the data collected. 3.5.2 Individual Safety Culture Interviews, Random Selection Process PII auditors requested individual interviews based on an employee list provided by CUSA, which contained only information about job positions and roles. Employees’ names were redacted and unavailable to auditors. PII used a random number generator to request the specific individuals from the list, and CUSA management representatives contacted these people to arrange the interviews. Individuals were informed that the interview process was voluntary and that they were not required to participate. Many of the first-selection operators and maintenance employees (about 75%) were either unavailable due to scheduling or chose not to participate; reasons for declining were not disclosed to PII. When this occurred, CUSA staff chose alternates from the random list provided by PII. The high number of operators and maintenance employees declining to participate in individual safety culture interviews could be an indicator of (1) problems in the process safety culture (e.g., lack of employee buy-in to programs, lack of local management support, or fear of retaliation), or (2) burnout by the employees after repeated interviews from other investigations in the past 1.5 years. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 238 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 20 3.5.3 Third-Party Influence on the Field Data Collection CUSA Richmond management representatives, union representatives, and third-party process safety consultants (other than PII or CCHMP staff) were present at various times while PII (and CCHMP) staff walked down operating procedures. In some cases during walk-downs, CUSA salaried staff actively coached operators in their response to questions. In other cases, there was no direct interaction, but it was apparent to auditors that the presence of CUSA Richmond management representative(s) caused operators to be more guarded and reserved about the information they shared. The influence of union representatives did not appear to inhibit operator responses. Generally, union representatives encouraged “frank, free, and open” discussion of any concerns, but their influence on safety evaluation data collected remains difficult to accurately gauge. These third-party influences diminished over time as the audit process matured and higher trust was established. Eventually, CUSA Richmond management representative(s) and union representative(s) maintained distance and participated in field discussion(s) only when asked. The third-party process safety consulting staff, contracted by Chevron, participated during the first and second weeks of on-site data collection by PII auditors despite PII staff’s objections. During the third and fourth weeks of operating procedure walk-downs in the field, one CUSA Richmond management representative was assigned as a “safety” escort for auditors with one or no union representative present. Note that operators told PII staff that, in the past, they had themselves been the “safety” escort for their units. Chevron stated that they wanted management representatives present to ensure a safe over-watch, since the unit operators were distracted while sharing data with the auditors. In the last two weeks of walk-downs in the field, management representatives kept their distance and did not seem to influence the data collected. Procedure walk-down data that auditors collected during the second two-week period (with only one management representative present as a safety escort) indicated about the same result in procedure accuracy as the data collected in the first two weeks, when company attorneys, management, and third-party Chevron-hired consultants were all present. This finding supports use of data collected during the first two weeks of procedure walk-downs, notwithstanding potential third- party influences. CUSA legal representatives were present in 15 out of 16 database live navigations, all the Richmond SME technical interviews, and all the non-represented staff safety culture interviews. Non-represented staff attended private individual meetings before each interview – PII staff was not allowed to participate in or observe these preliminary meetings. PII was told that non- represented staff were asked if they wanted a CUSA attorney present, and all accepted this offer. Non-represented employees were also given the opportunity to include their own “private” attorney in the interviews or data collection. The few non-represented SMEs that were provided access to a Chevron-paid “pool attorney” (to represent the interest of that non-represented SME) chose to have a pool attorney present for their interviews by PII and CCHMP staff. Those who were not provided a pool attorney did not have a private attorney present, with the exception of one manager who had retained his own attorney. PII was told that the non-represented employees were not told specifically that the Chevron attorneys represented Chevron’s interest and not the employee’s personal interest. (The attorneys work for Chevron. They were not legal representatives for the employees.) Represented employees were asked if they wanted a union representative present, and most declined. All employees were told that their participation was voluntary and that they could decline to participate without retribution. According to CUSA Richmond management, about 75% of the operators and maintenance staff (initially selected at random by PII to be interviewed) declined (discussed earlier See 3.5.2). August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 239 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 21 3.5.4 General Fulfillment of Interviews, Walk-downs, Control Room Visits, and General Data Requests CUSA Richmond management complied with PII’s specific requests for access, information and documents, providing controlled access within two to three days in most instances (note previous discussion; see 3.5.1). CUSA staff members provided excellent coordination of daily schedules for PII staff with refinery staff. This coordination was better than similar situations we have experienced elsewhere. CUSA Richmond management provided technical staff to help in the implementation of the Safety Culture Survey. Process Safety Culture written survey logistics were initially complicated by technical issues with Internet connections and limited access to iPads (provided by PII) for entry of data. By the second and third week that the survey was online, these issues were remedied, and the survey period was extended one week (to a total of five weeks) to allow more staff to participate. Survey technical issues did not seem to affect Safety Culture survey results. 3.5.5 Constrained and Guarded Responses During many of the interviews with non-represented employees, employee responses appeared to be constrained and guarded. PII auditors have extensive experience conducting interviews for near miss investigations, incident investigations, and safety audits. Based on this experience, we perceived barriers to freely exchanging information during these interviews. Potential barriers may be because of: The content of the individual meetings with Chevron legal staff before each interview (See 3.5.3), The presence of CUSA legal representatives during the interview (does not apply to represented employees), The presence of the PII or CCHMP staff conducting the interviews, Concern about pending legal and regulatory actions against the refinery, The potential for personal liability, or The perceived potential negative impact on their careers, or other reason(s). Regardless of the reason (barrier) for the perceived reluctance to openly share, responses from non-represented employees may reflect some bias because these staff were very cautious in what they said. Many operators and maintenance staff expressed mistrust of how the survey results would be used, citing the potential to negatively impact their jobs in the future. CUSA Richmond management and PII interviewers clearly communicated that participation in the written survey was voluntary and anonymous. Some employees expressed concerns about survey anonymity with survey results and activity routed through the CUSA network. Therefore, PII supplied iPads through which employees could take the survey. They could also complete it via home computers. Union representatives and staff were actively supportive, encouraging represented workers to participate, to be forthcoming with information, and to trust the validity of the data collection and survey process. 3.5.6 Overall Limitations of Data Collected and Results The evaluation team wants to clarify what its findings do and do not represent. The data collection process was designed to achieve the objectives of a safety evaluation. This report presents findings and provides recommendations to assist Chevron Richmond Refinery and CCHMP to address gaps that PII identified after reviewing a representative number of documents, field observations, live operating systems/data and management practices. As described earlier, Chevron provided specific documentation and access to information based on August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 240 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 22 PII requests for examples of PSM documentation. This project was not scoped to conduct an extensive audit of the Richmond Refinery Process Safety Management system(s) and should not be interpreted as such. Data from the process safety culture written survey is subject to the limitation that it reflects the opinions, beliefs, and impressions of the respondents (note Section 3.5.2 discussion earlier), especially since there was not an opportunity for respondents to ask for clarifications of questions nor for the reviewers to ask follow-on questions of the respondents. The refinery information that the PII team considered reflects varying degrees of ambiguity and interpretation on the part of PII professionals. While addressing this project’s scope and developing these report findings and recommendations, the review team does not/did not try to provide exhaustive proofs and does not/did not attempt to eliminate all factual ambiguities encountered during this review. - End of Section 3, Scope and Approach - August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 241 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 23 4 EVALUATION AND FINDINGS 4.1 PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS According to the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), a division of American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), a process-safety management system is “focused on prevention of, preparedness for, mitigation of, response to, or restoration from catastrophic releases of chemicals or energy from a process associated with a facility.” Furthermore, “management system” means, “a formally established and documented set of activities designed to produce specific results in a consistent manner on a sustainable basis.” [“Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety”]44 Process Safety Management systems are comprehensive sets of policies, procedures, and practices designed to ensure that barriers to episodic incidents are in place, in use, and effective.45 The OSHA PSM standard, 29 CFR 1910.119, defines the minimum regulatory requirements. It contains 14 elements that must be addressed. There are parallel requirements in U.S.EPA 40 CFR 68 (and nearly identical regulations in Cal ARP requirements enforced by the CCHMP). PSM federal and state regulations are missing many key elements of best practices in process safety, as discussed in Section 2.5. This Safety Evaluation for the Chevron Richmond Refinery is based on industry best practices, many of which are documented in Risk Based Process Safety. These best practices extend beyond the minimum foundation of PSM found in the federal and state regulations. CCHMP staff conducted an assessment at the same time as this safety evaluation. Any compliance deviations they found were documented separately by CCHMP from this Safety Evaluation. 4.1.1 Leadership, Vision and Goals Alignment Competent and active process safety leadership is vital to ensure that risks are effectively managed. Process safety leadership requires senior–management-level involvement and process safety proficiency at all levels of the refinery organization. Further, management vision, visibility and promotion of process safety leadership is essential to set a positive and proactive safety culture throughout the organization.46 Over the past 20 years, the refining industry has experienced numerous process safety incidents resulting in significant loss of life, environmental pollution, and property damage. Studies by the refining industry, government agencies, petroleum associations, and independent think tanks determined that leadership is a key issue in managing process safety and preventing incidents at refineries and chemical plants. Success in any performance variable (process safety, personal safety, reliability, environmental performance, profitability, etc.) requires consistent and visible leadership. Leadership also requires that individual employees hold themselves accountable, and once established, hold coworkers accountable for driving process-safety performance improvement. The most important role of a good leader in a site comprised of experienced and skilled staff is to instill trust. People look to their managers, not just to assign tasks, but also to define for them August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 242 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 24 a purpose. Moreover, managers must organize (energize, empower) workers, not just to maximize efficiency, but also to nurture skills, develop talent and inspire results. The CUSA Richmond Refinery recently received new leadership with a new General Manager (GM) on June 2013. He also held a supporting role at the refinery during on-site audits conducted in January 2013. He has worked in various positions throughout the corporation. He brings 28 years of experience in Maintenance, Operations and Commercial divisions within the company, including prior experience at Richmond. Several members of the refinery’s leadership team are also relatively new in their roles, although each brings significant experience and expertise. Additional organizational changes are underway at all levels of management (as of late 2013). The most prominent organizational change is the addition of an Optimization Operations Assistant (OOA) to the shift leadership structure, allowing the Shift Team Leaders (STL) additional time in the field to focus on face-to- face communications. A significant increase in professional hiring is also continuing as the HSE, PSM, MI, and engineering departments expand to meet requirements for the refinery’s process safety goals and objectives. At the time of this safety evaluation, many of the technical and supervisory staff interviewed were in newly created roles, implementing new business processes and procedures. According to the GM, the current reorganization pairs experienced and well-respected leaders with technically adept (but many times, less experienced) personnel to complement and learn from one another. Changes in the STL/OOA positions are a good example of this: A technical representative from process engineering may be teamed with an experienced operator to ensure that all aspects of the STL/OOA role are covered (plant credibility and expertise, technical competence, and personnel focus). Similar deployments are taking place in other areas of process safety implementation. Technical roles will periodically rotate (every two to three years) with the idea that they will grow into management positions in the future (ensuring that these are seen as mission critical roles). Non-technical roles will ensure stability and credibility in key leadership positions. The current organizational transition was to be completed by first quarter of 2014. PII has not yet collected new data on the status. Frequent changes in leadership have been cited numerous times across the refining industry as a detrimental factor to process safety. This has resulted in a variety of problems. These include: Low trust, Poor communication, Frequent and shifting changes in direction and priorities, Inconsistent goals and objectives, and Questionable decisions based on short-term gains rather than long-term risk management at a refinery. (CSB Report, BP Texas City)47, (Baker Report)48 Interviews with refinery leadership, staff, and employees show significant confidence in most members of the current leadership team. The new GM has clearly defined the company’s vision, and communicated refinery goals and objectives through a variety of different means. Some of the more visible organizational changes, such as the STL/OOA roles, PSM, Learning & Development (L&D), and MI staffing, are broadly understood, supported, and welcomed. Focus has been maintained through the Operational Excellence Reliability Intelligence (OERI) metrics and key performance indicators (KPI) dashboards. In addition, a noticeable improvement in informal communications has occurred via town hall meetings, face-to-face discussions, and management’s visibility in the units. Alignment with this vision is improving, but it is not yet 100%. In the Safety Culture Interviews, feedback received from hourly and salaried staff showed distinct differences (see section on August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 243 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 25 Process Safety Culture). Many represented employees are encouraged by recent leadership actions, but skepticism remains. This is particularly evident with union leaders, where trust remains to be established (as of late 2013). Represented employee survey responses and individual interviews indicate that some managers, supervisors, and engineers still do not listen to or encourage input from hourly employees. These differences in perspective between represented employees and management may stem from several factors. These could include differences in access to and communication with refinery leadership, understanding of refinery goals, or an employee’s past experience with changes and events at the refinery (e.g., some said, “What management says is not always what management does”). Many of the salaried employees interviewed were new employees who do not have the same history and longevity as their hourly counterparts. Also, note previous discussion: 3.5.5 Constrained and Guarded Responses. This organization is clearly in a state of transition. Much has occurred over the last 18 months (as of late 2013). The ultimate success of, and the long-term commitment to, the current leadership plan remains to be seen. Some specific deficiencies noted by PII related to documentation of the recent organization changes are: The review team noted that an action item from the Richmond Refinery Chevron Corporate internal RISO Audit Report (2013) reported that the refinery organization chart needs to list current Process Safety Sponsors (including newly added RISO process safety elements) The review team noted that an action item from the Richmond Refinery Chevron Corporate internal RISO Audit Report (2013) reported that the 2013 Site Safety Plan did not include new process safety elements added per RISO. Chevron Richmond Refinery staff say they will track these action items to closure. 4.1.2 Employee Involvement in Process Safety Management The OSHA PSM standard 49 requires that employers develop a written action plan for the implementation of employee participation, consult with employees and their representatives on the conduct and development of process hazard analyses and development of other elements of process safety management, and provide to employees and their representatives access to process hazard analyses and to all other information required to be developed. CUSA Richmond appears to go beyond these minimum PSM requirements in many areas. Policies and Refinery Instructions establish safety committees, such as the Joint Safety and Health Committee, the Human Factors team, and the PSM Steering Committee, on which employees may participate. There are also two union sponsored Triangle of Prevention (TOP) representatives, two full-time union Health and Safety representatives, and numerous others on special assignment who participate in procedure writing and review, training, process hazard analysis, MOC hazard evaluations, and incident investigations. All employees undergo annual training and retraining in roles related to process safety topics, and all operators are involved in monthly “hypotheticals.” These are table-top drills that test and review their ability to respond appropriately to an emergency. Employees are also actively involved in occupational safety oriented programs such as the Loss Prevention System (LPS), the Incident and Injury Free program (IIF), Loss Prevention Observations (LPO), Stop Work Authority (SWA), and near miss reporting (Green Cards). Document reviews and interviews indicate that CUSA’s PSM program would benefit from a larger cross-section of operation and maintenance employees participating in PSM activities. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 244 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 26 Currently, the same represented employees participate in multiple activities. For example, hourly employee participation in PHAs is often by special assignment trainers who keep their positions for three years. PHAs would be an excellent opportunity to involve a broader cross- section of SMEs in process safety related processes. Stop Work Authority is a widely used and highly regarded process at Chevron Richmond. SMEs and represented workers verbally provided numerous instances where the SWA was used effectively for tasks that involved personal (occupational) safety concerns. Written examples show examples of such SWAs as well. They gave no examples (verbally or in writing) of SWAs used for process safety considerations (such as for preventing a process from starting back up or to shut down a process). (This is also true for most other process plants audited by PII where a program similar to SWA was in place.) CUSA’s PSM program would benefit with increased application of the SWA program for process safety near misses. Richmond has a 20-year history of having operator hourly employees in departmental PSM leadership roles such as the WPIA (Work Process Improvement Coordinator). The WPIA assists with MOC hazard reviews, ensures accuracy of updates to MOC process safety information and PSSRs. Selected hourly employees write and validate operating procedures and conduct periodic audits. The most effective organizations provide a broader range of opportunities for employees to become involved in process safety activities. Some organizations provide advanced PSM training and then assign hourly employees in departmental PSM leadership roles to lead MOC hazard reviews and PSSRs, write and validate operating procedures, conduct periodic audits, and lead incident investigations (loss and near loss incidents). At least one refinery has found success in a 2-year rotation of one operator from each unit into a PSM support role that includes procedure writing, MOC leadership, and PHA of procedures.50 Chevron should consider involving more operators and maintenance employees in WPIA assignments, in MOC hazard reviews, and in ensuring maintenance and operating procedures are accurate. Chevron should also consider involving more hourly employees in leading investigations of incidents (loss and near loss incidents). Identifying a potential process incident before it occurs and preventing the incident requires a high level of participation by hourly employees and SMEs. Effective organizations establish a goal in the range of 20-100 for the ratio of near loss to loss incidents (10 to 50 times the current rate at the Chevron Richmond Refinery). These organizations manage the increased investigation load by training 15% of their staff (primarily hourly employees) to lead and participate in investigations. To promote wider employee participation (buy-in), management establishes a barrier-free incident reporting process, which specifies that discipline will not be administered as the result of a loss or near loss investigation (except in the rare case of sabotage or intentional cause of harm).51 Recommendation 1 CUSA Richmond should expand operators’ and maintenance craft-persons’ involvement in leading roles in process safety activities. Increase the number of operators and craft-persons involved in these activities, too. For example, involve more operators and maintenance crafts-persons in: Writing and validating procedures, Leading process hazard evaluations of small MOCs, Participating in PHAs (particularly using a broader selection of operators), and August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 245 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 27 Leading incident investigations. 4.1.3 Process Safety Information Site-wide, PII found Piping and Instrument Diagrams (P&IDs) to be up to date, accurate, well used, and well understood by operations staff. Following any maintenance or project activities, operators conduct independent operational readiness reviews before start up, a practice commonly known at the refinery as “Yellow Lining.” Any corrections necessary are immediately sent to engineering to be updated. PII found this practice to be consistent across all operating areas and business units. PII found process safety information (such as operating procedures, safe operating limits and consequences of deviation, material safety data sheets, drawings, and equipment specifications) to be readily available to the operators by both paper and electronic systems available in the control rooms. There was ample evidence that these documents are easily accessible and frequently used. (Note: see sections 4.1.4 through 4.1.7 for additional comments addressing Process Safety Information) Based on review of MOC documents and interviews of SMEs, CUSA does not update PSI (i.e., modified P&ID of record) while a temporary change (MOC) is in effect. Temporary changes can be in effect for various periods. Therefore, the changes for active/open MOC #1 must be available/archived in a manner that ensures future MOCs (i.e., #2, #3, which are evaluated for implementation) identify and reflect changes in effect for MOC #1. RI-362 section 5.1 states, “Changes that impact existing Process Safety Information will trigger the Management of Change Process (MOC). This is done to ensure that modified PSI remains current and is available.” RI-362 Appendix I should be amended to include both “active” and “archived” MOC documentation. Additional criteria (guidance) is needed to address how redlined P&IDs and other MOC-modified PSI are archived, and readily available site-wide while a temporary MOC is in effect. RBPS provides related examples in Sections 15.3.3 and 15.4.3. Recommendation 2 To avoid losing track of temporary changes, improve the redlining process for the Master P&IDs used in the field. Further, improve RI-362 “Process Safety Information” to include criteria for handling all in-process (active) and archived (closed) MOC-modified PSI (i.e., P&ID originals) while a temporary MOC is in effect. RI-370 “Management of Change” may need parallel changes. 4.1.4 Process Hazard Analysis A process hazard analysis (PHA) is one of the most important, fundamental elements of the process-safety management program. (OSHA 3133 PSM Guidelines for Compliance)52 When used effectively, the information developed in a PHA (potential process deviations, failure scenarios, consequences, and safeguards) provides a solid basis for decisions that affect all other elements of the process-safety management system. The PHA team analyzes potential causes that can lead to severe consequences such as fires, explosions, releases of toxic or flammable chemicals and major spills of hazardous chemicals. The PHA focuses on equipment, instrumentation, utilities, human actions (routine and non- routine), and external factors that might affect the process. The information is necessary to ensure that good decisions are made to improve process safety and minimize potential failures. A systematic and detailed review of the potential causes of deviations and the necessary safeguards helps to identify process and mechanical weaknesses. Understanding these potential failure modes helps build effective inspection test and preventative maintenance (ITPM) plans to enhance mechanical integrity and reliability. The team should review operating August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 246 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 28 procedures and troubleshooting guides for potential human errors and discuss appropriate response measures, including an evaluation of the process safety time available for operator intervention. This leads to improved operating procedures and additional measures designed to improve human performance and minimize failures. PII staff reviewed 14 documented PHAs at CUSA Richmond and conducted a horizontal review of nine PHAs. A vertical review evaluates the quality and completeness of the PHA (and determines if recommendations have been closed or resolved). A horizontal review, in contrast, uses the PHA as a starting point to see if the critical features in the process (as identified in the PHA report) are being maintained appropriately to achieve acceptable safety and reliability factors. In this case, the horizontal review identified a sampling of critical (related to avoiding a high consequence) component features and human response features (these features included both causes and safeguards) to determine if these are being properly maintained. PII determined that there is an effort to perform a thorough PHA of existing plants in a timely manner. An expert PHA Team Leader position was recently added to the PSM team to manage all aspects of Existing Facility and Project PHAs. The PHA Team Leader is responsible for facilitators, scribes, management of documents, and contractors that are hired as team leaders and scribes. The PHA Team Leader is the liaison for the refinery. This position is also responsible for scheduling PHAs and managing the PHA recommendations. The PHA team member qualifications specified and observed in CUSA PHA Instruction RI-363 are consistent with best practices.53 PHA Team requirements include: Facilitator must have 10 years operational experience and corporate training course completion (these are also requirements for contractors). Scribe (no technical requirements) using PHA Pro for recording PHA. Operator must have 10 years of experience and be both board- and field-qualified. If the operator is unavailable then the meetings are delayed or cancelled. Engineering representatives must have 5 years of experience and be either Process or Design Engineers. A Business Improvement Network (BIN) Leader, who participates in a portion of each PHA team meeting54. The following Process Hazard Analysis program concerns were identified: The PHAs conducted before September 2013 focus on the continuous mode of operation. According to CUSA management, Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from Technical and Operations take part in hazard analysis discussions regarding startups and shutdowns and share significant incidents that occurred. The deviations of startup and shutdown are discussed as a hazard and operability (HAZOP) deviation within an equipment node, but data shows this will not adequately address the hazards for these modes of operation. Online maintenance modes of operation have not been considered. Industry data indicates that 70% of process safety accidents occur during these non-routine modes of operation. U.S.OSHA, state, and industry entities (since 1989 and onward) have cited lack of PHA of procedures (for these non-continuous modes of operation) in their investigations of accidents in the process industry (including accidents at Phillips [TX], Ashland Oil [KY], Bayer Crop Sciences [WV], and BP offshore). Simply considering the deviations of “startup, shutdown, and maintenance” during a node-by-node HAZOP of parameters has, in PII’s experience, been shown to catch less than 10% of the accident scenarios during these operating modes. These factors and data are why the CCPS added a new Chapter 9 in the 3rd August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 247 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 29 edition of Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures (2008), which is the key standard for PHAs.55 Richmond Refinery should update their Process Hazard Analysis Procedure to include complete hazard review of the step-by-step procedures for startup, shutdown and online maintenance modes of operations. Refinery management reports that Procedural PHAs for loading and unloading operations have been conducted. PII noted that an action item from the Richmond Refinery Chevron Corporate internal RISO Audit Report (2013) stated that screening criteria had not been established and implemented to determine which procedures may be appropriate for a Procedural PHA. Rather than screening procedures to limit the PHA to only the higher-risk tasks, PII data and best industry practice prescribe a PHA of all procedures. However, the procedures with lower risk (which is likely 70% of procedures at a refinery) can be reviewed using the What-If methodology. The procedures for higher- risk tasks (about 30%) can be reviewed with the 2-Guideword HAZOP approach, applied to each step that changes the state of the process.56 For PHAs reviewed by PII, it appears that loss of containment causes, such as corrosion, erosion, external impact, improper maintenance, material defect, pump seal failures, gasket/packing failure, and drains/vents left open were not discussed during each HAZOP node. One exception at the refinery was loss of containment resulting from pump seal damage, which is evaluated as part of (within) standard HAZOP deviations, such as “low flow” or “high pressure.” As reported by CUSA management, during the HAZOP, the operator is asked to identify issues related to drains/vents, sample connections and valves that can be opened to the atmosphere. This should foster a loss of containment discussion. Identified concerns for these types of loss of containment scenarios are noted in the PHA documentation. Recent PHAs included a BIN Leader who participates in a portion of each PHA team meeting.57 However, since specific/individual damage mechanisms from API 571 “Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry” are not considered at each process section (node) within the process, it is likely that unique hazardous scenarios have been missed. (Best practice, as stated in Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 2008,60 is to consider damage mechanisms within each equipment node.) It is also likely that that some necessary safeguards such as remote isolations, leak detection, etc., for pipe sections, pumps, vessels, and columns have been missed. PII found minimal evidence in PHAs conducted before 2013 that mechanical integrity data such as deficiency reports, damage mechanisms, number of piping repairs (clamps), and location of specification breaks were used in PHA process node analysis in the deviation for loss of containment (see 4.1.5 Mechanical Integrity). As a result, PHAs conducted before 2013 probably have covered less than 30% of the potential equipment damage causes (mechanisms). The same may also apply to the PHAs conducted since 2013, if the procedures for conducting PHAs have not been corrected for this weakness. CUSA management reports that the Design Engineering Group piloted a specification- break review in 2013. (Specification “spec” breaks are where the materials of construction or pipe thickness change.) Also, each PHA is intended to identify any potential spec break concerns within the unit (as is typical for PHAs that follow industry best practice). It is understood that a policy and procedures to codify spec-break August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 248 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 30 reviews will be implemented. This approach to damage mechanisms related to materials specification is considered a best practice. Most competent PHA teams in the industry ensure a discussion of each spec break during a PHA. PHAs at CUSA do use a latent conditions checklist, and most of the PHA/HAZOP tables list very few (essentially no) human factors in the causes or safeguards. According to CUSA management, the PHA Team completes a walk-through of the plant before conducting the human factors/latent conditions review. The team reviews the latent condition checklist in the PHA meeting, with plant observations documented as needed during the meeting. “Human Factors” is also considered with each node and any items of concern are documented by exception. This type/level of human factor review has been proven insufficient to fully analyze and document potential causes for many loss of containment scenarios. The refinery should implement Human Factors analysis techniques that address RISO requirements and go beyond these to follow well-established, industry best practices for review of Human Factors, especially during PHAs. Safeguards and causes or scenarios with outcomes below Consequence Level I and II are not included in the ITPM program and follow-up on ITPM reviews is not forwarded back to the PHA leader. This can result in the risk of the scenarios increasing due to lack of periodic validation. At the time of this Safety Evaluation, the Richmond Refinery did not consistently follow CCPS Hazard Evaluation Procedure 3rd Edition (and OSHA) guidance58,59 for justifiably declining a PHA recommendation. The revised policy and procedure for managing recommendations should include instructions for declining recommendations. in writing, based upon adequate evidence that one or more of the following conditions is true: o The analysis upon which the recommendation is based contains material factual errors; o The recommendation is not necessary to protect the health and safety of the employer's own employees or the employees of contractors; o An alternative measure would provide a sufficient level of protection; or o The recommendation is infeasible. Recommendation 3 To avoid missing causes and necessary safeguards against loss of containment, be sure hazardous scenarios starting from pertinent damage mechanisms are reviewed during each unit’s PHA. (Pertinent damage mechanisms include corrosion, erosion, seal failure, pump failure, external impact, external fire, material defect, improper maintenance, drains/vents left open, etc.) In particular, review external impact as a damage mechanism for each node. A review of such loss of containment scenarios in each node is recommended, as described in the Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd Edition, 2008, CCPS/AIChE. Adding a loss of containment deviation would double-check against missing standard damage mechanisms (such as corrosion and erosion) during unit-wide reviews. It would also improve the current PHAs by providing a review at each node for external impacts and control of drains/vents. Review and incorporate mechanical integrity data during this analysis. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 249 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 31 Recommendation 4 For PHAs, improve Human Factors’ incorporation in brainstorming accident scenarios. Also, improve documentation of how human factors are accounted for in causes and safeguards listed in the PHAs, per industry best practices. (Also, see 4.1.5 Mechanical Integrity and 4.1.7 Operating Procedures for ensuring these safeguards remain reliable.) Human safeguards (protection layers) include operator actions (alarm response, problem identification, troubleshooting). Human causes include operating errors related to issues such as inaccuracies and lack of clarity in procedures and misidentification of process equipment (because of inadequate labeling, numbering, and nomenclature). Recommendation 5 Continue, and expand, the current Procedural PHA program implementation so that all modes of operation are evaluated. Include a PHA of startup, shutdown, and online maintenance procedures, as described in Chapter 9 of the Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd edition, CCPS/AIChE, 2008.60 This will entail using a 2-guideword HAZOP approach on each step for critical procedures and a What-if (no guideword) approach for less-critical procedures. No procedures should be excluded.61 Recommendation 6 Implement a policy and procedures for documenting, in writing, the justification for declining PHA recommendations (per Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd Edition 2008).62 Base justifications upon adequate evidence that one or more of the following conditions is true: The analysis upon which the recommendation is based contains material factual errors; The recommendation is not necessary to protect the health and safety of the employer's employees or contractors’ employees; An alternative measure would provide a sufficient level of protection; or The recommendation is infeasible. At the time of this evaluation, all Safety Instrumented Functions (SIF) at CUSA are required to have LOPA (since the SIFs were already installed, for the most part, before the company decided to comply with ANSI/ISA 84 requirements for SIS). CUSA is developing a new decision process (expected to be released April 2014) for determination of when a LOPA is necessary. Safety Objectives Analysis (CUSA term for LOPA) started in 2007 but was ended in 2008. This process was considered to be too conservative as it did not use conditional modifiers resulting in much higher SIL requirements than expected. The new methodology will include appropriate conditional modifiers resulting in a lower number of high SIL safeguards. CUSA is currently in the process of setting up mechanisms for inspection, maintenance, and analysis of SIS and they are reviewing the installations to ensure that they meet the ANSI/ISA standards. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 250 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 32 Recommendation 7 Follow through on the existing plans to implement a process for determining when a LOPA is necessary. Recommendation 8 Follow through on the existing plans to establish ITPMs for SIS. Also, ensure they meet CCPS and ANSI/ISA requirements for SIS. At the time of this evaluation, the asset integrity (AI) program includes safeguards associated with Consequence Level I (50-100 fatalities) and II (5-50 fatalities), as outlined in “RI-368 Mechanical Integrity” and “RI-371 Near Loss, Event Reporting, and Incident Investigation.” Safeguards associated with Consequence Level III (1-4 fatalities) are not currently included. The PHA manager provides the OOA with a list to ensure that all safeguards are included in regular testing and verification. However, criticality is not consistently assigned, ITPMs are not consistently created, and findings are not fed back to the PHA team. RI-368 is being revised and reviewed, but crucial gaps remain in the newest version. Recommendation 9 Update policies and procedures to define clearly the process, roles, and responsibilities for managing and maintaining equipment and human actions identified as safeguards and causes (as identified in PHAs). The safeguard management system(s) of the asset integrity program should include safeguards and causes identified in PHAs for Consequence Levels I and II. In addition, expand them to include Consequence Level III events. Criticality should be identified, such as by labeling as independent protection layers (IPLs) in the PHA report. This rating should be maintained in the CMMS. Appropriate ITPMs should be developed, performed, and documented for each of these items. Further, until the ITPM plans are established and active for a safeguard, no credit should be taken for it (e.g., it should not be considered an IPL). NOTE: The IPL management system that the refinery has begun may address the concerns of this recommendation. However, control of the frequency of causes is just as important as the control of the probability of failure on demand of an IPL. 4.1.5 Mechanical Integrity (MI) All equipment used to process, store, or handle highly hazardous chemicals needs to be designed, constructed, installed and maintained to minimize the loss-of-containment risk. This requires that a mechanical integrity program be in place to ensure the continued integrity of process equipment. Key elements of an effective mechanical integrity program include: Identification and categorization of equipment and instrumentation, Inspections and tests, Testing and inspection frequencies, Development of maintenance procedures, Training of maintenance personnel, The establishment of criteria for acceptable test results, Documentation of test and inspection results, and Documentation of manufacturer recommendations as to mean time to failure for equipment and instrumentation. (OSHA PSM 1910.119)62 Richmond Refinery has a concentrated effort to update and upgrade maintenance procedures and practices. Procedure writers have recently been added to the maintenance organization. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 251 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 33 Maintenance procedures are being developed with guidance from the L&D team and migrated into the site’s electronic manual management system (EMMS). However, this is a system in transition – many maintenance procedures remain to be developed or upgraded. Chevron- general and refinery-specific mechanic training and certification are reported to be similar to other refineries in the area. Training documentation and control remains within the department or craft of the Richmond Refinery. Maintenance personnel training procedures and practices need to be formalized to meet future staffing needs. PII reviewed the past three to five years’ history for preventive maintenance (PM) compliance, Break-ins (unplanned turn around work not including discovery work resulting from planned inspections), and Due Date compliance. “Metrics monthly meetings” and Routine Work Control Program are providing necessary focus to improve in all areas. PM compliance is 100% and Break-ins are consistently at less than 5%. All trends show improvement. As listed on a public access website maintained by CUSA (http://chevronmodernization.com), the refinery tracks the following 26 process safety indicators in the OERI database:63 PHA Recommendation Implementation Overdue Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS) Functions Disabled SIS Functional Test Overdue Open Safety Work Requests Overdue Preventative Maintenance Inspections Overdue Overdue Training Training Due in 30 days Permanent MOCs Overdue Temporary MOCs Overdue Mechanical Availability Incident Solutions Overdue Investigations Audit Action Items Pre-Startup Safety Review Exceptions Overdue Testing of Over Speed Trips Overdue PRDs (Pressure relief valves) Testing Days Exceeding Alarm Limit Critical Process Variable Deviations Routine Duties Not Completed Work Order Schedule Adherence Open Temporary Leak Repairs Utilization (Mechanical Utilization) Reliability Clock (Mechanical Reliability) Industrial Safety Ordinance Recommendation Implementation Overdue Overdue Compliance Assurance Program tasks All show significant improvement over the last 4 years. (This list is similar to indicators tracked by other refineries and chemical plants.) CUSA Richmond’s MI objective is to identify and prevent hazardous material releases caused by equipment failures. Since 2009, the refinery has averaged 500 total temporary leak repairs (TLR), of which an average of 11 TLR/yr are in hydrocarbon and chemical service; the rest are essentially for water, steam, or condensate service. This number of TLRs per year (for hazardous chemicals) is low compared to CUSA peers. These TLRs should be replaced during major shutdowns, but currently there are 83 TLR in hydrocarbon service. A review of safety August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 252 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 34 work orders shows their closure remained steady at ~86% over the same 4-year period. Because of the significant number of temporary leak repairs (83) for hydrocarbon (HC) service that were reported to PII as “open,” refinery management should investigate these further. CCPS Mechanical Integrity guidelines provide extensive guidance concerning definitions of a “deficiency,” and it provides some typical corrective action methods to address these mechanical integrity needs.64 Recommendation 10 Follow through on the current refinery initiatives to reduce the number of TLRs and improve the closure speed on safety work orders. During a live navigation of the Maximo computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) system, PII staff searched for ITPM plans and records for instrumentation and equipment identified in a recent (<3 years old) PHA as either a cause or a safeguard for a risk level 3 (Major) incident. These included pressure vessels and tanks, piping systems, critical process control loops and alarms, rotating equipment, and emergency block valves. Opportunities for improvement were found in varying degrees: Many tag numbers for instruments listed as causes or safeguards in PHAs could not be found (according to CUSA staff, only about 50% of the instrument tags were brought over during migration to Maximo from an older CMMS system). The tagging and labeling of instrumentation within CMMS should match the labels on the P&IDs and other documents (such as cause and effect diagrams and loop diagrams), so field operators and maintenance technicians can verify the status of ITPM inspections. CUSA reports that a naming convention is established and used for updating and adding new plant information within Maximo. When applying the naming convention, instrumentation is generally set up as a loop associated within or connected to a larger asset or as a “virtual point.” Richmond Refinery should upgrade and formalize this naming convention process to clearly identify, test, and monitor safety critical equipment and individual instrument components within the MI program. Individual equipment is sometimes associated with a vessel or with larger pieces of equipment such as a furnace or compressor. See discussion above for instrumentation. The reliability department is responsible for criticality assessment. Most instrument items did not have the criticality associated with the equipment. Those that did were set as “low.” Criticality is reviewed for safety, environment and production. The sRCM (reliability centered maintenance) project was started in 2007. Process safety instrumentation will be ranked and have an ITPM specified, and will be included on the Maximo maintenance process (targeted for 2014). Per CUSA management, since 2000, a guideline has been in place for the information handed over to the “Add, Change, Delete” coordinator (ACD). The ACD coordinator manages the input and updating of the equipment, piping and instrumentation inventory and naming nomenclature. Observed inconsistency in this process indicates that revalidation of the policy and procedures is warranted. Include guidance for the add, delete, change process so that causes and safeguards identified in the PHA reports are included in the formal MI program, as stated earlier in this report. SIS sheets contain the specifications for each piece of equipment, size, metallurgy, etc. The Reliability group is currently responsible for entering and retaining this information. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 253 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 35 Since the above issues make it difficult to track mechanical integrity history, identify potential equipment failures, review maintenance performed, or create effective ITPMs, the refinery initiated the sRCM process in 2007 to address these gaps. However, written ITPM plans, procedures, and records could not be located for all process safety critical equipment during this evaluation (2013). The MI task and frequency selection process for process safety critical equipment should include manufacturer’s ITPM recommendations, applicable codes and standards, Chevron’s operating experience, other recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP), and best practices (which may differ greatly from RAGAGEP). Work is underway to close part of this gap with resources assigned to write and manage procedures in the electronic maintenance manuals (EMM) database. However, data is missing and/or incomplete in both maintenance and reliability databases (Maximo and Meridium). A numbering system and data structure must be established to provide the granularity required to manage ITPMs at the component level. While the sRCM project initiated in 2007 should address these MI gaps, the refinery should evaluate the project schedule and resourcing, considering the critical nature of this MI gap. Recommendation 11 Finish identifying MI-critical assets to add to the ITPM program. The criteria should consider the asset function (control, safeguard, containment, etc.) and the consequence of failure (which is also listed in sRCM documentation). As stated in Recommendation 9, until the ITPM plans are established and active for a safeguard, no credit should be taken for it (e.g., IPL). An organizational change has been implemented in the maintenance and reliability (M&R) departments to ensure that the proper personnel are assigned to newly established roles for MI. Creation of a lead person and technical support for data input shows there is a focus to ensure that data entered into the system has better integrity than in the past. Roles and responsibilities are being better defined, personnel are being hired, and asset integrity in the field is a focus. Inspection Supervisors (IS)/Analysts assigned to the area business unit (ABU) are tasked to ensure the accuracy and consistency of information being entered into the Meridium database. The IS reviews and approves all inspection(s) and recommendations. The IS provides oversight to data entry for inspection recommendations and history briefs entered into Meridium. A Fixed Equipment Integrity Manager was a newly established position at the time of review.65, 66 This additional layer of management is being put in place to upgrade and improve the quality of the MI program. An MI SME for fixed equipment is developing ITPM procedures and job aids for all ITPM tasks including selection of equipment for the MI program, selection of ITPM methodology (including consideration of Damage Mechanisms), and who/what/how to perform ITPM tasks. The MI SME is also preparing ITPM reports, and developing how ITPM results will be tracked. As of October 2013, many good programs are being put into place; and Richmond Refinery management is attempting to understand where it needs to concentrate its efforts and priorities and is taking steps to close most gaps. Recommendation 12 Continue the current emphasis on the MI procedures and processes. Follow regulatory guidelines, and implement best industry practices, such as those described in the CCPS Guidelines for Mechanical Integrity Systems.67 Continue developing maintenance work instructions for ITPM. Provide resources and systems to effectively manage ITPMs at the component level for all process safety equipment. In addition to the general improvements above (toward which the August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 254 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 36 refinery is already working), consider implementing the following specific improvements: a) Review/update the policy and procedures that define how instrumentation is entered into the Maximo system and verify implementation. Ensure that instruments are maintained (and tracked and documented) per ISA requirements. b) Review/update the policy and procedures that define the “Add, Cahnge Delete” equipment-information management system and that direct how information is entered into the Maximo and Meridium systems. c) Train the ACD Coordinator on the updated policy and procedures (see Recommendation 12.b, above.) so that ITPM entry, tracking, and historical data are associated with the proper equipment. During live navigation of the Meridium database, PII and CCHMP staff identified issues regarding information availability and retrievability that affect the ability to quickly identify operating and maintenance history associated with each piece of equipment. Live navigation of Meridium with SME operation demonstrated that ITPM data was mishandled and not available to support the refinery mechanical integrity program. Current maintenance methods fail to input ITPM data so that the data could be used to manage ITPM tasks for refinery mechanical integrity. Per the Meridium live demonstration, PII could not determine if the ITPM inspections were complete or if the ITPM reports were complete. MI information was not sufficient to determine that critical components identified in the PHAs are being maintained. For example, the Safety Evaluation team selected various piping circuits flagged on the P&IDs as covered by the PSM program to see if these piping circuits are included in the MI management program demonstrated through Meridium performance. The MI SME had difficulty finding MI data for specific sections of pipe requested. The evaluation team interviewed the MI fixed equipment management team. The Richmond Refinery fixed equipment MI management team recognized several deficiencies with the MI program for piping systems based on difficulty in locating and analyzing such data. (As discussed later in this section, the piping data for all 10 of the selected piping was eventually located and reviewed.) CUSA (as of late 2013) has a program to close the gaps in the ITPM program for piping systems containing highly hazardous materials by completing additional thickness measurements, inspection and testing for piping circuits based on damage mechanisms, critical reliability variables, and determination of erosion and/or corrosion rates. Based on interviews with MI staff, MI procedures for inspection of piping systems that contain hydrocarbons and chemicals are being prepared. These will provide guidelines on how to manage the reliability of piping sections including identifying critical reliability variables, material of construction, damage mechanisms and corrosion rates. Per the inspection manager, about 80 percent of the units in the refinery have specific PFDs indicating possible corrosion or damage mechanisms that are not currently on the P&IDS. The PFDs are unit specific, but not the same drawings that are in API 571. CCHMP reviewed a drawing, D-308226-6, revision 4, dated 10/21/04, originally created and approved 2/27/90, Plant Equipment Reliability Flow Diagram, which describes all of the different damage or corrosion mechanisms with corresponding numbers. These, in turn, are used to indicate the type of unit specific mechanisms on the unit specific PFDs. Per the inspection manager, the numbers used do not match API-571, so part of the ongoing project is to use the same numbers as API-571. A draft corporate standard guides this effort. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 255 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 37 A summary of the MI improvements (per the public access website maintained by CUSA (http://chevronmodernization.com), being implemented at the time of the Safety Evaluation is as follows:68, 69 To ensure that mechanical-integrity related recommendations (e.g., for a design change recommendation from incidents that occur at peer companies) are appropriately reviewed, prioritized, and acted upon, the refinery has developed and implemented processes for additional oversight of such recommendations. These include recommendations from Chevron’s Energy Technology Company and other subject matter experts, as well as from general industry alerts. A review of mechanical-integrity standards has been undertaken and these standards will be compared to existing Chevron standards to identify any discrepancies and establish a plan to reconcile those discrepancies on a go-forward basis. A Fixed Equipment Integrity Manager (FEIM) has been added, who is responsible for developing, implementing, and stewarding the refinery’s Fixed Equipment Integrity program. The goal is to achieve zero process-safety incidents and improve mechanical availability. Refinery MI staff were developing an Integrity Threat Process, which has been deployed to address inspection recommendations for equipment and piping that could significantly impact safety, or environmental or plant operations. The refinery Operations group is notified of all integrity-threat inspection recommendations and takes action to develop a planned resolution by the target completion date. The integrity-threat inspection recommendation is tracked through the refinery’s MERIDIUM and OERI databases until it is resolved. The refinery has also updated its internal work instructions to address inspection results that indicate that equipment or piping will reach “flag” or “alert ” thickness prior to the next scheduled turnaround. The refinery’s on-stream inspection work instruction was updated in 2013 to include immediate notification to Chevron of any field measurements that indicate a remaining life of one year or less. An API- certified inspector assesses the results of the inspection and expands the inspection program for the equipment or piping as appropriate. In such a situation, an integrity- threat inspection recommendation is issued to the refinery’s Operations group and tracked to completion. MI threat MOCs are tracked by ABU inspectors working with ABU staff to review recommendations with design engineering to develop a repair plan (including ISO, CML plan, reviewing design issues such as dead leg, and mitigation) Present MI planning is to make permanent repairs to all temporary leak repairs during turnarounds or other opportunities. The refinery has also developed a new process to review all damage mechanisms that may affect a given plant at the process level. This Damage Mechanism Review (DMR) process, which is consistent with API 571, requires a team of SMEs to review, analyze, and make recommendations concerning damage mechanisms and how to mitigate the effects of damage mechanisms on each process unit. The results of these reviews are then provided to the PHA team for their consideration and review as that team formulates its recommendations. The DMR process was piloted at Richmond in 2013 and has since been made a required element in the PSM process at the refinery for selected process units, on an ongoing basis. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 256 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 38 The refinery has also modified its Reliability Opportunity Identification/Intensive Process Review (ROI/IPR) process and, as discussed above, its PHA procedure, to ensure that damage mechanisms are appropriately considered. In addition, the Fixed Equipment Integrity Group was developing asset strategy plans for each process unit at the piping circuit level. The refinery was developing an asset strategy plan based on Integrity Operating Windows (IOW) consistent with draft API RP 584 – Integrity Operating Windows, and planned to address damage mechanisms and recommendations for mitigation of risks.70 (These operating limits are currently identified at the refinery as Critical Reliability Variables [CRVs]). Operation within the preset limits of IOW (or CRVs) should result in predictable and reasonably low rates of degradation, unless unanticipated variances are uncovered. These asset integrity plans include consideration of, among other things, process conditions, inspections techniques and frequency, mixing and injection points, and corrosion monitoring locations (CML). These plans will be integrated with the DMR process. A pilot of the asset-strategy plan process has been performed for the crude unit, and asset strategy plans will be implemented for all processing units on an ongoing basis.71 The MOC process is followed including PSSR and tracked in MAXIMO and/or Meridium databases. TLRs can be tracked by assigned due date. The MI SME has a fundamental understanding of the CRVs (IOWs) for the refinery’s various process units and good knowledge of the potential damage mechanisms. This understanding is required to establish and maintain an inspection program that yields the highest probability of detecting potential damage. In the past, Chevron’s Reliability Department developed corrosion- profile analysis documents for the refinery’s process units that included CRVs, specification breaks, material of construction, and corrosion mechanisms for the various processes (these were documented on process flow diagrams). The corrosion analysis profiles were not maintained as PSI, and, in the past, these profiles have not been updated as a critical PSM document. The new initiatives should correct this situation. In addition, the MI department is adding more staff to conduct the accelerated ITPM inspections and documentations. Chevron Richmond Manufacturing has a Shaping Plan that lists many objectives around inspections, damage mechanisms, leak repairs and organizational capability. The Refinery Fixed Equipment management team should continue their program to upgrade their MI programs. Based on employee interviews as part of this evaluation, CUSA is (1) adding more inspectors and resources to perform identified ITPM task activities; (2) reorganizing the MI management organization to improve management of MI data; and (3) implementing the appropriate ITPM tasks for refinery piping process including appropriate damage mechanisms for the specific process and conditions. CUSA is obtaining the resources to bring the present program up to industry best practices. ITPM plans in use for the refinery were found to be incomplete for some process operating conditions. As listed on a public access website maintained by CUSA (http://chevronmodernization.com), prior to and during this safety evaluation, the refinery also undertook a component-by-component inspection of all individual carbon steel piping components exposed to high-temperature sulfidation conditions. The inspection followed newly implemented inspection guidelines consistent with API 939-C – Guidelines for Avoiding Sulfidation (Sulfidic) Corrosion Failures in Oil Refineries and Updated Inspection Strategies for Preventing Sulfidation Corrosion Failures in Chevron Refineries (Sept. 30, 2009). The inspection program has been divided into two primary phases: Phase one calls for the inspection of piping components in service with temperatures above 500° F, and phase two calls for inspection of piping components in service with temperatures between 450° and 500° F. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 257 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 39 As of March 2014, the refinery had inspected nearly 19,000 individual piping components, including all high-priority piping components operating at or above 500° F. The inspection program is scheduled to be complete by August 2014. Pursuant to the inspection program, components are replaced as needed, and additional corrosion monitoring locations (CMLs) are being added where the inspections indicate higher corrosion rates.72 A pilot program for DMRs was underway also. The refinery is addressing items identified during this pilot study; the refinery needs to update the MI procedures to complete implementation of this project. For example: Per the City of Richmond website for the Richmond refinery “Chevron Modernization Project Environmental Impact Report”73, Appendix 4.13-REL_r2:74 “Chevron has a best practice for managing sulfidation corrosion, Inspection Strategies for Preventing Sulfidation Corrosion Failures in Chevron Refineries, (Chevron, 2009). It is based on the guidelines in API-939-C, Guidelines for Avoiding Sulfidation (Sulfidic) Corrosion in Oil Refineries (API-939, 2009), supplemented by Chevron’s personal experience with this damage mechanism. Therefore, based on several considerations, including the past sulfidation failure incidents and their sulfidation best practice, which stipulates specification of 9CR piping at sulfidation temperatures greater than 525 °F, Chevron is planning on replacing 17 piping circuits currently either carbon steel or 5Cr-1Mo with 9Cr-1Mo at the next scheduled turnaround in 2017, plus four partial circuit replacements (Table A4.13-REL-5 and Table A4.13-REL-6). This Reviewer agrees that this decision is an appropriate one to mitigate risk uncertainty associated with future sulfidation failures.” Prior to this DMR pilot program, the Richmond refinery MI program identified and addressed specific corrosion mechanisms in the MI program but did not uniformly consider damage mechanisms consistent with the refinery operating conditions, as identified by the Chevron corporate best practices. As a result, some of the Richmond refinery processing unit process piping that Chevron corporate recognized as subject to high-temperature sulfidation corrosion is not constructed from Chevron specified materials of construction. Further, affected portions of these piping circuits were not inspected frequently enough or completely enough to address the original/mixed specification piping, considering current operating conditions. Best practices MI programs integrate DMR program results into MI and PHA procedures. ITPM plans were not developed for all process piping sections. ITPM plans did not always consider damage mechanisms, design data, CRV, guidelines, etc. when developing the plans. MI data in Meridium could not easily be correlated to P&IDs and PFDs, making it more difficult to share MI data with employees, such as PHA team members. At the time of this evaluation, Richmond CUSA was implementing inspection of each carbon steel component exposed to sulfidation conditions. The Refinery MI programs should be based on positive material identification (PMI), understanding of possible damage mechanisms, CRV, best practices in piping design (material of construction determination, sizing, corrosion allowance, fabrication, etc.). The programs must also account for changes in process conditions.75,76 Piping systems installed in the 1960s that are subject to high-temperature sulfidation corrosion should be inspected at every component (because the exact material of construction is not known and cannot be determined with non- destructive testing methods) to ensure their integrity. Piping system failures can be catastrophic. To address this need, the refinery is transitioning to a circuit-based ITPM plan for piping. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 258 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 40 The Richmond Refinery uses their MOC tracking system to address process safety-related online temporary repairs, which include communication and tracking of open TLRs. As part of the MOC process, when process safety temporary repairs have been executed, the area operators are notified to ensure awareness and monitoring of the repaired piece of equipment. Awareness of this information is critical during unit upsets, possible leak identification and emergency response. Recommendation 13 Revise the TLR policy/program to require operators to check more often for leaks while a TLR is in place. As described above, at the time of the Safety Evaluation of the Richmond Refinery, refinery management was making improvements in their reliability organization to provide more mechanical integrity oversight and to improve process safety work processes. For piping systems containing highly hazardous materials, these improvements were being based on API RP 584 and appropriate API codes and standards such as API RP 571, API 580, and API 939-C and refinery operating experience. PII (with the assistance of CCHMP staff) selected 10 critical process lines and reviewed the ITPM data for these piping systems. All of the lines had external inspections and thickness measures within the 5 years before the Safety Evaluation. Two (2) of the ten (10) piping systems were 6 months past the 5-year “typical” external inspection frequency. Data for one of the pipe systems made no mention of the calculated remaining life (which can be derived from the measured thickness, based on the rate of corrosion observed). All other piping systems had remaining life of 6 to 60 years. None of the piping records referenced API RP 584. The ITPM for these piping systems also did not reference API RP 584. Chevron currently plans to: Accelerate inspections of process piping system based on criteria in API 571 and API 584. Develop and implement improved MI procedures on how to ensure the mechanical integrity of process piping, vessels, and storage tanks using guidance from API 584 and API 571. (As mentioned earlier, the refinery is transitioning to circuit-based approach for ITPM of piping.) Chevron should follow through on plans to improve piping ITPM by using appropriate API codes and standards and Chevron’s operating experience to develop MI procedures and practices to guide MI inspectors. Guidance should include: API RP 571 Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry API RP 574 Inspection Practices for Piping System Components API RP 939-C Guidelines for Avoiding Sulfidation (Sulfidic) Corrosion Failures in Oil Refineries API RP 584 Integrity Operating Windows – This RP explains the importance of IOWs for process safety management and guides users in how to establish and implement an IOW program for refining and petrochemical process facilities for the express purpose of avoiding unexpected equipment degradation leading to loss of containment. It is not the intent of this document to provide a list of specific IOWs for the numerous types of hydrocarbon process units in the industry (though some generic examples are provided in the text and in Appendix A). Rather, it provides the user with information and guidance on the work process for development and implementation of IOWs. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 259 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 41 Chevron’s operating experience and guidance from Chevron MI SME. Recommendation 14 Follow through on plans to improve piping ITPM by using appropriate API codes, standards, and Chevron’s operating experience, to develop MI procedures and practices to guide MI inspectors. Complete the current plans to determine which piping systems are most susceptible to corrosion issues, especially sulfidation and high-temperature hydrogen attack. To achieve the highest probability of detecting potential damage in process piping, audit and as necessary, complete the development and implementation of DMR and ITPM for process piping sections. This should be based on an understanding of process/operating conditions and resulting damage mechanisms. Use damage mechanisms appropriate for the units and operating conditions, such as high-temperature sulfidation, high-temperature hydrogen attack, and hydrochloric acid (HCl) corrosion. Currently, when an integrity threat is detected by the Asset Integrity (AI) inspection department, the ABU team is required to develop a mitigation plan. A form is submitted and approved by the ABU, the Fixed Equipment Integrity Manager (FEIM), and the inspector. Integrity threats are grouped together and managed separately (from other equipment deficiencies) to ensure that they are given top priority (to prevent loss of containment) relative to other reliability issues. At the time of this evaluation, the integrity threat form and a flowchart developed for training were the only documents that define ABU responsibility for the Integrity Threat process. A formal document refinery instruction (RI), procedure or guideline defining the integrity threat process is needed. Per input from refinery management, the Chevron Manufacturing Fixed Equipment Integrity- Threat Work Process (with Richmond additions) was updated September 14, 2013. The equipment integrity-threat work process describes tracking threats, inspector testing and analysis responsibilities, and the OOA and Business Unit manager responsibilities. The ABU is responsible to ensure equipment is safe to operate or to take appropriate action while a mitigation plan is developed. The Fixed Equipment Inspector is responsible for advising management of any immediate threat to loss of containment and notifying the FEI Lead Person of the situation status. The FEI and FEI Lead Person are also responsible for issuing integrity threat forms to document what mitigation is taken. They are also charged to follow the work process for identification and resolution of fixed equipment integrity threats to identify, document and implement the resolution. The Fixed Equipment Inspector manages equipment status in Meridium (MI database). MI documentation includes the following information: Line description and line size Service (hydrocarbon, steam, etc.) Suspected damage mechanism Target completion date (date when work should be completed in field) Description of the corrosion o Internal/external o Size and location of the corroded area (e.g., uniform wall loss, circumferential, or isolated pitting) o Corrosion rate if known or state that it is not known or not linear o Mark up P&ID or isometric drawing to show location August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 260 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 42 o Any pictures as appropriate Fixed equipment area lead, team lead, or FEIM are responsible to review and approve integrity threat by completing the following: o Ensure inspection recommendation information is complete (per job aide) including (1) damage mechanism and (2) basis for initial target completion date o Select name in the final approver name field o Change the status from created to approved (if the team approves the actions) o Notify Reliability Administrator to issue Inspection Recommendation (IREC) on integrity threat form Also, according to management, the new initiative ensures that after the appropriate communication of the integrity threat to the Business Unit and stakeholders for approvals, the OOA develops a resolution plan with team resources. The RBM consults with the FEIM if additional time is required to develop the resolution plan or when the target completion date for the recommended action will not be met. The technical SME conducts the initial engineering evaluation to identify if equipment is at/below flag thickness, and the SME notifies the ABU of the findings and consults with the Fixed Equipment Inspector as needed for additional information. The RBM approves the integrity threat resolution plan and due date by signing the integrity threat form. He then returns the form with the documented resolution plan and due date to the FEIM for approval. The OOA issues a maintenance work request if needed and assigns responsibilities to other groups as needed to execute the plan. The OOA meets periodically with the team to track status of resolution until implementations are complete. Also, the RBM proactively monitors the ABU resolution plan implementation to help ensure completion by the due date. The OOA works with the area team to determine if the integrity threat requires mitigation until the resolution can be implemented. The Fixed Equipment Integrity Manager approves integrity threat resolution plans, assigns the due date and mitigation plan with due date (if mitigation is required) by signing the integrity threat form. Then per this new plan, the Fixed Equipment Inspector updates integrity threat target completion dates in Meridium to reflect the agreed upon resolution and/or mitigation due date. If mitigation is required, the Meridium target completion date will be the agreed upon mitigation completion date until mitigation is complete. The FEI verifies that resolution and/or mitigation of the integrity threat is complete. The approved resolution documentation must be approved by the FEI Lead or FEIM. Recommendation 15 Follow through on the current initiative to develop a policy and procedures (refinery instruction [RI], procedure, or guideline) that describes the process, roles, and responsibilities for the integrity threat process. Currently, whenever it is necessary to bypass or disable a safety instrumented function (SIF) within the safety-instrumented system (SIS), the shift team leader (STL) initiates the bypass process. A “Safety Device Bypass Waiver” is submitted requiring final approval/authorization by the Operations Manager. SIF bypass is included as a topic in the daily turnover to ensure that personnel are aware in the field. At the time of this evaluation, these bypasses had no time limitations. Best practice is to have an instruction that identifies time limits for different integrity levels, acceptable replacement or mitigation options when it appears that prompt repair (within the expected Mean Time to Repair for the SIF) is not possible, and the roles and responsibilities for making these decisions. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 261 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 43 Recommendation 16 Develop and implement a formal procedure and process to ensure that SIFs are not bypassed for an indeterminate amount of time. Have an instruction that identifies (1) time limits for different integrity levels, (2) acceptable replacement or mitigation options when it appears that prompt repair (within the expected Mean Time to Repair) is not possible, and (3) the roles and responsibilities for making these decisions. These should be consistent with industry guidelines, such as those found in ANSI/ISA 84 or the Guidelines for Safe Automation of Chemical Processes, second edition, from CCPS/AIChE. PII staff are concerned with the current ITPM practice used at the refinery for individual “smart” transmitter installations in process safety critical service. Note that the reliability of “smart” transmitters is a factor when considering the frequency of initiating events and the PFD of SIFs, if a smart transmitter is used in a SIF. According to management, the refinery follows the manufacturer’s recommendation to replace “smart” transmitters upon failure. “Smart” installations are configured so that the transmitter element is part of the transmitter body. They do not receive any PM; they are pre-calibrated and limited in the factory, and if there is ever a problem, the whole assembly requires replacement. Management states that the practice at the refinery is to replace the transmitter completely, which they assert is consistent with recommended practices. Critical equipment in the refinery has redundant instrumentation loops attached. The process indicators using smart transmitters feed back to the control system and can alarm when inconsistent readings are identified at the control board to indicate to operations that one of the transmitters has failed. Several process safety issues are associated with “run to failure” (RTF) operation for safety- critical equipment, most importantly how any SIF evaluation is impacted by an intentional failure probability of 1. As an example, with CUSA process safety critical smart transmitter installations, effective ITPM should track transmitter operating hours and replace transmitters before manufacturer’s mean time to equipment failure has elapsed to prevent an instrument failure probability of 1 (unity). In addition, CUSA would need to track service life and actual time to failure for each process safety smart transmitter. Additionally, CUSA would have to analyze this data to validate that design, construction, maintenance and operating methods do not shorten manufacturer’s recommended replacement schedules. “Run to failure” is an unacceptable process safety mechanical integrity philosophy, it is only acceptable if the loss does not increase the risk of a process safety incident or if the loss (failure) is well announced. CUSA has determined that their smart transmitters provide “well announced failures.” CUSA Richmond should develop a detailed list for each process safety smart transmitter installed in the refinery and reevaluate the process safety implications for “run to failure” operations. For example, a work order should be documented for each process safety smart transmitter replacement in Maximo. Yet, many are not documented this way, since these instruments are associated within the records of parent equipment such as a pump, compressor, vessel, furnace, etc. The process safety instrumentation that is not smart and shows no completed PMs in Maximo may be in a “station fill” work order, grouped collectively under one work order per unit or per area. Recommendation 17 Periodically test process safety “Smart” transmitter installations as part of the ITPM. Otherwise, process safety Smart transmitters that are run to failure should have notes to that effect in the inspection, test, and PM database. If the transmitter is run to failure, then each failure and replacement should be documented. The refinery should track the failure rate of process safety Smart August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 262 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 44 transmitters to determine whether to change the ITPM practices (e.g., decide not to run to failure). The refinery should develop a procedure and analysis for how different “criticality level” (process safety) instruments are maintained and tested to deliver consistent equipment and instrument availability. These safeguards and SIS require a proper management system. Safe, fast, efficient, and effective maintenance turnarounds are critical across the refining industry. CUSA uses a process originally developed in 1996 called the Initiative for Managing Pacesetter Turnarounds (IMPACT). The seven-step IMPACT process provides structure for planning and executing turnarounds, with a focus on achieving the four major goals of successful turnarounds: Safety & Environmental, Reliability (Mechanical Availability), Schedule and Cost. Turnaround work orders are managed in the IMPACT database. The ABUs review these in advance, and dates are set going into a turnaround. The ABU is responsible to ensure that resolving temporary repairs, PMs that need to be executed during shutdown mode, and SIS testing (in the future, when SIS are implemented at the Richmond Refinery) are all included on the work scope. The Impact Team Lead (ITL) controls Break-ins (unplanned work not including discovery work resulting from planned inspections). Occasionally they are elevated to the Decision Review Board, which is comprised of the RBM and other refinery departmental managers. The Maintenance Turnaround Teams (and associated managers) have primary responsibility for: Safe work, Reliable completion of all Engineering work orders and maintenance, Schedule adherence, and Cost to ensure a reliable start up and continued reliable operations. They define the scope of work during the turnaround window to limit schedule changes, shorten the turnaround where possible, and manage the cost (cost of repair and production revenue). These competing priorities could result in delaying (or deleting from a turnaround plan) some repairs, including work that affects the risk at the refinery. Such changes to the plan are currently carefully scrutinized by senior management and technical staff, to ensure the risk is not increased beyond tolerable limits. (See related data and comments found in the US CSB investigation report.) The PMI program for new components made of alloys appears to be thorough from as-received to as-welded/installed. This will provide good control of accelerated corrosion that would otherwise occur if the wrong materials are used. Based on document reviews and interviews conducted during this evaluation, it does not appear that a baseline PMI has been conducted across the refinery. (However, several staff mentioned that a baseline PMI was in progress, with first priority going to the units with higher inherent risk of corrosion.) Some refineries in the USA and many in other countries completed a 100% baseline PMI inspection of alloys more than 10 years ago. Recommendation 18 CUSA should address the following gaps in the MI quality assurance (QA) programs, which create significant potential for loss of containment incidents: August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 263 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 45 Develop a positive material identification policy, procedure and practice for all process areas where the wrong material of construction can cause loss of containment of a hazardous material. This would include areas where alloys are used, high-silicon steel is used, and killed steel is used. Complete the 100% baseline PMI for alloys in the refinery as quickly as possible to identify refinery equipment and piping locations with high risk for loss of containment incidents. (Completion within 2 to 3 years is possible with proper priority and resources.) In addition, verify projected remaining life of any equipment and/or piping systems that contain hydrocarbons and/or process chemicals identified as Integrity Threats during refinery turnarounds. The Integrity Threat Assessment should be completed and temporary/permanent repairs implemented before startup. Also, include appropriate upper management approval of prescribed temporary repairs. While reviewing MI records on more than 30 vessels, drums and columns, the review team discovered integrity issues with one vessel (V-421) (condensate pot built in 1950s) in the Cracking Alkylation Plant. In a 2005 inspection, the inspector noted that the vessel was constructed in-house. California codes specify that the refinery would have to supply engineering calculations and verify that material and construction techniques meet code requirements. There was no evidence that this deficiency had been addressed. Note that this is a small vessel; too small for humans to enter. One of the issues that we observed is that some vessels were only getting “external” inspections and not internal inspections as per API 510 Section 6. Because the vessels are not accessible (too small of a diameter to allow full access to the bottom of the vessel), a complete internal inspection was not possible. In addition, the points of inspection were not changed to ensure that data was accurate. Recommendation 19 Upgrade the current visual inspection policy, program and checklist to include locating nameplate information on small vessels/drums/columns. Determine if internal inspections can be performed adequately on these small vessels using boroscopes. Complete engineering calculations and verify materials and construction for vessel/drums/columns without nameplates (see V-421 as one example). 4.1.6 Training At the time of the on-site portion of this Safety Evaluation, newly hired operators start on-site in the Basic Operator Training (BOT) class, which is part of CUSA’s “Global Fundamental Operator Training Program” (FOTP). Here they receive a combination of web-based and instructor-led training classes designed to establish a strong foundation in operations, process, and safety fundamentals from the beginning. This includes Loss Prevention Safety (behavior- based safety) training and PSM training. After BOT, they are assigned to individual units and attend a formal job training class (completed each time that a different job is to be learned). New operators must complete a formal written test before joining a crew. Once they complete the test, the operators then are assigned to their crew to follow (piggyback with) a senior operator under the close observation of a Head Operator. The ABU establishes new Job Break-In Checklists (NJBI) for each role. The operator completes an oral test in the field with their Head Operator and Shift Team Leader to verify Emergency procedures and plant knowledge. This includes safe work practices, such August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 264 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 46 as Lock-out/Tag-out (LOTO), Hot Work, and Confined Space Entry (CSE), in the area where they will be working. In the Sulfur Recovery Unit (SRU) that we observed in more detail, this OJT appeared best in class, with consistent high levels of competency of the senior operator and lead operator doing the OJT. Operators in some other units commented that the level of competency and level of willingness of the field trainers (senior operator or lead operator they were shadowing) were inconsistent, and in some cases lacking. Some portions of CUSA’s initial and new hire training process could be considered as industry best practices. However, not all of these aspects are listed here, since there were plans to improve the program further, as described below. During this evaluation, Chevron began updating the Richmond Refinery formal operator training program to include a performance agreement with the represented employees. PII learned that this agreement was dated 3/24/2015 (Follow-up on this action will occur in the next new phase of on-site evaluation). The agreement reportedly outlines performance expectations such as: (1) Classroom participation requirements; (2) Periodic assessment requirements; (3) Schedule for the training (nine weeks); and (4) Field activities that require the operator to: a. Identify various pieces of equipment, b. Identify contents of piping and vessels, c. Identify potential safety risks, and d. Describe the process. Per refinery management, the training includes a comprehensive examination at the midpoint and conclusion, which require a minimum score of 80% correct to pass. After completing the Refinery FOTP, the operator-in-training will be assigned to an operating area. The operator-in- training will participate in an OJT program that focuses on developing the skill, knowledge and competencies required to perform operator responsibilities. The OJT will include job-shadowing, classroom training, and on-the-job training. The operator-in-training is expected to demonstrate growth in skill and knowledge through successful completion of written evaluations, checklists, situational problems, and field tests. The operator-in-training will be required to complete formal classroom training, break-in checklist, solo written and oral tests, and situational and panel oral and written tests. Details of the training activities can be found in the Richmond Refinery Fundamental Training Guidelines, Volume I, Section 3; Operator Training. Operators-in-training will be trained on three operator jobs within the first three years of employment. After completing the training program, the operator will graduate and be promoted to the role of a Fully Qualified operator. Recommendation 20 Consider updating the OJT process to include feedback from the trainee operators on how the senior operator trainers (field trainers) performed training activities. Validation of training checklist quality and thoroughness could help the consistency of training given to new operators during OJT. Upon successful completion of tests and field demonstrations, the new operator is allowed to “Solo” – taking over in the new position but still under close observation by colleagues. During the solo period, the Head Operator evaluates new operator progress through a prescribed series of “situationals,” operating scenarios for which the new operator must demonstrate a clear understanding of the process and describe the proper actions and responses. A “situational” is five to ten in-depth equipment and plant questions designed to help the new operator with the learning process. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 265 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 47 At the time of this safety evaluation, new operators would return for Phase II of FOTP 1.0. Now that they have some practical experience as operators, they are introduced to a “deeper dive” into additional operations and safety topics such as process equipment and various refinery instructions (RIs). They will return for Phase III FOTP 2.0, Operator Troubleshooting. Then, they will return for their final new-hire class, Phase IV FOTP 3.0, Advanced Operator Training. New operators will demonstrate proficiency in the situationals. The Head Operator (HO) then will determine that they are ready for a “Panel” (starting with a written test). Upon operators’ successful completion of the written test, the employees’ supervisor, Head Operator, and area trainer interview them. Passing this “Panel” interview is the final phase of new operator training for the specified job. Operator refresher training consists primarily of computer based training (CBT) modules combined with a review process with the trainer. The training mostly centers on a review of operating procedures, panel written testing material, and Electronic Operating Manual information. Interview data suggests that the operators do not feel that this is adequate. In particular, they think the CBT mode of training (without workshops or discussion time with an expert) is very weak. Sometime in the past, annual refresher training was done completely in a classroom setting, where operators in the same jobs could discuss common issues and learn from each other’s experience. Many operators appreciated the value of these refresher-training classes and expressed a strong desire to return to classroom training. CUSA management indicates that CBT facilitates Control Board Operators from multiple plants to complete refresher training using the high-fidelity simulator with smaller classes or one-on-one sessions with their trainers. CBT also allows for practicing Emergency, start up and shutdown procedures. In a compliance interpretation letter on October 11, 1994 (to ICF Kaiser Engineers), related to emergency response refresher training (not to training in general), OSHA stated that using CBT alone for refresher training is not adequate and should be supplemented with discussion with a qualified trainer and, after refresher training, performance audits of the worker in the field.77 PII agrees and believes the same applies to refresher training related to any activity performed in the field/unit, especially operations and maintenance activities. Recommendation 21 Consider incorporating different modes of refresher training. These could include classroom discussion and reviews, field walks, table-top reviews, group/control room training and CBT reviews. For example, if CBT is used for standardized training topics, then use facilitated sessions to discuss troubleshooting methods and review role-specific procedures. To promote “buy-in” (i.e., employee participation) and operators’ retention of skills and knowledge, include operators in the design and delivery of these classes. Each shift team executes “hypotheticals” monthly to address planning, scheduling, executing, and critique of response to hypothetical emergency situations. Currently, each shift is responsible for creating their hypotheticals. Lessons learned are documented, but these are not consistently shared throughout the units or the refinery. Including PHA scenarios in operations situationals (related to emergency response) and hypotheticals would create excellent learning opportunities. The “hypothetical emergency drills” are a more intensive level of “hypothetical,” which test the operation and maintenance groups’ emergency response capabilities. These are designed to August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 266 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 48 improve the unit’s ability to respond to actual emergencies. The policy at the time of this evaluation was to: (1) Use the emergency shutdown procedure; (2) Test the ability of crew personnel to initiate the evacuation plan; (3) Demonstrate scene emergency coordination between plant operators and Chevron Fire Department personnel responding to scenarios (such as a gas release); (4) Demonstrate the use of emergency response equipment for a tank seal fire; and/or (5) Demonstrate the use of emergency notification procedures in response to a large release of a hazardous material. The drill objectives are to improve response to a documented hypothetical for a realistic emergency scenario. The hypothetical drill should be realistic and address objectives identified in Richmond Refinery Instruction RI-465 Hypotheticals. Industry best practices are to have an emergency action plan for realistic emergencies where there could be a large release of a highly hazardous material (such as tank seal fire, compressor failure, and/or loss of containment of flammable liquids and/or gases). Normally the PHA is the best source of scenarios to use in selecting a hypothetical drill. The action plan should include the following elements, at a minimum: Emergency escape procedures and emergency escape route assignments; Procedures to be followed by employees who remain to operate critical plant operations before they evacuate; Procedures to account for all employees after emergency evacuation has been completed; Rescue and medical duties for those employees who are to perform them; The preferred means of reporting fires and other emergencies; and Names or regular job titles of persons or departments who can be contacted for further information or explanation of duties under the plan. The action plan should address, as a minimum, the hazard of the situations, such as: How to activate the fire protection systems, How to evacuate the area, How to set up the response zones, How to isolate a loss of containment to minimize the size of the release, When to respond and under what conditions, and When not to respond to an emergency (potential explosion, flash fire, catastrophic failure of a piping system containing highly hazardous materials, etc.). It is important that key lessons learned during hypotheticals are documented and shared throughout the refinery where employees could be impacted by an actual scenario. Recommendation 22 Consider developing appropriate hypotheticals and situationals for use in training operators to handle scenarios that may lead to a catastrophic outcome. These should be taken from critical safety scenarios identified in incidents and in the PHA process (and in other brainstorming activities). Consider providing August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 267 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 49 additional structure and guidance around the refinery-wide practice of hypotheticals, such as table-top reviews of response to an emergency, performed within an operator’s shift. Process Control Operator (PCO or board operator) training includes time training on the process simulators. These realistic control room settings are designed to look and respond as closely as possible to the way the actual process would respond to inputs and upsets. CUSA also has an initiative underway to identify the essential competencies needed to be a successful PCO. Continued efforts in this area are expected to enhance situational awareness, troubleshooting, and response capabilities for operators assigned to these critical positions. At least one PHA team recommended that operators receive additional PCO simulator training to increase operator understanding of how to react to process deviations. However, the additional training was declined during the ABU PHA recommendation review meeting. Following the on-site Safety Evaluation, CUSA management indicates simulator training was added to refresher training, with consideration given to operator concerns. Training for engineers at Chevron combines OJT and formal classroom training. New engineers attend six weeks of Chevron Technical University (CTU) to help them develop: Knowledge of the refinery industry, Equipment and technologies, Fundamental engineering calculations, Engineering design, Corrosion mechanisms and mechanical integrity, and Instrumentation and safety systems. The manufacturing fundamentals segment of the training covers: Process Safety Management (PSM), Project Evaluation Planning, Environmental Health Screening, Safety in Design (tread widths, design of valves, location of equipment for access, plot plan development), Job Hazard Analysis, Hazard Awareness, and Field Safety Manual training. Engineers also train on the Chevron Project Development and Execution Process (CPDEP) to ensure the successful development and execution of projects. Project Management Boot Camp is provided for less experienced Project Managers. Chevron subject matter experts teach courses in a classroom setting. Furthermore, competency development is ongoing, using a combination of online courses through the refinery Learning Management System (LMS) and classroom training, to continue to build technical, safety and soft skill competencies. Engineers often rotate through other workgroups or facilities to give them broader exposure and to further their development. Finally, engineers often rotate through units to get broader exposure and to learn more about operators and shift-work. 4.1.7 Operating Procedures Type of Required Written Instructions for Richmond Refinery Approximate Number Operating Procedures 1293 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 268 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 50 The Richmond Refinery has approximately 2,482 Written Instructions for Operations and Maintenance. RI-124 describes the “Requirements for Operations Work Instructions,” with assigned responsibilities for RBM, SH, RSL, OOA, STL, HO, CO, FO, Section Trainer, M&P specialist and operators. The Pre-Use Review portion of RI-124 directs the following (abridged): STL and HO (both for critical; HO only otherwise) sign and date Work Instructions (WI) for suitability, and confirm affected crewmembers have reviewed the applicable WI. For identified discrepancies, HO makes necessary changes and conducts HSE with STL and crew prior to execution as needed. RI-124 directs WI users to apply appropriate Sign-Offs, addresses multiple person operating instructions, Multiple-Shift Execution and WI retention. RI-124 section 4.4 addresses “Changes to Work Instruction.” This section and the Pre-Use Review and Appropriate Sign-Offs sections provide the prescribed methods to ensure Operations Work Instructions are ready for operator use and completed accordingly. The Head Operator (and Shift Team Leader for critical WIs) review and sign off on Work Instructions as accurate and complete before each use. Per RI-124, operators should review and confirm with HO that Work Instruction is ready for use, or redlined (with MOC) if necessary. RSL, STL, HO and operators share responsibility to ensure Work Instructions are reviewed, approved for use, and used/completed/signed as directed. It is not apparent RI-124 procedures are used to correct deficiencies. Evidence suggests that some procedures are updated routinely (several times per year), while others have not been revised since their original issue (>10 years ago), perhaps meaning no changes were needed in the past 10 years or so for that procedure. The Safety Evaluation team did not make a direct comparison of the procedure review/revision history and the relative percent accuracy of the procedures (discussed later), but some procedures had a significant number of errors (as discussed later). RI-124 section 4.6 “Certification of Electronic Operating Manuals” specifies Work Instruction validation processes and schedules. Per section 4.6, all operating procedures are formally reviewed on a 3-year EMMS triennial review cycle. However, this review process does not require that they are walked down by SMEs and revalidated in the field. Section 4.6 also references Field Verification Pre- and Post-use review (probably operator and HO) as a WI validation process. Per the 2012 Chevron Corporate Major Incident Survey (MIS), “Procedures or Safe Work Practices” were cited more frequently than any other root cause category. For 128 of the 167 events studied (77%), one or more root causes fell into the Procedures or Safe Work Practices category.” Furthermore, “approximately 65% of these events involved issues with Operating and Maintenance (O&M) procedures and various work instructions, compared to Managing Safe Work (MSW) standards themselves.” Procedures were also listed as the second most frequent root cause of incidents in the 2008 MIS. Only Risk Awareness ranked higher. PII has found similar data from review of more than 2000 process safety incidents around the world. Of these, when a proper root cause analysis is performed, about 90% of accidents have “procedure deficiency” as one of the root causes.78,79 To independently evaluate the accuracy (correctness, completeness, and clarity for comprehension) of procedures at Chevron Richmond, PII staff and select CCHMP staff walked down 38 operating procedures in the field (~2.9% of the total estimate of operating procedures). PII scored 34 of these operating procedures for content accuracy. PII based scoring on comments from the operators in the field on whether the steps written are what they actual do.80 Maintenance Procedures 450 Emergency Procedures 739 Total (approx.) 2482 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 269 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 51 The approach for the procedure walk-down began with the refinery providing the operating procedure title list to PII. Then, PII would choose a refinery unit and a procedure title from within the unit. The refinery then arranged for the walk-down in the unit by scheduling the operator (sometimes the walk-down was rescheduled one day later to allow a relief operator to be arranged for the operator who was performing the walk-down). The procedure was printed and signed out to PII staff an hour or two before the walk-down. One (or sometimes two) PII staff (with the proper PPE and with a management-appointed safety escort) would meet a senior unit operator in the control room and sign into the unit. The group would then check with unit staff to confirm there were no safety issues in the unit. Thereafter, the senior operator, PII auditor, and the escort would proceed to mimic execution of the procedure in the field (without changing the state of the process/unit), including climbing ladders and standing and viewing exactly what the operator would see and where they had to reach to accomplish each step. The procedure used by the operator was marked up as discrepancies were noted. The operator’s statements of how to perform the task were taken as the basis for judging the accuracy of the steps. This decision was based on two factors: (1) PII’s experience performing many such audits at other refineries, petrochemical plants, and similar chemical process sites has shown that what the operator says is generally accurate. (2) Operators author the operating procedures. For the first 18 procedure walk-downs, several (sometimes many) other personnel followed the trio mentioned above. In several cases, some of the others (especially third-party PSM consultants hired by CUSA) would encroach into the discussion of how to do these steps. Since most areas of a refinery are relatively noisy, this made a tight squeeze in some areas of the units. Despite initial crowded conditions and the distractions by managers and lawyers who also accompanied some of these walk-downs, operators appeared to be very candid and forthcoming about where the documented operating procedure steps were wrong or missing. The operators also pointed out many human factor engineering or work environment issues. The PII staff member used a procedure-writing checklist and human-factors checklist to record observations on the clarity of the procedures and on human factor issues observed in the units. Inaccurate content can mean a step is missing, a step is wrong, or a step is out of sequence. Each inaccurate step was counted as one mistake in the procedure. The sum of the number of erroneous steps was divided by the total number of written steps in the procedure section reviewed in the field. The average accuracy of content was 84.4%, with a standard deviation of 12% and a range of 50-100% accuracy. Seven of 34 procedures reviewed had 95 to 100% accurate step content. Six of 34 procedures reviewed had between 90% and 95% accurate step content. Eleven of 34 procedures reviewed had less than 90% but at least 80% accurate step content. Six of 34 procedures had between 80% and 70% accurate step content. Four of 34 procedures were below 70% accurate step content. Note that accuracy varied widely between procedures from different operating unit. Some were in very good shape while others have higher rates of inaccuracies. For example, the SRU operating procedures that were walked down were in the upper range of accuracy: 95-100% accuracy for steps. This corresponds with the excellent OJT we observed in that same unit. From PII data previously collected by interviews across more than 100 operating sites (not including Richmond Refinery):81 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 270 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 52 Nearly all workers will ignore a procedure that is 70% accurate or worse. Greater than 50% will ignore a procedure that is about 80% accurate. More than 80% of the staff will follow good procedures, which are about 95% accurate. Excellent procedures are 98% accurate or better; nearly all staff respect such procedures. Note that the 84% accuracy of content at the Richmond Refinery is better than the roughly 75% average of the facilities measured by PII. Despite this favorable comparison to peers, significant improvement in procedures in some units is possible. From the results above, PII estimates (interpolating from the refinery sample data above) that about 40% of the operating procedures at the refinery may not be used by operators due to inaccuracy of content. (At most refineries where similar walk-downs were performed, it was estimated that more than 60% of the procedures are not being used by operators.) In addition, erroneous steps in the procedure could lead directly to a cause of an accident, if the erroneous step is performed. Therefore, human error rates are very likely higher than they should be, in the units with poor operating procedure content accuracy. These conclusions appear to be consistent with observations from the internal Chevron Corporate Major Incident Study in 2008 and 2012 that listed procedure inaccuracy as a major concern. Note though, that the sample size, though large compared to other audits, is still small compared to the number of procedures at the refinery. After a larger sample is collected, it should be possible to determine why the procedures are inaccurate in some units and not in others. However, PII believes (based on results from helping many companies develop operating and maintenance procedures) that requiring the written procedures to be walked down (validated) in the field by operators from multiple shifts will help ensure that procedures are 95% or higher accurate. These procedures were also scored for clarity of the content (in addition to accuracy), using a scoring scheme developed by PII 82 that is in turn based on scoring schemes developed by Swain83 and U.S.NRC.84 The results on procedure clarity are discussed in the Human Factors portion of this Safety Evaluation (see Section 4.2). All operating procedures are formally reviewed on a 3-year cycle. However, the review process does not require SMEs to walk down procedures to validate their accuracy. Industry peers have found it necessary to periodically walk down a small sample of procedures to assure procedures stay accurate. Recommendation 23 Implement management systems at the refinery so that procedures are accurate, complete, clear, and consistent with best practices for reducing human error. For example: Develop procedure walk-down instructions for SMEs (i.e., operators) to use when checking a procedure for accuracy and completeness. Provide guidance on addressing (including) human factors/latent conditions for simultaneously evaluating procedure clarity. Walk down enough procedures in the refinery to determine which units fall below 95% accuracy. Rewrite and revalidate as quickly as possible the procedures in the units with accuracy scores lower than 95%. Develop a procedure-updating matrix to focus resources on most critical procedures. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 271 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 53 Have SMEs (i.e., operators for operating procedures, maintenance craft- persons for maintenance procedures) walk down all new procedures in the refinery before they are issued, to ensure accuracy is 95% or above. Complete the upgrade of procedures to follow the best practices for page format and step format. Expand SME expertise in Human Factors using a best practices human- factors checklist during procedure walk-downs so that they can quickly implement control of other human factors. Continue to upgrade the Criticality Index for written instructions to make clear to operators which instructions are procedures, checklists (required for use), or job aids (instructional basic assistance). Because of operating procedures’ significance to process safety, measure OE Leadership and Refinery Safety Culture for Written Instructions (all departments) by implementing KPIs that reflect management commitment and operator buy-in for accurate and useful procedures. Emphasize procedure updates, improved procedure composition to address human factors, walk-down of procedures by a second and perhaps third operator (other than the author), etc. Ensure that a procedural PHA is done on each newly created and/or revised startup, shutdown or emergency procedure before the procedure is released for use. Revise RI-363 Process Hazard Analysis to include roles, responsibilities, procedures and documentation for conducting Procedural PHAs. 4.1.8 Incident Investigation (Root Cause Analysis) TOP (Triangle of Prevention – United Steelworkers) trained investigators (represented workers trained as incident investigators using the TOP method) have the opportunity to request leading investigations. In 2012, TOP investigators requested 126 investigations and 41 requests were accepted. Feedback to the safety-evaluation review team indicated half of the requests received no response. CUSA management indicates investigations were declined because management is allowed to choose from other approved methodologies: 5-Why or TapRoot™. Represented employee feedback regarding declined TOP investigation requests indicated that the TOP methodology always blames management, so management does not want to use that method. Other TOP representatives commented that they were told that management wants to retain the right to discipline employees who may be found at fault. The TOP agreement does include a requirement that no discipline will be given because of the TOP investigation. Chevron management expectations are that discipline is not administered because of incident investigation findings unless there is evidence of neglect or intentional misconduct. Neither the management team nor the union has re-signed the TOP agreement of commitment to safety August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 272 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 54 (there is not a set frequency for re-signing this agreement). TOP representatives have requested training in other methods, specifically TapRoot™. Refinery management has not granted the requests for funding of this training. The refinery does provide training for TOP. TapRoot™ classroom training is conducted for TapRoot™ investigation facilitators, identified by CUSA management. Just-in-time training is conducted before each TapRoot™ investigation and includes all scheduled investigation participants. TapRoot™ investigations are conducted on all API RP-754 Tier 1 incidents and can be used on other incidents. API RP-754 Tier 1 Indicator Definition and Consequences85 A Tier 1 Process Safety Event (T-1 PSE) is a loss of primary containment (LOPC) with the greatest consequence as defined by API RP-754. A T-1 PSE is an unplanned or uncontrolled release of any material, including non-toxic and non-flammable materials (e.g. steam, hot condensate, nitrogen, compressed CO2 or compressed air), from a process that results in one or more of the consequences listed below: Note: Non-toxic and non-flammable materials (e.g., steam, hot water, nitrogen, compressed CO2 or compressed air) have no threshold quantities and are only included in this definition because of their potential to result in one of the other consequences. An employee, contractor or subcontractor “days away from work” injury and/or fatality; A hospital admission and/or fatality of a third-party; An officially declared community evacuation or community shelter-in-place; A fire or explosion resulting in greater than or equal to $25,000 of direct cost to the company; A pressure relief device (PRD) discharge to atmosphere whether directly or via a downstream destructive device that results in one or more of the following four consequences: o Liquid carryover; o Discharge to a potentially unsafe location; o An on-site shelter-in-place; o Public protective measures (e.g. road closure); and a PRD discharge quantity greater than the threshold quantities in Table 1 [API RP-754]; or A release of material greater than the threshold quantities described in Table 1 [API RP-754] in any one-hour period. TOP and 5-Why investigations are conducted for API RC-754 Tier 2 or lower incidents. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 273 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 55 Tier 2 Indicator Definition and Consequences86 A Tier 2 Process Safety Event (T-2 PSE) is a LOPC with lesser consequence. A T-2 PSE is an unplanned or uncontrolled release of any material, including non-toxic and non-flammable materials (e.g. steam, hot condensate, nitrogen, compressed CO2 or compressed air), from a process that results in one or more of the consequences listed below and is not reported in Tier 1: Note: Non-toxic and non-flammable materials (e.g. steam, hot water, nitrogen, compressed CO2 or compressed air) have no threshold quantities and are only included in this definition because of their potential to result in one of the other consequences. An employee, contractor or subcontractor recordable injury; A fire or explosion resulting in greater than or equal to $2,500 of direct cost to the company; A PRD discharge to atmosphere whether directly or via a downstream destructive device that results in one or more of the following four consequences: o Liquid carryover; o Discharge to a potentially unsafe location; o An on-site shelter-in-place; o Public protective measures (e.g. road closure); and a PRD discharge quantity greater than the threshold quantity in Table 2 [API RP-754]; or A release of material greater than the threshold quantities described in Table 2 [API RP-754] in any one-hour period. Results from the Process Safety Culture Written Survey show that 79% of all refinery employees and contractors responded favorably to the following question, “Workers at all levels of my refinery actively participate in Near Loss Incident and Loss Incident investigations.” Responses for hourly operators are 59% and hourly maintenance is 65% favorable for the same questions. This difference in scores between the operator/maintenance level and the engineering/technical levels could be indicative of observed employee involvement vertically within the refinery organization as a whole, but with narrow participation (only a few) within the hourly work group. The difference in opinion is significant from the Safety Culture Interviews, which showed that less than 20% of technical staff and management had a negative view of the incident reporting and investigation at the site, while at the opposite end of the opinion scale, only 20% of the hourly staff had a favorable view of incident reporting and investigation. Interview Survey results of 20% favorable from represented employees indicate they are not convinced of management’s leadership commitment to Near Loss and Loss Incident investigations. (See Section 4.4 for a discussion of how and why written survey results differ from interview data and direct observations of process safety implementation.) To address this important process safety-culture factor, management must demonstrate commitment. Best practices observed by PII (across several industries) at sites that have closed this gap are: Management provides training for investigators; nearly all investigation leaders are from operations and maintenance workers; typically, 10-15% of the workers are trained to be investigators (root cause analysts). All operations and maintenance staff are trained on how to recognize and report near misses and on how to interview peers. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 274 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 56 Selected staff reaches a higher competency to allow them to "quality assure" the results of other investigators (root cause analysts). One or two staff is trained to tabulate and query the data for systemic trends. Management allows the employees the time necessary to investigate incidents and generate reports. Management communicates incidents and lessons learned to all affected employees, and management must forward this information to other sites where the lessons would be important. Management shows an interest in the results and enforces follow-through and documentation of the resolution of recommendations.87 Richmond Refinery can benefit by following the steps listed above. Feedback from employee interviews suggests that most investigations (as much as 90%) use the 5-Whys methodology, led by an area leader/supervisor responsible for the area (first line of management). CUSA follows an incident-reporting matrix that provides specific requirements for investigation methodologies and investigation leadership based on severity of incident. More severe incidents apply TapRoot™ investigations and include Union Representatives. SMEs are not always involved in investigations and do not always agree with the conclusions. For 5-Whys, root causes are categorized by Loss-Prevention System Factors and Solutions. The available solution categories include: Training Develop/Amend Procedure Implement System/Set Expectation Provide/Repair/Replace Tools or Equipment Coach/Discuss and Gain Commitment from Employee, and Minimize/Limit Impact. Per interview feedback, several of the above categories (training, set expectations, coach/discuss/gain commitment) seem to be frequently identified (or at least interpreted by the employee) as operator errors or unsafe behaviors (assigning blame). Divergent views for management and represented employees about the effectiveness of incident investigations and the prescribed solutions are the byproduct of not getting to the root cause(s) for the incident. It also is indicative of a culture that focuses on investigations of the “big stuff” and misses the many opportunities to learn from incidents with little or no current consequences (but with high consequence potential, eventually). Industry of all types recognizes the necessity to investigate incidents and accidents with significant consequences. However, best practices for process safety-incident prevention require leadership initiative and commitment to learn from near misses, i.e., those incidents without actual harm or loss. Investigating near misses is critical to preventing accidents, because near misses share the causes and root causes of accidents. They are one or two barriers away from the loss/accident. Many apparently unrelated accidents likely are prevented when near miss incidents are investigated with effective recommended actions (solutions) that prevent the others, which are obviously related. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 275 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 57 The evaluation team’s records review indicates near miss reporting and TOP incident investigations are in decline, possibly for similar reasons. Industry data indicates that ratios of 50 to 100 near misses reported to loss incidents are possible with the right leadership and systems. The primary industry textbook, Guidelines for Investigating Chemical Process Incidents, 2nd Edition, 2003, CCPS/AIChE, cites the same targets.88, The barriers to getting near misses reported listed in these references are:89,90 1. Fear of disciplinary action 2. Fear of teasing by peers (embarrassment) 3. Lack of understanding of what constitutes a near miss versus a non-incident 4. Lack of management commitment and lack of follow-through once a near miss is reported 5. An apparently high level of effort is required to report and to investigate near misses compared to low return on this investment 6. There is No Way to investigate the thousands of near misses per month or year! 7. Disincentives for reporting near misses (e.g., reporting near misses hurts the department's safety performance) 8. Not knowing which accident investigation system to use (or confusing reporting system) 9. Company discourages near-miss reporting due to fear of legal liability if these are misused by outsiders Some represented employees feel that investigation results tend to blame the employee whenever an incident occurs. (Recall the results from the Safety Culture Interviews: Only 20% of the hourly staff interviewed felt good about incident reporting and investigation.) When incident/accident investigations with major consequences are completed and do not seem to address management system failures as the root causes, then results from other companies indicate that near miss (near loss) reporting and investigation will suffer. It is critical to note that the only definition of a root cause adopted by the chemical-related industries, as stated in the Guidelines for Investigating Chemical Process Incidents (2003), is: A root cause is a fundamental, underlying, system-related reason why an incident occurred that identifies a correctable failure(s) in management systems. There is typically more than one root cause for every process safety incident.91 The ratio of number of reported near loss incidents (NLI) to loss incidents (LI) is 1.6 in 2013, and 2.2 to 2.3 in the previous two years; up from about 0.7 three years ago, indicating marginal improvement. Industry experience as documented in the Guidelines for Investigating Chemical Process Incidents (2003), which includes data from refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants, indicate that near miss to accident ratios of 20:1 or higher are achievable with August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 276 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 58 management leadership (an exceptional organization may achieve 100:1). PII helped to collect much of the data for the research into getting near misses reported. From the data, near miss reporting does not help to reduce the likelihood of losses/accidents until the ratio is greater than about 5, and miss reporting and investigation begin to significantly help drop accidental losses when the ratio is above 10. Most companies initially target a ratio of 15 or 20. Based on Richmond Refinery reported ratios in the 1 to 2 range, most near misses are not being reported and investigated. Each NLI has about 50% of the root causes as an LI 92, so at a ratio of 2 near loss incidents to 1 loss incident, the refinery may be currently learning an equal amount from each type of incidents (if a good root cause analysis was completed on each type). However, once the refinery achieves a “good” ratio of 20 to 1 and investigates each NLI to root causes, they will find 10 times as many root causes from NLI investigations as they do from LIs. Achieving this level has been instrumental in other facilities reducing losses by 90%. Another way to look at the data is that the refinery is currently missing 90% (compared to a ratio of 20:1) to 98% (compared to a ratio of 100:1) of their root cause data. This is especially critical, because root cause data can tell the refinery precisely where they are weakest. The refinery is experiencing low ratios similar to many in the refining industry, apparently for the same nine (or so) reasons listed above. Other sites and industries have been able to change a ratio from as low as 0.5 to (within one year) reaching ratios of 50 of higher, once the barriers to near miss reporting are reduced or eliminated. The typical barriers cited at the refinery during safety culture individual interviews (discussed in detail later) are: Fear of being blamed by management for mistakes/errors (this is reinforced by mandatory drug testing) Embarrassment Lack of follow-through on previously reported NLIs Confusion over which system to use (CUSA or TOPs) Fear of the extra workload Refinery management can inadvertently reduce near miss reporting by related actions they take. In a recent refinery management decision, a corporate policy to drug test all employees involved in any incident report (if impairment cannot be ruled out as a possible contributing factor) was re-communicated to all refinery staff. The perception was that drug testing would increase following reporting of LIs or NLIs. Indeed, a review of drug testing data from the refinery shows that in 2012, 1.1% of reported incidents resulted in drug testing, and in 2013, 3.8% of reported incidents resulted in drug testing. So, drug testing increased 3-fold. However, the percentage is still relatively low, indicating that the fear of drug testing is higher than the actual percentage of drug testing occurring. To help improve near miss reporting, it may be best for the refinery to restate their drug testing policy related to incident reporting to something akin to: “The refinery reserves the right to administer drug testing, whenever there is evidence of impairment. But it is not the policy of the refinery to drug test simply because there is an LI or NLI.” Fear of mandatory drug testing following reporting of an incident or near miss has driven near miss report down at other facilities. CUSA Richmond should explore methods for increasing Near Loss reporting with emphasis on removing barriers to reporting and then implement effective solutions that identify/resolve root causes (management system weaknesses). Examples from industry are provided below. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 277 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 59 Industry example: Ashland refinery recognized the need to get more near misses reported, to learn what causal factors existed and how to prevent these, by addressing the root causes of the causal factors. Part of the successful approach was to appoint a represented employee (a maintenance mechanic) as the Chief Investigator for the refinery. Many operations and maintenance staff received training. The Chief Investigator coached new investigators, and he ensured investigations reach root causes (management system weaknesses). Near miss reporting greatly improved at the site and accidental losses dropped dramatically. Industry example: Amoco Oil’s offshore business unit in the Gulf of Mexico recognized the need to get more near misses reported, to learn what causal factors existed and how to prevent these, by addressing the root causes of the causal factors. Part of the successful approach was to turn over all investigation responsibility to operators and mechanics and riggers and roustabouts. About 15% of such staff received investigation leader and root cause analyst training. Refresher training was provided after six months. A simple MS Access database was created to store and track incident investigation results and to trend root causes. Within two months of initiating this change and completing the training of investigators, near miss reporting improved to a ratio of about 80 near misses being report per loss event (accident). The ratio before this initiative was less than 1. Accidental losses dropped dramatically. Industry example: A recently updated research paper on the gains from near miss reporting provides many examples of companies that have achieved high near misses reporting. Typically, achieving a ratio of 20 near misses reported versus number of accidents will result in a 90 to 95% reduction in losses (and severity of accidents).93 Recommendation 24 Explore methods to minimize known barriers to near loss incident reporting, including establishing a blame-free zone for all incidents, especially near loss incidents. These steps should include: Simplify investigation and reporting for NLIs. Consider modifying the written drug testing policy and its negative influence when coupled with incident reporting. Ensure only peers interview peers during data collection. Ensure investigations get to root causes (management system failures). Allow hourly staff to take the lead on investigations (as other companies have done). Establish and achieve a NLI/LI ratio goal of 20 or more. Recommendation 25 As mentioned in Recommendation 24, use hourly operators and maintenance workforce more as lead investigators. To facilitate this, consider providing broad training (including to operators and maintenance hourly staff) in the best practices of investigation and root cause analysis methodologies. Note that TOP does not have a Root Cause Coding Tree to ensure investigations reach root causes. Recommendation 26 Consider ways to improve incident investigations. These investigations should be conducted in a balanced, consistent, and timely manner, involve people closest to the work being performed, find root causes, and develop sustainable solutions. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 278 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 60 Refinery management should reinforce that investigations focus on fixing the underlying management systems. They also should reiterate that only management system weaknesses (including those that affect design of equipment and design of tasks) can be root causes. Periodically conduct a management- level review of all incident investigations. The refinery has a Green Card system for reporting unsafe conditions, unsafe acts, or near misses. This system can be anonymous and is one way to capture near misses that might otherwise go unreported. The Green Card system appears to work as intended. Note, though, that anonymous reporting of near misses does not help reduce the likelihood of the related accident: A root cause analysis cannot be performed with the specifics of the incident, because it is not possible to collect the data needed if the incident is reported anonymously. Chevron tracks and closes recommendations from incidents using IMPACT. PII did not find issues with this closure system, other than it appeared that many operators and maintenance craft-persons did not review the closure system as asked to do many times, to review and learn from the recommendations and the closures. 4.2 HUMAN FACTORS Section 2.6 “What Are Human Factors” of this report lists key human factors that any endeavor must try to control. Chevron Richmond recognizes the importance of human factors and has programs in place to address many aspects of human factors. Although significant weaknesses are identified in the control of human factors, the refinery is well ahead of most U.S. Refineries. A great many refineries do not have any program on human factors. General refinery Human Factor program (RI-381) references: RI-384 for Latent Conditions RI-360 for Process Safety Policy RI-363 for addressing human factors in PHAs RI-371 for Event Reporting and Incident Investigation OEM guidelines for writing operating procedures RI-382 for MOC, which includes management of organizational changes (MoOC) Site Safety Plan, which provides an overview of what the site does to comply with requirements from CCHMP in RISO In addition, other corporate standards and refinery instructions (some are mentioned later in this section) cover other categories of human factors control. RI-381 (Human Factors Program) requires training of operating and maintenance staff in human factors, with the PSM department responsible for this training. The Operational Excellence & PSM Manager oversees the sustainability of the Human Factors Program. The online document for the refinery that describes the Operation Excellence program also describes the functioning of the Human Factors committee. There is also a refinery Human Factors Committee (as part of the RISO requirements, and so assigned to RISO team) that includes management, workers, union representatives, PHA rep member, incident investigation and reporting representatives, contractors, and L&D representatives. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 279 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 61 This committee meets monthly. It focuses mainly on Latent Condition as listed in the master checklist by the same name (the Latent Condition Checklist serves as a common ground for discussions of what constitutes human factors). It addresses concerns raised related to reviews conducted using this checklist and from other reviews, such as investigations of incidents. The following summarizes the evaluation team’s findings related to human factors. Also, see the CCHMP audit on the RISO requirements for human factors. 4.2.1 Procedure Clarity Section 4.1.7 describes issues related to procedure content and accuracy. As an additional human factors consideration, the operating procedures do not consistently follow best practices for formatting a page or a step. During the procedure walk-downs, the human factors issues listed below were found with the formatting of the pages and steps of the procedures. Each of these affects the error rate in using the procedure; each factor is independent of the procedure accuracy. Note that the procedure rules that these observations are based upon can be found in papers from PII in Table 3: Procedure Quality Checklist, provided in “Human Factors and Their Optimization” (2012), www.piii.com/resources.94 ,95 These, in turn, are based on rules developed by Swain96 and further enhanced by JBF Associates, ABS Consulting, and PII (see the training materials on procedure writing from these companies). Titles are clear and descriptive, but they are not the largest item on the page. Currently, this will cause minimal impact on human error rates. Document control features are not the smallest items on the page. Currently, this will cause minimal impact on human error rates. White space is effectively used, numbers are very simple, and overall page format is appropriate. This is good. Most steps are written as commands with a single action per step. This is good. Acronyms, jargon, and level of detail are appropriate, common words are used. This is good. Graphics are infrequently used, and when present they are not effective because of poor quality or confusing details. This aspect should be improved across Chevron. Play scripts are used sometimes to coordinate between control board operator and field operators. However, some tasks that require coordination between two or more individuals (such as furnace lighting) in the field are not specified. Further, tasks that require coordination with non-operators (maintenance, process engineering) are not always well defined. This aspect should be improved, especially for the cases where two operators must coordinate activities to accomplish the task. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 280 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 62 Many procedures include redundant information up front (chemical hazards, PPE requirements, etc.). This could be moved to a more general section in the unit operating manual. If these sections remain up front, then make sure any implied actions in these sections are numbered instructions/steps. Prerequisites and assumptions included in introductory materials are useful, since knowledge of the “starting point” is often essential in determining whi ch procedure should be followed. However, these starting assumptions and prerequisites should be converted to steps to verify the conditions are met. PII reviewed several procedures that have been revised to comply with the new Human Factor (HF) requirements and template. However, these were not significantly more accurate, nor did they follow the clarity rules better than those procedures that had not been recently revised. The Human Factor reviewers within Chevron Richmond are not SMEs in operations, and so they are not responsible for procedure content or accuracy. The writers (SMEs, operators in this case) have a copy of the Latent Conditions checklist with them while writing new procedures. They also have a guide from the Procedure Writing CBT course as a guide. Per interviews, the Manuals and Procedures (M&P) group staffing was recently increased. They have responsibility to ensure that all procedures are reviewed in a timely (3-year cycle) manner, apply good human factors, and comply with all HES requirements. Housed within the L&D group, M&P has four full-time members. All procedures are managed in the EOM database. The content and accuracy of all procedures remains the responsibility of the ABU. According to interviewees, many operations trainers have attended an instructor-led training course (two 4-hour classes) in procedure writing that covers good human factors. All refinery employees have taken the CBT in human factors, although many were unable to recall anything from the CBT course. Note: Special assignments are generally 3-year assignments, although how these are handled varies across the ABUs and departments. Some rotate every three years while others are able to continue as trainers in these roles beyond the 3-year assignment. Most are SMEs with extensive experience in their areas who are “go-to” people. Management depends heavily on them for accomplishing many “special projects” in addition to their procedure and training responsibilities. In some circumstances, this can and has diluted their focus. See Recommendation 23 in Section 4.1.7 4.2.2 Verbal Communication Verbal communication (the controls against miscommunication) is under the responsibility of L&D. Most workers seem to have heard of and previously taken a CBT on the rules for controlling verbal communication. However, there is no enforcement program and no measurement/tracking of implementation. The training did not include some of the best practice rules, such as repeat back. However, some units (such as SRU, Chevron Fire Department, and at the Long Wharf) do use repeat back routinely because “they know it reduces errors.” Per observations during operating procedure walk-downs, clear communications between the field operators and the CBOs are recognized as essential. Yet, the operations personnel in all areas of the refinery do not consistently use some good verbal communication practices, such as repeat-back. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 281 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 63 PII reviewed the CBT on radio communication. This generic course does not discuss many of the best verbal communication practices or site-specific requirements. The auditors were not able to find any refinery-specific guidance or procedures for preventing miscommunication. Note that the Latent Condition Checklist used in PHAs only elicits issues such as poor radios for human factors related to verbal communication. The PHA facilitators do not include best practice rules for verbal communication, and the Latent Condition Checklist does not include a question on how to practice verbal communication to reduce error. There is a project to replace the current radio system (the hardware, which was undergoing testing at the time of the on-site data collection.) It was scheduled to begin implementation in June 2014 and to be fully implemented by March 2015. In a review of more than 2000 incidents across the industry, miscommunication has been a root cause in about 50%. Further, the CCPS guideline, Risk Based Process Safety (on page 475 in Chapter 17) requires following such rules as “repeat back” and using common terminology as a way to reduce such miscommunication. Recommendation 27 Improve the program to control potential miscommunication by radio, phone, and face-to-face (such as in noisy areas). This can be done by adopting industry best practices for ensuring clear and accurate verbal communication. Such a program normally involves training on standardized terminology, repeat-back, and other rules for clear communication. It also includes frequent checking (monitoring of radio channels) and feedback by supervision on the use of proper communication techniques. Programs are available as models for addressing the concern above. For instance, the U.S.DOE, U.S.NRC, U.S.FAA, and maritime safety organizations all require implementing programs for minimizing verbal miscommunication. Some example documents include: DOE-STD-1031-92; Guide to Good Practices for Communications97 Shift Turnover Guide – U.S.DOE 1038-9398 Rules for Effective Verbal Communication (Table 5), provided in “Human Factors and Their Optimization” (2012), www.piii.com/resources99 Guidelines for Conduct of Operations, CCPS/AIChE, 2011100 4.2.3 Fitness for Duty (FFD) The Human Resources (HR) Manager is the sponsor and the HR Business Partner is the advisor for the FFD element. Fatigue is recognized on the Latent Conditions Checklist used in PHAs and during other activities. Refinery Instruction RI-395 (updated 3/12/2013) governs Fatigue Risk Management on the site. The Instruction was modified to align with API RP 755. This alignment was also agreed to in the latest round of contract negotiations (in 2012), with the understanding that a task team would be created to develop site-specific guidance for handling expected issues such as overtime distribution, call-in procedures, and seniority rights. Operators work 12-hour shifts: 4 nights on, 3 days off, then rotate to 3 days on, 2 day off, then 3 nights on, 3 days off and then 4 days on, then 7 days off. Such 12-hour shift schedules result in higher intra-shift fatigue. The average error rate during a 12-hour shift tends to be twice as high as within an 8-hour shift. A nap break in the middle of a 12-hour shift will lower the intra-shift fatigue considerably and typically results in fewer errors than an 8-hour shift. A 12-hour shift for August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 282 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 64 operators is now typical for oil and gas industry, but that does not mean this is optimal for low error rates. The refinery allows a maximum of six consecutive days of work followed by a mandatory 1 off- day. For turnarounds, the plant follows RI-395 (based on API RP 755), which allows 12 consecutive workdays on, and then two mandatory days off for short-duration tasks (such as turnarounds). As shared in interviews, workers commented that they may have worked 14 days max before a required two days off. CUSA management states that work schedules typically follow six days of work followed by 1 day off during turnarounds. This number of 12 consecutive days of work allowed by API RP 755 and allowed by exception by CUSA for what they refer to as “short duration tasks” far exceeds the maximum exception of six consecutive days allowed by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) standards. It also far exceeds what is followed by the California State Lands Commission (CA SLC) for wharfs regarding fatigue management (these other standards are far superior to API RP 755). The aviation industry has similar rules, but more stringent than even the U.S.NRC standards. Note that the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) rejected API RP 755 as a poor standard (see the notice in March 2013 from the U.S.CSB). The exception at Chevron Richmond to the limits above is the wharf. The wharf adheres to CA SLC rule 2376 of no more than 72 hours in six consecutive days, with then a minimum of 36 hours off duty as an upper limit. This is good. On the other hand, exceptions to exceed the limits stated in RI-395 can be granted by refinery management based on factors such as (1) desire to have a worker put in more hours, (2) consideration of the types of errors they could make, (3) potential consequence of those errors, and (4) control measures to minimize those errors. The supervisors are trained on fatigue management and performing fitness for duty evaluations to help them in dealing with workers who may not be fit for duty. If a supervisor judges a worker to have a serious impairment or deems him unfit for duty, the supervisor removes the worker from active assignments and sends him to the clinic/EMT for evaluation. Currently, the functional managers and supervisors perform tracking and compliance with RI- 395. There are no high-level metrics, and there appears to be limited oversight. A new work- hour tracking system is being implemented, and the refinery plans to track this type of information in the future. Recommendation 28 Reduce the probability of human error by following 10 CFR 26 (U.S.NRC) for Fitness for Duty (FFD), which includes management of fatigue. This program outlines maximum hours on-site per day and per week and minimum time away from work per week. It also outlines how to detect symptoms of FFD issues and how to respond to these. Especially limit the maximum number of consecutive days worked to four days of 12-hours shifts and six days of 8-hrs shifts, even during turnarounds. Alternatively, allow five to six days of 12-hour shifts, with a 45-minute nap break midway through the shift. Do NOT follow the 14 consecutive day allowance in API RP 755. Note that other alternatives to work-hour limits are available, such as allowing naps in the middle of a shift (with coverage of the workload). In addition to work hours, other factors that increase fatigue are poor diet, lack of exercise, etc. CUSA should explore all issues to reduce the probability of errors resulting from fatigue. Chevron has a substance abuse program and enforcement similar to the rest of industry in the USA, with a letter of agreement by the unions for random substance abuse testing. Amended to August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 283 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 65 the Drug and Alcohol Letters of Agreement with the unions are Enclosure 2, A Supervisors Guide to Post Incident/Accident Testing, and Enclosure 2.1, Supplementary Instructions, dated December 4, 2001. Per interview, the policy of doing drug tests after most near loss and loss incidents has been in place for a long time. However, it has not been consistently followed in the past. Recently, corporate HR issued a directive to reinforce compliance with this policy. Supervisors received training on the expectations and the frequency of testing increased in 2013. 4.2.4 Human-Machine Interface (HMI) A few corporate and RIs cover HMI. SID (Safety in Design; corporate standard) covers mostly occupational safety issues. It also gives minimum requirements for egress (related to emergency egress) and access to equipment such as valves and instruments, and it allows for a risk-based approach. This standard only applies to new facilities. Note that during the procedure walk-down in one process area, one of the valves in the main process line for the compressor could not be reached without standing on some process equipment. SID- SU-5106-B, part 1.9 provides specifications for access to process isolation and bypass valves without standing on equipment. PII noted a few other HMI weaknesses in other procedure walk-downs as well. Refinery PHA teams conduct a Latent Conditions Review before PHA meetings to assess escape routes and valve positions. The effectiveness of this type of review should be investigated to determine the root cause resulting in this valve access problem. There is an RI for HMI, including design of control screens and alarms. However, the refinery control-screen standard was set before the issuance of the Abnormal Situation Management (ASM) Consortium guidance on using grays and limiting colors to only alarms and equipment condition changes. All of the control room screens PII observed were black backgrounds with bright colors used for the equipment components. This high-contrast, bright-color scheme makes it harder to distinguish alarms and equipment that is changing condition. Labeling (see RI-302) is poor throughout half of the units and good in the others. The RI for labeling has not been fully implemented, and interviewees mentioned that the improved labeling is being implemented on a risk-based plan. Yet, based on a walk- through of a number of process areas, there are many instances where the labeling and/or color coding was missing from critical lines and valves. Other high-risk areas also do not have clear labeling yet. The operators said they can identify special areas to get better labeling, but so far, progress has been slow. RI-302, Color Identification and Labeling of Equipment and Pipelines, states that the “Instruction is mandatory for all new facilities and all major facility upgrades. All existing facilities are expected to eventually comply with this Instruction.” Per interview and observation, new installations appear to be clearly labeled and in compliance with RI-302. However, very few facilities that existed before RI-302 was issued have been retrofitted with adequate labeling and color-coding, and compliance is inconsistent across the refinery. For PHAs that PII reviewed, documentation did not indicate that HMI were considered consistently during the HAZOP node analysis. Best practices would be to include operators as SMEs who are assigned the lead role in identifying where improvements in labeling and color-coding are needed. However, these SMEs likely will need training first on best practices for color identification and labeling. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 284 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 66 Recommendation 29 Inspect the refinery units following the corporate standard for human factor engineering: Safety in Design. This inspection could be completed within the PHA Latent Conditions Review before PHA meetings. However, this inspection schedule could leave conditions like hard-to-reach valves unidentified (latent) for years. The walk-throughs spotted hard-to-reach valves in several units. This appears to be systemic. The operators should be the SMEs assigned the lead role in identifying possible changes in valve placement. They likely can help prioritize the units for these activities. First, review the Latent Condition Checklist versus human-factors best practices to find any gaps in the checklist. 4.2.5 Control of Dependent Error Rates The SIS standards have not been implemented at Richmond Refinery as of the on-site data collection. The instruments on redundant channels for Emergency Shut Down (ESD) are NOT being maintained by different technicians on different days. Because this maintenance practice is not being followed, the same person can easily repeat one error on redundant channels on the same day. This maintenance practice is necessary to prevent degrading a system with 1/100 to 1/1000 probability of failure on demand to a system with no better than 1/10 probability of failure on demand.101,102,103 Recommendation 30 For refinery safety systems with multiple, similar devices that serve in a protective function against the same accident scenario, the refinery needs to establish practices/procedures to reduce the chance of repetitive human error. If one person maintains these similar systems daily, he or she could repeat an error across several systems in one day. Therefore, schedule ITPMs activities to be done on different days, preferably by different technicians/staff. These situations include Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS) for Safety Integrity Level 2 and 3, ESDs, multiple check-valves, and multiple relief devices. Otherwise, the probability of failure on demand of such safety systems could be 10 to 100 times higher than expected. 4.2.6 Task Design and Staffing For human responses that could be counted as IPLs in hazard analyses or LOPA, currently drills are not timed to validate if the human (operator) can indeed perform the actions required within the time available for the response. The control rooms do perform many situational drills (called situationals and hypotheticals across the refinery) that accomplish the same practicing of the action. However, these are done without validating that the response task can be successfully completed within the required maximum allowable response time (which is typically 1/2 of the process safety time for the accident scenario). (Note: Process safety time is the amount of time from when a process excursion begins until there is no longer any chance of preventing the ultimate consequence. Process safety time can be seconds to hours.) Per interviews, operators on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis test many alarms listed in the PHAs as either safeguards or potential causes. Individual operating areas maintain the routes and frequencies of these responses in handheld devices. The results are not captured in a central database for review. However, PII evaluated a selection of 16 high-consequence alarms drawn from PHA reports that require human response. PII found only one (6%) of these alarms on any of the area routine duty lists. Initial job training and situationals covered nine (56%) of these high- August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 285 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 67 consequence alarm responses, but only four (25%) were reviewed as hypotheticals. Note that hypotheticals are table-top scenario reviews, which the Head Operator of each shift selects, leads, and documents. Hypotheticals selected in the past have been related to emergency response actions rather than how to respond to critical process alarms and prevent process upsets. ABUs provide minimal, inconsistent guidance or oversight for hypotheticals, other than inclusion as a numerical performance objective (along with LPO and MOC reading/review objectives) to qualify for a $100 safety incentive. Refinery staff frequently mentioned Hypotheticals as an excellent learning tool. PII considered these drills of hypotheticals to be best in class (when compared to industry-wide practices). Control rooms are always occupied, and staffing appears appropriate for all modes of operation. Additional operators can be called in quickly to assist in an emergency. Recommendation 31 For human response IPLs, ensure that the response action is practiced to mimic the actual response to a critical process excursion. This practice should be timed (such as by the supervisor or a designee). The time and success or failure should be recorded to validate that the humans can respond within the predicted maximum allowable response time. This resolution could be accomplished by formalizing and recording data from the ad hoc situationals (and perhaps some hypotheticals) already performed by the refinery operators and Head Operators. Note that this recommendation is related to “how to” ensure the reliability of IPLs; following up Recommendations 9 and 11 regarding identifying IPLs and establishing an ITPM for each. Examples of sources to address this concern include: “LOPA and Human Reliability – Human Errors and Human IPLs,” Bridges, W., 6th Global Congress on Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010.104 U.S. NRC 10 CFR 55, which has a section on testing of human response to process deviation alarms.105 4.2.7 Risk Analysis of Human Factors At the Richmond Refinery, the risk analyses of human factors is performed before (and independent of) a PHA Revalidation using: The Latent Conditions Checklist. The PHA revalidation is performed using the Latent Conditions Checklist during the refinery-wide review every 5 years, which was initiated in 2008. It was supposed to be repeated every 5 years. According to data from management, the last refinery-wide Latent Conditions Review was done in 2013/2014. (Note the valve access observation in Section 4.2.4 Human-Machine Interface. Based on the evaluation teams’ limited observations, the completeness/quality of the refinery- wide Latent Conditions Review needs to be evaluated.) The Alarm Objective Analysis (AOA). This analysis is intended to help evaluate alarm overload. The most recent AOA was done for the CoGen Unit. Both of these activities are good, although as mentioned early (See recommendation 29) the LC Checklist and Review may need improvement. In addition, there is a unit walk-through with the LCC at the start of a Revalidation to revisit these issues. The current PHA analysis method requires the PHA team to “recall” pertinent latent condition topics during the Revalidation and bring up LC items in specific nodes and for deviations, as needed/remembered. Some PHA August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 286 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 68 reports document evidence that human factors were identified that could affect causes or safeguards. However, from PII experience, a PHA of a specific unit can and should reveal an extensive list of human factor issues, as shown below. Example of improper application of the Latent Condition Checklist for the Cracking (FCC) PHA Revalidation performed 8/15/2013: Communication section of checklist o Stated Radios were inadequate on unit and mentioned a refinery-wide issue with a project underway to replace the radios. (Note that the SRU PHA states that radios are adequate, with the supplemental use of telephones and Motorola Walkie-Talkies.) o As mentioned earlier, there was no discussion of the rules used by the workers to communicate (and we could not find a written program for verbal communication protocols, although there is a CBT (see Communication section of this report). Labeling section of checklist – The results stated “Yes” (meaning there is labeling) and then stated it was inadequate (from our walk-downs, we agree). Alarms and alarm overload, alarm distinction, displays, information – this discussion appears good and appears to match interviewee comments as well. Procedures – States they were written by operators for operators, but there is no evaluation of the accident scenarios that can and do occur during startup, shutdown, and online maintenance as identified during PHAs. Only one question addresses the many considerations about Fitness for Duty. The PHAs list an alarm as a safeguard in many instances. However, per interviews, there was no discussion of “is there enough time for the operator to respond.” This is a critical concept for the human-error analysis portion of a PHA, since the alarm is useless if the operators cannot respond in time. Also, these alarms are NOT consolidated on a list and then checked versus (1) the control rooms to ensure the alarms can be responded to in time and to ensure they are indeed drilled by each worker once a year and (2) the inspection, test, PM database for instruments, to ensure the instruments are maintained. In the PHA/Reval (mostly these are Redo method), there is a deviation called Human Factors. This is GOOD. Note, though, that in the PHA for CoGen completed Aug 30, 2012, the entries were almost entirely “No new causes.” Per interviews, there is not a “new discussion of HF” at this deviation (it is not like a recap of the latent conditions checklist). Rather, the HF deviation allows the team members to voice any HF concerns they may have (without prompting) for that part of the process. Several of the 27 recommendations from the CoGen PHA are related to human factor issues, which indicate there were human factor discussions. A discussion of risk analysis for human factors would not be complete without referencing Section 4.1.4 Process Hazard Analysis and the PHAs’ focus on the continuous mode of operation. PHAs do not adequately consider non-continuous modes of operation when major accidents occur that are driven by individual human error. Simply considering the deviations of “startup, shutdown, and maintenance” during a node-by-node HAZOP of parameters has, in PII’s experience, been shown to catch less than 10% of the accident scenarios during these operating modes. See Recommendation 5 in Section 4.1.4 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 287 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 69 4.2.8 Analysis of Human Factors during Investigation of Losses and Near Loss Incidents Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP) – The refinery uses the approach named TapRoot™ (from System Improvement) for accident investigations of major incidents. This approach includes consideration of human factors as, or within, root causes and drives the investigation to root causes. However, it appears the TapRoot™ investigation results are subsequently sorted into Chevron categories to fit the Refinery’s dedicated incident database structure. Using the Refinery database categories could redirect the investigation team’s focus to issues other than root causes (i.e., other than management system failures and weaknesses). For topic-specific discussions on this interlocking aspect of human factors control, see Section 4.1.2 Employee Involvement and Section 4.1.8 Incident Investigation. Per the findings listed in these sections, very few near loss incidents are reported, and almost none of these are investigated to root causes. So, most (perhaps 95% to 98%) of the root cause analysis data that could be captured is currently not available to CUSA Richmond, because of very low near loss incident reporting and very few root cause analyses of near misses. Root causes are defined by AIChE/CCPS in multiple textbooks as “management system weaknesses,” and management systems in turn control human factors, and ultimately, human error rates. The Safety Evaluation team noted that an action item from the Richmond Refinery Chevron Corporate internal RISO Audit Report (2013) stated that periodic human factors program evaluation needed better documentation (3-year versus 5-year cycle). The review team also noted that an action item from the Richmond Refinery Chevron Corporate internal RISO Audit Report (2013) stated that qualifications and experience requirements for human factors trainers were not established. Chevron Richmond Refinery staff say they will track these action items to closure. 4.3 PROCESS SAFETY CULTURE 4.3.1 Process Safety Culture — Qualitative Analysis Some quantitative measures of process safety performance, such as the process safety leading indicators discussed earlier, are also indicators of an organization’s process safety culture. Often, these can be compared across different facilities and even across different industries to establish standards and gauge the relative effectiveness of organizations. However, many of the more qualitative elements of process safety culture may be unique to an individual facility or even to a specific work group within the facility. It is very difficult to compare results and establish qualitative standards across different work units. Still, it is possible to establish a baseline and measure progress over time within the same (or similar) work units. (See Process Safety Culture – Making This a Reality for more details)106 When conducting a culture assessment, data is best collected in a variety of ways designed to encourage complete and accurate disclosure while minimizing any bias imposed by the collection process. Results can then be compared to eliminate (or explain) inconsistencies. The three methods for determining the process safety at Chevron Richmond (listed in order of relative strength) were: Process Safety Implementation Evidence Individual Safety Culture Interviews Written Process Safety Culture Surveys August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 288 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 70 4.3.2 Process Safety Culture — Findings/Observations from Process Safety Implementation Evidence In this report (see Sections 4.1 Process Safety Management and 4.2 Human Factors), the evaluation team presents their summary of observations for process safety implementation evidence at the Richmond Refinery. The team considers these observations the strongest source of data for evaluating Chevron Richmond’s Process Safety Culture. 4.3.2.1 Summary of Process Safety Culture Score based upon observed Process Safety Implementation Evidence The scores in the table below represent a Delphi approach to collecting expert opinion, in which four PII experts (each were present for on-site data collection), independently evaluated each factor based on their observations at CUSA and their experience from other sites. The scores were averaged, but extra weighting was given (in rounding up or down) based on the relative experience and expertise of the respondent with respect to each question. This score is related to Process Safety Culture only and not to process safety implementation effectiveness, although the two are connected. This score also excludes consideration of Occupational Safety Culture. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 289 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 71 Selected Process Safety Metrics Based on Process Safety Implementation Evidence that Relates Most Directly to Process Safety Culture Process Safety Culture Score Mechanical Integrity Timely completion of ITPMs including documentation/ analysis/ follow-up on “as- found” data Fair Backlog of process safety and process integrity work orders - should be low and/or decreasing Fair Maintenance emergency repairs and break-in work versus planned maintenance - should be low and/or decreasing Poor Temporary leak repairs - should be very low or zero Poor PMI inspections performed - should be 100% for baseline equipment and welds, and for new components and new welds Poor Effective “bad actors” program Fair Action Item Follow-up Timely completion of recommendations and action items (from all sources including PHAs, IIs, PSSRs, MOCs, Compliance Audits) Fair Audit of closure process for completeness and effectiveness Good Process Safety Competence Timely completion of process safety training Fair Evaluation of operator response during drills for each critical alarm (one drill per alarm per operator per year) Fair Field verification and validation of operating and maintenance procedures (95% and higher accuracy of the content and 90% score on following human factors rules for clarity) Poor Learning from Near Losses Work or process is stopped when workers/staff suspect serious problems Poor Reporting ratio of near loss incidents to loss incidents - below 5 is poor and greater than 25 is good and greater than 50 is excellent9 Poor Timely completion of incident investigations Fair Analysis (trends) and follow-up on incident investigation results Poor Human Factors Control Good control of fatigue (overtime hours, consecutive days worked) Poor Observations performed of pre-job planning activities, shift turnovers Good Observations performed and enforcement of rules for radio communications Poor Evaluation and control of Human Machine Interfaces (HMI) Fair Staffing, vacancies, absenteeism Fair Job experience, certifications, and training levels Fair Effective use of “Management of Organizational Change” processes Fair COMPOSITE SCORE ON PROCESS SAFETY CULTURE: Fair 4.3.2.2 Selected Findings and Recommendations related to Process Safety Culture from Process Safety Implementation Evidence Near Loss Reporting: One of the clearest indicators of (Process) Safety Culture is the number of near loss incidents being reported. This is best expressed as the ratio of the “number of near loss incidents reported” divided by the “number of actual loss incidents.” As mentioned in Section 4.1.8 Incident Investigation, this ratio should be 20 or higher to be considered good. Less than 5 is considered poor (less than 1 is considered very poor). The ratio at CUSA Richmond has gradually increased from 0.5 to 2 in a 6-year period. Companies with strong safety culture make near loss reporting one of their top 3 priorities, since near losses can effectively predict what actual losses are about to occur. Sites of equal size have been able to propel near loss reporting ratio from the 1 range to the 50+ range in a matter of months by virtue of management emphasis and employee trust. What makes this possible is August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 290 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 72 a shift in the site leadership. Another factor may be the company’s willingness to assume full responsibility and take swift corrective action of the root causes of near loss and actual loss incidents and create a blame-free environment for reporting of near loss incidents. So, Richmond Refinery’s low reporting ratio of near loss incidents is a direct indicator of mistrust between represented workers and management, which indicates weak process safety culture. (See similar evidence of the poor near miss reporting environment in the related portion of Section 4.3.3 Safety Culture Interviews.) See Recommendation 24, 25, and 26 in Section 4.1.8 Incident Investigation The refinery has a Human Resources Department (HRD), which handles employee records, coordinates hiring, facilitates retirements and terminations, and tracks data such as hours worked, medical issues, fitness for duty issues, etc. Although this department does not have a direct role in controlling process safety, many other companies/sites have benefited from HRD becoming knowledgeable and eventually expert in human factors and the limits on human error rates. In a few companies, HRD has eventually taken a leadership role in tracking and implementing human reliability. Recommendation 32 Increase the Human Resources Department’s Process Safety Culture competencies in human factors. Also, enlarge their role in optimizing certain human factors to strengthen development of refinery work processes and staffing. Willingness to stop work when undue risk is perceived: Another of the clearest indicators of process safety culture is how management acts to control risk when production rates are affected. The Chevron “Stop Work Authority” process normally addresses stop, notify, correct and resume approach for a resolution of potentially unsafe conditions. SMEs and represented workers verbally provided numerous instances where the SWA was used effectively for tasks that involved personal (occupational) safety concerns. Written examples show examples of such SWAs as well. They gave no examples (verbally or in writing) of SWAs used for process safety considerations (such as for preventing a process from starting back up or to shut down a process). Some process incidents have occurred that would have required a shutdown and/or delay in startup where SWA was not effectively used in improving the decision-making process. CUSA uses an “Alert and Bulletin” process to share instances of positive use of Stop Work Authority for process and personal/occupational safety concerns, good catches from near loss reporting, and in-depth follow-up after incident investigations are complete. Often, Operations uses the non-MOC HSEs to assess process safety concerns with the appropriate subject matter experts. This is a checklist of topics for the team to reference as thought-provokers. Chevron employees (both management and hourly) would benefit from additional training on how to apply the SWA for process safety issues. This should include: A description of the decision-making process in an emergency, The importance of basing decisions on potential process hazards of the situation, and An informed analysis by people that understand the hazards of the process unit and understand the risk of continuing to operate. Chevron should conduct NLI (or LI) investigations when a SWA has been implemented for process safety reasons, including determining why the troubleshooting guides or emergency response/operating procedures may not have provided the proper guidance on handling the process upset or incident. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 291 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 73 Continue to celebrate, communicate, investigate, and share process safety SWA successes across departments (such as potential incidents averted or minimized because of appropriate SWA intervention, resulting in a process shutdown or delayed restart). Use motivational techniques learned while implementing occupational/personal safety SWA to develop and expand process safety SWA application. Recommendation 33 Develop methods to increase management and employee expertise in applying SWA to process safety issues (situation identification and decision-making). 4.3.3 Process Safety Culture — Findings/Observations from Individual Safety Culture Interviews Individual interviews often provide candid and concrete examples of behaviors, actions, events, and stories that support individual perceptions and feelings. So the data tends to be much more relevant to the question area because the interviewee is able to get clarification on the questions and focus areas. The interviewer must be able to establish rapport, assure confidentiality, ask open-ended questions, and avoid judgmental or leading responses. A sufficient number of interviews are necessary to ensure that the findings are representative of the workgroup being studied and to help protect the identity of individuals. The confidence levels of the results are presented later in the section. The presence of management representatives, attorneys, union representatives or other third parties generally will negatively influence the openness of the discussion and is likely to increase a bias in the results in favor of “good culture here.” When conducting safety culture interviews, it is useful to provide the interviewer with a guide to help keep the conversation flowing on relevant topics. For the purposes of individual interviews, PII grouped process safety-culture interview responses into the following categories: Accountability (responsibilities well defined, challenges for meeting them) Learning (competence, time allocated to training, too much, too little, cancellations) Corrective action program (issues are addressed, timely, appropriate) Commitment (management support, importance of safety, personal involvement) Reporting and environment for raising concerns (near misses, willingness, practices, hesitation, and retaliation) Change Management (reorganization, organizational changes preparedness, effectiveness) Work control, work practices (empowerment, being able to stop processes, direct instructions, procedure quality) 4.3.3.1 Summary of Interview Data The graphs on the following pages of this section summarize responses collected during interviews of Chevron employees by the evaluation team. The findings and recommendations from the results are discussed after the graphs. Note that the color codes represent the overall opinion of the interviewee. Dark Green (to the far left) means Very Favorable Light Green means Favorable Gray means no opinion or uncertain it applies August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 292 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 74 Light Red means Unfavorable Dark Red means Very Unfavorable Number interviews % of total employees interviewed Approx. % sampling, job category Approx. % total refinery workforce Technical and Management 36 37% 13% 27% Hourly 60 63% 8% 73% Total interviewed 96 100% 96 Chevron Richmond Refinery employees were interviewed. The above table summarizes distribution for employees interviewed. See the previous discussion (see Section 3.4.2 Individual Interviews) related to the random selection process and employee responses to interview invitations. The sample size was large enough for meaningful interpretation of the interview results, with an 85% confidence level in the results, at a 90% confidence interval (10% error range). 4.3.3.2 Selected Findings and Recommendations: Collective Interviews for Chevron Richmond Refinery employees: Accountability for process safety at the refinery (% of favorable and very favorable responses): o All employees (~40%) o Non-represented employees (management, supervisors, technical staff) (~70%) o Represented employees (operators and maintenance) (~30%) Employees said that roles and processes are clear and well defined. Employees and contractors alike are held accountable to meeting high performance standards. Most supervisors and managers are knowledgeable and most are supportive of their staff. Some responses from represented employees indicate the employees feel that some managers use employee/worker accountability as a way to direct blame to the employees when things go poorly. A second area of concern expressed during interviews is that employees feel they are overloaded because of a shortage of qualified workers and increased paperwork (document review, email communications, incident investigations, checklists and permits for example). This indicates (in the workers’ view) less than adequate accountability of management as reflected in the shortage of staffing. By contrast, according to the results of the written survey (described in section 4.3.4), about 60 to 75% of the represented workers have a favorable or very favorable opinion of management’s commitment to process safety. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 293 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 75 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 294 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 76 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 295 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 77 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 296 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 78 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 297 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 79 Recommendation 34 Ensure that an adequate number of staff have high competencies in process safety-critical roles. The goal is to ensure adequate numbers of the various competencies for day-to-day process safety implementation (related to Recommendation 1). For each process role/activity, establish the following: How to reach competency for an activity? Who is the competency judge? How to identify competencies that may be leaving? Collectively, 40% of all CUSA employees interviewed have a favorable perception of the status of Learning at the Refinery. Learning pertaining to process safety at the refinery (favorable or very favorable responses): o All employees (~40%) o Non-represented employees (management, supervisors, technical staff) (~70%) o Represented employees (operators and maintenance) (~30%) Represented employees voiced the least support with roughly 70% expressing either negative or very negative responses (and only 25% favorable or very favorable). The initial training that new hires receive and much of the ongoing training that all employees receive is generally considered good and effective. The use of simulators for control board operator training is very highly regarded. However, using computer based training (CBT) instead of interactive, instructor-led classes for initial and refresher training has not been well received. Many employees believe that workshops, discussion, and information sharing with peers provide valuable learning and share relevant information that CBT cannot duplicate. Represented employees stated that they want to see improvement in consistency of the competency and level of engagement of (on-the-job) trainers. Concerns were also expressed about management’s perceived inconsistent support of the training process. Examples include pressure to complete training quickly, the threat of discipline if all required training is not completed in a timely manner, and training communication shortcuts such as emails instead of face-to-face review. See Recommendation 21 (in Section 4.1.6) Concerning Closure of Corrective Action Items from loss, near loss, PHA, and process safety audits, all employees’ comments were roughly 40% favorable. Corrective Action (favorable or very favorable responses): o All employees (~40%) o Non-represented employees (management, supervisors, technical staff) (~65%) o Represented employees (operators and maintenance) (~30%) Tracking systems such as the OERI dashboard are in place to ensure that corrective actions are completed in a timely manner. These are considered effective in defining responsibility and maintaining management focus. In addition, consensus is that the performance has improved significantly over the last few years. However, concerns were expressed that this August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 298 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 80 may be a numbers game. It is perceived that some corrective actions are closed without effective resolution and employee feedback/review, and that management priorities are still apparently driven by production and cost impacts. The action-tracking database indicates that recommendations are “closed” and documented. Sometimes, these are labeled “declined.” The refinery has a system to review rejections and declines with the PHA team. However, the evaluation team believes improvements are necessary with respect to reviewing declined actions with the PHA team and affected employees. Recommendation 35 Ensure that the action-item closure process for PHAs, MOC risk reviews, and incident investigations includes: Documented evidence of why a corrective action is declined; Improved action-item closure visibility; and Feedback/review by the appropriate people involved, especially the originator(s) of the request and people affected by the corrective action. Roughly 50% of all of the refinery employees interviewed have a favorable perception of the level of Commitment to process safety. Commitment (favorable or very favorable responses)- o All employees (~50%) o Non-represented employees (management, supervisors, technical staff) (~75%) o Represented employees (operators and maintenance) (~40%) Represented employees responded roughly 40% favorable and 35% unfavorable, with ~25% expressing no observed opinion. Favorable responses include an appreciation of management’s presence and accessibility in the field. People are generally confident that recent changes in management are heading in a better direction. However, comments from some represented employees indicate concern about leadership inconsistency in support and commitment at different levels of the organization. Employee responses indicate that some managers say the right words, but then push back when process safety concerns are raised and continue to make short-term decisions based on cost. From comments from those with an unfavorable opinion, high turnover in some higher-level management positions remains a concern as well, with the perception that short-term decisions can be made without regard to the long-term consequences. Chevron should: Ensure that key site leaders have sufficient assignment time in their roles to demonstrate commitment and develop expertise, knowledge, and understanding of their process safety responsibilities. Establish, track, and broadly communicate effective and measurable organizational goals and objectives for process safety so that the refinery develops a culture (habit) of discussing process safety at all levels of the organization. Ensure that there remains adequate and consistent funding for process safety engineering (e.g., capital improvements) and process-safety management job positions and activities. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 299 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 81 Ensure that appropriate mid-level and senior management review and control mechanisms are in place to protect both the short- and long-term interests of the site. Ensure effective feedback mechanisms communicate alignment between management’s statements (vision, goals, and objectives) and management’s decisions and actions. Engage and involve workers at all levels in process safety activities (as discussed in other recommendations), and ensure alignment of goals across all work groups. Use these activities to also develop mutual credibility and reestablish trust between management, non-represented staff, represented staff, contractors, and the community. Continue to invest in classroom training and mentoring of key operations staff, maintenance staff, and process engineers to develop a full understanding of both process hazards (including damage mechanisms) and human factors, to allow effective, ongoing minimization of process risk. Recommendation 36 CUSA Richmond should implement a policy and procedures to sustain process safety competency in key organizational roles, including refinery leadership. Steps could include setting minimum times in place for key leadership roles. Only 25% of all CUSA employees interviewed have a favorable perception of Reporting incidents. Near Miss and Accident Reporting (favorable or very favorable responses) o All employees (~25%) o Non-represented employees (management, supervisors, technical staff) (~40%) o Represented employees (operators and maintenance) (~20%) This is the second-lowest rating for any process safety-culture measurement from the interviews. The results correlate to the evidence of low numbers of near miss es reported at the refinery and declining number of investigations by represented employees. (See discussion in Section 4.1.8) Based on PII staff experience helping implement process safety across about 100 sites, a low score in this category is the most reliable indication of poor process safety culture. During the interviews, 55% of the represented workers indicated that learning from incidents and near miss reporting in particular, was poor to very poor. Employees mentioned many barriers to reporting incidents and especially for the reporting of near loss incidents. Barriers included That investigations are perceived to blame the employee (rather than find the root causes) The perception (based on employee feedback) that little gets done The system is difficult to use The focus appears to be on small, unimportant things The perceived lack of resources to document and investigate every incident However, the operators’ and maintenance staff’s most overwhelming negative response is related to a recently re-communicated refinery policy (perceived as a change), which the represented employees believe requires drug testing of anyone involved in an incident (even a August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 300 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 82 near miss) unless employee impairment can be eliminated. This perceived change in policy is considered punitive and unfair, and it seems to further discourage reporting of near loss incidents. Sites that follow industry best practices achieve a ratio of more than 25 near misses reported per accident loss. A ratio of less than 5 (such as at Richmond) is considered poor. It leaves the refinery to learn about weaknesses mainly from actual losses instead of from near misses. Further, this low reporting of near loss incidents is a direct indicator of mistrust between represented workers and management, which again indicates weak process safety culture. See Recommendations 24, 25, and 26 in Section 4.1.8. Collectively, only 20% of all CUSA employees interviewed have a favorable perception of Change Management (the lowest of any category). Commitment (favorable or very favorable responses) o All employees (~20%) o Non-represented employees (management, supervisors, technical staff) (~45%) o Represented employees (operators and maintenance) (~10%) Represented employees provided unfavorable responses 60% of the time while discussing Change Management. Employees shared concerns that the MOC paperwork process is too cumbersome. This affects the MOC process effectiveness, and it is therefore subject to being bypassed (Note: Compare this with Written Survey Question # 39). Some affected employees said they are not adequately involved (or consulted) when evaluating the changes being considered and training shortcuts are perceived to be taken, i.e., employing email notification instead of face-to-face MOC training. A concern was also raised regarding frequent turnover at the ABU supervisor level, where inexperience and short-term thinking could contribute to poor decision-making. Recent changes in operations staffing (addition of an OOA) and maintenance (reliability) staffing were perceived as positive steps for the organization. Recommendation 37 Consider streamlining the MOC review and documentation procedures for low-risk changes. Continue to ensure that appropriate risk assessment is performed and documented before significant changes are implemented. Implement an improved MOC process that covers changes requested to operating and maintenance procedures and include (or consult) the affected personnel on best ways to approach these requested changes. All impacted employees (including represented employees) should be appropriately involved in Management of Organizational Change (MoOC) reviews (see related CCHMP finding). Chevron should audit MOCs frequently enough to better define the MOC situations that require face-to-face training (see related CCHMP finding). Collectively, roughly 65% of all CUSA employees interviewed have a favorable perception of Work Control. Work Control (favorable or very favorable responses) o All employees (~65%) o Non-represented employees (management, supervisors, technical staff) (~85%) o Represented employees (operators and maintenance) (~60%) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 301 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 83 The represented employees gave 60% favorable responses in this category. Stop Work Authority (SWA) is well understood, broadly used, and widely accepted as one of the primary cornerstones of personal safety at the refinery. However, some (particularly operators) commented that for process safety, a better name could be “Pause Work” (rather than Stop Work) since they perceive significant pushback from management whenever SWA conflicts with continued operations (most of these referenced instances are process safety issues). Work often proceeds after meeting with management with few or no changes to the original plan. Examples of SWA usage most often mentioned involved personal safety concerns, and they usually involved outside groups (maintenance or contractors) working in an unfamiliar area. Process safety examples were mentioned less frequently, and these usually involved transitional operating modes (startup, shutdown, online maintenance) and not process safety that would halt normal operation. Per refinery management, there are many examples of SWA having been used for process safety NLI or LI. However, there are currently no data breakouts or key performance indicators for Process Safety-related SWAs. Further, per the plant staff interviewed, and particularly operators, the implementation of SWA for maintenance tasks (typically related to occupational safety impacts) has worked well, while the implementation of SWA for operational issues (typically related to process safety impacts) is not as effective. From most of the represented employees interviewed, management seems to authorize start, restart, or not stopping a process, even if workers can identify additional safeguards for the current situation. As expressed by represented employees, management’s unconditional support of SWA appears to wane as the financial consequences of stopping work (i.e., halting production) increase. So, the SWA program illustrates that the occupational safety culture is strong while the process safety culture is weak. See Recommendation 33 in Section 4.3.2.2 Other issues discussed during the interviews include a generally positive perception by most that the Richmond Refinery is one of the best and safest refineries in the area (based on benchmarking to peers in the area). Most interviewees believe the site has a safety culture that has been continuously improving over time. However, many represented employees expressed low trust in management, broad reluctance to speak out for fear of retaliation, and the perception of the existence of a punitive, blaming, and “protect yourself” environment. Considering recent events, multiple investigations, potential personal liability, and high public scrutiny of the site, a certain lack of trust, cautiousness, and restraint should be expected. However, management’s leadership and their trust relationship with the represented employees remain as a prime opportunity for Process Safety Culture improvement. 4.3.3.3 Comments on the Safety Culture Interview Process and Its Effect on the Results Interview responses for non-represented staff were significantly more positive than corresponding interview responses for represented employees. The Written Process Safety Survey results showed a difference as well, but to a much smaller magnitude. Is this because of a real difference in process safety observations, differences in perceptions, or is the difference in interview feedback amplified by the way the data was collected (interview atmosphere)? Based on the evidence from process safety implementation, which matches many of the interview results, PII believes the safety-culture interview results are credible and that they reflect the process safety status and process safety culture more accurately than the written survey results. Having other company representatives present in all of the salaried employee interviews (who could presumably report interview observations to upper management) could cause the August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 302 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 84 interviewee to refrain from overtly negative statements. The interview team did not maintain demographic data (age, years of service, etc.) but about half of the salaried workers interviewed appeared to be new in their roles (less than 2 years), and some appeared new to the site (less than four years). It is possible that hourly workers (interviewed without company representatives) would be perceived as more “protected” from immediate outcomes from their statements (if these were negative) since the interview is confidential (only the PII or county interviewer was sitting with the interviewee, and no names were divulged outside of the interview). However, all interviewees might be at risk (if they made negative statements related to the process safety implementation at the refinery) from the longer-term implications at the Richmond Refinery, if such statements resulted in a negative finding in this Safety Evaluation. This latter concern was voiced on several occasions in represented employee private interviews, in interactions in the field, and by union representatives reviewing the interview process. Based on the number of staff interviewed (96), there is a statistical difference in the data provided by hourly and salaried workers. Below are some key factors to consider when judging the differences in the data between hourly and salaried employees at the refinery. Note that these differences apply to both written survey data and to interview data: Data: Hourly staff typically have much different data on process safety implementation than the average salaried staff or management because of their exposure to the minute-by-minute operation of the units. The difference in data between hourly (or shift workers of all types) and non-shift workers is much larger if there is low near miss reporting, as is the case at the Richmond Refinery, because the shift workers would be aware of the near misses, but unless they report them, others would not be aware. Communications/Perspective: Salaried workers are involved in a higher percentage of daily, weekly, and monthly meetings with managers and site leadership as part of their job assignments and daytime work schedules. Hourly worker interactions with higher levels of management are less frequent because of job assignments and shift schedules. Therefore, the messages they receive on vision and changes to match a vision are likely not reinforced to the same degree as for salaried staff. Represented employees may be frustrated as they observe opportunities to make things better within their work scope, but they may be directed to accommodate these shortcomings for now because other projects have a higher priority at this time. When their issue is a significant, substantiated safety or environmental concern, they generally see immediate actions taken. However, if it affects production (increases costs), or if a temporary workaround can be implemented, they may see permanent action items delayed for months or years. Distance/Line of Fire: On average, salaried worker assignments require less time in the process areas (compared to hourly staff), reducing their interaction with occupational and process risks. They may have a theoretical understanding of those risks. Yet, they may lack operational experience on how those risks must be managed and how operators and maintenance and inspection staff must implement rigorous, detailed operational/maintenance discipline on a routine basis to address these risks. This is particularly true of less experienced salaried staff with limited field experience. Many experienced managers, supervisors, and engineers do have this deeper operational experience and understanding. However, they may have difficulty relating with workers who must deal with limited resources and real time hazards. Hourly workers’ proximity to the process equipment also makes it more likely that they will be held directly responsible for any mistakes they make (since they are the last August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 303 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 85 ones to touch the equipment before an incident occurs), while the salaried workers (except for management, of course) are somewhat shielded from this level of accountability. Historically in process industries, discipline is more likely (though unfairly) to occur whenever there is an identified breach of protocol, such as: o Failure to follow the correct procedures, o Failure to recognize and maintain awareness of the hazards, or o Failure to respond in a timely manner and take the proper actions. (Even though in 99% of the cases, the root causes of such mistakes are human factor weaknesses and ultimately management system weakness.) (See CCPS Guideline for Investigating Chemical Process Incidents, Chapter 5 in particular, for further elaboration.)107 Salaried workers are generally insulated from this type of potential disciplinary action since their type of errors are further back in the sequence of events leading to an incident and less obvious. If root cause investigations end at the causal factors (operator and maintenance technician errors or component failures) and fail to dig deeper and identify management system failures (true root causes), then the hourly workers will be blamed for the losses in a high percentage of incidents. Further, the hourly workers may see (or believe) that the refinery is not interested in correcting the real issues. This is one reason for the low near miss reporting rates at the refinery. (Of course, if the investigations do not get to root cause [management system weakness], which includes the systems that control the design of the process equipment, then the likelihood of future accidents related to the same root causes will be unnecessarily high.) Peer Group: A person’s peer group affects their perception to some extent. Regardless of the magnitude of the effect, it is clear that the group of hourly operator peers is different from the hourly maintenance staff, and both of these peer groupings is significantly different from most salaried (or non-shift salaried) employees. This effect is likely not as strong as the other effects listed above. 4.3.4 Process Safety Culture — Findings/Observations from Safety Culture Written Survey To facilitate confidentiality and encourage participation, a written safety culture survey was conducted using a combination of company-provided iPads, remote web access, and pencil and paper administration. Towers Watson managed the data collection process and provided the raw data to PII for analysis. Towers Watson also prepared a high-level summary of the results and presented it to CUSA management. The survey instrument used was identical to the survey conducted by the Baker Panel108, with only minor modifications to account for CUSA- and site-specific terminology. There were 49 primary questions (some with sub-parts), which can be further classified into six primary categories: Process Safety Incident Reporting Safety Values/Commitment to Process Safety Supervisory Involvement and Support Procedures and Equipment August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 304 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 86 Worker Initiative/Professionalism/Empowerment Process Safety Training CUSA management and the trade unions both encouraged participation in the survey, but it was also made clear that participation was voluntary. Both refinery management and unions sent many appeals for participation. 2,197 survey invitations were extended, with 1,023 invitations to Chevron employees and 1174 invitations to other personnel who work at the Richmond Refinery (contractors). There were 1,195 surveys completed with a response rate of 54%. Chevron employee response was 62% and non-Chevron (contractor) employee response was 48%. The Chevron employee response rate is acceptable for a written survey. The sample size based on the response rate was large enough for meaningful interpretation of the survey results. There is a 95% confidence level that the results reflect the average opinion of the refinery staff (if all had returned a survey), at a 96% confidential interval (4% error range). The table on the next page shows a breakdown of the survey numbers. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 305 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 87 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 306 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 88 The non-Chevron employees (contractors) responded at a lower rate (48%).Their responses were generally positive on Richmond Refinery process safety, but the contractors included more “no opinion or uncertain it applies” responses, which is to be expected. Many of the contractors who were invited to participate have little interface with process safety at this refinery because of the nature of their work. Some questions showed a definite difference between feedback from Chevron and non- Chevron employee surveys. Question #34a – Process equipment is not regularly: Tested – non-Chevron employees positive responses were ~10 points lower. Question #34b – Process equipment is not regularly: Maintained – non-Chevron employees positive responses were ~10 points lower. Question #47d – The following receive the necessary process safety training to do their job safely: Contractors – non-Chevron employees’ positive responses were ~15 points higher. For the questions listed above, it would appear that non-Chevron employees might need additional training on process safety related to work at the Chevron refinery, to increase their understanding of the Richmond Refinery process safety program. (Alternatively, perhaps the refinery management needs to communicate more effectively the maintenance activities at the refinery.) Contractors working at the Richmond Refinery recognize that procedures and checklists are important to incorporate process safety into their work assignments (Question #33a ~+9 points). Most of the following data and analysis relates to direct-hire Chevron employees at the refinery. Note that the factors such as Data, Peer Group, etc., discussed in Section 4.3.3.3, also apply when judging the differences between average responses to the written Process Safety Survey of hourly and salaried employees at the refinery. 4.3.4.1 Summary of Written Survey Data The three following graphs illustrate the average, generalized results of the interviews from each subset of staff interviewed. The findings and recommendations from the results are discussed after the graphs. The All Respondents graphs include Chevron employees (53% of total responses) and non- Chevron employees (47% of total responses). Note that the color codes are: Dark Green (to the far left) means Strongly Agree Light Green means Agree Gray means no opinion or uncertain it applies Light Red means Disagree Dark Red means Strongly Disagree August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 307 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 89 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 308 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 90 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 309 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 91 Graphs showing the results of each survey question are presented in the following pages. Some written survey questions may be truncated in the graphs. The full text of each question follows. 2013 Chevron Process Safety Culture Survey Questions (based on Baker Panel 2006 Safety Review Report Survey) 1. This refinery provides adequate training on hazard identification, control and reporting. 2. I have received training on hazard identification, control and reporting in the last 12 months. 3. I can report hazardous conditions without fear of negative consequences. 4. In general, workers don’t bother to report minor process-related incidents, minor accidents, or near misses. 5. I believe a culture exists at this refinery that encourages raising process safety concerns. 6. Corrective action is promptly taken when unsafe process safety conditions are brought to management’s attention. 7. I am confident that process safety issues are: a. Thoroughly investigated b. Appropriately resolved 8. Workers are informed about the results of process-related incident, accident, and near miss investigations. 9. I am satisfied with the process safety reporting system at this refinery. 10. I do not hesitate to report actions or conditions that raise a process safety concern, even when a co-worker is involved. 11. My supervisor puts a high priority on process safety through actions and not just empty slogans. 12. Refinery management puts a high priority on process safety through actions and not just empty slogans. 13. Operational pressures do not lead to cutting corners where process safety is concerned. 14. At this refinery, process safety improvement is a long-term commitment that is not compromised by short-term financial goals. 15. In my opinion, the people at my refinery with specific process safety responsibilities have the: a. Authority to make necessary changes b. Resources to make necessary changes 16. In my opinion, process safety programs at my refinery have: a. An adequate number of people responsible for process safety b. Adequate funding 17. There is usually sufficient staff in my work group to perform my job safely. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 310 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 92 18. After a process-related incident, accident, or near miss, management is more concerned with correcting the hazard than assigning blame or issuing discipline. 19. At this refinery, a formal hazard assessment is performed to ensure that changes that affect processes will be safe. 20. Workers at this refinery feel pressured to work considerable overtime from: a. Co-workers b. Supervisors c. Refinery management d. Their own sense of loyalty to their operating units 21. In my work group, process safety concerns are secondary to achieving production goals. 22. My supervisor sometimes asks me or encourages me to operate an unsafe process. 23. My supervisor will support me if I refuse to participate in unsafe work. 24. My supervisor encourages me to identify and report unsafe conditions. 25. My supervisor makes sure that procedures relating to the following activities are safe, accurate and clear before such activities are initiated: a. Operations b. Maintenance 26. Persons with appropriate supervisory authority and expertise participate in hazardous process-related activities, such as startup. 27. My supervisor takes action when a worker engages in a poor process safety practice. 28. My supervisor takes appropriate action in response to my suggestions for process safety improvements. 29. Interlocks, alarms, and other process safety-related devices are regularly: a. Tested b. Maintained 30. Disabled or failed control equipment or process safety devices are restored to service as soon as possible. 31. Written operating procedures, checklists and job aids are: a. Regularly followed b. Kept up to date 32. Procedures exist at this refinery that instruct operators to take action as soon as possible if safety critical interlocks, alarms, or other process safety-related devices fail or become unavailable during operation. 33. Maintenance checklists, job aids and procedures are: a. Easy to understand b. Easy to use 34. Process equipment is not regularly: a. Tested b. Maintained August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 311 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 93 35. In order to ensure process safety at my refinery, inspection and maintenance are made high priorities. 36. I feel that I can influence the process safety policies implemented at this refinery. 37. Workers at all levels of my refinery actively participate in: a. Hazard reviews and assessments b. Near miss incident and accident investigations 38. When a process safety issue is involved, I can challenge decisions made by the following without fear of negative consequence: a. My supervisor b. Refinery management 39. Workers sometimes work around process safety concerns rather than report them. 40. Creating unapproved shortcuts around process safety is not tolerated at my refinery. 41. I am informed when potentially dangerous processes are started. 42. I am responsible for identifying process safety concerns at my refinery. 43. I feel free to refuse to participate in work activities that are unsafe. 44. Operators are empowered to take corrective action as soon as possible (including shutting down when appropriate) if safety critical interlocks, alarms, or other process safety-related devices fail or become unavailable during operation. 45. The training that I have received does not provide me with a clear understanding of the process safety risks at my refinery. 46. I know how to access appropriate process safety resources if I need them. 47. The following receive the necessary process safety training to do their job safely: a. New workers b. Experienced workers c. My supervisor d. Contractors 48. The process safety training that I have received allows me to recognize when a process should be shut down if safety critical interlocks, alarms or other process-safety devices fail or become unavailable during operation. 49. The process safety training that workers receive at my refinery is adequate to prevent process-related incidents, accidents and near misses. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 312 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 94 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 313 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 95 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 314 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 96 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 315 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 97 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 316 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 98 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 317 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 99 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 318 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 100 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 319 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 101 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 320 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 102 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 321 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 103 4.3.4.2 Selected Findings and Recommendations Collectively, employees at the Chevron Richmond Refinery responded to the written survey with a very favorable view of safety culture at the site. 80% of all responses for all written survey respondents were favorable (agree or tend to agree) while only 9% were unfavorable. Represented employees gave more unfavorable responses than their non-represented colleagues (18% for operators and 12% for maintenance) did, but there was still a strong favorable response (70% for operators and 76% for maintenance). Generally, the represented respondents’ positive responses were roughly 10 points lower that non-represented responses. Comparing the written survey responses to individual questions for represented and non- represented employees indicates that non-represented employee responses were generally 10 points more favorable than represented employee responses. Several questions deserve special review in each of the survey question sub-groupings: Process Safety Incident Reporting – Process Safety Incident Reporting was seen as the most favorable category – 86% of all responses were favorable (9% unfavorable). This result starkly contrasts with the evidence of low near miss reporting at the refinery and the safety-culture interview results. That is because this category contains 11 questions, and the responses to the specific questions on near miss reporting are different from the overall category. For example, 66% of all respondents (60% of operators, 48% of maintenance) responded favorably when considering Question #4 “that workers do not bother reporting minor process related incidents, minor accidents, or near losses.” (Note that the responses were reversed to account for the negative wording of the question, so the higher the score, the better the respondent thought the refinery was doing on getting near misses reported). Represented employee favorable responses were 13 to 21 points lower for 5 of the 11 questions in this question group when compared to non-represented employee responses (including Question #4). Six of 11 questions indicate that Chevron needs to improve process safety performance for reporting incidents and incident investigations. This reinforces previously discussed evidence of low near miss reporting at the refinery. It also supports the related recommendations regarding the need for improvement in near loss incident reporting and improvements in the overall incident investigation processes. Process Safety Training – One of the most positive responses (82% positive) was on training provided for hazard identification, control and reporting, and the lack of hesitation to report actions or conditions that raise a process safety concern, even when a coworker is involved. Four of eight questions received roughly 80% favorable responses. The other four questions’ favorable responses ranged from 66 to 75%. Richmond Refinery provided field evidence of a very strong training program, with many facets demonstrating world-class capabilities. Still, the responses to training questions from Richmond Refinery frontline employees (operators and maintenance technicians) indicate that these employees are not sure they (or their supervisor or coworkers) are prepared to complete their process safety-related job assignments as well as possible. Supervisory Involvement and Support – Another favorable category included Supervisory Involvement and Support (82% favorable responses). One potential area of weakness in this category is indicated by Question #21, with favorable responses (77% for the average of all respondents, 68% favorable for operators, 69% favorable for maintenance) “that process safety concerns are secondary to achieving production goals.” Represented employee favorable responses were 13 to 15 points lower for three of nine questions in this question group than non-represented employee responses. As could be expected, represented employees August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 322 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 104 experience more stress to achieve production goals (Question #21) than most of their non- represented counterparts. Management must continue to demonstrate their commitment to addressing process safety concerns. Questions #27 & 28 (supervisor action) indicate that represented employees desire their supervisors to increase process safety emphasis. Safety Values/Commitment to Process Safety – Safety values and commitment to process safety received the least favorable statistical response at 75% of all respondents (64% of operators, 72% of maintenance). Represented employee favorable responses were 15 to 27 points lower for five of 15 questions in this question group than non-represented employee responses. Represented employee responses indicate they “feel pressured” to work considerable overtime (by their own sense of loyalty to the unit, their supervisor, and refinery management – Questions #20a, b, c, and d). Operator low favorable responses (27 points lower than non-represented worker responses) to Question #18 (46%) support the interview feedback “that management is overly concerned with assigning blame or issuing discipline following a process-related incident, accident, or near miss.” This reinforces previously discussed recommendations regarding the need for improvement in both fitness-for-duty and incident investigation processes. Also noteworthy is favorable responses to Question #20a (worker pressure to work by coworker) which is 11 points higher for represented employees. Represented employees responses indicate they look for more Leadership by example (rather than assigning blame) and more process safety resourcing. Procedures and Equipment – Represented employee favorable responses were 14 points lower to Question #35 (inspection, maintenance high priority) than non-represented employee responses. From the evidence collected from procedure walk-downs, the evaluation team also noted that procedures need improvement. The evidence from the field and from interviews also indicated that the refinery needs to follow through on the efforts begun to implement best practices in refinery mechanical integrity. Notably, represented employees responded more favorably (+12 points) to Questions #33 a and b (understanding and using maintenance checklists and procedures). Worker Initiative/Professionalism/Empowerment – Represented employee favorable responses were 12 to 20 points lower for five of 11 questions in this group than non-represented employee responses. Represented employee responses of 70% favorable or lower to these questions indicate only a slight challenge for Richmond Refinery leadership, whereas the data from safety culture individual interviews indicated that this category is a major issue at the refinery. That Question #37b (incident investigation participation) received only 67% favorable response for represented employees highlights an opportunity for refinery management to increase employee incident investigation participation and collect additional near-loss incidents (as recommended earlier in the report). Of particular concern is the represented employee low favorable response (59%) to Question #39 (work-arounds): Too many operators or maintenance technicians feel they or their coworkers will (need to or must) include work-arounds to address process safety concerns rather than report them or correct them more permanently. Represented employees responded very favorably to Questions #41, 42 and 43, strong positive feedback concerning communication while starting potentially dangerous process, personal responsibility to identify process safety concerns and free to use Stop Work Authority (SWA). However, the interviews clarified this to mean for occupational safety issues only. From the interviews, the majority of operators feel the SWA does not work well for process safety issues when these affect production rates. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 323 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 105 4.4 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM THE WRITTEN SURVEY Chevron employee response to the written survey process is encouraging and indicates that employees are willing to engage in dialogue on process safety implementation at the Richmond Refinery. Feedback from Towers Watson (written survey administrator) indicates that Chevron written survey participation and positive responses compare favorably with written survey participation and responses for refining industry and with refiners in the area. This Safety Evaluation team’s assignment was to review the Richmond Refinery process-safety culture, human factors program, and process safety implementation compared to best process safety practices as implemented by industries worldwide processing highly hazardous materials. The written survey findings above are generally much more positive than the results obtained from objective evidence collected from field observations and from records at the refinery. In addition, the data from the 1-hour interviews with 96 employees provide deeper insight than the roughly 10 minutes required to take the written survey. The written survey does reflect the same relative weaknesses in various facets of process safety culture or implementation at the refinery as the other sources of data. And the magnitude of the difference from “best practice” process safety implementation and the actual process safety implementation at the refinery is not reflected as well in the written survey. Further, PII has observed from surveys on various topics (including process safety culture) at other locations, that even a very weak system will still get many favorable comments. Perhaps this is due to the respondents being reluctant to criticize the company in writing. Or perhaps the respondents do not have sufficient background in best practices in process safety to make such value judgments. (See the paper co-authored by PII and CCHMP for more discussion on the relative value of data from written surveys, individual interviews, and direct process safety data from the site.108) Therefore, PII believes the evidence concerning process safety implementation derived from objective site data is the most trustworthy source on which to base conclusions about process safety culture and comparisons to best practices. PII also believes that the Safety Culture interview data provides more process safety-culture insight than the Safety Culture Written Survey results, since the interviewee can ask and get clarifications to the questions, and since the interviewers requested examples from the interviewees to explain their positive or negative comments. In a survey, there is no way to actively test for respondent’s level of comprehension of the question. - End of Section 4, Evaluation and Findings - August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 324 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 106 5 CONCLUSIONS The Richmond Refinery has a robust initiative to improve process safety. This has led to many recent improvements. However, there are still many weaknesses in process safety and control of human factors at the refinery. Some of these are related to technical gaps. Some are related to deficiencies in management practices at the refinery. The refinery management should put the plan, schedule, and budgets in place to improve on all of these areas. As listed throughout the report, there were 37 specific recommendations from this evaluation at Chevron’s Richmond Refinery. Many of these have several subparts, and each of these should be addressed. Below is a summary of the recommendations listed in the report, along with a reference to the related report section: 5.1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Rec. No. Recommendations Reference Sections 1 CUSA Richmond should expand operators’ and maintenance craft- persons’ involvement in leading roles in process safety activities. Increase the number of operators and craft-persons involved in these activities, too. For example, involve more operators and maintenance crafts-persons in: Writing and validating procedures, Leading process hazard evaluations of small MOCs, Participating in PHAs (particularly using a broader selection of operators), and Leading incident investigations. 4.1.2 2 To avoid losing track of temporary changes, improve the redlining process for the Master P&IDs used in the field. Further, improve RI- 362 “Process Safety Information” to include criteria for handling all in- process (active) and archived (closed) MOC-modified PSI (i.e., P&ID originals) while a temporary MOC is in effect. RI-370 “Management of Change” may need parallel changes. 4.1.3 3 To avoid missing causes and necessary safeguards against loss of containment, be sure hazardous scenarios starting from pertinent damage mechanisms are reviewed during each unit’s PHA. (Pertinent damage mechanisms include corrosion, erosion, seal failure, pump failure, external impact, external fire, material defect, improper maintenance, drains/vents left open, etc.) In particular, review external impact as a damage mechanism for each node. A review of such loss of containment scenarios in each node is recommended, as described in the Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd Edition, 2008, CCPS/AIChE. Adding a loss of containment deviation would double-check against missing standard 4.1.4 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 325 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 107 Rec. No. Recommendations Reference Sections damage mechanisms (such as corrosion and erosion) during unit-wide reviews. It would also improve the current PHAs by providing a review at each node for external impacts and control of drains/vents. Review and incorporate mechanical integrity data during this analysis. 4 For PHAs, improve Human Factors’ incorporation in brainstorming accident scenarios. Also, improve documentation of how human factors are accounted for in causes and safeguards listed in the PHAs, per industry best practices. (Also, see 4.1.5 Mechanical Integrity and 4.1.7 Operating Procedures for ensuring these safeguards remain reliable.) Human safeguards (protection layers) include operator actions (alarm response, problem identification, troubleshooting). Human causes include operating errors related to issues such as inaccuracies and lack of clarity in procedures and misidentification of process equipment (because of inadequate labeling, numbering, and nomenclature). 4.1.4 5 Continue, and expand, the current Procedural PHA program implementation so that all modes of operation are evaluated. Include a PHA of startup, shutdown, and online maintenance procedures, as described in Chapter 9 of the Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd edition, CCPS/AIChE, 2008. This will entail using a 2- guideword HAZOP approach on each step for critical procedures and a What-if (no guideword) approach for less-critical procedures. No procedures should be excluded. 4.1.4 4.2.7 6 Implement a policy and procedures for documenting, in writing, the justification for declining PHA recommendations (per Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd Edition 2008). Base justifications upon adequate evidence that one or more of the following conditions is true: The analysis upon which the recommendation is based contains material factual errors; The recommendation is not necessary to protect the health and safety of the employer's employees or contractors’ employees; An alternative measure would provide a sufficient level of protection; or The recommendation is infeasible. 4.1.4 7 Follow through on the existing plans to implement a process for determining when a LOPA is necessary. 4.1.4 8 Follow through on the existing plans to establish ITPMs for SIS. Also, ensure they meet CCPS and ANSI/ISA requirements for SIS. 4.1.4 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 326 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 108 Rec. No. Recommendations Reference Sections 9 Update policies and procedures to define clearly the process, roles, and responsibilities for managing and maintaining equipment and human actions identified as safeguards and causes (as identified in PHAs). The safeguard management system(s) of the asset integrity program should include safeguards and causes identified in PHAs for Consequence Levels I and II. In addition, expand them to include Consequence Level III events. Criticality should be identified, such as by labeling as independent protection layers (IPLs) in the PHA report. This rating should be maintained in the CMMS. Appropriate ITPMs should be developed, performed, and documented for each of these items. Further, until the ITPM plans are established and active for a safeguard, no credit should be taken for it (e.g., it should not be considered an IPL). NOTE: The IPL management system that the refinery has begun may address the concerns of this recommendation. However, control of the frequency of causes is just as important as the control of the probability of failure on demand of an IPL. 4.1.4 10 Follow through on the current initiatives at the refinery to reduce the number of TLRs and improve the closure speed on safety work orders. 4.1.5 11 Finish identifying MI-critical assets to add to the ITPM program. The criteria should consider the asset function (control, safeguard, containment, etc.) and the consequence of failure (which is also listed in sRCM documentation). As stated in Recommendation 9, until the ITPM plans are established and active for a safeguard, no credit should be taken for it (e.g., IPL). 4.1.5 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 327 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 109 Rec. No. Recommendations Reference Sections 12 Continue the current emphasis on the MI procedures and processes. Follow regulatory guidelines, and implement best industry practices, such as those described in the CCPS Guidelines for Mechanical Integrity Systems. Continue developing maintenance work instructions for ITPM. Provide resources and systems to effectively manage ITPMs at the component level for all process safety equipment. In addition to the general improvements above (toward which the refinery is already working), consider implementing the following specific improvements: a) Review/update the policy and procedures that define how instrumentation is entered into the Maximo system and verify implementation. Ensure that instruments are maintained (and tracked and documented) per ISA requirements. b) Review/update the policy and procedures that define the “Add, Change, Delete” equipment-information management system that direct how information is entered into the Maximo and Meridium systems. c) Train the ACD Coordinator on the updated policy and procedures (see Recommendation 12.b above) so that ITPM entry, tracking, and historical data are associated with the proper equipment. 4.1.5 13 Revise the TLR to require operators to check more often for any leaks while a TLR is in place. 4.1.5 14 Follow through on plans to improve piping ITPM by using appropriate API codes, standards, and Chevron’s operating experience, to develop MI procedures and practices to guide MI inspectors. Complete the current plans to determine which piping systems are most susceptible to corrosion issues, especially sulfidation and high-temperature hydrogen attack. To achieve the highest probability of detecting potential damage in process piping, audit and as necessary, complete the development and implementation of DMR and ITPM for process piping sections. This should be based on an understanding of process/operating conditions and resulting damage mechanisms. Use damage mechanisms appropriate for the units and operating conditions, such as high-temperature sulfidation, high-temperature hydrogen attack, and hydrochloric acid (HCl) corrosion. 4.1.5 15 Follow through on the current initiative to develop policy and procedures (refinery instruction [RI], procedure, or guideline) describing 4.1.5 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 328 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 110 Rec. No. Recommendations Reference Sections the process, roles, and responsibilities for the integrity threat process. 16 Develop and implement a formal procedure and process to ensure that SIFs are not bypassed for an indeterminate amount of time. Have an instruction that identifies (1) time limits for different integrity levels, (2) acceptable replacement or mitigation options when it appears that prompt repair (within the expected Mean Time to Repair) is not possible, and (3) the roles and responsibilities for making these decisions. These should be consistent with industry guidelines, such as those found in ANSI/ISA 84 or the Guidelines for Safe Automation of Chemical Process, second edition, from CCPS/AIChE). 4.1.5 17 Periodically test process safety “Smart” transmitter installations as part of the ITPM. Otherwise, process safety Smart transmitters that are run to failure should have notes to that effect in the inspection, test, and PM database. If the transmitter is run to failure, then each failure and replacement should be documented. The refinery should track the failure rate of process safety Smart transmitters to determine whether to change the ITPM practices (e.g., decide not to run to failure). The refinery should develop a procedure and analysis for how different “criticality level” (process safety) instruments are maintained and tested to deliver consistent equipment and instrument availability. These safeguards and SIS require a proper management system . 4.1.5 18 CUSA should address the following gaps in the MI quality assurance (QA) programs, which create significant potential for loss of containment incidents: Develop a positive material identification policy, procedure and practice for all process areas where the wrong material of construction can cause loss of containment of a hazardous material. This would include areas where alloys are used, high- silicon steel is used, and killed steel is used. Complete the 100% baseline PMI for alloys in the refinery as quickly as possible to identify refinery equipment and piping locations with high risk for loss of containment incidents. (Completion within 2 to 3 years is possible with proper priority and resources.) In addition, verify projected remaining life of any equipment and/or piping systems that contain hydrocarbons and/or process chemicals identified as Integrity Threats that during refinery turnarounds. The Integrity Threat Assessment should be completed and temporary/permanent repairs implemented before startup. Also, include appropriate upper management approval of prescribed temporary repairs. 4.1.5 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 329 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 111 Rec. No. Recommendations Reference Sections 19 Upgrade the current visual inspection policy, program and checklist to include locating nameplate information on small vessels/drums/columns. Determine if internal inspections can be performed adequately on these small vessels using boroscopes. Complete engineering calculations and verify materials and construction for vessel/drums/columns without nameplates (see V-421 as one example). 4.1.5 20 Consider updating the OJT process to include feedback from the trainee operators on how the senior operator trainers (field trainers) performed training activities. Validation of training checklist quality and thoroughness could help the consistency of training given to new operators during OJT. 4.1.6 21 Consider incorporating different modes of refresher training. These could include classroom discussion and reviews, field walks, table-top reviews, group/control room training and CBT reviews. For example, if CBT is used for standardized training topics, then use facilitated sessions to discuss troubleshooting methods and review role-specific procedures. To promote “buy-in” (i.e., employee participation) and operators’ retention of skills and knowledge, include operators in the design and delivery of these classes. 4.1.6 22 Consider developing appropriate hypotheticals and situationals for use in training operators to handle scenarios that may lead to a catastrophic outcome. These should be taken from critical safety scenarios identified in incidents and in the PHA process (and in other brainstorming activities). Consider providing additional structure and guidance around the refinery-wide practice of hypotheticals, such as table-top reviews of response to an emergency, performed within an operator’s shift. 4.1.6 23 Implement management systems at the refinery so that procedures are accurate, complete, clear, and consistent with best practices for reducing human error. For example: Develop procedure walk-down instructions for SMEs (i.e., operators) to use when checking a procedure for accuracy and completeness. Provide guidance on addressing (including) human factors/latent conditions for simultaneously evaluating procedure clarity. Walk down enough procedures in the refinery to determine which units fall below 95% accuracy. Rewrite and revalidate as quickly as possible the procedures in the units with accuracy scores lower than 95%. Develop a procedure-updating matrix to focus resources on most critical procedures. Have SMEs (i.e., operators for operating procedures, maintenance 4.1.7 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 330 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 112 Rec. No. Recommendations Reference Sections craft-persons for maintenance procedures) walk down all new procedures in the refinery before they are issued, to ensure accuracy is 95% or above. Complete the upgrade of procedures to follow the best practices for page format and step format. Expand SME expertise in Human Factors using a best practices human-factors checklist during procedure walk-downs so that they can quickly implement control of other human factors. Continue to upgrade the Criticality Index for written instruct ions to make clear to operators which instructions are procedures, checklists (required for use), or job aids (instructional basic assistance). Because of operating procedures’ significance to process safety, measure OE Leadership and Refinery Safety Culture for Written Instructions (all departments) by implementing KPIs that reflect management commitment and operator buy-in for accurate and useful procedures. Emphasize procedure updates, improved procedure composition to address human factors, walk-down of procedures by a second and perhaps third operator (other than the author), etc. Ensure that a procedural PHA is done on each newly created and/or revised startup, shutdown or emergency procedure before the procedure is released for use. Revise RI-363 Process Hazard Analysis to include roles, responsibilities, procedures and documentation for conducting Procedural PHAs. 24 Explore methods to minimize known barriers to near loss incident reporting, including establishing a blame-free zone for all incidents, especially near loss incidents. These steps should include: Simplify investigation and reporting for NLIs. Consider modifying the written drug testing policy and its negative influence when coupled with incident reporting. Ensure only peers interview peers during data collection. Ensure investigations get to root causes (management system failures). Allow hourly staff to take the lead on investigations (as other companies have done). Establish and achieve a NLI/LI ratio goal of 20 or more. 4.1.8 4.3.2 4.3.3.2 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 331 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 113 Rec. No. Recommendations Reference Sections 25 As mentioned in Recommendation 24, use hourly operators and maintenance workforce more as lead investigators. To facilitate this, consider providing broad training (including to operators and maintenance hourly staff) in the best practices of investigation and root cause analysis methodologies. Note that TOP does not have a Root Cause Coding Tree to ensure investigations reach root causes. 4.1.8 4.3.2 4.3.3.2 26 Consider ways to improve incident investigations. These investigations should be conducted in a balanced, consistent, and timely manner, involve people closest to the work being performed, find root causes, and develop sustainable solutions. Refinery management should reinforce that investigations focus on fixing the underlying management systems. They also should reiterate that only management system weaknesses (including those that affect design of equipment and design of tasks) can be root causes. Periodically conduct a management-level review of all incident investigations. 4.1.8 27 Improve the program to control potential miscommunication by radio, phone, and face-to-face (such as in noisy areas). This can be done by adopting industry best practices for ensuring clear and accurate verbal communication. Such a program normally involves training on standardized terminology, repeat-back, and other rules for clear communication. It also includes frequent checking (monitoring of radio channels) and feedback by supervision on the use of proper communication techniques. 4.2.2 28 Reduce the probability of human error by following 10 CFR 26 (U.S.NRC) for Fitness for Duty (FFD), which includes management of fatigue. This program outlines maximum hours on-site per day and per week and minimum time away from work per week. It also outlines how to detect symptoms of FFD issues and how to respond to these. Especially, limit the maximum number of consecutive days worked to four days of 12-hours shifts and six days of 8-hrs shifts, even during turnarounds. Alternatively, allow five to six days of 12-hour shifts, with a 45-minute nap break midway through the shift. Do NOT follow the 14 consecutive day allowance in API RP 755. Note that other alternatives to work-hour limits are available, such as allowing naps in the middle of a shift (with coverage of the workload). In addition to work hours, other factors that increase fatigue are poor diet, lack of exercise, etc. CUSA should explore all issues to reduce the probability of errors resulting from fatigue. 4.2.3 29 Inspect the refinery units following the corporate standard for human factor engineering: Safety in Design. This inspection could be completed within the PHA Latent Conditions Review before PHA meetings. However, this inspection schedule could leave conditions like hard-to-reach valves unidentified (latent) for years. The walk - 4.2.4 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 332 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 114 Rec. No. Recommendations Reference Sections throughs spotted hard-to-reach valves in several units. This appears to be systemic. The operators should be the SMEs assigned the lead role in identifying possible changes in valve placement. They likely can help prioritize the units for these activities. First, review the Latent Condition Checklist versus human-factors best practices to find any gaps in the checklist. 30 For refinery safety systems with multiple, similar devices that serve in a protective function against the same accident scenario, the refinery needs to establish practices/procedures to reduce the chance of repetitive human error. If one person maintains these similar systems daily, he or she could repeat an error across several systems in one day. Therefore, schedule ITPMs activities to be done on diff erent days, preferably by different technicians/staff. These situations include Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS) for Safety Integrity Level 2 and 3, ESDs, multiple check-valves, and multiple relief devices. Otherwise, the probability of failure on demand of such safety systems could be 10 to 100 times higher than expected. 4.2.2 31 For human response IPLs, ensure that the response action is practiced to mimic the actual response to a critical process excursion. This practice should be timed (such as by the supervisor or a designee). The time and success or failure should be recorded to validate that the humans can respond within the predicted maximum allowable response time. This resolution could be accomplished by formalizing and recording data from the ad hoc situationals (and perhaps some hypotheticals) already performed by the refinery operators and Head Operators. Note that this recommendation is related to “how to” ensure the reliability of IPLs; following up Recommendations 9 and 11 regarding identifying IPLs and establishing an ITPM for each. 4.2.6 32 Increase the Human Resources Department’s Process Safety Culture competencies in human factors. Also, enlarge their role in optimizing certain human factors to strengthen development of refinery work processes and staffing. 4.3.2 33 Develop methods to increase management and employee expertise in applying SWA to process safety issues (situation identification and decision-making). 4.3.2 4.3.3.2 4.3.3.3 34 Ensure that an adequate number of staff have high competencies in process safety-critical roles. The goal is to ensure adequate numbers of the various competencies for day-to-day process safety implementation (related to Recommendation 1). For each process role/activity, establish the following: How to reach competency for an activity? 4.3.3.2 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 333 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 115 Rec. No. Recommendations Reference Sections Who is the competency judge? How to identify competencies that may be leaving? 35 Ensure that the action-item closure process for PHAs, MOC risk reviews, and incident investigations includes: Documented evidence of why a corrective action is declined; Improved action-item closure visibility; and Feedback/review by the appropriate people involved, especially the originator(s) of the request and people affected by the corrective action. 4.3.3.2 36 CUSA Richmond should implement a policy and procedures to sustain process safety competency in key organizational roles, including refinery leadership. Steps could include setting minimum times in place for key leadership roles. 4.3.3.2 37 Consider streamlining the MOC review and documentation procedures for low-risk changes. Continue to ensure that appropriate risk assessment is performed and documented before significant changes are implemented. Implement an improved MOC process that covers changes requested to operating and maintenance procedures and include (or consult) the affected personnel on best ways to approach these requested changes. All impacted employees (including represented employees) should be appropriately involved in Management of Organizational Change (MoOC) reviews (see related CCHMP finding). Chevron should audit MOCs frequently enough to better define the MOC situations that require face-to-face training (see related CCHMP finding). 4.3.3.2 - End of Section 5, Conclusions - 6 APPENDICES 6.1 RECOMMENDED READING Individuals with technical backgrounds conducted this Safety Evaluation. The findings and recommendations are addressed to technical staff at the Chevron Richmond Refinery. However, citizens of Contra Costa County, CA, will also read this report . So, the authors attempted to put August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 334 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 116 the issues discussed in this report into common terms wherever possible. Still, because of the nature of the subject, use of technical terms is unavoidable. If you want to learn more about main aspects of this evaluation, we recommend you start with the papers below. For more depth, the textbooks listed below are a good follow-on read. Of course, the list of references in Section 6.5 provides even greater depth on specific issues. Process Safety Contra Costa County (California) Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO), online interactive website – https//:cchealth.org/hazmat/iso/ (download also available): Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety, 2007, CCPS/AIChE “Process Safety Competency,” R. Tew, G. Burch, and W. Bridges, PII; 10th Global Congress on Process Safety, 2014, AIChE; download from www.piii.com/resources “Optimizing Qualitative Hazard Evaluations For Maximized Brainstorming,” W. Bridges, and R. Tew, 43rd Loss Prevention Symposium, 2009, AIChE; download from www.piii.com/resources Human Factors “Human Factors and Their Optimization,” W. Bridges, Dr. G. Collazo; 8th Global Congress on Process Safety, 2012, AIChE; download from www.piii.com/resources The Human Reliability Handbook – with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications; NUREG/CR-1278, Swain, A.D. and Guttmann, H.E. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Facility Operations, 1983. (downloadable at: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0712/ML071210299.pdf) Guidelines for Preventing Human Error in Process Safety, 2004, CCPS/AIChE Section B: Chapter 2, Contra Costa County (California) Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO), download from http://cchealth.org/hazmat/pdf/iso/sect_b_ch_2.pdf Process Safety Culture “Process Safety Culture – Making This a Reality,” C. Chung, CCHMP; G. Burch and W. Bridges, PII; 10th Global Congress on Process Safety, 2014, AIChE; download from www.piii.com/resources “Gains from Getting Near Misses Reported,” Research paper by W. Bridges, 8th Global Congress on Process Safety, 2012, AIChE; download from www.piii.com/resources Safety Culture and Risk; The Organisational Causes of Disasters, Hopkins, Andrew, Sydney, New South Wales: CCH Australia Limited, 2005 U.S. Chemical Safety Board’s Final Investigation Report on the Chevron Richmond Refinery Pipe Rupture and Fire, presented at 11th Global Congress on Process Safety (GCPS) – Case Histories and Lessons Learned, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), April 30, 2015 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 335 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 117 6.2 SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE SAFETY EVALUATION Chevron Richmond Refinery Management Systems and Safety Evaluation Statement of Scope The evaluation will be conducted at the Chevron Richmond Refinery. 1. Evaluate how the refinery’s management systems, safety culture, and human factors are incorporated in the information and expectation sharing and training of operating, maintenance, management personnel, other staff and contractors. Address the management systems in place for: Mechanical Integrity, Operating Procedures, Training, Management of Change (including management of organizational change), Process Safety Information, Pre Start-Up Safety Reviews, Incident Investigation, Hot Work, Contractors, Emergency Response Program, Compliance Audits, Employee Participation, and Process Hazard Analysis. The review of the management systems is to include how Chevron follows up with action items from incident investigations (internal and external), audits (internal and external) and actions to address enforcement citations. This evaluation should include, but not be limited by the list in Appendix A “Self-evaluation Questionnaire for Managers Considering Ways to Improve Human Performance1Policy Issues,” Appendix B Contra Costa County’s Safety Program Guidance Document Section B: Human Factors Program,” Appendix C Contra Costa County’s Safety Program Guidance Document Section F: Safety Culture Assessments, and the items listed below: a) How is management intent, as expressed in internal policies, carried out at field level? b) How are procedures and policies developed? What do personnel at Chevron Richmond Refinery do when work falls outside of the written procedures or policies? c) How is bottom-up input provided for, and on what range of subject matter? How are disagreements resolved? d) What systems are in place to assure that policies and/or procedures are followed? Do these include audits (scheduled and random)? e) What accountability exists at each level of the organization? Who is accountable for what and to whom? f) Is there stop work authority for all refinery personnel and if there is, does the line and support staff believe that there will no repercussions if the policy is followed? g) Does stop work thoroughly include stopping/shutting down a process, or just maintenance work? August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 336 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 118 h) Does the frequency in changing the refinery top management affect the overall safety culture of the refinery? 2. Public Participation – This evaluation will include public participation. A committee has been developed that will oversee the work of the evaluation. The Oversight Committee will assist in selecting the successful evaluation team. A meeting with the Oversight Committee will be held prior to the beginning of the on-site evaluation, in which the contractor will explain the approach and plan on how the contractor will perform the evaluation. Interim meetings during the on-site safety evaluation with the Oversight Committee to update the Oversight Committee on the progress of the evaluation and the confirmed findings. This will be at least one meeting but may be additional meetings as needed. A meeting will be held with the Oversight Committee after the draft report is issued to explain the results of the evaluation. The Oversight Committee will have the opportunity during this meeting to ask questions and give comments on the draft report. At this meeting the Oversight Committee will either accept the report or not based on the work of the consultant. If the report is not accepted, the evaluation team will be directed on what changes need to be made so the Oversight Committee will be able to accept the report. When the draft report has been accepted by the Oversight Committee, the draft report will have a 45 day public comment period. During the 45-day public comment period, a public meeting will be held. The public meeting will be an opportunity for the contractor to listen to the public’s concerns and consider making changes in the report or doing additional on-site work to complete the evaluation. The contractor working with Contra Costa Health Services shall respond to all written comments and comments that are raised in the public meeting. The contractor should expect to attend and present reports at the following meetings: a) An initial meeting with the Oversight Committee before starting the evaluation. b) Interim meetings during the on-site evaluation to update the Oversight Committee on the progress of the evaluation and some of the confirmed findings of the consultant. c) Additional meeting or meetings with the Oversight Committee to discuss the draft findings of the evaluation and to receive acceptance of the draft report. d) A public meeting to present the draft report. e) A public meeting of the Richmond City Council. f) A public meeting of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, to present the final report. g) Review the Chevron Richmond Refinery’s action plan to help ensure that the action plan is addressing the recommendations and findings from the safety evaluation. 3. A follow-up evaluation will be done to include the following: a) What systems are in place to assure that policies and/or procedures are followed? Do these include audits (scheduled and random)? b) What accountability exists at each level of the organization? Who is accountable for what and to whom? c) Is there stop work authority for all refinery personnel and if there is, does the line and support staff believe that there will no repercussions if the policy is followed? August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 337 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 119 d) Does stop work thoroughly include stopping/shutting down a process, or just maintenance work? e) Does the frequency in changing the refinery top management affect the overall safety culture of the refinery? The contractor will prepare a plan for evaluation and will submit this plan to the Project Manager from Contra Costa Health Services for review. The plan shall include interviewing the Union Safety Committee. Included in Appendix A are examples of items to be considered in this evaluation. The contractor should use this list to assist in the evaluation of Chevron Richmond Refinery’s current programs for addressing management systems, safety practices, and the safety culture of the Chevron Richmond Refinery. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 338 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 120 6.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FROM PUBLIC Pending receipt of comments from public. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 339 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 121 6.4 GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS ABU Area Business Unit (CUSA) ACD Add, Delete, Change (CUSA) ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists AI Asset Integrity (CUSA) AIChE American Institute of Chemical Engineers ANSI American National Standards Institute AOA Alarm Objective Analysis API American Petroleum Institute ASM Abnormal Situation Management Consortium ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers BIN Business Improvement Network (CUSA) BOT Basic Operator Training BP British Petroleum CA Compliance Audits CAIB Columbia Accident Investigation Board Cal ARP California Accidental Release Prevention CBT Computer Based Training CCHMP Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Program CCPS Center for Chemical Process Safety (of AIChE) CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHESM Contractor Health, Environmental, and Safety Management systems CML Condition Monitoring Location CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System CPDEP Chevron Project Development and Execution Process CRV Critical Reliability Variables CSB U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board CSE Confined Space Entry CTU Chevron Technical University CUSA Chevron U.S.A. DCS Distributed Control System EMMS Electronic Manual Management System (CUSA) EOM Electronic Operating Manuals (CUSA) EPA Environmental Protection Agency (USA) ERP Emergency Response Plan ESD Emergency Shut Down FEI Fixed Equipment Integrity FEIM Fixed Equipment Integrity Manager FFD Fitness for Duty FOTP Global Fundamental Operator Training Program (CUSA) GCPS Global Congress on Process Safety (of AIChE) GM General Manager (CUSA) HA Hazards Assessment HAZOP Hazard and Operability; as in HAZOP Analysis or HAZOP Study HF Human Factors HMI Human Machine Interface HO Head Operator (CUSA) HRD Human Relations Department HSE Health, Safety, and Environment August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 340 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 122 I/O Input/Output ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance IE Initiating Event IEC International Electrotechnical Commission IEEE The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. II Incident Investigation IIF incident and Injury Free (CUSA) IOW Integrity Operating Window IPL Independent Protection Layer IMPACT Initiative for Managing Pacesetter Turnarounds IREC Inspection Recommendation IS Inspection Supervisors (CUSA) ISA International Society of Automation ISF Instrumented Safety Function ISS Instrumented Safety System ITL Impact Team Lead ITPM Inspection, Testing, and Preventive Maintenance KPI Key Performance Indicator LA Leadership and Accountability LCC Latent Conditions Coordinator L&D Learning and Development LI Loss Incident (CUSA) LMS Learning Management System LOC Loss of Containment LOPA Layer of Protection Analysis LOTO Lockout/Tagout LPO Loss Prevention Observations (CUSA) LPS Loss Prevention System (CUSA), includes behavior based safety principles M&R Maintenance and Reliability (CUSA) MART Maximum Allowable Response Time Maximo The CMMS used by CUSA MAWP Maximum Allowable Working Pressure MAWT Maximum Allowable Working Temperature Meridium The CUSA database for equipment design, inspection, and repair history MI Mechanical Integrity MIS Major Incident Survey (CUSA) MOC Management of Change MoOC Management of Organizational Change NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NJBI New Job Break-In Checklists (CUSA) NLI Near Loss Incident (CUSA) NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulation OERI Operational Excellence Reliability Intelligence (CUSA) OJT On-The-Job (Training) OOA Optimization Operations Assistant (CUSA) position designed to support the STL OP Operating Procedures ORR Operational Readiness Review OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration (USA) PCO Process Control Operator (CUSA) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 341 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 123 PERD Process Equipment Reliability Database PHA Process Hazard Analysis PII Process Improvement Institute, Inc. P&ID Piping & Instrumentation Diagram PMI Positive Material Identification PPSS Plant Process Safety Symposium (of AIChE) PSI Process Safety Information PSM Process Safety Management (OSHA PSM Standard 29 CFR 1910.119) PSSR Pre-Startup Safety Review PST Process Safety Time QA Quality Assurance RAGAGEP Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practice RBPS Risk Based Process Safety RCA Root Cause Analysis REC Recommendation RISO Richmond Industrial Safety Ordinance RMP U.S.EPA Risk Management Plan (40 CFR 68) RP Recommended Practice RTF Run To Failure SCA Safety Culture Assessment SCI Safety Culture Interview SID Safety In Design (CUSA) SIF Safety Instrumented Function SIL Safety Integrity Level SIS Safety Instrumented System SME Subject Matter Experts sRCM Reliability Centered Maintenance SRU Sulfur Recovery Unit (CUSA) STL Shift Team Leader SWA Stop Work Authority (SWA) SWP Safe Work Permit TLR Temporary Leak Repairs (CUSA) TOP Triangle of Prevention – United Steelworkers UL Underwriters Laboratory U.S.EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency U.S.OSHA U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration WPIA Work Process Improvement Coordinator August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 342 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 124 6.5 REFERENCES (END NOTES) 1 Oversight Committee. "Final Request for Proposal." Chevron Richmond Refinery Safety Evaluation. Contra Costa Health Services Environmental Health and Hazardous Materials Programs, May 23, 2013. 2 Ibid. 3 Cheung, Burch, and Bridges. "Process Safety Culture – Making This a Reality." 10th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2014. 4 Ibid. 5 U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). Investigation Report: Catastrophic Rupture of Heat Exchanger (Seven Fatalities), Tesori Anacortes Refinery, Anacortes, WA, Report No. 2010-08-I-WA, Draft for Public Comment. U.S. Chemical and Safety Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), January 29, 2014. 6 Baker, James A., et al. "The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel." January 2007. 7 "Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) Report." National Aeronatics and Space Agency (NASA), August 2003. 8 Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Programs. "Section F Safety Culture Guidance." In Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO), by CCHMP. June 15, 2011. 9 Ibid. 10 Hopkins, Andrew, Safety Culture and Risk; The Organisational Causes of Disasters. Sydney, New South Wales: CCH Australia Limited, 2005, 11 Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Programs. "Section F Safety Culture Guidance." In Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO), by CCHMP. June 15, 2011. 12 Bridges, William G. and Collazo-Ramos, Dr. Ginette. "Human Factors and Their Optimization." 8th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2012. 13 Learning and Development. "Human Factors for Procedure Writing." Materials and Procedures – EOM. Chevron Richmond Refinery, January 2013. 14 U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). Investigation Report: Refinery Fire and Explosion, BP, Texas City, TX, Report No. 2005-04-l-TX. U.S. CSB, March 2007. 15 OSHA Directive Number CPL 03-00-004. "Petroleum Refinery Process Safety Management National Emphasis Program, Appendix A, Section I – Human Factors." Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), June 7, 2007. 16 Tew, R. and Bridges, W. "Human Factors Elements Missing from Process Safety Management (PSM)." 6th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 343 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 125 17 OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119. "Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals." Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), [57 FR 23060, June 1, 1992; 61 FR 9227, March 8, 1996; 77 FR 17776, March 26, 2012; 78 FR 9313, Feb 8, 2013]. 18 State of California. "Chapter 4.5 California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal ARP) Program." California Code of Regulations, Title 19. Public Safety. California Code of Regulation, June 28, 2004. 19 Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Programs. "Section B Chapter 2: Human Factors and Human Error." In Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO), by CCHMP. June 15, 2011. 20 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2007. 21 Tew, R. and Bridges, W. "Human Factors Elements Missing from Process Safety Management (PSM)." 6th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010. 22 Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Programs. "Section B Chapter 2: Human Factors and Human Error." In Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO), by CCHMP. June 15, 2011. 23 Bridges, William G. and Collazo-Ramos, Dr. Ginette. "Human Factors and Their Optimization." 8th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2012. 24 Swain, A.D. and Guttmann, H.E. The Human Reliability Handbook – with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications; NUREG/CR-1278. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Facility Operations, 1983. 25 Tew, R. and Bridges, W. "Human Factors Elements Missing from Process Safety Management (PSM)." 6th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010. 26 Ibid. 27 Bridges, W. "LOPA and Human Reliability – Human Errors and Human IPLs." 6th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010. 28 Tew, R. and Bridges, W. "Human Factors Elements Missing from Process Safety Management (PSM)." 6th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010. 29 Bridges, W. "LOPA and Human Reliability – Human Errors and Human IPLs." 6th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010. 30 Ibid. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 344 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 126 31 Swain, A.D. and Guttmann, H.E. The Human Reliability Handbook – with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications; NUREG/CR-1278. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Facility Operations, 1983. 32 Bridges, W. "LOPA and Human Reliability – Human Errors and Human IPLs." 6th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010. 33 Ibid. 34 Swain, A.D. and Guttmann, H.E. The Human Reliability Handbook – with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications; NUREG/CR-1278. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Facility Operations, 1983. 35 Bridges, W. "LOPA and Human Reliability – Human Errors and Human IPLs." 6th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010. 36 Tew, R. and Bridges, W. "Human Factors Elements Missing from Process Safety Management (PSM)." 6th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010. 37 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 1985. 38 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA), American Institute Of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2001. 39 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Technical Management of Chemical Process Safety. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 1989. 40 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2007. 41 Tew, R. and Bridges, W. "Human Factors Elements Missing from Process Safety Management (PSM)." 6th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010. 42 Ibid. 43 DOE Standard DOE-STD-93. Guide to Good Practices for Operations Turnover. U.S. Department of Energy, June 1993. 44 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2007. 45 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Auditing Process Safety Management Systems, 2nd Edition. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2011. 46 Baker, James A., et al. "The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel." January 2007. 47 U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). Investigation Report: Refinery Fire and Explosion, BP, Texas City, TX, Report No. 2005-04-l-TX. U.S. CSB, March 2007. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 345 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 127 48 Baker, James A., et al. "The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel." January 2007. 49 OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119. "Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals." Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), [57 FR 23060, June 1, 1992; 61 FR 9227, March 8, 1996; 77 FR 17776, March 26, 2012; 78 FR 9313, Feb 8, 2013]. 50 Cheung, Burch, and Bridges, W. "Process Safety Culture – Making This a Reality." 10th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2014. 51 Bridges, W. "Gains in Getting Near Misses Reported (Updated)." 8th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2012. 52 OSHA 3133. "Process Safety Management Guidelines for Compliance." Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 1994. 53 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd Edition. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2008. 54 U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). Interim Investigation Report: Chevron Richmond Refinery Fire, U.S. CSB, August 6, 2012. 55 Ibid. 56 Bridges, W. and Clark, T. “How to Efficiently Perform the Hazard Evaluation (PHA) Required for Non-Routine Modes of Operation (Startup, Shutdown, Online Maintenance).” 7th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2011. 57 U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). Interim Investigation Report: Chevron Richmond Refinery Fire, U.S. CSB, August 6, 2012. 58 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd Edition. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2008. 59 OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.45A. (Revised 9/15/1994) "Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals – Compliance Guidelines and Enforcement Procedures." Directorate of Compliance Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), September 28, 1992. 60 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, 3rd Edition. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2008. 61 Bridges, W. and Clark, T. “How to Efficiently Perform the Hazard Evaluation (PHA) Required for Non-Routine Modes of Operation (Startup, Shutdown, Online Maintenance).” 7th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2011. 62 OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119. "Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals." Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), [57 FR 23060, June 1, 1992; 61 FR 9227, March 8, 1996; 77 FR 17776, March 26, 2012; 78 FR 9313, Feb 8, 2013]. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 346 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 128 63 U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). Interim Investigation Report: Chevron Richmond Refinery Fire, U.S. CSB, August 6, 2012. 64 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Mechanical Integrity Systems. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2006. 65 Chevron Data Transmittal #89: Attachment 1 Modernization Project Reliability Program, March 11,2014, http://chevronmodernization.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/Trans_090-Update-Post-Aug-6-Safety-Measures-Email1.pdf. 66 Chevron Data Transmittal #89: Attachment 1 Modernization Project Reliability Program, March 11,2014, http://chevronmodernization.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/Trans_089-Att-1-Modernization-Project-Reliability- Program1.pdf. 67 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Mechanical Integrity Systems. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2006. 68 Chevron Data Transmittal #90: Attachment 1 Update Post August 6 Safety Measures, March 11,2014, http://chevronmodernization.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/Trans_090-Update-Post-Aug-6-Safety-Measures-Email1.pdf. 69 Chevron Data Transmittal #90: Attachment 1 Update Post August 6 Safety Measures, March 11,2014, http://chevronmodernization.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/Trans_090-Att-1-Update-Post-August-6-Safety-Measures.pdf. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 City of Richmond California, “Chevron Refinery Modernization Project” website, http://chevronmodernization.com/project-documents/ 74 Hendrix, David, Chevron Refinery Modernization Project EIR, “Reliability Analysis of Modernization Project Changes” Appendix 4.13-REL (rev 2), March 7, 2014 (https://s3.amazonaws.com/chevron/Appendix_4.13-REL_r2.pdf) 75OSHA Directive Number CPL 03-00-004. "Petrolium Refinery Process Safety Management National Emphasis Program, Appendix A, Section I – Human Factiors." Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), June 7, 2007. 76Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Mechanical Integrity Systems. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2006. 77 US OSHA letter of interpretation from Ruth E. McCully, Director, Office of Health and Compliance Assistance, to Mr. Gerald Joy, ICF Kaiser Engineers, Pittsburgh, PA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), October 11, 1994. 78 Bridges, William G. and Collazo-Ramos, Dr. Ginette. "Human Factors and Their Optimization." 8th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2012. 79 Tew, R. and Bridges, W. "Human Factors Elements Missing from Process Safety Management (PSM)." 6th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 347 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 129 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010. 80 Bridges, William G. and Collazo-Ramos, Dr. Ginette. "Human Factors and Their Optimization." 8th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2012. 81 Tew, R. and Bridges, W. "Human Factors Elements Missing from Process Safety Management (PSM)." 6th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010. 82 Ibid. 83 Swain, A.D. and Guttmann, H.E. The Human Reliability Handbook – with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications; NUREG/CR-1278. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Facility Operations, 1983. 84 Gertman, D., Blackman, H., Marble, J., Byers, J., and Smith, C. The SPAR-H Human Reliability Analysis Method; NUREG/CR-6883, INL/EXT-05-00509. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555-0001, Idaho National Laboratory, August 2005. 85 American Petroleum Institute (API), Process Safety Performance Indicators for the Refining and Petrochemical Industries, ANSI/API Recommended Practice 754, API Publishing Services, 1220 L. Street, NW, Washington, D./C. 20005, April 2010. 86 Ibid. 87 Bridges, W. "Gains in Getting Near Misses Reported (Updated)." 8th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2012. 88 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Investigating Chemical Process Incidents, 2nd Edition. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2003. 89 Bridges, W. "Gains in Getting Near Misses Reported (Updated)." 8th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2012. 90 Smith, G, Burch, G.D., Bridges, W.G., and Tew, R. "Proven Approach to Investigating Near Misses." 9th Global Congress on Process Safety (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2013. 91 Bridges, W. "Gains in Getting Near Misses Reported (Updated)." 8th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2012. 92 Ibid. 93 Ibid. 94 Bridges, W. and Williams, T. “Create Effective Safety Procedures and Operating Manuals,” Chemical Engineering Progress, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), December 1997. 95 Bridges, William G. and Collazo-Ramos, Dr. Ginette. "Human Factors and Their Optimization." 8th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 348 Final Report: Safety Evaluation of the Chevron Richmond Refinery Report-152-13 130 Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2012. 96 Swain, A.D. and Guttmann, H.E. The Human Reliability Handbook – with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications; NUREG/CR-1278. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Facility Operations, 1983. 97 United States Department of Energy. "Guide To Good Practices For Communications,” DOE-STD-1031-92 Washington, D.C. 20585, December 1998. 98 United States Department of Energy. "Guide To Good Practices For Operations Turnover,” DOE-STD-1038-93 Washington, D.C. 20585, December 1998. 99 Bridges, William G. and Collazo-Ramos, Dr. Ginette. "Human Factors and Their Optimization." 8th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2012. 100 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Conduct of Operations and Operational Discipline. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2011. 101 Swain, A.D. and Guttmann, H.E. The Human Reliability Handbook – with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications; NUREG/CR-1278. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Facility Operations, 1983. 102 Gertman, D., Blackman, H., Marble, J., Byers, J., and Smith, C. The SPAR-H Human Reliability Analysis Method; NUREG/CR-6883, INL/EXT-05-00509. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555-0001, Idaho National Laboratory, August 2005. 103 Bridges, W (PII) and Thomas, H. (exida) “Accounting for Human Error Probability in SIL Verification Calculations,” 8th Global Conference on Process Safety (GCPS), American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), April 2012. 104 Bridges, W. "LOPA and Human Reliability – Human Errors and Human IPLs." 6th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2010. 105 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 10 CFR Part 55 Operators Licenses, Subpart E Written Examinations and Operating Tests, Washington D.C., July 2012. 106 Cheung, Burch, and Bridges, W. "Process Safety Culture – Making This a Reality." 10th Global Congress for Process Safety Proceeding (GCPS). American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2014. 107 Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Investigating Chemical Process Incidents, 2nd Edition. American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 2003. 108 Baker, James A., et al. "The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel." January 2007. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 349 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes350 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT report as the Board of Supervisors' response to Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1606, entitled "Reclaiming Our Water”. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The 2015/16 Civil Grand Jury filed the above-referenced report, attached, on May 24, 2016, which was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred to the County Administrator, who prepared the attached response that clearly specifies: Whether the finding or recommendation is accepted or will be implemented;A. If a recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and a definite target date; B. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented within a six-month period; and C. The reason for not accepting or adopting a finding or recommendation.D. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stepahnie Mello, Deputy cc: D.7 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RESPONSE TO CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1606, ENTITLED "RECLAIMING OUR WATER" August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 351 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Findings F1. Among obstacles to using more recycled water are: determining who will pay for installing the necessary infrastructure and distribution system; finding a willing customer; and minimizing the financial and legal impacts to the current potable water purveyor. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F2. Water purveyors and wastewater processors can share water treatment costs and revenues under a JPA (Joint Powers Authority). Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F3. State matching grants and low-interest loans are available for small indirect potable reuse projects, which could potentially increase water supply. Response: No response is required of the County. F4. Indirect potable reuse projects are ideal for areas in the County where other new water sources are unavailable. Response: No response is required of the County. F5. It is difficult to develop large recycled water projects without the cooperation and commitment of water purveyors and customers. Response: No response is required of the County. F6. Where recycled water can be wheeled to one customer, it could "free up" an equivalent amount of fresh water that could then be wheeled to another customer who might be willing to pay more, thus creating "win-win" results for recycled water projects. Response: No response is required of the County. F7. While stormwater capture and reuse has potential for contributing to the County’s long-term water needs, the County has focused on NPDES compliance. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. The County’s Clean Water Program is currently focused on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance for the permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (the State agency that regulates stormwater discharges into creeks, the bay, and the delta). The new permit requires the County to investigate reuse of stormwaters, which the Clean Water programs will be investigating during the next term of the permit (five years). Once the stormwater is captured, the next challenge will be a distribution system to deliver, and a plan to utilize, the stormwater. Currently a distribution system does not exist and will be expensive to construct. F8. Contra Costa County and its cities could adopt water saving and recycling ordinances for large commercial buildings, similar to those adopted in other large urban locations such as San Francisco. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 352 F9. Satellite wastewater treatment plants are feasible in situations where the user is distant from existing recycled water distribution systems, needs water for irrigation, and is able to meet the costs to build and operate the plant. Response: No response is required of the County. F10. The County is below the State average in use of recycled water. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F11. Desalination technology continues to evolve, including smaller scale solar powered and HDH (“Dewvaporation”) pilot plants, although neither has been developed to full commercialization. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F12. Citizen involvement (possibly through an Advisory Council) is a key to getting buy-in for recycle and IPR/DPR projects because it is citizens who pay for, consume, and depend on a reliable source of pure water. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F13. There is no single point of contact for water recycle and reuse issues in the County. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. Ryan Hernandez, Manager of the Contra Costa County Water Agency, is the staff person designated to respond to questions about the County’s policy goals related to water. However, Mr. Hernandez is not the point of contact for the related issue of stormwater capture (Flood Control is) nor is Mr. Hernandez the Countywide point of contact. Water recycle and reuse handled by a variety of different agencies and the County is not the lead agency. Recommendations R1. The Board of Supervisors should consider facilitating (possibly through a Task Force) the formation of a JPA to promote water recycling , stormwater capture and desalination projects. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Flood Control District, Clean Water Program and County Water Agency work through the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC), a two-member committee of the Board of Supervisors that reports directly to the full board. The TWIC engages with County staff and special district representatives to discuss water issues, and provides direction to staff and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. In addition to the TWIC, the State encouraged counties and other agencies involved in water issues to participate in an Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Planning process to determine how to spend significant portions of State water bond funding. Projects seeking funding through IRWM grants that are not within or consistent with an IRWM Plan are ineligible for funding. Other grant programs may require that a project be within or consistent with an IRWM Plan. Contra Costa County and various water and sanitary districts and other relevant agencies are participating in the East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, which has developed a comprehensive planning process and enhanced community and project based communications. R2. CCCSD and CCWD should explore the feasibility of cooperatively developing an IPR Injection Well Project. Response: No response is required of the County. R3. CCCSD, CCWD, and DSRSD should consider the formation of a JPA to expand CCCSD's tertiary treatment capacity in order to free up fresh water for domestic and commercial customers. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 353 Response: No response is required of the County. R4. The Board of Supervisors should consider directing that priority be given to capture and reuse of stormwater where possible in all new County flood control projects. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The first priority for the County and Flood Control District should be maintenance and continued operation of the current facilities. Capture and reuse of stormwater should be investigated but not mandated. Once again, stormwater is difficult to store after it is captured. After it is stored, a distribution system to deliver and utilize the stormwater will need to be developed. Currently a distribution system does not exist, and will be expensive to construct. R5. The Board of Supervisors should consider adopting ordinances that promulgate recycling and recovery of water on a County-wide basis. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The County has historically supported conservation through development and adoption of a water conservation landscape ordinance, a dual plumbing ordinance to maximize use of recycled water where feasible, and an ordinance to use recycled water for dust control and compaction for construction purposes during drought. Water conservation is emphasized, as it has multiple benefits: it reduces water demand, reduces water treatment requirements, and reduces energy use. Additionally, the Delta Water Platform, revised and adopted by the Board in May of 2014, establishes policy goals for the Delta specific to water conservation and recycling. Excerpt from Delta Water Platform: 5. Water Conservation Support and encourage water conservation activities as a primary first step in any proposed statewide water management strategy. a. Support and encourage water conserving landscapes.b. Maximize reuse of reclaimed wastewater.c. Support acceleration of mandatory water meter requirements throughout the state.d. Support and advocate for improved agricultural water conservation practices.e. R6. The city should consider adopting requirements relating to the use of reclaimed water for planned communities and large commercial buildings to maximize its use. Response: No response is required of the County. R7. The district should consider facilitating the use of satellite wastewater treatment plants, where appropriate. Response: No response is required of the County. R8. The Board of Supervisors should consider adopting a County goal to exceed the State average for recycled water use and establish a target date. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The Board of Supervisors has limited jurisdiction over recycled water production, delivery and use, which is within the purview of the local water districts. The County has no oversight responsibility for or authority over the water districts, which are governed by independent elected boards. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 354 R9. The County and Districts should consider meeting to discuss each District's need for land for demonstration of scaled-up recycling and desalination projects using green technologies, which may qualify for State grant money, and the County's ability to lease such land. Response: The recommendation will be implemented upon request by the local water districts. R10. To promote public awareness and citizen involvement, the Board of Supervisors should consider establishing a citizen 's "Water Reuse Advisory Council" which includes citizen stakeholders and technology experts to advise them on all water reuse issues affecting the County. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Water reuse falls under the purview of the local water districts. It would be appropriate and more effective for the water districts to establish citizens’ advisory bodies for this purpose. R11. The Board of Supervisors should consider designating a single point of contact within County government for water recycle/reuse issues or establishing a permanent water sustainability subcommittee under their Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee to advise the committee on water reuse issues. Response: The recommendation has been partially implemented. Ryan Hernandez, Manager of the Contra Costa County Water Agency, is the staff person designated to respond to questions about the County’s policy goals related to water. However, Mr. Hernandez is not the point of contact for the related issue of stormwater capture (Flood Control is) nor is Mr. Hernandez the Countywide point of contact. Water recycle and reuse handled by a variety of different agencies and the County is not the lead agency. ATTACHMENTS Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1606 "Reclaiming Our Water" August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 355 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 356 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 357 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 358 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 359 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 360 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 361 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 362 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 363 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 364 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 365 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 366 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 367 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 368 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 369 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 370 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 371 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 372 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 373 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 374 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 375 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 376 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 377 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT report as the Board of Supervisors' response to Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1607, entitled "Delta Levees in Contra Costa County”. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The 2015/16 Civil Grand Jury filed the above-referenced report, attached, on May 31, 2016, which was received on June 6, reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred to the County Administrator, who prepared the attached response that clearly specifies: Whether the finding or recommendation is accepted or will be implemented;A. If a recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and a definite target date; B. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented within a six-month period; and C. The reason for not accepting or adopting a finding or recommendation.D. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stepahnie Mello, Deputy cc: D.8 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RESPONSE TO CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1607, ENTITLED "DELTA LEVEES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY" August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 378 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Findings F1. The portion of the Delta that lies within Contra Costa County includes six of the eight western islands, deemed by the State to be of particular importance to the preventing seawater intrusion that would impair the quality of the water for nearly two-thirds of the State, including much of the East Bay area. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F2. Loss (i.e. submersion) of any of the six islands in the Delta within Contra Costa County has potential to affect adversely much more than just Contra Costa County. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F3. Key infrastructure located within Contra Costa County reclamation districts benefits the entire County, including major County roads and highways, a rail-line, PG&E power transmission lines, natural gas wells, petroleum pipelines, Contra Costa Water District intakes, pumping stations, and portions of both the Contra Costa Canal and EBMUD’s Mokelumne aqueduct. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F4. The levees in the County’s portion of the Delta have been built up or otherwise strengthened on a piecemeal basis over the century or more of their existence. Response: No response is required of the County. F5. Because the levees remain vulnerable to natural hazards and human activities, they require constant vigilance – i.e., frequent inspection coupled with timely maintenance and prompt repairs. Response: No response is required of the County. F6. The Army Corp of Engineers inspects federal levees, as well as non-federal levees that qualify for the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program. Response: No response is required of the County. F7. All of our County’s levees are non-federal levees and the only non-federal levees in the County that qualify for participation in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program are in Holland and Byron Reclamation Districts. Response: No response is required of the County. F8. The only levees in the County that are independently evaluated for structural integrity are those in Reclamation Districts 800 and 2026, Holland and Byron. Response: No response is required of the County. F9. LAFCO’s MSR of the reclamation districts, which it performs every 5-years, focuses on financial and administrative management of the districts. Response: No response is required of the County. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 379 F10. LAFCO relies on self-reported information from the districts, without physical inspection, to evaluate how well the districts are maintaining the integrity of the levees for which they are responsible. Response: No response is required of the County. F11. There is no formal or standardized educational or training resource available to the districts for levee inspection, maintenance, and repair, which can support new levee superintendents or managers while they acquire the experience to recognize problems early, learn how to appropriately respond, and learn how to balance environmental regulations with maintenance protocols. Response: No response is required of the County. F12. Levee management requires recognizing seasonal timeframes and juggling multiple deadlines, including preparing for storm season and the “no-mowing” period, when local bird populations nest, as well as timely application for the subvention and/or special projects funding programs. Response: No response is required of the County. F13. Unpermitted encroachments can hinder visual inspection of the levee surface and create new structural weaknesses or potential conduits for seepage. Response: No response is required of the County. F14. Education about the potential danger of unpermitted encroachments can be a highly effective management tool for mitigating this type of hazard because increased understanding of the potential consequences of such encroachments can support longer-term adherence to levee regulations and protocols. Response: No response is required of the County. F15. Since early recognition of potential trouble spots and prompt repair work are critical to maintaining levee integrity, while resources for levee patrols are limited, the presence of an educated and aware residential population can supply additional eyes to provide the constant vigilance that is crucial to safeguarding the levees. Response: No response is required of the County. F16. In addition to permitting procedures and intermittent newsletters, there are other opportunities to educate the public, and especially residents of reclamation districts, about the hazards that can damage or impair the levees. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F17. Explaining the hazards to levees by multiple means at appropriate times -- i.e., just before the start of storm season in the fall – can help to keep awareness at a heightened and effective level. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F18. Efforts to educate and raise public awareness could be enhanced by cross-departmental and/or cross-agency cooperation such as including Flood Control safety bulletins with other seasonally appropriate, apt-to-be-read or mandatory mailings such as property tax bills or voter information packets. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 380 F19. It takes nearly 2 years from the application date for reclamation districts to receive reimbursement of levee maintenance work approved by DWR under the Subventions Program. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F20. The cost of the initial funding required of reclamation districts under DWR’s Subventions Program can be prohibitive for some reclamation districts, resulting in under-utilization of this highly beneficial program. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F21. Some reclamation districts that are unable to maintain the staff, equipment, and material stockpiles needed for emergency major repairs, rely on informal mutual-aid arrangements. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F22. Planning agencies can require that developers who seek to develop areas within reclamation districts financially contribute to existing levees as a condition of approval of their proposed developments, as was done with the East Cypress Corridor Plan for residential development in the interior of Hotchkiss Tract, Reclamation District 799. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding, provided there is a clear nexus to the proposed project. F23. The feasibility of interagency cooperative ventures to accomplish levee improvements has been demonstrated by multi-agency coalition to improve the levees in Reclamation District 2028, Bacon Island. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. Recommendations R1. After identifying the necessary funding, LAFCO should consider including independent physical inspections of levee conditions, in addition to the self-reported evaluations of the conditions, in the MSRs of all County reclamation districts, if necessary by hiring an independent engineering firm to perform this function. Response: No response is required of the County. R2. After identifying the necessary funding, the County reclamation districts should collaborate in establishing and supporting a shared website, possibly approaching one of the Districts that already has a website to take the lead. This website should include “Best Practices”, a calendar of date- or seasonal-specific tasks, such as preparation for nesting season when certain work is prohibited, and dates when Subventions Program applications are due, and a common log of significant levee incidents to identify and track historical trouble spots. Response: No response is required of the County. R3. After identifying the necessary funding, the County reclamation districts should consider taking turns hosting a short, local, annual conference for all District Board members and staff. Each conference should include an educational presentation on a matter of common interest, such as changes in regulations or levee standards, new technology or procedures for levee work, new sources of funding, and/or most effective techniques for successful grant applications. Response: No response is required of the County. R4. After identifying the necessary funding, reclamation districts should consider adding a “training module” for August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 381 new and re-elected Board members to their required governance training (i.e. Brown Act and Ethics). This “module” or session should cover the district’s levee regulations and protocols, the consequences of noncompliance with regulations and protocols, flood preparedness, and emergency response training – or at minimum a “back to basics” session with the consulting engineer to cover these concerns. Response: No response is required of the County. R5. Reclamation districts should formalize, or at a minimum document, all “Mutual Aid” agreements for future reference as reclamation district personnel change over time. Response: No response is required of the County. R6. After identifying the necessary funding, the County Tax Collector should consider including informational material on flood preparedness or levee safety precautions, available at no charge from our County Flood Control or Central Valley Flood Control Agency or DWR, with every property tax bill that has an address within a reclamation district. Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, subject to the availability of funding. Tax bills that have a situs address within a reclamation district may have a message printed in the Important Information to Taxpayer(s) section, directing owners where to go online to learn more about flood preparedness or levee safety precautions. The County is very active in providing information on flood preparedness and levee safety. The Contra Costa County Floodplain Management Program serves the unincorporated area of the county. The Engineering Services Division of Public Works coordinates the program and provides floodplain information for existing structures and proposed projects within the Special Flood Hazard Area. The Program's website offers a wealth of information on floodplain issues. In addition to the website, the Flood Plain Management Program makes numerous brochures available at the Public Works Department's front counter. Also, after the Federal Emergency Management Agency restudies a watershed and modifies the 100 year flood plain, the County sends advisory letters to impacted residents and the board of realtors. R7. After identifying the necessary funding, the County Clerk Recorder should consider including informational material on flood preparedness or levee safety precautions, available at no charge from our County Flood Control or Central Valley Flood Control Agency or DWR, with election materials sent to addresses within a reclamation district. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. There are less expensive and probably more effective methods of communicating this information to residents of reclamation districts (see response to R.6). The Elections Division of the Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department currently includes informational materials in the voter information guides when there are “blank” pages available and the information is general in nature (does not conflict with any ballot measure or candidate). The printing cost of providing a single page of information in English and Spanish is approximately $.0225 per voter. For inclusion in a countywide voter pamphlet, the cost would be approximately $15,000, including translation and typesetting. The voter information packet can be quite voluminous and non-election messaging within the voter information packet could easily be overlooked or disregarded. R8. After identifying the necessary funding, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County Planning Department to provide each applicant for new construction or major remodeling in unincorporated areas within a reclamation district with a brochure or direction to an online website explaining levee safety rules and regulations, along the reasons for same, applicable to their particular reclamation district and to require that each applicant confirm receipt of the brochure or link to website by initialing. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 382 Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. Property owners within flood zones and/or reclamation districts have the responsibility of following the required development standards for construction on their property, including but not limited to compliance with building codes, zoning laws and flood zone regulations. While educating the public on these regulations is an admirable goal, requiring confirmation of receipt of levee safety rules and regulations will be perceived by applicants as another hoop to jump through with little practical value. There is no operational necessity or benefit to the County to maintain such signed receipts. R9. The Oakley City Council should direct the Oakley Planning Commission to provide each applicant for new construction or major remodeling within a reclamation district in the City of Oakley with a brochure or direction to an online website explaining levee safety rules and regulations, along with the reasons for same, applicable to their particular reclamation district and to require that each applicant confirm receipt of the brochure or link to website by initialing. Response: No response is required of the County. R10. The Board of Supervisors should consider directing the appropriate planning and/or land use department to follow the precedent established by the East Cypress Corridor Project and conditions approval of proposals for new residential or commercial development, where allowed on any unincorporated County land in a reclamation district, on financial support of existing levees. Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future for proposed projects where there is clear nexus to existing levees. County project planners will propose conditions of approval that support maintenance of existing levees on future projects seeking development permits from the County when there is a clear nexus. R11. The City of Oakley should consider following the precedent established by the East Cypress Corridor Project and conditioning approval of proposals for new residential or commercial development, where proposed on Oakley’s annexed land in a reclamation district, on financial support of the existing levees. Response: No response is required of the County. R12. After identifying the necessary funding, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County’s Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) to establish a task force or initiate a staff study to investigate ways to encourage and facilitate grant-seeking coalitions of urban water agencies and/or other beneficiaries of the levee system, on smaller-scale projects with shorter time horizons than those currently being investigated by the Delta Protection Commission (i.e. similar to but including even smaller-scale projects than the Bacon Island improvement coalition). Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC), a two-member committee of the Board of Supervisors, is charged with reviewing issues associated with Delta levees and flood control (see excerpt from TWIC Referral No. 5, below). Additionally, the Contra Costa County Delta Water Platform, revised and adopted by the Board in May of 2014, provides policy goals specific to “Levee Restoration” and “Flood Protection/Floodplain Management”. It is the policy of the County to support implementation of projects and actions that will help improve the Delta. As illustrated below, policy goals exist to implement this recommendation but funding and staff resources do not. 5. Policy Excerpts from the Delta Water Platform Flood Protection/Floodplain Management Advocate for funding assistance to Reclamation Districts to maintain non-project levees and to improve them to appropriate standards, such as PL 84-99. a. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 383 improve them to appropriate standards, such as PL 84-99. 8. Levee Restoration Advocate for significant funding for western and central Delta levees, individually and in collaboration with others to support water quality and the existing Delta water conveyance system and protect critical infrastructure. a. Advocate immediate rehabilitation of priority levees on the western and central Delta islands in the strategic levee investments identified in the Delta Plan. b. Advocate for funding assistance for small urban and urbanizing communities within the Delta to attain 200-year flood protection with levees that meet the proposed Urban Levee Design Criteria standards. c. Support using PL84-99 as a minimum design standard for levees. d. Support stockpiling rock in the Delta (and specifically in the western Delta) for levee repair. e. Support a multi-year funding commitment to restore and improve non-project levees and levees outside the State Plan of Flood Control, which is defined in the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. f. Support and advocate for the Delta Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) and the beneficial reuse of dredged materials for levee rehabilitation. g. Oppose the Army Corps of Engineer’s policy to require removal of all shrubs and trees from levees, unless it can be demonstrated the shrubs and trees impact the structural integrity of the levee. h. R13. After identifying the necessary funding, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County’s Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to establish a task force to investigate possible ways for the less-advantaged reclamation districts to obtain interim funding, including but not limited to grants or low-interest rate loans, to cover the initial two-year lag-time to obtain reimbursement for essential levee maintenance work from the Subventions Program. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. Refer to the County’s response to Recommendation No. 12. ATTACHMENTS Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1607 "Delta Levees in Contra Costa County" August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 384 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 385 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 1 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Contact: Michael Simmons Foreperson 925-957-5638 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 1607 DELTA LEVEES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY How Well Do We Protect This Vital Safety System? TO: The Boards of Trustees of All Contra Costa Reclamation Districts; the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors; the Contra Costa Tax Collector; the Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder Elections Division; Contra Costa County LAFCO; and the City Council of Oakley SUMMARY Some say about Contra Costa County’s Delta levees, “It’s not a question of if but when they will fail.” Others disagree. They say that these levees can continue indefinitely to perform successfully if they are constantly and proactively monitored and maintained, and receive appropriate improvements as conditions evolve. The answer to this “if or when” debate is of vital interest to the County. The Delta levees form a critical bulwark against flooding that could have disastrous consequences for the County and even the State. The levees, most of which were built more than a century ago, originally protected privately owned land. This land was reclaimed from marshland for agricultural use, and was sparsely populated by the landowners and possibly a few farmworkers. Today, these levees protect much more:  the lives and property of 28% of Contra Costa County’s population (based on the 2010 census, although the number continues to grow),  infrastructure that is critical to the County and region (including major roads and highways, a railroad line, oil and gas wells and pipelines, power transmission lines, and aqueducts and canals that supply water to nearly 2/3 of the State), and  the quality of Delta water that could be exposed to excessive saline levels due to the incursion of seawater. Many of these levees are fragile, subject to degradation from natural forces and from the effects of human activities. While the Reclamation Districts (Districts) that own and/or manage the levees have done much to protect and maintain them, often aided by State financial support, more can be done, even within the limits of the Districts’ financial resources. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 386 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 2 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury This report recommends focusing on three major areas: sharing of resources and knowledge among Reclamation Districts, education of residents of the Districts as to the reasons behind levee rules and regulations, and increased involvement and participation by the various entities that benefit from the protection afforded by the levee system. METHODOLOGY In conducting its investigation and preparing this report, the Contra Costa County Grand Jury performed the following: Interviewed and/or obtained information from representatives of the following public agencies and Reclamation Districts, including professional engineering firms that provide engineering support to the Reclamation Districts: California Department of Water Resources; Contra Costa County Flood Control; Contra Costa County Department of Public Works/Engineering Services; Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission; Contra Costa Water Department; Contra Costa County Flood Control; Contra Costa County Tax Collector; Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder Elections Division; Ironhouse Sanitary District; Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District, Reclamation Districts 799 (Hotchkiss), 800 (Byron-Discovery Bay), 830 (Jersey Island), 2025 (Holland), 2026 (Webb), 2059 (Bradford), 2065 (Veale), 2122 (Winter),and 2137 (Dutch Slough). Conducted site visits to the following Reclamation Districts: Bethel Island Municipal Improvement; District; 799 (Hotchkiss); 800 (Byron-Discovery Bay); 2024 (Orwood and Palm); 2025 (Holland); and 2065 (Veale). Attended Board Meetings and/or reviewed agendas and minutes from the following public agencies and Reclamation Districts: Contra Costa LAFCO; Contra Costa Board of Supervisors; Contra Costa Water Agency; Reclamation Districts 799, 800, and 2059. Reviewed numerous publications of various public agencies, including but not limited to the following: Department of Water Resources reports and bulletins; Delta Stewardship Council email notices and interim Delta Levee Investment Strategy reports and studies; Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS); Delta Overview; United States Geological Survey August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 387 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 3 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury reports; Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) 2015 Municipal Service Review (MSR); Reclamation District 799’s 5 year plan; CalFed Bay- Delta Program documentation; Contra Costa County 2014 Delta Water Platform; Bulletin 192-82; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers bulletins; California Water Fix bulletins; Contra Costa Water District newsletter and reports; State Investments in the Delta report; Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 2016 State Legislative Platform/Guiding Policies; Delta Protection Commission 2015 Annual Report; Delta Risk Management 2016 Assessment District Feasibility Study. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLAIMER One or more Grand Jurors recused themselves due to a possible conflict of interest and did not participate in the investigation, preparation or approval of this report. BACKGROUND The first levees in the County, which are in the western portion of the Delta, were built on reclaimed marshlands from 1868 through the 1870s using manual labor. Those early builders thought --- incorrectly, as it turned out ---- that levees of 3 to 5 feet in height and 12 feet wide at the base would suffice to protect the newly reclaimed lands. Private landowners using manual labor and horse-drawn wagons built these levees out of the surrounding peat soils. Although excellent soil for agricultural purposes, peat proved not the best material for levee construction as it compacts, subsides, and erodes readily. Those levees failed frequently, and the enclosed lands were flooded almost annually. The advent of the steam-powered clamshell or “grabber” dredges in the late 1800s allowed levees to become higher and broader. Additionally, the use of river-bottom soils with higher clay and mineral content resulted in stronger levees. But even though stronger than the smaller peat levees, the bottom-soil levees were still subject to frequent breaks or “breaches” and/or high water levels washing over the top of the levee (“overtopping”). Those failures resulted in flooding and destruction of the privately owned farms and ranches occupying the land behind the levees. These old agricultural levees still form the base, or footprint, of the majority of levees in Contra Costa County today, raised and/or otherwise strengthened on a piecemeal basis over the past century. Like the vast majority (over 730 of the approximately 1,115 miles) of Delta levees, all of the levees in the County’s portion of the Delta are “non-project” or “local” levees. Other levees known as “project” levees (comprising 385 miles of the Delta levees) form part of an authorized federal flood control project on the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems. Project levees conform to the highest level of flood protection standards (See August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 388 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 4 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Appendix 1 for a diagram of the various levels of flood protection construction standards), and are inspected by and eligible for rehabilitation by the Army Corps of Engineers. Unlike project levees, our non-project levees were constructed, enlarged, and maintained over the last 130 years by local reclamation districts. These districts are locally funded by parcel tax assessments and governed by locally-elected boards. They have jurisdiction over and responsibility for the levees that protect their District’s enclosed lands. Built at significant expense with modern equipment, materials and engineering techniques, project levees meet the highest standards in flood protection. The improvements necessary to bring the older non-project levees up to these standards are largely beyond the available financial resources of local reclamation districts. Aside from the financial challenges, reclamation districts face a moving target in planning major capital improvements to their levees because levee-construction standards continue to evolve as conditions in the Delta change over time. Today even the non-project levees are commonly 15 to 20 feet high, 16 feet wide at the top or “crown” and wider at the base, with typically a 2 to 1 slope ratio from crown to base. The levees incorporate modern techniques and materials, as the reclamation districts work to bring the old agricultural levees up to current standards. Nonetheless, many still do not meet the current standards for urban or even non-urban levees. (See Appendix 1.) As land has subsided and sea levels have risen, much of the land protected by these levees is now 10 to 15 feet below sea level, making continual improvement essential to avoid overtopping and consequent flooding. In addition to overtopping, levees may fail due to breaches. Breaches can occur suddenly or gradually, usually due to physical hazards, which we discuss later in this report. Management of these hazards requires what levee superintendents and consulting engineers have described as “constant vigilance”: regular and frequent physical inspections of the levees and immediate attention to trouble spots. Failure to prevent, or at least promptly curtail, breaches could lead to major flooding resulting in loss of lives, property, and infrastructure, and possible impairment of the quality of water drawn from the Delta sources. As with many other improvement projects, limited financial resources constrain the maintenance efforts of most reclamation districts. In general, the maintenance and improvement work to the levees are financed by assessments levied by reclamation districts. Additionally, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), recognizing the importance of infrastructure within the Reclamation Districts, provides some supplemental financial support for qualified levee maintenance work through its Subventions Program, grants for qualified improvements through the Special Projects Program, and in situations of pending or potential emergency, Directed Action Grants. These funding mechanisms, and their limitations, are discussed later in this report. In addition to the districts’ financial constraints, old homes, fishing shacks, and other structures have been built on or within the levees’ structural framework or sphere in August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 389 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 5 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury some of the populated zones. These structures may stand in the way of desired improvements, and even complicate the visual inspections of the levees, thus inhibiting early detection of seepage and/or other early warning signs of the need for preventative work. The future of the Delta has long been the subject of ongoing discussion and debate, with various state and regional agencies as well as private advocacy groups proposing plans with differing, sometimes conflicting, objectives. Not only do their priorities differ, but also their proposed strategies for achieving their desired objectives. The one certainty is that none of these plans will soon be ready for full implementation. For the immediate future, we must rely on the integrity of the existing levees. Two events of the past decade illustrate quite dramatically the vital importance of these levees, which serve the purpose of protecting property well beyond the land actually enclosed within them: The August 2009 collision of a bulk carrier ship with Bradford Island. On a calm, clear evening, August 27, 2009, a 570-foot bulk carrier vessel was outbound from the Port of Stockton when it grounded, lost steering, and hit the levee at Bradford Island. The collision damaged approximately 150 feet of levee, causing a serious breach. The journal, the Professional Mariner reported as follows: “The breach jeopardized drinking water quality for 23 million people,” said David Mraz, chief engineer with the Delta-Suisun Marsh Office of the state Department of Water Resources. “Had the levee broken, salt water would have been drawn into the Delta (from San Francisco Bay) and contaminated the region’s fresh water supply with salt.”1 Contractors worked around the clock over a three-day period with dozens of trucks and bulldozers to make repairs using sand, silt, and clay-all from the island-to buttress and stabilize the levee. That initial repair work cost nearly $800,000, and then, because these materials compressed and settled over time, required several additional months of close monitoring. The District’s Project Manager, John Cunningham, said, “DWR advised him that it would have cost the State closer to $50 million had they not succeeded in closing the breach and preventing a full flood with that quick action.”2 The State paid the District’s costs under the Directed Action Program. 1 The complete news-article can be found at: http://www.professionalmariner.com/December-Jauary-2009/Bulk- carrier-seriously-damages-levee-in-Sacramento-San-Joaquin-River-Delta/ . 2 A fuller description of the incident from the perspective of island residents can be found at: http://californiaspigot.blogspot.com/2010_10_01_archive.html August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 390 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 6 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury The June 3, 2004 levee breach on Jones Tract. The Jones Tract is located in the San Joaquin County portion of the Delta, which is adjacent to Contra Costa County. Its 2004 levee breach and subsequent flood demonstrated the far-reaching impact, and importance of the Delta levees to the County and to the entire state. Governor Schwarzenegger declared a State of Emergency on June 4. By June 30, the severity of this flood’s effect on key infrastructure and the State’s water supply led to a Presidential Declaration of Emergency. This declaration authorized FEMA reimbursement of certain costs of responding to this major disaster. This “sunny-day breach” of the Upper Jones Tract levee led to what was initially estimated to be approximately 150,000 acre-feet of water flooding the Jones Tract at a time when Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) was pumping from both of their easternmost intake stations in the Delta. According to CCWD’s Fall 2004 newsletter, about half that intake was then flowing to Los Vaqueros Reservoir and the rest was going directly to their treatment plants for transmission to customers. Risks to the water supply were twofold: more salinity due to increased amounts of seawater flowing into the Delta from San Francisco Bay and/or leached from the inundated soil reaching the CCWD intake conduits, and floodwaters contaminated with chemicals and fuel used in the Jones Tract for agricultural purposes. CCWD stopped pumping from their Old River Intake Station and began rapid-response testing and monitoring of water quality. Ultimately the saline content reached levels that necessitated halting flows to the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. As a result, the reservoir entered peak demand summer operations well below the maximum capacity that had been projected. CCWD had to pump water from Los Vaqueros Reservoir, with its lower-than-anticipated volume to fill demand; at the same time, work to pump the floodwaters off the island continued. Gaining control of the flood was challenging, and repairs were difficult, complicated by key infrastructure within the flood zone. Of particular concern were the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe rail-line and EBMUD’s Mokelumne Aqueduct, both of which also run through Contra Costa County. It took four weeks to plug the levee breach, and the full recovery required federal as well as state resources. After removing more than 160,000-acre feet of water, the involved agencies finally succeeded in de-watering the island in December 2004. DWR estimated the direct cost of containing the flood, levee repair, and island pump-out to be $30 million. This does not include the cost of lawsuits filed against a number of defendants, including the Reclamation District, DWR and other state agencies, and even the company that provided rodent control services on the island. (The flood washed away all forensic evidence, making it impossible to establish the cause of the flood with certainty. However, most sources consider burrowing rodent activity --- i.e. one of the physical hazards we discuss later in this report --- the most probable cause of the breach and subsequent flood.) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 391 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 7 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury DWR Photos: June 2004 Jones Tract Breach and Flood In view of all these immediate risks with far-reaching impact, steps should be taken to ensure that our County’s Delta levees continue to perform their function successfully. DISCUSSION There are 14 special districts (13 reclamation districts and 1 municipal improvement district) in Contra Costa County that have responsibility for levee services within the Delta. They are shown in the following map, along with the Primary and Secondary Zones of the Delta as defined in the California Water Code, Section 12220. Many of the districts are islands; others have responsibility for levees that protect lands only partially surrounded by water. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 392 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 8 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Contra Costa County Reclamation Districts (Map Courtesy of Delta Protection Commission) The western portion of the Delta includes eight islands that the State’s Department of Water Resources (DWR) deems critical to preventing saline (i.e. seawater) intrusion. Six of these eight islands are located in the County. These islands become particularly important during multi-year droughts such as that of the last four years. To prevent saltwater intrusion arising from less fresh (river) water flowing into the Delta, DWR had to install temporary rock barriers, one on False River between Jersey and Bradford Islands, to protect the state’s water quality. The following map shows these islands: August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 393 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 9 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury According to the November 15, 2015 Municipal Service Review (MSR) of Reclamation Districts by the County’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the 14 Districts are responsible for levees and population as shown in the table on the following page. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 394 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 10 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury *Population doubles during the summer. ** Levees that meet the higher PL84-99 standard also meet, by default, the HMP standard. Some of the agricultural miles meeting the HMP standard have been improved to meet the higher PL84-99 standard. *** includes residents inside the old RD boundary, but on elevated peninsulas outside the newer urban levees. ****Levees that meet the PL84-99 Standard may apply for the Army Corp of Engineers Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP). Once accepted, they must pass biannual eligibility ACE inspections to continue to participate. Reclamation District Name and Number Population Total Miles of Levees Miles at HMP Standard Miles at PL84- 99 Standard Miles at FEMA Standard Bethel Island Municipal Improvement (BIMID) 2,137* 14.5 (11.5 Agriculture 3 Urban) 11.5 8** Hotchkiss (799) 969 11.7 (8.5 Agriculture 3.2 Urban) 5.2 Byron (800) 13,352*** 18.9 (12.4 Agriculture 6.5 Urban) 9.7**** 18.9 Jersey Island (830) 3 15.5 14.8 Orwood/Palm (2024) 8 14.6 14.6 Holland (2025) 27 11 11**** Webb (2026) 0 12.9 12.9 6.25** Bradford (2059) 63 7.5 7 Veale (2065) 14 5.1 4.2 Quimby Island (2090) 1 7 7 Coney Island (2117) 4 5.48 5.4 4.12** Bixler (2121) 5 2 Winter Island (2122) 0 5 1.5 Dutch Slough (2137) 2 3.8 3 Contra Costa County Delta Total 10,889 139.48 (126.78 Agriculture 12.7 Urban) 79.2 43.97 18.9 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 395 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 11 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury LAFCO’s MSR relies on self-reporting from these districts to evaluate their financial and administrative ability to maintain the integrity of the levees. In assuring that their levees perform adequately, all of these districts face similar challenges, financial and otherwise, in dealing with the risks. As levee conditions are extremely dynamic, conditions reported at one time will not necessarily be accurate a relatively short time later. While the County’s levees are performing adequately now, constant and proper management of hazards is essential to maintain that performance. Physical hazards. Levee breaches typically result from impairment of the levee by any one or a combination of the following:  uneven settling or subsidence,  wind and/or wave action on the water side of the levee, with the added risk that unrepaired flooding of one island can increase the intensity of wind and/or wave action on surrounding islands due to the wider expanse of open water,  erosion of the “crown” (i.e., the top) or dry side of the levee,  trees that may pull out significant soil from the levee if toppled by storm activity,  vegetation that may die and leave a conduit for water into or through the levee,  activities of burrowing rodents, and/or  human activities, including construction on or through the levee itself or damage to ancillary equipment, such as pumps. These hazards, other than human activities, can be successfully managed by regular and frequent monitoring and prompt repair when discovered. To accomplish this, those districts that have levee superintendents or district managers who perform the functions of levee superintendent, typically conduct regular, frequent levee patrols. These patrols look for signs of physical hazard, and watch for any unexpected seepage. A certain amount of seepage is normal, and it takes a combination of experience, familiarity with levees, and knowledge of past problem areas to recognize abnormal seepage, and to recognize the early signs of the above hazards. Challenging as this is, there is no “school for levee maintenance” or any other authoritative training program or textbook to guide levee superintendents. The job of levee superintendent can only be learned by doing, preferably under the initial supervision of or at least consultation with an experienced incumbent. The only other reference source for levee superintendents is the districts’ consulting engineer, who is a valuable, but costly, resource. The levees in districts that have little or no population and/or only minimal financial resources are at a greater risk since these districts seldom have the staff to do regular levee patrols. They typically rely on the property owners, who have a stake in the integrity of the levees to protect their property interests, and a consulting engineer, who may serve several reclamation districts. In these instances, the consulting engineer becomes even more important. Even with the availability of a consulting engineer, levee inspection and maintenance is not easy. In addition to distinguishing normal seepage from problematic seepage, and noting early indications of the latter, the levee superintendent must balance levee August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 396 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 12 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury inspection and maintenance with environmental concerns. For example, the tall grass that grows on most levees helps to prevent erosion, but requires mowing to prevent overgrowth obscuring the levee surface and hampering visual inspection of the levee. However, wildlife regulations may prohibit mowing during the spring nesting season for certain birds. The levee maintenance program must address this seasonal prohibition and schedule mowing accordingly. Further, other wildlife regulations provide that levee maintenance may not cause any “net loss of habitat”. Whenever maintenance requires removal of habitat to facilitate inspection, do preventative work, or make minor repairs, regulations require “mitigation,” i.e., implanting or expanding similar habitat. Some districts, such as Bethel Island, have their own mitigation site, where they plant replacement vegetation. Other districts make use of “mitigation banks” which are independent sites located elsewhere from the district where the district can pay for planting and maintenance of habitat equivalent to that which they cannot directly replace. In addition to the long learning curve for new levee superintendents, lack of equipment or supplies can hamper timely performance of repair work. Most districts maintain stockpiles of basic supplies such as sand for sandbags, shovels, gravel, and plastic sheeting. Districts place these supplies at strategic locations near particularly vulnerable portions of the levee and at the district equipment yard. Some districts are unable to afford to maintain a full complement of supplies, such as adequate quantities of rock for “riprap” (the rocks that line and buffer the wet side of the levee from wave action) and heavy equipment, such as earthmoving equipment. Where necessary, districts rely on informal mutual-aid agreements. Human activities that can endanger a levee's integrity pose special challenges. These activities include construction work on the levee, driving or parking heavy vehicles in inappropriate places on the crown of the levee, and vandalism and theft of copper wiring and other materials from pump stations. Such damage occurs primarily in those districts that have a significant number of full-time residents. As those districts have become aware of the potential risk, they have tried to take appropriate precautions, such as burglary preventions at the pump-houses, and the use of inspections and permitting procedures to control construction activities. Districts such as Bradford Island, which is only accessible by ferry, or Jersey Island, where the population of three is supplemented only by day-visitors who come to the Island to fish, hike, or bird-watch, are able to adeptly control human hazards to the levees. Other districts, such as Bethel Island or Hotchkiss Tract, have a significant number of permanent, fulltime residents, many of whom have homes built in close proximity to the levees. For most of these homes, the levee is essentially part of their “yard”. Nearly all of them have boat docks on the water side of the levee, accessed by crossing the crown of the levee. In the more populated districts, the usual control on human activities that affect the levee is through an “encroachment” permitting process. The permitting process involves the district’s board, in consultation with the levee August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 397 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 13 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury superintendent, district manager, and/or consulting engineer, verifying that permitted construction does not potentially impair the structural integrity of the levee. GJ photos: Pictures of levee crowns However, many district homeowners are not fully aware of, have forgotten, or may have chosen to disregard the district’s permitting procedures. Older structures may pre-date current standards and protocols. The levee superintendent or district manager must watch for violations as part of the regular levee patrol, and explain to violators why the activity in question endangers the integrity of the levee, and therefore the safety of all residents. (See Appendix 2 for a typical permit application with instructions for application and approval.) Websites can offer a means of easy access for residents seeking information and an application form. However, only five Districts have a website. In the others, residents or prospective residents must go to the District office – not always located in the District itself – for forms, instructions, and answers to questions related to construction permit requirements. Attempting to stop individual violations of permit procedures on a case-by-case basis is something of a “Band-Aid” approach to levee safety. A better approach to encourage compliance with current levee standards and protocols, as well as to encourage homeowners about to undertake major remodeling that they should upgrade to current standards, is to educate the population about the reason for the levee standards and protocols in the first place, the dangers of a flood. In addition to levee protocols and regulations prepared and enforced by each reclamation district, there are numerous resources available that describe the hazards facing all levees and the potential dangers to all residents if these hazards are not properly managed. Greater understanding of the reasons for the rules should bring more willing adherence to levee protocols and construction standards. One particularly good resource, not specific to the County but providing a good basic explanation of facts about levees and necessary precautions that should be taken to maintain them, is a 2010 brochure prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers, August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 398 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 14 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury “So, You Live Behind a Levee”. It can be found and downloaded from their library at www.ASCE.org. Other brochures are available online or in hard copy from DWR, county and/or city flood control divisions, and at many district offices. One more excellent although generic (i.e. lacking consideration of California’s unique environmental requirements) resource, geared as much to levee owners and/or operators as to residents, is USACE’s “Levee Owner’s Manual for Non-Federal Flood Control Works, available at www.nfrmp.us/docs/USACE. Additionally, there are a number of levee safety videos produced by DWR, and some by the Army Corp of Engineers that address basic concerns that apply to both project and non-project levees. One such video is “How Levees Fail, How We Fix Them”, available on YouTube or at www.floodassociation.net/resources. County flood control divisions and planning departments also have available a number of brochures about the National Flood Insurance Program. This program emphasizes the precautions necessary when living in a flood plain. Federal mortgage lenders require that borrowers living near levees that are not FEMA certified and accredited levees (those that meet the highest construction standard for urban levees) obtain flood insurance coverage. Likewise, educational sessions about emergency flood response programs can serve a dual purpose. Residents who participate in these sessions will have heightened awareness of the potential dangers posed by floods. They are better prepared to react appropriately in such an event. The residents also gain a better understanding of the reasons for levee regulations and protocols, and so are less likely to circumvent the district permitting process. Lack of staff impedes aggressive outreach such as that done in neighboring Sacramento County, which holds a “Flood Fair” each October, in recognition of “Flood Preparedness Month”. There are also other, less resource-intensive forms of educational outreach such as seasonal mailers or online bulletins. A problem with mailers though, is that without already high public awareness, recipients often discard them unopened. Including them with other timely (pre-storm season) “high-interest” or mandatory mailings from other County departments or agencies, such as property tax bills or voter information, could increase their effectiveness in raising public awareness. Those districts that publish newsletters or have websites often include flood-safety and emergency response bulletins just ahead of storm season. Their newsletters can also include explanations of the specific need for and intended uses of the benefit assessments that appear in residents’ property tax bills. (See Appendix 3 for just such a sample newsletter.) All these educational or informative efforts have the potential to heighten awareness of the potential flood danger and increase residents’ understanding that the actions of one affect the safety of all – powerful motivation to follow and support levee regulations and protocols. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 399 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 15 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Financial Challenges and Available Support. Many reclamation districts lack the financial resources to do more than basic maintenance work. The expense of improvements that would bring their levees to a higher standard is often beyond their capacity. Although expensive, these improvements are necessary to prevent overtopping during major storms, especially storms that occur in concert with unusually high seasonal tides (known as “King tides”). The majority of the funding for the work comes from the property owners themselves. This can be a severe hardship for those districts with relatively small numbers of property owners. These smaller districts often struggle to find funds for even basic needs. (See Appendix 3, a Bradford Island newsletter and informational insert explaining their Prop 218 assessment.) Several sources of financial support are now available from the State, through DWR, to supplement the assessment-based revenue of the districts: the Subventions Program, special projects grants, and Directed Actions.  Subventions program – This is a cost-sharing program, with the State currently reimbursing 75% of the cost of qualified levee maintenance work after the first $1,000 per mile. However, the reimbursement is limited to levee maintenance, not to support of ancillary equipment, no matter how essential that equipment might be. For example, clearing ditches of vegetation is eligible, but not pump repair. It is also important to note that the reimbursement cycle is nearly two years For example, a proposal submitted by July 1, 2015, for the 2015-16 fiscal year, will receive formal acceptance by November 1, 2015. Before receiving reimbursement from the State, the district submits final invoices after the close of the fiscal year on June 30, 2016. Next, DWR and the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW ”) physically inspect the work to confirm that it was done according to the application and also to confirm that there was no net loss of habitat. After any challenges, appeals, and/or discussion, DWR authorizes payment of the final invoices, to the extent that it accepts the work. Actual disbursement of funds to the District may not occur until well into the spring of 2017. This two-year reimbursement cycle presents challenges to small districts, as does the responsibility for paying 25% of the costs (plus first $1,000 per mile). The Districts have little if any funding other than assessments to pay the costs of the first two-year cycle. Once through that first two-year cycle, they can usually manage the reimbursement cycle on a rolling year-to-year basis. However, the 25% of the cost remains a financial challenge every year. Further, California Prop 1E, which funds this program and supports most of the basic maintenance work, is due to sunset this year. Many districts’ plans hinge on the outcome of a current proposal to remove that sunset.  Special Projects funding – DWR sends out a request for proposals for levee improvement projects when they know how much is available in a given year, August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 400 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 16 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury i.e., $60 million this past fiscal year, with a limit of $15 million per district per project. The districts’ proposals, first a short form and then a complete application with engineering specifications and drawings, go through two sequential grading and ranking processes. Staff engineers and biologists evaluate the proposals, assigning points based on priorities set forth in the Delta Reform Act. Special projects require less cost share by the district, i.e. typically 10% retained and 90% reimbursed, and may allow some advance partial funding, depending on the scope of the project. The documentation requirements are greater than for the Subventions Program. For the most part, districts submit monthly status reports and invoices, and obtain DWR approval before paying the contractor for completed work.  Directed Actions – This program is a “special circumstances” program. In the face of a pending or potential emergency with implications for the state water supply, the DWR Director can authorize funding for emergency action. Examples include the repairs to the Bradford Island levee damaged by the ship collision in 2009, and an agreement with Jersey Island to make emergency improvements in preparation for the December 2005/January 2006 “Pineapple Express” storm front. Had that winter storm overtopped the levees of Jersey Island, it is highly likely that additional islands would have also flooded and thus endangered the water supply for the State. The table below shows the amounts received by each district through the Subventions and Special Projects Programs, in dollars and as a percent of total district revenues. Revenue other than that from these state programs is comprised of the assessments received from district property owners. The difference in non-State-funded revenue between the more populous districts (i.e. Bethel Island, Hotchkiss, and Byron) and the less populous districts reflects the financial advantage of a larger assessment base. However, the financial needs of the smaller districts for levee maintenance and improvement are not proportionately less. In fact, the smaller districts are just as likely to contain, and be responsible for protecting, key infrastructure and/or to provide a barrier to seawater intrusion (Information provided by LAFCO MSR 2015) Reclamation District Name and Number Total Revenues Subventions Program (SP) Special Projects Program (SPP) Percent of Total from State Bethel Island Municipal Improvement (BIMID) 2012-2013 $553,746 $130,653 $6,762 24.8% 2013-2014 $543,271 $66,934 $30,440 17.9% Hotchkiss (799) 2012-2013 $513,910 $87,825 0 17.0% 2013-2014 $681,759 $76,003 $165,340 35.4% August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 401 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 17 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Increasing urbanization where development is allowed (i.e. in the Delta Secondary Zone) offers potential for financial benefit beyond the increased revenue generated by a parcel assessment on new district residents. As developers seek approval to build new communities, the appropriate planning agencies can consider including financial support of existing levees in the requirements for approval. For example, the East Cypress Corridor Plan approved by the City of Oakley for development of annexed land located in the interior of Hotchkiss Tract (Reclamation District 799) included $11 million for reconstruction, improvement, and pump replacement for existing levees. This funding was in addition to the cost borne by the developer in building a new FEMA certified and accredited interior “ring” levee surrounding the Summer Lake Development. It is important to note that FEMA certification and accreditation do not require physical inspection of the levee. Certification is based on FEMA’s review of documentation that the levee meets design construction standards for at least the one-percent-annual chance (or “100-year”) flood. Accreditation requires confirmation of the adequacy of the Byron (800) 2012-2013 $1,487,371 $128,341 0 .09% 2013-2014 $1,451,294 $31,295 0 .02% Jersey Island (830) 2012-2013 $4,235,078 $232,273 $3,437,133 86.6% 2013-2014 $3,738,175 $881,860 $2,300,000 85.1% Orwood/Palm (2024) 2012-2013 $3,366,749 0 $3,050,412 91.6% 2013-2014 $524,506 $67,880 $140,939 39.8% Webb (2026) 2012-2013 $615,689 $201,683 0 32.8% 2013-2014 $2,456,735 Included in SPP $2,256,677 91.9% Bradford (2059) 2012-2013 $2,229.692 $6,358 $1,916,597 86.2% 2013-2014 $523,123 $192,672 0 36.8% Veale (2065) 2012-2013 $63,762 0 0 0 2013-2014 $531,720 $33,620 $399,600 81.5% Quimby Island (2090) 2012-2013 $151,716 $76,716 0 50.6% 2013-2014 $106,407 $103,872 0 97.6% Coney Island (2117) 2012-2013 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0 2013-2014 Bixler (2121) 2012-2013 $5,000 0 0 0 2013-2014 $5,000 0 0 0 Winter Island (2122) 2012-2013 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0 2013-2014 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 0 Dutch Slough (2137) 2012-2013 $750,395 $560.315 0 74.7% 2013-2014 $1,111,946 $910.316 0 81.9% August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 402 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 18 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury operation and maintenance plan provided by the levee owner. As FEMA’s own literature states: “Levee certification does not warrant or guarantee performance, and it is the responsibility of the levee owner to ensure the levee is being maintained and operated properly.” FEMA further states: “FEMA accreditation is not a health and safety standard – it only affects insurance and building requirements.” Future Opportunities. As noted above in the “Background” section, many other entities besides residents of the districts benefit from the protection of the levees. State and local agencies are now discussing how a broader population of such beneficiaries might equitably share in the cost of maintaining and/or improving these levees. In March 2016, the Delta Protection Commission began a workshop that includes a series of meetings tasked with developing a fair system of “beneficiary-pays” funding for needed levee maintenance and improvements. This is in conjunction with the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Levee Investment Strategy, also still in progress, that is trying to assess the value of all assets – including key infrastructure --- within each reclamation district, protected by each district’s levees. The “beneficiary-pays” workshop expects to conclude by June 2016. It then will make recommendations to the Delta Stewardship Council. The Council will give the recommendations consideration in pursuing future legislation, but there is no certainty the recommendations will be implemented. In the meantime, Contra Costa Water District has spearheaded an interagency cooperative venture to accomplish much-needed improvements to the levees in Bacon Island (Reclamation District 2028), which is adjacent to the County, lying within San Joaquin County. Reclamation District 2028 submitted the application to DWR for Special Project funding to improve 4.7 miles of levee along Old River and to create areas of native grassland and scrub shrub habitat. Reclamation District 2028 will be the contracting agency with DWR and provide in-kind funding through staff time and land taken out of production for habitat and levee materials. Others that will benefit from the project also will help to finance it through funding or in-kind services. In February 2015, DWR selected this project for $10.2 million in grant funding, approximately 97% of the project cost of $10.57 million. The beneficiaries of the project will participate as follows:  Reclamation District 2028 will be responsible for the environmental review, permitting, design and implementation.  Alameda County Water District, Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), Metropolitan Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District and Zone 7 will provide monetary contributions to the Project.  East Bay Municipal Utility District and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission will provide in-kind technical support and implementation support.  CCWD will serve as the fiscal agent for the agencies’ financial contributions.  Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) will provide in-kind service through relocation of a high-pressure natural gas line and overhead electrical lines. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 403 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 19 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Where do we go from here? The answer to the “if or when” question posed at the beginning of this report depends on what we do locally to protect the County’s Delta levees while agencies with the authority to set policy continue to debate issues that will determine the long-term future of the Delta. Meantime, we all have a stake in the integrity of the existing levees. They are today’s line of defense against flooding with catastrophic potential for Contra Costa County and for much of the State as well. We must all pay attention to, and encourage support of the everyday, practical and sensible activities that keep these levees safe, to the benefit of all of us. FINDINGS F1. The portion of the Delta that lies within Contra Costa County includes six of the eight western islands, deemed by the State to be of particular importance to preventing seawater intrusion that would impair the quality of water for nearly two- thirds of the State, including much of the East Bay area. F2. Loss (i.e. submersion) of any of the six islands in the Delta within Contra Costa County has potential to affect adversely much more than just Contra Costa County. F3. Key infrastructure located within the Contra Costa County reclamation districts benefits the entire County, including major County roads and highways, a rail-line, PG&E power transmission lines, natural gas wells, petroleum pipelines, Contra Costa Water District intakes, pumping stations, and portions of both the Contra Costa Canal and EBMUD’s Mokelumne aqueduct. F4. The levees in the County’s portion of the Delta have been built up or otherwise strengthened on a piecemeal basis over the century or more of their existence. F5. Because the levees remain vulnerable to natural hazards and human activities, they require constant vigilance – i.e., frequent inspection coupled with timely maintenance and prompt repairs. F6. The Army Corp of Engineers inspects federal levees, as well as non-federal levees that qualify for the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program. F7. All of our County’s levees are non-federal levees and the only non-federal levees in the County that qualify for participation in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program are in Holland and Byron Reclamation Districts. F8. The only levees in the County that are independently evaluated for structural integrity are those in Reclamation Districts 800 and 2026, Holland and Byron. F9. LAFCO’s MSR of the reclamation districts, which it performs every 5-years, focuses on financial and administrative management of the districts. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 404 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 20 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury F10. LAFCO relies on self-reported information from the districts, without physical inspection, to evaluate how well the districts are maintaining the integrity of the levees for which they are responsible. F11. There is no formal or standardized educational or training resource available to the districts for levee inspection, maintenance, and repair, which can support new levee superintendents or managers while they acquire the experience to recognize problems early, learn how to appropriately respond, and learn how to balance environmental regulations with maintenance protocols. F12. Levee management requires recognizing seasonal timeframes and juggling multiple deadlines, including preparing for storm season and the “no-mowing” period, when local bird populations nest, as well as timely application for the subvention and/or special projects funding programs. F13. Unpermitted encroachments can hinder visual inspection of the levee surface and create new structural weaknesses or potential conduits for seepage. F14. Education about the potential danger of unpermitted encroachments can be a highly effective management tool for mitigating this type of hazard because increased understanding of the potential consequences of such encroachments can support longer-term adherence to levee regulations and protocols. F15. Since early recognition of potential trouble spots and prompt repair work are critical to maintaining levee integrity, while resources for levee patrols are limited, the presence of an educated and aware residential population can supply additional eyes to provide the constant vigilance that is crucial to safeguarding the levees. F16. In addition to permitting procedures and intermittent newsletters, there are other opportunities to educate the public, and especially residents of reclamation districts, about the hazards that can damage or impair the levees. F17. Explaining the hazards to levees by multiple means at appropriate times -- i.e., just before the start of storm season in the fall – can help to keep awareness at a heightened and effective level. F18. Efforts to educate and raise public awareness could be enhanced by cross- departmental and/or cross-agency cooperation such as including Flood Control safety bulletins with other seasonally appropriate, apt-to-be-read or mandatory mailings such as property tax bills or voter information packets. F19. It takes nearly 2 years from the application date for reclamation districts to receive reimbursement for levee maintenance work approved by DWR under the Subventions Program. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 405 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 21 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury F20. The cost of the initial funding required of reclamation districts under DWR’s Subventions Program can be prohibitive for some reclamation districts, resulting in under-utilization of this highly beneficial program. F21. Some reclamation districts that are unable to maintain the staff, equipment, and material stockpiles needed for emergency major repairs, rely on informal mutual- aid arrangements. F22. Planning agencies can require that developers who seek to develop areas within reclamation districts financially contribute to existing levees as a condition of approval of their proposed developments, as was done with the East Cypress Corridor Plan for residential development in the interior of Hotchkiss Tract, Reclamation District 799. F23. The feasibility of interagency cooperative ventures to accomplish levee improvements has been demonstrated by multi-agency coalition for to improve the levees in Reclamation District 2028, Bacon Island. RECOMMENDATIONS R1. After identifying the necessary funding, LAFCO should consider including independent physical inspections of levee conditions, in addition to the self- reported evaluations of the conditions, in the MSRs of all County reclamation districts, if necessary by hiring an independent engineering firm to perform this function. R2. After identifying the necessary funding, the County reclamation districts should collaborate in establishing and supporting a shared website, possibly approaching one of the Districts that already has a website to take the lead. This website should include “Best Practices”, a calendar of date- or seasonal-specific tasks, such as preparation for nesting season when certain work is prohibited, and dates when Subventions Program applications are due, and a common log of significant levee incidents to identify and track historical trouble spots. R3. After identifying the necessary funding, the County reclamation districts should consider taking turns hosting a short, local, annual conference for all District Board members and staff. Each conference should include an educational presentation on a matter of common interest, such as changes in regulations or levee standards, new technology or procedures for levee work, new sources of funding, and/or most effective techniques for successful grant applications. R4. After identifying the necessary funding, reclamation districts should consider adding a “training module” for new and re-elected Board members to their required governance training (i.e. Brown Act and Ethics). This “module” or session should cover the district’s levee regulations and protocols, the consequences of noncompliance with regulations and protocols, flood preparedness, and August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 406 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 22 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury emergency response training – or at minimum a “back to basics” session with the consulting engineer to cover these concerns. R5. Reclamation districts should formalize, or at a minimum document, all “Mutual Aid” agreements for future reference as reclamation district personnel change over time. R6. After identifying the necessary funding, the County Tax Collector should consider including informational material on flood preparedness or levee safety precautions, available at no charge from our County Flood Control or Central Valley Flood Control Agency or DWR, with every property tax bill that has an address within a reclamation district. R7. After identifying the necessary funding, the County Clerk Recorder should consider including informational material on flood preparedness or levee safety precautions, available at no charge from our County Flood Control or Central Valley Flood Control Agency or DWR, with election materials sent to addresses within a reclamation district. R8. After identifying the necessary funding, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County Planning Department to provide each applicant for new construction or major remodeling in unincorporated areas within a reclamation district with a brochure or direction to an online website explaining levee safety rules and regulations, along with the reasons for same, applicable to their particular reclamation district and to require that each applicant confirm receipt of the brochure or link to website by initialing. R9. The Oakley City Council should direct the Oakley Planning Commission to provide each applicant for new construction or major remodeling within a reclamation district in the City of Oakley with a brochure or direction to an online website explaining levee safety rules and regulations, along with the reasons for same, applicable to their particular reclamation district and to require that each applicant confirm receipt of the brochure or link to website by initialing. R10. The Board of Supervisors should consider directing the appropriate planning and/or land use departments to follow the precedent established by the East Cypress Corridor Project and condition approval of proposals for new residential or commercial development, where allowed on any unincorporated County land in a reclamation district, on financial support of the existing levees. R11. The City of Oakley should consider following the precedent established by the East Cypress Corridor Project and conditioning approval of proposals for new residential or commercial development, where proposed on Oakley’s annexed land in a reclamation district, on financial support of the existing levees. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 407 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 23 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury R12. After identifying the necessary funding, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County’s Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to establish a task force or initiate a staff study to investigate ways to encourage and facilitate grant-seeking coalitions of urban water agencies and/or other beneficiaries of the levee system, on smaller-scale projects with shorter time horizons than those currently being investigated by the Delta Protection Commission (i.e. similar to but including even smaller-scale projects than the Bacon Island improvement coalition). R13. After identifying the necessary funding, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County’s Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to establish a task force to investigate possible ways for the less-advantaged reclamation districts to obtain interim funding, including but not limited to grants or low-interest rate loans, to cover the initial two-year lag-time to obtain reimbursement for essential levee maintenance work from the Subventions Program. REQUIRED RESPONSES Findings Recommendations Contra Costa County LAFCO 9, 10 1 The Board of Trustees of Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 The Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 799 (Hotchkiss Tract) 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 The Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 800 (Byron Tract) 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 The Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 830 (Jersey Island) 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 The Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2024 (Orwood/Palm Tract) 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 The Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2025 (Holland Tract) 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 The Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2026 (Webb Tract) 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 408 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 24 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury The Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2059 (Bradford Island) 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 The Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2065 (Veale Tract) 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 The Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2090 (Quimby Island) 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 The Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2117 (Coney Island) 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 The Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2121 (Bixler Tract) 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 The Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2122 (Winter Island) 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 The Board of Trustees of Reclamation District 2137 (Dutch Slough) 4, 5, 11 – 17, 21 2 - 5 The Contra Costa County Tax Collector 16 - 18 6 The Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder Elections Division 16 - 18 7 The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 1 - 3, 19, 20, 22, 23 8, 10, 12, 13 The Oakley City Council 1 – 3, 19, 20, 22 9, 11 These responses must be provided in the format and by the date set forth in the cover letter that accompanies this report. An electronic copy of these responses in the form of a Word document should be sent by e-mail to epant@contracosta.courts.ca.gov and a hard (paper) copy should be sent to: Civil Grand Jury – Foreperson 725 Court Street P.O. Box 431 Martinez, CA 94553-0091 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 409 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 25 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury APPENDIX 1: Delta Levee Standards August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 410 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 26 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 411 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 27 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury APPENDIX 2: SAMPLE PERMIT APPLICATION For District Use Application No. ___________ Application Fee $__________ APPLICATION FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 1. Name and Address of Property Owner/Applicant: Name of Owner/Applicant Address - ZIP Code Telephone No. ____________________________ _______________________________________ _____________ ____________________________ _______________________________________ _____________ 2. Location - Assessor's Parcel No. _____________________ District Tract No. _______________________ 3. Description of encroachment ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Required Exhibits - Please check those items submitted: a. _____ Location or vicinity map, to scale, showing location of proposed work in relation to known topographic features, to allow visitation to site and inspection of work. b. _____ A complete plan of the proposed work to scale, showing dimensions, and relationship of the proposed work to adjacent levee or waterway. c. _____ One or more cross sections of the levee, berm and waterway area with dimensions and elevations of the levee crown, levee toes, floodplain, low water, etc., with reference to a District identified bench mark (see Section VIII.7b of the District Regulations) should be indicated. Reference may be made to the District levee survey, where applicable. d. _____ Profile of existing or proposed levees, fills, or other obstructions on the levee or in the waterway or overflow areas with reference to a known datum. e. _____ Additional plans, sections, details which might be pertinent or useful in regard to the review of this application. f. _____ Proposed schedule of construction for development or project. g. _____ Provide any additional information that may assist the District in evaluating the proposed project’s effect on the District’s levee and the District’s ability to normal maintenance and maintenance during times of emergency. The undersigned Property Owner/Applicant agrees to reimburse the District for its costs and expenses associated with the review of this Application. Property Owner/ Applicant’s Signature(s)________________________________________________ Date _____________________ The Applicant is advised to consult with the District about encroachment limitations before preparing this application. This Application must be signed by the Property Owner. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 412 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 28 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury APPENDIX 3: SAMPLE (BRADFORD ISLAND) NEWSLETTER WITH PROP 218 ASSESSMENT INSERT August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 413 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 29 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Proposition 218 (Insert) The District realizes that there may be some confusion regarding the Proposition 218 assessment election that was recently conducted and which passed by majority vote. The following information is provided to help clarify the issue. District Finances: Contra Costa County is the de facto Treasurer of Bradford Reclamation District 2059 (the District). As such, the assessments levied by the District are collected by the County twice a year along with the parcel property tax and any other special fees. Beginning this year, you will see two District assessments on your tax bill—CB and TU. See Example Figure 1 Assessments: Code CB represents the $313,605 assessment passed on May 4, 2010 that sunsets after this year. Starting in fiscal year 2016/17 (July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017), assessment Code CB rolls back to the 2009/10 maximum assessment of $158,000 and continues at that rate forever—it cannot be raised. Code TU - O&M (Operations and Maintenance) represents the supplemental $232,406.90 assessment approved on August 4, 2015 which begins fiscal year 2015/16 and sunsets in five years. See Figure 2 If you would like to know what your 2009/2010 rate plus your new O&M (Operations and Maintenance) supplemental rate will be, please email a formal request to the District Manager at angelia_bradford@sbcglobal.net. The combined assessment will be at its highest rate ($313, 605 + $232,406.90 = $546,011.90) for ONLY ONE (1) year—the 2015/16 fiscal year. From that point forward, the District’s annual assessment through 2019/20 will be $390,406.90, just $76,801.90 more than the 2010 Proposition 218 assessment. See Fig. 2 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 414 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 30 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Your assessment dollars are used to fund the operation, maintenance and improvement of the District’s flood control works to include its levees, ditches, and pump station. In addition, the assessments fund the District general operations to include administration, contract services and the ferry. The economic downturn starting in 2008 had a substantial impact on the District. Numerous landowners experiencing difficulty paying their annual assessments, a pump station desperately in need of repair, increasing ferry repair bills, a ship running into the levee and a devastating fire on the island all contributed to financial problems for your District. The current assessment was not sufficient to cover District obligations. The first Prop 218 to raise the landowner assessment cost the District ~$35,000 and took two attempts to pass. The 1st attempt in February 2009 failed to pass. The 2nd attempt in May 2010 passed, but with a rollback in 5 years to 2009-2010 assessment rates— obligating the District to another Prop 218 in fiscal year 2014-2015 and costing the District another $45,000+. Between 2010 and 2015, a new pump station was built at a cost of $365,000 and we finished the levee upgrade project. On the downside, old debts had gone too long, the District paid out $49,000 in claims from the levee upgrade project, OES and the Bank of Stockton were calling its debts, and the State and County had serious reservations about the District’s financial ability to continue. RD 2059 PROPOSITION 218 FINANCIAL FACTSHEET 2009 Proposition 218 Failed Attempt: Public hearing for voting on February 9, 2009 to increase assessment beginning in fiscal year 2009- 2010 and continue indefinitely. The total maximum assessment would be $295,000. Highlights include: Capital Improvement Assumptions:  Year 1 Pump Station relocation/reconstruction of $682,062.60 paid off by 2028-2029  Year 1 Non-reimbursable Subventions Ditch cleaning and culvert repair of $148,593.68 Debt Service Assumptions:  Year 2 begin annual P&I payment of $95,300 on short term loan of $830,656.28 assuming 15 yr @8%  Outstanding OES (Office of Emergency Services) debt from 1983 flood ($50,000) not included in debt reduction model  Outstanding DFA (Delta Ferry Authority) debt not included in debt reduction model Budget Assumptions:  Year 2 addition of UnReimbursable Levee Maintenance (annual Ditch Cleaning) $7575.97 with 5% escalation  Year 2 Expanded Ferry Service $15,000  Rent, utilities, telephone, postage, etc not included in District O & M 2010 Proposition 218 (CB): Public hearing for voting on May 4, 2010 to increase assessment beginning in fiscal year 2010-2011. The total maximum assessment would be $313,605. Highlights include: Assessment Ballot Propositions:  Proposed maximum annual assessment subject to an annual increase of 1.5% and shall expire after fiscal year 2015-2016.  Beginning with fiscal year 2016-2017, the maximum annual assessment shall revert back to the 2009-2010 maximum annual assessment rates  Replacement of the pump station by September 30, 2011 a condition or the maximum annual assessment shall revert back to the 2009-2010 maximum annual assessment rates  The above propositions were conditional for a yes vote by Rosetta Resources, the current mineral rights holders Capital Improvement Assumptions:  Year 1 Pump Station relocation/reconstruction of $682,062.60 paid off by 2028-2029  Year 1 Non-reimbursable Subventions Ditch cleaning and culvert repair of $148,593.68  Year 1 Prop 218 proceeding of $32,020 Debt Service Assumptions:  Year 2 begin annual P&I pmt of $95,300 on short term loan of $862,676.28 assuming 15 yr @8%  Outstanding DFA (Delta Ferry Authority) debt ($41,740) not included in debt reduction model: August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 415 Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Page 31 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury The current board began paying down all debts in fiscal year 2013 – 2014 and in two years has reduced its debt load by 50%--preventing the State from taking over the District. Remember, your Board members are landowners just like you. They pay the same assessments and are not reimbursed for their time, travel, or attendance at any meetings. We believe the SUPPLEMENTAL (TU) assessment will go down because:  Pending collection of $81,805.82 in past due assessments, the pump station debt is reduced to $112,067.18  All additional debt paid from pending foreclosure sale (past due assessments on parcels)  With the debt reduced early, the Board has the option to reduce the assessment (proviso that future Boards act responsibly) In closing, it is important to remember the District may not exist in 5 years due to pending State strategic initiatives; funding for the island will probably be radically different in 5 years which made a 5 year sunset to the August Prop 218 not a mistake but a necessity.  Outstanding OES (Office of Emergency Services) debt from 1983 flood ($50,000) not included in debt reduction model  Carr and Ferrell legal invoices not included in debt reduction model (~ $130,000) Budget Assumptions:  Additional hours for District Administrator approved by Board not captured in budget  Year 2 addition of UnReimbursable Levee Maintenance (annual Ditch Cleaning) $7575.97 with 5% escalation  Year 2 Expanded Ferry Service $15,000 2015 Proposition 218 (TU): Public hearing for voting on Aug 4, 2015 to increase assessment beginning in fiscal year 2015-2016. The total maximum assessment would be $232,406.92. Highlights include: Assessment Ballot Propositions:  Final maximum annual assessment reduced by $97,105.26 from initial proposed maximum annual assessment of $329,512.18 based on landowner input from two public workshops as well as two special Trustee Board meetings  A 5-yr sunset provision added based on landowner input, a review of strategic initiatives impacting the District, the anticipated reduction in ferry expenses due to the DWR funded upgrades to the Victory II, and the District’s improved financial status due to its 50% debt pay down over the last two years Revenue Assumptions:  $0 revenue from ferry tickets since unknown quantity. Landowners (according to Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office listed as owner of parcel) no longer pay usage fee (tickets) Debt Service Assumptions:  OES debt (paid $32,200 since Mar 2012) to be paid off in fiscal year 2015-2016  Carr and Ferrell $76,500 settlement paid in $10,000 annual installments (first installment paid 2014-2015 fiscal year)  Bank of Stockton debt (paid $326,127 since 2014) retire $23,000 in warrants annually.  Should any past due assessments be paid in full, such revenue shall be used to retire additional warrants. Budget Assumptions:  Increased Administrative costs to cover payroll and additional approved hours for District Manager  Increased District Engineer costs to reflect actual costs of engineering for District strategic initiatives such as Emergency Drought Barrier permit issues or flood control issues  Increased Unreimbursable Levee Maintenance to accurately reflect costs for annual ditch cleaning  Increased DFA (Delta Ferry Authority) to accurately reflect increased monthly assessment to anticipated $9,900 per month August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 416 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE improvement plans for storm drain repair on Hazel Avenue, as recommended by the Public Works Director, East Richmond Heights area. FISCAL IMPACT: 51% County General Drainage Funds, 49% Local Road Funds BACKGROUND: The purpose of this work was to repair the storm drain on Hazel Avenue, between Ralston Avenue and Sonoma Street in the East Richmond Heights area. The work included installation of a manhole, two curb inlets, 42" storm drain pipe, curb ramp, and repairs to affected sidewalk and pavement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The storm drain repair will not have design immunity. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Chris Lau, (925) 313-7002 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: August 16, 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:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE improvement plans for storm drain repair on Hazel Avenue, East Richmond Heights area. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 417 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The work was located in the vicinity of Mira Vista Elementary School and a traffic control plan was implemented to limit impacts to school related traffic. ATTACHMENTS Hazel Ave Storm Drain Repair August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 418 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 419 RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE the specifications for the 2016 On-Call Fencing Services Contract(s) for Various Road, Flood Control and Facilities Maintenance Work Project, Countywide. Project No. 94031A (2) DETERMINE that Alta Fence Co., Inc. (Alta Fence), the lowest monetary bidder, has complied with the project specifications, and FURTHER DETERMINE that Alta Fence has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the contract. (3) DETERMINE that Crusader Fence Company, Inc. (Crusader Fence), the second lowest monetary bidder, has complied with the requirements of the project specifications, and FURTHER DETERMINE that Crusader Fence 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: (A) Alta Fence, in a not to exceed amount ($400,000.00) and the unit prices submitted in the bid ($1,446.64 Total Unit Price). (B) Crusader Fence, in a not to exceed amount ($400,000.00) and the unit prices submitted in the bid ($2,058.00 Total Unit Price). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 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:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Construction Contracts for the 2016 On-Call Fencing Services Contract(s) for Various Road, Flood Control and Facilities Maintenance Work, Countywide. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 420 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) (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 Alta Fence or Crusader Fence be invalidated for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contracts to any other bidder, but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received. Nothing in this Board Order shall prevent the Board from re-awarding the contract to another bidder in cases where the successful bidder establishes a mistake, refuses to sign the contract, or fails to furnish required bonds or insurance (see Public Contract Code Sections 5100-5107). FISCAL IMPACT: The contracts, for a maximum amount of $400,000 each, will be funded by 100% Local Road and Flood Control Funds. BACKGROUND: The above project was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, specifications were filed with and approved by the Board, and bids were invited by the Public Works Director. On July 26, 2016, the Public Works Department received bids from the following contractors: BIDDER, TOTAL UNIT AMOUNT Alta Fence Co., Inc.: $1,446.64 Total Unit Price Crusader Fence Company, Inc.: $2,058.00 Total Unit Price Chain Link Fence & Supply, Inc.: $4,148.25 Total Unit Price Bailey Fence Company, Inc.: $4,895.00 Total Unit Price Agbayani Construction Corporation: $7,371.53 Total Unit Price Alta Fence submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $611.36 (Total Unit Price) less than the next lowest bid. Crusader Fence submitted the second lowest responsive and responsible bid. The Public Works Director has reported that the bids submitted by Alta Fence and Crusader Fence comply with the requirements provided in the project specifications, and recommends that contracts be awarded to Alta Fence and Crusader Fence in that order. The Public Works Director recommends that the bids submitted by Alta Fence and Crusader Fence 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) Alta Fence; and (2) Crusader Fence. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 421 The general prevailing rates of wages, which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project, have been filed with the Clerk of the Board, with copies to be made available to any party upon request. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Public Works Department may be unable to complete routine road, flood control, airport or facilities maintenance work in a timely manner. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 422 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute Contract Amendment No. 2 to the Consulting Services Agreement (CSA) with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. (Ghirardelli), effective July 7, 2015, to extend the termination date from June 30, 2016 to December 31, 2016, and to increase the payment limit by $20,000 from $240,000 to a new payment limit of $260,000, for construction management services for the Countywide Overlay Project, Byron and Pleasant Hill areas. (Project No. 0662-6R4073) FISCAL IMPACT: CSA Amendment No. 2 allows for an additional $20,000 above the previously approved contract payment limit of $240,000. The increase in payment is to be funded by 57% Local Street & Road Preservation (LSRP) and 43% Local Road Funds. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 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:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract amendment with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc., Byron and Pleasant Hill areas. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 423 BACKGROUND: On July 7, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved the CSA for construction management services with Ghirardelli with a payment limit of $240,000. On January 5, 2016, the Board approved Amendment No. 1 to the CSA to update payment provisions with no change to original term or payment limit of $240,000. Proposed Amendment No. 2 will amend the term by changing the termination date from June 30, 2016 to December 31, 2016 and will increase the payment limit by $20,000 to a new Payment Limit of $260,000 in order to provide additional construction management services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The consultant would not be compensated for services needed to complete the project. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 424 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/495 accepting completion of landscape improvements for a Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) for SD06-09035, for a project being developed by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Danville area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The developer has completed the landscape improvements per the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping), and in accordance with the Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The completion of improvements will not be accepted and the maintenance/warranty period will not begin. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925-313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: S. Reed, Design/Construction, L. Lorentini, Engineering Services, C. Hallford, Mapping Division, C. Low, City of San Ramon C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Accepting completion of landscape improvements for subdivision SD06-09035, Danville area. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 425 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/495 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/495 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 426 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 08/16/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/495 IN THE MATTER OF: Accepting completion of landscape improvements for a Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) for SD06-09035, for a project being developed by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Danville area. (District II) WHEREAS, these improvements are approximately located near Charbray Street. The Public Works Director has notified this Board that the Right-of-Way Landscaping improvements for SD06-09035, have been completed as provided in the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) with Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, heretofore approved by this Board; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the landscape improvements have been COMPLETED as of August 16, 2016, thereby establishing the six-month terminal period for the filing of liens in case of action under said Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping): DATE OF AGREEMENT : February 17, 2011 NAME OF SURETY: The Continental Insurance Company BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the payment (labor and materials) surety for $253,500.00, Bond No. 929 518 814 issued by the above surety be RETAINED for the six-month lien guarantee period until February 16, 2017, at which time the Board AUTHORIZES the release of said surety less the amount of any claims on file. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Right-of-Way Landscaping improvements for SD06-09035, as shown and dedicated for public use on the Final Map of Subdivision SD06-09035, filed September 29, 2010, in Book 512 of maps at Page 33, Official Records of Contra Costa County, State of California, are ACCEPTED AS COMPLETE. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there is no warranty and maintenance period required, and the Public Works Director is AUTHORIZED to refund the $5,000.00 cash security for performance (Auditor's Deposit Permit No. 571871, dated March 8, 2011) plus interest in accordance with Government Code Section 53079, if appropriate, to Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, pursuant to the requirements of the Ordinance Code; and the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) and performance surety for $502,000.00, Bond No. 929 518 814, dated February 17, 2011 are EXONERATED. Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925-313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: S. Reed, Design/Construction, L. Lorentini, Engineering Services, C. Hallford, Mapping Division, C. Low, City of San Ramon 5 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 427 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 428 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/496 accepting completion of the warranty period for the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) and release of cash deposit for faithful performance, for subdivision SD07-08970, for a project developed by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Developer Fees. The funds to be released are developer fees that have been held on deposit. BACKGROUND: The landscape improvements have met the guarantee performance standards for the warranty period following completion and acceptance of the improvements. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The developer will not receive a refund of the cash deposit, the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) and performance/maintenance surety bond will not be exonerated, and the billing account will not be liquidated and closed. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925-313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: S. Reed, Design/Construction, L. Lorentini, Engineering Services, C. Hallford, Mapping Division, C. Low, City of San Ramon C. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Accepting completion of the warranty period and release of cash deposit for faithful performance for subdivision SD07-08970, San Ramon area. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 429 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/496 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/496 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 430 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 08/16/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/496 IN THE MATTER OF: Accepting completion of the warranty period for the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) and release of cash deposit for faithful performance, subdivision SD07-08970, a project developed by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) WHEREAS, on April 1, 2014, this Board resolved that the landscape improvements in subdivision SD07-08970 were completed as provided in the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) with Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and now on the recommendation of the Public Works Director; The Board hereby FINDS that the improvements have satisfactorily met the guaranteed performance standards for the period following completion and acceptance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Public Works Director is AUTHORIZED to: REFUND the $2,500.00 cash deposit (Auditor’s Deposit Permit No. 573221, dated March 24, 2011) plus interest to Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation in accordance with Government Code Section 53079, if appropriate, Ordinance Code Section 94-4.406, and the Subdivision Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of the warranty and maintenance period, the San Ramon City Council shall accept the landscape improvements for maintenance and ownership in accordance with the Dougherty Valley Memorandum of Understanding. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the warranty period has been completed and the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) and surety bond, Bond No. 929 518 819 dated March 11, 2011, issued by The Continental Insurance Company, are EXONERATED. Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925-313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: S. Reed, Design/Construction, L. Lorentini, Engineering Services, C. Hallford, Mapping Division, C. Low, City of San Ramon 5 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 431 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 432 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/499 approving the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD16-09301, for a project being developed by Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department has reviewed the conditions of approval for subdivision SD16-09301 and has determined that all conditions of approval for Final Map approval have been satisfied. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Final Map and the Subdivision Agreement will not be approved and recorded. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925-313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: S. Reed, Design/Construction, C. Low, City of San Ramon C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD16-9301, San Ramon area. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 433 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/499 Subdivision Agreement SD16 9301 Map_SD16-9301 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/499 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 434 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 08/16/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/499 IN THE MATTER OF approving the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD16-09301, for a project being developed by Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) WHERE AS, the following documents were presented for board approval this date: I. Map: The final map of subdivision SD16-09301, property located in the San Ramon area, Supervisorial District II, said map having been certified by the proper officials. II. Subdivision Agreement: A Subdivision Agreement with Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, principal, whereby said principal agrees to complete all improvements as required in said Subdivision Agreement within two (2) years from the date of said agreement. Accompanying said Subdivision Agreement is security guaranteeing completion of said improvements as follows: A. Cash Bond Performance amount: $45,000.00 Auditor’s Deposit Permit No. DP 716382 Date: July 28, 2016 Submitted by: Toll Brothers, Inc. B. Surety Bond Bond Company: North American Specialty Insurance Company Bond Number: 2202333 Date: June 6, 2016 Performance Amount: $4,449,000.00 Labor & Materials Amount: $2,247,000.00 Principal: Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation III. Tax Letter: Letter from the County Tax Collector stating that there are no unpaid County taxes heretofore levied on the property included in said map and that the 2015-2016 tax lien has been paid in full and the 2016-2017 tax lien, which became a lien on the first day of January 2016, is estimated to be 2,057,885.00, with security guaranteeing payment of said tax lien as follows: Tax Surety: Federal Insurance Company 5 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 435 Bond Number: 82398028 Date: June 14, 2016 Amount: $2,057,885.00 Principal: Toll Brothers, Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That said subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is DETERMINED to be consistent with the County's general and specific plans. 2. That said Final Map is APPROVED and this Board does hereby accept subject to installation and acceptance of improvements on behalf of the public any of the streets, paths, or easements shown thereon as dedicated to public use. 3. That said Subdivision Agreement is also APPROVED. Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925-313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: S. Reed, Design/Construction, C. Low, City of San Ramon August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 436 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes437 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes438 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes439 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes440 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes441 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes442 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes443 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes444 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes445 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes446 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 447 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 448 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 449 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 450 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 451 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 452 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 453 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 454 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 455 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 456 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 457 RECOMMENDATION(S): FIND, pursuant to Vehicle Code section 21101, that Dougherty Road (Old Dougherty Rd) from Stoneleaf Road/Ivyleaf Springs Road to Bollinger Canyon Road (south) is no longer needed for vehicular traffic because of the opening of new Dougherty Road from Bollinger Canyon Road (north) to Bollinger Canyon Road (south). ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/502 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to permanently close Dougherty Road (Old Dougherty Road) to vehicular traffic from Stoneleaf Road/Ivyleaf Springs Road to Bollinger Canyon Road (south), effective August 29, 2016, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Developer Fees BACKGROUND: The Dougherty Valley development is a master planned residential development of approximately 5,980 acres of land into approximately 12,000 homes that began in the 1990s. The City of San Ramon and the Town of Danville sued the County and developers to block the development. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Warren Lai, 925 313-2180 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: R. Hutchins, Records, S. Reed, Design/Construction, Chris Lau, Maintenance, C. Halford, Mapping, W. Lai, Engineering Services Division Manager, J. LaRocque, Engineering Services, L. Lorentini, Engineering Services, C. Low, City of San Ramon C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approving and authorizing closure of Dougherty Rd. (Old Dougherty Rd.) from Stoneleaf Rd./Ivyleaf Springs to Bollinger Canyon Rd., San Ramon area. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 458 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In 1994 a settlement, the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement (between the County, City of San Ramon, Town of Danville, and the developers), was reached that governs how the entire Dougherty Valley was to be developed. As part of the traffic circulation of this master planned development, the new/realigned segment of Dougherty Road from Bollinger Canyon north to south is one of the major arterials identified in the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan to be constructed to help motorist travel through the community. The segment of Dougherty Road (Old Dougherty Road) from Stoneleaf Road/Ivyleaf Springs Road to Bollinger Canyon Road (south) is to be closed to vehicular traffic and converted into a recreational trail, and is identified as one of the major trails or paths in the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. Recently, the developer completed construction of the new/realigned segment of Dougherty Road from Bollinger Canyon north to south (the Board of Supervisors accepted completion of improvements on August 2, 2016; Resolution Nos. 2016/470, 2016/472, and 2016/475). This new/realigned segment opened to the public as vehicular, bike, and pedestrian access on August 12, 2016, to coincide with the opening of Bella Vista Elementary School the following week. With the vehicular access through the community made via the new/realigned Dougherty Road, the old segment (Old Dougherty Road) is no longer needed for vehicular access; Vehicle Code section 21101 allows local authorities to close a highway to vehicular traffic when it is no longer needed for vehicular traffic by resolution. Vehicular access through the neighborhoods adjacent to Old Dougherty Road will continue to and from Stoneleaf Road, which connects directly to Bollinger Canyon road, and Ivyleaf Spring Road, which connects to South Monarch Road and Main Branch Road, and which both then connect to Bollinger Canyon Road. Closure of Old Dougherty Road to vehicular traffic is consistent with the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan and the overall Dougherty Valley development project approval. The Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee (DVOC) discussed closure of Old Dougherty Road on December 7, 2015 and June 6, 2016. At the June meeting, there was a unanimous consensus of the DVOC committee to continue with the original plan of closing Old Dougherty Road and converting it to a recreational trail. It is anticipated that the County will vacate the right-of-way and reserve rights for public utility easements under procedures in the Streets and Highways Code at a later date. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The roadway section will not be closed. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers:  Shisiro K mohanty Solomon; Nishant Asthana; Ranganathan Madhanagopal; Velu Kandasamy; Viswanathan Ananthanarayanan. Commentary submitted via email is attached.  Resolution 2016/ 502 contained a minor typographical error. The revised version was accepted into the record by unanimous vote.  AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/502 Attachment_DVOC 6.6.16 full packet MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Correspondence Received Signed: Resolution No. 2016/502 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 459 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 08/16/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/502 IN THE MATTER OF: Adopting findings and approving the closure of Dougherty Road (Old Dougherty Road) to vehicular from Stoneleaf Road/Ivyleaf Springs Road to Bollinger Canyon Road (south) per the California Vehicle Code section 21101. WHEREAS, the completion of new Dougherty Road from Bollinger Canyon Road north to south has been completed and accepted by the Board of Supervisors August 2, 2016 (Resolution Nos. 2016/470, 2016/472, and 2016/475). WHEREAS, new Dougherty Road from Bollinger Canyon Road north provides vehicular and pedestrian access for the overall Dougherty Valley community and recently constructed Bella Vista Elementary School. Vehicular access through the neighborhoods adjacent to Old Dougherty Road will continue to and from Stoneleaf Road, which connects directly to Bollinger Canyon Road, and Ivyleaf Spring Road, which connects to South Monarch Road and Main Branch Road, and which both then connect to Bollinger Canyon Road. WHEREAS, the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan has designated Dougherty Road (Old Dougherty Road) from Stoneleaf Road/Ivyleaf Springs Road to Bollinger Canyon Road (south) as a major pedestrian/bike trail that is closed to vehicular traffic. WHEREAS, at the June 6, 2016 Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee meeting, there was unanimous consensus to continue with the implementation of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan to close Dougherty Road (Old Dougherty Road) to vehicular traffic and convert it to a recreational pedestrian/bicycle trail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board does the following: 1. FINDS, pursuant to Vehicle Code section 21101, that Dougherty Road (Old Dougherty Rd) from Stoneleaf Road/Ivyleaf Springs Road to Bollinger Canyon Road (south) is no longer needed for vehicular traffic because of the opening of new Dougherty Road from Bollinger Canyon Road (north) to Bollinger Canyon Road (south); and that closure of Dougherty Road (Old Dougherty Road) to vehicular traffic is consistent with the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan; 2. APPROVES and AUTHORIZES the Public Works Director, or designee, to close Dougherty Road (Old Dougherty Rd) to vehicular traffic from Stoneleaf Road/Ivyleaf Springs Road to Bollinger Canyon Road (south), effective August 29, 2016. Contact: Warren Lai, 925 313-2180 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: R. Hutchins, Records, S. Reed, Design/Construction, Chris Lau, Maintenance, C. Halford, Mapping, W. Lai, Engineering Services Division Manager, J. LaRocque, Engineering Services, L. Lorentini, Engineering Services, C. Low, City of San Ramon 5 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 460 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 461 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 462 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 463 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 464 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 465 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 466 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 467 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 468 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 469 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 470 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 471 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 472 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 473 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 474 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 475 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 476 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 477 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 478 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 479 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 480 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 481 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 482 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 483 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 484 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 485 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 486 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 487 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 488 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 489 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 490 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 491 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 492 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 493 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 494 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 495 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 496 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 497 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 498 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 499 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 500 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 501 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 502 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 503 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 504 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 505 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 506 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 507 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 508 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 509 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 510 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 511 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 512 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 513 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 514 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 515 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 516 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 517 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 518 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 519 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 520 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 521 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 522 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 523 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 524 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 525 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 526 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 527 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 528 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 529 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 530 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 531 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 532 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 533 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 534 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 535 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 536 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 537 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 538 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 539 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 540 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 541 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 542 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 543 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 544 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 545 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 546 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 547 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 548 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 549 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 550 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 551 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 552 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 553 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 554 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 555 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 556 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 557 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 558 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 559 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 560 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 561 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 562 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 563 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 564 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 565 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 566 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 567 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 568 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 569 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 570 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 571 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 572 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/500 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to fully close a portion of Coverntry Road between Berkeley Park Boulevard and Ocean View Avenue, on September 5, 2016 from 12:00 p.m. through 4:00 p.m., for the purpose of a neighborhood block party, Kensington area. (District I) FISCAL IMPACT: No Fiscal Impact. BACKGROUND: Applicant shall follow guidelines set forth by the Public Works Department. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Applicant will be unable to close the road for planned activities. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Bob Hendry, 925 674-7744 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Fully close a portion of Coverntry Rd. between Berkeley Park Blvd. and Ocean View Ave. for a neighborhood block party, Kensington area. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 573 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/500 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/500 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 574 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 08/16/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/500 IN THE MATTER OF: Approving and Authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to fully close a portion of Coverntry Road between Berkeley Park Boulevard and Ocean View Avenue, on September 5, 2016 from 12:00 p.m. through 4:00 p.m., for the purpose of a neighborhood block party, Kensington area. (District I) RC16-8 IT IS BY THE BOARD RESOLVED that permission is granted to Andrew Spear to fully close Coverntry Road between Berkeley Park Boulevard and Ocean View Avenue, except for emergency traffic, on September 5, 2016 for the period of 12:00 p.m. through 4:00 p.m., subject to the following conditions: 1. Traffic will be detoured via neighboring streets per traffic control plan reviewed by Public Works. 2. All signing to be in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 3. Andrew Spear shall comply with the requirements of the Ordinance Code of Contra Costa County. 4. Provide the County with a Certificate of Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for Comprehensive General Public Liability which names the County as an additional insured prior to permit issuance. 5. Obtain approval for the closure from the Sheriff’s Department, the California Highway Patrol and the Fire District. Contact: Bob Hendry, 925 674-7744 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: 5 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 575 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 576 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the Grant of Easement from the City of Brentwood (City) to the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (District), for Drainage Purposes – Basin 3/4 (Snowman Basin) APN: 016-190-035, dated May 5, 2016. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or Designee, to execute the Amendment to the Agreement between the City and the District. (Project No.: WL83PV – FS1300136) DIRECT the Real Estate Division to have the above referenced Grant of Easement recorded in the office of the County Clerk-Recorder. FISCAL IMPACT: No Fiscal Impact BACKGROUND: The property rights are required to provide access for the maintenance of Basin 3/4 (Snowman Basin), and to satisfy the terms of the Agreement between the City and the District for Drainage Area 52C, dated April 14, 1992, and amended on August 24, 2011. (CP #00-19) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Olivia D. Reynolds, (925) 313-2306 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Accept Grant of Easement and Approve Amendment to the Agreement between CCC Flood Control and Water Conservation District for Snowman Basin August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 577 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The District will not have sufficient property rights to maintain the drainage facilities in accordance with the Agreement and drainage plan for Drainage Area 52C. ATTACHMENTS Snowman Basin - Copy of Grant Easement Snowman Basin - Amendment August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 578 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 579 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 580 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 581 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 582 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 583 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 584 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 585 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 586 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to amend the Fuel Supply Agreement between the County and Ascent Aviation Group, Inc. to extend the contract termination date to purchase and resell branded aviation fuel at Byron Airport from August 31, 2016 to October 31, 2016. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, to execute on behalf of the Director of Airports, a purchase order amendment with Ascent Aviation Group, Inc., to extend the effective end date from August 31, 2016 to October 31, 2016 for aviation fuel at Byron Airport. FISCAL IMPACT: The Airport Enterprise Fund will cover the purchase costs and the Airport will then resell the fuel to Byron tenants and other users to generate income. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County Airports is responsible for an aircraft fueling facility at Byron Airport that provides 100 low lead (LL) aviation fuel for its tenants and visiting aircraft. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Lee, (925) 681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve 61-Day Amendment to extend the Fuel Supply Agreement and Purchase Order with Ascent Aviation Group Inc. for aviation fuel, Byron Airport August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 587 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Ascent Aviation Group, Inc. (Ascent) is the current aviation fuel supplier for Byron Airport and their contract ends on August 31, 2016. As such, the Airport Division undertook a Request for Proposal (RFP) process through the BidSync system. The RFP had a deadline of June 16, 2016 and two total proposals were received. The new agreements for the next fuel supply contractor will not be completed prior to the expiration of the current contract. Thus, it is necessary to amend the Fuel Supply Agreement to extend the termination date with Ascent from August 31, 2016 to October 31, 2016. The extension is essential to allow the County to purchase and sell fuel for Airport tenants and users while the new contract is being completed. The current purchase order is also set to expire on August 31, 2016 and needs to be extended to October 31, 2016 to allow for fuel to be purchased. On August 2, 2016, the Board authorized a $125,000.00 increase to the existing purchase order. This added amount is sufficient to purchase fuel through the extended period ending October 31, 2016. To avoid interruption in the sale of aviation fuel at Byron Airport for tenants and customers, it is necessary to extend both the Fuel Supply Agreement and purchase order through October 31, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the purchase order amendment is not approved, the County will no longer be able to buy and sell aviation fuel and there will be a disruption of needed aviation fuel service at the Byron Airport for tenants and customers. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 588 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. APPROVE the design and bid documents, including the plans and specifications, for the Montalvin and MonTara Bay Parks Improvements, Denise Drive and 2250 Tara Hills Drive, San Pablo area. [County Project No. 7489- 6X5239] (District I) 2. AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to solicit bids to be received on or about September 15, 2016 and issue bid addenda, as needed, for clarification of the bid documents, provided the involved changes do not significantly increase the construction cost estimate. 3. DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to publish, at least 14-calendar days before the bid opening date, the Notice to Contractors in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22037, inviting bids for this project. 4. DIRECT the Public Works Director, or designee, to send notices by email or fax and by U.S. Mail to the construction trade journals specified in Public Contract Code Section 22036 at least 15-calendar days before the bid opening. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Staceyy M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Advertisement of Montalvin and MonTara Bay Parks Improvements, Denise Drive and 2250 Tara Hills Drive, San Pablo area. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 589 FISCAL IMPACT: 100% East Bay Regional Park District Measure WW Local Grant Program. BACKGROUND: Plans and specifications for the project have been prepared for the Public Works Department by Stantec Architecture, Inc. and filed with the Clerk of the Board by the Public Works Director. The construction cost estimate is $251,000.00 and the general prevailing wage rates are on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and will be the minimum rates paid on this project. Voter approved Measure WW allocated grant funds to local parks for improvements. District I staff and community stakeholders in the San Pablo area recommended allocation of the Measure WW funds to Montalvin and MonTara Bay Parks for improvements. On October 3, 2013, County staff reported to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) with a recommendation for this project in CSA M-17 (San Pablo). Improvements for Montalvin Park will consist of renovation and replacement of the playground, asphalt paths, and picnic tables and chairs. Montalvin Park is experiencing erosion along the eastern slope leading to the park and the parking lot is experiencing flooding. The project will address the erosion and flooding issues with erosion control plantings, minor grading, a drainage swale, and renovation of the existing drainage system. Three (3) trees will also be planted near the picnic tables for shade. Improvements for MonTara Bay Park will consist of rehabilitation of a trash enclosure adjacent to the community center, replacement of existing landscaping, replacement of concrete walkway from the parking lot to the park for ADA access, storm drain lines, and baseball field drainage and irrigation. The Board found this project is a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 2 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Article 19, Section 15302 of the CEQA Guideline during the February 11, 2014 board meeting. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the project is not approved, the grant funds would be diverted to another agency project and project would not be constructed. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 590 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with Brian Guerin for a T-hangar at Buchanan Field Airport effective August 27, 2016 in the monthly amount of $394.10, Pacheco area. FISCAL IMPACT: The Airport Enterprise Fund will realize $4,729.20 annually. BACKGROUND: On September 1, 1970, Buchanan Airport Hangar Company entered into a 30-year lease with Contra Costa County for the construction of seventy-five (75) hangars and eighteen (18) aircraft shelters at Buchanan Field Airport. Buchanan Airport Hangar Company was responsible APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Lee, (925) 681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a hangar rental agreement with Buchanan Field Airport Hangar tenant August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 591 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for the maintenance and property management of the property during that 30-year period. On September 1, 2000, the County obtained ownership of the aircraft hangars and shelters, pursuant to the terms of the above lease. On February 13, 2007, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the new Large Hangar Lease Agreement for use with the larger East Ramp Hangars. On February 3, 2008, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the amended T-Hangar Lease Agreement which removed the Aircraft Physical Damage Insurance requirement. The new amended T-hangar Lease Agreement will be used to enter into this aircraft rental agreement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action will cause a loss of revenue to the Airport Enterprise Fund. ATTACHMENTS Hangar Agreement-Brian Guerin August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 592 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 593 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 594 RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE plans, specifications, and design for the Buchanan Airport Taxiway Echo & Kilo Improvements Project. County Project No. 4855-4653-FAS-6X5322, Federal Project No. AIP 3-06-0050-021, (District 4) (2) DETERMINE that the bid submitted by Granite Rock Company (“Granite Rock”) demonstrated adequate good faith efforts to meet the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirement for this project and that Granite Rock has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible base bid and base bid plus Additive Alternate No. 1 combined per the specifications for the project. (3) AWARD the construction contract for the above project to Granite Rock in the listed amount ($1,559,961.00) and the unit prices submitted in the bid, and DIRECT that Granite Rock shall present two good and sufficient surety bonds, as indicated below, and that the Public Works Director, or designee, shall prepare the contract. (4) ORDER that, after the contractor has signed the contract and returned it, together with the bonds as noted below and any required certificates of insurance or other required documents, and the Public Works Director has reviewed and found them to be sufficient, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign the contract for APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Construction Contract for the Buchanan Airport Taxiway Echo & Kilo Improvements Project, Concord area. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 595 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 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 Granite Rock 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 90% Federal Aviation Administration Funds, 2.25% Caltrans Funds, 7.75% Airport Enterprise 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 May 3, 2016, the Public Works Department received bids from the following contractors: BIDDER, TOTAL AMOUNT, BOND AMOUNTS Granite Rock Company: $1,559,961.00; Payment: $1,559,961.00; Performance: $1,559,961.00 Ghilotti Bros., Inc.: $1,764,149.00 The bidder listed first above, Granite Rock, submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $204,188.00 less than the next lowest bid. This is a federally funded project subject to a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) contract goal and requirements. The Public Works Director reports that the lowest monetary bidder, Granite Rock, attained DBE participation of 0.0% and submitted adequate documentation of good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal (22.00%) and requirements for this project. The Public Works Director recommends that the Board determine that Granite Rock has demonstrated adequate good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal for this project and has complied with the DBE requirements for this project and recommends that the construction contract be awarded to Granite Rock. The Public Works Director recommends that the bid submitted by Granite Rock is the lowest responsive and responsible bid, and this Board concurs and so finds. The Board of Supervisors previously determined that the project is a California Environmental Quality Act Class August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 596 15301(Class I) Categorical Exemption, and a Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk on July 8, 2015. 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. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 597 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute Contract Amendment No. 5 to the Consulting Services Agreement with Consolidated CM, effective March 12, 2013, to extend the termination date from June 1, 2015 to June 20, 2017, and to increase the payment limit by $50,000 from $2,557,773 to a new payment limit of $2,607,773, for construction management services for the Upper Sand Creek Basin Project, Antioch area. (Project No. 0662-6R4073) FISCAL IMPACT: CSA Amendment No. 5 allows for an additional $50,000 above the previously approved contract payment limit of $2,557,773. The increase in payment is to be funded by 100% Flood Control District Drainage Area 130 Funds. BACKGROUND: On March 12, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved the CSA for construction management services with Consolidated CM with a payment limit of $1,246,000. On December 3, 2013, the Board approved Amendment APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract amendment with Consolidated CM, Antioch area. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 598 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) No. 1 to the CSA to increase the payment limit by $350,000 to a new payment limit of $1,596,000. On February 11, 2014, the Board approved Amendment No. 2 to the CSA to increase the payment limit by $561,773 to a new payment limit of $2,157,773. On May 13, 2014, the Board approved Amendment No. 3 to the CSA to increase the payment limit by $200,000 to a new payment limit of $2,357,773. On October 7, 2014, the Board approved Amendment No. 4 to the CSA to increase the payment limit by $200,000 to a new payment limit of $2,557,773. Proposed Amendment No. 5 will amend the term by changing the termination date from June 1, 2015 to June 20, 2017 and will increase the payment limit by $50,000 to a new Payment Limit of $ 2,607,773 in order to provide additional construction management services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The consultant would not be compensated for services needed to complete the project. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 599 RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by Safeco Insurance Company, James Renton, Jeanne Boyd, Andrew McKleroy, Megan Beach, Rebecca Brown, Donald Driver, Nicholas Grant, Eaen Hale, Richard Kite, Mary Mountbatten, Maria Price, Jennifer Rhee, Ralph Scott, State Farm, as subrogee of Donna Watanabe Tamur, and Wunmi Mohammed Kamson & Calvin Kamson; DENY late claim filed by Mary Mountbatten. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: * APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 600 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for July 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Government Code section 53232.3(d) requires that members of legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging ex cetera). The attached reports were submitted by the Board of Supervisors members in satisfaction of this requirement. District V had nothing to report for the month of July 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board of Supervisors will not be in compliance with Government Code 53232.3(d). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stepahnie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT Board Members meeting reports for July 2016 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 601 ATTACHMENTS District III 7-2016 Meeting Report District IV 7-2016 Meeting Report District I 7-2016 Meeting Report District II 7-2016 Meeting Report August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 602 Date Meeting Name Location Purpose 12-Jul Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 12-Jul Executive Director, Erik Vink and Conservation and Development Director, John Kopchick Martinez Business Meeting 12-Jul Phone Meeting with Delta Protection Commission Martinez Business Meeting 13-Jul Phone Meeting with Airport Advisory Member, Ron Reagan Martinez Business Meeting 13-Jul Meeting with County Administrator, David Twa Martinez Business Meeting 13-Jul Safe Rx Disposal Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 13-Jul LAFCO Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 14-Jul Phone Interview with East Bay Times Martinez Business Meeting 14-Jul Meeting with Public Health Director, Dan Peddycord Martinez Business Meeting 14-Jul Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 19-Jul Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 19-Jul Annual Board of Supervisors/Judicial Bench Luncheon Martinez Business Meeting 19-Jul Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 19-Jul Housing Authority Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 19-Jul Meeting with Republic Services General Manager, Tim Argenti Martinez Business Meeting 20-Jul Highway 4 Ribbon Cutting Celebration Antioch Business Meeting 20-Jul Meeting with Conservation and Development Director, John Kopchik Martinez Business Meeting 20-Jul Constituent Meeting Concord Business Meeting 20-Jul Phone Meeting with Delta Protection Commission Executive Director, Erik Vink Martinez Business Meeting Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho – July 2016 AB1234 Report (Government Code Section 53232.3(d) requires that members of legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc). August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 603 20-Jul Airport Committee Meeting Concord Business Meeting 21-Jul Delta Protection Commission Meeting Walnut Grove Business Meeting 22-Jul NACo Conference Long Beach Business Meeting 23-Jul NACo Conference Long Beach Business Meeting 24-Jul NACo Conference Long Beach Business Meeting 25-Jul NACo Conference Long Beach Business Meeting 28-Jul * Delta Stewardship Council Meeting Sacramento Business Meeting * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 604 Supervisor Karen Mitchoff July 2016 DATE MEETING NAME LOCATION PURPOSE 7/6/2016 CCTA Special Meeting Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items 7/11/2016 Legislation Committee Martinez Decisions on agenda items 7/12/2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 7/13/2016 Aging Imperative Event Walnut Creek Community Outreach 7/13/2016 CCCSWA Personnel Committee Meeting Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items 7/14/2016 TRANSPAC Pleasant Hill Decisions on agenda items 7/14/2016 Concord Chamber Luncheon (Speaking)Concord Community Outreach 7/15/2016 Delta Counties Coalition In-Person Meeting Stockton Water Advocacy 7/16/2016 Central Sanitary District Anniversary Martinez Community Outreach 7/19/2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 7/20/2016 BAAQMD Board Meeting San FranciscoDecisions on agenda items 7/20/2016 Airport Committee Meeting Concord Decisions on agenda items 7/20/2016 CCTA Authority Board Meeting Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items 7/21/2016 ABAG Board Meeting San FranciscoDecisions on agenda items 7/22/2016 NACo Annual Conference Long Beach Education and Advocacy 7/26/2016 WaterFix Hearing Sacramento Water Advocacy 7/27/2016 Delta Conservancy Sacramento Water Advocacy 7/27/2016 ABAG Infrastructure Committee San FranciscoRegional Planning 7/28/2016 CCCSWA Board Meeting Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items 7/29/2016 ABAG Finance and Personnel Meeting San FranciscoDecisions on agenda items August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 605 Supervisor John Gioia July – 2016 Monthly Meeting Statement Government Code section 53232.3(d) requires that members of legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc.) Meeting Date: July 22, 2016 through July 24, 2016 Meeting: NACO Conference Location: Long Beach, CA ************************************************************************************* Supervisor Gioia sought reimbursement from the County for one meeting that he attended in his capacity as a County Supervisor during the month of July, 2016. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 606 Supervisor Candace Andersen – Monthly Meeting Report July 2016 Date Meeting Location 1 County Connection Danville 4 4th of July events Danville/Orinda 6 Meet Co Adminstrator Martinez 6 Mental Health Comm Concord 8 Creek Tour San Ramon 11 Family & Human Services Martinez 12 Board of Supervisors Martinez 13 CCCERA Concord 13 LAFCO Martinez 13 Traffix Danville 14 East Bay EDA Danville 14 TWIC Martinez 16 Central San 70th Anniv Martinez 18 Alamo Liaison Danville 18 TVTC Livermore 19 Board of Supervisors Martinez 21 CCCTA Concord 21 CSAC Institute Martinez 21 ABAG San Francisco 25 DCD Meeting Danville 27 CCCERA Concord 28 CCCSWA Walnut Creek 29 TRAFFIX Danville August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 607 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stepahnie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:East Bay Stand Down for Homeless Veterans August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 608 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/512 Memo to F&HS and EBSD Flyer MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/512 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 609 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/512 Honoring and supporting the East Bay Stand Down 2016 WHEREAS, the national Coalition for Homeless Veterans and the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs estimate that one-third of the homeless in our country are U.S. Military Veterans, and there are an estimated 6,000 homeless Veterans in the nine San Francisco Bay Area Counties; and WHEREAS, the problems of these displaced Veterans are very difficult to address through common access points and existing service delivery systems; and WHEREAS, more that 15% of the population over the age of eighteen in Contra Costa and other counties in the Greater Bay Area are Veterans; and WHEREAS, more than 1,500 volunteers have come together to establish East Bay Stand Down to help the less fortunate Veterans and their families who have found themselves in need; and WHEREAS, since its inception in 1999 East Bay Stand Down has directly assisted over 3,500 Veterans by providing housing, employment, health, dental and legal services; and WHEREAS, from September 15 through September 18, 2016 the biennial East Bay Stand Down will be held under the leadership of the local Veteran's organizations, including the American Legion, AMVETS, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Veterans Remembrance Committee, the Vietnam Veterans of Diablo Valley, Blue Star Moms and the Warrior Watch Riders, Veterans of Foreign Wars Ladies Auxiliary; and WHEREAS, community support is provided by the Rotary, the Lions, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the Benevolent Order of Elks, Chevron, AT&T, Northrop Grumman; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Defense Office of Reserve Affairs, supports the operation of the East Bay Stand Down event by authorizing and funding troop liaison from the Wisconsin National Guard; and WHEREAS, Contra Costa County provides support through the offices of the County of Contra Costa Superior Court, District Attorneys and Public Defender; and WHEREAS, under the leadership of the Contra Costa County Veterans Service Office along with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Northern California Health Care System and Palo Alto Health Care System, the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs Concord Vet Center, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Oakland Regional Office, National Cemetery Administration join together to better the lives of our Veterans. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County hereby recognizes the services of East Bay Stand Down and the organizations and individuals in our community for their dedication and service to those who have given so much to our country. ___________________ 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 610 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 611 C.17 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 612 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 613 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 614 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 615 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stepahnie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Recognizing Leo Costa on his 30 years of service to Contra Costa County August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 616 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/489 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/489 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 617 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/489 recognizing the contributions of Leo Costa on the occasion of his 30 years of service to Contra Costa County. Whereas in 1986, Leo started his career with the Public Works Department as a Junior Drafter in the Mapping Division; and Whereas in 1987, Leo was promoted to Senior Drafter; and Whereas in 1991, Leo was selected as one of the 23 employees for “dedication and exceptional effort” to attend the Public Works Recognition Night at the Oakland A’s; and Whereas in 1991, Leo was nominated for the Most Dedicated Employee award in the County’s Award of Excellence program; and Whereas in 1992, Leo was promoted to Computer Aided Drafting Operator; and Whereas in 1994, Leo received the “Award of Excellence” for drafting design projects and the Southern Pacific right of way in “record time”; and Whereas in 1996, Leo received the “Award of Excellence” as part of the Design Team for the Bay Point Slide Repair Project; and Whereas in 2003, Leo was part of the project team that won the J. Michael Walford Project of the Year Award for the Parker Avenue Undergrounding Project; and Whereas in 2004, Leo was part of the project team that won the J. Michael Walford Team of the Year, and the APWA Distinguished Project of the Year Award for the Rossmoor Detention Basin Expansion Project; and Whereas in 2005, Leo was part of the Highway 4 Bypass project team for Segment 2 and Segment 3 through Brentwood, which is now Highway 4; and Whereas in 2010, Leo was part of the project team that won the J. Michael Walford Project of the Year Award for the Bethel Island Bridge Replacement Project; and Whereas in 2013, Leo received a Commendation from the Public Works Director for his time and efforts to reconfigure floor plans for the merger of Public Works and General Services; and Whereas Leo has been one of the hardest working and most dedicated employees at the Public Works Department for over 30 years; and Whereas Leo has been an invaluable resource to the Department, the Design Division, and his Division Manager throughout his career; and Whereas Leo continues to be a thoughtful, caring, and generous individual to the County’s charity programs; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors hereby recognize and honor Leo Costa for his 30 years of service and gives it's full appreciation for his high quality of work and dedicated service to the Public Works Department and the people of this County. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 618 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 619 C.18 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 620 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Earle Ormiston, DECLARE vacant the Advisory Council on Aging, Member At Large, Seat #7, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Department Director. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Mr. Ormiston resigned May 17, 2016. He was appointed to the Advisory Council on Aging, Member At Large, Seat #7, August 7, 2007. The Seat will expire September 30, 2017. The Advisory Council on Aging (ACOA) provides a means for countywide planning, cooperation, and coordination for individuals and groups interested in improving and developing services and opportunities for older residents of the County. The ACOA provides leadership and advocacy on behalf of older persons and serves as a channel of communication and information on aging. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Advisory Council on Aging may not be able to conduct routine business. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 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:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Advisory Council on Aging Resignation August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 621 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 622 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 623 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Juan Pablo Benavente to Low-Income Seat No. 2 on the Economic Opportunity Council, with a term end date of June 30, 2020, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: This board order seeks to appoint Juan Pablo Benavente to the vacancy in Low Income Sector, seat No. 2 with a term end date of June 30, 2020. The Economic Opportunity Council approved the appointment on July 7, 2016. Mr. Benavente resides in Concord, CA 94520 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Economic Opportunity Council will be unable to conduct routine business. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6345 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Christina Reich, Nancy Sparks, Cassandra Youngblood C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appoint Juan Pablo Benavente to Low-Income seat No. 2 of the Economic Opportunity Council August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 624 ATTACHMENTS Beneventa application August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 625 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes626 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes627 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Jennifer DeLano Cohen to the District III seat on the Contra Costa Commission for Women to a term expiring February 28, 2019, as recommended by Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho. Jennifer DeLano Cohen Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Commission for Women was established to identify major economic, educational, and social concerns of women in Contra Costa County, and to reach and inform all women on a variety of issues. The Commission consists of 26 members: one member from each Supervisorial District, 20 At-Large members, and 1 Alternate At-Large member. The Internal Operations Committee reviews nominations to the 20 At-Large and one Alternate-At Large seats. Terms for all Commission seats are three years. The Commission Chair interviewed applicants and made the recommendation to the District III Supervisor for appointment. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Lea Castleberry (925) 252-4500 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO CONTRA COSTA COMMISSION FOR WOMEN August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 628 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT William Marz to the Appointee 7 seat on County Service Area P-2A to a term expiring December 31, 2016, as recommended by Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho. William Marz Danville, CA 94506 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The advisory committee functions to advise the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff's Department on the needs of the Blackhawk community for extended police services which shall include, but not limited to, enforcement of the State Vehicle Code, crime prevention, and litter control. The Committee Chair interviewed applicants and made the recommendation to the District III Supervisor for appointment. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Lea Castleberry (925) 252-4500 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-2A August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 629 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Jason Tanseco to the District III Family Member seat on the Mental Health Commission to a term expiring June 30, 2019, as recommended by Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho. Jason Tanseco Walnut Creek, CA 94596 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Mental Health Commission was established by order of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on June 22, 1993, pursuant to the Welfare & Institutions Code 5604, also known as the Bronzan-McCorquodale Act, Stats. 1992, c. 1374 (A.B. 14). The primary purpose of the Commission is to serve in an advisory capacity to the Board of Supervisors and to the Mental Health Division and its staff. Commissioners are appointed by members of the County Board of Supervisors from each of the five districts for a term of three years. Each district has a consumer of mental health services, family member and an at-large representative on the Commission, for a total of 15 members plus a representative and alternate from the Board of Supervisors. The Mental Health Commission interviewed applicants and made the recommendation to the District III Supervisor for appointment. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Lea Castleberry (925) 252-4500 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: August 16, 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:Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 630 RECOMMENDATION(S): Appoint Contra Costa County Historical Society nominee Ms. Melissa Jacobson to vacant Seat 1 of the Contra Costa County Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee (HLAC) to a term expiring August 12, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: 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 and updating the County Historical Resources Inventory. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 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:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appointment to Seat 1 of the Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 631 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On July 12, 2016, Seat 1 was declared vacant by the Board of Supervisors due to the prior member’s inability to serve on the committee for personal reasons. In a letter dated August 3, 2016, the Contra Costa County Historical Society nominated Ms. Melissa Jacobson to Seat 1 to serve the remaining term. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: There will be one vacant seat on the committee. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Contra Costa County Historical Society Letter Candidate Application MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Jacobson application August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 632 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 633 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 634 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 635 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 636 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 637 RECOMMENDATION(S): REAPPOINT the following individual to the District II Seat of the Assessment Appeals Board for a three-year term with an expiration date of September 2, 2019, as recommended by Supervisor Candace Andersen: Harold D'Ambrogia Lafayette, CA 94549 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Established May 29, 1973 by Ordinance 73-45, the Assessment Appeals Board is the Board of Equalization for the County, with the power to equalize the valuation of the taxable property in the County for the purpose of taxation and review, as well as equalize and adjust penal and escaped assessments on the roll. There are five Appeals Board Members. To be eligible for these positions, a person must meet the following qualifications: 1. Be knowledgeable in the area of property appraisal and taxation. 2. Have a minimum of five years professional experience in California as one of the following: Certified Public Accountant, Public Accountant, Licensed Real Estate Broker, Attorney, or Property Appraiser accredited by a national professional organization. 3. Five years experience in California as an appraiser certified by the State Board of Equalization. Assessment Appeals Board members serve staggered three year terms. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: District 2 Supervisor, Maddy Book, Assessment Appeals Board, Appointee C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO THE ASSESSMENT APPEALS BOARD August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 638 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Supervisor Andersen has been pleased with Mr. D'Ambrogia's commitment and involvement on the Appeals Board and would like him to continue to serve as the District II representative. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The District II Seat will become vacant. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 639 RECOMMENDATION(S): REASSIGN the following person from the 2nd Alternate Seat of the County Service Area P-5 Citizens Advisory Committee to the Appointee 5 Seat for a term with an expiration date of December 31, 2016, as recommended by Supervisor Candace Andersen: Mark Cordone Alamo, CA 94507 DECLARE a vacancy in the 2nd Alternate Seat on the County Service Area P-5 Citizen Advisory Committee effective immediately, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy. 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. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 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, Appointee C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-5 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 640 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Appointee 5 Seat will remain vacant. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 641 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 642 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT the following individuals to the Mental Health Commission, as recommended by Supervisor Federal D. Glover: Michael Ward, resident of Martinez, to the District V - Consumer Seat with a term expiring June 30, 2018. and Meghan Cullen, resident of Clayton, to the District V - Member-at-Large Seat with a term expiring June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Mental Health Commission's role is to review and evaluate the community's mental health needs, services, facilities, and special problems; to review any County agreements entered into pursuant to Section 5650 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; to advise the governing body and local mental health director as to any aspect of the local mental health program; to submit an annual report to the Board of Supervisors; review and make recommendations regarding the appointment of a local director of mental health services; review the County's performance outcome data and communicate its findings to the State Mental APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Vincent Manuel (925) 427-8138 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appointments to the Mental Health Commission August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 643 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Health Commission; and assess the impact of the realignment of services from the State to the County on services delivered to clients and the local community. Each member of the Board shall has three nominations representing their district, and Supervisor Glover is requesting to fill two of three District V seats. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seats would remain vacant. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 644 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21904 to add positions in the following represented classifications in the Health Services Department: One (1) Health Services Planner/Evaluator-Level B (VCXD) at salary level ZB2-1323 ($4,419-$7,242), One (1) Public Health Mobile Clinic Operator (VMTB) at salary level TB5-1160 ($3,650-$4,437), One (1) Public Health Nurse Program Manager (VWHL) at salary level ZA5-1989 ($8,902-$10,821), and One (1) Public Health Program Specialist I (VBSD) at salary level ZA5-1602 ($5,655-$6,873) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of approximately $723,343, which includes $161,012 in pension costs. The cost will be funded with 83% Health Care for the Homeless Grant and 17% offset from Federally Qualified Health Care (FQHC) revenues. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Arlene J. Lozada (925)957-5269 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add four (4) permanent positions in the Health Services Department August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 645 BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department has a Dental Program that provides a variety of low or no-cost dental services in our health centers and mobile clinics. Dental examinations including cleanings, fluoride treatments, fillings and sealants are available to low income families and homeless individuals in our community. The Dental Program was awarded a grant to expand oral health services in Contra Costa County. As a recipient of this grant, the Health Services Department is expected to serve both new and existing patients. In addition, the grant requires that the percentage of health center patients who receive dental services at the health centers be increased. To meet the requirements of the grant, the Department determined that adding the four positions comprised of the Public Health Planner/Evaluator-Level B, the Public Health Nurse Program Manager, Public Health Program Specialist I, and the Public Health Mobile Clinic Operator is necessary. Incumbents of these positions will be assigned in the Health Care for Homeless (HCH) Program providing duties and responsibilities based upon their job assignments such as administration, outreach and clinical support. The Public Health Planner/Evaluator-Level B and the Public Health Program Specialist I will support the development, implementation and management of the HCH Co-Applicant Board, a new Federal requirement for the Heath Care for the Homeless Program. The Department will be required to oversee the board, coordinate meetings, compile and provide statistical data to appropriate regulatory bodies. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Department will not have the proper resources and staff needed to be in compliance with Federal mandates including requirements to maintain the Health Care for the Homeless grant. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21904 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21904 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 646 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21904 DATE 8/1/2016 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0450 Org No. 6377 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one (1) full-time Health Services Planner/Evaluator-Level B (VCXD) position, one (1) full-time Public Health Mobile Clinic Operator (VMTB) position, one (1) full-time Public Health Nurse Program Manager (VWHL) position, and one (1) full-time Public Health Program Specialist I (VBSD) position in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 8/17/2016 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 $723,343.51 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $542,507.63 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 83% Health Care for the Homeless Grant & 17% FQHC Revenues Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Arlene J. Lozada ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 8/8/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ 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 8/8/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 647 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 8/8/2016 No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 648 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 649 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21896 to add one (1) Clerk-Recorder Services Manager (EASA) (represented) position at salary plan and grade ZA5 1776 ($6,718-$8,166) and one (1) Information Systems Technician I (LTWB) (represented) position at salary plan and grade TB5 1408 ($4,666-$5,672); and cancel one (1) Recorder's Operations Manager (J9HF) (represented) vacant position No. 6257 at salary plan and grade ZA5 1450 ($4,864-$5,913) and one Information Systems Specialist II (LTVA) (represented) position No. 14985 at salary plan and grade TB5 1393 ($4,597-$5,588) in the Clerk Recorder Elections Department. FISCAL IMPACT: The net increase in County Cost will be $11,700 annually; the cost will be funded within the approved budget. BACKGROUND: In 2009, the division reorganized and created classifications that were able to perform County Clerk and recording functions. The Recorder Division currently has one Clerk-Recorder Services Manager position that oversee both County Clerk and Recording functions, and a Recorder Operations Manager position that directs recording functions. The Recorder's Operations Manager recently retired and the department would like to cancel the position and add a Clerk-Recorder Services Manager that will oversee both Clerk and Recording functions in the division. The Elections Division has a vacant Information Systems Specialist II position due to a resignation, and would like to cancel the Information Systems Specialist II position and add an Information Systems Technician APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Debi Cooper, 925-335-7899 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Debi Cooper C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:Joseph E. Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Clerk-Recorder Services Manager and one Info. Systems Tech I positions; cancel one Operations Manager and Info. Systems Specialist II position August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 650 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) I position. The department currently has one Information Systems Technician and would like to add an additional position. The Technicians are expected to perform the same task and serve as back-up to each other, and should be at the same classification level. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the department will not have adequate staffing at the Manager level to oversee work flow for both County Clerk and Recording functions which will result in filling a vacant Recorder's Operations Manager position that will only oversee the recording functions. If the department is unable to add an Information Systems Technician, they will continue to have classifications that do not allow the most efficient use of staff and skills needed across the division. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 28196 Clerk Recorder MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 28196 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 651 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST Department No./ COPERS Department Clerk-Recorder Budget Unit No. 043/355 Org. No. 2353/355 Agency No. ___24_____ Action Requested Org 355: Add one Clerk-Recorder Services Manager (EASA), cancel one vacant Recorder Operations manager (J9HF), position number 06257. Org 2353: Add one Information Systems Technician I (LTWB), cancel one vacant Information Systems Specialist II (LTVA), position number 14985. _ ___ Proposed Effective Date: August 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 Estimated total cost adjustment (Salary/benefits/one time): $ 0 Total annual cost $ 11,700 Net County Cost $ 11,700 Total this FY $ 10,725 N.C.C. this FY $ 10,725. SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Within current fiscal year budget, no change in FTE’s . Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. __________________J.C.__________________ ___7/22/16____ (for) Department Head Date REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT _______________BR for JE________________ ___7/28/16___ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION DATE: _8/3/2016_________ Add one (1) Clerk-Recorder Services Manager (EASA)(represented) position at salary plan and grade ZA5 1776 ($6,718-$8,166) and one (1) Information Systems Technician I (LTWB) (represented) position at salary plan and grade TB5 1408 ($4,666-$5,672); and cancel one (1) Recorder's Operations Manager (J9HF) (represented) vacant position No. 6257 at salary plan and grade ZA5 1450 ($4,864-$5,913) and one Information Systems Specialist II (LTVA) (represented) position No. 14985 at salary plan and grade TB5 1393 ($4,597-$5,588) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic/Exempt salary schedule as described above. Effective: Day following Board Action. _____________________ (Date) __________________________Tanya Williams______________ (for) Director of Human Resources COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION DATE: ___8/10/16________ Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ___________________________________________ ___/s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea______________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment 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) NO. _21896_________ DATE _7/28/16______ August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 652 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 653 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 654 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21903 to add six (6) Juvenile Institution Officer III (7KTB) (represented) positions at salary plan and grade PP5 1507 ($5,068-$6,160) in the Probation Department. FISCAL IMPACT: The annual fiscal impact is approximately $982,674 which constitutes the total compensation package (salary and benefits) of these six positions. Of this amount, the County’s pension cost is approximately $398,766. The fiscal impact will be covered 100% by the General Fund. BACKGROUND: In August 2013, Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing the rights of disabled persons, initiated a class-action lawsuit against Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa County Office of Education. On November 25, 2015, the court approved a settlement agreement between Contra Costa County and DRA. The Department has been working with Professor Latessa from the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute and his staff to develop a new behavior management APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Danielle Fokkema C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:Todd Billeci, Interim County Probation Officer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add six Juvenile Institution III positions August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 655 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) system for Juvenile Hall, including a more effective way to use room confinement without compromising the safety and security of the facility. The new behavior management system will focus on providing incentives to juveniles to engage in positive behavior rather than relying on discipline and punishment to discourage negative behavior. This emphasis on positive reinforcement reflects a philosophical change in the Department's approach to behavioral issues. The new behavior management system requires additional staffing in order to maximize the benefits of that system without compromising the security and safety of the facility. The increased staff permits probation counselors to engage in one-on-one communications with juveniles, which is a critical feature of the new behavior management system. Therefore, the Probation Department is asking for six (6) additional staff to roll out the new behavior management system to two (2) more units in Juvenile Hall. In addition to implementing the new behavior management system, a federal law called the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) requires the Probation Department to reduce juvenile to staff ratios by October 2017. The Probation Department will need to gradually increase the staff at Juvenile Hall over the next year in order to meet the stricter PREA standard. Increasing staffing now will effectively address both the new behavior management system and the additional requirements under PREA. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Juvenile Hall will lack sufficient staff to properly implement the new behavioral management system. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: "Children are Healthy and Ready for School", "Youth Are Healthy and Preparing for Adulthood", and "Families and Communities Are Safe." AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21903 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21903 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 656 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21903 DATE 8/1/2016 Department No./ Department Probation Budget Unit No. 0309 Org No. 3120 Agency No. 30 Action Requested: ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21903 to add six (6) Juvenile Institution Officer III (7KTB) (represented) positions in the Probation Department. Proposed Effective Date: 9/1/2016 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 $982,674.00 Net County Cost $982,674.00 Total this FY $818,895.00 N.C.C. this FY $818,895.00 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. Todd Billeci ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Vana Tran for Timothy M. Ewell 8/4/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Add six (6) Juvenile Institution Officer III (7KTB) (represented) positions at salary plan and grade PP5 1507 ($5,068 - $6,160) in the Probation Department. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. 9/1/2016(Date) Fina Prak, Human Resources Department ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 8/10/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Vana Tran for Timothy M. 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 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 657 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 8/10/2016 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 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 658 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 659 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21879 to reallocate the classification of Animal Clinic Veterinarian-Exempt (BKS1) (unrepresented) position at salary plan and grade B85 1780 ($6,747-$8,201) to B85 1957 ($8,042-$9,775) on the Salary Schedule in the Animal Services Department. FISCAL IMPACT: 32% User Fees, 31% City Revenues, 37% County General Fund. BACKGROUND: The Animal Clinic Veterinarian-Exempt will oversee and manage contract Veterinarians, Animal Services medical and shelter staff and operations. The Animal Clinic Veterinarian-Exempt develops and implements shelter animal care and medical policies and procedures to ensure the provision of appropriate care and support for animals at all Contra Costa County Animal Services Department (CCCASD) locations. The Animal Clinic Veterinarian-Exempt ensures that staff is appropriately assisting Veterinarians in providing health care to animals; coordinates euthanasia certification training for center staff as required; monitors and ensures that shelter facilities are maintained APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Ward 925-335-8370 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Arturo Castillo C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:Beth Ward, Animal Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Reallocate the salary of Animal Clinic Veterinarian-Exempt (BKS1) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 660 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and in sanitary condition; and, by working with shelter Veterinarians, analyzes and monitors population disease control measures; and performs other related work as required. The Animal Clinic Veterinarian-Exempt also has oversight in the medical operations of Animal Services Departments public spay/neuter center and vaccine clinic, working with the Administrative Services Officer to help ensure expense and revenue goals are developed and met. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Animal Shelter will be without Veterinarian leadership and will not specifically be able to operate the Animal Spay and Neuter Clinic and In-House Medical Care. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS AIR 26101 P300 21879 Salary Reallocation MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21879 AIR 26101 P300 21879 Salary Reallocation August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 661 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 662 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21879 DATE 7/6/2016 Department No./ Department Animal Services Budget Unit No. 0366 Org No. 0344 Agency No. 36 Action Requested: Reallocate the salary of Animal Clinic Veterinarian-Exempt (BKS1) (32% User Fees, 31% City Revenues, 37% County General Fund). Proposed Effective Date: 10/1/2016 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 $147,629.00 Net County Cost $54,622.77 Total this FY $147,629.00 N.C.C. this FY $54,622.77 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT User Fees and City Fees Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Arturo Castillo ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kevin J. Corrigan 7/6/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 8/9/2016 Reallocate the classification of Animal Clinic Veterinarian-Exempt (BKS1) (unrepresented) position at salary plan and grade B85 1780 ($6,747-$8,201) to B85 1957 ($8,042-$9,775) on the Salary Schedule Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Lauren Ludwig 8/9/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 8/16/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza 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 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 663 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 8/19/2016 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 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 664 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Lease with RIO Properties I, LLC to lease approximately 22,746 rentable square feet of office and warehouse space. The term of this lease is 12 years with one ten-year renewal term, each as defined in the lease. The annual rental payment for the first year is $313,884, with an annual increases thereafter, to be occupied by County’s Health Services Department – Information Technology Division, under the terms and conditions set forth in the lease; AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute the lease on behalf of Contra Costa County, and any renewal options thereafter. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund. BACKGROUND: Health Services Department (HSD) has largely maximized the utilization of all the buildings and spaces it currently occupies. HSD needs additional office and warehouse space for its Information Technology Division in central county. The new lease on Bisso Lane will provide adequate space for future growth of these functions. This lease will also consolidate staff from APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Silva, (925) 313-2132 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stepahnie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Lease Execution - 2400 Bisso Lane, Concord - Health Services Dept. - IT Division August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 665 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) multiple locations into an adequately sized central facility. RIO Properties (Lessor) is responsible for constructing the tenant improvements in the premises for the County. Lessor is also providing the County with a $30 per-square-foot allowance for tenant improvements. The County is responsible for the cost of tenant improvements in excess of that amount. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Lease is not approved, the Health Services Department – Information Technology Division will continue to operate from multiple locations, and the County will incur additional expenses in finding a new location. ATTACHMENTS 2400 Bisso Ln - Lease 2400 Bisso Ln - Work Letter August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 666 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 667 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 668 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 669 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 670 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 671 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 672 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 673 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 674 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 675 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 676 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 677 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 678 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 679 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 680 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 681 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 682 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 683 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 684 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 685 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 686 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 687 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 688 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 689 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 690 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 691 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 692 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 693 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 694 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 695 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 696 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 697 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 698 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 699 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 700 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 701 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment & Human Services Department Director, or designee, to apply for and accept funding in an amount not to exceed $6,250,000 from the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families for Early Head Start supplemental funding for the term January 1, 2017 - December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: The County, as Grantee, is required to generate a 20% non-federal in-kind match not to exceed $1,250,000 (see chart below). This match is achieved through collaboration with State Child Development programs and the volunteer hours accrued by Head Start parents and community partners. CFDA # 93.708 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6345 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Christina Reich, Eric Pormento, Cassandra Youngblood C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2017 Early Head Start Childcare Partnerships Grant Supplemental Funds August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 702 FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D) Early Head Start Childcare Partnership Funding Federal $5,000,000 = 80% Match (In-Kind) $1,250,000 = 20% Total $6,250,000 = 100% In-Kind match is 20% of total funding BACKGROUND: Administration for Children and Families (ACF) routinely provides expanded funding opportunities throughout the program year. The Office of Head Start recognizes that grantees will identify needs for additional funding during the initial implementation phase that were not apparent at the time of the initial award. The department has identified the need for additional funds to address health and nutrition; disabilities and mental health; safety; and professional development for Early Head Start staff. This board order seeks approval to submit an application to ACF for the Early Head Start Childcare Partnership grant supplemental funds. The funding application is due to the Office of Head Start, in the Administration for Children and Families Division of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services on August 30, 2016. The application will be reviewed for approval by the Policy Council on August 17, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, funding will be lost to operate the program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Community Services Bureau of the Employment & Human Services Department’s Head Start program supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 3: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and, Outcome 4: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. ATTACHMENTS EHS Pships Grant Narrative August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 703 2017 Early Head Start Childcare Partnerships 16-Point Narrative 08-04-16 Contra Costa County Employment & Human Services Department Community Services Bureau 2016 Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships Funding Application EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INCOMING FUNDS NARRATIVE STATEMENT 1. PROJECT/PROGRAM TITLE. Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships Funding Application for Budget Period January 1,2017 through December 31, 2017. 2. FUNDING AGENCY. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Head Start (OHS). 3. SUBMITTAL STATUS. This is a submission of application for Early Head Start Child Care Partnership grant funding for FY 2017. 4. PROPOSED TERM. Funding must be requested annually. The standard one year budget period is from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. The budget summary is below. 5. CURRENT FUNDING. Funding for Early Head Start is provided by federal dollars. Contra Costa County, as Grantee, is required to generate a 20% non-federal match of the total project budget, which may be in cash or in-kind contributions, fairly valued. 6. FUTURE FUNDING. An application for continuation grant funding must be submitted each year. 7. BUDGET SUMMARY Budget Categories: FY 2015 EHS Program Operation Personnel $ 1,238,500 Fringe Benefits $ 978,415 T & TA $ 125,000 Travel $ - 0 - Supplies $ 67,785 Contractual $ 2,056,156 Other $ 270,344 Sub-Total of Direct Charges $4,736,200 Indirect Costs $ 263,800 Total Federal Amount Being Requested $5,000,000 Non-Federal Share $ 1,250,000 Total Federal and Non-Federal $6,250,000 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 704 2017 Early Head Start Childcare Partnerships 16-Point Narrative 08-04-16 2 8. STAFFING REQUIREMENTS. As Grantee, Contra Costa County operates the Head Start Program, which is administered and staffed by the Employment & Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau. 9. PROGRAM NEED. The Community Services Bureau serves the needs of low- income children (3-5 years of age under Head Start, and prenatal - 3 yrs under Early Head Start) and their families, by providing quality childcare, child development, and other services such as medical, mental health and dental needs. 10. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROGRAMS. The Community Services Bureau’s Head Start program combines Federal Head Start and State Child Development funding into one cohesive program. The Bureau also has strong collaborations with other departments within the County and partners with community based organizations, local private businesses, schools, non-profits, and volunteer organizations. 11. PROJECT GOALS. (Same goals and objectives for both Head Start and Early Head Start) Goal 1: Poor health and nutrition are significantly correlated to childr en and families living in poverty. CSB will address the need to improve indicators of nutritional health through increased education, and physical activity. Goal 2: Disabilities and mental health needs continue to trend upwards. CSB will expand mental health and disabilities assessment, treatment and case management linkage opportunities for children and families. Goal 3: Exposure to violence has a lasting impact on children’s development including their emotional, mental and physical health. CSB seeks to provide positive and enduring change that increases child attachment by providing services to promote the safety and well-being of children and families. Goal 4: CSB will provide ongoing learning opportunities to enhance employees’ career development and assist in meeting new job requirements. 12. STATED OBJECTIVES.  By July 2017, CSB will engage in an obesity prevention and early intervention program which will focus on physical activity and healthy eating habits.  By July 2017, CSB will implement a family education component to its curriculum that focuses on the importance of being physically active and eating nutritious meals and snacks.  By July 2017, CSB will collaborate with community partners to provide classroom-based support in understanding and supporting the social-emotional development of children.  By December 2017, CSB will implement the use of Otoacoustic Emissions (OAE) screenings for all infants/toddlers and preschool-age children who are non- responsive to audiometric screenings.  By July 2017, CSB will implement an autism screening in an effort to link children and families to the appropriate interventions.  By December 2017, CSB will implement an in-reach program at the Contra Costa August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 705 2017 Early Head Start Childcare Partnerships 16-Point Narrative 08-04-16 3 County Detention Facilities in partnership with Contra Costa County Probation and the County Office of Education.  By July 2017, CSB will enhance its violence prevention and safety program for children, families, and staff.  By December 2017, CSB will begin the Family Development Credential training program to Comprehensive Services staff.  Through September 30, 2018, CSB will continue to support teaching staff in pursuit of their degrees through leveraging of resources and ongoing partnerships with community colleges. 13. ACTIVITY SUMMARY. Program continues to provide high-quality services. 14. EVALUATION METHOD(S). Measurable, results-based child and family outcomes have been implemented, such as the required State of California’s Desired Results Developmental Profile, for programs providing services through collaboration with the State of California Department of Education. 15. CHANGES COMPARED TO PRIOR YEAR (if any). Goals and Objectives cover FY 2013 – FY 2018. Policy Council has been involved in the development, review and evaluation process of the goals and objectives. 16. POTENTIAL CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES. None. Public perception of the Head Start and Early Head Start programs remain positive. The Policy Council will approve submission of this grant at their August 17, 2016 meeting. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 706 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute Agreement #16-C0006 with the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) for reimbursement not to exceed $21,599 to implement "Enforcement Evaluation and Improvement Project" (EEIP) for the period of July 1, 2016 through February 28, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement provides reimbursement for County expenses incurred during this period for enforcement activities performed on behalf of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) in Contra Costa County up to $21,599. There is no county match of funds. BACKGROUND: The objective of this agreement is to assist DPR in carrying out it's Enforcement Evaluation and Improvement Project (EEIP). The EEIP and this agreement will assist DPR in it's compliance with the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) statutory requirements pursuant to delegated enforcement authority from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the three-party Cooperative Agreement between U.S., EPA, DPR and County Agricultural APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 646-5250 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:Chad Godoy, Director of Agriculture/Weights & Measures Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #16-C0006 DPR - EEIP August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 707 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Commissioners and Sealers Association, and Food and Agriculture Code Section 2281. The compliance and enforcement data from the CAC for the purpose of evaluating individuals and businesses licensed by the state to determine if enforcement action is warranted. The evaluation of compliance and enforcement data is to ensure statewide consistency with DPR policies, regulations and laws, and identify trends that will be used to improve outreach and education to licensees. The improvement of communication and collaboration between DPR and the CAC in the tracking development, and preparation of enforcement responses as needed to establish and implement County Agricultural Commissioner enforcement. The Department of Agriculture will assist DPR by carrying out its EEIP. DPR will compensate the County Agricultural Department for actual expenditures incurred in accordance with the rate specified in paragraph 4 (Budget and Rates) and that total shall not exceed $21599. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to accept Agreement #16-C0006 will mean that the Department will not have the revenue necessary to perform enforcement activities on behalf of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and will lose administrative overhead that is of benefit to the department's operational budget. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 708 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director or his designee, to accept, on behalf of the County, Agreement #29-683 from University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), an educational institution, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $11,800 for the Connection to Health (CTH) Diabetes Self-Management Project at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this Agreement will result in an amount payable to the County not to exceed $11,800 from UCSF for the CTH Diabetes Self-Management Project. No County match required. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding in collaboration with UCSF, is to fund the County to implement the CTH Diabetes Self-Management Project in Contra Costa County for patients with type 2 diabetes. The CTH is an integrated online program of patient assessment and behavioral change tools and strategies, to promote diabetes related lifestyle change. The goal is to support patients with type 2 diabetes to adopt healthy behaviors and improve their health. Approval of Agreement #29-683 will allow the County to work in support with UCSF on the CTH Project, through June 30, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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., 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wiulhelm C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Agreement #29-683 from University of California, San Francisco August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 709 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the County does not accept the agreement from UCSF, patients will not receive the CTH program in Contra Costa County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 710 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Novation Contract #28–501–25 with Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District, a government agency, to provide congregate meal services for County’s Senior Nutrition Program, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. This Contract includes a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Agency will pay County the voluntary contributions it receives from participating seniors, after it has paid its authorized expenses. No County match required. BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing an average of 60 congregate meals per day, five days per week for senior citizens at the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District. On September 22, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #28–501–24 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: A FLOYD , M WILHELM C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Novation Contract #28–501-25 with Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 711 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) with the Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District, for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, which included a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2016, for the provision of congregate meal services for County’s Senior Nutrition Program. Approval of Novation Contract #28–501–25 replaces the automatic extension under the prior Contract and allows the Agency to continue providing services through June 30, 2017, including modifications to County’s standard indemnification clause and General Conditions. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s senior citizens who depend on County’s Senior Nutrition Program will not receive meals at Contractor’s facility. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 712 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Bay Area Community Resources, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $60,673 to a new payment limit of $130,673 for additional and enhanced Youth Justice Initiative services in East Contra Costa County for the period of April 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. (100% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $130,763.00: 100% Federal (Justice Assistance Grant) BACKGROUND: The Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative (ZTDVI) was awarded a three-year Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) in order to implement the Contra Costa County Youth Justice Initiative (YJI). Contractor will provide a Youth Success Counselor (YSC) for youth ages ten through twenty-four involved in the juvenile justice system in accordance with the YJI. Bay Area Community Resources, Inc., provides reentry plan, case management, and general support through peer groups, literacy, work-readiness, and social-emotional assessment and monitoring, academic and career training, and advocacy and will now include more academic, job training, and mental/behavioral health services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with Bay Area Community Resources, Inc. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 713 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Youth in East Contra Costa County enrolled in the Youth Justice Initiative will not have access to services and support to assist in successful reentry. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The services provided under this contract support all five of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes: (1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; (2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; (3)"Families that are Economically Self-Sufficient"; (4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and (5)"Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families” by providing reentry, academic, pre-employment, and case management services, August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 714 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 $55,000, from $4,127,000 to a new payment limit of $4,182,000 for the provision of criminal conflict defense services with no change to the term July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: $55,000, 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: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH CONTRA COSTA BAR FOR CRIMINAL CONFLICT DEFENSE SERVICES August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 715 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 $4,127,000 for fiscal year 2015/16 and $3,650,000 for fiscal year 2016/17. The proposed contract amendment will increase the payment limit by an additional $55,000 in fiscal year 2015/16 to reflect actual 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. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 716 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment/Extension Agreement #23-570-1 with Whitehat Security, Inc., a corporation, effective August 1, 2016, to amend Contract #23-570, to increase the payment limit by $100,000, from $50,000 to a new payment limit of $150,000, and to extend the termination date from August 3, 2016 to August 3, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% by Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: In November 2015, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #23-570 with Whitehat Security, Inc., to provide software maintenance and support services including, but not limited to, consulting and technical assistance to the Department’s Information Systems Unit, for the period from August 3, 2015 through August 3, 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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, 335-8700 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg , M Wilhelm C. 59 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Amendment/Extension #23-570-1 with Whitehat Security, Inc. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 717 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract Amendment/Extension Agreement #23-570-1 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide consulting, technical support and training to the Department’s Information Systems Unit, through August 3, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the Information Systems Unit will not receive consulting, technical support and training from this Contractor. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 718 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE a Consulting Services Agreement with Dreyfuss & Blackford Architects ("D&B"), in an amount not to exceed $200,000, subject to approval by the County Administrator and approval as to form by County Counsel, for architectural, engineering and other technical services to provide a five year capital facilities plan, and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute the agreement following approval by the County Administrator and approval as to form by County Counsel. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund. BACKGROUND: The County is preparing a new five year plan for capital facility projects including the potential construction of new County buildings, a new Emergency Operations Center and other significant facility construction and/or renovation. In order to prepare the new five year plan, staff requires the assistance of several technical disciplines including architecture, site APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 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 Administrator's Office, County Administrator's Office C. 61 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Execution of a Consulting Services Agreement with Dreyfuss & Blackford Architects to Provide a 5-year Capital Facilities Plan August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 719 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) planning, landscape architecture, engineering and construction estimating. Prior studies have been conducted to determine the feasibility of replacing of the County Administration Building and a new Emergency Operations Center for use by the Office of the Sheriff and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, but no projects were undertaken. As part of the next five year plan it is time to refresh the technical studies which will allow planning and sign options for creating a new and more efficient facility to meet the present-day needs of County department users. On June 14, 2016, the Board approved the Public Works Department issuance of a Request for Qualifications and to solicit Statements of Qualifications ("SOQs") for the subject services. The Public Works Department received 10 SOQ's from interested firms and 4 firms were shortlisted. A selection committee comprised of County staff conducted interviews and ranked the short-listed firms. D&B was among the top three ranking firms. It is recommended that D&B be awarded the agreement for the subject services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the agreement is not approved and the planning study cannot be conducted, existing buildings will continue to be underutilized and will deteriorate, further resulting in higher maintenance costs. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 720 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE a Consulting Services Agreement with KMD Architects ("KMD"), in an amount not to exceed $200,000, subject to approval by the County Administrator and approval as to form by County Counsel, for architectural, engineering and other technical services to provide a planning study for the replacement of the existing County Administration Building, and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute the agreement following approval by the County Administrator and approval as to form by County Counsel. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund. BACKGROUND: The County is preparing a new five year plan for capital facility projects that includes the potential construction of new County buildings. One possible project under the capital facility projects plan is the replacement of the current County Administration Building, located at 651 Pine Street, Martinez, a 12-story building built in 1962, connected to a 5-story North Wing building built in 1952. The buildings have served their full-use, but have now reached a level of physical deterioration that requires constant maintenance. Ongoing repairs are proving to be cost APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 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. 60 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Execution of a Consulting Services Agreement with KMD Architects to Conduct a Planning Study August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 721 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) ineffective, and the buildings are vastly underutilized due to a small floor-plan configuration that does not allow efficient space utilization for all user departments. The higher cost of deferred and preventative maintenance for the buildings exceeds the normal threshold of a typical facility. Prior studies have been conducted to determine the feasibility of replacing the County Administration Building, but no replacement project was undertaken. As part of the next five year plan it is time to refresh the technical studies which will allow planning and sign options for creating a new and more efficient facility to meet the present-day needs of County department users. On June 14, 2016, the Board approved the Public Works Department issuance of a Request for Qualifications and to solicit Statements of Qualifications ("SOQs") for the subject services. The Public Works Department received 10 SOQ's from interested firms and 4 firms were shortlisted. A selection committee comprised of County staff conducted interviews and ranked the short-listed firms. KMD was among the top three ranking firms. It is recommended that KMD be awarded the agreement for the subject services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the agreement is not approved and the planning study cannot be conducted, existing buildings will continue to be underutilized and will deteriorate, further resulting in higher maintenance costs. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 722 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE a Consulting Services Agreement with Ross Drulis Cusenbery Architecture, Inc. ("RDP"), in an amount not to exceed $200,000, subject to approval by the County Administrator and approval as to form by County Counsel, for architectural, engineering and other technical services to provide a planning study for preliminary work on a new emergency operations center, and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute the agreement following approval by the County Administrator and approval as to form by County Counsel. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund. BACKGROUND: The County is preparing a new five year plan for capital facility projects that includes the potential construction of a new Emergency Operations Center for use by the Office of the Sheriff and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Prior studies have been conducted APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 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. 62 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Execution of a Consulting Services Agreement with Ross Drulis Partners, LLC to Conduct a Planning Study August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 723 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to determine the feasibility of constructing a new Emergency Operations Center, but a project was not undertaken. As part of the next five year plan it is time to refresh the technical studies which will allow planning and sign options for creating a new and more efficient facility to meet the present-day needs of County department users. On June 14, 2016, the Board approved the Public Works Department issuance of a Request for Qualifications and to solicit Statements of Qualifications ("SOQs") for the subject services. The Public Works Department received 10 SOQ's from interested firms and 4 firms were shortlisted. A selection committee comprised of County staff conducted interviews and ranked the short-listed firms. RDP was among the top three ranking firms. It is recommended that RDP be awarded the agreement for the subject services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the agreement is not approved and the planning study cannot be conducted, existing buildings will continue to be underutilized and will deteriorate, further resulting in higher maintenance costs. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 724 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #74-517-1 with Child Therapy Institute of Marin, a non-profit corporation, effective July 1, 2016, to amend Contract #74-517, to modify the Service Plan and rate sheet to include case management and crisis intervention services, with no change in the original Payment Limit of $325,000, no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, and no change in the six-month automatic extension amount of $162,500 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 50% Federal Financial Participation; 50% County Realignment, which includes a Case Management rate of $2.08 and a Crisis Intervention rate of $4.00, to the revised rate sheet. (rate increase) BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing mental health services to adolescents with emotional and behavioral problems to improve school performance, reduce unsafe behavioral practices, and reduce the need for out-of-home placements. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract Amendment #74-517-1 with Child Therapy Institute of Marin August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 725 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On May 24, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-517 with Child Therapy Institute of Marin, for the provision of mental health services for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed children and adolescents in East and West county for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #74-517-1 will allow the Contractor to provide case management and crisis intervention services in addition to outpatient services, through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, SED children and adolescents will not have access to mental health services provided by Contractor. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 726 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #23-326-16 with Aspira Technologies, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $305,000, to provide consultation and technical assistance to the Department of Information Systems Unit 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 November 5, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-326-12 (as amended by Contract Amendment #23-326-13 and Contract Extension #23-326-14), with Aspira Technologies, Inc., for the provision of consultation and technical assistance to the Department’s Information Systems Unit for the period from December 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016. Approval of Contract #23-326-16 will allow Contractor to continue providing consultation and technical assistance through June 30, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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, 335-8700 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg , M Wilhelm C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #23-326-16 with Aspira Technologies, Inc. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 727 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not have access to Contractor’s expertise with regard to complex clinic software applications and interfaces for the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 728 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #24–443–37 with Adolescent Treatment Centers Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $121,304, to provide residential substance use disorder treatment services for Contra Costa County youth, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant. (No Rate increase) BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing specialized substance abuse prevention programs so that youth are provided an opportunity to prevent or recover from the effects of alcohol or other drug use, become self-sufficient, and return to their families as productive individuals. In July 2016, the County Administrator approved and Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #24-443-36, with Adolescent Treatment Centers Inc., for the period from March 1, 2016 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #24–443–37 with Adolescent Treatment Centers, Inc. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 729 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) through June 30, 2016 for the provision of residential substance use disorder treatment services for Contra Costa County youth. Approval of Contract #24-443-37 will allow Contractor to continue providing residential substance use disorder treatment services through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s Clients will not receive substance abuse prevention and educational and environmental strategies for high risk youth. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 730 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-670-6 with Oxford Immunotec, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for the provision of outside clinical laboratory services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is 100% funded Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: In April 2016, the County Administrator approved, and the Purchasing Services Manager executed, Contract #26-670-5 with Oxford Immunotec, Inc., for the provision of outside laboratory services for CCRMC patients for the period from March 1, 2016 through May 31, 2016. Due to lengthy negotiations with the Contractor, the contract renewal was delayed. This Contractor has been providing essential outside laboratory testing services to the County for several years. The Division is requesting this contract be renewed without any disruption in service. Approval of Contract #26-670-6 will allow the Contractor to provide outside clinical laboratory services through May 31, 2017. This contract includes mutual indemnification. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 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:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #26-670-6 with Oxford Immunotec, Inc. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 731 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring specialized laboratory testing at CCRMC will not have access to Contractor’s services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 732 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-671-11 with nThrive Solutions, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $230,000, to provide tumor registry and oncology interim management services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC) for the period from August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On September 15, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-671-10 with Precyse Solutions, LLC, (now known as nThrive Solutions, LLC) for the provision of temporary medical coding, tumor registry and oncology interim management services for CCRMC for the period from August 1, 2015 through July 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #26-671-11 will allow nThrive Solutions, LLC to provided tumor registry APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 67 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #26-671-11 with nThrive Solutions, LLC August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 733 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and oncology interim management services through July 31, 2017. This contract includes modifications to Paragraph 18 (Indemnification) of the County’s General Conditions. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not be able to provide tumor registry and interim oncology management services to meet regulatory requirements. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 734 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-781-3 with Serramonte Pulmonary Asthma & Sleep Clinic, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $200,000, to provide pulmonary care at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers (CCRMC) for the period from September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On September 15, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-781-2 with Abid Majid, M.D., (now known as Serramonte Pulmonary Asthma & Sleep Clinic, Inc.) for the provision of pulmonary care, including but not limited to: clinic coverage, consultation, on call coverage, training and medical procedures at CCRMC, for the period from September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #26-781-3 will allow Serramonte Pulmonary Asthma & Sleep Clinic, Inc., to provide pulmonary care services at CCRMC through August 31, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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., 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #26-781-3 with Serramonte Pulmonary Asthma & Sleep Clinic, Inc. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 735 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring pulmonary care will not have access to Contractor’s services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 736 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #72-092 with Accela, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $333,677, to provide database management software utilized by the Hazardous Materials and Environmental Health Divisions to track pertinent data on the regulated community and follow inspection data and enforcement actions, for the period from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 61% Environmental Health and 39% Hazmat Program Fees. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Division is the Certified Uniform Program Agency for all areas of Contra Costa County. For a number of years the Division has used Envision for Windows database software as its primary environmental health data management system. California Assembly Bill 2286 mandates upgraded electronic reporting to the State that will require the Division to upgrade the data management system to Envision Connect. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Randy Sawyer, 335-3210 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #72-092 with Accela, Inc. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 737 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Under Contract #72-092, the Contractor will provide database management software utilized by the Hazardous Materials and Environmental Health Divisions, for the period from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2019. The Hazardous Materials Department is requesting an effective date of May 1, 2016 to avoid disruption in services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County will not have access to Contractor’s technical expertise and skill with respect to Contractor’s Envision Connect data management system. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 738 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #74-463-4 with Bi-Bett Corporation, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $133,488 to provide transitional housing services for homeless adult males who have recently completed substance use treatment, including referrals from the County’s Assembly Bill (AB)109 program, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Assembly Bill (AB) 109 Realignment. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing specialized transitional housing services for homeless adult males referred from County’s AB 109 Program and from substance use disorder treatment programs. Contractor’s program is designed to help residents maintain sobriety and other gains achieved in treatment while they participate in employment and self-sufficiency services designed to support their transition to permanent APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #74-463-4 with Bi-Bett Corporation August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 739 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) housing and productive community engagement. On July 7, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-463-3 with Bi-Bett Corporation for the provision of transitional housing services for homeless adult males who have recently completed substance use treatment, including referrals from the County’s AB 109 program, for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Approval of Contract #74-463-4 will allow the Contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County clients who are in need of transitional housing services will not have access to Contractor’s services, possibly resulting in substance use relapse or recidivism. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 740 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #74-511-1 with R House, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $119,952, to provide residential treatment services for youth at its Santa Rosa facility from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment. (No Rate increase) BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing residential treatment to help clients to achieve and maintain sobriety and to experience the associated benefits of self-sufficiency, family reunification, cessation of criminal activity and productive engagement in the community. In APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 58 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #74-511-1 with R House, Inc. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 741 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) March 2016, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #74-511 with R House, Inc., for the period from February 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016, to provide specialty substance abuse residential treatment services for youth. Approval of Contract #74-511-1 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide residential treatment services for youth, through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, youth will not have access to substance abuse residential treatment services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children ready for and succeeding in school”; “Families that are safe, stable, and nurturing”; and “Communities that are safe and provide a high quality of life for children and families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 742 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Novation Contract #24-927-21 with Community Health for Asian Americans, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $806,563 to provide mental health services including wrap-around and outpatient treatment to children in West County, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. This Contract includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017, in an amount not to exceed $403,281. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 49% Federal Financial Participation; 49% Mental Health Realignment; 2% Non-Medi-Cal Mental Health Realignment. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing school and community based mental health services, including: assessments, individual, group and family therapy; medication support, case management, outreach, and crisis intervention services, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Novation Contract #24-927-21 with Community Health for Asian Americans August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 743 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to an underserved Asian population and will result in greater home, community, and school success. On February 9, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-927-20 with Community Health for Asian Americans for the period from January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2016, for the provision of school and community based mental health services. Approval of Novation Contract #24-927-21 replaces the automatic extension under the prior Contract and allows the Contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Asian American and other ethnic groups receiving services at four programs in West County would have reduced access to mental health services in school, drug court and clinic settings. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This EPSDT Program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) and a decrease in juvenile offender recidivism as measured by probation database information. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 744 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Novation Contract #24–315–48 with Young Men’s Christian Association of the East Bay, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $984,464, to provide on-site school counseling services for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. This Contract includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017, in an amount not to exceed $472,705. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 48% Federal Financial Participation; 48% Mental Health Realignment; 4% Non-medical Mental Health Realignment (3% Cost of Living Adjustment [COLA]) (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing counseling and therapy services for emotionally disturbed students in selected junior high schools in the West Contra Costa Unified School District to impact attendance records and decrease the use of acute mental health system-of-care services. On November 17, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #24–315–47 with Young Men’s Christian Association of the East Bay, for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2016, for the provision of on-site school counseling services for emotional and behavioral disturbed students in West County junior high schools. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Novation Contract #24–315–48 with Young Men’s Christian Association of the East Bay August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 745 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Novation Contract #24–315–48, replaces the automatic extension under the prior Contract and allows Contractor to continue providing services, including modifications to County’s standard indemnification provision, through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, there will be fewer school and community-based services in West County for seriously emotionally disturbed youth, which may result in the need for acute Mental Health system-of-care services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children ready for and succeeding in school”; “Families that are safe, stable, and nurturing”; and “Communities that are safe and provide a high quality of life for children and families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 746 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Novation Contract #24-718-4 with Recovery Innovations, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $3,671,130 to provide community-based mental health support services to adults for the Service Provider Individualized Recovery Intensive Training (SPIRIT) program, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 78% Mental Health Services Act; 22% Mental Health Realignment. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: For a number of years, County has contracted with Mental Health Consumer Concerns for the operation of Wellness and Recovery Centers in East, Central and West County, as well as, for the organization and operation of the SPIRIT program to provide training to Clients interested in working with in the local mental health service delivery system. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Novation Contract #24–718-4 with Recovery Innovations, Inc. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 747 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On July 21, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-718-3 with Recovery Innovations, Inc., for the provision of community-based mental health services to adults, to operate the Wellness Recovery Centers in each region of the County and provide support and stipends for clients who attend Mental Health Service Provider Individualized Recovery Intensive Training, including van transportation to the Community centers, as needed, for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2016. Approval of Novation Contract #24-718-4 replaces the automatic extension under the prior Contract and will allow Contractor to continue to provide community-based mental health support services including operation of Wellness and Recovery Centers and client transportation services, through June 30, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s Adult Mental Health clients will not have access to BHSD/mental health community services provided by this Contractor, leading to reduced levels of mental health support and training services throughout the County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 748 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or his designee to pay $95,000 to Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc., a non-profit corporation, for the provision of consultation and technical assistance with regard to community health promotion for the County’s Community Education and Information Unit and the Emergency Medical Services Unit, during the period of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract was funded 85% Federal Bioterrorism Grant, 3% State AIDS Program Funds and 12% County Clinic Services funds. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On July 29, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #22-806-22 (as amended by Amendment agreement #22-806-23) with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc., for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, for the provision of consultation and technical assistance with regard to community health promotion for the County’s Community Education and Information Unit and the Emergency Medical Services Unit. Services were requested and provided beyond the payment limit of the contract. At the end of the contract period, charges of $1,195,675 had been incurred, of which $1,100,675 had been paid pursuant to the contract limits. The additional services were provided between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016 and amounted to $95,000. Because the contract limit has been reached, the Department cannot pay the provider under the contract for the additional services. The provider is nonetheless entitled to payment for the reasonable value of their services under the equitable relief theory of quantum meruit. That theory provides that where a person has been asked to provide APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg, M Wilhelm C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Payment for Services Provided by Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 749 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. At the time of negotiations, the payment limit was based on target levels of utilization. However, the utilization, in the Clinic Services Unit, during the term of the agreement was higher than originally anticipated. As such, the Department recommends that the Board authorize the Auditor-Controller to issue a one-time payment to Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $95,000. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 750 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The service provider will not be paid for services rendered to the Health Services Department. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 751 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay $200,000 to 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. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract was funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: On June 16, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-347-25 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-347-26) 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. Services were requested and provided beyond the payment limit and by the end of June 30, 2016 charges of $8,200,000 had been incurred, of which $8,000,000 had been paid and $200,000 remains outstanding. Because the contract payment limit has been reached, the Department cannot pay the provider under the contract APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Payments for Services Provided by Cross Country Staffing, Inc. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 752 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for the additional services. The provider is nonetheless entitled to payment for the reasonable value of their services under the equitable relief theory of quantum meruit. 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. Because the Health Services Department requested additional services from Cross Country Staffing, Inc., and the contractor provided the services in good faith, with the full expectation and understanding that it would receive payment for those services, the contractor has the right to claim the reasonable value of the services provided above the contract limit. As such, the Department recommends that the Board authorize the Auditor-Controller to issue a one-time payment to Cross Country Staffing, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $200,000. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contractor will not be paid for additional services provided in good faith to CCRMC patients. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 753 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to pay an amount not to exceed $11,898.49 to Ujima Family Recovery Services for the provision of outpatient treatment services at its Drug Medi-Cal Substance Use Disorder Clinics in East, Central and West County for the period from June 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This is funded 50% Federal Drug Medi-Cal and 50% State Drug Medi-Cal. No County Match required. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On August 8, 2015, the County Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-429-58 with Ujima Family Recovery Services for the provision of outpatient counseling services through its Drug Medi-Cal Substance Use Disorder clinics in East, Central and West County for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. In order to adjust Drug Medi-Cal funding to correspond to increased demand for these entitlement services, the County Board of Supervisors approved Amendment #24-429-59 to this contract on April 26, 2016, increasing the contract payment limit by $21,532 for a new total of $1,731,726. Nonetheless, treatment services were requested and provided beyond the amended APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Fatima Matol, 335-3307 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg, M Wilhelm C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Payments for Services Provided by Ujima Family Recovery Services August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 754 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) payment limit of the contract. At the end of the contract period, costs totaling $1,743,624.49 had been incurred, of which $1,731,726 had been paid pursuant to the contract payment limit. The additional services were provided from June 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016 and on a pre-adjudication basis, totaled $11,898.49. This retroactive amendment is to fund the final fiscal year 2015-2016 claim for reimbursement for Ujima Family Recovery Services under contract #24-429-59. Due to higher than anticipated utilization in the last quarter of the fiscal year, the final invoice for Drug Medi-Cal services was $11,898.49 greater than the payment limit for that contract. Because the contract payment limit has been reached, the Department cannot pay the provider under the contract for the additional services. The provider is nonetheless entitled to payment for the reasonable value of their services under the equitable relief theory of quantum meruit. 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. Because the Health Services Department requested additional services from Ujima Family Recovery Services and the contractor provided the services in good faith, with the full expectation and understanding that it would receive payment for those services, the contractor has the right to claim the reasonable value of the services provided above the contract limit. As such, the Department recommends that the Board authorize the Auditor-Controller to issue a one-time payment to Ujima Family Recovery Services in an amount not to exceed $11,898.49 upon adjudication of their June 2016 Drug Medi-Cal claim. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Ujima Family Recovery Services will not be paid for services rendered in good faith to the Health Services Department. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 755 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Interim Librarian, a purchase order with Bibliotheca, LLC in an amount not to exceed $169,700, and a Service and Maintenance Agreement with Bibliotheca, LLC for software and equipment maintenance for library book and media security and inventory equipment, and customer self-service equipment, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost is appropriated in the Library's FY 2016/2017 budget. BACKGROUND: Bibliotheca, LLC equipment is used throughout the library’s 26 locations. The Service and Maintenance Agreement covers 120 pieces of equipment plus software and includes labor, parts, and equipment modifications. Service can be requested via an 800 number 24 hours 7 days a week. The equipment under the Service and Maintenance Agreement is used for book/media security equipment, inventory equipment, and customer self-service equipment. 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. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Chad Helton, 646-6423 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:Theresa Speiker, Interim County Librarian Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Bibliotheca LLC Equipment and Software Maintenance Renewal August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 756 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: This support is a critical to maintaining book/media security and inventory equipment, and customer self-service equipment. Without it, the Library would be unable to resolve issues that arise during the normal course of County business. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 757 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the University of Cincinnati Research Institute (UCRI), to increase the payment limit by $61,000 to a new payment limit of $261,000, for consulting services in the Juvenile Hall. FISCAL IMPACT: The increased fiscal impact of $61,000 will be covered 100% by the General Fund. BACKGROUND: In April 2014, with the assistance of the University of Cincinnati Research Institute (UCRI), Probation began addressing the challenges of disciplining Juvenile Hall residents while continuing to meet their educational needs and maintaining the safety and security of all of the juveniles housed at Juvenile Hall, the staff, and the facility itself. The Department retained UCRI to develop a new behavior management system for Juvenile Hall, including a more effective way to use room confinement without compromising the safety and security of the facility. The new behavior management system focused on providing incentives to juveniles to engage in positive behavior APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:Todd Billeci, Interim County Probation Officer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment with University of Cincinnati Research Institute (UCRI) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 758 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) rather than relying on discipline and punishment to discourage negative behavior. This emphasis on positive reinforcement reflected a philosophical change in the Department's approach to behavioral issues. As a first step towards development of the new behavior management system, Probation Department staff assigned to Juvenile Hall as well as others assigned to work at Juvenile Hall, such as teachers from the County Office of Education and therapists from the Health Services Department, received training by UCRI. The training focused on correctional institution practices. This contract amendment is necessary for UCRI to continue to provide enhanced training to Juvenile Hall staff as well as continued technical assistance. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Probation will be unable to continue to develop and implement their Core Corrections Program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following community outcomes from the Children's Report Card: "Children are Healthy and Ready for School", "Youth Are Healthy and Preparing for Adulthood", and "Families and Communities Are Safe." August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 759 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Dudek, Inc., to extend the term from August 18, 2016 through August 18, 2017, to provide continued service to complete the environmental impact report (EIR) for the Byron Airport General Plan Amendment (GPA), with no change to the payment limit of $180,545. FISCAL IMPACT: The environmental review for the Byron Airport GPA is 100% funded from the Mariposa Energy Project Community Benefits Fund. BACKGROUND: On August 18, 2015, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) to contract with Dudek to prepare an EIR for the Byron Airport GPA. While preparing the technical studies and project description for the EIR, Dudek staff identified that the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Byron Airport is dated and unnecessarily limits Byron Airport's development potential. Staff of DCD, Public Works - Airports, and Dudek discussed the issue and concluded that the best course of action would be to amend the scope of the existing contract to include updating the ALUCP and conducting the necessary environmental review. On July 20, 2016, the Airport Committee considered the issue and instructed staff to amend the contract as such. However, there was not enough time to prepare the new scope of work and contract amendment before the contract's expiration. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board extend the existing contract with the understanding that an amendment to the scope and payment limit will soon follow. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Dudek for Environmental Services Related to Byron Airport August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 760 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the contract with Dudek is not amended, then it will expire on August 18, 2016, with the EIR being incomplete. The project cannot proceed without a complete environmental review. ATTACHMENTS L-2 Contract C-47538 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 761 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 762 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract with MRW, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $174,800 to complete a technical study of Community Choice Energy for the period August 17, 2016 through August 16, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of this contract will be shared between the County and nine cities within the County that have agreed to participate in the cost of the technical study of Community Choice Energy. The County and these nine cities will each contribute financially towards the cost of the technical study in an amount proportional to that jurisdiction's population size. The County's contribution towards the cost of the technical study is estimated to not exceed $50,673. The County's costs related to this contract can be offset by the unspent portion of the $200,000 in General Fund revenues budgeted in FY 2015-2016 for the newly created position of County Sustainability Coordinator, which was not filled until late in the fiscal year. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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 Crapo, 674-7723 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with MRW for Community Choice Energy Technical Study August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 763 BACKGROUND: Community Choice Energy (CCE) is described in State law as Community Chioce Aggregation. CCE involves cities, counties, or a joint powers authority (JPA) comprised of cities and/or counties, pooling ("aggregating") retail electricity customers for the purpose of procuring and selling electricity. Under a CCE program, the CCE entity would become the default electricity provider to all electricity customers within the service area. Costumers would have the ability to opt out of service from the CCE program and return to service from the incumbent electrical utility. In Contra Costa County, the incumbent electrical utility is Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Following the successful launch of CCE programs in Marin County in 2010 and Sonoma County in 2014, most other counties in the Bay Area and many counties throughout California are now in the process of implementing or studying the creation of CCE programs. The City and County of San Francisco launched its CCE program in May 2016. San Mateo County is scheduled to launch its program in October 2016. Alameda County and Santa Clara County are both in the process of establishing JPAs for this purpose, with the intent to launch programs in 2017. On March 15, 2016, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Board) directed County staff to work with interested cities within Contra Costa County to conduct a technical study of Community Choice Energy (technical Study). The Board directed County staff to request that each participating city contribute financially towards the cost of the technical study in an amount proportional to the size of that city's population. During the spring of 2016, County staff negotiated a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the 14 cities within the County that are not currently members of a CCE program (five cities within the County are members of the CCE program initiated in Marin County known as MCE Clean Energy). The MOU was approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 21, 2016, and has been executed by 12 of the 14 cities named in the MOU. The cities of Orinda and Pinole have not decided to become parties to the MOU at this time. The City of Pinole will consider becoming a party to the MOU at the meeting of its City Council on August 16, 2016. Nine of the cities that are parties to the MOU are designated in the MOU as Funding Cities and have agreed to contribute financially towards the cost of the technical study in an amount proportional to their population size. As described in the MOU, the County will enter into a contract with the selected consultant and Funding Cities will reimburse the County for their share of the cost following completion of the technical study. Of the 14 cities within the County that are not currently members of a CCE program, the nine cities contributing towards the cost of the technical study are Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Martinez, Moraga, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill and San Ramon. The cities not contributing funds towards the technical study are Antioch, Hercules, Oakley, Orinda and Pinole. MRW has been identified as the preferred consultant to perform the technical study through a competitive process following the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) that was administered by the County's Purchasing Division in the Public Works Department. As specified in the MOU, responses to the RFP were reviewed by an Evaluation Committee comprised of representatives from the County Department of Conservation and Development, the County Administrator's Office, and the cities of Brentwood, Danville and Pittsburg. The Evaluation Committee was unanimous in its view that MRW is the most qualified of the responsive firms to perform the technical study. Consistent with direction County staff received from the Board when the Board authorized the technical study on March 15, 2016, the study will analyze electrical load data that the County has requested and obtained from PG&E for the unincorporated area and the 14 cities within the County that are not members of a CCE program. The technical study will provide these 15 jurisdictions information concerning the projected electricity rates that might be charged by a CCE program and the revenues that such a program might generate, the potential for a CCE program to lower greenhouse gas emissions generated from energy use within the participating jurisdictions, and the extent to which a CCE program could stimulate economic activity within the County through implementation of local renewable energy generation projects. Similar technical studies have been performed recently in other Bay Area Counties that are in the process of implementing Community Choice Energy programs, such as Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County. The technical study will compare 3 different CCE program models that could be implemented by participating August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 764 jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. These are: forming a new joint powers authority (JPA) of interested jurisdictions within Contra Costa County, forming a similar JPA in partnership with jurisdictions in Alameda County, and joining the CCE program initiated in Marin County known as MCE Clean Energy. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not approve the recommended action the County will not be able to contract with MRW, LLC to perform a technical study of Community Choice Energy in partnership with the cities that have agreed to participate in the study. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: N/A August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 765 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute contract amendments with Kathy Moniz-Narasaki, Patrice Guillory, and Eugene Jackson to increase the payment limit in an aggregate amount not to exceed $62,930.19 for Reentry Network Services for the County’s AB 109 Realignment Program Central/East County Network System of Services for the period July 1, 2016 through Sept. 30, 2017, as recommended by the County Administrator. 1. The contract for Network Manager services with Kathy Moniz-Narasaki would be increased from $99,533.33 to a new total Contract Payment Limit of $124,099.97. 2. The contract for Field Operations Coordinator services for the Pittsburg area with Eugene Jackson would be increased from $76,022.20 to a new total Contract Payment Limit of $95,203.97. 3. The contract for Field Operations Coordinator services for the Antioch/East County area with Patrice Guillory would be increased from $69,970.00 to a new total Contract Payment Limit of $89,151.77. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 63 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contracts for AB 109 Central/East Reentry Network Team August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 766 FISCAL IMPACT: These contracts are funded 100% by the County's AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Budget, from the Community Programs allocation for the Central/East Network System of Services, which totals $820,000 for FY 2016-17. 1. The contract for Network Manager services with Kathy Moniz-Narasaki would be increased from $99,533.33 to a new total Contract Payment Limit of $124,099.97. 2. The contract for Field Operations Coordinator services for the Pittsburg area with Eugene Jackson would be increased from $76,022.20 to a new total Contract Payment Limit of $95,203.97. 3. The contract for Field Operations Coordinator services for the Antioch/East County area with Patrice Guillory would be increased from $69,970.00 to a new total Contract Payment Limit of $89,151.77. BACKGROUND: For fiscal year 2016/17, the CCP-Executive Committee approved the 2016/17 AB 109 Public Safety Realignment budget at the January 22, 2016 regular meeting and submitted to the Public Protection Committee for review and approval. On February 8, 2016, the Public Protection Committee approved the 2016/17 AB109 Public Safety Realignment budget. On May 10, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Recommended Budget for Contra Costa County for FY 2016/17, including the AB 109 Public Safety Realignment budget. At its August 5, 2016 meeting, the Community Corrections Partnership received a report from the CAO that recommended that contracts for Network Team services with existing contractors be extended for a limited amount of time, and that an Request for Proposals (RFP) be issued imminently so that an organization could instead provide these services. The CCP approved this request on a unanimous vote. BACKGROUND In March 2014 the Public Protection Committee accepted and the Board of Supervisors adopted the “Proposed Plan for an East & Central Networked System of Services for Returning Citizens” (Network Plan). Consistent with the Network Plan, an RFQ process (#1403-078) was initiated for the procurement of Network Manager and Field Operations Coordinator services for the Network Management Team. This process identified three independent contractors to perform Field Operations Coordinator services and a fourth independent contractor to provide Network Manger services. These contractors began providing services in May 2014. Also consistent with the Network Plan, the County Administrator (CAO) developed and managed the contracts, while the Chief Probation Officer (Probation) was tasked with providing oversight of the services provided by the four contractors. This contractual structure with the decentralization of management and oversight functions has proven to be ineffective and unwieldy. Because contract law prohibits one independent contractor from providing direct supervision and direction of the work being done by another independent contractor, the Network Manager function has not had the latitude to give instructions or implement processes and ideas that are integral during the implementation phase of a new project. In addition, it has been difficult to implement the Network Plan in a consistent and coordinated manner across the East and Central regions of the County with three different independent contractors with different abilities and methods of providing the services outlined in each their contracts. Challenges with the current contracting configuration seem to be impeding the ability of the Network Plan to be fully and consistently implemented. Moving into the third full year of implementation of the Network Plan, the issues created by this contractual arrangement have made it difficult to negotiate contracts for FY 2016-17 that meet the needs and expectations each have expressed, while simultaneously allowing for effective contract management and project oversight. Because of this, no contracts for Field Operations Coordinator or Network Manger services have been entered into for the current fiscal year. Therefore, the CAO is recommending that contract extensions be offered to two Field Operations Coordinators and the Network Manager for a period of time sufficient to initiate and conclude an RFP process to procure an organization to provide Network Team functions. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If contract amendments are not provided for Network Team services, these services will not be made available to August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 767 If contract amendments are not provided for Network Team services, these services will not be made available to returning citizens in the Central/East county regions of the County. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 768 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE clarification of Board action of July 12, 2016, (C.57), which authorized the Health Services Director, or designee, to contract with People Who Care Children Association, a non-profit corporation, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, in the amount of $209,702, to provide Mental Health Services Act prevention and early intervention services, to correct the automatic extension date from December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017, in the amount of $104,851. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Mental Health Services Act. (3% Cost of Living Adjustment [COLA]) (Rate Increase) BACKGROUND: On July 7, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-379-7 with People Who Care Children Association, for the provision of Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) prevention and early intervention services by providing work experience for 200 multicultural youth residing in the Pittsburg/Bay Point communities, as well as programs aimed at increasing educational success among youth who are either at-risk or high risk of dropping out of school, or committing a repeat offense for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. This Contract includes an automatic six month extension through December 31, 2016 in an amount not to exceed $104,851. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Correct Board Order Item #C.57 with People Who Care Children Association August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 769 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this correction is not approved, the automatic extension date will not be corrected. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 770 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay $2,269.20 to Patrick Mims for Field Operations Coordinator services rendered for the Central/East County Reentry Network System of Services for the period July 1-8, 2016, as recommended by the County Administrator. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% of the $2,269.20 is paid from budgeted FY 2016-17 AB 109 Public Safety Realignment, Community Programs funds, allocated to the Central/East County Reentry Network. BACKGROUND: In March 2014 the Public Protection Committee accepted and the Board of Supervisors adopted the “Proposed Plan for an East & Central Networked System of Services for Returning Citizens” (Network Plan). Consistent with the Network Plan, an RFQ process (#1403-078) was initiated for the procurement of Network Manager and Field Operations Coordinator services for the Network Management Team. This process identified three independent contractors to perform Field Operations Coordinator services and a fourth independent contractor to provide Network Manger APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 64 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Payment to an Independent Contractor for Services Rendered for Central/East Reentry Network August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 771 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) services. These contractors began providing services in May 2014. Also consistent with the Network Plan, the County Administrator (CAO) developed and managed the contracts, while the Chief Probation Officer (Probation) was tasked with providing oversight of the services provided by the four contractors. This contractual structure with the decentralization of management and oversight functions has proven to be ineffective and unwieldy. Because contract law prohibits one independent contractor from providing direct supervision and direction of the work being done by another independent contractor, the Network Manager function has not had the latitude to give instructions or implement processes and policies that are integral during the implementation phase of a new project. In addition, it has been difficult to implement the Network Plan in a consistent and coordinated manner across the East and Central regions of the County with three different independent contractors with different abilities and methods of providing the services outlined in each their contracts. Challenges with the current contracting configuration seem to be impeding the ability of the Network Plan to be fully and consistently implemented. Moving into the third full year of implementation of the Network Plan, the issues created by this contractual arrangement have made it difficult to negotiate contracts for FY 2016-17 that meet the needs and expectations each have expressed, while simultaneously allowing for effective contract management and project oversight. Because of this, no contracts for Field Operations Coordinator or Network Manger services have been entered into for the current FY 2016-17 fiscal year. The CAO is recommending that contract extensions be offered to two Field Operations Coordinators and the Network Manager for a period of time sufficient to initiate and conclude an RFP process to procure an organization to provide Network Team functions. Mr. Mims was notified on July 8, 2016 that he would not be offered a contract amendment/extension. Today's action provides Mr. Mims with compensation for the services he rendered through July 8, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without authorization to pay the Demand, the contractor cannot be remunerated for services rendered. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 772 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a Master Support Agreement with Tiburon Inc., in an amount not to exceed $223,868 for dispatch and records systems support for the period September 10, 2016 to September 9, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $223,868, FY 2016/17 budgeted expenditure. (100% County General Fund) BACKGROUND: Tiburon Inc. provides the Office of the Sheriff with computer aided dispatch (CAD) and record management (RMS) systems. The Master Support Agreement will renew support for these systems and the CopLogic reporting system that is integrated with CAD/RMS for the period September 10, 2016 to September 9, 2017. The CAD/RMS system is used by Sheriff’s dispatch to document calls for service and dispatch police and Sheriff's units to those calls. The system is also used by the records division to collect data required by the state. The support will allow the CAD and RMS systems to be up and running 24/7 and to provide emergency assistance if the system fails. CAD/RMS and mobile systems are mission critical applications to public safety. Without Tiburon Inc., APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown, (925)335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 65 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Tiburon Inc. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 773 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) supporting their products the Office of the Sheriff runs the risk of crashing these systems without the ability to fix it. In May 2000, the Board of Supervisors approved an Agreement with Tiburon, Inc., to purchase a license and services to upgrade the software for the Sheriff's Office 9-1-1 Dispatch and Records Management systems. The 9-1-1 CAD system is used by the Office of the Sheriffs Dispatch Center, and the RMS) is used by the entire Office of the Sheriff and the agencies that contract with the Sheriff's Office for law enforcement services. Tiburon Inc., provides the County with the software for the CAD system and RMS. This request will provide for systems maintenance and support for an additional year. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negative action on this item would not allow the Office of the Sheriff to provide emergency assistance if the system fails. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 774 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Debri-Tech, Inc., to increase the payment limit from $500,000 to a new payment limit of $1,000,000, to provide as-needed assistance with trash and abandoned waste cleanup and removal for the Contra Costa County Watershed Program (CWP), with no change to the original term of August 1, 2015 through July 31, 2018, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Stormwater Utility Assessment Revenue Funds. BACKGROUND: The CWP requires as-needed assistance with trash and abandoned waste cleanup and related removal activities in order to remain in compliance with Contra Costa County’s stormwater NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board(s). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the approval of this contract amendment by the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County will be out of compliance with its stormwater permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board(s). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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 Jordan, (925) 313-2023 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Mike Carlson, Flood Control, Cece Sellgren, Flood Control, Michele Mancuso, Flood Control, Dan Jordan, Flood Control, Catherine Windham, Flood Control C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Trash and Abandoned Waste Cleanup and Removal Contract with Debri-Tech, Inc. Project #7517-WO7078 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 775 RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/501 accepting as complete the construction contract work performed by Valentine Corporation for the North Richmond Pump Station Diversion Project, Corner of Gertrude Avenue and Richmond Parkway, Richmond. (2) DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to file with the County Recorder a certified copy of Resolution No. 2016/501 and the attached Notice of Completion no later than fifteen (15) days after adoption. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact resulting from the adoption of the Resolution of Acceptance and Notice of Completion, but the adoption and recording will limit the period for filing stop payment notices and bond claims on this contract. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the project is to participate in a pilot project to divert storm water to a sanitary district treatment plant to determine the feasibility of treating storm water at a wastewater treatment plant before APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: PW Accounting, PW CPM Division Manager, PW CPM Project Manager, PW CPM Clerical, Auditor's Office, County Counsel's Office, County Administrator's Office, County Administrator's Office C. 69 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Adopt Resolution of Acceptance and Notice of Completion for the North Richmond Pump Station Diversion Project (WJ7246) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 776 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) it is discharged into a receiving water body. The project will divert storm water from the existing North Richmond Pump Station to a West County Wastewater District sewer main on Gertrude Avenue. The diversion will be conducted on a temporary basis. Inside the existing pump station, two new pumps were installed into the wet well, in addition to new circuit breakers, control panels, and new level and float sensors. Installation of the new pumps will also help the pump station with temporary dry weather flows. On March 10, 2015, the County entered into a construction contract with Valentine Corporation for the subject project. The above contract has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. It is recommended that the work covered by the contract be accepted by adopting a Resolution of Acceptance and Notice of Completion (Resolution No. 2016/501). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Accepting a contract as complete is standard procedure and allows for proper closeout of the contract. If the above contract is not accepted as complete, the period for filing stop payment notices and bond claims may be extended. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/501 Resolution No. 2016/501 Notice of Completion MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/501 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 777 Recorded at the request of:Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Return To:Capital Projects Management Division, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 08/16/2016 by the following vote: AYE:John Gioia, District I SupervisorCandace Andersen, District II SupervisorMary N. Piepho, District III SupervisorKaren Mitchoff, District IV SupervisorFederal D. Glover, District V Supervisor NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/501 IN THE MATTER OF: Accepting and Giving Notice of Completion of Contract with Valentine Corporation for the North Richmond Pump Station Diversion Project, Corner of Gertrude Avenue and Richmond Parkway, Richmond project, Authorization No. WJ7246 WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, the County (Owner) contracted with Valentine Corporation (General Contractor), for the above construction project, with Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland as Surety, for work performed on Owner's property located at the corner of Gertrude Avenue and Richmond Parkway, Richmond, and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works reports that said work has been inspected and complies with the approved plans and specifications, and recommends its acceptance as of August 16, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The contract work for the above project is accepted as recommended above; and 2. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of this Resolution, the Clerk of the Board shall file with the County Recorder a certified copy of this Resolution of Acceptance and the attached Notice of Completion. 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: PW Accounting, PW CPM Division Manager, PW CPM Project Manager, PW CPM Clerical, Auditor's Office, County Counsel's Office, County Administrator's Office, County Administrator's Office August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 778 Recorded at the request of:Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Return To:Capital Projects Management Division, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 08/16/2016 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/501 IN THE MATTER OF: Accepting and Giving Notice of Completion of Contract with Valentine Corporation for the North Richmond Pump Station Diversion Project, Corner of Gertrude Avenue and Richmond Parkway, Richmond project, Authorization No. WJ7246 WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, the County (Owner) contracted with Valentine Corporation (General Contractor), for the above construction project, with Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland as Surety, for work performed on Owner's property located at the corner of Gertrude Avenue and Richmond Parkway, Richmond, and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works reports that said work has been inspected and complies with the approved plans and specifications, and recommends its acceptance as of August 16, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The contract work for the above project is accepted as recommended above; and 2. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of this Resolution, the Clerk of the Board shall file with the County Recorder a certified copy of this Resolution of Acceptance and the attached Notice of Completion. 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: PW Accounting, PW CPM Division Manager, PW CPM Project Manager, PW CPM Clerical, Auditor's Office, County Counsel's Office, County Administrator's Office, County Administrator's Office August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 779 Recorded at the request of: Contra Costa County Public Works Dept. Capital Projects Management Div. When recorded, return to: Contra Costa County Public Works Dept. Capital Projects Management Div. 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 NOTICE OF COMPLETION (Civil Code Section 9204) NOTICE IS GIVEN of completion of the following public work of improvement: (1) Project name: North Richmond Pump Station Diversion Project, Corner of Gertrude Avenue and Richmond Parkway, Richmond (2) Date of completion: August 16, 2016 (3) Name and address of Owner: Contra Costa County, c/o Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Capital Projects Management Division, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 (4) Name and address of Direct Contractor: Valentine Corporation, 111 Pelican Way, San Rafael, CA, 94901 (5) Name and address of Construction Lender: None (6) Description of site: Corner of Gertrude Avenue and Richmond Parkway, Richmond I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the agent of the Owner named above, that I have read this Notice, that I know and understand the contents, and that the facts stated in the Notice are true and correct. Dated: August 16, 2016 Ramesh Kanzaria Contra Costa County Public Works Dept. Capital Projects Management Div. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 780 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 781 RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive the 2014 and 2015 Annual Report submitted by the North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council (NRMAC), as recommended by Supervisor Gioia. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: On December 16, 2008, the Board of Supervisors adopted policies for Municipal Advisory Councils requiring all MACs to submit annual reports. The reports (attached) include summaries of actions in 2014 and 2015, and workplans for both years as well. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Robert Rogers 510-231-8688 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller C. 74 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Accept Calendar Year 2014 and 2015 reports for North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council (NRMAC) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 782 ATTACHMENTS 2014_NRMACreport 2015_NRMACreport 2014-15_NRMACworkplan 2015-16_NRMACworkplan August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 783 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 784 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 785 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 786 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 787 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 788 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 789 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 790 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 791 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 792 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 793 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 794 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 795 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 796 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 797 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 798 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 799 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 800 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 801 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 802 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 803 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 804 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 805 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 806 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 807 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 808 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 809 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 810 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 811 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 812 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 813 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 814 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 815 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE 2014 and 2015 Annual Report submitted by the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council (ESMAC), as recommended by Supervisor Gioia. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: On December 16, 2008, the Board of Supervisors adopted policies for Municipal Advisory Councils requiring all MACS to submit annual reports. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: James Lyons, 510-367-6084 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller C. 73 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Accept the 2014 and 2015 calendar year reports for the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 816 ATTACHMENTS 2014 El Sobrante MAC year end report 2015 El Sobrante MAC year end report August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 817 1 El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council 3769 B San Pablo Dam Road, ES, 94803 - Meetings 2nd Wednesday of the Month 7:00 P.M. El Sobrante Library 4191 Appian Way, El Sobrante Chair, Barbara Pendergrass, Vice Chair, Tom Owens, Secretary, Sharon Thygesen, Treasurer, George Cleveland, Members: James Hermann, Joseph Camacho, and Mark Porter for part of the year and for another part of the year Chair, Tom Owens, Vice Chair, George Cleveland, Secretary, Sharon Thygesen, Treasurer, Mark Porter, Members: James Hermann, Kylan Patterson Sr, Barbara Pendergrass Year End Report for 2014 Activities Speakers Presenting Reports Monthly Lt. Jon Moreland Bay Station Commander – crime report, retired and replaced with Lt. D.J. Watts Officer John Pruitt, California Highway Patrol- speeding on San Pablo Dam Road Michelle Blackwell, promoted and replaced with Sharla Sullivan Representative for East Bay Municipal Utility District-projects in El Sobrante Lon Goetsch, Contra Costa County Fire Battalion Chief-Stations activity, promoted and replaced with Chris Bloch Terrance Cheung, Chief of Staff, Supervisor John Gioia-monthly report and replaced with James Lyions, District Coordinator Eleanor Loynd, Chair of the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee-Planning Projects in the El Sobrante Valley; includes valley projects in the City of Richmond and unincorporated El Sobrante Speaker from Public Works on the Appian Way sidewalk project Other Speakers and Topics Candidates running for the West County Waste Water District, West County Unified School District school Board, and State Assembly Rob Hom CCC Red Cross External Relations- Disaster Preparedness Robert T. Calkins, Department of Conservation and Development – Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Kara Douglas, Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) Affordable Housing Program Manager –housing in West County Michele Mancuso, Contra Costa County Watershed Program, Watershed Planner – County’s plan to reduce litter/trash countywide MAC hosted an El Sobrante Chamber Mixer; ( members of the Chamber, other business owners and the general public attended). Mixer held prior to the regular meeting Other speakers not named here August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 818 2 Participated in a unincorporated area ordinance for allowing Chickens, Goats, and Honey Bees in areas currently zoned residential single family residences Purchased name tags and business cards for Council members Major Accomplishments Conducted Election of Officers Attended Semi-Monthly Code Enforcement meetings with Supervisor Gioia’s Office and Code Enforcement Representative Council staffed a booth at the El Sobrante Stroll and passed out information on Council meetings, also coordinated CPR instruction by the County Fire District for the Stroll Supervisor John Gioia, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council, and Boys and Girls Club of El Sobrante held an El Sobrante Cleanup Day filling one dumpster with metal, one with green items and 3 dumpsters with trash Two members participate in the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee on a monthly basis Through law enforcement attendance we are able to identify problem areas and citizens problems Addressing the homeless problem in El Sobrante with county staff and the El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce ; this is an ongoing situation where many are drunk in Public. Lot of break-ins to businesses that may or may not be caused by homeless Participated in a Parks study for the El Sobrante Library Participated in the planning and starting of the Side Walk Project that includes, side walk replacement for parts of San Pablo Dam Road, tree replacement, planters, etc. due to be completed in April of 2015 Participated in the Parklette Study for implementation in the unincorporated areas of the County Successfully filled all seven positions on the Council. Two vacant alternate positions, working on getting candidates for the positions Reviewed and updated Bylaws and Procedures/Ethics. Awaiting County Counsel and Board of Supervisors approval Attendance_____________________ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Barbara Pendergrass ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ C C ^ ^ ^ ^ Tom Owens ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ C C ^ ^ ^ ^ James Hermann ^ ^ ^ ^ C C ^ ^ ^ George Cleveland ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ C C ^ ^ ^ Sharon Thygesen ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ C C ^ ^ ^ Joseph Camacho ^ ^ ^ C C Mark Porter ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ C C ^ ^ ^ Kylan Patterson Sr Summary Monthly 7/7 5/7 6/7 7/7 4/7 4/7 O/7 0/7 4/7 6/7 6/7 5 /7 # attending /appointed No Quorum in July and August-Meeting Canceled Resignations: Joseph Camacho regular member and Mike Daly alternate New member Kylan Patterson Sr appointed. Barbara Pendergrass resigned due to appointment to the County Planning Commission (Conflict of Interest to belong to both)however, due to Health issues resigned from the Planning Commission and reappointed to the ESMAC August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 819 3 Goals for 2015 Develop ways to increase attendance at Council meetings Participate in the annual El Sobrante Cleanup Day at the Boys and Girls Club Participate in the annual El Sobrante Stroll for awareness of the ESMAC and its activities Continue to address the homeless issue in El Sobrante, and the affect on merchants and the creek Continue to address Disaster Preparedness Explore Grants and revitalize San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way Set up CPR classes with the County Health Department to assist in El Sobrante becoming a Heart Healthy Community Designation Address the number of absences of individuals Activate Sub-Committees, Land Use, Safety, Education and Out Reach( including scheduling speakers on subjects of interest for the Community Set up Seminar with Sheriff, Fire District Personnel, Police Agencies, CHP etc on reducing incidents in the El Sobrante Valley Fill two vacant alternate positions August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 820 1 El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council 3769 B San Pablo Dam Road, ES, 94803 - Meetings 2nd Wednesday of the Month 7:00 P.M. El Sobrante Library 4191 Appian Way, El Sobrante Chair, Barbara Pendergrass, Vice Chair, George Cleveland, Secretary, Sharon Thygesen, Treasurer, Barbara Pendergrass, Members: James Hermann, Tom Owens Year End Report for 2015 Activities Speakers Presenting Reports Monthly Lt. D.J. Watts replaced with Lt. Sean Yakes Bay Station Commander – crime report Officer John Pruitt, California Highway Patrol- speeding on San Pablo Dam Road Lon Goetsch, Contra Costa County Fire Battalion Chief-Stations activity, promoted and replaced with Chris Bloch and replaced with Bob Atlas James Lyons, District Coordinator, for Supervisor John Gioia-monthly report Member of the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee-Planning Projects in the El Sobrante Valley; includes valley projects in the City of Richmond and unincorporated El Sobrante Other Speakers and Topics Sharla Sullivan, Representative for East Bay Municipal Utility District-projects in El Sobrante requesting the ESMAC to sign their pledge document to partner in saving water Presentation by Denice Dennis, Representative from Tobacco Prevention Policy committee on Tobacco related issues Investigate action required for El Sobrante to be designated as a Heart Safe Community Mary Halle, Engineer, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development presenting Areas of Benefit- Proposed Projects Presentation by MD OE Rounds, with a request for the ESMAC to sign a resolution seeking to support Doctors Hospital retention Other speakers not named here Major Accomplishments Conducted Election of Officers Attended Semi-Monthly Code Enforcement meetings with Supervisor Gioia’s Office and Code Enforcement Representative Council staffed a booth at the El Sobrante Stroll and passed out information on Council meetings, also coordinated CPR instruction by the County Fire District for the Stroll Supervisor John Gioia, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council, and Boys and Girls Club of El Sobrante held an El Sobrante Cleanup Day filling one dumpster with metal, one with green items and 3 dumpsters with trash Three members participate in the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee on a monthly basis Through law enforcement attendance we are able to identify problem areas and citizens problems August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 821 2 Participated in the ribbon cutting to celebrate the completion on July 8, 2015 of the El Sobrante Downtown Workability Project Attendance_____________________ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Barbara Pendergrass ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ C ^ C ^ Tom Owens ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ C ^ C ^ James Hermann ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ C ^ C ^ George Cleveland ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ C ^ C Sharon Thygesen ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ C ^ C ^ Mark Porter ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ C ^ C Kylan Patterson Sr ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ C C Summary Monthly 7/7 6/7 6/7 5/7 7/7 5/7 7/7 4/7 0/7 5/5 0 /5 5 /5 # attending /appointed No Quorum in September -Meeting Canceled. November meeting cancelled because of Holiday on meeting night Resignations: Mark Porter and Kylan Patterson Sr. Currently have 2 vacant positions and 2 vacant alternate positions Goals for 2016 Develop ways to increase attendance at Council meetings Participate in the annual El Sobrante Cleanup Day at the Boys and Girls Club Participate in the annual El Sobrante Stroll for awareness of the ESMAC and its activities Continue to address the homeless issue in El Sobrante, and the affect on merchants and the creek Continue to address Disaster Preparedness Explore Grants and revitalize San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way Set up CPR classes with the County Health Department to assist in El Sobrante becoming a Heart Healthy Community Designation Activate Sub-Committees, Land Use, Safety, Education and Out Reach( including scheduling speakers on subjects of interest for the Community Set up Seminar with Sheriff, Fire District Personnel, Police Agencies, CHP etc on reducing incidents in the El Sobrante Valley Solicit potential candidates to fill two vacant Council positions and two alternate positions August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 822 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the Refugee Services Plan for federal fiscal years 2016 through 2019 as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Department Director. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: Refugees have varied ethnic and cultural backgrounds, English proficiency and literary levels, education and work experience, and barriers to employment, such as, emotional and mental health issues, domestic violence, and other family issues. Refugees enter the United States with authorization to work, and if working age, are expected to secure employment within one year of arrival. The goal of Refugee Social Services (RSS) in Contra Costa County (CCC) is to engage all eligible refugees in social services and work activities to prepare them for employment and the move into self-sufficiency. CCC has been experiencing a larger than normal influx of refugees, asylees and Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders over the last two years. In order to better serve the Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) population, on May 10, 2016, the Board approved and authorized the Employment and Human Services Department APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 68 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT the Refugee Services Plan August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 823 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to accept funding from the California Department of Social Services, Refugee Programs Bureau. Contra Costa County has selected to accept annual federal Office of Refugee Resettlement funding projected to be approximately $78,000 for federal fiscal year 2016-2017. As a condition of receiving this funding, the County is required to design an annual Refugee Services Plan covering the span of federal fiscal year 2016 through 2019 for the California Department of Social Services that describes the County's employment service delivery system for its refugee populations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Not applicable. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS Refugee Services Plan August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 824 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 0 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYMENT & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT REFUGEE SERVICES PLAN Plan years 2016-2019 For the PROVISION OF: Refugee Employment Social Services October 2016 – September 2017 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 825 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REFUGEE SERVICES PLAN FFY 2014-2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ______PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………….. 2 COUNTY REFUGEE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Organization Chart………….. 3 FUNDING SOURCES AND GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION…...……………. 4 CALWORKS AND RCA COMPLIANCE………………………………………………. 5 COUNTY PLANNING PROCESS ………………………….…………………………... 6 DEMOGRAPHICS, REFUGEE PROFILE AND CHARACTERISTICS……………... 6 TARGET POPULATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT……………………………………... 7 LABOR MARKET ANALYSIS…………………………………………………………. 9 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE COMPONENTS………………………………………… 11 CALWORKS PROGRAM FLOW.………………………………………………………. 13 REFUGEE CASH ASSISTANCE FLOW……………………………………………….. 14 NON-AIDED FLOW……………………………………………………………………... 15 FFY 2016-2017 RSS BUDGET………………………………………………………….. 16 ANNUAL SERVICES PLAN……………………………………………………………. 17 ANNUAL OUTCOME GOAL PLAN…………………………………………………… 18 PROCUREMENT PROCESS……………………………………………………………. 20 COUNTY MONITORING PLAN……………………………………………………….. 21 REQUIRED ASSURANCES…………………………………………………………… 22 BOARD RESOLUTION…………………………………………………………………. 23 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 826 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Refugees have varied ethnic and cultural backgrounds, English proficiency, literacy levels, education and work experience, and barriers to employment, such as emotional & mental health issues, domestic violence, and other family issues. Refugees enter the United States (U.S.) with authorization to work and if working-age are expected to secure employment within one year of arrival. The goal of Refugee Social Services(RSS) in Contra Costa County (CCC) is to engage all eligible refugees in social services and work activities to prepare them for employment and the move into self-sufficiency. CCC has been experiencing a larger than normal influx of refugees, asylees, and Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders over last two years. The arrivals are mostly from Middle Eastern countries, predominantly Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. There are a smaller number of arrivals from Southeast Asia, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), and Africa. The latest data from CDSS shows SIV arrivals from Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2011-2015 are now equal in number to all other refugee arrivals, 243 for each group for a total of 486 arrivals in the last five years. Without RSS funding, the county has been referring Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) clients to the California Employment Development Department (EDD) for registration and employment services. RCA clients are adult refugees, asylees, SIVs from Iraq and Afghanistan, ORR certified human trafficking victims, and Cuban/Haitian entrants without dependent children that do not qualify for CalWORKs. CalWORKs eligible refugees with children are referred for Welfare-to-Work (WTW) services through one of three CalWORKs employment contractors (Lao Family Community Development (LFCD), Monument Impact, and The English Center. In order to better serve the RCA population Contra Costa County has elected to accept annual funding projected to be approximately $78,000 from the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for FFY 2016/2017. As a condition of receiving this funding, the County is required to submit an annual Refugee Services Plan to the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) that describes the County’s employment service delivery system for its refugee populations. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 827 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 3 COUNTY REFUGEE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYMENT & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ORGANIZATION CHART BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GOVERNING BODY EMPLOYMENT & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT KATHY GALLAGHER, DIRECTOR WORKFORCE SERVICES BUREAU WENDY THERRIAN DIRECTOR CalWORKs/RCA, CALFRESH, MEDI-CAL KATHI KELLY, DIVISION MANAGER REFUGEE CASH ASSISTANCE JOHN REES, REFUGEE PROGRAM COORDINATOR RCA CASE MANAGEMENT/EMPLOYMENT SERVICES & SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROVIDERS August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 828 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 4 FUNDING SOURCES AND GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The goal of Refugee Services funded by RSS dollars in CCC is to engage all eligible refugees in social services and work activities that are specifically designed to address the language, cultural and other barriers refugees face in order to prepare them for employment, leading toward self- sufficiency. In order to achieve this, refugee participants will focus on employment and non- employment services. Social and employment services will be provided to refugees who have been in the U.S. for 60 months or less, including refugees receiving RCA, other types of cash assistance such as General Assistance (GA), and refugees who are not being aided. Refugee Services will be provided based on the following priorities: 1. All newly arriving refugees/asylees during their first year in the U.S. who apply for Services. 2. Refugees who are receiving cash assistance. 3. Unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash aid. 4. Employed refugees in need of services to retain employment or to attain economic independence. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 829 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 5 CALWORKS AND RCA COMPLIANCE CCC assures that the provision of activities to mandatory and voluntary CalWORKs WTW participants and RCA recipients, funded by ORR monies and allocated by the CDSS, will be in accordance with CalWORKs WTW and RCA requirements (including those regarding program participation flow, good cause determination, sanctioning, and supportive services) specified in the Manual of Policy and Procedures Sections 42-700 and 69-200, respectively, and other applicable CalWORKs and RCA policy guidance issued by the CDSS. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 830 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 6 COUNTY PLANNING PROCESS In planning for CCC’s RSS program, previous RSS programs in the County were reviewed and community partners who serve refugees were consulted to create a service strategy that would best support eligible refugees. Input was received from leadership, and program coordinators of Jewish Family and Community Services (JFCS), LFCD, and Monument Impact. Most of the individuals that were consulted participate in the Northern California Resettlement Agencies Community Consultation forum that meets quarterly to discuss concerns and share information. The forum has participants from the following agencies: the CCC Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD), Alameda County Workforce and Benefits Administration, CDSS, International Rescue Committee (IRC), JFCS, LFCD, Bay Area Legal Aid and Catholic Charities of the East Bay to name a few. DEMOGRAPHICS REFUGEE PROFILE AND CHARACTERISTICS Resettled refugees have varying levels of education. The challenge is for the providers to address multi-level training to meet their needs. Some service providers have indicated that highly educated clients may have unrealistic expectations and do not understand the American job market. Clients with low education levels require more intensive assistance, especially in learning the language in a short period of time. Initial indications are that the incoming Syrian population will be more educated and be higher functioning than previous arrivals. The highest number of arrivals from 2010-2014 had come from Iran and Iraq. Together these two groups comprised 78.61% of the total refugees that were resettled in Contra Costa. The most recent arrival data from the June Quarterly Consultation meeting showed a very different pattern of arrivals. The three Resettlement Agencies in our area placed 347 Afghan refugees in Contra Costa and Alameda County, this accounts for 82.23% of the total refugee arrivals. This was followed by 21 arrivals from Burma (4.97%), 16 from Africa (Iritrea, Congo, Somalia) accounting for 3.79%. There were the same number of arrivals from Iraq (14), and Syria (14), with the Syrian arrivals being within the last several months. The highest number of future arrivals are projected to come from Afghanistan and Syria. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 831 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 7 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REFUGEE ARRIVAL DEMOGRAPHICS* FFY 2010 THROUGH 2014 Country Number Percent Afghanistan 8 2.95% Iran 105 38.76% Iraq 108 39.85% Former USSR 17 6.27% Southeast Asia 20 7.38% Africa 12 4.43% Other 1 0.37% Total 271 100% *Source: CA Department of Social Services – Refugee Program Bureau CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ACTIVE REFUGEES ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE* ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF REFUGEES Ethnicity Number Percent Afghan 15 48.39% Iranian 4 12.90% African 1 3.23% Cuban 2 6.45% Hispanic 3 9.68% Other Asian 4 12.90% White 2 6.45% Total 31 100% *Source: Contra Costa County, Employment and Human Services Department – BI Report TARGET POPULATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT During consultations Community Partners provided the following input: 1. Identification of barriers for single adult refugees: Lack of affordable housing lack of work or credit history required by landlords Low RCA Grant amounts Short RCA timeframe of eight months from date of entry High cost of living in Contra Costa and surrounding areas Need for immediate healthcare Refugees have high expectations related to: o Assistance services they will receive upon arrival (Some believe the U.S. should do more to assist them upon arrival.) o Job prospects and ability to use foreign education August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 832 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 8 o Living standards (not explained in overseas orientation) Cultural limitations for women from countries where education and employment is not encouraged Emotional/mental health related to trauma and medical issues, especially with LGBT Lack of education Limited computer literacy English proficiency Transportation 2. The following will assist refugees to become self-sufficient: Affordable housing: o Subsidized housing for refugees o Credit waivers o Incentives for landlords to rent to refugees Make it clear that RCA/RSS an employment program designed to assist refugees in finding work within one year. Employment Services & Training that include: o Culture of the American workplace  Work ethics  Importance of reporting to work on time  Teamwork  Conflict resolution  Communication with supervisors and coworkers  Following safety regulations in the workplace o Assistance with completing job applications o Resume writing o Interviewing techniques o Networking o Computer skills Social adjustment training ESL classes for up to 60 months Transportation assistance Ongoing support/retention services Referrals to assist them in improving language, career pathways, earn certifications Reengage them quickly after job loss. 3. Supportive Services required: Housing assistance Mental health, and trauma informed, culturally competent medical treatment Clothing Referrals to local resources for refugees Other retention services as needed Health screenings and timely follow up care August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 833 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 9 LABOR MARKET ANALYSIS CCC belongs to one of California’s busiest urban centers, the San Francisco Bay Area. There are nine counties contributing to the economy of the Bay Area: Contra Costa, Alameda, Marin, Napa, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano and Sonoma. While there is a tremendous amount of growth and development in CCC, much of the land is still rural, providing many recreational opportunities. The western and northern area shorelines are highly industrialized, while the interior sections are residential, commercial and light industrial. The current labor market information from EDD’s Website states that CCC has an estimated labor force of 549,300 of which 525,600 are currently employed, leaving an unemployment rate of 4.3 percent for April of 2016. The following is a list of Major Employers in CCC Employer Name Location Industry AAA NORTHERN CA NEVADA & UTAH Walnut Creek Automobile Clubs BART Richmond Transit Lines Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc Hercules Physicians & Surgeons Equip & Supls-Mfrs Chevron Corp Richmond Service Stations-Gasoline & Oil Chevron Corp San Ramon Oil Refiners (mfrs) Chevron Global Downstream LLC San Ramon Petroleum Products (whls) Chevron Technology Ventures San Ramon Technology Assistance Programs Chevron-Corp Not Available Real Estate Contra-Costa Regional Med Ctr Martinez Hospitals Department of Veterans Affairs Martinez Clinics Inspira Financial Co Walnut Creek Financial Advisory Services Job Connections Danville Personnel Consultants John Muir Medical Ctr Walnut Creek Hospitals John Muir Medical Ctr Concord Hospitals Kaiser Permanente Antioch Med Antioch Physicians & Surgeons Kaiser Permanente Martinez Med Martinez Clinics Kaiser Permanente Walnut Creek Walnut Creek Physicians & Surgeons La Raza Market Richmond Grocers-Retail Liberty Tax Svc Antioch Tax Return Preparation & Filing San Ramon Regional Medical Ctr San Ramon Hospitals Sutter Delta Medical Ctr Antioch Hospitals August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 834 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 10 Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery Pacheco Oil Refiners (mfrs) US Veterans Medical Ctr Martinez Outpatient Services USS-POSCO Industries Pittsburg Steel Mills (mfrs) *Data from www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/majorer/countymajorer.asp According to the EDD’s Labor Market Information Report published January 2015, the occupations with the fastest rate of job growth for the period of 2012-2022 have been and are projected to continue in the following occupations.* Pipelayers Brickmasons and Blockmasons Personal Care Aides Dental Laboratory Technicians Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners *This data is for the Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley Metropolitan Division (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties) no information was available for Contra Costa County. CCC, JFCS, the IRC, Catholic Charities and CCC’s contracted service provider, (TBD) work together to assist refugees in finding employment. According to JFCS the entry level positions available to refugees are found mostly in retail, restaurants, childcare, caregiving roles, construction, transportation and security. Most of these jobs pay $10-15 per hour, are mostly part-time and do not offer benefits. While these jobs are a step toward self-sufficiency for new refugee arrivals, the pay is not always enough to support a family without some form of assistance. Additionally, many of these entry level positions require a high level of English language proficiency that many refugee arrivals do not possess. There are very few jobs that will accommodate refugees who speak Afghani, Arabic, Persian, Assyrian, or Farsi – the languages most of the refugees in CCC speak. Service providers will work with employers to develop job sites to accept refugees with limited English skills. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 835 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 11 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE COMPONENTS SUPPORTED BY RSS FUNDS RCA cases have been identified as the target group to receive RSS program services in FFY 2016/2017. The funding level is sufficient only for the RCA Case Management/Employment Services Component. Program Operating Period The RCA Case Management/Employment Services Program will be in operation from October 1, 2016 until September 30, 2017. Program Description RCA Case Management and employment services exclusively serves RCA eligible refugees. The contracted service provider’s RCA-Case Manager (RCA-CM) receives referrals of RCA eligible participants from the intake worker within 30 days of RCA approval and provides the following services: EMPLOYMENT Intake and Assessment: Conduct orientation and initial assessment. Interview individual to assess participant’s oral, reading and writing English Skill levels as well as review education, job skills and work experience to determine necessary supportive services and identify other personal needs. Explain to participants the objective of the program, which is to assist participants with finding employment and meeting the required program participation requirements, with the ultimate goal of finding self-sufficiency. Develop Individual Employability Plans/Family Self-Sufficiency Plans (FSSP) to identify and address barriers or needs. Complete referrals to other appropriate services. Job Search: Develop a detailed curriculum for job services including how and where to look for a job, resume writing, completing job applications, interviewing techniques, work standards and behavior in the U.S. and problem resolution techniques for the workplace. Participants are assisted with job search activities and taken to or sent to job interviews. Job Placement: Develop and maintain job placements within a reasonable geographic area from the participant’s residence. Place participants in unsubsidized employment. Follow up with participants after job placement to identify ongoing needs and refer them to necessary services. Monitor employed refugee for 90 days after placement to assist as needed and promote job retention. English as a Second Language: Participants with limited English proficiency will be referred to the Adult School for ESL classes. Case Management: Assess and refer eligible participants to appropriate components to promote employability. An appraisal will also be completed to identify any barriers that may prevent them from finding or obtaining employment. Participants will be engaged in approved job services activities for the required number of participation hours. RCA-CM will meet with participants no less than monthly to monitor job search plan activities. Monitor and report August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 836 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 12 monthly to EHSD all participant activities and progress toward the goals stated in the Individual Employability plan/FSSP. The RCA-CM will report non-cooperation to EHSD on a timely basis. Services include but are not limited to: outreach, linking refugees to available resources, advocacy, counseling and guidance, needs assessment, providing appropriate services, monitoring progress towards established goals and objectives, and ensuring that all services specified in the service plan are provided to the refugee. Other Employability Services: Other supportive service costs may be given to the refugee customer, if needed for employability purposes. This is assessed on a case by case basis and subject to the availability of funds. Transportation: Eligible refugees will receive payments to cover the transportation costs attributable to their travel to and from their employment and education activities. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 837 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 13 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALWORKS PROGRAM FLOW FOR REFUGEE FAMILIES 1. Refugee applies for benefits through My Benefits CalWIN (BCW) or in one of the Employment & Human Services Department offices. 2. CalWORKs refugees are referred for a Welfare-to-Work (WTW) orientation and appraisal within 10 days of their approval for benefits. 3. RSS dollars will only be used to serve RCA participants, not CalWORKs participants. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 838 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 14 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REFUGEE CASH ASSISTANCE FLOW YES NO NO YES 1. All Employability activities and supportive services provided to RCA customers will be funded by RSS dollars. 2. Services will be provided to RCA participants for up to 8 months (after RCA eligibility, refugees may still receive services under the non-aided flow for up to 60 months after entry date. Refugee applies for RCA After intake appointment but prior to granting RCA client is Referred & scheduled for assessment with Service Provider by completing the RS 3 and RS 36. Did Client attend? NO Notify County Case Carrying Worker for appropriate case action YES Assessment appointment completed Notify Intake worker, RCA granted. Individual Employability Plan/FSSP is developed with the service provider’s Case Manager RCA participant is referred to appropriate activity by Case Manager Contracted Agency will provide appropriate services: Employment Services o Job Search o Job Placement ESL Case management Other employability Services o Transportation Service Provider will report non-compliance to county eligibility worker August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 839 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 15 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY NON-AIDED FLOW – REFUGEES 1. Employability activities provided by Contracted Service Provider to customers in the non-aided flow will be funded only by RSS dollars. 2. The non-aided flow will be for individuals who self-refer and may include those who have timed out from CalWORKs (48 months) or RCA (8 months), and GA clients. Refugee contacts Service Provider Service Provider will assess participant for service eligibility Eligible for Services? NO Services Denied YES Individual Employability Plan/FSSP is developed with the service provider’s Case Manager Participant is referred to appropriate activity by Case Manager Service Provider will provide appropriate services for up to 60 months from date of eligibility, including but not limited to: Employment Services o Orientation o Job Search o Job Placement o 90 day job retention ESL Case management Other employability Services o Transportation August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 840 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 16 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REFUGEE SERVICES PLAN FFY 2016-2017 RSS BUDGET FFY 2016-2017 RSS ALLOCATION Employment $ 35,000 Intake and Assessment Job Search Job Placement Case Management $26,000 Other Employability Services $5,300 Subtotal $ 66,300 County Administration (15%) $ 11,700 Total FFY 2016-2017 Estimated RSS Funds $ 78,000 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 841 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 17 Description of Contracted or State-Provided Services A B C D E F G Total (Should equal 100) SS $100,000.00 100 50 50 TAP 0 Other 0 SS $35,000.00 25 20 5 TAP 0 TAD 0 SS 0 TAP 0 TAD 0 SS 0 TAP 0 TAD 0 SS 25 20 5 TAP 0 TAD 0 SS $26,000.00 25 20 5 TAP 0 TAD 0 SS $5,300.00 7 5 2 TAP 0 TAD 0 SUBTOTAL $66,300.00 82 65 17 SS 0 TAP 0 TAD 0 ORDG 0 SS $11,700.00 *Type of Agency TAP A. State/County E. Adult Basic Education TAD B. Ethnic Community-Based Organization F. Other Non-Profit Organization ORDG C. Resettlement Agencies G. ________________ SS $78,000.00 D. Community College TAP $0.00 TAD $0.00 ORDG $0.00 100% Non-Employment County Admin (15% admin max) Grand Total (The total percentage for each individual service (i.e., Employment, ELT, etc.) under Type of Agency and Precent of Funds must equal 100%m - see example.) 100% Other (Employment) 100% Case Management 100% 0% 0% Skills Training 100%100% OJT ELT 20%40%100% Employment 100% EXAMPLE 20%20% 100% Contracted Amount by Funding Source Total Number 0-12 Months 13-60 Months Type of Agency* and Percent of Funds FY 2016 Annual Services Plan Original ( X ) Revision ( ) Date: Time Period Covered by Plan: 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017 County: From: To: August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 842 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 18 1. Caseload TANF Recipients RCA Recipients No Federal Cash Assistance Total 2. Entered Employment Full Time 0 #VALUE!0 ####2 33% Part Time #VALUE!#VALUE!0 ####4 67% Total #VALUE!#VALUE!0 %6 24% 2a. TANF Recipients Entered Employment Full Time #DIV/0!0 Part Time #VALUE!0 Total 0 %0 %0 % 2b. RCA Recipients Entered Employment Full Time #DIV/0!2 40% Part Time #DIV/0!3 60% Total 0 %0 %5 83% 2c. No Federal Cash Assistance Entered Employment Full Time #DIV/0!#####0 0% Part Time #DIV/0!#####1 100% Total 0 %0 %1 17% 0 0 5 3. Federal Cash Assistance Terminations TANF Recipients 0 0% RCA Recipients 2 100% Total 0 #DIV/0!0 #####2 40% 4. Federal Cash Assistance Reductions TANF Recipients 0 0% RCA Recipients 2 100% Total 0 #DIV/0!0 #####2 40% 5. Entered Full Time Employment Offering Health Benefits TANF Recipients 0 0% RCA Recipients 1 100% 0 0% Total 0 #DIV/0!0 #####1 50% State or County: FY 2015 GOAL FY 2015 ACTUAL FY 2016 GOAL 25 ANNUAL OUTCOME GOAL PLAN FY 2016 PERFORMANCE GOALS AND ACTUALS 0 20 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 0 5 0 No Federal Cash Assistance Cash Assistance Recipients Placed In Employment August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 843 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 19 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 844 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 20 PROCUREMENT PROCESS All Refugee Social Service components will be subcontracted to successful bidders using the Request for Interest (RFI) process. The RFI process is completed in accordance with Federal, State and County regulations. Bidders must have bilingual staff and demonstrate the ability to meet program objectives and achieve goals as described in the County Plan. The bids submitted are evaluated by impartial, knowledgeable reviewers who have no conflict of interest or connection with any of the bidders. Bidders are rated according to fiscal, management, and programmatic standards. The county acknowledges that ethnic community based organizations (ECBO)s have a special sensitivity for working with refugee clients who share similar cultures, languages, and life experiences. The County believes that such organizations are most qualified to provide Refugee Social Services. The ORR definition of an ECBO is as follows: 1. An organization legally incorporated as nonprofit; and 2. The organization has not less than 51 percent of its Board of Directors or Governing Board composed of current or former refugees/entrants. All new contracts, and contract extensions require the approval of the Board of Supervisors. Upon the CCC Board of Supervisors approval of this plan, the EHSD will follow the RFI process to select a service provider capable of providing the required services and meet the geographical needs of the incoming refugee population to be served. Contra Costa County’s service provider is ________________________. Included below is the contact information for the service provider and their Executive Director: EXAMPLE ONLY: International Refugee Resettlement Organization Jack Hamner, Office Manager 2129 Cole Ct Antioch, CA 95380 Phone: 209-151-6632 Fax: 209-151-6633 JackHamner@IRR.ORG International Refugee Resettlement Organization Mona Lisa 405 14th St. Oakland, CA 94533 510-452-8222 Cell 415-222-1597 MonaLisa@ IRR.ORG August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 845 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 21 COUNTY MONITORING PLAN Statistical analyses of the clients in the refugee service program are collected monthly. These analyses include the number of new clients entering the program and referrals to each service, the number of persons enrolled in contracted services, the number of persons accessing training and the type of training, the number of persons who entered employment, and the amount of ad reduced or terminated. Monthly case reviews are to be conducted by the service provider ’s case managers to review progress, identify barriers, provide supportive services, and assure adherence to our update Employability Plans/FSSPs. The overall fiscal and program monitoring of the CCC RSS program will be accomplished by the following means: audit claims, case reviews, electronic review, etc. At least one comprehensive monitoring review will be conducted onsite and within six months from the beginning of the program year. As part of our monitoring process, EHSD will verify and document 90-day follow-up job placements and will verify that records include all detailed requirements concerning the job placements as stated in the CDSS’ County Refugee Program Guidelines, Section VII. Written reports on the reviews will be submitted to the CDSS, RPB no later than 45 days from the completion of the reviews. The EHSD will complete the Service Participation and Outcome Report (RS 50) and Caseload Movement Report (RS 51) each trimester no later than the close of business, 20 days after the end of each trimester of the FFY, narrating major activities, accomplishments, and problems associated with the CCC RSS. With the above reviews and reports, we will work toward meeting the program goals to insure fiscal expenditures are appropriate, and fiscal, statistical, and refugee determinations status data are accurate. In addition we will ensure that each employable refugee has an Employability Plan/FSSP developed. Follow-up monitoring will include a review of previous corrective actions to ensure they have been corrected as specified and in a timely manner. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 846 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 22 REQUIRED ASSURANCES The CCC assures that the 2016-17 RSS Plan was developed in accordance with: California Department of Social Services Manual of Policies and Procedures o Refugee Resettlement Program Regulations - Division 69-200 o Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program – Division 69-300 o Purchase of Services Regulations – Division 23-600 Code of Federal Regulations – Title 45 –Public Welfare o Refugee Resettlement Program – 45 CFR PART 400 o Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program – 45 CFR PART 401 o Uniform Administrative Requirements – 45 CFR PART 74 o Federal Procurement Standards – 45CFR PART 92 California Department of Social Services County Refugee Program Guidelines California Welfare and Institution Code Section 10850 - Confidentiality of Records August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 847 Contra Costa County Refugee Social Services Plan FFY 2016-2017 23 BOARD RESOLUTION (Reserved) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 848 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Defender, or designee, to serve as a host organization for the Boston College Law School Public Service Fellows Program, a year-long postgraduate fellowship program that engages graduates in the criminal legal process, for the period September 1, 2016 through August 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BC Law will provide a monthly taxable stipend of $3,333 directly to the Fellow for the twelve months of service. The Fellow is eligible for health benefits through BC Law. BACKGROUND: The Boston College Law School (BC Law) Prosecutor/Defender Legal Fellowship (“fellowship”) is a year-long postgraduate fellowship that provides the selected prosecutor or public defender office with a full-time BC Law graduate. The fellowship program is designed to engage attorneys in the criminal legal process both in prosecutorial and defender positions. Host organizations include state, local and federal prosecutor and public defender offices. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: Robin Lipetzky, 925-885-8035 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 72 To:Board of Supervisors From:Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Boston College Law School Prosecutor/Defender Legal Fellowship August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 849 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The assigned Fellow will provide litigation support to the attorneys in the form of research and writing, motion work, and trial preparation. The Fellow will work full-time, under the supervision of a supervising attorney, for a minimum of 35 hours per week while participating in the fellowship. The Fellow will receive a monthly stipend from Boston College Law School for legal work performed at the Public Defender's Office. The County will not provide health insurance to Fellow. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Public Defender would not be able to serve as a host organization. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 850 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: 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. Government Code Section 8630 requires 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 August 2, 2016 the Board of Supervisors reviewed and approved the emergency declaration. 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 the Board to continue the declaration of a local emergency regarding homelessness. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 78 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Continue Extension of Emergency Declaration Regarding Homelessness August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 851 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 852 RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE the Driveway and Parking Lot Repair between Juvenile Hall and Surplus/Recycle Facilities, 202 Glacier Drive, Martinez (2) DETERMINE that the Project is a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 2(c) Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15302(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, and (3) DIRECT the Director of the Conservation and Development Department to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk, and (4) AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of a $25 fee to the Department of Conservation and Development Department for processing and a $50 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Exemption. FISCAL IMPACT: The construction cost will be $634,048 (100% General Fund). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: PW Accounting, PW CPM Division Manager, PW CPM Project Manager, PW CPM Clerical C. 75 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Driveway and Parking Lot Repair, 202 Glacier Drive, Martinez and Related CEQA Actions (WH133B) August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 853 BACKGROUND: The project area is badly deteriorated and poses safety hazards to pedestrians and vehicles. The purpose of this project is to repair/replace asphalt parking lots, concrete curb, concrete sidewalk, and asphalt driveway. The project consists of excavating and replacing concrete sidewalk and asphalt, applying road surface treatment, and re-striping, and adjusting signs. On November 10, 2015, the Board of Supervisors awarded a job order contract (JOC) for repair, remodeling, and other repetitive work to be performed pursuant to the Construction Task Catalog to each of Sea Pac Engineering, Inc., John F. Otto, Inc., and Mark Scott Construction, each in the amount of $2,000,000. This project is expected to be performed by one of the three JOC contractors. A task order catalogue has been prepared for the JOC Contractor to perform the Project. In the event that it is not performed by a JOC contractor, the Public Works Department will go to the Board for approval of plans and specifications and authorization to advertise and solicit bids. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the project is not approved, the driveway and parking lot will continue to deteriorate and will result in costly repairs in the future and the Public Works Department will have to return to the Board for approval of plans and specifications and authorization to advertise and solicit bids. ATTACHMENTS CEQA August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 854 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 855 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 856 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 857 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 858 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 859 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 860 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the July 2016 update of the operations of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Department 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: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 70 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Operations Update of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 861 ATTACHMENTS CSB July 2016 CAO Report CSB July 2016 HS Fiscal CSB July 2016 EHS Fiscal CSB July 2016 Partnership Fiscal Report CSB July 2016 CACFP Monthly Report CSB July 2016 Credit Card Report CSB July 2016 LIHEAP CSB July 2016 Menu August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 862 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: July 2016 I. Good News Update/Accomplishments: 2016 LIHEAP, LIWP and DOE On-Site Monitoring was recently completed (6/27- 7/1) by the State Department of Community Services and Development (CSD). Administrative, Financial, Programmatic, and Compliance Requirements, along with Certification and Assurances and file and documents being reviewed. The final report is pending, yet at the exit conference on June 30, the reviewer noted that the review did not disclose any areas of non-compliance. CSB is preparing for the Interim Audit scheduled for the week of August 8th. The audit will review compliance in CSB’s Title V Child Development, Stage II and CAPP programs for the 2015-2016 program year. Several CSB staff attended CHSA’s Leadership Conference in Long Beach. The critical topics of discussion were EHS/ CCP Partnership Expansion; the continued changing landscape of Head Start; Duration Funding and the soon-to-be- released HS Performance Standards. CSB staff members Sung Kim and Sarah Reich supported One Solution Technologies in showcasing CLOUDs and Christina Reich presented on a panel regarding Slots Reduction Planning. On July 11, 2016, GMIII Children’s Center received a comprehensive NAEYC accreditation visit that occurs every five years. The reviewer spent two days at the center observing quality early childhood practices throughout the 10 classroom center and shared with the Site Supervisors that all criterion were met during the visit. Early childhood education programs with the mark of quality achieved through NAEYC accreditation benefit children with greater readiness for and success in school. Families have many choices when looking for care for their young children beginning at birth and NAEYC accreditation is the mark of quality many families are looking for. NAEYC accreditation gives families the chance to make right choices for their children. CSB is in process of developing a new system for the Alternative Payment Program (Stage2/CAPP) unit to better suit the needs of clients, providers and staff. This system will include a Mobile APP that will provide, among other functions, online & real time attendance and absence reporting and payment status reports, greatly reducing the amount of time and effort required to process payments and respond to phone inquiries regarding payments. These features will greatly enhance the programs efficiency by allowing our resources to be redirected to other essential/priority tasks needed to provide excellent client service. CSB will implement two new curricula for parent engagement and ongoing learning in the 2016-17 program year entitled: Make Parenting A Pleasure from Parenting Now! This Curricula will assists stressed families in improving protective factors associated with reducing the risk of child abuse and neglect, and has been found to reduce symptoms of depression and increase reported parenting skills; and Family Financial Fitness from Community Financial Resources, which aims to build financial stability for families by enhancing August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 863 2 critical thinking skills around spending habits, and providing education about save and invest strategies and the inter-dependent link between Household and Community financial stability. II. Status Updates: a. Caseloads, workload (all programs) Head Start enrollment: 100.56 % Early Head Start enrollment: 98.00% Early Head Start Child Care Partnership enrollment: 100.00% Head Start Average Daily Attendance: 77.4% Early Head Start Average Daily Attendance: 83.7% Early Head Start Child Care Partnership Attendance: 93.8% Stage 2: 350 families and 564 children CAPP: 81 families and 118 children In total: 431 families and 682 children Incoming transfers from Stage 1: 15 families and 20 children LIHEAP: 202 households have been assisted Weatherization: 20 units b. Staffing: o During the month of July CSB conducted interviews for Master Teacher- Project. The Bureau hired temporary teaching staff to ensure ratio requirements and safety in the classroom. CSB is in the process of scheduling interviews to fill Administrative Services Assistant III and Personnel Services Assistant II vacancies. Further, the Bureau is working with the county’s Human Resources Department to open recruitment for Comprehensive Services Assistant Manager-Project. c. Union Issues: o An Appeal meeting was held with Local 1, Line Staff Unit Business Agent on behalf of a CSB’s Master Teacher for proposed action (Skelly Notice) for termination of employment. o Resolution 2016/468 for CSB slots reduction, including Home Based slots, was approved by the CCC Board of Supervisors on 7/16. As a result, 6 of the 7 Early Childhood Educators providing home visiting services have been displaced from their positions. CSB and PEU, Local 1 agreed that these employees will be given opportunity to transfer or demote to other positions for which they qualify. A special bid will be held for these employees during the last week of July. III. Emerging Issues and Hot Topics: CSB is planning to apply for EHS/ Childcare Partnership Expansion due later in August. Staff is identifying partnerships to expand this successful endeavor. cc: Policy Council Chair Family & Human Services Committee Maureen Burns-Vermette, ACF August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 864 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 1,897,668$ 3,874,284$ 1,976,616$ 49% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 1,167,565 2,680,138 1,512,573 44% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 147,880 294,639 146,759 50% f. CONTRACTUAL 2,009,704 6,466,986 4,457,282 31% g. CONSTRUCTION - - - 0% h. OTHER 579,709 1,571,708 991,999 37% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 5,802,527$ 14,887,755$ 9,085,228$ 39% j. INDIRECT COSTS 429,825 801,975 372,150 54% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 6,232,352$ 15,689,730$ 9,457,378$ 40% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)674,156$ 3,922,433$ 3,248,277$ 17% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 HEAD START PROGRAM June 2016 Expenditures August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 865 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Jan-16 thru Actual Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Mar-16 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Actual Budget Budget YTD a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 811,166 291,106 294,910 221,097 1,618,279 3,318,309 1,700,030 49% Temporary 1013 162,645 51,634 42,322 22,788 279,389 555,975 276,586 50% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)973,811 342,739 337,232 243,886 1,897,668 3,874,284 1,976,616 49% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b)- - - - - - - Fringe Benefits 589,566 210,624 203,018 164,358 1,167,565 2,680,138 1,512,573 1,167,565 b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)589,566 210,624 203,018 164,358 1,167,565 2,680,138 1,512,573 1,167,565 e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)- - - - 1. Office Supplies 5,782 6,227 5,809 725 18,544 70,620 52,076 26% 2. Child and Family Services Supplies (Includesclassroom Supplies)6,938 8,237 22,728 (6,209) 31,693 45,000 13,307 70% Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Computer Replacement 24,884 305 27,519 19,229 71,937 136,370 64,433 53% Health/Safety Supplies 755 87 771 959 2,572 5,237 2,665 49% Mental helath/Diasabilities Supplies - - - - - 2,128 2,128 0% Miscellaneous Supplies 14,917 43 808 144 15,912 26,955 11,043 59% Emergency Supplies 3,199 374 660 291 4,522 5,000 478 90% Household Supplies 1,858 218 347 277 2,699 3,329 630 81% TOTAL SUPPLIES (6e)58,332 15,490 58,642 15,416 147,880 294,639 146,759 50% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)- - - - 1. Adm Svcs (e.g., Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)9,348 3,545 3,516 9,717 26,125 62,182 36,057 42% 2. Health/Disabilities Services - - - - - - - Estimated Medical Revenue from Medi-Cal (Org 1432 - credit)- - - - - (254,816) (254,816) 0% Health Consultant 11,250 2,066 5,510 3,243 22,070 44,800 22,730 49% 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 - - Interaction - - 3,600 - 3,600 3,500 (100) 103% Diane Godard ($50,000/2)- - - 6,900 6,900 5,700 (1,200) 121% Josephine Lee ($35,000/2)2,295 495 1,800 3,105 7,695 7,700 5 100% 7. Delegate Agency Costs - - First Baptist Church Head Start PA22 172,432 165,851 337,714 162,026 838,024 2,044,356 1,206,332 41% First Baptist Church Head Start PA20 - - - - - 8,000 8,000 0% 8. Other Contracts - - FB-Fairgrounds Partnership (Wrap)12,185 - 13,453 6,413 32,052 74,823 42,771 43% FB-Fairgrounds Partnership 30,600 - 30,600 15,300 76,500 183,600 107,100 42% FB-E. Leland/Mercy Housing Partnership 9,000 4,500 4,500 4,500 22,500 54,000 31,500 42% Martinez ECC (18 HS slots x $225/mo x 12/mo)18,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 45,000 108,000 63,000 42% Little Angels Country School 4,749 3,436 3,207 3,008 14,400 37,565 23,165 38% YMCA of the East Bay (20 HS slots x $225/mo x 12/mo) 9,000 - 9,000 - 18,000 54,000 36,000 33% Child Outcome Planning and Administration (COPA/Nulinx)2,403 3,601 - - 6,004 19,625 13,621 31% Enhancement/wrap-around HS slots with State CD Program 6,291 865,263 4,945 14,336 890,835 4,013,951 3,123,116 22% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)287,554 1,057,757 426,845 237,548 2,009,704 6,466,986 4,457,282 31% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h)- 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 55,233 17,001 29,532 26,892 128,658 312,000 183,342 41% (Rents & Leases/Other Income)- - - - - - - 4. Utilities, Telephone 61,566 27,604 20,062 9,439 118,671 261,670 142,999 45% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance 3,155 - - - 3,155 3,300 146 96% 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 3,550 904 2,583 1,056 8,093 30,000 21,907 27% 7. Incidental Alterations/Renovations - - - - - - - 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile effective 1/1/2012)4,343 4,844 3,876 2,541 15,604 43,410 27,806 36% 9. Nutrition Services - - Child Nutrition Costs 84,966 42,418 44,765 56,524 228,674 493,500 264,826 46% (CCFP & USDA Reimbursements)(28,676) - - (92,006) (120,682) (281,660) (160,978) 43% 13. Parent Services - - Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - - - - 4,400 4,400 0% Parent Resources (Parenting Books, Videos, etc.) - PA11 498 - - 216 714 3,100 2,386 23% PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 1,692 173 433 37 2,336 7,000 4,664 33% Policy Council Activities - - - - - 2,900 2,900 0% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation - - - - - 7,100 7,100 0% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement 2,702 - 835 1,203 4,739 11,500 6,761 41% 14. Accounting & Legal Services - - - - - - - Audit - - - - - - - Legal (County Counsel)- - - - - - - Auditor Controllers 1,256 1,495 - - 2,751 3,600 849 76% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies 3,378 1,688 1,690 1,690 8,446 27,500 19,054 31% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing - - - - - - - Outreach/Printing - - - - - 600 600 0% Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)1,998 - - - 1,998 3,100 1,102 64% 16. Training or Staff Development - - Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC, etc.)1,225 2,416 1,290 (3,886) 1,045 13,500 12,455 8% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 2,411 1,118 260 1,600 5,389 20,798 15,409 26% 17. Other - - - - - - - Site Security Guards 5,133 4,334 3,692 4,379 17,538 44,900 27,362 39% Dental/Medical Services - - - - - 500 500 0% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair 27,821 5,268 7,365 4,536 44,990 117,000 72,010 38% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental 9,576 9,031 18,946 37,689 75,242 127,000 51,758 59% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)3,357 - 839 1,679 5,875 11,200 5,325 52% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)13,055 4,945 7,569 906 26,476 303,790 277,314 9% Other Departmental Expenses - - - - - - - h. OTHER (6h)258,239 123,239 143,738 54,493 579,709 1,571,708 991,999 37% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)2,167,502 1,749,849 1,169,475 715,701 5,802,527 14,887,755 9,085,228 39% j. INDIRECT COSTS 154,260 81,988 68,967 124,610 429,825 801,975 372,150 54% k. TOTALS (ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES)2,321,762 1,831,837 1,238,443 840,311 6,232,352 15,689,730 9,457,378 40% Donación de mercancías y servicios (In- Kind)180,831 168,325 100,000 225,000 674,156 3,922,433 3,248,277 17% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 HEAD START PROGRAM June 2016 Expenditures August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 866 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 213,126$ 551,705$ 338,579$ 39% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 130,154 377,472 247,318 34% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 21,984 25,000 3,016 88% f. CONTRACTUAL 1,461,829 2,280,836 819,007 64% g. CONSTRUCTION - - - 0% h. OTHER 18,619 94,618 75,999 20% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 1,845,712$ 3,329,631$ 1,483,919$ 55% j. INDIRECT COSTS 53,863 114,203 60,340 47% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 1,899,575$ 3,443,834$ 1,544,259$ 55% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)172,565$ 860,958$ 688,393$ 20% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM June 2016 Expenditures August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 867 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Jan-16 thru Actual Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Actual Budget Budget YTD Expenditures a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 98,938 24,914 33,355 31,193 188,400 466,356 277,956 40% Temporary 1013 15,135 3,402 3,182 3,007 24,727 85,349 60,623 29% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)114,072 28,316 36,537 34,200 213,126 551,705 338,579 39% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b)- - - - Fringe Benefits 67,224 17,826 23,225 21,879 130,154 377,472 247,318 34% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)67,224 17,826 23,225 21,879 130,154 377,472 247,318 34% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)- 1. Office Supplies 209 281 150 - 639 2,600 1,961 25% 2. Child and Family Serv. Supplies/classroom Supplies 1 2,372 22 58 2,454 2,700 246 91% 4. Other Supplies - - - - - - Transition Supplies - - - - - - - Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Comp Replacemnt 4,198 25 8,784 3,213 16,220 16,200 (20) 100% Health/Safety Supplies 2,226 - - - 2,226 2,600 374 86% Mental helath/Diasabilities Supplies - - - - - - - Miscellaneous Supplies - 4 - 243 247 600 353 41% Emergency Supplies - - - - - - - Employee Morale - - - - - - - Household Supplies 62 36 53 46 196 300 104 65% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)6,697 2,717 9,009 3,561 21,984 25,000 3,016 88% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)- 1. Adm Svcs ( Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)- - - - - 10,100 10,100 0% 2. Health/Disabilities Services - - - - - - Health Consultant 4,822 886 2,362 1,390 9,459 19,200 9,741 49% Other Health/Dental Services Costs - - - - - - - 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 - Interaction - - 3,600 - 3,600 1,500 (2,100) 240% Josephine Lee ($35,000/2)2,295 495 900 3,105 6,795 16,300 9,505 42% Susan Cooke ($60,000/2)- - - - - - - 8. Other Contracts - FB-Fairgrounds Partnership 9,800 - 9,800 4,900 24,500 58,800 34,300 42% FB-E. Leland/Mercy Housing Partnership 11,200 5,600 5,600 11,200 33,600 67,200 33,600 50% Apiranet 46,800 23,600 23,600 23,600 117,600 283,200 165,600 42% Brighter Beginnings 8,000 - 16,000 16,000 40,000 96,000 56,000 42% Cameron School 8,400 - 7,000 2,100 17,500 50,400 32,900 35% Crossroads - 42,000 7,000 7,000 56,000 85,400 29,400 66% Martinez ECC 11,200 5,600 5,600 20,200 42,600 67,200 24,600 63% Child Outcome Planning & Admini. (COPA/Nulinx)405 608 - - 1,014 3,000 1,986 34% Enhancement/wrap-around HS slots with State CD Prog.343,312 202,466 184,860 378,523 1,109,162 1,522,536 413,374 73% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)446,234 281,255 266,322 468,018 1,461,829 2,280,836 819,007 64% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 493 82 (8) 191 759 3,800 3,041 20% (Rents & Leases/Other Income)- - - (1) (1) - 1 4. Utilities, Telephone 512 1,622 173 212 2,519 2,300 (219) 110% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - - - - - - 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 25 - 109 - 135 1,700 1,566 8% 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile)630 676 999 145 2,450 7,000 4,550 35% 9. Nutrition Services - - - - (CCFP & USDA Reimbursements)- - (7) - (7) - 7 13. Parent Services - Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - - - - 600 600 0% Parent Resources (Parenting Books, Videos, etc.) - PA11 - - - - - - - PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 386 - - 1 387 5,238 4,851 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 334 - 161 148 643 1,900 1,257 34% 14. Accounting & Legal Services - Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies 570 285 285 285 1,426 3,000 1,574 48% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing - Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- - - - - - - 16. Training or Staff Development - Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC)1,442 - 193 61 1,696 9,000 7,304 19% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 165 382 (88) 2,262 2,721 31,106 28,385 9% 17. Other - Site Security Guards - - - - - 2,000 2,000 0% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair 1,202 1,521 919 579 4,222 9,600 5,378 44% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental 38 21 92 76 227 2,800 2,573 8% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)- - - - - - - Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)765 240 - 249 1,253 8,174 6,921 15% Other Departmental Expenses - - 189 - 189 200 11 h. OTHER (6h)6,562 4,829 3,018 4,209 18,619 94,618 75,999 20% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)640,789 334,943 338,111 531,868 1,845,712 3,329,631 1,483,919 55% j. INDIRECT COSTS 22,297 9,542 6,565 15,458 53,863 114,203 60,340 47% k. TOTALS - ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 663,087 344,485 344,676 547,327 1,899,575 3,443,834 1,544,259 55% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM June 2016 Expenditures August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 868 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Jan-16 thru Actual Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Actual Budget Budget YTD CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM June 2016 Expenditures Non-Federal Match (In-Kind)36,000 25,000 26,565 85,000 172,565 860,958 688,393 20% August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 869 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 508,008$ 448,393$ (59,615)$ 113% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 306,781 328,828 22,047 93% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 50,842 74,700 23,858 68% f. CONTRACTUAL 821,137 1,292,174 471,037 64% g. CONSTRUCTION - 0% h. OTHER 286,389 269,356 (17,033) 106% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 1,973,156$ 2,413,451$ 440,295$ 82% j. INDIRECT COSTS 141,585 86,270 (55,315) 164% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 2,114,741$ 2,499,721$ 384,980$ 85% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)163,000$ 457,836$ 294,836$ 36% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU Jan 2015 - June 2016 EARLY HEAD START- CC PARTNERSHIP June 2016 Expenditures August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 870 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Jan-16 thru Actual Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Actual Budget Budget YTD Expenditures a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 192,201 63,936 (95,333) 40,349 461,224 403,393 (57,831) 114% Temporary 1013 11,173 4,852 4,475 2,713 46,784 45,000 (1,784) 104% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)203,374 68,788 (90,858) 43,062 508,008 448,393 (59,615) 113% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b)- - - - - - - Fringe Benefits 129,752 43,625 (59,294) 25,797 306,781 328,828 22,047 93% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)129,752 43,625 (59,294) 25,797 306,781 328,828 22,047 93% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies 5,189 1,029 569 1,547 9,176 8,300 (876) 111% 2. Child and Family Serv. Supplies/classroom Supplies1,633 693 32 816 3,174 3,300 126 96% 4. Other Supplies - - - - - - - Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Comp Replacemnt3,827 251 - - 4,995 5,100 105 98% Health/Safety Supplies 1,008 - 29,473 - 31,253 54,800 23,547 0% Miscellaneous Supplies 14 - 1,188 9 2,084 2,200 116 95% Household Supplies 41 - 24 21 160 1,000 840 0% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)11,712 1,973 31,285 2,393 50,842 74,700 23,858 68% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f) 1. Adm Svcs (e.g., Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)- - - - 425 10,000 9,575 4% 2. Health/Disabilities Services - - - - - - - Health Consultant - - - - - 4,800 4,800 0% Health and Safety Improvements - - - 3,446 3,446 178,160 174,714 2% Supplies, Materials and Furniture - - 31,494 185,885 217,379 369,900 152,521 59% Professional Development - - 69,420 36,145 105,565 120,317 14,752 88% 8. Other Contracts - - - - - - - Contra Costa Child Care Council 209,900 37,032 102,312 - 402,461 497,497 95,036 81% First Baptist (20 slots x $450)37,034 9,000 9,000 9,000 91,034 109,500 18,466 83% Child Outcome Planning and Administration (COPA/Nulinx)184 275 - - 827 2,000 1,173 41% Enhancement/wrap-around HS slots with State CD Prog.- - - - - - - f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)247,118 46,307 212,227 234,476 821,137 1,292,174 471,037 64% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 1. Depreciation/Use Allowance - - - - - - - 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 455 (143) 55 164 954 1,000 46 95% 4. Utilities, Telephone 336 794 105 852 3,050 3,752 702 81% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - - - 222 300 78 74% 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 185 1,525 2,104 4,855 8,669 9,000 331 96% 7. Incidental Alterations/Renovations - - - - - - - 8. Local Travel (54 cents per mile)35 1,796 1,006 214 3,826 4,000 174 96% 14. Accounting & Legal Services - - - - - - - Audit - - - - - 600 600 0% Legal (County Counsel)- - - - - - - Auditor Controllers - - - - - 400 400 0% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies 387 129 129 129 1,292 1,000 (292) 129% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing - - - - - - - Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- - - - - - - 16. Training or Staff Development - - - - - - - Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA1145,053 - 159,074 128 211,788 197,604 (14,184) 107% 17. Other - - - - - - - Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair - - - - - - - Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental 4,126 114 499 467 6,142 6,100 (42) 101% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)1,741 483 477 480 9,856 10,200 344 97% County Indirect Cost (A-87)0 0 33,027 4,945 40,590 35,400 (5,190) 115% h. OTHER (6h)(69,182) 4,699 196,475 12,234 286,389 269,356 (17,033) 106% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)522,775 165,392 289,836 317,961 1,973,156 2,413,451 440,295 82% j. INDIRECT COSTS 52,066 19,230 (16,434) 24,848 141,585 86,270 (55,315) 164% k. TOTALS - ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 574,841 184,623 273,402 342,810 2,114,741 2,499,721 384,980 85% Non-federal Match In-Kind 44,000 4,000 30,000 50,000 163,000 457,836 294,836 36% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU Jan 2015 - June 2016 EARLY HEAD START- CC PARTNERSHIP June 2016 Expenditures August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 871 2016 Month covered June Approved sites operated this month 12 Number of days meals served this month 22 Average daily participation 527 Child Care Center Meals Served: Breakfast 9,508 Lunch 11,587 Supplements 9,485 Total Number of Meals Served 30,580 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 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 872 A - 4Authorized Users C. Rand, Bureau Dir xxxx8798 Month: June 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 CSB Corporate xxxx5045 I. Renggenathen xxxx2423 Acct. code Stat. Date Card Account # Amount Program Purpose/Description 2200 06/22/16 xxxx1907 199.00 Child Care Svs Program Membership 2200 06/22/16 xxxx1899 350.00 Indirect Admin Costs Membership 2200 06/22/16 xxxx2391 150.00 HS Basic Grant Membership 699.00 2303 06/22/16 xxxx4959 321.96 Com Svc Block Grant Other Travel Employees 321.96 2467 06/22/16 xxxx4959 2,189.08 EHS-CC Partnership Training & Registration 2467 06/22/16 xxxx4959 1,190.00 Com Svc Block Grant Training & Registration 2467 06/22/16 xxxx1907 75.00 HS Basic Grant Training & Registration 2467 06/22/16 xxxx2391 220.00 Child Dev Admin Training & Registration 3,674.08 2477 06/22/16 xxxx8798 3.80 HS Basic Grant Educational Supplies 2477 06/22/16 xxxx8798 3.80 EHS Basis Grant Educational Supplies 2477 06/22/16 xxxx2391 541.83 EHS Basis Grant Educational Supplies 2477 06/22/16 xxxx2391 541.83 HS Basic Grant Educational Supplies 1,091.26 2490 06/22/16 xxxx4959 223.95 EHS Basis Grant Misc Services/Supplies 2490 06/22/16 xxxx1907 672.02 Child Care Svs Program Misc Services/Supplies 2490 06/22/16 xxxx1907 (67.48) Indirect Admin Costs Misc Services/Supplies 2490 06/22/16 xxxx1899 295.00 Indirect Admin Costs Misc Services/Supplies 2490 06/22/16 xxxx2391 10.72 CCTR/EHS Enhanced Program Misc Services/Supplies 1,134.21 Total 6,920.51 Agency: Community Services Bureau COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU SUMMARY CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURE C:\DOCUME~1\DESTIN~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 7\@BCL@5011A02A\@BCL@5011A02A.xlsxAugust 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 873 CAO Monthly Report CSBG and Weatherization Programs Year-to-Date Expenditures As of June 30, 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 (1,128,876) Balance 75,267$ Expended 94% 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 (1,018,096) Balance 65$ Expended 100% 3. 2016 LIHEAP WX Contract # 16B-4005 Term: Jan. 1, 2016 - Jan. 31, 2017 Amount: WX $ 903,178 Total Contract 903,178$ Expenditures (52,881) Balance 850,297$ Expended 6% 4. 2016 LIHEAP ECIP/EHA 16 Contract # 16B-4005 Term: Jan. 1, 2016 - Jan. 31, 2017 Amount: EHA 16 $ 854,976 Total Contract 854,976$ Expenditures (310,176) Balance 544,800$ Expended 36% 5. 2015 LIWP (LOW INCOME WX) Contract # 15K-6003 Term: Jan 1, 2015 - Dec 31, 2016 Amount: $ 287,657 Total Contract 287,657$ Expenditures (224,900) Balance 62,757$ Expended 78% 6. 2016 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) Contract # 16F-5007 Term: Jan. 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016 Amount: $ 797,709 Total Contract 797,709$ Expenditures (218,267) Balance 579,442$ Expended 27% fldr/fn:CAO Monthly Reports/WX YTD Exp-CAO Mo Rprt 6-2016August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 874 JuLY 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 FRESH BANANA CORNFLAKE CEREAL LUNCH – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE TURKEY HAM & SWISS CHEESE MAYO & MUSTARD DRESSING GREEN LEAF LETTUCE & TOMATO FRESH CANTALOUPE SLICE WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK WHOLE GRAIN FISH CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 4 5 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE BRAN CEREAL LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE SUNBUTTER & JELLY SANDWICH STRING CHEESE BABY CARROTS (no ranch dressing) FRESH APPLE WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK GRAHAM CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 6 BREAKFAST FRESH STRAWBERRIES CORN CHEX CEREAL LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE BAJA BEAN WRAP (refried beans & chunky salsa) SHREDDED CHEESE JICMA STICKS WITH CHILI FRESH KIWI WHOLE WHEAT TORTILLA PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE ANTS ON THE LOG (sunbutter, celery sticks & raisins) 1% LOW-FAT MILK 7 BREAKFAST – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE FRESH APPLE WHOLE WHEAT BAGEL & SUNBUTTER LUNCH – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE SLOPPY JOE (ground beef & ground turkey) SPINACH SALAD SWEET & SOUR DRESSING FRESH PEACH WHOLE WHEAT HAMBURGER BUN PM SNACK MOZZARELLA CHEESE STICK WHEAT CRACKERS 8 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA CHEERIOS LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE DEVILED EGG MAYO & MUSTARD DRESSING CELERY STICKS FRESH STRAWBERRIES WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK FRESH BROCCOLI & CAULIFLOWER FLORETS VEGETABLE DRESSING WHEAT THIN CRACKERS 11 BREAKFAST FRESH APPLE RICE CHEX CEREAL LUNCH – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE *VEGETABLE CHILI BURRITO (kidney beans, yogurt, tomatoes, cheese, & bulgur wheat) FRESH KIWI WHOLE WHEAT TORTILLA PM SNACK –NUTRITION EXPERIENCE WHOLE WHEAT FISH BREAD SUNBUTTER 12 BREAKFAST FRESH STRAWBERRIES KIX CEREAL LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE BBQ CHICKEN SANDWICH COLESLAW FRESH PEACH HAMBURGER BUN PM SNACK PINEAPPLE TIDBITS COTTAGE CHEESE 13 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE WHOLE WHEAT CINNAMON TOAST LUNCH MAC & CHEESE WITH WHOLE WHEAT PASTA & TURKEY HAM BROCCOLI SALAD FRESH APPLE PM SNACK FRESH ZUCCHINI & CARROT STICKS LOW-FAT RANCH DRESSING WHEAT THINS 14 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA CHERRIOS LUNCH *GROUND BEEF & SPANISH RICE (ground beef, ground turkey, green bell peppers, tomatoes, & tomato paste) FRESH CANTALOUPE PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE RAINBOW PARFAIT FRESH STRAWBERRIES & BLUEBERRIES LOW-FAT YOGURT HOMEMADE GRANOLA 15 BREAKFAST – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE MANGO CHUNKS WHOLE WHEAT BAGEL GARDEN VEGETABLE CREAM CHEESE LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE CHICKEN SALAD SANDWICH BABY CARROTS (no dressing) FRESH HONEY DEW MELON WHOLE WHEAT PITA BREAD PM SNACK FRESH APPLE SLICES SUNBUTTER 18 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE BRAN CEREAL LUNCH TOASTED CHEESE SANDWICH VEGETARIAN BAKED BEANS FRESH NECTARINE WHOLE WHEAT BREAD AM SNACK CINNAMON GRAHAM CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 19 BREAKFAST FRESH APPLE CORN CHEX CEREAL LUNCH *BEEFY, TOMATO & CORN BAKE WITH WHOLE WHEAT PENNE PASTA FRESH KIWI PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE HUMMUS VEGGIE ROLL (shredded carrots & spinach) WHOLE GRAIN TORTILLA 1% LOW-FAT MILK 20 BREAKFAST - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE PINEAPPLE CHUNKS PLAIN BAGEL WITH LOW-FAT CREAM CHEESE LUNCH *GREEK CHICKEN SALAD (diced chicken, cucumbers, tomatoes, onions, & olives) WITH FETA CHEESE DRESSING FRESH WATERMELON WHOLE WHEAT PITA BREAD PM SNACK ANIMAL CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 21 BREAKFAST – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE FRESH BANANA WHOLE WHEAT ENGLISH MUFFIN & SUNBUTTER LUNCH TURKEY ENCHILADA CASSEROLE WITH CORN TORTILLA CHIPS TOSSED LEAFY GREENS WITH ITALIAN DRESSING FRESH APRICOT PM SNACK COWBOY QUNIOA 1% LOW-FAT MILK 22 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE WHOLE WHEAT CINNAMON BUN LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE TUNA SALAD SANDWICH CARROT & RAISIN SALAD FRESH STRAWBERRIES WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK FRESH APPLE SLICES CHEDDAR CHEESE 25 BREAKFAST FRESH APPLE RICE CHEX CEREAL LUNCH SPAGHETTI WITH MARINARA SAUCE & SHREDDED PARMESAN CHEESE CHEDDAR CHEESE STICK ORGANIC SPRING SALAD MIX FRESH PLUM WHOLE WHEAT SPAGHETTI PM SNACK WHOLE GRAIN CHEESE CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 26 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE BRAN CEREAL LUNCH *VIETNAMESE CHICKEN SALAD (diced chicken, cabbage, carrots, & cilantro marinated in lime juice) FRESH NECTARINE WHOLE WHEAT TORTILLA PM SNACK FRESH CANTALOUPE LOW-FAT PLAIN YOGURT 27 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA CINNAMON & RAISIN OATMEAL LUNCH – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE PIZZA BURGER FRESH BROCCOLI FLORETS WITH VEGETABLE DRESSING FRESH PEACH WHOLE WHEAT HAMBURGER BUN EARLY CLOSURE ALL SITES NO PM SNACK WILL BE SERVED 28 BREAKFAST APPLESAUCE CINNAMON TOAST LUNCH *JAMMIN JAMBALYA (diced chicken, tomatoes & okra) FRESH KIWI BROWN RICE PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE HOMEMADE PICO DE GALLO CORN TORTILLA CHIPS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 29 BREAKFAST FRESH STRAWBERRIES RICE KRISPY CEREAL LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE *KANGAROO POCKET (sliced turkey, spinach leaves, shredded carrots, & cheese) LOW-FAT RANCH DRESSING FRESH WATERMELON WHOLE WHEAT PITA BREAD PM SNACK GRAHAM CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 875 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT quarterly report of the Post Retirement Health Benefits Trust Agreement Advisory Body. FISCAL IMPACT: No specific fiscal impact. This is a quarterly report of the County's assets in the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Public Agencies Post-Retirement Health Care Plan Trust. BACKGROUND: On December 14, 2010, the Board of Supervisors directed the formation of a Post Retirement Health Benefits Trust Agreement Advisory Body (consisting of the County Administrator, County Finance Director, Treasurer-Tax Collector, Auditor-Controller, and Health Services Finance Director). The Advisory Body meets quarterly. At its meeting of August 4, 2011, the body discussed and reviewed final report formats with HighMark Capital Management and made recommendations regarding a final standardized quarterly report. The attached report is in the standardized format. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller, Russell Watts, County Treasurer-Tax Collector, Patrick Godley, Chief Financial Officer/Health Services C. 76 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Quarterly Report of the Post Retirement Health Benefits Trust Agreement Advisory Body August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 876 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > The following is the investment summary presented at the August 4, 2016 quarterly meeting for the period ending June 30, 2016: Investment Summary Second Quarter 2016 Beginning Value $182,068,089.10 Net Contributions/Withdrawals 10,056,628.58 Fees Deducted -44,172.19 Income Received 905,355.26 Market Appreciation 2,829,136.71 Net Change in Accrued Income 69,996.84 Ending Market Value $195,885,034.30 Additional Materials - A Post Retirement Health Benefits Trust Agreement Advisory Body web-page can be found at the following address: http://ca-contracostacounty.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=2915. The page describes the function of the body, posts quarterly meeting materials, and all pertinent trust and plan documents. ATTACHMENTS Second Quarter, 2016 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 877 PARS: County of Contra Costa Second Quarter 2016 Presented by Andrew Brown, CFA August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 878 This presentation has been prepared for the sole use of the intended recipient. While the information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, any other reproduction or use of this information may necessitate further disclosures in order to ensure that the presentation is accurate, balanced, and conforms to all applicable regulatory requirements. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 879 DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS U.S. Economic and Market Overview 2016 has delivered heightened levels of volatility, and we have not even made it to the U.S. elections yet. In the first quarter of the year, investors were greeted by the sell-off in equity markets in response to the Federal Reserve’s first rate hike in over 7 years. The S&P500 declined roughly -12% from peak to trough, through the first six weeks of the year. Markets rallied in mid-February, upon signals provided by the Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen that interest rates are not likely to be increased by more than one or two hikes throughout the calendar year. Domestic equity markets continued their upward trajectory throughout the remainder of the second quarter, until British voters elected to secede from the European Union on June 24th. Technically, the vote was non-binding, but the so-called “Brexit” from the EU is widely expected to become a reality. In the immediate aftermath, the swirling uncertainty caused the British Pound to fall to a 30-year low versus the U.S. Dollar, global stock markets to sell off, U.S. Treasury and gold prices to soar as a ‘safe haven trade’, and Prime Minister David Cameron to announce his resignation. The timetable for Britain’s exit could potentially last several years, and it is reasonable to expect the EU to take a punitive stance to discourage similar “exit” movements in other countries. Conversely, the UK will likely aim for minimal economic disruption by seeking to retain as many trade benefits as possible, while shedding the financial and political costs of EU membership. To prevent post-Brexit uncertainty from becoming an overwhelming headwind to financial markets, global central banks will most likely continue accommodative monetary policies. However, after years of pushing policy tools to the max in a protracted effort to avoid deflation, many question whether enough global monetary ammunition remains to counter the new concerns Brexit raises. In the wake of the first quarter’s adjusted annual GDP growth rate of 1.1%, most of the economic data releases in the second quarter were supportive of a reasonable rebound in economic activity. Consumer confidence, as measured by the Conference Board, hit an eight-month high of 98.0 in June. Oil continued its rally off lows set in January as supply side adjustments caused the West Texas Intermediate futures contract to climb to $48.33 at quarter’s end. The U.S. manufacturing sector began to show some signs of improvement as the ISM manufacturing index hit a 16-month high of 53.2 in June. One area of concern was related to employment, where the 11,000 employment gain estimate in May was the lowest reading since the third quarter of 2010. Countering this data point was the initial estimate reading from June where the jobs number posted a gain of 287,000. The three-month average of 147,000 jobs gives light to an economy showing signs of modest growth, as the economy nears full employment. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 880 Market overview/Performance Discussion Total Plan The County of Contra Costa OPEB Plan returned 1.96% net of investment fees, in the second quarter, which slightly lagged the County’s Plan benchmark return target of 2.09%. Returns were supported by modest outperformance in fixed income, as well as our REIT investments. Returns from international investments were also a positive for the Plan from a relative standpoint, supported by performance from emerging market equities. Global equity and mid cap equity matched benchmark returns in the second quarter. Small cap and alternative investments offered performance that was slightly below benchmark targets. The primary drag on performance for the quarter came from investments in large cap equity. Large cap managers continue to struggle in 2016, thru the first six months of the year, 15% of the managers in the Russell 1000 Large Cap Growth universe have outperformed the benchmark. Within the Russell 1000 Value Universe, it is only modestly better at 24%. Our investments in passive ETFs have mitigated some of the deviation to the benchmark in small cap and large cap equity over the past twelve months. Domestic Equity U.S. equity indices posted positive gains across all market capitalization levels with the S&P 500 (+2.5%), Russell Mid Cap (+3.2%), and Russell 2000 (+3.8%) all up in the second quarter. Investors became more convinced that the Federal Reserve would likely be on hold until the fourth quarter, at the earliest in terms of raising the Federal Funds rate. A potential delay for a Fed rate hike was supported by a weak May employment report, a review of the minutes from the two FOMC meetings in the quarter, and a belief that the Fed may be influenced by the potential impact of the Brexit fallout. As bond yields declined in the quarter, investors were drawn to higher yielding stocks, as an alternative income source. Areas such as utilities (+6.8%), consumer staples (+4.7%), and telecommunications (+7.1%) were leading sectors in the quarter. Investment flows have led these sectors to trade at rather full valuations, with the price to earnings ratio of consumer staples (24.0) and utilities (22.7) as notable examples. Energy stocks also outperformed as oil recovered from the lows touched in the first quarter. The Energy sector ended the quarter up +11.6% making it the top performing sector. Conversely, cyclical stocks have been under pressure most of the year. Consumer discretionary (-0.9%), and technology (-2.8%) stocks lagged in the quarter. This divergence is apparent with the performance gap between the Russell 1000 Value Index (+4.6%) and the Russell 1000 Growth Index (+.6%). This outperformance of value vs. growth is somewhat surprising in that the largest sector within large cap value, financials (28% of the large cap value index), has had the largest decline year to date (-1.8%). The Plan has been overweight value over growth since the third quarter of 2015. • The Plan’s large cap segment returned 1.76% in the quarter, which underperformed the Russell 1000 Index return of 2.54%. •The iShares Russell 1000 ETF returned 2.5% in the second quarter. •The Columbia Contrarian Core Fund returned 1.65% in the quarter, which underperformed the benchmark. The Fund ranked in the 60th percentile of the Morningstar Large Cap Blend Universe. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 881 •The Harbor Capital Appreciation Fund returned -1.31% in the quarter, which underperformed the Russell 1000 Growth Index’s return of 0.61%. The Fund ranked in the 88th percentile of the Morningstar Large Cap Growth Universe. •The T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund returned -0.65% in the quarter, which underperformed the Russell 1000 Growth Index. The Fund ranked in the 77th percentile of the Morningstar Large Cap Growth Universe. •The Dodge and Cox Stock Fund returned 1.70% in the quarter, which underperformed the Russell 1000 Value Index’s return of 4.60%. The Fund ranked in the 71st percentile of the Morningstar Large Cap Value Universe. •The Loomis Sayles Value Fund posted a 3.17% return in the quarter, which also underperformed the Russell 1000 Value Index. The Fund ranked in the 44th percentile of the Morningstar Large Cap Value Universe. •The mid cap equity segment returned 3.24% in the quarter, which was in-line with the Russell Mid Cap Equity return of 3.18%. •The iShares Russell Mid Cap ETF returned 3.12% in the second quarter. •The small cap equity segment returned 3.45% in the quarter, which trailed the Russell 2000 Index return of 3.79%. •The iShares Russell 2000 ETF returned 3.81% in the second quarter. •The T. Rowe Price New Horizons Fund returned 5.18% in the quarter, and outperformed the Russell 2000 Growth Index return of 3.24%. The Fund ranked in the 22nd percentile of Morningstar’s Small Cap Growth Universe. •The Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II returned 2.12% in the quarter, and underperformed the Russell 2000 Value Index’s return of 4.31%. The Fund ranked in the 52nd percentile of Morningstar’s Small Cap Value Universe. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 882 Real Estate For the third quarter in a row, REIT equity was the top performing asset class, with the Wilshire REIT Index returning 5.6%. REIT equity returns were aided by the decline in interest rates in the quarter, which prompted investors to seek higher yielding investment options. The 10-year treasury yield has declined by over 80 basis points thru the first six months of this year. Earlier last year, it was announced that REITs were to become the 11th GIC sector in the S&P 500. This event will take place in August, and as a result, index related funds will be in a position to add to REIT investments. Analyst estimates put the dollar flow impact of this change anywhere from $10-$30 billion of additional investment flows to REITs. Investment dollars have begun to move to the REIT sector in anticipation of this change. REITs were led in the quarter by Data Centers (+20.6%), Industrial (+15.4%) and Triple Net (+13.3%). Data Centers have been aided by the growth in the migration of “cloud related” service providers. Leasing demand has been strong as corporate data requirements continue to grow and REIT oriented companies that run data centers are benefiting. The Industrial and Triple Net sectors were aided by low interest rates as well as strong fundamentals from the underlying companies that comprise those industries. More cyclically oriented REITs such as lodging (-2.8%) and apartments (-0.9%) struggled in the quarter. Previous reviews have highlighted the struggles within lodging as supply has grown, with Airbnb adding capacity to the sector. Th e Nuveen Real Estate Securities Fund returned 6.49% in the quarter, which underperformed the Wilshire REIT Index return of 5.60%. The Fund placed in the 18th percentile of the Morningstar Real Estate Manager’s Universe. Global/International Equity International equity market performance thru the first five months of 2016 was impacted by the Chinese economy, the recovery in Europe, the pace of interest rate normalization in the U.S, and the ensuing impact on the U.S dollar. An addition to this list came in June when the British citizens voted to secede from the European Union (Brexit). Britain is the 5th largest economy in the world, and the second largest economy in the EU. The anticipated exit from the EU accentuates uncertainties with respect to global trade, geopolitical tension, the future of the UK, and the future of the EU itself. The EU is struggling to recover from a multi-year economic malaise, and this event will challenge a current environment that is marked by high unemployment, slow growth, and low levels of consumer and business confidence. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 883 In the quarter across Europe, equity markets performed poorly, led by Italy which returned -10.4%. Italy’s Banks have come under pressure as nonperforming loans are rising to dangerous levels, currently around 8% of total loans. Across other regions, Japan attempted to calm investors by delaying their planned consumption tax rise till 2019. It may take more than delaying a tax increase to ignite the troubled economy. Speculation continues to grow about the potential for more unconventional monetary policy measures out of the Japanese Central Bank. Emerging Markets have finally started to contribute to global equity returns in 2016. While underperforming U.S. markets for the quarter, the MSCI Emerging Market Index is outperforming for 2016 with a 6.5% return, in USD terms. Brazil and Russia were top performers returning 46.3% and 20.4%, respectively. Both countries have been beneficiaries of higher oil prices that climbed by over 50% off the lows hit in the first quarter. The price of oil will be a likely driver of these countries performance going forward. China was less of a concern to markets in the second quarter, displayed by its 0.1% return. While that is not encouraging, the Chinese equity markets may have stabilized after a disappointing previous 12 months. Broadly speaking, emerging market nations have been showing tentative signs of improvements. Global currencies displayed a wide range of outcomes in the quarter, and had corresponding impacts to dollar based investors. When measured against the USD, the British Pound fell by more than -10% upon the first week of the Brexit vote, and ended down over -8% for the quarter. The Euro fell by -2.5%, and the Yen appreciated by close to 10%. Emerging market currencies were more resilient, especially for those countries linked to basic materials. The Brazilian Real was up 10.6% and the Russian Ruble appreciated 4.7%. •The Plan’s international/global equity segment returned 0.32% in the quarter. This return outperformed the MSCI EAFE Index -1.46%, and underperformed the MSCI ACWI Index return of 0.99%. •The iShares MSCI EAFE Index ETF returned -1.4% in the quarter. •The Nationwide Bailard International Equity Fund returned -2.0% in the quarter, which underperformed the MSCI EAFE Index. The Fund ranked in the 75th percentile of the Morningstar Foreign Large Blend Universe. •The Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund returned -1.2% in the quarter and outperformed the MSCI EAFE Index. The Fund ranked in the 55th percentile of the Foreign Large Blend Universe as measured by Morningstar. •The MFS International Fund returned 0.55% in the quarter and outperformed the MSCI EAFE Index. The Fund ranked in the 30th percentile for foreign large cap growth managers as measured by Morningstar. •The iShares MSCI ACWI Index ETF returned 1.08% in the quarter •The American Funds New Perspective Fund recorded a 0.83% return in the second quarter, which underperformed the MSCI ACWI Index and ranked in the 49th percentile within the Morningstar World Stock Universe •The MFS Global Equity R5 Fund returned 0.67%, which underperformed the benchmark and ranked in the 54th percentile of the Morningstar World Stock •The Schroder Emerging Market Equity Fund returned 2.32% during the quarter and outperformed the MSCI Emerging Market benchmark return of 0.66%. The Fund ranked in the 46th percentile of the Morningstar Emerging Market Universe. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 884 Fixed Income The Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 2.2% in the second quarter as investment-grade corporate bonds generated a 3.6% gain, agency mortgage-backed securities advanced 1.1%, and U.S. Treasuries increased 1.6%. For the quarter, ten-year bond yields declined 30 basis points, while the 30-year yield fell 32 basis points, resulting in returns for these securities of 3.0% and 7.2% respectively. Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed U.S. Treasury securities by 99 basis points, while high yield corporate securities gained 5.5% for the quarter, outperforming equivalent duration Treasuries by 411 basis points. Among corporate bonds, the best performing industries this quarter were Metals, Energy, Basic Industry and Media Entertainment. Index laggards included Diversified Manufacturing, Telecom, Retailers, Consumer Non-cyclical, and Technology. The recovery from the dramatic decline in risk assets that began in the first quarter continued during the second as commodity prices rallied another 13%, while crude oil alone gained 26%. Treasury rates declined despite the recovery in commodity prices and risk assets as global growth continued to disappoint. The combination of slow growth, low inflation, and the ever increasing levels of debt necessary to sustain even this lower level of activity has led to more volatility as markets oscillate between the fear of recession, and the expectation of a return to faster growth. The surprise decision by voters in the UK to leave the European Union caused another period of volatility as investors anticipated that the resulting uncertainty would lead to slower growth, and perhaps even a recession, as individuals and businesses postpone a variety of activities until the future becomes clearer. Although the decision could be interpreted as a retreat from further integration of global markets, and therefore slower growth in the long term, markets have mostly recovered near term as it will take some time for the UK to extricate itself from the EU after being a member for over forty years. And, of course, in the event of a further slowdown, additional central bank stimulus might be forthcoming. As the amount of global sovereign debt trading at negative yields continues to grow, so too does the demand for any asset with a positive yield. Since yields in the U.S. are still positive across the curve foreign buyers have increased their purchases of U.S. securities, contributing to the downward pressure on U.S. interest rates. Despite predictions at the beginning of the year that rates would trend higher, ten-year Treasury yields declined 80 basis points in the six months ending June, and there doesn’t appear to be much upward pressure from here. After extreme volatility during the first quarter, Investment-grade corporate bond spreads narrowed from +170 bp in March to +162 bp at the end of June, remaining very close to the long term average. Although we reduced our corporate exposure by another 5% during the quarter, we remain overweight high quality investment-grade bonds as they continue to offer a significant yield advantage over Treasuries. High yield corporate bond spreads are slightly below their long term average, especially after adjusting for the energy sector. However, given the uncertain economic outlook, particularly for the commodity sector, we don’t believe below average spreads are sufficient compensation for above average risk. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 885 •The Plan’s fixed income segment returned 2.53% in the quarter, which outperformed the Barclays Aggregate return of 2.21%. •The separately managed fixed income portfolio returned 2.51% which exceeded the benchmark. The portfolio would have ranked approximately in the 38th percentile of the Morningstar Intermediate Term Bond Universe. •The PIMCO Total Return Bond Fund posted a 2.07% in the quarter, which placed it in the 72nd percentile of Morningstar’s Intermediate-Term Bond Universe. The Fund underperformed the Index. •The PIMCO High Yield Bond Fund returned 3.32% in the quarter, and underperformed the Merrill Lynch US High Yield BB-B Constrained Index return of 4.61%. The Fund ranked in the 76th percentile of Morningstar’s High Yield Universe. We sold out of the Fund on June 13, 2016. •The Prudential Total Return Bond Fund was purchased on May 25, 2016. For the quarter, the managers returned 3.25%, which ranked in the 4th percentile of the Morningstar Intermediate-Term Bond Universe Alternative Investments The Alternatives portion of the portfolio returned 0.83% in the second quarter, driven by positive performance from the AQR Managed Futures Fund (+1.76%), and the Eaton Vance Global Macro Fund (+1.31%). The only Fund to generate a negative return in the quarter was the AQR Market Neutral Fund (-1.7%). The argument for the inclusion of alternatives in the Plan is that these investments maintain a low correlation with the core elements of traditional equity and fixed income investments that comprise the bulk of the Plan investments. The Eaton Vance Global Macro Fund displayed these characteristics throughout the quarter with positive contributions coming from long credit exposure to Zambia and Angola. As well, a short position in Saudi Arabia rate investments benefited from the country’s budget issues, caused by lower oil prices and rising governmental borrowing. Other investments that aided returns included a long position in Russian bonds. The AQR Managed Futures fund was the best performer of the alternatives allocation returning 1.76%. The fund performed favorably in the wake of the surprise decision to leave the EU from the U.K. The fund gained over 5% in the last few days of the quarter, as it tends to perform well when market volatility increases. Fixed income, currencies, and commodities were the leading sectors, while equity investments detracted in the quarter. Long investments in U.S. 20-year and 30-year treasuries aided fund returns. The only detractor in the quarter was the AQR Market Neutral Fund which was negatively impacted by positions in French equities, and a net short position in the energy sector. •The alternative investment segment returned 0.83% in the second quarter, which slightly underperformed the Wilshire Liquid Alternatives Index return of 1.03%. •The Eaton Vance Global Macro Absolute Return Fund posted a 1.31% return, which placed in the 60th percentile of the Morningstar Non-Traditional Bond Universe. •The AQR Managed Futures Fund’s return of 1.76% ranked in the 31st percentile of Morningstar’s Managed Futures Fund Universe. •The AQR Market Neutral Fund returned -1.71%, and ranked in the 69th percentile of the Morningstar Market Neutral Universe. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 886 Asset Allocation/Portfolio Transitions We sold out of our high yield allocation in the quarter. This was motivated by profit taking in that the high yield sector has rapidly appreciated in price as the price of oil has offered support to many energy sector related high yield issues. We initiated an investment in a new fixed income manager, the Prudential Total Return Bond Fund. We sourced this investment with funds from our internally managed core fixed income investment and the Pimco Total Return Bond Fund. We sold out of our investment in the Dow Jones Euro Stoxx 50 ETF in May. We had concerns regarding the outcome of the British referendum vote. The proceeds of this liquidation were reinvested into both emerging and developed international equity investments. We moved to an overweight to REIT investments, increasing our allocation by +0.5%. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 887 Manager Watch List Name of Fund Date on watch list Date exiting watch list Recommendation Rationale MFS International Growth 4Q 2014 2Q 2016 Remove from list, retain investment in the Plan Performance has improved over the last 3 quarters. Pimco Total Return Bond Fund 4Q 2014 Review We are monitoring both personnel turnover and asset flows. Peer ranking for 3-year period is moving towards sub-median. In the quarter, we re-allocated some of the Pimco investment dollars into the Prudential Total Return Bond Fund Pimco High Yield Bond Fund 4Q 2015 2Q 2016 Sold We decided to exit our high yield allocation. This decision was based on the asset class, rather than the underlying manager. Eaton Vance Global Macro Absolute Return Fund 3Q 2015 Review Investment returns are not exceeding expectations of alternative category: Cash + 3 to 4% return Dodge and Cox International Stock Fund 2Q 2016 Review Significant underperformance over the last 6 quarters has led to performance that has lagged both the benchmark (97th percentile over previous 12 months), and peer ranking for 3-year period is below the median. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 888 3/31/2016 3/31/2016 6/30/2016 6/30/2016 Target Asset Allocation Market Value % of Total Market Value % of Total Allocation Large Cap Equities Columbia Contrarian Core Z 5,928,854 3.3%6,200,751 3.2%-- iShares Russell 1000 ETF 10,417,443 5.7%10,897,070 5.6%-- Dodge & Cox Stock Fund 4,106,816 2.3%4,240,056 2.2%-- Loomis Sayles Value Fund 4,105,608 2.3%4,281,600 2.2%-- Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl 2,279,933 1.3%2,365,457 1.2%-- T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund 2,275,918 1.3%2,361,967 1.2%-- Total Large Cap Equities 29,114,573$ 16.0%30,346,900$ 15.5% 17.0% Range Range 13-32% Mid Cap Equities iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF 6,363,818 3.5%6,612,783 3.4%-- Total Mid Cap Equities 6,363,818$ 3.5%6,612,783$ 3.4%6.0% Range Range 2-10% Small Cap Equities iShares Russell 2000 ETF 6,820,893 3.8%7,054,598 3.6% - Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II 5,924,719 3.3%6,198,509 3.2% - T. Rowe Price New Horizons Fund 2,753,725 1.5%2,895,666 1.5%-- Total Small Cap Equities 15,499,336$ 8.5%16,148,773$ 8.3%8.0% Range Range 4-12% International Equities Nationwide Bailard Intl Equities I 4,986,827 2.7%5,060,956 2.6%-- iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund 5,827,291 3.2%6,820,646 3.5%-- Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund 2,742,601 1.5%2,709,793 1.4%-- MFS International Growth Fund 2,740,572 1.5%2,755,682 1.4%-- Schroder Emerging Market Equity 1,849,554 1.0%2,999,151 1.5%-- SPDR EURO STOXX 50 ETF 1,790,200 1.0%------ Total International Equities 19,937,044$ 11.0%20,346,227$ 10.4%9.0% Range Range 4-16% Global Equities MSCI iShares ACWI Index ETF 6,316,504 3.5%6,552,201 3.4% American Funds New Perspective F2 2,735,898 1.5%2,831,922 1.4% MFS Global Equity FD CL R5 #4818 2,738,816 1.5%2,818,603 1.4% Total Global Equities 11,791,219$ 6.5%12,202,727$ 6.2%7.0% Range Range 4-12% Asset Allocation Period Ending June 30, 2016 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 889 3/31/2016 3/31/2016 6/30/2016 6/30/2016 Target Asset Allocation Market Value % of Total Market Value % of Total Allocation Real Estate Nuveen Real Estate Secs I Fund 7,245,638 4.0%8,852,548 4.5%-- Total Real Estate 7,245,638$ 4.0%8,852,548$ 4.5%4.0% Range Range 0-8% Fixed Income Core Fixed Income Holdings 56,223,111 30.9%53,865,308 27.6%-- PIMCO Total Return Instl Fund 10,002,063 5.5%8,582,406 4.4%-- Prudential Total Return Bond Q ------8,459,784 4.3%-- PIMCO High Yield Instl 1,793,679 1.0%3,578 0.0%-- Total Fixed Income 68,018,852$ 37.4%70,911,076$ 36.3% 38.0% Range Range 30-50% Alternatives AQR Managed Futures I 7,735,255 4.3%8,400,224 4.3%-- Eaton Vance Glbl Macro Abs Ret I 7,747,317 4.3%8,112,085 4.2%-- AQR Equity Market Neutral I 4,537,821 2.5%4,776,932 2.4%-- Total Alternatives 20,020,393$ 11.0%21,289,241$ 10.9% 10.0% Range Range 5-20% Cash Money Market 3,735,303 2.1%8,759,419 4.5%-- Total Cash 3,735,303$ 2.1%8,759,419$ 4.5%1.0% Range Range 0-5% TOTAL 181,726,175$ 100.0% 195,469,693$ 100.0% 100.0% Asset Allocation Period Ending June 30, 2016 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 890 *Ending Market Value differs from total market value on the previous page due to differences in reporting methodology. The above ending market value is reported as of trade date and includes accruals. The Asset Allocation total market value is reported as of settlement date. Investment Summary Second Quarter 2016 Year to Date 2016 Beginning Value 182,068,089.10$ 175,078,576.28$ Net Contributions/Withdrawals 10,056,628.58 14,999,943.38 Fees Deducted -44,172.19 -87,554.20 Income Received 905,355.26 1,866,447.04 Market Appreciation 2,829,136.71 4,044,482.54 Net Change in Accrued Income 69,996.84 -16,860.74 Ending Market Value*195,885,034.30$ 195,885,034.30$ Investment Summary Second Quarter 2015 Year to Date 2015 Beginning Value 164,399,416.94$ 155,218,379.57$ Net Contributions/Withdrawals 10,237,432.37 15,083,965.69 Fees Deducted -43,812.57 -86,547.64 Income Received 543,074.66 1,161,650.83 Market Appreciation -2,146,385.17 1,674,156.75 Net Change in Accrued Income 262,116.07 200,237.10 Ending Market Value 173,251,842.30$ 173,251,842.30$ Investment Summary Period Ending June 30, 2016 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 891 INVESTMENT STRATEGY As of June 30, 2016 Tactical Asset Allocation Asset Class % Portfolio Weighting Rationale Target Current Portfolio Over/Under Weighting Cash 1.0% 4.5% 3.5% The cash allocation is higher than the target allocation of 2%, due to a contribution that came into the Plan at the end of the quarter. Fixed Income 38.0% 36.25% -1.75% When the quarter-end contribution is invested, we will seek to target a fixed income allocation of 37.5%. We see the low yields offered by fixed income investments as not compelling. We believe the Fed will likely raise rates 1 – 2 times in calendar year 2016. Our year-end target for the 10-year treasury is 1.75%- 2.0%, which implies a decline in price from current levels. High Yield 0.0% 0.0% - We eliminated our high yield position in the quarter. High-yield has rallied in tandem with a recovery in the price of oil. The energy sector, within high yield has seen spreads narrow year to date. We have decided to take profits in this sector due to the sharp recovery in high yield bond prices. Alternatives 10.0% 11.0% +1.0% Alternatives serve to mitigate the impact of a decline in the bond market, due to a potential rise in interest rates. Additionally near-term expectations for cash and equities remain depressed due to the low interest rate environment, equity market valuations, and earnings growth expectations. Real Estate (REITS) 4.0% 4.5% +0.5 We increased our allocation to a slight overweight position relative to the Plan benchmark. Earnings and cash flow fundamentals are improving for REITs. Employment trends are providing additional support for REITs. The move by S&P to make REITs the 11th GIC sector should offer a modest catalyst regarding money flows into the sector.  Global Equity 7.0% 6.25% -0.75% Global equities remain at reasonable valuations due to the international equity component of the MSCI ACWI benchmark. International (Developed) 9.0% 9.0% - Developed international equity markets are viewed as attractive on a relative valuation basis, with superior earnings growth potential supported by earlier stages of the economic recovery cycle. Ongoing ECB and BOJ QE programs are expected to support asset prices. Brexit ramifications may pose a headwind over the near term. International (Emerging) 0.0% 1.5% +1.5% A seemingly successful round of Chinese fiscal and monetary stimulus combined with a pause in US monetary policy normalization have reduced some risks to emerging markets in the near term. Global economic activity is marginally improving as seen in PMI improvements and the Chinese reserve balance has flattened indicating stability in the currency. Total Domestic Equity 31.0% 27.0% -4.0% Large Cap 17.0% 15.5% -1.5% The multi-year outperformance of domestic equities has generated stretched valuations, thereby reducing risk premiums and degrading the near-term risk/reward outlook. Mid Cap 6.0% 3.25% -2.75% We continue to remain underweight based on valuation concerns, with the Russell Mid-Cap Index trading at a 18X forward PE ratio. Small Cap 8.0% 8.25% +0.25% We maintain a slight overweight to small cap stocks. Earnings estimates have come down considerably for small cap equities. Additionally, there is low analyst dispersion related to earnings, which tends to imply less uncertainty. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 892 Inception Date: 02/01/2011 * Benchmark from February 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013: 18% Russell 1000 Index, 6% Russell Midcap Index, 8% Russell 2000 Index, 8% MSCI ACWI Index, 10% MSCI EAFE Index, 45% Barclays Aggregate Index, 4% DJ Wilshire REIT Index, 1% Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index. From July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015: 17% Russell 1000 Index, 6% Russell Midcap Index, 8% Russell 2000 Index, 7% MSCI AC World US Index, 9% MSCI EAFE Index, 38% Barclays Aggregate Index, 4% DJ Wilshire REIT Index, 10% HFRI FOF Market Defensive Index, 1% Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index. From July 1, 2015: 17% Russell 1000 Index, 6% Russell Midcap Index, 8% Russell 2000 Index, 7% MSCI AC World Index, 9% MSCI EAFE Index, 38% Barclays Aggregate Index, 4% DJ Wilshire REIT Index, 10% Wilshire Liquid Alternative Index, 1% Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index ** Dynamic Alternatives Index represents the HFRI FOF Market Defensive Index from 07/01/2013 until 06/30/2015, and then the W ilshire Liquid Alternatives Index from 07/01/2015 forwards. Returns are gross-of-fees unless otherwise noted. Returns for periods over one year are annualized. The information presented has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. Securities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee, and may lose value. Sector 3 Months Year to Date (6 Months) 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years Inception to Date (65 Months) Cash Equivalents .08 .14 .18 .07 .05 .05 iMoneyNet, Inc. Taxable .03 .05 .06 .03 .03 .03 Fixed Income ex Funds 2.51 5.81 6.02 4.06 4.05 4.34 Total Fixed Income 2.53 5.62 5.71 4.01 4.09 4.36 BC US Aggregate Bd Index 2.21 5.31 6.00 4.06 3.76 3.96 Total Equities 2.08 1.85 -2.12 7.41 7.84 7.55 Large Cap Funds 1.76 1.07 -.06 10.50 11.13 10.14 Russell 1000 Index 2.54 3.74 2.93 11.48 11.88 11.70 Mid Cap Funds 3.24 5.48 -1.44 8.82 8.98 8.92 Russell Midcap Index 3.18 5.50 .56 10.80 10.90 11.18 Small Cap Funds 3.45 2.49 -4.35 9.16 10.47 10.38 Russell 2000 Index 3.79 2.22 -6.73 7.09 8.35 8.94 REIT Funds 6.54 10.98 23.67 13.35 12.06 12.04 Wilshire REIT Index 5.60 11.09 22.82 13.63 12.48 12.89 International Equities .32 -.61 -7.14 2.93 2.25 2.57 MSCI AC World Index .99 1.23 -3.73 6.03 5.38 5.54 MSCI EAFE Index -1.46 -4.42 -10.16 2.06 1.68 2.02 MSCI EM Free Index .66 6.41 -12.06 -1.56 -3.78 -2.85 Alternatives .83 1.22 1.18 2.68 Dynamic Alternatives Index 1.03 .95 -2.53 .86 -.36 -1.05 Total Managed Portfolio 1.98 3.09 1.29 5.49 5.86 5.62 Total Account Net of Fees 1.96 3.04 1.19 5.38 5.73 5.50 County of Contra Costa 2.09 3.56 1.94 6.05 6.07 6.28 Selected Period Performance PARS/COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PRHCP Account 6746038001 Period Ending: 06/30/2016 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 893 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 3-Month YTD 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year Fund Name Inception Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Columbia Contrarian Core Z (7/13) 1.65 60 2.28 51 2.29 33 11.95 6 12.45 5 T. Rowe Price Growth Stock I -0.65 77 -5.94 90 -2.59 55 12.46 19 12.08 11 Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl -1.31 88 -6.73 93 -4.67 76 12.71 16 10.95 30 Loomis Sayles Value Fund (7/11) 3.17 44 1.46 75 -3.45 74 7.95 54 9.92 41 Dodge & Cox Stock (10/14) 1.70 71 0.70 83 -5.09 83 8.28 48 10.44 29 iShares Russell 1000 (3/15) 2.50 --3.68 --2.83 --11.34 --11.74 -- Idx: Russell 1000 2.54 --3.74 --2.93 --11.48 --11.88 -- iShares Russell Mid-Cap (3/15) 3.12 --5.40 --0.39 --10.61 --10.73 -- Russell Mid Cap TR USD 3.18 --5.50 --0.56 --10.80 --10.90 -- Columbia Small Cap Value II Z 2.12 52 2.79 70 -4.27 48 7.72 28 8.75 28 Idx: Russell 2000 Value 4.31 --6.08 ---2.58 --6.36 --8.15 -- iShares Russell 2000 (3/15) 3.81 --2.26 ---6.63 --7.15 --8.41 -- T. Rowe Price New Horizons I 5.18 22 0.92 34 -2.10 12 11.63 2 13.05 1 Idx: Russell 2000 Growth 3.24 ---1.59 ---10.75 --7.74 --8.51 -- Dodge & Cox International Stock -1.20 55 -4.91 75 -18.86 97 0.37 79 1.02 52 Nationwide Bailard Intl Eqs Instl -2.00 75 -3.92 62 -8.75 31 4.40 7 2.49 16 MFS International Growth I 0.55 30 2.10 6 -3.01 16 3.21 47 2.47 46 MFS Global Equity R5 (3/15) 0.67 54 2.79 26 -1.41 25 7.29 22 8.01 9 iShares MSCI EAFE (3/15) -1.40 ---4.35 ---10.16 --1.96 --1.59 -- iShares MSCI ACWI (3/15) 1.08 --1.52 ---3.34 --6.31 --5.53 -- American Funds New Perspective F2 (3/15) 0.83 49 -1.61 67 -1.69 27 8.11 13 7.96 9 Idx: MSCI EAFE -1.46 ---4.42 ---10.16 --2.06 --1.68 -- Idx: MSCI ACWI 0.99 --1.23 ---3.73 --6.03 --5.38 -- Schroder Emerging Market Equity (11/12) 2.32 46 5.42 55 -10.58 56 -1.38 51 -3.12 46 Idx: MSCI Emerging Markets 0.66 --6.41 ---12.06 ---1.56 ---3.78 -- Data Source: Morningstar, SEI Investments believed accurate and reliable. Securities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee and may lose value. For Period Ending June 30, 2016 Returns less than one year are not annualized. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. The information presented has been obtained LARGE CAP EQUITY FUNDS MID CAP EQUITY FUNDS SMALL CAP EQUITY FUNDS INTERNATIONAL EQUITY FUNDS August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 894 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 3-Month YTD 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year Fund Name Inception Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Nuveen Real Estate Secs Y 6.49 18 11.56 29 23.03 14 13.48 23 12.19 16 Idx: Wilshire REIT Index 5.60 --11.09 --22.82 --13.63 --12.48 -- Core Fixed Income Portfolio 2.51 38 5.81 13 6.02 11 4.06 25 4.05 30 Pimco Total Return Inst'l 2.07 72 3.90 85 4.31 65 3.48 61 3.71 49 Prudential Total Return Bond Fund Class Q (5/16) 3.25 4 6.57 4 6.56 3 5.28 2 5.21 2 Idx: BarCap US Aggregate Bond 2.21 --5.31 --6.00 --4.06 --3.76 -- PIMCO High Yield Instl (11/14) 3.32 76 6.12 62 1.92 13 4.18 16 5.39 22 ML US HY BB-B Constrained 4.61 --7.90 --2.13 --4.62 --5.86 -- AQR Managed Futures (7/13) 1.76 31 2.16 50 4.69 29 6.55 27 4.62 7 AQR Equity Market Neutral I (2/16) -1.71 69 0.26 55 12.94 1 -- -- -- -- Eaton Vance Glbl Macro Abs Ret (7/13) 1.31 60 1.50 58 2.17 22 2.23 25 1.90 47 Idx: Dynamic Alternatives 1.03 --0.95 ---2.53 --0.86 ---0.36 -- Data Source: Morningstar, SEI Investments believed accurate and reliable. Securities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee and may lose value. For Period Ending June 30, 2016 Returns less than one year are not annualized. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. The information presented has been obtained ALTERNATIVE FUNDS REIT EQUITY FUNDS BOND FUNDS August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 895 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Fund Name Inception Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Columbia Contrarian Core Z (7/13) 3.02 9 12.92 31 35.73 17 18.67 10 -0.93 52 16.21 17 T. Rowe Price Growth Stock 10.85 4 8.83 65 39.20 12 18.92 14 -0.97 39 16.93 35 Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl 10.99 4 9.93 53 37.66 17 15.69 43 0.61 24 11.61 82 Loomis Sayles Value Fund (7/11) -4.19 58 10.76 48 35.54 14 19.70 4 -2.81 66 11.94 72 Dodge & Cox Stock (10/14) -4.49 62 10.40 54 40.55 2 22.01 2 -4.08 74 13.49 47 iShares Russell 1000 ETF 0.82 34 13.08 42 32.93 37 16.27 12 1.36 60 15.94 49 Idx: Russell 1000 0.92 --13.24 --33.11 --16.42 --1.50 --16.10 -- iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF -2.57 39 13.03 17 34.50 74 17.13 52 -1.67 42 25.25 73 Columbia Small Cap Value II Z -2.90 15 4.61 42 40.14 20 14.57 61 -2.39 30 25.64 52 Idx: Russell 2000 Value -3.83 --4.22 --34.52 --18.05 ---5.50 --24.50 -- T. Rowe Price New Horizons 4.50 7 6.10 19 49.11 10 16.20 22 6.63 2 34.67 12 Idx: Russell 2000 Growth -1.38 --5.60 --43.30 --14.59 ---2.91 --29.09 -- iShares Russell 2000 ETF -4.33 31 4.94 55 38.85 76 16.39 47 -4.19 56 26.76 69 Dodge & Cox International Stock -11.35 98 0.08 9 26.31 8 21.03 16 -15.97 81 13.69 6 Nationwide Bailard Intl Eqs InSvc 0.86 24 -1.94 15 21.68 28 20.87 17 -15.58 74 11.85 32 MFS International Growth I 0.30 55 -5.10 58 13.84 79 19.71 31 -10.62 40 15.24 35 iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund -0.90 45 -5.04 78 22.62 19 17.22 41 -12.18 25 7.52 92 Idx: MSCI EAFE -0.81 ---4.90 --22.78 --17.32 ---12.14 --7.75 -- Schroder Emerging Market Equity (11/12) -12.68 37 -4.61 70 -2.28 54 21.73 19 -16.70 20 13.49 92 Idx: MSCI Emerging Markets -14.92 ---2.19 ---2.60 --18.22 ---18.42 --18.88 -- SPDR EURO STOXX 50 ETF (6/14) -4.26 84 -8.36 73 27.43 34 20.48 55 -16.42 48 -8.94 95 American Funds New Perspective F2 5.56 6 3.46 41 27.11 39 39.00 15 -7.39 44 13.01 46 MFS Global Equity R5 -1.34 48 4.08 33 27.93 34 34.00 4 -5.13 25 10.95 55 iShares MSCI ACWI -2.39 46 4.64 34 22.91 54 54.00 30 -7.60 71 12.31 34 Idx: MSCI ACWI -2.36 --4.16 --22.80 --16.13 ---7.35 --12.67 -- Nuveen Real Estate Secs Y 3.48 37 31.28 17 1.32 58 18.34 22 7.96 50 30.57 12 Idx: Wilshire REIT 4.23 --31.78 --1.86 --17.59 --5.52 -- -- -- Data Source: Morningstar, SEI Investments believed accurate and reliable. Securities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee and may lose value. REIT EQUITY FUNDS Returns less than one year are not annualized. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. The information presented has been obtained from sources For Period Ending December 31, 2015 LARGE CAP EQUITY FUNDS MID CAP EQUITY FUNDS SMALL CAP EQUITY FUNDS INTERNATIONAL EQUITY FUNDS August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 896 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Fund Name Inception Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Return Rank Core Fixed Income Portfolio 0.78 14 4.74 70 -1.40 41 5.42 69 8.41 5 -- -- Pimco Total Return Inst'l 0.73 15 4.69 71 -1.92 60 10.36 12 4.16 87 8.83 26 Idx: BarCap US Aggregate Bond .55 --5.97 ---2.02 --4.21 --7.84 --6.54 -- PIMCO High Yield Instl (11/14) -1.85 22 3.31 13 5.77 68 14.55 52 4.00 38 14.24 45 Idx: Merrill Lynch US High Yield BB-B -2.79 --3.49 --6.31 --14.59 --5.39 --14.26 -- Arbitrage I (Sold 11/15)(7/13) 0.90 39 1.64 39 1.15 67 0.44 48 4.74 20 1.76 16 AQR Managed Futures (7/13) 2.00 31 9.69 40 9.40 6 2.99 5 -6.37 29 0.00 0 Eaton Vance Glbl Macro Abs Ret (7/13) 2.63 7 3.03 18 -0.24 58 4.11 79 -0.39 44 4.75 61 JPMorgan Research Market Neutral Instl (7/13) -3.61 74 3.38 25 2.26 56 4.51 9 -7.04 86 -0.90 36 Data Source: Morningstar, SEI Investments believed accurate and reliable. Securities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee and may lose value. BOND FUNDS ALTERNATIVE FUNDS Returns less than one year are not annualized. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. The information presented has been obtained from sources For Period Ending December 31, 2015 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 897 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT report on the Public Works Department and Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Accreditation program, as recommended by the Public Works Director and Chief Engineer, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department is proud of its culture of self-improvement. We have conducted numerous studies of our business practices, embraced the concept of total quality management and through ongoing process improvement, implemented changes in several areas. The American Public Works Association (APWA) Accreditation Program gives the Department an opportunity to measure its practices, policies, and procedures against nationally accepted public works standards. The Department was the first county public works agency in California to be accredited back in 2001. We were re-accredited in 2004, 2008 and 2012. In anticipation of our re-accreditation visit by the APWA APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Carrie Ricci, (925) 313-2235 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 71 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Report for Public Works Department and Flood Control and Water Conservation District Accreditation Program August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 898 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) evaluators scheduled for October 3, 4 & 5, 2016, we have reviewed all of our practices, policies, and procedures and feel we are in full compliance with the standards set by APWA. In addition to the Public Works Department, the Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Flood Control District) has applied for independent accreditation by APWA. During the same site visit in October 2016, the APWA evaluators will review the practices, policies and procedures and judge the Flood Control District as a stand-alone District. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Department will not benefit from the opportunity to become re-accredited and the Flood Control District will not have the opportunity to receive independent accreditation and be recognized by the American Public Works Association. ATTACHMENTS Accreditation Report 2016 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 899 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 900 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. APPROVE response to Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1609, entitled "Human Trafficking", and 2. DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to forward the response to the Superior Court immediately following Board action. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. This is an informational report. BACKGROUND: On June 14, 2016 the 2015/16 Civil Grand Jury filed the above-referenced report regarding human trafficking in Contra Costa County. The Report was referred to the County Administrator by the Board of Supervisors on July 12th for response. The County Administrator has prepared a response for consideration by the Board of Supervisors, which clearly specifies: Whether a finding or recommendation is accepted or will be implemented; APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/16/2016 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: August 16, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stepahnie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 77 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RESPONSE TO CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1609, "Human Trafficking" August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 901 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) If a recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and by what definite target date; A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented within a six-month period; and The reason for not accepting or adopting a finding or recommendation. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: In order to comply with statutory requirements, the Board of Supervisors must provide a response to the Superior Court within ninety days of submission of the report. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. ATTACHMENTS Grand Jury Report No. 1609 Response to Grand Jury Report No. 1609 August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 902 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes903 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes904 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes905 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes906 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes907 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes908 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes909 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes910 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes911 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes912 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes913 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes914 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes915 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes916 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes917 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes918 August 16, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes919   Page 1 of 2    CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1609 "HUMAN TRAFFICKING" BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE FINDINGS – California Penal Code Section 933.5(a) requires a response to the designated findings of the Grand Jury. 11. Public awareness is a critical factor in identifying potential human trafficking activity. Response: Agree. 12. The County’s efforts to build a broad public awareness of human trafficking has primarily been a poster campaign beginning in 2015. Response: Agree. 13. The Zero Tolerance for Human Trafficking Coalition is developing operating guidelines for case review and coordination to be completed in December 2016. Response: Agree. 14. A comprehensive approach to dealing with human trafficking includes robust community engagement; training law enforcement in responding to human trafficking incidents; vigorous prosecution of perpetrators; education of an advocacy to policy makers; and wrap-around services for victims/survivors. Response: Agree. RECOMMENDATIONS - California Penal Code Section 933.05(b) requires a response to the designated recommendations of the Grand Jury. 4. The County Board of Supervisors should consider identifying funds to assign the Zero Tolerance Coalition to take a leadership role in developing report formats, collecting and reporting on comprehensive data about adult and child trafficking in Contra Costa County. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Coalition will continue to improve its efforts in collecting and reporting on comprehensive data by seeking additional funding through grants and other resources as well as identify opportunities to leverage existing approaches among agencies responding to human trafficking. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 920   Page 2 of 2    5. The County Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Zero Tolerance Coalition to develop a multi-disciplinary approach in dealing with human trafficking, after identifying funds to do so. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Zero Tolerance Coalition is implementing a multi-disciplinary approach in dealing with human trafficking and will continue to seek additional funding through grants and other sources to strengthen this existing approach. 6. The County Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Zero Tolerance Coalition to develop and implement a systematic plan for building community awareness of human trafficking, after identifying funds to do so. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Zero Tolerance for Human Trafficking Coalition will continue to implement existing community awareness strategies and seek additional funds including grants to expand these efforts. August 16, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 921