Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12202016 - Completed Min PktCALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AGENCIES, AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNED BY THE BOARD BOARD CHAMBERS ROOM 107, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 651 PINE STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 CANDACE ANDERSEN, CHAIR, 2ND DISTRICT MARY N. PIEPHO, VICE CHAIR, 3RD DISTRICT JOHN GIOIA, 1ST DISTRICT KAREN MITCHOFF, 4TH DISTRICT FEDERAL D. GLOVER, 5TH DISTRICT DAVID J. TWA, CLERK OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, (925) 335-1900 PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES. A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR. The Board of Supervisors respects your time, and every attempt is made to accurately estimate when an item may be heard by the Board. All times specified for items on the Board of Supervisors agenda are approximate. Items may be heard later than indicated depending on the business of the day. Your patience is appreciated. ANNOTATED AGENDA & MINUTES December 20, 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, Local 1021; 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 Employees International Union Local 2015; 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)) In re: West Contra Costa Healthcare District, Debtor, United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 16-42917 1. Lawrence Nunes v. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C13-01475 2. Keller Canyon Landfill Company v. County of Contra Costa, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C16-02062 3. Contra Costa County v. Mathew G. Coelho & Sons, Inc., et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C16-01675 4. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 1 C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov. Code, § 54956.9(d)(2): Two potential cases. 9:30 A.M. Call to order and opening ceremonies. Inspirational Thought- "The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart. Wishing you happiness." ~ Helen Keller Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor; Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Absent: Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Staff Present:David Twa, County Administrator CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.106 on the following agenda) – Items are subject to removal from Consent Calendar by request of any Supervisor or on request for discussion by a member of the public. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be considered with the Discussion Items.   PRESENTATIONS (5 Minutes Each)   PRESENTATION honoring District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho for her 12 years of service to Contra Costa County as a member of the Board of Supervisors. (Supervisor Andersen, Senator Steve Glazer, and Assemblymember Catharine Baker)   PRESENTATION of the 2016 Chair of the Board Award. (Supervisor Andersen)    The Chair of the Board award was presented to Chia-Chia Chen of the Culture to Culture Foundation.   PR.3 PRESENTATION to accept report providing an update on and the accomplishments of the Health Services Department's "Let’s Move! Cities, Towns and Counties Initiative". (Tracey Rattray, Health Services Department)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) DISCUSSION ITEMS   D. 1 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    C.28 Supervisor Mitchoff requested modification of the Board Order to remove the appointment of DeWitt Hodge because he has a business operating at the airport. The matter of appointment to the At Large #2 seat will come back to the Board after the next meeting of the Airport Commission. The item was adopted as modified. C.103 Was removed to allow for public commentary and adopted as presented. C.105 & C.106 Supervisor Piepho commented that these two items will move the process forward so that the future Board can act on the policy decisions. The items were adopted as presented.   D. 2 PUBLIC COMMENT (2 Minutes/Speaker)    Jerome Knott, Love-A-Child Missions, brought the good news that the mission was able to overcome December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 2  Jerome Knott, Love-A-Child Missions, brought the good news that the mission was able to overcome the foreclosure proceedings, and the shelter remains open. The mission will implement a fundraiser in 2017, collecting donations of unused jewelry.   D. 3 HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-25 and Resolution No. 2016/672, to adopt transportation mitigation fees for the Alamo Area of Benefit, reestablish the boundaries of that area of benefit, and make related California Environmental Quality Act findings, Alamo area. (Mary Halle, Public Works Department)       Speakers: Star Ghanaat, resident of Concord. CLOSED the public hearing; DETERMINED a majority protest does not exist; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2016-25 to adopt fees within the Alamo AOB, and to reestablish the boundaries of the Alamo AOB; ADOPTED Resolution No. 2016/672, to adopt the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached thereto; DETERMINED that the adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-25 and Resolution No. 2016/672 are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; . DIRECTED the Conservation and Development Director to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk-Recorder; and DIRECTED the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of the $25 handling fee to the County Clerk-Recorder for the filing of the Notice of Exemption; DIRECTED the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record certified copies of Ordinance No. 2016-25 and Resolution No. 2016/672 in the Official Records of the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder; DIRECTED that, on January 1, 2018, and on each January 1 thereafter, that the Ordinance No. 2016-25 remains in effect, the Public Works Director adjust the Alamo AOB transportation mitigation fees for the effects of inflation or deflation, in accordance with Section 5(a)(3) of the ordinance; REDESIGNATEd Trust Fund No. 1260 as the fund into which all Alamo AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue will be deposited, DIRECTED all Alamo AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue will be deposited into that fund, and DIRECTED the County Treasurer-Tax Collector to invest all monies in that fund, with interest to accrue and remain in the fund; DIRECTED that all funds previously deposited in Trust Fund No. 1260, if any, must be used solely to pay new development’s proportional share of the actual or estimated costs of constructing the transportation improvements specified in the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached hereto, and to reimburse the County for payment of any such costs with money advanced by the County from its general fund, or from other County revenues; AUTHORIZED the Public Works Department to collect an additional administrative fee equal to two percent (2%) of the applicable Alamo AOB Fee; DIRECTED the Conservation and Development Director to monitor future amendments to the currently adopted General Plan and their impact on traffic within the Alamo AOB and to report those amendments to the Public Works Director as necessary to facilitate updating of the Alamo AOB Fee.     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) D. 4 HEARING to consider adoption of Resolution No. 2016/682 to amend the boundaries of Underground    December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 3 D. 4 HEARING to consider adoption of Resolution No. 2016/682 to amend the boundaries of Underground Utility District No. 31, Willow Pass Road/Bailey Road; Bay Point area, as recommended by the Public Works Director. (Mary Halle, Public Works Department)       CLOSED the public hearing; ADOPTED Resolution 2016/682 to amend the boundaries of Underground Utility District No. 31, Willow Pass Road/Bailey Road to include the three additional parcels and three additional utility poles depicted on Exhibit 1 to the resolution; DETERMINED that amending the boundaries of Underground Utility District No. 31 is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and DIRECTED the Director of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk; and AUTHORIZED the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of a $25 fee to Conservation and Development for processing, and a $50 fee to the Contra Costa County Clerk for filing, the CEQA Notice of Exemption.     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) D. 5 HEARING to consider adopting Resolution No. 2016/325 approving and authorizing the execution of a Land Conservation Contract covering approximately 835-acres of land in the Tassajara Valley area, Assessor's Parcel No. 205-050-007, and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act. (100% Applicant Fees) (John Oborne, Conservation and Development Department)       CLOSED the hearing; FOUND that the establishment of Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 is consistent with the General Plan; FOUND the proposed actions are consistent with the Williamson Act and the County's Williamson Act Program; FOUND the proposed actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317, and Section 15061 (b) (3); ADOPTED Resolution No. 2016/325 to (1) ESTABLISH Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001; (2) APPROVE Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001; (3) AUTHORIZE the Chair to execute on behalf of the County Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001; DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to record Resolution No. 2016/325 and Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001 with the County Clerk Recorder and forward a copy to the California Department of Conservation, and the County Assessor's Office.; DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption for this project.     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) D. 6 CONSIDER accepting a report from the Department of Conservation and Development on the 2016 Urban Limit Line Mid-term Review required under Measure L - 2006. (John Kopchik and Will Nelson, Department of Conservation and Development)       Speakers: Joel de Valcourt, Greenbelt Alliance.   D. 7 CONSIDER accepting a report prepared by the Conservation and Development Department regarding    December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 4 D. 7 CONSIDER accepting a report prepared by the Conservation and Development Department regarding the Keller Canyon Landfill's future compliance with the "Direct Haul" conditions of approval in its approved land use permit requested by the Board of Supervisors. (John Kopchik and Deidra Dingman, Department of Conservation and Development)       Speakers: Dana Dean; Evan Edgar; Rosa Fallon, resident of Pittsburg; Jennette Borcic, resident of Pittsburg (handout attached) ; David Frasier, Chief of Staff for Supervisor Glover, read a letter to the Board into the record (attached).     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) D. 8 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   Closed Session    There were no reports from Closed Session.   ADJOURN   CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to execute an Amendment to the Real Property Services Agreement between Contra Costa County and Bay Area Infrastructure Financing Authority, to revise the effective date of the Agreement from June 14, 2016 to May 1, 2016, and increase the payment limit by $35,000, to a new payment limit of $60,000, to provide right-of-way services for the I-880 Express Lane Project, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. (100% Bay Area Infrastructure Financing Authority funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) Engineering Services   C. 2 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/677 accepting the Grant Deed of Development Rights for minor subdivision MS14-0006, for a project being developed by MMA Homes 2013 LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 3 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/680 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee,   December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 5 C. 3 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/680 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute the Deferred Improvement Agreement for minor subdivision MS14-0006, for a project being developed by MMA HOMES 2013 LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 4 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/681 approving the Parcel Map and Subdivision Agreement for minor subdivision MS14-0006, for a project being developed by MMA Homes 2013 LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 5 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/684 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute the Deferred Improvement Agreement for land use permit LP14-2068, for a project being developed by JDF Holdings, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Martinez 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 6 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/685 approving reduction of performance bond amount of the Road Improvement Agreement for road acceptance RA12-01250, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 7 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/687 approving the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for SD16-9326, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 8 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/690 approving the Parcel Map and Subdivision Agreement for minor subdivision MS16-00001, for a project being developed by Pacific Crest Builders, Inc., as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) Claims, Collections & Litigation      December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 6 C. 9 DENY claims filed by Anthony Ferreira, Leah, Tatum, Dane & Mercy Karson as successors of Matthew Karson, Silvia Moreno, 21st Century Ins. for Raphael Nomeh, Brian Rogan, Nicholas Sveiven, and Darnell Washington.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 10 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Risk Management Director to execute contracts with specified legal firms for defense of the County in workers' compensation, tort defense, and civil rights claims for the period January 1 through December 31, 2017, in accordance with a specified fee schedule. (100% Self-Insurance Internal Service Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 11 RECEIVE public report of litigation settlement agreements that became final during the period November 1 through November 30, 2016, as recommended by the County Counsel.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) Statutory Actions   C. 12 ACCEPT Board members' meeting reports for November 2016.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) Honors & Proclamations   C. 13 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/638 expressing appreciation to District III Chief of Staff Tomi Riley for her service to Contra Costa County and the constituents of District III, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 14 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/639 expressing appreciation to District III Deputy Chief of Staff Lea Castleberry for her service to Contra Costa County and the constituents of District III, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 15 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/640 expressing appreciation to District III Field Representative Alicia    December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 7 C. 15 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/640 expressing appreciation to District III Field Representative Alicia Nuchols for her service to Contra Costa County and the constituents of District III, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 16 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/641 expressing appreciation to District III Field Representative Melissa Margain for her service to Contra Costa County and the constituents of District III, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 17 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/642 expressing appreciation to District III Scheduler Manny Bowlby for his service to Contra Costa County and the constituents of District III, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 18 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/645 expressing appreciation to District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho for her service to Contra Costa County and the constituents of District III, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 19 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/647 expressing appreciation to District 14 Assemblymember Susan Bonilla for her service to Contra Costa County, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 20 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/648 expressing appreciation to State Senator Lois Wolk, 3rd Senate District, for her service to Contra Costa County, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) Ordinances   C. 21 ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-24, which would require drug manufacturers to establish a stewardship program for the collection and disposal of unwanted drugs.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 8 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) Appointments & Resignations   C. 22 REAPPOINT Carolyn Thiessen to the Trustee 3 seat on the Alamo-Lafayette Cemetery District Board of Directors, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 23 REAPPOINT David Barclay, to the Appointee 1 seat, Aron DeFerrari to the Appointee 2 seat, Jill Winspear to the Appointee 3 seat, Anne Struthers to the Appointee 4 seat, Susan Rock to the Appointee 5 seat, and Steve Mick to the Appointee 7 seat on the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 24 APPOINT members to the 2017 Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) and 2017 CCP-Executive Committee pursuant to Penal Code sections 1230(b)(2) and 1230.1(b), respectively, as recommended by the Public Protection Committee. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 25 APPOINT Judy Bendix to the District 1 seat of the Fish & Wildlife Committee, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 26 APPOINT Heather Rosmarin to the At Large #4 seat and REAPPOINT Jeffrey Skinner to the At Large #3 seat on the Fish & Wildlife Committee, as recommended by the Internal Operations Committee.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 27 REAPPOINT Bob Case to the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Board of Directors, as recommended by the Internal Operations Committee.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 28 APPOINT Emily Barnett to the At Large #3 (formerly the Diablo Valley College) seat and REAPPOINT DeWitt Hodge to the At Large #2 seat on the Aviation Advisory Committee, as recommended by the Internal Operations Committee.       MODIFIED to consider appointment of only Emily Barnett, leaving At Large #2 seat of DeWittDecember 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 9  MODIFIED to consider appointment of only Emily Barnett, leaving At Large #2 seat of DeWitt Hodges open.; REQUESTED Airport Commission to resolve the issue of Mr. Hodges having a business interest on the premises, to return to the Board after its next meeting with a boardorder to appoint a member to the vacant seat.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 29 REAPPOINT Nolan Armstrong to the Member of the Bar seat on the Law Library Board of Trustees, as recommended by the Internal Operations Committee.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 30 REAPPOINT Chris Cowen to the At Large #2 seat and Darryl Young to the At Large #3 seat on the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees, as recommended by the Internal Operations Committee.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) Appropriation Adjustments   C. 31 Public Defender's Office (0243): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5035 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $50,000 from the van Loben Sels/RembeRock Foundation and appropriating it to fund temporary contract help for a Youth Advocate position for advocacy support services to juvenile clients in the Office of the Public Defender. (100% Foundation revenue, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 32 Plant Acquisition-General Fund (0111): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5036 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $75,000 from CSA P-6 Zone funding and appropriating it into the Plant Acquisition-Sheriff account (0111/4407) to partially fund the relocation of the Sheriff's Office - Delta Patrol station from the old Oakley Library to the Brentwood Police Department. (100% CSA P-6 Zone funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 33 Buchanan Field Airport (0841): APPROVE Appropriation Adjustment No. 5037 authorizing the transfer of appropriations in the amount of $16,000 from Buchanan Field Operations (4841) to Buchanan Field Fixed Assets (4853) to cover the cost of replacing the County Airports' server. (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 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 10 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) Personnel Actions   C. 34 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21983 to reallocate the classification of Workforce Investment Board Executive Director - Exempt (unrepresented) on the Salary Schedule in the Employment and Human Services Department. (61% Federal, 39% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 35 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21988 to increase the hours of one Library Assistant-Journey Level (represented) position from part time (20/40) to full time and add one part time (20/40) Clerk-Experienced Level (represented) position in the Library Department. (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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 36 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21989 to cancel 35 permanent-intermittent positions, increase the hours of 7 part time positions, and add 11 positions (all represented) in the Library Department. (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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 37 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22004 to add one Administrative Analyst (represented) position and cancel one vacant Clerk-Specialist Level (represented) position in the Health Services Department. (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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 38 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22001 to reallocate the classification of Payroll Systems Administrator (unrepresented) on the Salary Schedule, and amend the Resolution to exclude the outstanding pay provisions for the classification of Payroll Systems Administrator. (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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 39 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21999 to add one Legal Assistant (represented) position and cancel one Clerk Experienced Level (represented) position in the Office of the County Counsel. (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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 40 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22006 to decrease the hours of one vacant Occupational    December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 11 C. 40 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22006 to decrease the hours of one vacant Occupational Therapist II position from 9/40 to 2/40 and increase the hours of one Occupational Therapist I position from 35/40 to 40/40 and one Physical Therapist I position from 38/40 to 40/40 in the Health Services Department. (Cost savings)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) Leases   C. 41 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a fair market value lease agreement and purchase order with Xerox Corporation in an amount not to exceed $1,109,441 for the lease of a Xerox Color Press iGen5 digital printer including maintenance and supplies, for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021, Countywide. (100% Department User Fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 42 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to apply for and accept three grants in an aggregate amount not to exceed $6,000 from the California Center for the Book and California Library Association to provide programs and materials for the Bay Point, San Pablo and Concord Libraries for the period December 9, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (No Library fund match)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to apply for and accept Community Development Block Grant funds in an amount not to exceed $60,000, to support services at the Bay Point Community Career Center, for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020. (100% Federal; 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective November 1, 2016, with the Department of Health Care Services, Children Medical Services to decrease the amount payable to the County by $35,588 to a new amount payable of $1,894,228 for the Child Health and Disability Prevention and the Health Care Program for Children in Foster Care, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 12 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 45 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the California Department of Public Health, Tuberculosis Control Branch, to pay the County up to $291,306 in funding for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, for the Tuberculosis Control Program, and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute purchase order(s) up to a total payment limit of $15,889, to be used for food, shelter, incentives and enablers. (100% State, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Public Health, effective December 1, 2016, to increase the total amount payable to County by $7,372 to a new payment limit of $4,309,641, for continuation of the Public Health Emergency Preparedness, Hospital Preparedness Program and Comprehensive Program, with no change in the term of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 47 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute the Second Amendment to the County Franchise Agreement with Crockett Sanitary Service to extend the term of the Agreement through March 1, 2017, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (100% Solid Waste/Recycling Franchise fee revenues)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 48 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to accept additional grant funds in the amount of $5,650 for a total grant amount not to exceed $35,650 from the State of California, California Arts Council, for the County to provide advocacy for the advancement of the arts for the period October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017. (No County match for increase)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Defender, or designee, to execute a contract with The Justice Management Institute in an amount not to exceed $116,886 to design, implement and monitor the Misdemeanor Early Representation Program in the Public Defender's Office for the period December 14, 2016 through October 1, 2018. (100% Federal)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with    December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 13 C. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Smith, Watts & Company, LLC, (dba Smith, Watts & Hartmann), in an amount not to exceed $165,000 to provide legislative advocacy and monitoring services for transportation and related matters, for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, Countywide. (100% Local Road Funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Cardno, Inc., to extend the term from December 31, 2016 through December 31, 2018 with no change in the payment limit of $434,521, to provide continued service for the completion of the environmental impact report for the Shell Martinez Refinery's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Project. (100% applicant funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 52 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE The Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with 3M Cogent, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $7,883, including modified indemnification language, for services to move software, configurations and transactional data from end-of-life server hardware to new server hardware for the term of December 13, 2016 through February 17, 2017. (100% CAL-ID funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 53 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Jaison James, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $880,000 to provide orthopedic services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Chief Information Officer-Department of Information Technology, a purchase order with Integrated Archive Systems in the amount of $108,072 for the renewal of the Cisco Smartnet hardware and software maintenance agreement for Cisco switches and network infrastructure hardware, for the period October 5, 2016 through November 30, 2017. (100% Department User Fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 55 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Director, a purchase order with Kaplan Early Learning Company in an amount not to exceed $1,800,000 to procure childcare center equipment and supplies for the period July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2019. (60% Federal, 40% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 14 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the University of Cincinnati Research Institute, to increase the payment limit by $63,000 to a new payment limit of $324,000, with no change to the termination date of June 30, 2017, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 57 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract with Kronos Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $209,892, for the purchase of a subscription to the Kronos Workforce scheduling and timekeeper software for Probation staff shift scheduling and time keeping for the period of December 20, 2016 through December 19, 2019. (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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with STAND! For Families Free of Violence, in an amount not to exceed $101,955 to provide services for the Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Project for the period January 1 through December 31, 2017. (100% Federal)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 59 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Peyman Keyashian, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $505,000 to provide anesthesiology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 60 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Robert Liebig, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $1,966,000 to provide radiology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019. (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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 61 APPROVE clarification of Board action of November 15, 2016, (Item C.57), which approved termination of Contract #27-865-2 effective October 31, 2016, to change the termination date to the close of business on December 31, 2016 instead of October 31, 2016, with no change in the payment limit of $350,000.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 15 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 62 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with LTP Care Continuum, Corp., in an amount not to exceed $150,000 to provide skilled nursing services to Contra Costa Health Plan members, for the period January 1 through December 31, 2017. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 63 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Valerie J. Keim, MFT, in an amount not to exceed $150,000 to provide outpatient psychotherapy services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 64 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Thomas A. Mampalam, (DBA Thomas A. Mampalam, M.D., APC), in an amount not to exceed $150,000 to provide neurosurgery services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 65 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective January 1, 2017, with Seneca Family of Agencies, a non-profit corporation, to increase the payment limit by $163,800 to a new payment limit of $800,546 for additional services to increase placement stability of children, for the period August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2017. (County 27%, State 54%, Federal 19%)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 66 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Diablo Dialysis Access Center, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $750,000 to provide dialysis access services to Contra Costa Health Plan members, for the period December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2018. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 67 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with OmniPro Systems, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for laptops, desktop computers, and related equipment for the Whole Person Care Pilot Program. (100% Whole Person Care Program Grant)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 16  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 68 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract containing mutual indemnification language with The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 to provide pediatric cardiology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period December 1, 2016 through November 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 69 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department to execute a purchase order in an amount not to exceed $9,000, for up to 450 $20 gift cards to use as incentives for Health Plan members to participate in activities to improve their health, for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. (100% CCHP Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 70 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective December 1, 2016, with The Center for Common Concerns, Inc. (dba HomeBase), to extend the term from December 31, 2016 through June 30, 2017 and increase the payment limit by $346,546 to a new payment limit of $652,055, to continue providing consultation and technical assistance related to the Behavioral Health Division's integration program planning and design and Behavioral Health Court coordination. (15% Federal Medi-Cal, 36% Behavioral Health funding, and 49% Medi-Cal/Housing and Urban Development)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 71 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Sodexo America, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $375,000 to provide management and oversight of the Food and Nutrition Services Unit at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, for the period November 1, 2016 through October 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 72 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a novation contract with Rubicon Programs, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $140,000 to provide mental health services for CalWORKs clients for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017 in an amount not to exceed $70,000. (100% CalWORKs)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 73 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a novation    December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 17 C. 73 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a novation contract with Desarrollo Familiar, Inc., (dba Familias Unidas), in an amount not to exceed $268,124 to provide mental health services in West County for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, with a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017 in an amount not to exceed $134,062. (18% Federal Medi-Cal; 39% Substance Abuse/Mental Health Services Administration Grant; 43% 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 74 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Shelter, Inc. of Contra Costa County, in an amount not to exceed $252,528 to provide support services to County residents in the Supportive Housing Program, for the period December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2017. (100% Federal funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 75 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Merritt, Hawkins and Associates, LLC, effective December 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $100,000 for a new payment limit of $400,000, with no change in the term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, to provide additional recruitment services. (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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 76 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order and fourth license agreement amendment with First Databank Inc., in an amount not to exceed $375,000, for the renewal of MedKnowledge software licenses and support for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. (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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 77 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the County of Plumas, to pay the County of Plumas (Host County) a participation fee, in an amount not to exceed $110,396, for Contra Costa to participate in the Medi-Cal Administrative Activities and Targeted Case Management programs for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Medi-Cal Administrative Activities and Targeted Case Management)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 78 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Montague DeRose & Associates, LLC, to extend the term from June 30, 2016 through June 30, 2018 with no change to the original payment limit of $350,000, for Independent Registered Municipal Financial Advisor services. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 18  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 79 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract containing modified indemnification language with Helios Healthcare, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $473,840, to provide sub-acute skilled nursing care services for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 80 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Unify, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $375,000 for hardware, software, maintenance, and implementation services for the Unify Openscape HiPath 4000 phone system, for the period December 20, 2016 through December 19, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 81 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract with Encore Clinical Consultation, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $250,000 to provide specialized administrative and consulting services with regard to medical and mental health programs in the County's detention system, for the period January 1 through December 31, 2017. (100% County General Fund, Budgeted)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 82 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Applied Remedial Services, Inc., effective July 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $21,560 to a new payment limit of $371,560, to provide additional removal of hazardous waste and chemical services from Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, with no change in the original term of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 83 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Jackson & Coker LocumTenens, LLC, effective December 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $70,000 to a new payment limit of $1,044,400, to provide additional temporary psychiatric services for the County’s Mental Health Outpatients Clinics, with no change in the original term of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. (100% Mental Health Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 84 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a    December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 19 C. 84 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with ImagingTek, Inc., to extend the term from January 31, 2017 through January 31, 2018 with no change to the payment limit of $412,000, to allow the Contractor to continue to provide document imaging services. (100% Land Development Fees)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 85 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with First Baptist Church of Pittsburg, California, to increase the payment limit by $36,798 to a new limit of $2,089,154 to pass on the federally approved cost of living salary increase for the Head Start Delegate Agency's Head Start staff, with no change to the term of January 1 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) Other Actions   C. 86 CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16, 1999, and most recently approved by the Board on December 6, 2016, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 87 RECEIVE the 2016 Annual Report submitted by the Finance Committee, as recommended by the Finance Committee.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 88 ACCEPT the October 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 89 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with EAH, Inc., for the development of senior housing and approximately 1,250 sq.ft. of space for programs for senior citizens on a 0.98 acre property located near Willow Avenue and San Pablo Avenue in Rodeo. (100% Housing Successor funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 90 DECLARE as surplus and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to dispose of fully    December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 20 C. 90 DECLARE as surplus and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to dispose of fully depreciated vehicles and equipment no longer needed for public use, as recommended by the Public Works Director, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 91 ACCEPT the 2016 Annual Report of the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 92 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective December 1, 2016, with U.S. HealthWorks Medical Group, P.C., to add payment provisions related to medical evaluations and additional testing for employees, potential employees and volunteers, with no change to the contract term or payment limit. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 93 ACCEPT year-end productivity report from the 2016 Public Protection Committee and APPROVE recommended disposition of referrals, as recommended by the Public Protection Committee. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 94 APPROVE Conflict of Interest Code for the Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office, as recommended by the County Counsel.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 95 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/691 authorizing the issuance and sale of "Antioch Unified School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2008, Series D" in an amount not to exceed $20,800,000 by the Antioch Unified School District on its own behalf pursuant to Sections 15140 and 15146 of the Education Code, as permitted by Section 53508.7(c) of the Government Code., as recommended by the County Administrator. (No County fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 96 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute an unpaid student training agreement with Iowa State University of Science and Technology to provide supervised field instruction to dietitian students at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018. (Non-financial agreement)        December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 21  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 97 APPROVE the list of providers recommended by Contra Costa Health Plan's Medical Director on November 30, 2016 and by the Health Services Director, as required by the State Departments of Health Care Services and Managed Health Care, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 98 ACCEPT the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board 2016 Annual Report, as recommended by the Health Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C. 99 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract containing modified indemnification language with the University of California, on behalf of the UCSF Medical Center and Benioff Children’s Hospital, to allow the County’s Public Health Department to access medical information for the California Children’s Services, for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2020. (Non-financial agreement)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C.100 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a memorandum of understanding with Rubicon Programs, Inc., to allow the Behavioral Health Services Division to provide services to formerly incarcerated residents of Contra Costa County at the Reentry Success Center for the period from December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2017. (Non-financial agreement)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C.101 APPROVE the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative to change its name to the Contra Costa Alliance to End Abuse AND DIRECT staff of the Initiative to revise any relevant communication, marketing material and resources to reflect the new name.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C.102 APPROVE Resolution No. 2016/650 approving the Contra Costa County Section 125 Benefits Plan document as amended and restated effective 1/1/2017; and AUTHORIZE the Benefits Manager to take all necessary actions in implementing the revised plan document. (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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C.103    December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 22 C.103 ACCEPT the report from the Health Services Department on the six month implementation of the County's Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program (Laura's Law), as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.       Speakers: Barbara Serwin, Vice-Chair, Mental Health Commission (handout attached); Lauren Rettagliata; Douglas Dunn, resident of Antioch (handout attached); Teresa Pasquini, resident of El Sobrante (handout attached).   C.104 ACCEPT the 2016 year-end report on the activities of the Internal Operations Committee and APPROVE disposition of referrals as recommended by the Committee.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C.105 APPROVE the expenditure of up to $250,000 from the Livable Communities Trust (District III Portion) for the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail Feasibility Study, 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 Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) C.106 AUTHORIZE the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD), in consultation with the Contra Costa County Agriculture Advisory Task Force and local agricultural stakeholders, to review existing land use regulations (e.g., General Plan policies and zoning) and identify for future Board consideration specific actions the County could take to further promote and incentivize agricultural sustainability and economic vitality; and APPROVE the expenditure of up to $150,000 from the Livable Communities Trust (District III Portion) for this purpose, as recommended by Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho. (100% Livable Communities Trust Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Other: District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover (ABSENT)   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 viaDecember 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 23 otherwise within the purview of the Board of Supervisors can be submitted to the office of the Clerk of the Board via mail: Board of Supervisors, 651 Pine Street Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553; by fax: 925-335-1913. The County will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Board meetings who contact the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours before the meeting, at (925) 335-1900; TDD (925) 335-1915. An assistive listening device is available from the Clerk, Room 106. Copies of recordings of all or portions of a Board meeting may be purchased from the Clerk of the Board. Please telephone the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900, to make the necessary arrangements. Forms are available to anyone desiring to submit an inspirational thought nomination for inclusion on the Board Agenda. Forms may be obtained at the Office of the County Administrator or Office of the Clerk of the Board, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. Applications for personal subscriptions to the weekly Board Agenda may be obtained by calling the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900. The weekly agenda may also be viewed on the County’s Internet Web Page: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us STANDING COMMITTEES The Airport Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Mary N. Piepho) meets quarterly on the fourth Monday of the month at 12:30 p.m. at Director of Airports Office, 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord. The Family and Human Services Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Federal D. Glover) meets on the first Monday of the month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Finance Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets on the second Monday of the month at 1:30 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Federal Glover) To be determined The Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the second Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Legislation Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Mary N. Piepho) meets on the first Thursday of the month at 11:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Public Protection Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Federal D. Glover) meets on the second Monday of the month at 11:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Mary N. Piepho) meets on the first Thursday of the month at 1:30 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. Airports Committee See above Family & Human Services Committee See above Finance Committee See above Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee See above Internal Operations Committee See above December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 24 Legislation Committee See above Public Protection Committee See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee See above PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR AGENDA DEADLINE: Thursday, 12 noon, 12 days before the Tuesday Board meetings. Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and written materials associated with Board meetings: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees AICP American Institute of Certified Planners AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ALUC Airport Land Use Commission 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 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 25 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 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 26 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 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 27 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT report providing an update on and the accomplishments of the Health Services Department's "Let’s Move! Cities, Towns and Counties Initiative". FISCAL IMPACT: In the long term, there will be savings to the health care delivery system as rates of obesity decrease and more residents eat healthy food and engage in more physical activity. BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, and diabetes are the leading causes of preventable morbidity and premature mortality in Contra Costa County and indeed, the rest of the country. Obesity, which has increased so rapidly throughout the United States that it is considered a public health crisis, is directly linked to the onset of chronic diseases. Poor diet and lack of physical activity are key risk factors for obesity and for chronic diseases, which impact the everyday lives of families living in Contra Costa communities. The California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) shows APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wihelm, Tracey Rattray PR.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Let’s Move! Cities, Towns and Counties Initiative December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 28 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) that among adults in Contra Costa, 10.8% have been diagnosed with diabetes (2014); 5.6 % have been diagnosed with heart disease (2012-2014); and 28.9 % have been diagnosed with high blood pressure (2014). Local elected officials have an opportunity to address risk factors for obesity and chronic diseases through Let’s Move! Cities, Towns, and Counties, which is a comprehensive initiative that was launched by the First Lady in 2010. The goals of Let’s Move are consistent with the statewide Let’s Get Healthy campaign and the California Wellness Plan. In addition, the Let’s Move! initiative compliments efforts imbedded with the 1115 Waiver and within the Contra Costa Health System to improve population health and contain health care cost. Cities, towns, and counties participating in the Let’s Move! Cities, Towns and Counties Initiative are awarded bronze, silver and gold medals for achieving specific benchmarks that promote good nutrition and physical activity and have the opportunity: to be recognized on the Let’s Move! website; gain access to technical assistance from experts; have a variety of opportunities to learn what works at the local level; share success stories and discuss challenges with peers in other communities; and participate in a national movement to build healthy communities for a healthy future. Within the Bay Area, the counties that are participating in the Lets Move! Initiative include: Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Solano County. In addition, the cities of Daly City, Emeryville, Mountain View, Oakland, Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Francisco, San Jose, San Leandro, Saratoga, and South San Francisco are also participating in the movement. In Contra Costa, the City of San Pablo is an official Let’s Move ! city and many other county agencies, school districts, and cities participate in and/or are engaged in activities that are aligned in the Let’s Move! Campaign. On December 15, 2015, the Board of Supervisors directed Health Services staff to: 1. Approve submission of an application to the Let’s Move! Cities, Towns and Counties Initiative 2. Direct the Health Services Department to convene a group of local cities, community partners and county staff to collectively develop a plan of action to accomplish the goals of Let’s Move Cities, Towns and Counties Initiative. 3. Offer recognition or acknowledgement to the County and those Cities that accomplish the criteria for Let’s Move! medal awards. Contra Costa County was enrolled in the Let’s Move Initiative on July 5, 2016. Staff and Supervisor Gioia presented the Let’s Move Campaign to the Contra Costa Conference of Mayors on July 7, 2016, offering information and technical assistance to cities that wanted to participate. Due to staffing constraints, instead of a county-wide convening, CCHS staff met with staff from each Supervisor’s District to gather their input on activities in their District that qualify for medals under the Let’s Move campaign. In addition, staff consulted with the County’s Nutrition Network program and partners throughout the county to assess efforts that qualify for medals. Based on this analysis, we have submitted to the Let’s Move! Initiative information about progress that promotes nutrition and physical activity in the lives of residents in cities and unincorporated areas throughout the County. Let’s Move! has recognized Contra Costa County’s achievements on their web site at: http://www.healthycommunitieshealthyfuture.org/places/#Contra Goal: Start Early, Start Smart Efforts in Contra Costa qualified for: Bronze Medal - for participating in an active, interagency collaboration focused on early care and education. Silver Medal - for promoting the goals of Let's Move! at city/county council meetings and to local early childhood education providers as well as publically recognizing early childhood education providers who are implementing Let's Move! Child Care best practices. Goal: Smart Servings for Students Efforts in Contra Costa qualified for: Bronze Medal - for being in an active collaboration with schools and other partners to expand access to programs that December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 29 offer healthy food before, during and after the school day, and/or over the summer months. Silver Medal - for taking the following actions to expand children's access to programs that offer healthy food before, during, or after the school day, including summer meals: serving as a sponsor for a healthy summer meal program; serving as a feeding site, with another organization serving as a sponsor, providing healthy summer meals to children in city facilities, including parks, schools and recreation centers or during city-operated summer programs; providing healthy meals and/or snacks at city/town/county afterschool programs; collaborating with the private sector, nonprofits and/or faith-based organizations to expand the number of healthy afterschool meal and/or snack programs or summer meal programs and playing a role with schools increasing participation rates in school breakfast and school lunch programs. Gold Medal - by promoting and publicizing the expanded child nutrition programs in the following locations or ways: the city’s/town’s/county’s website; public service agencies’ newsletters or parks’ recreation program guides; official statements by the city/town/county supporting the availability and participation of students in these programs; media stories and ads; social media; resource guides for parents and caregivers; recreation centers, community centers, local housing authorities and Head Start Programs; Woman Infants and Children (WIC), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and other human service offices that serve residents. In addition there has been authentic community input on these programs and opportunities for increased participation. Goal: Model Food Service Efforts in Contra Costa Qualified for: Bronze Medal – by identifying all the vendors and contractors for municipally- or county-owned or operated venues that offer or sell food/beverages and when their contracts can be amended or renegotiated Silver Medal – by finalizing model food service guidelines that align with the standards of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans for municipally- or county-owned or operated venues that offer or sell food/beverages Gold – by implementing food service guidelines that align with the standards of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans in at least 30% of venues Goal: Active Kids at Play Efforts in Contra Costa qualified for: Bronze Medal - by mapping the community's play spaces Silver Medal - for using those maps to assess the need for safe, convenient places to play and creating a plan to address those needs. Both of these are included in the County's General Plan. Gold Medal - by implementing the following actions in at least one jurisdiction: joint use agreements; zoning ordinances; strategies for walking and biking to school or work; multi-modal transportation options. In addition, the county has: created or revitalized parks and recreation facilities; increased the number of playgrounds and has developed a master plan in at least one jurisdiction that includes provisions to encourage walking and biking. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Children and their families will have more access to nutrition education, healthy food and opportunities to be physically active. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 30 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing to consider adopting Ordinance No. 2016-25, to adopt the Alamo Area of Benefit (“Alamo AOB”) fees; RECEIVE public comments; CONSIDER all objections and protests received by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors; and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. DETERMINE that the County did not receive protests from owners of more than one half of the area of the property within the proposed boundaries of the Alamo AOB, and therefore, a majority protest does not exist. 3. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-25 to adopt fees within the Alamo AOB, and to reestablish the boundaries of the Alamo AOB. 4. ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/672, to adopt the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached thereto. 5. DETERMINE that the adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-25 and Resolution No. 2016/672 are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. 6. DIRECT the Conservation and Development Director to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk-Recorder; and DIRECT the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of the $25 handling fee to the County Clerk-Recorder for the filing of the Notice of Exemption. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Mary Halle, (925) 313-2327 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Mary Halle, 925-313-2327, liza mangabay, 925-313-2232 D. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-25 and Resolution No. 2016/672 (District II) December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 31 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 7. DIRECT the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record certified copies of Ordinance No. 2016-25 and Resolution No. 2016/672 in the Official Records of the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder. 8. DIRECT that, on January 1, 2018, and on each January 1 thereafter, that the Ordinance No. 2016-25 remains in effect, the Public Works Director adjust the Alamo AOB transportation mitigation fees for the effects of inflation or deflation, in accordance with Section 5(a)(3) of the ordinance. 9. REDESIGNATE Trust Fund No. 1260 as the fund into which all Alamo AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue will be deposited, DIRECT all Alamo AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue will be deposited into that fund, and DIRECT the County Treasurer-Tax Collector to invest all monies in that fund, with interest to accrue and remain in the fund. 10. DIRECT that all funds previously deposited in Trust Fund No. 1260, if any, must be used solely to pay new development’s proportional share of the actual or estimated costs of constructing the transportation improvements specified in the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached hereto, and to reimburse the County for payment of any such costs with money advanced by the County from its general fund, or from other County revenues. 11. AUTHORIZE the Public Works Department to collect an additional administrative fee equal to two percent (2%) of the applicable Alamo AOB Fee. 12. DIRECT the Conservation and Development Director to monitor future amendments to the currently adopted General Plan and their impact on traffic within the Alamo AOB and to report those amendments to the Public Works Director as necessary to facilitate updating of the Alamo AOB Fee. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Alamo Area of Benefits BACKGROUND: A. INTRODUCTION: One of the objectives of the County General Plan is to connect new development directly to the provision of community facilities necessary to serve that development. In other words, development cannot be allowed to occur unless a mechanism is in place to provide the funding for the infrastructure necessary to serve that development. Imposing transportation mitigation fees on new development is a means of raising revenue to construct road improvements to serve new developments. Requiring that all new development pay a transportation mitigation fee ensures that new development pays its proportional share of the transportation improvements that need to be constructed to alleviate traffic impacts attributable to that development. B. PAST AND PURPOSE OF ALAMO AOB: On March 15, 1988, the Board of Supervisors (“Board”) passed Resolution 88/122, forming the Countywide Area of Benefit (“Countywide AOB”), a development fee program to raise revenue for the improvement of the capacity and safety of the arterial road network in the County through the establishment of a traffic mitigation fee ordinance, pursuant to Government Code section 66484. The boundaries of the Countywide AOB coincided with the County boundary, but only unincorporated areas were included in the Countywide AOB. The Board also adopted a Development Program Report (“1988 DPR”), which showed the Countywide AOB to be divided into seven regions – West County, Central County, Lamorinda, South County, East County, Bay Point, and Alamo. The 1988 DPR set forth a list of improvements in each region, their estimated costs, the basis for apportionment of these costs among different land use categories, and fees applicable to development in each region. Ordinance No. 88-27, adopted the same date, established the fees applicable to all development in the seven regions. The 1988 DPR provided that fees collected in a subarea were to be kept in a separate trust fund specific to that subarea, to “ensure that the money collected in a subarea is used to improve the road deficiencies in that subarea only and will not be diverted for use elsewhere in the County.” On March 9, 1993, the Board adopted a revised development program report (“1993 DPR”) for the Countywide December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 32 AOB, which outlined the boundaries of seven areas of benefit within the original Countywide AOB and described them as coinciding with the boundaries of the seven regions created in 1988. In 1998, an amendment was established to include the Alamo Area of Benefit. The 1998 DPR identified the same seven projects for the Alamo AOB that were identified in the 1988 DPR. The seven projects were estimated at that time to cost $2,863,000. The 1998 DPR also identified the funding mechanism and trust fund accounts specific to the Area of Benefit. Simultaneously with the adoption of the 1998 DPR, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 98-21, formally establishing the Alamo AOB and adopting fees to fund the seven projects identified in the 1998 DPR for that area. Fees imposed on new development pursuant to Ordinance No. 98-21 have funded transportation improvements to satisfy traffic demands within the Alamo AOB. For example, the fees have provided the revenue to partially fund improvements to Stone Valley Road, Miranda Avenue, Livorna Road, and Danville Boulevard. C. PROPOSED CHANGES TO FEE PROGRAM: In recent years, the development potential and traffic circulation needs have changed within the Alamo AOB. These changes in the AOB, along with population growth and new estimated potential growth, have prompted an update to the AOB program, resulting in an amended project list, and some administrative modifications, as discussed below. 1. New Project List : County staff and consultants have identified transportation projects that are needed to serve development within the Alamo AOB through 2040. These projects have been included on a new project list, attached as Exhibit C to the October 2016 Development Program Report (“2016 Development Program Report”). Each of the new projects include bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements on certain road segments. These road segments include portions of Stone Valley Road, Danville Boulevard, Livorna Road, and Hemme Avenue. The total estimated cost of the updated list of projects is $6,437,000, of which $2,872,000 is the cost share attributed to new development within the Alamo AOB. Detailed estimates of the cost of each of the projects on the project list are included in the October 2016 Nexus Study, Alamo Area of Benefit (the “Nexus Study”), attached as Exhibit D to the 2016 Development Program Report. The cost of the projects attributable to new development will be paid with revenue from transportation mitigation fees imposed on new development within the Alamo AOB. The remaining cost of the project is attributable to existing development, which shall be paid from other revenue sources, including but not limited to State or Federal Highway Safety Improvement grant funds, Local Measure J funds, gas tax revenue, and various other grant programs that may become available in the future. 2. Revised Fee Rates: Based on the analysis in the Nexus Study, transportation mitigation fees were calculated to charge new development for its proportional share of the cost of the projects on the project list in the 2016 Development Program Report. These transportation mitigation fee rates are set forth in Table 1, below along with the recommended rates to be imposed on new development within the Alamo AOB on and after the effective date of Ordinance No. 2016-25. As the Alamo fee rates are currently among the highest in the area, it is recommended that the new fees not exceed the current fee rates to allow economic growth to continue. On January 1, 2018, and on each January 1 st thereafter, each of the fees adopted in Ordinance No. 2016-25 will automatically increase or decrease based on the percentage change in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index, San Francisco Bay Area, for the 12 month period ending September 30th of the year prior to the year in which the adjustment will take effect. Table 1: Proposed Fee Rates Land Use Category Calculated Nexus Fee Rate Recommended Fee Rate Single-Family $20,964 / du $12,102 / du Multi-Family $12,788 / du $10,080 / du Commercial $29.77 / sf $11.18 / sf Office $24.11 / sf $11.18 / sf Industrial $19.08 / sf $11.18 / sf December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 33 Note: du = dwelling unit; sf = square foot; due = dwelling unit equivalent The total fees required to be paid by a new development project applicant will be calculated based on the number of dwelling units (residential), square feet (commercial, office, industrial), or dwelling-unit-equivalents (other) attributable to that development multiplied by the applicable recommended fee rate in Table 1. The fee for the expansion of an existing development will be calculated by determining the number of dwelling units, square feet, or dwelling-unit-equivalents attributable only to the expansion. The fees to be paid by each new development will be collected at the time a building permit is issued for the development, in accordance with Ordinance Code Chapter 913-4. Fee revenue will be deposited in the fund for the Alamo AOB – Trust Fund No. 1260 – and used only for the transportation improvements identified in the 2016 Development Program Report. D. RESOLUTION NO. 2016/672: Pursuant to Government Code section 66484 subdivision (a)(3), a resolution must be adopted by the Board that incorporates a description of the boundaries of the area of benefit, the costs, whether actual or estimated, and the method of fee apportionment established at the hearing. The 2016 Development Program Report sets forth the boundaries of the Alamo AOB, the list of projects and their estimated costs, the method of fee apportionment, and nexus findings. Approval of Resolution No. 2016/672, is recommended because it serves to comply with the above legal requirements by adopting and incorporating the facts and findings contained in the 2016 Development Program Report, and the Nexus Study attached to the report. E. ORDINANCE NO. 2016-25: To adopt the Alamo AOB fees to generate revenue to fund the transportation improvements described herein, the Board of Supervisors needs to adopt an ordinance that includes the “nexus” findings required by Government Code section 66001. The ordinance also must include the specific information required by Government Code section 66484. Ordinance No. 2016-25 includes the information and findings required by those statutes. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-25 will repeal Ordinance No. 98-21, and impose new transportation mitigation fees on new development within the Alamo AOB. The ordinance includes provisions for fee reductions for affordable and inclusionary housing, senior housing, and congregate care facilities. Revenue from the fees will fund the transportation projects necessary to serve transportation demands within the Alamo AOB through 2040. Staff recommends that the Board adopt Ordinance No. 2016-25. F. ADMINISTRATIVE FEE: In addition to the transportation mitigation fee imposed on a new development project, the County will assess an administrative fee equal to two percent (2%) of that transportation mitigation fee. This additional fee will be used to cover staff time for fee collection, accounting, technical support to the community groups, traffic advisory committees and other administrative tasks. G. CEQA FINDINGS: These actions are covered by the general rule that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies only to projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The implementation and imposition of fees has no associated environmental impacts. Therefore, this activity is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The future implementation of the transportation improvement projects to be funded with transportation mitigation revenue, however, may have associated project-specific impacts, and such impacts will be evaluated under CEQA as each project is planned and implemented. Notice of this hearing was given in accordance with Government Code sections 6061, 65091, 54986, 66484, and Ordinance Code Section 913-6.014. For the reasons specified above, Public Works Department staff recommends that the Board take each of the recommended actions listed in this board order, to adopt the transportation Other $20,964 / due $12,102 / due December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 34 mitigation fees that are imposed on new development within the Alamo AOB. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If Ordinance No. 2016-25 is not adopted, Ordinance No. 98-21 would remain effective, but fees collected under it could not be used to pay the costs to construct the new transportation improvements the Public Works Department has determined are needed to satisfy traffic demands from development within the Alamo AOB through 2040. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Star Ghanaat, resident of Concord. CLOSED the public hearing; DETERMINED a majority protest does not exist; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2016-25 to adopt fees within the Alamo AOB, and to reestablish the boundaries of the Alamo AOB; ADOPTED Resolution No. 2016/672, to adopt the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached thereto; DETERMINED that the adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-25 and Resolution No. 2016/672 are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; . DIRECTED the Conservation and Development Director to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk-Recorder; and DIRECTED the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of the $25 handling fee to the County Clerk-Recorder for the filing of the Notice of Exemption; DIRECTED the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record certified copies of Ordinance No. 2016-25 and Resolution No. 2016/672 in the Official Records of the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder; DIRECTED that, on January 1, 2018, and on each January 1 thereafter, that the Ordinance No. 2016-25 remains in effect, the Public Works Director adjust the Alamo AOB transportation mitigation fees for the effects of inflation or deflation, in accordance with Section 5(a)(3) of the ordinance; REDESIGNATEd Trust Fund No. 1260 as the fund into which all Alamo AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue will be deposited, DIRECTED all Alamo AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue will be deposited into that fund, and DIRECTED the County Treasurer-Tax Collector to invest all monies in that fund, with interest to accrue and remain in the fund; DIRECTED that all funds previously deposited in Trust Fund No. 1260, if any, must be used solely to pay new development’s proportional share of the actual or estimated costs of constructing the transportation improvements specified in the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached hereto, and to reimburse the County for payment of any such costs with money advanced by the County from its general fund, or from other County revenues; AUTHORIZED the Public Works Department to collect an additional administrative fee equal to two percent (2%) of the applicable Alamo AOB Fee; DIRECTED the Conservation and Development Director to monitor future amendments to the currently adopted General Plan and their impact on traffic within the Alamo AOB and to report those amendments to the Public Works Director as necessary to facilitate updating of the Alamo AOB Fee. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/672 Nexus Study For Alamo AOB CEQA Ordinance No. 2016-25 DPR - Area of Benefit - Alamo MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/672 Signed Ordinance 2016-25 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 35 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 12/20/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff NO: ABSENT:Federal D. Glover ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/672 IN THE MATTER OF the adoption of Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2016-25, adjusting the fees for the Alamo Area of Benefit. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on December 20, 2016, to consider the adoption of Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2016-25, to adjust the project list and transportation mitigation fees imposed on new development in the Alamo Area of Benefit; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors at said hearing, reestablished the boundaries of the Alamo Area of Benefit, the costs of the proposed improvements, and the method of fee apportionment, as set forth in the October 2016, Development Program Report for the Alamo Area of Benefit (“Development Program Report”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 66484 requires a resolution incorporating a description of the area of benefit boundaries, costs, and method of fee apportionment to be recorded by the governing body conducting the hearing; and WHEREAS, the October 2016, “Nexus Study, Alamo Area of Benefit” (“Nexus Study”), which is attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report, sets forth the nexus findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code. § 66000 et seq.); NOW THEREFORE, it is resolved that the Board of Supervisors hereby: 1. ADOPTS the Development Program Report attached hereto as Exhibit 1, including the Nexus Study attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report. 2. INCORPORATES herein by reference the following, which were established at the hearing described above: A. The boundaries of the Alamo Area of Benefit, as more particularly described in the legal description attached as Exhibit A to the Development Program Report, and as depicted in the map attached as Exhibit B to the Development Program Report. B. The estimated costs of the intersection and pedestrian improvements to be funded with revenue from the Alamo Area of Benefit fees, as more particularly set forth in Exhibit C to the Development Program Report; and C. The method of apportionment of the Alamo Area of Benefit fees, as more particularly described in the Development Program Report, and in the Nexus Study attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report. Contact: Mary Halle, (925) 313-2327 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Mary Halle, 925-313-2327, liza mangabay, 925-313-2232 4 1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 36 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 37 Draft Nexus Study Alamo Area of Benefit Prepared For: Contra Costa County Public Works Department October 2016 Prepared By: in association with Urban Economics Prepared By: in association with UDecember 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 38 Nexus Study - Alamo AOB Program 1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 2  1.1 Background and Purpose .............................................................................................................. 2  1.2 Alamo AOB .................................................................................................................................. 2  2. Evaluation of Current AOB Program ............................................................................................... 4  3. Determination of AOB Development Potential ................................................................................ 6  4. Transportation Needs Analysis .......................................................................................................... 6  4.1 Development Impacts ................................................................................................................... 7  4.2 Existing Transportation System Value ......................................................................................... 8  4.3 Existing Facility Standard ........................................................................................................... 10  4.4 Costs To Accommodate New Development ............................................................................... 11  4.5 Transportation System Improvement Needs ............................................................................... 11  4.6 Selected Project List.................................................................................................................... 12  5. Improvement Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................... 12  6. Method for Calculating Fees ............................................................................................................ 14  7. Nexus Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 15  7.1 Purpose of fee ............................................................................................................................. 15  7.2 Use of Fees .................................................................................................................................. 16  7.3 Relationship between use of Fees and Type of Development .................................................... 16  7.4 Relationship between Need for Facility and Type of Development ........................................... 16  7.5 Relationship between Amount of Fees and the Cost of Facility Attributed to Development ..... 16 7.6 Current AOB Fund Balance…………………………………………………………………….17 Appendix A: Estimated Value of Existing Roadways in Alamo AOB Appendix B: Process for Developing and Selecting Projects for the Alamo AOB Appendix C: Cost Estimates for Selected Projects in Alamo AOB December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 39 Nexus Study - Alamo AOB Program 2 1. Introduction This section describes the background and purpose of the Nexus Study as it applies to the Alamo Area of Benefit Program. 1.1 Background and Purpose The purpose of the Alamo Area of Benefit (AOB) Program is to help fund improvements to the County’s roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities needed to accommodate travel demand generated by new land development within the unincorporated portion of this AOB. Contra Costa County has various methods for financing transportation improvements. One of the methods is the AOB Program. The AOB Program collects funds from new development in the unincorporated portion of the AOB to finance transportation improvements associated with travel demand generated by that development. Fees are differentiated by type of development in relationship to their relative impacts on the transportation system. The intent of the fee program is to provide an equitable means of ensuring that future development contributes its proportional share of the costs of transportation improvements, so that the County’s General Plan Circulation policies and quality of life can be maintained. One of the objectives of the County General Plan is to relate new development directly to the provision of community facilities necessary to serve that new development. Accordingly, there is a mechanism in place to provide the funding for the infrastructure necessary to serve that development. The Alamo AOB Program is a fee mechanism providing funds to construct transportation improvements to serve new residential, commercial and industrial development within their AOB. Requiring that all new development pay a transportation improvement fee will help ensure that it participates fairly in the cost of improving the transportation system. This Program applies only to new development within the unincorporated portions of the Alamo AOB. The purpose of this Nexus Study is to provide the technical basis for a comprehensive update of the Alamo AOB Program. The focus of the updated program is to support an overall transportation system (roadways, bikeways and pedestrian facilities) in the Alamo AOB that serves the expected future demand based on changes in local land use projections, planned and approved development projects, and associated changes to capital improvements and updated cost estimates. This Nexus Study documents the analytical approach for determining the nexus between transportation mitigation fees imposed on new development within the Alamo AOB, the local impact created by anticipated development in the Alamo AOB, and the transportation improvements to be funded with fee revenues. A traffic impact and fair-share cost analysis was conducted to equitably distribute the costs of the necessary transportation improvements to developments that cause the impacts, in accordance with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act.1 The most up-to-date versions of the analytical tools and techniques available at the time this study commenced were used to ensure the highest level of consistency with current information and practices. 1.2 Alamo AOB On September 24, 1985, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution forming the Alamo AOB. The Alamo AOB boundary is shown in Figure 1. Fees will only be collected within the unincorporated portions of the AOB and will only fund projects within the unincorporated portions of the AOB. 1 California Government Code, Sections 66000 through 66026. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 40 DA N V I L L E STONE VALLEY DIABLOMIRANDAEL CERROMAIN ROUNDHI L L H A R T Z RUDGEAR TICE VALLEY LIVORNACREST GREEN VALLEYHILLGRADEDAN V I L L E M A I N LIVORNAC R E S T Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Alamo AOB Boundary Walnut Creek and Danville City Limits FIGURE 1Boundary of Alamo AOB §¨¦6 8 0 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 41 Nexus Study- Alamo AOB Program 4 At the time that the County formed the Alamo AOB, there were many vacant parcels in the AOB with potential for residential development, and the existing transportation system was inadequate to handle the additional traffic generated from the projected development. In 1993, and again in 1998, the Alamo AOB Program was revised to reflect the changing needs of the area. Over the past 29 years, AOB fees have helped pay for improvements to Stone Valley Road, Miranda Avenue, Livorna Road and Danville Boulevard. The Alamo AOB has experienced changes in the area's circulation needs and development potential. Most of the residential development potential within the AOB has been fulfilled, and many of the original AOB projects have been constructed. Yet new development and expansion of existing development continues, which will generate new travel demand across all travel modes (auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian). These changes have prompted the current revision to the Alamo AOB program, resulting in a new project list and fee schedule. The Alamo AOB is about 98 percent built out, based on projections for a 25-year (2015 - 2040) planning horizon. Being nearly built out has significant implications for measuring development impacts and the types of transportation improvements needed to accommodate remaining projected growth. Consequently, in this nexus study:  Development impacts are based on maintaining the same level of investment in the transportation system that the County has made to date, measured per vehicle-mile of travel (VMT). Thus new development would fund additions to the existing value of the street system in proportion to growth in new VMT from development. In this way the existing facility standard (defined as the existing system value per existing VMT) is maintained as growth occurs. New development offsets its negative impact on that standard (a decline in system value per VMT) by funding improvements to maintain the standard.  Funding from the AOB program is targeted to various types of smaller multi-modal upgrade projects needed to complete the transportation system. These projects include, for example, intersection, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. These types of projects are a more practicable use of funds for offsetting the remaining impacts from development because the community does not want to increase vehicular capacity but rather encourage alternative modes The purpose of this Nexus Study is to determine improvements that will ultimately be needed to serve estimated future development and to require new development to pay a fee to fund its proportional share of these improvements. Because the fee is based on the investment made by existing development to date in the transportation system, and the value of that investment per VMT, new development will be adding to the existing equity in the street system roughly proportional to the development impact. This Nexus Study establishes this impact and mitigation relationship to new development and the basis for the fee amount. 2. Evaluation of Current AOB Program The current Alamo AOB Program was last updated in 1998. The current Alamo AOB Program project list, shown in Table 1, had six unfunded projects estimated in 1998. It was estimated that these projects would cost about $2,863,000 million of which about $1,473,000 million was to be funded by the AOB Program. The 2016 update of the Alamo AOB Program has included a needs analysis (Section 3), an updated project list based on this analysis (Section 4), and new project cost estimates (Section 5). The current AOB Program uses “peak hour factors” to allocate trips by land use types based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rate estimates for the evening (PM) peak hour. However, ITE trip rates only reflect the amount of traffic coming in and out of development’s entrances, not the extent of the roadway system that is impacted by those trips. This Nexus Study refines this December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 42 Nexus Study- Alamo AOB Program 5 approach to reflect current best practices for impact fee programs when estimating the impact of new development on the transportation system. Table 1 1998 Project List for Alamo AOB Program Roadway Project Description Total Cost 1 (1998 Dollars) Amount to be Funded by AOB 1 (1998 Dollars) 1 Stone Valley Rd Improvements: Stone Valley Way to High Eagle Ct Provide 2 12-foot lanes and 5-foot shoulders, overlay existing pavement, install signal at Miranda Ave intersection. Funded 2 Stone Valley Rd/Miranda Ave Intersection Improve intersection to provide additional capacity on Miranda Avenue $60,000 $60,000 3 Stone Valley Rd Improvements: High Eagle Ct to Roundhill Rd Widen to accommodate 2 travel lanes, 2 shoulders (5 ft. wide) and a left turn lane at Roundhill Rd. $127,000 $81,000 4 Stone Valley Road Improvements: Roundhill Road to Widen to accommodate 2 travel lanes and 2 shoulders (5 ft. wide). $1,023,000 $655,000 5 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road Intersection Improvements Provide left turn channelization from WB Stone Valley Rd to SB Danville Blvd and from SB Danville Blvd to EB Stone Valley Rd. Modify signal accordingly. Estimated cost includes widening of Stone Valley Rd bridge over San Ramon Creek. $1,176,000 $200,000 6 Livorna Road Improvements Construct pavement as needed to provide standard road width. $85,000 $85,000 7 Miranda Avenue Improvements- Stone Valley Road to Stone Valley School Construct pavement widening and curb to provide 32-foot section and curbs on each side. $392,000 $392,000 Total $2,863,000 $1,473,000 Notes: 1 Amounts include funding of two percent for AOB administration costs. The amounts “to be funded by AOB” represent the allocation of costs to future development based on the 1998 study. Source: Development Program Report for Alamo AOB, 1998. For example, simple trip rates over-estimate the traffic impact of retail development on the overall roadway system. The average length of trips coming in and out of a new residential development is longer December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 43 Nexus Study- Alamo AOB Program 6 percent of the trips that will go in and out of a new retail development will already be traveling on roadways near that development, and thus are “pass-by” or “diverted” trips, not “new trips” to the surrounding roadway system. All of the trips going to and from a new residential unit are “new trips”. To integrate best practices, the updated Alamo AOB Program will instead use estimates of vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) added by new development. The VMT rates multiply the trip rate for a land use type by its average trip length and also use percentages to reflect “pass-by trips” versus “new trips.” The calculation of fee rates based on this methodology is discussed in Section 4.1 of this study. 3. Determination of AOB Development Potential The transportation needs analysis and allocation of improvement costs for the Alamo AOB is based on the countywide travel demand model developed by the Contra Costa Transportation Agency (CCTA) using a 2040 horizon year. The calculation of fees is based on the following general land use categories and associated measurement units that are used as a basis for the land use inputs in CCTA’s travel demand model: Land Use Type Units Single-Family Dwelling units (DU) Multi-Family Dwelling units (DU) Commercial/Retail Jobs Office Jobs Industrial Jobs CCTA’s latest land use estimates of existing conditions and 2040 forecasts of new development by Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the AOB were summarized and reviewed with County Planning staff. Based on that review, adjustments were made and the resulting growth estimate for the AOB in summarized in Table 2. The table shows estimates of jobs for nonresidential land uses used by the CCTA’s model. It also applies estimates of square footage per employee to estimate the growth in building square feet, which are used in the AOB fee program. 4. Transportation Needs Analysis As explained in Section 1.2, above, the nearly built out status of the Alamo AOB has significant implications for measuring development impacts and the types of transportation improvements needed to accommodate remaining projected growth. This nexus study: (1) measures development impacts based on maintaining the same level of investment per trip in the transportation infrastructure that the County has made to date, and (2) targets funding to various types of smaller multi-modal upgrade projects needed to complete the transportation system. So in this nexus study defining the transportation needs and project list for the Alamo AOB involved the following steps: 1. Converting development estimates to a single measure of impact on the transportation system (dwelling unit equivalents or DUEs). 2. Estimating the replacement value of the existing transportation system. 3. Calculating the impact of development based on maintaining the existing facility standard (existing transportation system value per DUE). 4. Calculating total facility costs to accommodate new development based on maintaining the existing facility standard as growth occurs. 5. Determining the types of improvements needed to complete the transportation system. 6. Preparing the AOB project list. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 44 Nexus Study- Alamo AOB Program 7 Table 2 Summary of Estimated Development Growth (2010 to 2040) Alamo Area of Benefit1 Land Use Category Units Unincorporated Portion of AOB 2010 2040 Growth Single-Family Dwelling Units 6,505 6,607 102 Multi-family 324 324 0 Total 6,829 6,931 102 Retail Jobs 430 430 0 Office 1,800 1,910 110 Total 2,230 2,340 110 Retail2 1,000 sq. ft. 215 215 0 Office2 495 525 30 Industrial 0 0 0 Total 710 740 30 1 See Figure 1 for AOB Boundary. 2 Conversion of jobs to building square feet based on: Retail: Office: 500 building square feet per job 275 building square feet per job Source: DKS Associates, 2014. 4.1 Development Impacts This section describes how estimates of development are converted to a single measure of impact on the transportation system. Land Use Categories For the Alamo AOB update the calculation of development impacts is based on the general land use categories that can be derived for all areas of the County from CCTA’s travel demand model and shown in Section 3 (dwelling units and jobs by land use category). Dwelling Unit Equivalents Each development type is assigned a “dwelling unit equivalent” or “DUE” rate. DUEs are numerical measures of how the trip-making characteristics of a land use compare to a typical single-family residential unit, which is assigned a DUE of 1. Land uses which have greater overall traffic impacts than a typical single-family residential unit are assigned values greater than 1, while land uses with lower overall traffic impacts are assigned values less than 1. DUEs are developed by comparing both the trip generation and trip length characteristics of various land uses to those of a typical single-family residential unit. Since roadway needs are primarily based on traffic flows and conditions during the PM peak hour on an average weekday, the DUEs reflect the relative trip generation for the peak hour. Also considered in the calculation of DUEs are “percent new” trips since some of the vehicles attracted to non-residential uses would have been on the roadway system regardless of the presence of the traffic generator. Average trip lengths for the remaining "primary" trips generated December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 45 Nexus Study- Alamo AOB Program 8 by a development are then utilized to better reflect overall impact of longer trips on the County’s roadway system. The DUE rates will thus be based on estimates of the average vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) generated during the PM peak hour for each general land use type. The DUE rates used to estimate the AOB fees are shown in Table 3. Thus 1,000 square foot of retail development is estimated to have a traffic impact on the roadway system which is 1.42 times that of a typical single-family residential unit. Table 3 Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) Rates Land Use Category PM Peak Hour Trip Rate per Unit1 Unit Trip Length (miles)2 Percent New trips2 VMT per Unit DUE per Unit Singe Family 1.01 Dwelling Unit 5.0 100 5.050 1.00 Multi-Family 0.62 5.0 100 3.100 0.61 Retail 4.10 1,000 Square Feet 2.3 76 7.167 1.42 Office 1.40 4.5 92 5.796 1.15 Industrial 0.98 5.1 92 4.598 0.91 1 ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition. 2 ITE Journal, May 1992. Source: DKS Associates, 2014. Table 4 provides the growth in DUEs based on the development estimates from Table 2 and the DUE rates from Table 3. Table 4 Alamo AOB DUEs Land Use Category Unit DUE per Unit1 2010 Units2 2010 DUEs 2040 Units2 2040 DUEs Growth in Units2 Growth in DUEs Singe Family Dwelling Unit 1.00 6,505 6,505 6,607 6,607 102 102 Multi-Family 0.61 324 198 324 198 0 0 Retail 1,000 Square Feet 1.42 215,000 305 215,000 305 0 0 Office 1.15 495,000 569 525,000 604 30,000 35 Industrial 0.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 7,577 7,714 137 1 See Table 3: “Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) Rates”. 2 See Table 2: “Summary of Estimated Development Growth (2010 to 2040)”. Source: DKS Associates, 2014. 4.2 Existing Transportation System Value The facility standard calculated to measure the impact of development is based on the existing value of the transportation system in the AOB. Replacement cost, not depreciated cost, is used to calculate system value because existing facilities were new when initially constructed to accommodate growth, so new development should likewise fund the cost of new facilities. An estimate was made of the cost required to replace the existing roadway system within the Alamo AOB. That estimate was based on County data that includes the linear feet of roadway by categories associated with pavement width. The average cost per linear foot of roadway was estimated for each pavement width category and multiplied by the linear feet of existing roadway in that category, as shown in Table 5. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 46 Nexus Study- Alamo AOB Program 9 Table 5 Estimated Replacement Value of Existing Roadways in Alamo AOB Roadway Pavement Width (feet) Total Linear Feet Average Replacement Cost per Linear Foot Estimated Replacement Cost 16 510 $433 $220,600 17 2,484 $459 $1,140,800 18 581 $486 $282,400 19 5,544 $513 $2,842,500 20 8,211 $539 $4,429,300 21 686 $566 $388,400 22 7,997 $593 $4,741,200 24 5,789 $646 $3,741,500 25 8,832 $673 $5,944,100 26 4,480 $700 $3,134,800 27 2,112 $726 $1,534,300 28 5,832 $753 $4,392,500 29 12,883 $780 $10,047,400 30 6,493 $807 $5,237,300 31 2,535 $833 $2,112,500 32 13,944 $860 $11,992,500 33 50,345 $887 $44,644,300 35 1,869 $940 $1,757,200 36 1,988 $967 $1,922,200 37 18,658 $994 $18,539,300 38 8,990 $1,020 $9,173,000 40 506 $1,074 $543,300 45 680 $1,207 $821,000 47 2,375 $1,261 $2,994,400 53 470 $1,421 $667,900 54 1,080 $1,448 $1,563,700 60 2,580 $1,608 $4,149,000 61 1,955 $1,635 $3,196,200 80 2,450 $2,143 $5,249,200 Total 182,859 $861 $157,402,800 Traffic Signals (4 @ $360,000) $1,440,000 Estimated Value for Major Roadways $158,842,800  Source: DKS Associates, 2014. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 47 Nexus Study- Alamo AOB Program 10 The AOB has roadway, bikeway and sidewalk improvements along major roadways, which are typically arterial and collector roadway. The Nexus Study only includes these larger transportation facilities (roadways that are designated arterial and collector roadways plus roadways that function as residential collectors) in the estimate of the existing system value because these facilities represent the type that will require improvement to accommodate growth. AOB fee revenues will be limited to these larger facilities only. The Nexus Study also includes traffic signals that exist at four intersections in the AOB because these facilities are also part of backbone transportation system. These existing signalized intersections are the following:  Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Road  Danville Boulevard and Livorna Road  Danville Boulevard and Hemme Avenue  Stone Valley Road and Miranda Avenue The average replacement cost per linear foot in Table 5 includes the following cost elements: Non-construction cost elements  Planning and environmental studies  Design and construction engineering  Utilities  Right-of-way Construction cost elements  Mobilization  Clearing and grubbing  Earthwork  Aggregate base  Asphalt pavement  Striping and signage  Drainage The cost estimates in Table 5 capture all of the basic elements that would be required to plan, design and construct the existing roadway system in the AOB. Yet these estimates can be considered to be conservatively low for the following reasons:  There a limited number of sidewalks in the AOB and the estimates do not include the cost of any sidewalks.  Data was not available for the value of that existing right-of-way adjacent to each roadway segment. Therefore, the cost only includes the value of that right-of-way needed for the paved roadway section. Current right-of-way typically extends beyond the paved roadway section.  The estimates include costs for typical drainage facilities along a roadway segment but do not include the cost for significant culverts or bridges which occur in some locations  The costs include typical cost for excavation but do not include the cost for substantial excavation needed in some areas with challenging terrain. 4.3 Existing Facility Standard The existing facility standard shown in Table 6 is $20,964 per DUE and is calculated by dividing the total transportation system value shown in Table 5 by the total number of existing DUEs shown in Table December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 48 Nexus Study- Alamo AOB Program 11 4. This amount represents the impact of new development associated with maintaining the existing level of investment in AOB roadways as defined in the last section. Table 6 Existing Transportation System Facility Standard Existing Transportation System Value1 $158,842,800 Existing DUEs2 7,577 Existing Facility Standard ($ per DUE) $20,964 1 See Table 5: “Estimated Replacement Value of Existing Roadways in Alamo AOB”. 2 See Table 4: “Alamo AOB DUEs”. Source: Urban Economics, 2014. 4.4 Costs to Accommodate New Development The cost to accommodate new development is shown in Table 7 and equals $2,872,000. This amount is based on the existing facility standard shown in Table 6 and the estimated growth in DUEs from Table 4. Table 7 Costs To Accommodate New Development Existing Facility Standard ($ per DUE)1 $20,964 Growth in DUEs (2010-2040)2 137 Total Costs To Accommodate Growth (2010-2040) $2,872,000 1 See Table 6: “Existing Transportation Facility Standard”. 2 See Table 4: “Alamo AOB DUEs”. Source: Urban Economics, 2014. 4.5 Transportation System Improvement Needs The Alamo AOB is about 98 percent built out under the current Contra Costa County General Plan. Approaching build out has implications for the types of transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth. Large capacity-increasing roadway projects, such as street extensions and additional travel lanes on street segments, are not needed to accommodate growth. Rather, the AOB’s existing system of street improvements requires a range of smaller multi-modal upgrades to provide a comprehensive transportation system. The primary issues identified in the evaluation of existing and future through (2040) needs were problems of safety and congestion related to traffic using Alamo streets to avoid congested portions of I-680. Safety for pedestrians and bicyclists around schools and in the Downtown Alamo shopping district was also identified as a significant concern because of the semi-rural nature of Alamo and the limited facilities for non-motorized modes. These types of improvements are typically needed to accommodate additional growth in nearly built out areas such as the Alamo AOB. Based on identification of gaps in the current transportation system and input from the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council and other interested members of the community, the types of improvements needed included:  Bicycle and pedestrian improvements to better accommodate trips on these modes  Traffic calming improvements to reduce cut-through traffic and improve pedestrian and bicycle safety  Intersection improvements to improve vehicular traffic flow and safety for all modes December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 49 Nexus Study- Alamo AOB Program 12 4.6 Selected Project List New projects for the Alamo AOB program were developed in close collaboration with the Municipal Advisory Council and with substantial community input. Four highly advertised community-outreach meetings were held over a six-month period. The purpose of each meeting and the dates each was held are as follows:  Meeting #1: Provide an introduction of the AOB analysis process and schedule to the Municipal Advisory Council and solicit community input- February 26, 2013  Meeting #2: Present and discuss the results of the evaluation of existing and future (2040) needs and deficiencies and solicit ideas for projects from the community – April 23, 2013  Meeting #3: Identify potential projects and a preliminary screening and solicit additional community input – June 19, 2013  Meeting #4: Present a recommended set of improvements to the Municipal Advisory Council and get community input – August 21, 2013 The meeting summaries and process used to develop and select the projects for the Alamo AOB Program is discussed in Appendix B. Based on this extensive community input process, several specific projects were identified for the Alamo AOB program list. The draft project list was presented to the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council (MAC), which supported the following list: 1. Stone Valley Road Bike Lane Gap Closure 2. Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements 3. Livorna Road and Wilson Road Intersection Improvements 4. Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Stone Valley Middle School, Alamo Elementary and Rancho Romero School – This project consists of following: 4.1. Hemme Avenue Sidewalk 4.2. Miranda Avenue Natural Pathway 4.3. Livorna Avenue Sidewalk Improvements 5. Safety Improvements at intersection of Danville Boulevard and Hemme Avenue The locations of these projects are shown in Figure 2. The Stone Valley Road Bike Lane Gap Closure and Livorna Road and Wilson Road Intersection Improvements (Projects 1 and 3 above) have since been constructed. Before implementation, the remaining improvements on the project list will require environmental review and approval by the County Board of Supervisors. 5. Improvement Cost Estimates The County provided recent cost estimates for the Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements For the remaining projects, planning-level cost estimates were prepared based on conceptual designs for each project. The estimates for roadway segment improvements are based on implementing the County’s design standards. The cost estimates reflect the known issues, such as relocation of known utilities, etc. Typical excavation quantities were used except in areas where significant excavation was identified. The cost estimating does not have geotechnical or survey support information. Thus unknowns (such as rock excavation, removal of unsuitable material, relocation of unseen utilities, etc.) were assumed in a project contingency percentage. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 50 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GISUser Community AOB Projects Alamo AOB Boundary Walnut Creek and Danville City Limits 3 4.3 4.2 2 4.1 5 FIGURE 2Selected Projects for Alamo AOB Program See Appendix B for details of proposed projects 11 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 51 Nexus Study - Alamo AOB Program 14 The cost estimates include the following appropriate percentages that are key elements in the implementation of each project:  Project contingencies,  Survey, design and construction management,  Environmental mitigation,  Right-of-way acquisition The cost estimates for each of the selected projects for funding by the Alamo AOB, shown in Table 8 are provided in Appendix C. Table 8 Costs of Selected Projects Project Estimated Cost 2. Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements $3,614,000 4. Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Stone Valley Middle School, Alamo Elementary School and Rancho Romero Elementary School 4.1 Hemme Avenue Sidewalk $566,000 4.2 Miranda Avenue Natural Pathway $922,000 4.3 Livorna Road Sidewalk Improvements $831,000 5. Safety Improvements at intersection of Danville Boulevard and Hemme Avenue $504,000 Total $6,437,000 Current Alamo AOB Fund Balance $0 Unfunded Cost of Improvements $6,437,000 Source: Appendix B; DKS Associates 2014. The total unfunded cost of these selected projects ($6.4 million) is greater than the $2.9 million needed to accommodate growth by maintaining the existing facility standard shown in Table 7. This comparison indicates that new development could not fully fund this final list of selected projects. Therefore, this County will need to rely on other funding sources to fund the difference between the total unfunded cost of these projects and the amount attributable to new development. 6. Method for Calculating Fees The cost per DUE (i.e. cost for a typical single-family dwelling unit) is calculated by dividing the total costs allocated to new development in the AOB (methods described above) by the total growth in DUEs in the AOB by 2040 (see Table 4). The cost for each land use type is then based on its DUE rate. The nexus-based fee rates are shown in Table 9. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 52 Nexus Study - Alamo AOB Program 15 Table 9 Maximum Justified Fee Rates for Alamo AOB Land Use Units DUE per Unit1 Existing Facility Standard ($ per DUE)2 Maximum Justified Fee per Unit1 Single Family Dwelling Unit 1.00 $20,964 $20,964 Multi-Family 0.61 $20,964 $12,788 Retail 1,000 Square Foot 1.42 $20,964 $29,769 Office 1.15 $20,964 $24,109 Industrial 0.91 $20,964 $19,077 Other Dwelling Unit Equivalent 1.00 $20,964 $20,964 1 See Table 3: “Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) Rates”. 2 See Table 6: “Existing Transportation Facility Standard”. 3 Maximum justified fee per Unit = (DUE per Unit) x (Existing Facility Standard per DUE). Source: Urban Economics, 2014. 7. Nexus Analysis This nexus analysis has been prepared on the Alamo AOB Program in accordance with the procedural guidelines established in AB1600, which is codified as the Mitigation Fee Act in California Government Section 66000 et seq. These code sections set forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees. These procedures require that “a reasonable relationship or nexus must exit between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.” Specifically, each local agency imposing a fee must:  Identify the purpose of the fee;  Identify how the fee is to be used;  Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.  Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and,  Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 7.1 Purpose of fee The purpose of the Alamo AOB Program is to fund improvements to the County’s major roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities needed to accommodate travel demand generated by new land development in the unincorporated portion of Alamo AOB over the next 27 years (through 2040). The Alamo AOB Program will help meet the County’s General Plan policies, including maintenance of adequate levels of service and safety for roadway facilities. New development in the unincorporated portions of the Alamo AOB will increase the demand for all modes of travel (including walking, biking, transit, automobile and truck/goods movement), and thus, will increase the need for improvements to December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 53 Nexus Study - Alamo AOB Program 16 transportation facilities. The Alamo AOB Program will help fund transportation facilities necessary to accommodate new residential and non-residential development in the unincorporated portions of the Alamo AOB through 2040. 7.2 Use of Fees The fees from new development in the Alamo AOB will be used to fund additions and improvements to the transportation system needed to accommodate future travel demand resulting from residential and non-residential development within the Alamo AOB through 2040. The Alamo AOB Program will help fund improvements to roadways (including, intersection improvements and provision of shoulders) bikeways and walkways. The transportation improvements wholly or partially funded by the program are described in more detail in Section 4. 7.3 Relationship between use of Fees and Type of Development Fee revenues generated by the Alamo AOB Program will be used to develop the transportation improvements described in Section 4. All of these improvements increase the capacity, improve the safety, or facilitate the use of alternative modes (bicycle and pedestrian), on those segments of the transportation system affected by new development. The results of the transportation modeling analysis summarized in this report demonstrate that these improvements either mitigate impacts from and/or provide benefits to new development. 7.4 Relationship between Need for Facility and Type of Development The projected residential and non-residential development described in Section 3 will add to the incremental need for transportation facilities by increasing the amount of demand on the transportation system. The transportation analysis presented in Section 4 demonstrates that improvements are required to minimize the negative impact on the existing transportation system caused by new development and/or accommodate the increased need for alternative transportation modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian). 7.5 Relationship between Amount of Fees and the Cost of Facility Attributed to Development upon which Fee is Imposed The basis for allocating improvement costs to development is described in Section 6. Construction of necessary transportation improvements will directly serve residential and non-residential development within the unincorporated portions of the AOB and will directly benefit development in those areas. Development impacts are based on maintaining the same level of investment in the transportation system that the County has made to date, measured per vehicle-mile of travel (VMT). Thus new development would fund additions to the existing value of the street system in proportion to growth in new VMT from development. The fee that a developer pays for a new residential unit or commercial building varies by the type of development based on its impact on the transportation system. Each development type is assigned a “dwelling unit equivalent” or “DUE” rate based on its estimated vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) per unit of development. DUE’s are numerical measures of how the trip-making characteristics of a land use compare to a single- family residential unit. DUE’s were developed by comparing both the trip generation and trip length characteristics of various land uses to those of the single-family residential units. Since roadway needs are primarily based on traffic flows and conditions during the peak hour on an average weekday, the DUE’s reflect the relative trip generation for the peak hour. Also considered in the calculation of DUE’s are “percent new” trips. The DUE rates were thus based on estimates of the average vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) generated during the peak hour for each general land use type. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 54 Nexus Study - Alamo AOB Program 17 7.6 Current AOB Fund Balance The Stone Valley Road Bike Lane Gap Closure and the Livorna Road and Wilson Road Intersection Improvements (Projects 1 and 3 described in Section 4.6) have recently been constructed using the remaining funds in the Alamo AOB account. Thus, as of January 2016, there is no existing fund balance for the Alamo AOB. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 55 Nexus Study - Alamo AOB Program A-1 Appendix A Estimating Replacement Value of Existing Roadways in Alamo AOB December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 56 Nexus Study - Alamo AOB Program A-2 Table A-1 Units Cost for Estimating Replacement Value of Existing Roadways in Alamo AOB Roadway Material and Earthwork Costs Item Cost Notes Clearing & Grubbing $0.50/SF Area assumed includes footprint of roadway, plus 10% for constructability Earthwork $6.00/SF Assumes 2.5' of excavation and cost of trucking 80% of the material away Class 2 Aggregate Base $65/CY AB layer assumed at 1.5' deep HMA (Type A) $110/Ton HMA layer assumed at 5" for roads <30' wide, 6" for roads 30'-53' wide, and 8" for roads >53' wide Striping $3/LF LF cost is for a single stripe. The length of the roadway segment is first multiplied by [(# of lanes) +1] Other Costs Item Percent of Material and Earthwork Cost Notes Drainage 10% Assumes "typical" terrain and surrounding environment. Some locations may require special consideration for drainage, utility, and/or environmental factors, and are expected to cost more than the "typical" percentage assumed in this analysis. Utility Coordination 5% Environmental 4% Planning 10% Engineering/Survey 15% Construction Engineering 15% Mobilization 10% Item Cost Notes Right-of-way $10/SF Cost only includes the right-of-way needed for the paved roadway section. Current right-of-way typically extends beyond the paved roadway section. Source: DKS Associates, 2014 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 57 Nexus Study - Alamo AOB Program A-3 Table A-2 Average Replacement Value per Linear Foot of Existing Major Roadways Roadway Pavement Width (feet) Average Replacement Cost per Linear Foot Roadway Pavement Width (feet) Average Replacement Cost per Linear Foot 16 $433 32 $860 17 $459 33 $887 18 $486 34 $913 19 $513 35 $940 20 $539 36 $967 21 $566 37 $994 22 $593 38 $1,020 24 $646 40 $1,074 25 $673 45 $1,207 26 $700 47 $1,261 27 $726 53 $1,421 28 $753 54 $1,448 29 $780 60 $1,608 30 $807 61 $1,635 31 $833 80 $2,143 Average for Major Roadways $861  Source: DKS Associates, 2014. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 58 Nexus Study - Alamo AOB Program B-1 Appendix B Process for Developing and Selecting Projects for the Alamo AOB New projects for the Alamo AOB program were developed in close collaboration with the Municipal Advisory Council and with substantial community input. Four highly advertised community-outreach meetings were held over a six-month period. The purpose of each meeting and the dates each was held are as follows:  Meeting #1: Provide an introduction of the AOB analysis process and schedule to the Municipal Advisory Council and solicit community input- February 26, 2013  Meeting #2: Present and discuss the results of the evaluation of existing and future (2040) needs and deficiencies and solicit ideas for projects from the community – April 23, 2013  Meeting #3: Identify potential projects and a preliminary screening and solicit additional community input – June 19, 2013  Meeting #4: Present a recommended set of improvements to the Municipal Advisory Council and get community input – August 21, 2013 After an introduction to the AOB project in Meeting #1, the community participants were eager to offer suggestions for what type of project should and should not be considered. Many mentioned a past proposal to fund a widening of Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Road in the vicinity of their intersection to improve a poor level of service there. The speakers were clear that they did not want either road widened because it would change the semi-rural nature of the community and encourage drivers frustrated by congestion on I-680 to use Danville Boulevard as an alternative. Many in the audience expressed disapproval of funding of any roadway widening through the AOB program. Most of those in the audience who suggested project types for funding suggested pedestrian and bicycle improvements as well as safety projects in Downtown Alamo and around the public schools. In Community Meeting #2, the results of the needs analysis was given, and several projects were identified by the consulting team that could address deficiencies that had been identified. The participants in the meeting were then given the opportunity to comment on the projects identified by the consultants and identify additional projects that they would support. Participants were also given the opportunity to make additional suggestions by email after the meeting. From this process, 57 projects were identified. The projects on this list were assessed and sorted based upon whether the suggested projects were regional, operational or maintenance projects or capital projects eligible for AOB funding. Of the 57 potential projects suggested, 32 were considered eligible for AOB funding. They were grouped into the following categories:  Pedestrian Pathway and Bicycle Lane Improvements (9 projects)  Pedestrian Safety Improvements (3 projects)  Pedestrian Overcrossings (3 projects)  Neighborhood Traffic Management (1 projects)  Crosswalk Improvements (4 projects)  Add Left Turn lanes (1 project) December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 59 Nexus Study - Alamo AOB Program B-2  Create Center Turn Lanes (1 project)  Lengthening Turn Lane Pockets (1 project)  Eliminate “No Turn on Red” (3 projects)  Roundabouts at Intersections (5 projects)  Sight Distance Improvements (1 project) The 32 potential project suggestions were then rated on the basis of the following three criteria:  Feasibility – Is there adequate right of way and feasible from an engineering perspective?  Benefit – Does it significantly improve the mobility or safety of travel or reduce congestion  Cost – Are the total implementation costs low, medium or high? Each project was rated as High, Medium or Low for each criterion. The results of the analysis of eligibility for AOB funds and the application of the screening criteria were presented in Community Meeting #3. The proposed projects were discussed at length and a poll was taken of the participants as to the projects they preferred. The key conclusions from the discussion and the poll were as follows:  Pedestrian safety improvements rated highest particularly in Downtown Alamo and near schools  There was no desire for roadway expansion or increase in traffic capacity, particularly on Danville Boulevard  There was a strong desire to protect trees and other aspects of the semi-rural nature of Alamo In the community Meeting #4, the Municipal Advisory Council and the community participants were asked to consider a recommendation of new projects in four groupings:  Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements  Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements on Livorna Road, Stone Valley Road and Danville Boulevard  Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Stone Valley Middle, Alamo Elementary, and Rancho Romero Schools  Safety Improvements to the Danville Boulevard and Hemme Avenue intersection 1. After much discussion, several specific projects were approved by the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council for the Alamo AOB program list. The description of these improvements that were used to develop cost estimates are as follows: Stone Valley Road Bike Lane Gap Closure: Provide bike lanes along Stone Valley Road from 230' west of Miranda Avenue to 70' east of Alamo Hills Drive; and from 30' west of Monte Sereno Drive to 430' west of Green Valley Road 2. Downtown Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements – This project consists of four subprojects: 1. Proposed roundabout at the Intersection of Orchard Court and Danville Boulevard; 2. Installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Jackson Way and Danville Boulevard; 3. Installation of a roadway diet on Danville Boulevard between Stone Valley December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 60 Nexus Study - Alamo AOB Program B-3 Road and the proposed roundabout, and between Jackson Way and the roundabout; and 4. Supplemental sidewalk widening work near Stone Valley Road and Danville Boulevard. 3. Livorna Road and Wilson Road Intersection Improvements – Construct a signalized T-Intersection with dedicated left and right turn lanes and approach tapers. Wilson Road will be widened for 110 feet in length for a dedicated right turn lane to travel westbound onto Livorna Road. For eastbound Livorna Road, 580 feet prior to or west of Wilson lane will be widened to the south of centerline for an approach taper, deceleration lane, and a left turn lane pocket to travel northbound on Wilson Road; also approximately 320 feet along Livorna Road and east of Wilson Road will be tapered, to the south of centerline, to transition back to existing roadway width. An additional dedicated right turn lane for westbound Livorna Road traffic will be constructed, north of centerline, from Wilson Road to 320 feet east of Wilson Road. Other improvements include a signalized intersection at Wilson Road and Livorna Road. Improved pedestrian path will be constructed to provide access between Vernal Drive and easterly toward the Walnut Creek city limits. The remaining improvements will replace-in-kind existing shoulders/pathways and existing drainage features along the new road alignments. 4. Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Stone Valley Middle School, Alamo Elementary and Rancho Romero School – This project consists of following: 4.1. Hemme Avenue Sidewalk – Extend the sidewalk on the north side of the road from Barbee Lane to La Sonoma Way which will require reconstruction of a portion of the roadway pavement, and relocation of street improvements. 4.2. Miranda Avenue Natural Pathway – Improvements include the installation of a natural path along the west side between Stone Valley Road and the Stone Valley Middle School. The work will include the installation of a curb along the new path, tree protection, relocation of fencing and widening of pavement in some locations to accommodate on street bike lanes. 4.3. Livorna Avenue Sidewalk Improvements – Provide a new walkway and bike lane improvements along Livorna Road. Improvements also include storm drainage modifications and retaining wall construction. 5. Safty Improvements at intersection of Danville Boulevard and Hemme Avenue – Project includes extension of the existing left turn pocket for the northbound approach to the intersection about 100 feet. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 61 Nexus Study - Alamo AOB Program C-1 Appendix C Cost Estimates for Selected Projects in Alamo AOB December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 62 2 Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements 3,614,000$   4 Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Stone Valley Middle and Rancho Romero School 2,319,000$   4.1 Hemme Avenue Sidewalk 566,000$            4.2 Miranda Ave. Pathway Improvements 922,000$            4.3 Livorna Road Sidewalk Improvements 831,000$            5 Safety Improvements at the Intersection of Danville Boulevard and Hemme Avenue 504,000$           504,000$         Total 6,437,000$   Alamo Area of Benefit Summary of Costs for Selected Projects December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 63 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 64 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 65 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number WO 4.1 Project Name:Hemme Avenue Sidewalk Project Location:Hemme Ave between La Sonoma Way to Barbee Lane Description Hemme Avenue Sidewalk Project consists of extending the sidewalk on the north side of the road from Barbee Lane to La Sonoma Way which will require reconstruction of a portion of the roadway pavement, and relocation of street improvements. Project Length (ft):825 Date of Estimate:Apr. 8, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Construction Area Signs 1 EA 550.00$ 550$ 2 Traffic Control System 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000$ 3 Prepare Water Pollution Control Plan 1 LS 6,000.00$ 6,000$ 4 Remove Pavement 3450 SF 3.00$ 10,350$ 5 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 30,000.00$ 30,000$ 6 Saw Cut Pavement Edges 1650 LF 2.00$ 3,300$ 7 Roadway Excavation 70 CY 45.00$ 3,150$ 8 Imported Material (Shoulder Backing)10 TON 45.00$ 450$ 9 Class 2 Aggregate Base 80 CY 65.00$ 5,200$ 10 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)80 TON 110.00$ 8,800$ 11 Curb and Gutter 490 EA 35.00$ 17,150$ 12 Roadside Sign - One Post 2 EA 350.00$ 700$ 13 Concrete Sidewalk 2535 SF 7.50$ 19,013$ 14 ADA Curb Ramps 5 EA 3,000.00$ 15,000$ 15 Misc. Drainage Modifications 1 LS 17,900.00$ 17,900$ 16 Sign Relocation 2 EA 300.00$ 600$ 17 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe - Det. 21, No Passing Zones 825 LF 3.00$ 2,475$ 18 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe - Det. 27B, Right Edge Line 825 LF 2.00$ 1,650$ 19 Mobilization 1 LS 16,200.00$ 16,200$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000)162,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)10,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS 178,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*100,000$ OTHER COSTS (CON)36,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)5,000$ CONTINGENCY*27,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)30,000$ SUBTOTAL (CONTRACT IT 241,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey)30,000$ SUBTOTAL (PLAN)10,000$ Real Property Labor 100,000$ SUBTOTAL (PE)135,000$ R/W Acquisition 50,000$ SUBTOTAL (R/W)180,000$ Construction Engineering *36,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)361,000$ GRAND TOTAL 566,000$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)CURRENT YEAR 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION YEAR 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)566,000$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 66 Project 4.1 Hemme Avenue SidewalkDecember 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors67 P:\P\12\12127-003 Contra Costa AOB Alamo\Cost Estimate\Alamo Cost Estimates (2) TJK 11-26-13 with Summary_HTC v4DKS AssociatesPlanning Cost Estimate1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612Project Number WO 4.2Project Name:Miranda Ave. Pathway ImprovementsProject Location:Miranda Ave. Stone Valley Rd. to Stone Valley Middle School Description Miranda Avenue improvements include the installation of a natural path along the west side between Stone Valley Road and the Stone Valley Middle School. The work will include the installation of a curb along the new path, tree protection, relocation of fencing and widening of apvement in some locations to accommodate on street bike lanes. Project Length (ft):1650Date of Estimate:Apr. 8, 2014 Revision No.Revision DatePrepared by:T. KrakowRevised byNo. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total1 Construction Area Signs 1 EA 550.00$ 550$ 2 Traffic Control System 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000$ 3 Prepare Water Pollution Control Plan 1 LS 6,000.00$ 6,000$ 4 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 30,000.00$ 30,000$ 5 Saw Cut Pavement Edges 1115 LF 2.00$ 2,230$ 6 Relocate Mailbox and Trim Vegetation 1 EA 1,000.00$ 1,000$ 7 Remove and Replace Existing Fencing 130 LF 50.00$ 6,500$ 8 Remove and Replace Masonry Columns 6 EA 500.00$ 3,000$ 9Roadway Excavation211 CY45.00$ 9,495$ 10Imported Material (Shoulder Backing)25 TON45.00$ 1,125$ 11Class 2 Aggregate Base141 CY65.00$ 9,165$ 12Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)80 TON110.00$ 8,800$ 13Curb and Gutter 1639 EA35.00$ 57,365$ 14Roadside Sign - One Post 2 EA350.00$ 700$ 15Natural Pathway 1654 LF100.00$ 165,400$ 16ADA Curb Ramps4 EA3,000.00$ 12,000$ 17Misc. Drainage Modifications 1 LS5,250.00$ 5,250$ 18Driveway Aprons 4 EA1,400.00$ 5,600$ 19Trim Vegetation 1 LS1,000.00$ 1,000$ 20Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe - Det. 21, 1650 LF3.00$ 4,950$ 21Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe - Det. 27B, Right Edge Line3300 LF2.00$ 6,600$ 22Mobilization1 LS35,000.00$ 35,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 357,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)35,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS 392,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*100,000$ OTHER COSTS (CON)79,000$ Utility Coordination20,000$ CONTINGENCY*59,000$ Arborist 30,000$ SUBTOTAL (CONTRACT IT530,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)30,000$ SUBTOTAL (PLAN) 35,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey)30,000$ SUBTOTAL (PE) 180,000$ Real Property Labor100,000$ SUBTOTAL (R/W) 177,000$ R/W Acquisition47,000$ Construction Engineering *79,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees-$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL) 471,000$ GRAND TOTAL 922,000$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)CURRENT YEAR2014* Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION YEAR2014* CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE0.0%¾TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)922,000$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project.y,jClick here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project.December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors68 Project 4.2 Miranda Avenue Pathway ImprovementsDecember 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors69 P:\P\12\12127-003 Contra Costa AOB Alamo\Cost Estimate\Alamo Cost Estimates (2) TJK 11-26-13 with Summary_HTC v4DKS AssociatesPlanning Cost Estimate1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612Project Number WO 4.3Project Name:Livorna Road Sidewalk ImprovementsProject Location:Livorna Road between Wilson Road and Sugarloaf DriveDescription This project includes roadway improvements: a new walkway and bike lane improvements along Lavorna Road. Improvements also include storm drainage modifications and retaining wall construction. Project Length (ft):565Date of Estimate:Apr. 8, 2014 Revision No.Revision DatePrepared by:T. KrakowRevised byNo. Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total1 Construction Area Signs 2 EA 550.00$ 1,100$2 Traffic Control System 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000$3 Prepare Water Pollution Control Plan 1 LS 6,000.00$ 6,000$4 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 30,000.00$ 30,000$5 Saw Cut Pavement Edges 565 LF 2.00$ 1,130$6 Demolish Existing Paved Channel 495 LF 20.00$ 9,900$7 Roadway Excavation 295 CY 45.00$ 13,275$8 Imported Material (Shoulder Backing) 25 TON 45.00$ 1,125$9 Class 2 Aggregate Base 141 CY 65.00$ 9,165$10 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) 80 TON 110.00$ 8,800$11 Curb and Gutter 865 EA 35.00$ 30,275$12 Roadside Sign - One Post 2 EA 350.00$ 700$13 Pervious interlocking walkway 4325 SF 25.00$ 108,125$14 ADA Curb Ramps 6 EA 3,000.00$ 18,000$15 Storm Drainage Pipe 495 LF 150.00$ 74,250$16 Construct Interlocking Block Retaining Wall 190 LF 250.00$ 47,500$17 Trim Vegetation 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000$18Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe - Det. 21, 565 LF3.00$1,695$19Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe - Det. 27B, Right Edge Line1310 LF2.00$2,620$20Construct Irrigation and Landscaping 4325 SF10.00$43,250$21Mobilization1 LS35,000.00$35,000$CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 385,000$Planning Engineering (TE)35,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS 463,000$Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*100,000$OTHER COSTS (CON)93,000$Utility Coordination40,000$CONTINGENCY*70,000$SUBTOTAL (CONTRACT IT 626,000$Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)30,000$ SUBTOTAL (PLAN) 35,000$R/W Engineering (Survey)SUBTOTAL (PE) 170,000$Real Property LaborSUBTOTAL (R/W) -$R/W AcquisitionConstruction Engineering *93,000$Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees-$SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL) 298,000$ GRAND TOTAL 831,000$CURRENT YEAR2014ESCALATION YEAR2014* Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)ESCALATION RATE0.0%* Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)¾TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)831,000$* CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project.y,jffClick here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project.December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors70 Project 4.3 Livorna Avenue Sidewalk ImprovementsDecember 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors71 P:\P\12\12127-003 Contra Costa AOB Alamo\Cost Estimate\Alamo Cost Estimates (2) TJK 11-26-13 with Summary_HTC v4DKS AssociatesPlanning Cost Estimate1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612Project Number WO 5Project Name:Safety Improvements at the Intersection of Danville Blvd at Hemme Ave Project Location:Danville Blvd from Hemme Ave to Johnson Lane Description Project Length (ft):Date of Estimate:Revision No.Revision DatePrepared by:Danville Boulevard project includes extending the existing left turn pocket an additional 100-feet for the northbound approach to the intersection. 400Apr. 8, 2014T. KrakowRevised byNo.DescriptionQuantity Units Unit CostTotal1Construction Area Signs2 EA550.00$1,100$2Traffic Control System1 LS20,000.00$ 20,000$3Prepare Water Pollution Control Plan1 LS6,000.00$6,000$4Demolition1 LS30,000.00$ 30,000$5Saw Cut Pavement Edges500 LF2.00$1,000$6Roadway Excavation65 CY150.00$9,750$7Imported Material (Shoulder Backing)25 TON45.00$1,125$8Class 2 Aggregate Base65 CY65.00$4,225$9Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)55 TON110.00$6,050$10Storm Drainage Modifications 1 LS25,000.00$ 25,000$11Construct Interlocking Block Retaining Wall 190 LF250.00$47,500$12Tree Removal 12 EA750.00$9,000$13ADA Curb Ramp2 EA3,000.00$6,000$14Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe - Det. 27B, Right Edge Line500 LF2.00$1,000$15Construct Irrigation and Landscaping 4325 SF10.00$43,250$16Mobilization1 LS16,500.00$ 16,500$171819CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 168,000$ 2021Planning Engineering (TE)25,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS 228,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*100,000$ OTHER COSTS (CON)46,000$Utility Coordination40,000$ CONTINGENCY*35,000$SUBTOTAL (CONTRACT IT309,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)30,000$ SUBTOTAL (PLAN) 25,000$R/W Engineering (Survey)SUBTOTAL (PE)170,000$ Real Property LaborSUBTOTAL (R/W) -$R/W AcquisitionConstruction Engineering *46,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees-$SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)241,000$ GRAND TOTAL504,000$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)CURRENT YEAR2014* Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION YEAR2014* CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE0.0%¾TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)504,000$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project.y,jClick here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project.December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors72 +6*35 Project 5 Safety Improvements at the Intersection of Danville Blvd and Hemme Ave December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 73 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 74 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 75 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 76 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 77 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 78 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 79 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 80 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 81 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 82 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 83 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 84 Exhibit Alamo Area of Benefit Boundary Legal Description and Map A A portion of south central Contra Costa County, California, bounded on the northwest by “South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit” adopted December 6, 1994 by Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors’ (hereinafter referred to as Board) Resolution 94/604, bounded on the north and southwest by “Central County Area of Benefit” adopted June 13, 1995 by Board Resolution 95/273, and bounded on the east and south by “South County Area of Benefit” adopted August 6, 1996 by Board Resolution 96/344. Beginning on the boundary of “Central County Area of Benefit” at the most eastern corner of “South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit”, being the intersection of the centerline of Crest Avenue with the extended west right of way line of South Main Street; thence from the Point of Beginning along the boundary of “Central County Area of Benefit” in a general easterly direction 48,280 feet, more or less, to the northeast line of PARCEL “D” of Subdivision 5536 filed March 17, 1981 in Book 250 of Maps at page 8, being an angle point on the boundary of “South County Area of Benefit”; thence leaving the boundary of “Central County Area of Benefit” and following the boundary of “South County Area of Benefit” in a general southeasterly direction and then in a general westerly direction, a total of 49,450 feet, more or less, to the boundary of “Central County Area of Benefit” on the east line of Section 24, Township 1 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence leaving the boundary of “South County Area of Benefit” and following the boundary of “Central County Area of Benefit” in a general northwesterly direction 23,270 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of Lot “B” shown on the Record of Survey filed March 13, 1984 in book 74 of Licensed Surveyors’ Maps at page 12, also being the most southeastern corner of “South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit”; thence leaving the boundary of “Central County Area of Benefit” and following the boundary of “South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit” in a general northerly direction and then in a general easterly direction, a total of 6,275 feet, more or less, to the most eastern corner thereof, the Point of Beginning. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 85 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 86 Julia R. Bueren, Director Deputy Directors Brian M. Balbas, Chief Mike Carlson Stephen Kowalewski Carrie Ricci Joe Yee "Accredited by the American Public Works Association" 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825 TEL: (925) 313-2000  FAX: (925) 313-2333 www.cccpublicworks.org ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ___________________ Development Program Report for the Alamo Area of Benefit October, 2016 Prepared Pursuant to Section 913 of the County Ordinance Code Prepared by and for: Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Transportation Engineering Division and Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 87 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 3: LOCATION AND BOUNDARY .................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 4: GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP ............................................................... 3 CHAPTER 5: PROJECT LIST ........................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ..................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 7: ESTIMATED COST OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS .......................................... 6 CHAPTER 8: METHOD OF COST APPORTIONMENT ....................................................... 7 CHAPTER 9: FEE RATES ............................................................................................... 10 CALCULATION OF FEES ........................................................................................................... 10 RECOMMENDED FEES ............................................................................................................. 11 CHAPTER 10: PROGRAM FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS............................................... 12 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES ...................................................................................................... 12 REVIEW OF FEES .................................................................................................................. 12 COLLECTION OF FEES ............................................................................................................. 12 INTEREST ON FEES ................................................................................................................ 13 DEDICATION IN LIEU OF FEE .................................................................................................... 13 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 88 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit List of Tables TABLE 1. ALAMO AOB PROJECTS 4 TABLE 2. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SUMMARY 5 TABLE 3. DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENT (DUE) RATES 7 TABLE 4. GROWTH IN DUE'S 8 TABLE 5. FEE CALCULATIONS 10 List of Exhibits EXHIBIT A. AREA OF BENEFIT BOUNDARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT B. AREA OF BENEFIT BOUNDARY PLAT MAP EXHIBIT C. ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT LIST WITH ASSOCIATED COSTS EXHIBIT D. NEXUS STUDY: ALAMO AREA OF BENEFIT December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 89 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit 1 OF 13 Chapter Introduction and Purpose 1 The Alamo Area of Benefit (“Alamo AOB”) was created as a means to collect funds to maintain and improve roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities needed to accommodate travel demand generated by new land development within the town of Alamo. This Development Program Report (“DPR”) contains information and data in support of maintaining the current fee imposed on development projects within the Alamo AOB. The DPR is required by Chapter 913-6 of the County Ordinance Code and is required by the Board of Supervisors’ Policy on Bridge Crossing and Major Thoroughfare Fees (adopted July 17, 1979), which implements Division 913 of the County Ordinance Code and section 66484 of the State Subdivision Map Act. One of the objectives of the County General Plan is to connect new development directly to the provision of community facilities necessary to serve that development. In other words, development cannot be allowed to occur unless a mechanism is in place to provide the funding for the infrastructure necessary to serve that development. The Alamo AOB Fee is a means of raising revenue to construct road improvements to serve new developments. Requiring that all new development pay a road improvement fee will help ensure that they participate in the cost of improving the road system. Each new development or expansion of an existing development will generate additional traffic. Where the existing road system is inadequate to meet future needs of new development, improvements are required to meet the new demand. The purpose of a development program is to determine improvements ultimately required by future development and to require developers to pay a fee to fund these improvements. Because the Alamo AOB Fee is based on the relative impact on the road system and the costs of the necessary improvements to mitigate this impact, the fee amount is roughly proportional to the development impact. This report discusses the basis of that fee amount. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 90 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit 2 OF 13 Chapter Background 2 On March 15, 1988, the Board of Supervisors (“Board”) passed a resolution forming the Countywide Area of Benefit (“Countywide AOB”) to improve the capacity and safety of the arterial road network in the County through the establishment of a traffic mitigation fee ordinance (Resolution 88/122 and Ordinance 88-27). This ordinance applied to unincorporated areas of the County and outlined boundaries of seven areas of benefit, including the Alamo AOB, within the original Countywide AOB. The Alamo AOB was last updated in 1998. In recent years, the area within the Alamo AOB has experienced changes in the area’s traffic circulation needs and development potential. Most of the residential development potential has been fulfilled, and many of the original AOB projects have been constructed. The Alamo AOB is about 98 percent built out, based on projections for a 25-year (2015-2040) planning horizon. Yet new development and expansion of existing development continues, which will generate new travel demand across all travel modes. These changes in AOB area and growth potential have prompted an update to the AOB program, resulting in an amended project list and fee schedule. Over the past 29 years, AOB fees have helped pay for improvements to Stone Valley Road, Miranda Avenue, Livorna Road, and Danville Boulevard. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 91 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit 3 OF 13 Chapter Location and Boundary 3 The Alamo AOB boundary location is described in Exhibit A and generally shown in Exhibit B. Chapter General Plan Relationship 4 The Alamo AOB is consistent with the features of the County General Plan and its amendments, and subscribes to the policies of the General Plan elements. The General Plan policies include, but are not limited to, improving the County roadway network to meet existing and future traffic demands. The Alamo AOB Fee will assist in funding the necessary roadway improvements required for future growth as shown in the General Plan. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 92 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit 4 OF 13 Chapter Project List 5 The project list for the Alamo AOB is set forth in Table 1 below. This list contains three projects, mainly related to pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. The improvements not related to pedestrian and bicyclist safety are focused on capacity improvements at intersections. The improvements proposed on the Alamo AOB project list were identified in a cooperative effort by the Public Works Department and community stakeholders. The proposed improvements will be reviewed periodically to assess the impacts of changing travel patterns, the rate of development, and the accuracy of the estimated project costs. The periodic review of the program will also allow staff to evaluate project priority and the need to increase fees should project costs increase or exceed the rate of inflation. Table 1. Proposed Project List for Alamo AOB Program Alamo AOB Recommended Projects Danville Blvd/Orchard Ct Complete Streets Improvements Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Stone Valley Middle School, Alamo Elementary, and Rancho Romero School 1. Hemme Avenue Sidewalk 2. Miranda Avenue Natural Pathway 3. Livorna Road Sidewalk Improvements Safety Improvements at intersection of Danville Blvd and Hemme Ave December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 93 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit 5 OF 13 The “Nexus Study: Alamo Area of Benefit” (“Nexus Study”), dated October 2016, was prepared by DKS Associates in collaboration with Urban Economics for the Public Works Department and is attached as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference. The Nexus Study provides the technical basis for establishing the required nexus between the anticipated future development within the Alamo AOB boundary and the need for certain facilities. The projected growth in households, employment, and vehicle-miles traveled within the Alamo AOB is discussed and shown in the Nexus Study. A summary of the potential new residential dwelling units, office, industrial, and commercial/ retail developments (net growth from 2010 to 2040) for the unincorporated portion of AOB is shown in Table 2. Table 2. Development Potential Summary Land Use Category Units Single-Family Residential 102 dwelling units Multi-Family Residential 0 dwelling units Office 30,000 sq ft Industrial 0 sq ft Commercial/Retail 0 sq ft Chapter Development Potential 6 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 94 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit 6 OF 13 Chapter Estimated Cost of Road Improvements 7 The estimated costs of the road improvements planned for the Alamo AOB are shown in Exhibit C. The Alamo AOB will only finance the proportional share of the improvements necessitated by the impact on the road system from new development. Detailed cost estimates for the projects included in the road improvement plan are provided in Appendix C of the Nexus Study. The County will assess an administrative fee equal to 2% of the applicable fee. This additional fee will be used to cover staff time for fee collection, accounting, and technical support to the community groups and traffic advisory committees. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 95 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit 7 OF 13 Chapter Method of Fee Apportionment 8 The total estimated cost of the projects included in the Alamo AOB project list is $6,437,000. The cost to accommodate new development within the Alamo AOB is $2,872,000. The expected growth in the Alamo AOB to the year 2040 is 102 dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of office space. To determine a fee rate per unit, first each development type is assigned a dwelling unit equivalent or “DUE” rate. DUEs compare the trip making characteristics of a land use in relation to a typical single-family residential unit, which is assigned a DUE of 1. Land uses with lower overall traffic impacts than a single family home are assigned values less than 1, and vice versa. The following Table shows the DUE rates for the various land use categories. Table 3 Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) Rates Land Use Category PM Peak Hour Trip Rate per Unit1 Unit Trip Length (miles)2 Percent New trips2 VMT per Unit DUE per Unit Singe Family 1.01 Dwelling Unit 5.0 100 5.050 1.00 Multi-Family 0.62 5.0 100 3.100 0.61 Retail 4.10 1,000 Square Feet 2.3 76 7.167 1.42 Office 1.40 4.5 92 5.796 1.15 Industrial 0.98 5.1 92 4.598 0.91 1 ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition 2 ITE Journal, May 1992 Source: DKS Associates, 2014 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 96 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit 8 OF 13 Table 4 Growth in DUEs Land Use Category Unit Growth in Units1 DUE per Unit Growth in DUEs Singe Family Dwelling Unit 102 1.00 102 Multi-Family 0 0.61 0 Retail 1,000 Square Feet 0 1.42 0 Office 30 1.15 35 Industrial 0 0.91 0 Total 137 1 See Table 2: “Summary of Estimated Development 2010 to 2040 Growth” Source: DKS Associates, 2014 The growth in DUEs for each land use and the total growth in DUEs is shown above in Table 4. Because the DUE rates are based on estimates of the average vehicle-miles of travel generated during the PM peak hours for each general land use type, the developments are charged fees in proportion to the amount of traffic impact they are projected to generate. In this way, the fees attributed to each new parcel will be proportional to the estimated benefits they receive through use of the new improvements. The existing facility standard, or transportation infrastructure investment per dwelling unit, is identified in the nexus study as $20,964 per DUE and is calculated by dividing the existing transportation system value ($158,842,800 as calculated in the nexus study in Table 5) by the total number of existing DUEs. The resulting value of $20,964 represents the existing level of investment per parcel in AOB. Table 5 Existing Transportation System Facility Standard Existing Transportation System Value1 $158,842,800 Existing DUEs2 7,577 Existing Facility Standard ($ per DUE) $20,964 Source: Urban Economics, 2014. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 97 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit 9 OF 13 Based on the existing facility standard shown in Table 5 and the estimated growth in DUEs, the total obligation of new development within the Alamo AOB is $2,872,000 as shown below in Table 6. Table 6 Obligation From New Development Existing Facility Standard ($ per DUE)1 $20,964 Growth in DUEs (2010-2040)2 137 Total Costs To Accommodate Growth (2010-2040) $2,872,000 Source: Urban Economics, 2014. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 98 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit 10 OF 13 Chapter Fee Rates 9 Calculation of Fees The fee calculation is set forth in detail in the Nexus Study. To determine a maximum fee rate for each land use category, the Cost per DUE is multiplied by the DUE per unit. In the residential categories, this results in a fee per dwelling unit. In the non- residential categories, the fee is listed per square foot. These calculations are summarized in Table 7 below. Table 7. Fee Calculations Nexus-Based Fee Rates for Alamo AOB Cost of Improvements Allocated to AOB Growth in Dwelling Unit Equivalents Cost per DUE $2,872,000 137 $20,964 Land Use Units DUE per Unit Maximum Fee per Unit1 Single Family Multi-Family Retail Office Industrial Other Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Square Foot Square Foot Square Foot Dwelling Unit Equivalent 1.00 0.61 0.00142 0.00115 0.00091 1.00 $20,964 $12,788 $29.77 $24.11 $19.08 $20,964 1 Maximum Fee per Unit = (Cost per DUE) x (DUE per Unit) Source: DKS Associates, 2014 To determine the DUE for a development considered “Other,” the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are first estimated using a combination of trip generation data, the default rate for trip length, and percent new trips. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 99 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit 11 OF 13 Recommended Fees The potential maximum fee rates calculated in the Nexus Study and presented in Table 7 above are not the recommended fee rates for the Alamo AOB. These represent a 27% to 71% increase from the current fee schedule, depending on the land use category. It has been determined that maintaining the current fee rates would be best for the Alamo AOB to encourage continued economic growth by holding rates at approximately the current level as identified below in Table 8. Table 8. Fee Schedule to Implement Note: du = dwelling unit; sf = square foot; due = dwelling unit equivalent Land Use Category Calculated Nexus Fee Rate Proposed Fee Rate to Implement Single-Family $20,964 / du $12,102 / du Multi-Family $12,788 / du $10,080 / du Commercial $29.77 / sf $11.18 / sf Office $24.11 / sf $11.18 / sf Industrial $19.08 / sf $11.18 / sf Other $20,964 / due $12,102 / due December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 100 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit 12 OF 13 Chapter Program Finance Considerations 10 Other Funding Sources The improvements planned for the Alamo AOB will be only partially funded by Alamo AOB fee revenues. Other sources of funding, such as State or Federal aid, or local sources such as sales tax, gas tax, etc., will be pursued. These other funding sources include, but are not limited to, Regional Measure J Funds, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds, and Federal Program Funds. The rate at which revenue is generated by the Alamo AOB Fee depends on the rate of new development. This rate of revenue generation affects the timing of construction of the improvement projects because it is dependent upon the total amount of fees collected, less expenditures. Alternate sources of funding would permit construction of AOB projects sooner. Review of Fees Project cost estimates will be reviewed periodically while the Alamo AOB is in effect. On January 1 of each year thereafter, the amount of the fees will be increased or decreased based on the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area for the 12-month period ending with the October index of the previous calendar year, without further action of the Board of Supervisors. Collection of Fees Fees will be collected when a building permit is issued, in accordance with Section 913-4.204 of Title 9 (Subdivisions) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Fees collected will be deposited into an interest bearing trust fund established pursuant to Section 913-8.002 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 101 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit 13 OF 13 Interest on Fees The interest accrued on the fees collected shall continue to accumulate in the trust account and shall be expended for construction of the improvements, or to reimburse the County for the cost of constructing the improvements, pursuant to Section 913-8.006 of the County Ordinance Code. Dedication in Lieu of Fee A development may be required to construct, or dedicate right-of-way for a portion of the improvements as a condition of approval. In such an event, the developer may be eligible to receive credit for the fee or reimbursement. The eligible credit and/or reimbursement shall be determined in accordance with the County’s “Traffic Fee Credit and Reimbursement Policy.” December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 102 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit Exhibit Area of Benefit Boundary Legal Description A A portion of south central Contra Costa County, California, bounded on the northwest by “South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit” adopted December 6, 1994 by Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors’ (hereinafter referred to as Board) Resolution 94/604, bounded on the north and southwest by “Central County Area of Benefit” adopted June 13, 1995 by Board Resolution 95/273, and bounded on the east and south by “South County Area of Benefit” adopted August 6, 1996 by Board Resolution 96/344. Beginning on the boundary of “Central County Area of Benefit” at the most eastern corner of “South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit”, being the intersection of the centerline of Crest Avenue with the extended west right of way line of South Main Street; thence from the Point of Beginning along the boundary of “Central County Area of Benefit” in a general easterly direction 48,280 feet, more or less, to the northeast line of PARCEL “D” of Subdivision 5536 filed March 17, 1981 in Book 250 of Maps at page 8, being an angle point on the boundary of “South County Area of Benefit”; thence leaving the boundary of “Central County Area of Benefit” and following the boundary of “South County Area of Benefit” in a general southeasterly direction and then in a general westerly direction, a total of 49,450 feet, more or less, to the boundary of “Central County Area of Benefit” on the east line of Section 24, Township 1 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence leaving the boundary of “South County Area of Benefit” and following the boundary of “Central County Area of Benefit” in a general northwesterly direction 23,270 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of Lot “B” shown on the Record of Survey filed March 13, 1984 in book 74 of Licensed Surveyors’ Maps at page 12, also being the most southeastern corner of “South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit”; thence leaving the boundary of “Central County Area of Benefit” and following the boundary of “South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit” in a general northerly direction and then in a general easterly direction, a total of 6,275 feet, more or less, to the most eastern corner thereof, the Point of Beginning. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 103 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit Exhibit B Area of Benefit Boundary Plat Map December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 104 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit Exhibit Road Improvement Plan – Project List with Associated Costs C Allocation of Project Costs to Alamo AOB Program Recommended Project Estimated Total Cost Danville Blvd/Orchard Ct Complete Streets Improvements $3,614,000 Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Stone Valley Middle School, Alamo Elementary, and Rancho Romero School 1. Hemme Avenue Sidewalk $566,000 2. Miranda Avenue Natural Pathway $922,000 3. Livorna Road Sidewalk Improvements $831,000 Safety Improvements at intersection of Danville Blvd and Hemme Ave $504,000 Total $6,437,000 Source: DKS Associates, 2014 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 105 Development Program Report for the ALAMO Area of Benefit Exhibit Nexus Study Alamo Area of Benefit D Exhibit D Attached as separate document December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 106 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 107 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 108 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 109 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 110 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 111 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 112 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 113 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 114 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 115 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 116 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing and RECEIVE public comment on the proposed amendment of the boundaries of Underground Utility District No. 31, Willow Pass Road/Bailey Road (Bay Point Area), and 2. CLOSE the public hearing. 3. ADOPT Resolution 2016/682 to amend the boundaries of Underground Utility District No. 31, Willow Pass Road/Bailey Road to include the three additional parcels and three additional utility poles depicted on Exhibit 1 to the resolution. 4. DETERMINE that amending the boundaries of Underground Utility District No. 31 is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and 5. DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk; and 6. AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of a $25 fee to Conservation and Development for processing, and a $50 fee to the Contra Costa County Clerk for filing, the CEQA Notice of Exemption. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jon Suemnick, (925) 313-2263 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Mary Halle, 925-313-2327, liza mangabay, 925-313-2232, Trina Torres, 925-313-2176 D. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING to consider adoption of Resolution No. 2016/682 to amend the boundaries of Underground Utility District No. 31. (District V) December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 117 FISCAL IMPACT: Undergrounding work within Undergrounding Utility District No. 31, as amended, will be funded under California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Rule 20A Program. Navy Mitigation Funds will be used for staff time to conduct community outreach, pre-construction project planning, and engineering. No general fund monies are involved. BACKGROUND: On September 10, 2013, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2013/351 and formed Underground Utility District No. 31 (UU 31), Willow Pass Road/Bailey Road (Bay Point Area). The formation of UU 31 allows the use of Public Utilities Commission Electric Rule 20A and Telecommunications Rule 32 funding for undergrounding certain utilities within UU31. After UU 31 was formed, Public Works staff and PG&E representatives surveyed the site and identified an additional three utility poles, and the corresponding parcels, that should be added to UU 31. The three parcels of property are more particularly identified on the attached UU 31 boundary map. Public Works Department staff have contacted the owners of those parcels. The owners of those parcels have expressed an interest in having their parcels added within UU 31. Adding these three parcels to UU 31 will enhance the purposes of the project, which are: (1) ensuring that these areas will be prepared for future pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Bailey Road; (2) improving aesthetics and street enhancement to encourage persons to walk from the Bay Point BART station to downtown Bay Point; (3) promoting foot traffic and corresponding decreases in motorized travel along the busy Bailey Road/Willow Pass Road corridor. Adding these three parcels to UU 31 will ensure that utilities on and adjacent to these parcels can be undergrounded using Rule 20A funds administered by PG&E. Public Works Department staff have determined that the addition of three parcels within UU 31 is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). Pursuant to Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section 1008-2.004, at least 10 days before this hearing notice of the date and time of this hearing was mailed to the owners of the three parcels to be added to UU 31, as shown on the last equalized assessment role. For the above reasons, Public Works Department staff recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the amendment of the UU 31 boundaries to include the three additional parcels identified on the attached boundary map. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the amendment of the boundaries of Underground Utility District No. 31 will result in the Project being restricted to the original boundary. CLERK'S ADDENDUM CLOSED the public hearing; ADOPTED Resolution 2016/682 to amend the boundaries of Underground Utility District No. 31, Willow Pass Road/Bailey Road to include the three additional parcels and three additional utility poles depicted on Exhibit 1 to the resolution; DETERMINED that amending the boundaries of Underground Utility District No. 31 is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and DIRECTED the Director of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk; and AUTHORIZED the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of a $25 fee to Conservation and Development for processing, and a $50 fee to the Contra Costa County Clerk for filing, the CEQA Notice of Exemption. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/682 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 118 Resolution No. 2016/682 Underground Utility District Boundary Map CEQA - Bay Point Utility Undergrounding, Dist. 31 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/682 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 119 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 12/20/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff NO: ABSENT:Federal D. Glover ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/682 IN THE MATTER OF boundary modification of Underground Utility District No.31, Willow Pass Road/Bailey Road, Bay Point area (District V), as recommended by the Public Works Director, Bay Point area. (District V) WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has authorized electric and telecommunication utilities to convert overhead utility lines and facilities to underground pursuant to Electric Rule 20 and Telecommunication Rule 32, and WHEREAS, pursuant to certain criteria, CPUC rules allow participating cities and counties to establish legislation authorizing the creation of underground utility districts within which existing overhead electric distribution and telecommunication distribution and service facilities will be converted to underground, and WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa, has adopted an ordinance authorizing the Board of Supervisors to designate areas within which all existing overhead poles, overhead wires and overhead equipment associated with the distribution of electric power, telecommunication services and cable television should be removed and replaced with underground wires and facilities (County Ordinance Code, Ch. 1008-2); and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2013, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 2013/351 and formed Underground Utility District No. 31 (“District”), Willow Pass Road/Bailey Road, in the Bay Point area of Contra Costa County, more particularly identified in Exhibit 1, attached hereto; and WHEREAS, following the formation of the District, Public Works Department staff and Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) representatives surveyed the District and identified three additional utility poles, and the adjacent parcels, that should be added to the District; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works for the County of Contra Costa has consulted with the Pacific Gas & Electric Co., AT&T, and Comcast (the “Utility Companies”) and each utility has agreed that the proposed amendment to the District boundaries meets the criteria established by the rules of the CPUC, to wit, WHEREAS, each year County of Contra Costa is notified by Pacific Gas and Electric (“PG&E”) regarding the allocation of work credits for conversion of overhead electric distribution lines and facilities to underground, known as Rule 20A allocations, and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has consulted with PG&E and determined that the County has accumulated Rule 20A work credits sufficient to complete the proposed overhead to underground conversion project within the District as amended to include the three additional utility poles and parcels, and WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa and the affected utilities have agreed by letter that each utility shall complete the engineering of their respective portion of the Bay Point Utility Undergrounding Project, and WHEREAS, to the extent required, the County of Contra Costa has agreed to provide easements or rights of way on private property as may be necessary for installation of utility facilities in a form satisfactory to the affected utilities, and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa has now received the report from the Director of Public Works recommending that the area within the identified modified District boundary, as shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto, should be added to the District, within which all existing overhead poles, overhead wires and overhead equipment associated with 4 1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 120 the distribution of electric power, telecommunication services and cable television should be removed and replaced with underground wires and facilities; and WHEREAS, the modification of the District boundaries to include three additional utility poles and three additional adjacent parcels of property, as shown in Exhibit 1, is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. WHEREAS, removal of overhead utilities and relocation of the utilities underground within the area to be added to the District will advance the health, safety, and welfare of County residents and businesses by providing an improved pedestrian and bicycle environment, increasing foot traffic within downtown Bay Point, and improving aesthetics within the District. WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa notified all affected owners of the parcels to be added to the District, as shown on the last equalized assessment role, and the Utility Companies of the date, time, and location of the public hearing concerning this proposed modification of the District boundaries, as required by Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, section 1008-2.004; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa held a public hearing at which time the Board received and considered the recommendation of the Director of Public Works, any and all objections or protests that were raised by the owners of property within the above-described area to be added to the District and WHEREAS, except as expressly provided herein, nothing in this resolution is intended to modify or supersede Resolution No. 2013/351. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa as follows: The Board: 1. FINDS that the public health, safety and welfare require the removal of all existing utility poles (excepting those poles supporting streetlights, traffic signals or trolley lines), overhead wires and associated overhead structures and installation of underground wires and facilities for supplying electric power, communication, or similar associated services from within the area shown in Exhibit 1, attached hereto, being added to Underground Utility District No.31, Willow Pass Road/Bailey Road, Bay Point Area (the "District"). 2. FURTHER FINDS that, relocating overhead utility infrastructure underground within the area being added to the District is in the public interest for the following reasons: (1) undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead electric facilities; and (2) the road is extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic; and (3) the road is considered an arterial street or major collector as defined in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines. 3. ACKNOWLEDGES that wheelchair access is in the public interest and was considered as a basis for modifying the boundaries of the District by this resolution. 4. APPROVES the amendment of the boundaries of the District to include three additional utility poles and three additional adjacent parcels of property, as more particularly shown in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “District Addition”). The District boundaries, inclusive of the Boundary Addition, are more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit 1. 5. ORDERS: A. That the Utility Companies, cable television services and other affected services shall commence work on installation of underground facility installation in the District addition and that as each phase of the project is complete and ready for conversion from overhead to underground utility facilities, all fronting property owners within the District Addition shall be notified by first class letter, postage pre-paid, of the schedule for conversion of all utility service lines, and B. PG&E shall use the underground conversion allocation computed pursuant to decisions of the California Public Utilities Commission for the purpose of providing to each premises requiring it in the District Addition an individual electric service trenching and conductor (as well as backfill, paving and conduit, if required) and each other serving utility shall provide service trenching and conductor in accordance with its rules and tariffs on file with the California Public Utilities Commission or as required by its Franchise Agreement with the County of Contra Costa, and C. PG&E shall use said underground conversion allowance allocation, for the conversion of electric service panels to accept underground service in the District Addition, and shall utilize Rule 20A credits for the remaining expense for the conversion of the electric service expense for the conversion of electric service panels to accept underground service and each property owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the conduit and termination box located on, under or within any structure on the premises served, and D. That within 90 days after all services have been converted from overhead to underground, PG&E, AT&T and Comcast shall remove all poles (except as specified above) and associated overhead facilities in the District Addition. PG&E is authorized to December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 121 discontinue overhead service upon completion of the relocation of overhead facilities and connection of the utilities to properties within the District Addition. All relocation of overhead facilities and discontinuance of overhead service within the District Addition must be completed by June 1, 2019. 6. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to mail the following documents to each property owner within the District Addition, as shown on the most recent equalized assessment roll, and all affected utilities, within 10 days after the adoption of this resolution pursuant to Ordinance Code section 1008-2.014: a copy of this resolution; a copy of Ordinance Code chapter 1008-2; and a notice stating that if the property owner, or any person occupying the property, desires to continue to receive services from PG&E, Comcast, and AT&T, the property owner or occupant shall provide necessary facility changes on the property and/or grant utilities a permit-to-enter, as specified in the resolution, so as to receive that utility service after the utility-undergrounding work is completed, subject to applicable rules, regulations, and tariffs of PG&E on file with the Public Utilities Commission. Contact: Jon Suemnick, (925) 313-2263 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Mary Halle, 925-313-2327, liza mangabay, 925-313-2232, Trina Torres, 925-313-2176 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 122 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 123 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 124 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 125 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 126 DATE PLOTTED =>$DATETIME PLOTTED =>$TIME$REQUESTFILE =>SCALE 255 GLACIER DRIVE MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 PH: (925) 313-2000 FAX: (925) 313-2333 FEDERAL ID NO.: DB:JS CB:MH DATE:NOV 2016 SHEET 1 OF 1 DISTRICT #31 BAY POINT UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING REVISED DISTRICT BOUNDARY December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 127 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 128 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 129 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 130 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 131 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 132 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN a public hearing on a proposal to establish Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001; ACCEPT testimony. 2. CLOSE the public hearing. 3. FIND that the establishment of Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 is consistent with the General Plan. 4. FIND the proposed actions are consistent with the Williamson Act and the County's Williamson Act Program. 5. FIND the proposed actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317, and Section 15061 (b) (3). 6. Adopt Resolution No. 2016/325 to (1) ESTABLISH Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001; (2) APPROVE Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001; (3) AUTHORIZE the Chair to execute on behalf of the County Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001. 7. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to record Resolution No. 2016/325 and Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001 with the County Clerk Recorder and forward a copy to the California Department of Conservation, and the County Assessor's Office. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: John Oborne, 925-674-7793 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Williamson Act Contract AP16-0001 / Robert Nielsen December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 133 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 8. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption for this project. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The cost to review and process this application is borne by the Applicant. BACKGROUND: Robert J. Nielsen, Jr. (Owner) owns approximately 835 acres of land in the Tassajara Valley area, known as Assessor’s Parcel Number 205-050-007 (Property). The Owner has applied to re-establish a Land Conservation Contract / Agricultural Preserve on the Property pursuant to the Williamson Act (Government Code, Sections 51200 et seq.). This property was previously included in Land Conservation Contract 6-72. On December 6, 1989, the then-owner filed a Notice of Non-Renewal and Contract 6-72 expired on February 28, 1999. The current owner now wishes to establish a new Land Conservation Contract on the Property. The Williamson Act, through Land Conservation Contracts, restricts land uses and structures on property under contract. Under the Williamson Act, property may be encumbered by a Land Conservation Contract by mutual agreement between the County and land owner, provided that the land and land use complies with the requirements of the Williamson Act and the County’s Williamson Act Program. Under the Williamson Act, lands eligible to be encumbered by a Land Conservation Contract must be located within an agricultural preserve designated by the County and be dedicated to agricultural use. The restricted parcel is assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with its actual use, rather than potential market value. The Property is currently being used for grazing and the Owner intends on continuing that use on the land. There are no structures on the Property and the Owner does not propose any new structures. The Property is zoned A-80, Exclusive Agricultural District. The proposed Land Conservation Contract would apply to the entire Property and would restrict uses on the Property to those specifically allowed under contract or those allowed in the A-4, Agricultural Preserve District. The uses allowed in the A-80 District are generally consistent with the uses allowed in the A-4 District. Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001 appropriately restricts the Property to agricultural uses consistent with the Williamson Act and the County’s Williamson Act program. The Board of Supervisors may establish an agricultural preserve containing the Property in accordance with the Williamson Act. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 51230 and 51233, the Board must conduct a noticed public hearing on the establishment of an agricultural preserve, and provide notice of this hearing to the Local Agency Formation Commission and to any city within one mile of the exterior boundaries of the proposed agricultural preserve. Notice of a public hearing to establish Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 has been lawfully published in the Contra Costa Times and given to the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission. Although slightly more than a mile from the exterior boundary of the Property, the City of San Ramon was sent a notice. Staff recommends that the Board conduct a public hearing as required by the Williamson Act and determine that the establishment of Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 is consistent with the General Plan and the provisions of the Williamson Act. The subject Property lies within an area with a General Plan designation of Agricultural Lands (AL) and is being used for agricultural purposes. The establishment of this Agricultural Preserve furthers the purpose of the AL designation which is to preserve and protect lands capable of and generally used for production of food, fiber, and plant materials. The subject Property also satisfies the Williamson Act’s 100-acre minimum for establishing an agricultural preserve and the Property will be appropriately restricted as described above. The establishment of Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 and the making of Land Conservation Contract December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 134 The establishment of Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 and the making of Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001 are categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317). Further, these actions would not cause a significant effect on the environment because they restrict uses on the Property and it can be seen with certainty that these restrictions would not have a significant effect on the environment (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15061 (b) (3)). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not approve Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 for the Property the land would not be encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. CLERK'S ADDENDUM CLOSED the hearing; FOUND that the establishment of Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 is consistent with the General Plan;  FOUND the proposed actions are consistent with the Williamson Act and the County's Williamson Act Program;  FOUND the proposed actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317, and Section 15061 (b) (3);  ADOPTED Resolution No. 2016/325 to (1) ESTABLISH Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001; (2) APPROVE Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001; (3) AUTHORIZE the Chair to execute on behalf of the County Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001;  DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to record Resolution No. 2016/325 and Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001 with the County Clerk Recorder and forward a copy to the California Department of Conservation, and the County Assessor's Office.;  DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption for this project. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/325 Attachment A - Legal Description Attachment B - Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/325 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 135 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 12/20/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff NO: ABSENT:Federal D. Glover ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/325 WHEREAS, Robert J. Nielsen, Jr. (Owner) owns approximately 835 acres of land in the Tassajara Valley area, known as Assessor’s Parcel Number 205-050-007 (Property), and has applied to re-establish a Land Conservation Contract / Agricultural Preserve on the Property pursuant to the Williamson Act (Government Code, Sections 51200 et seq.) WHEREAS, the Property was a portion of Land Conservation Contract 6-72, and on December 6, 1989 the owner at that time filed a Notice of Non-Renewal and the Contract expired on February 28, 1999. The new owner now wishes to establish a new Land Conservation Contract on the Property. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors may, in accordance with the Williamson Act, establish an agricultural preserve containing the Property after proper notice and a public hearing, and upon finding that the establishment of the preserve is consistent with the General Plan. WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 51230 and 51233, proper notice of a public hearing to establish Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 was lawfully published in the Contra Costa Times and given to the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission and the City of San Ramon, and said public hearing was duly held by the Board of Supervisors on June 21, 2016. WHEREAS, the subject Property composing Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 lies within an area with a General Plan designation of Agricultural Lands (AL) and is being used for agricultural purposes. The establishment of this Agricultural Preserve furthers the purpose of the AL designation which is to preserve and protect lands capable of and generally used for production of food, fiber, and plant materials. The subject Property also satisfies the Williamson Act’s minimum acreage requirement for establishing an agricultural preserve and the Property will be appropriately restricted by the proposed Land Conservation Contract. WHEREAS, the Williamson Act, through Land Conservation Contracts, restricts land uses and structures on property under contract. Under the Williamson Act, property may be encumbered by a Land Conservation Contract by mutual agreement between the County and land owner, provided that the land and land use complies with the requirements of the Williamson Act and the County’s Williamson Act Program. WHEREAS, the Property is currently being used for grazing and the Owner intends on continuing the use on the land. There are no structures on the Property and the Owner does not propose any new structures. The Property is zoned A-80, Exclusive Agricultural District. The proposed Land Conservation Contract would apply to the entire Property and would restrict uses on the Property to those specifically allowed under contract or those allowed in the A-4, Agricultural Preserve District. The uses allowed in the A-80 District are generally consistent with the uses allowed in the A-4 District. WHEREAS, the establishment of Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 and the making of Land Conservation Contract AP 16-0001 are categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317). Further, these actions would not cause a significant effect on the environment because they restrict uses on the Property and it can be seen with certainty that these restrictions would not have a significant effect on the environment (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15061 (b) (3)). THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County: FINDS that the establishment of Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 is consistent with the General Plan. 1. 4 1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 136 FINDS that the establishment of Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 and approval of Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001 are consistent with the Williamson Act and the County’s Williamson Act Program. 2. FINDS that establishment of Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001, approval of Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001, and adoption of this resolution are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15317, and Section 15061 (b) (3). 3. ESTABLISHES Agricultural Preserve AP16-0001 containing approximately 835-acres of land in the Tassajara Valley area, known as APN 205-050-007, and more particularly described in Attachment “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 4. APPROVES Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001 encumbering APN 205-050-007, attached hereto as Attachment “B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. AUTHORIZES the Chair to execute on behalf of the County Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001. 6. DIRECTS the Department of Conservation and Development to record Resolution No. 2016/325 and Land Conservation Contract AP16-0001 with the County Clerk-Recorder and forward a copy to the California Department of Conservation, and the County Assessor’s Office. 7. DIRECTS the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notion of Exemption for this project. 8. Contact: John Oborne, 925-674-7793 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 137 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 138 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 139 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 140 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 141 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 142 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 143 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 144 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 145 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 146 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 147 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 148 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 149 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. CONSIDER accepting the report from Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) staff on the 2016 Urban Limit Line (ULL) Mid-term Review required under Measure L - 2006. 2. ACCEPT public comments. FISCAL IMPACT: The 2016 ULL Mid-term Review is being funded 100% from Land Development Fund, FY 2015/2016 and FY 2016/2017 budgets. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016 Urban Limit Line Mid-Term Review December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 150 BACKGROUND: Brief History of the Urban Limit Line On November 6, 1990, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure C - 1990, the Contra Costa County 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance ("65/35 Ordinance"). The 65/35 Ordinance limited urban development to no more than 35% of the land in the county and required at least 65% to be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses ("65/35 standard"). Measure C - 1990 also established the ULL, a boundary beyond which no urban land use could be established (see Attachment A, a current map of the ULL). Measure C - 1990 was set to expire on December 31, 2010. On November 7, 2006, County voters approved Measure L, which extended the term of the 65/35 Ordinance (including the ULL) to December 31, 2026 (see Attachment B, the voter information pamphlet for Measure L). Among other things, Measure L included the following requirement for a mid-term (2016) review of the ULL: The Board of Supervisors will review the boundary of the ULL in the year 2016. The purpose of the year 2016 review is to determine whether a change to the boundary of the County's Urban Limit Line Map is warranted, based on facts and circumstances resulting from the County's participation with the cities in a comprehensive review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County sufficient to satisfy housing and jobs needs for 20 years thereafter. This review of the ULL is in addition to any other reviews of the ULL the Board of Supervisors may conduct. As Measure L does not prescribe procedure for conducting the ULL review, on February 2, 2016, DCD staff presented the Board with a proposed approach (see Attachment C) which included the following major components: 1. Estimating Housing and Jobs Needs in Contra Costa County 2. Formulating Development Scenarios 3. Surveying the Cities 4. Public Meetings Staff explained that, consistent with Measure L, the ULL review would focus on capacity for jobs and housing and would not be studying the location of the ULL itself (i.e., the analysis would not include recommendations for expanding or contracting the ULL). The Board approved staff’s proposal and provided additional direction to consider housing affordability, jobs/housing balance, costs associated with infill versus “greenfield” development, and the locations of transit infrastructure in the analysis. The Board also requested staff to reach out to key stakeholders. Lou Ann Texeira, Executive Officer of the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), also requested that the County review boundary issues (islands and split parcels) associated with the ULL. These issues are discussed in more detail below. Estimating Housing and Jobs Needs in Contra Costa County To estimate countywide housing and jobs needs for Year 2036, staff utilized housing data from the 2010 U.S. Census and the Association of Bay Area Governments-Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG-MTC) Plan Bay Area 2040 employment and housing projections. Staff reviewed additional sources, such as the various city General Plan Housing Elements, the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2010-2014, and the Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics program, but the ABAG-MTC projections were the only data sets that fit the timeframe required under Measure L. Using the 2010 Census and Plan Bay Area 2040 data, staff developed a Year 2015 baseline of existing housing units and jobs in Contra Costa County. Subtracting the 2015 baseline from the 2040 projections yielded the anticipated growth -- 67,959 housing units and 92,780 jobs -- that must be accommodated. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 151 Formulating Development Scenarios In its February report to the Board, staff indicated it would prepare two bookend development scenarios. The lower-density scenario reflects development in accordance with the existing General Plans of the County and 19 cities at the low end of allowed densities, assumes conversion of agricultural land inside the ULL at relatively low densities and assumes jobs and housing are only added on vacant land. The higher-density scenario assumes development at the high end of allowed densities, a higher rate of infill development, primarily within Priority Development Area (PDAs)[1], and slightly greater density on converted agricultural land. Together the two scenarios include four capacity measures (lower-density housing, lower-density jobs, higher-density housing, and higher-density jobs). Vacant Parcel Inventory Staff began its analysis by creating an inventory of potentially developable parcels. First, using DCD’s geographic information system (GIS), staff determined that approximately 352,000 parcels are entirely or partially inside the ULL. Of those, approximately 14,000 were determined to be vacant or potentially vacant based on information obtained from the County Assessor.[2] Of these 14,000 vacant or potentially vacant parcels, approximately 4,000 were eliminated from the inventory because one or more of the following applied: The parcel’s land use designation[3] restricted development of housing and job-producing uses. The parcel was owned by an entity, such as the East Bay Regional Park District, that presumably would not develop the property with housing or job-producing uses. The parcel was encumbered by an agricultural easement, conservation easement, grant deed of development rights, or other comparable instrument that limited its development potential. The parcel had physical constraints (steep slopes, geologic hazards, susceptibility to severe flooding, access issues, etc.) that limited its development potential. The resulting pool of approximately 10,000 parcels constitutes the vacant parcel inventory that is the basis for the analysis (see Attachment D, pages 8-11). General Plan Land Use Designations Staff next applied the County General Plan land use designations to the vacant parcels. For parcels located within city limits, staff translated each city’s General Plan land use designations into comparable County land use designations. Using GIS, staff produced a countywide map of vacant parcels showing their residential, commercial, industrial, or public land use designations. This allowed staff to begin estimating the development capacity of the vacant land. The various residential General Plan land use designations typically include a density range. For example, the County’s Single-Family Residential High-Density (SH) designation allows 5.0-7.2 units per net acre. To estimate residential capacity, staff assigned the low and high ends of the density range to the vacant parcels in the lower- and higher-density scenarios, respectively (see Attachment D, page 12). To estimate capacity for jobs, staff used data from the U.S. Green Building Council indicating the necessary square footage per employee for various commercial, industrial, and public-use land uses. Staff assigned low and high densities to the vacant parcels with these designations, as was done with the residential uses (see Attachment D, page 13). By applying the General Plan designations to the vacant parcels throughout the County, staff was able to formulate an initial estimate of capacity for housing and housing and jobs. However, additional data affected the initial estimate. Unbuilt Subdivisions and Individual Vacant Lots Thousands of vacant residential lots exist throughout the county in approved, but yet-to-be constructed, subdivisions. Where these lots are known to exist, their fixed numbers were used in place of the growth assumptions described above that are based on the General Plan land use designations and densities (see Attachment D, page 14). Conversion of Agricultural Land Inside the ULL December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 152 The analysis assumes that agricultural land inside the ULL could be converted to urban uses by 2040 (see Attachment D, page 15). For the lower-density scenario, conversion of agricultural land was assumed to be consistent with nearby development. For example, if development nearest to a convertible agricultural parcel had a land use designation of Single-Family Residential Medium-Density (SM), then staff assigned the SM designation to the agricultural land. For the high-density scenario, staff increased the density by one land use category. Thus, in the same example, the agricultural land was assigned the SH designation instead of SM. Depending on the scenario, staff assigned the low or high end of the density range. Priority Development Areas The County and many Contra Costa cities have one or more designated PDAs within their jurisdiction (see Attachment D, page 17). The higher-intensity growth anticipated for the PDAs was included only in the higher-density scenario, where it replaced the General Plan-based growth anticipated in the lower-density scenario for the same geographic areas. Each designated PDA includes overall job and housing projections which reflect development opportunities on both vacant and underutilized lands. Staff relied on these estimates (unless cities advised otherwise; see below). This is the only component of the analysis not linked exclusively to development potential on vacant land. Preliminary Capacity Determination Factoring together the numbers from the four data sets listed above (General Plan Land Use Designations, Unbuilt Subdivisions and Individual Vacant Lots, Conversion of Agricultural Land, and Priority Development Areas) yielded the preliminary countywide growth capacity in housing units and jobs for the two density scenarios. Surveying the Cities Originally staff proposed providing the cities with a survey or questionnaire regarding their development capacity, but this approach evolved into a more collaborative process as the analysis progressed. After the preliminary lower- and higher-density development scenarios were completed, staff scheduled group meetings with city representatives to explain the methodology and discuss the preliminary findings. Representatives of 16 of the 19 cities attended. Following these meetings, staff prepared detailed maps indicating the anticipated development for each city and forwarded these maps to the respective planning staffs for review. The level of response varied (see Attachment D, page 16). Some cities indicated that the County’s overall projections for their jurisdiction were reasonable and suggested no changes. Others updated some of the numbers, usually to reflect pending developments or approved plans. Three cities provided entirely new data sets with supporting documentation. All revised numbers provided by the cities were incorporated into the final development scenarios. Final Development Scenarios and Capacity Analysis After updating the data sets with the information provided by the cities, staff prepared a final capacity analysis. By subtracting the ABAG-MTC Year 2040 housing and jobs projections from the final numbers for the two development scenarios, staff determined that in the lower-density scenario there would be a capacity shortage of approximately 500 housing units and a capacity surplus of approximately 79,000 jobs, and in the higher-density scenario there would be capacity surpluses of approximately 43,000 housing units and approximately 98,000 jobs (see Attachment D, pages 22-24). Staff recommends attention focus on the countywide estimates rather than data for individual cities. The analysis was general in nature and not intended to be interpreted at the city level (data by city was included only to show the work method). Stakeholder and Public Meetings Responding to comments received at the February 2 Board meeting, on October 31, 2016, DCD hosted a stakeholder meeting attended by representatives of the Building Industry Association, East Bay Leadership Council, East Bay Economic Development Alliance, Save Mt. Diablo, Greenbelt Alliance, LAFCO, East Bay Regional Park District, and Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust. Staff presented the findings of the capacity analysis through a PowerPoint presentation and took questions and comments, most of which involved the December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 153 methodology. There seemed to be general consensus that the methodology was sound and the findings were realistic. No comments were made that necessitated a revision to the analysis, though comments were received that were helpful for refining explanations. Staff also arranged three open public meetings in Martinez, El Cerrito, and Pittsburg, which were held on November 15 and 17 (see Attachment E, the public meeting attendance lists). Staff made the same presentation given at the stakeholder meeting using updated slides. As with the stakeholder meeting, most questions and comments involved details on the methodology. Again, no comments were made that necessitated a revision to the analysis, however some were critical of the ABAG projections relied upon for the analysis, of the assumptions made by staff, or of the way these assumptions were presented. Additional Issues Discussed at the February 2, 2016, Board of Supervisors Hearing As indicated above, at the February hearing the Board directed staff to examine several additional development-related issues. Jobs/Housing Balance Supervisor Piepho indicated that the ULL analysis should consider the jobs/housing balance. It is well established that Contra Costa County has a jobs/housing imbalance, with the total number of housing units being disproportionately high relative to the total number of jobs, at least with respect to other bay area counties. The imbalance is especially acute in the East County subregion. This imbalance, which is projected to grow in the coming years, means that Contra Costa County “exports” a substantial number of residents each day to job centers in other Bay Area counties. Perhaps the most apparent indicator of this is the severe rush hour congestion that occurs throughout the county in the commute direction, while the non-commute direction remains free flowing. The imbalance results in negative quality of life impacts for those who spend significant time commuting each day. Fortunately, both the lower- and higher-density development scenarios indicate a significant capacity for job creation, particularly in the Northern Waterfront and East County areas (see Attachment D, page 13). Housing Affordability Supervisor Piepho indicated that the ULL analysis should consider housing affordability, including in the context of infill versus greenfield development. Supervisor Piepho noted that housing developed on the edges of the ULL can be less expensive to build than denser, mixed-use and multi-family infill projects. Staff analyzed affordability and its relationship to the ULL to better understand the implication of housing cost and location. The following includes a review of the report prepared by Beacon Economics (the “Beacon Report,” Attachment F), “The Economic Outlook Focus on Contra Costa County,” a summary of the affordability of recent home sales, demographic information related to housing affordability, and a review of the cost of infill development. Beacon Report and Affordability of New Units The Beacon Report outlined key factors related to housing affordability in the Bay Area. In order to further understand the housing affordability issues within Contra Costa County, staff reviewed updated data along with housing sales data for the county at the census block group[4] level to determine how the trends identified in the Beacon Report are impacting Contra Costa County residents. Housing Availability - Available housing continues to shrink with an estimated county-wide vacancy rate of 4.1%, down from 5.4% in 2013 (actual supply is going up, just not keeping up with demand). Foreclosures - Foreclosure activity remains low, with 642 foreclosures in 2015, down from 797 in 2014 when the Beacon Report was issued. Sales Counts and Price – Between 2012 and 2016, countywide sales counts have remained relatively stable, hovering between 16,000 – 18,000 sales per year. However, the countywide median sales price has increased significantly from approximately $300,000 to $500,000 (source: MTC). Additionally, there is a wide range in the median sales price throughout the County. Attachment #G shows the median sales price by block group in Contra Costa County for 2016 (through October). The areas of the county with the lowest median housing price tend to be along the I-80 and Highway 4 corridors, including Richmond, San Pablo, Concord, Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch. Affordability – Affordability is determined by housing price and household income, both of which varyDecember 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 154 Affordability – Affordability is determined by housing price and household income, both of which vary significantly in Contra Costa County. The median sales prices at the block group level range from $92,000 - $2,200,000. Attachment #G keyed to show relative affordability to a household earning the median income in Contra Costa County ($83,000), with areas in yellow being generally affordable. Demographic Analysis of Housing Prices Given the wide range of household incomes in the county, the ability to purchase a home varies considerably. Based on median household incomes published in the American Community Survey 2015 1-year estimates, an estimated 30 percent of county households are unable to purchase a home within Contra Costa County. Another estimated 28 percent may be able to purchase a home under $450,000. About 18 percent can afford a home up to $750,000 and 24 percent can afford a home over $1,000,000. As fewer households are able to purchase homes in Contra Costa County, more people become at risk of displacement. Increasing Supply through Infill As the Bay Area grows outward, there is an effort to provide more infill housing, including affordable housing, near transit and existing urban infrastructure. A report published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency states that public infrastructure costs, including sewer and water systems, streets, transit, school, and parks are greatly reduced for infill housing development. The report states: “One analysis of potential cost saving from smart growth development estimated that developers and new building occupants could save close to $200 billion over 25 years (2000 – 2025) due to the need for less infrastructure if the projected 25 million new housing units built during this time followed smart growth principals.” Based on that quote, the average per unit savings is estimated at $8,000 for infill housing units. The report also states that infill development retained its value better than outlying areas and areas with higher levels of walkability are correlated with better real estate performance for both commercial and residential properties. There are also costs associated with vacant lots within the existing urban fabric. According to a report issued by the National Vacant Properties Campaign, there are increased municipal costs related to vacant sites due to crime, public nuisances, and health issues. Additionally, vacant properties result in a loss of property taxes and decrease surrounding property values. However, developing high-density infill housing is more expensive than traditional suburban single-family development according to local developers, who have provided information to ABAG outlining the increased cost associated with infill housing. Increased costs per dwelling unit are due to site assemblage, material costs (concrete and steel versus wood construction), structured parking, and additional code requirements (fire controls, elevators, etc.). There is also less certainty with infill development, as infill projects may face opposition not encountered by projects in outlying areas. According to one Bay Area developer, the cost of infill housing can be three or four times the cost to development low-density, single-family homes on the urban periphery. Naturally, these costs are passed on to buyers, which is one of the reasons infill housing can be quite expensive. Transit Infrastructure Supervisor Glover indicated that the analysis should consider transportation infrastructure. Attachment H is a series of maps showing the county’s public transportation and roadway networks along with the areas of potential development identified in the ULL analysis. These maps illustrate that most of the developable areas are either already served by, or located somewhat proximate to, existing bus routes. Bus routes across the county generally have significant unused capacity that could be utilized by new development. Unfortunately, most of the developable sites are several miles from the nearest commuter rail station, meaning they are not viable locations for transit-oriented development in the traditional sense. ULL Boundary Issues LAFCO’s Executive Officer requested that the County look at boundary issues involving the ULL (split/intersected parcels and “islands”). Attachment I is a series of maps addressing these issues. The 353-mile ULL intersects approximately 600 parcels along 117 miles of its length. The vast majority of these parcels are either along the coastline or within one of the three Contra Costa cities that has adopted its own Urban Growth Boundary. A significant portion also are designated for open space or public/semi-public uses. There are relatively few privately-owned parcels intersected by the ULL. Staff notes that in many cases a parcel wasDecember 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 155 relatively few privately-owned parcels intersected by the ULL. Staff notes that in many cases a parcel was intentionally intersected because it contained physically-constrained areas, such as steeps slopes, which were unsuitable for development. There are five ULL “islands” across the county. These are areas outside the ULL that are either entirely or substantially surrounded by land inside the ULL. As explained through the maps, these islands were created either because a city annexed the land around them or the ULL was moved in compliance with the provisions of Measure J, which was approved by Contra Costa voters in 2004. Staff notes that while these areas appear as islands on maps of the ULL, they are in most cases contiguous with adjacent undeveloped areas. Conclusion The purpose of the 2016 ULL review is to determine whether enough capacity exists inside the ULL to satisfy housing and jobs needs through 2036. Staff’s analysis indicates large capacity surpluses for three of the four capacity measures [lower-density jobs (+approximately 79,000), higher-density housing (+approximately 43,000), and higher-density jobs (+approximately 98,000)]. While there is a countywide shortfall of approximately 500 units for the lower-density housing measure, this deficit is inconsequential for two reasons. First, 500 units is an insignificant number when distributed across all 20 land use jurisdictions in the county over the next 20 years. Divided evenly amongst jurisdictions, each would have to provide only 1.1 additional units per year beyond their expected development levels in order to make up the deficit. Second, the lower-density scenario is an exceptionally conservative estimate of capacity. The lower-density scenario assumes that development will continue to occur much like it has since the end of World War II, i.e., in a low-density sprawl pattern and that new housing and jobs will be added only on vacant land. Regulatory changes occurring at the State level, particularly relating to climate change/greenhouse gas emissions and environmental review, are intended to refocus development pressures inward by encouraging higher-density, transit-oriented development, mixed uses, and development of vacant and underutilized parcels in already-developed areas. These State-mandated changes alone are likely to result in densities that are higher than modeled in the lower-density scenario and more in line with the assumptions made for the higher-density scenario. Staff believes the analysis described above demonstrates that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and job growth through 2036. The analysis indicates that most of the growth anticipated by ABAG-MTC will be accommodated within the cities. As Measure L suggests, the Board may want to consider conducting a five-year cyclical review of the ULL in 2021 to determine whether growth is occurring as anticipated. [1] Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are identified by Bay Area cities and counties as areas within their jurisdiction that are targeted for increased investment and new housing and job growth, and are included in Plan Bay Area 2040 prepared by ABAG-MTC. To be designated as a PDA, an area must be: 1) within an existing community; 2) within walking distance of frequent transit service; 3) designated for more housing in a locally adopted plan or identified by a local government for future planning and potential growth; and 4) nominated through a resolution adopted by a city council or county board of supervisors. ABAG-MTC projects over 70 percent of new housing growth and over 50 percent of new job growth will occur within the PDAs. [2] The County Assessor assigns a use code to each parcel indicating how the parcel is utilized. For each parcel the Assessor also assigns valuations to the land and improvements. Where there is no improvement value, it can be assumed that the parcel is vacant or unimproved. [3] General Plans contain land use designations that specify the type and intensity of development that can occur on a given parcel. While specific designations vary between jurisdictions, common categories include single- and multiple-family residential, commercial, industrial, mixed use, public use, agriculture, and open space. Residential designations typically specify an allowed density range expressed as units per acre. Commercial designations typically specify a floor area ratio, which is the square footage of allowed development relative to the size of the parcel. [4] A Census Block Group is a geographical unit used by the United States Census Bureau. It is the smallest geographical unit for which the Bureau publishes sample data (i.e., data which is collected from a fraction of all households, as opposed to 100-percent data, which is collected from all households). December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 156 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The 2016 ULL Review is required under Measure L - 2006. If the Board does not accept the report, then the County will be out of compliance with Measure L. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Joel de Valcourt, Greenbelt Alliance. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Urban Limit Line Map Attachment B - Measure L Voter Information Pamphlet Attachment C - Board Order February 2, 2016 Attachment D - Urban Limit Lin PowerPoint Presentation Attachment E - Public Meeting Sign-in Sheets Attachment F - Beacon Report Attachment G - Housing Affordability Attachment H - Transportation Network and Growth Capacity Attachment I - Parcels Crossed by the ULL and Islands in the ULL December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 157 ATTACHMENT A: Urban Limit Line Map December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 158 Map Created on May 5th, 2014Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Developmentwith data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. The voter approved urban limit line is valid forunincorporated Contra Costa County and those cities that adopted it. Some cities have adoptedtheir own voter approved urban growth boundaries. Please contact the individual cities fortheir urban growth boundary. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered.It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Prepared by the Department of Conservation and Development CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Urban Limit Line §¨¦980 §¨¦880 }þ4 }þ24 }þ160 }þ242 §¨¦680 §¨¦80 §¨¦580 §¨¦80 567J4 }þ4 }þ4 }þ4 §¨¦680 }þ4 }þ4 §¨¦680 §¨¦80 }þ24 }þ13 §¨¦580 §¨¦580 }þ160 §¨¦680 §¨¦80 §¨¦780 Bethel HERCULESPINOLE RICHMOND MARTINEZ CONCORD PLEASANTHILL WALNUTCREEKLAFAYETTE CLAYTON ANTIOCH OAKLEY BRENTWOOD SANRAMON DANVILLE ORINDA MORAGA ELCERRITO SAN PABLO Kensington El Sobrante Rodeo Crockett Alamo Knightsen Byron BayPoint Pacheco Blackhawk Diablo PITTSBURG Canyon PortCosta RICHMOND Clyde NorthRichmond Saranap ContraCostaCentre MtView VineHill TaraHills MontalvinManor Bayview EastRichmond Heights North Gate Reliez Valley AlhambraValley Rollingwood ShellRidgeAcalanesRidge CastleHill CaminoTassajara NorrisCanyon Briones DoughertyValley Island BENICIA VALLEJO ALBANY BERKELEY OAKLAND EMERYVILLE PIEDMONT SANFRANCISCO DUBLIN LIVERMORECastroValley DiscoveryBay San Miguel ByronAirport SanPabloBay SanFranciscoBay SuisunBay San Pablo Reservoir BrionesReservoir Los Vaqueros Reservoir CliftonCourtForebay FranksTractSacramento RiverHonkerBay San Leandro Reservoir Carquinez Strait RiverJoaquinSan Old RiverBigBreak LafayetteReservoir AlamedaCounty SolonoCounty SacramentoCounty SanJoaquinCounty SolonoCounty AlamedaCounty ConeyIsland ByronTract OrwoodTract PalmTract VealeTract HollandTract QuimbyIsland WebbTractBradfordIsland JerseyIsland WinterIsland BrownsIsland MountDiablo 0 3 6 91.5 Miles 6 E S W N Map includes all amendments through April 2014. For higher detail and the most current designationsplease refer to the county's Maps & GIS website:http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/1818/Maps-GISfor an interactive map and GIS data downloads. Agricultural Core Urban Limit Line Agriculture, Open Space, Wetlands, Parks and Other Non Urban Uses Urban Uses (Unincorporated/City) Incorporated AreasANTIOCH Unincorporated AreasAlamo Voter-approved Urban Limit Line adopted under Measure LNovember 7, 2006Term runs through 2026 NOTE: December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 159 ATTACHMENT B: Measure L Voter Information Pamphlet December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 160 VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLET Containing MEASURES L & M CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006 Arguments in favor of or against the proposed measures are the opinions of the authors. If you would like to receive this information in Spanish please call (925) 646-4166; if you have already requested voting information in Spanish, the information will be mailed to you automatically. Si desea recibir esta información en español, por favor llame al (925) 646-4166, si ya solicitó información para votar en español, ésta será enviada automáticamente por correo. Measure L.............................................................................. Pages 1 - 14 Measure M ........................................................................... Pages 15 - 19 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 161 1 MEASURE L CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE Shall the voters amend the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) and the County's 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (County Ordinance Code, Chapter 82-1) to: (i) extend the term of the County's Urban Limit Line to the Year 2026; (ii) require voter approval to expand the line by more than 30 acres; (iii) adopt a new Urban Limit Line Map; and (iv) establish new review procedures? COUNTY COUNSEL’S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE L In 1990, voters in Contra Costa County approved Measure C-1990, the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (“65/35 Ordinance”), which expires in 2010. Measure C-1990 limited urban development to no more than 35 percent of the land in the County and required that at least 65 percent be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses. Measure C-1990 also established the County’s Urban Limit Line (“ULL”), a line beyond which no urban land use can be designated. In 1988, County voters approved Measure C-1988, which imposed a sales tax for local transportation purposes. In 2004, voters approved Measure J, which extended that sales tax 25 years. The County must have a ULL, developed and maintained in accord with the “Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line” (“Principles”), which was part of Measure J, to receive the sales tax proceeds. To comply with the Principles, the ULL must be extended beyond 2010. To continue to be eligible to receive the sales tax proceeds, the Principles require the County, by March 31, 2009, to either establish a ULL based on the mutual agreement of the County and cities or obtain voter approval of a County ULL. The County and cities were unable to agree upon a ULL. The County therefore seeks voter approval of the extension of the County’s ULL to continue to be eligible to receive the sales tax proceeds. In July 2005, the County took steps to initiate a new, voter-approved ULL, including carrying out an environmental review and preparing a ballot measure. The environmental review resulted in a conclusion that the proposed ballot measure will not result in any significant impacts on the environment. December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 162 2 If this ballot measure is approved by the voters, the measure would amend the County’s General Plan (2005-2020) and the 65/35 Ordinance to accomplish the following: (1) extend the term of the 65/35 Ordinance from December 31, 2010, to December 31, 2026; (2) require four-fifths vote of the County Board of Supervisors and voter approval to expand the ULL by more than 30 acres (but voter approval is not required if four- fifths of the Board finds after a public hearing that there is substantial evidence in the record that the ULL expansion is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property or is necessary to comply with state or federal law); (3) provide for periodic reviews of the ULL by the Board of Supervisors and a required review in 2016 involving an evaluation of housing and job needs; (4) adopt a new ULL map; and (5) retain the 65/35 land preservation standard and protections for the County’s prime agricultural land. This measure will become effective immediately if approved by a majority of the voters voting on the measure. ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE L Protecting Contra Costa County’s remaining open space and agricultural lands, discouraging urban sprawl, and preventing traffic congestion from getting any worse, are concerns that matter to all County residents. These concerns are not new. In 1990 the voters enacted the County’s Urban Limit Line, approved under Measure C: The Contra Costa County 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, which established a line beyond which no urban land uses could be approved during the term of the County’s General Plan. The Measure C-1990 ordinance runs for 20 years and is due to expire in 2010. Over the past 16 years, the Urban Limit Line has protected thousands of acres of open space and agricultural lands and has succeeded in channeling growth into areas of the County most appropriate for urban development. Through Measure L, the Board of Supervisors asks the voters to extend the term of the County’s Urban Limit Line to the year 2026. What does a “yes” vote on Measure L mean? A “yes” vote will extend the term of the Urban Limit Line for another 20 years insuring the continued protection and preservation of the County’s open space and agricultural lands. A “yes” vote will require voter approval for future expansion of the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres, meaning that through 2026 the voters will decide whether the unincorporated, rural areas of Contra Costa County should be urbanized. A “yes” vote will December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 163 3 provide certainty in the County’s land use planning process, promoting orderly development in the unincorporated communities of the County with adequate public services to accommodate future growth (roads, water, sewer, etc.). A “yes” vote will maintain eligibility for local funds under the ½ cent transportation sales tax program approved by voters in 2004. We strongly urge voters to approve Measure L. John Gioia, Supervisor, District I Gayle B. Uilkema, Supervisor, District II Mary Nejedly Piepho, Supervisor District III Mark DeSaulnier, Supervisor, District IV Federal D. Glover, Supervisor, District V ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE L None filed. FULL TEXT OF MEASURE L 2006 VOTER-APPROVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY URBAN LIMIT LINE The People of the County of Contra Costa County hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. TITLE This measure shall be entitled the 2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line. SECTION 2. SUMMARY This measure amends the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) and the 65/35 Contra Costa Land Preservation Ordinance in the following ways: (1) It extends the term of December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 164 4 the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance from December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2026. (2) It provides that, through December 31, 2026, the General Plan cannot be amended to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres without a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the voters. (3) It provides for periodic reviews of the Urban Limit Line, including a mandatory mid-point review in Year 2016 involving an evaluation of land supply to satisfy 20-year housing and job needs in Contra Costa County. (4) It incorporates a new and revised Urban Limit Line Map that reflects the approvals of city Urban Limit Lines or Urban Growth Boundary maps by voters in the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and San Ramon and also reflects other non-substantive boundary changes at various locations. (5) Finally, the measure retains the 65/35 land preservation standard and protections for the County’s prime agricultural land. SECTION 3. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND FINDINGS The voters approve this measure based on the following facts and considerations: A. In November 1990 the voters approved Measure C-1990, the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (Chapter 82-1 of the County Ordinance Code), which limited urban development in Contra Costa County to no more than thirty-five (35) percent of the land in the County and required that at least 65 percent of all land in the County would be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses. Measure C-1990 also established a countywide Urban Limit Line identifying non-urban agricultural, open space, and other areas beyond which no urban land use could be designated during the term of the General Plan. B. County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 currently provides that the Urban Limit Line will remain in effect until December 31, 2010. This measure would extend the duration of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan (which includes the Urban Limit Line) to December 31, 2026, thus extending the protection to the County’s non-urban and open space areas for an additional 16 years. Because the factors contributing to the need to adopt the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan still exist, it is appropriate to extend these protections through the year 2026. C. The procedure by which the Urban Limit Line may be changed, either by the Board of Supervisors or by action of the voters, is described at page 3-9, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 165 5 General Plan, and in Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.018. To provide additional protection to the County’s non- urban and open space areas, this measure would require that, through December 31, 2026, the General Plan cannot be amended to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres without a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors and approval of the voters. D. This measure would establish a procedure to allow the Board of Supervisors to review the Urban Limit Line on a 5-year cycle, commencing in 2011, to consider whether changes should be made to reflect changing times. This measure would also require a 10- year comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line in 2016 to determine whether there is sufficient land available to satisfy housing and jobs needs for Contra Costa County for the following 20 years. Because housing and job needs, as well as social and environmental factors, may change over the years, it is appropriate to provide for this review procedure in 2016, which is the mid-point of the extended term, to determine whether expansion of the Urban Limit Line should be considered to meet the changing needs of the County. SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION To implement this measure, the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) and Chapter 82-1, 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance, Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, are amended as follows: A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN MAP DIAGRAM At page 3-10, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), Figure 3-1, Urban Limit Line Map (black and white version sized 8”x 11”), and a color version of Urban Limit Line Map (11” x 17” insert to the General Plan) are hereby amended, as shown on Figure One: Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map, which is attached to this measure. Each will be titled: “Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map” and adopted to show the boundary of the Urban Limit Line, as approved by this measure. December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 166 6 2. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT The General Plan is hereby amended to revise the text of “CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE”, at page 3-9 of the Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, as follows. New text shown in bold italics and underline [example] is added to the existing text while text in strikeout font [example] is deleted from the existing text. Text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure. CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE There shall be no change to the ULL that would violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The ULL will only be changed by a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors after holding a public hearing and making one or more of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: There will be no change to the ULL except in the manner specified herein. There will be no change to the ULL unless the Board of Supervisors first holds a public hearing at which it approves the change or changes, by a four-fifths vote, after making one or more of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (a) a natural or man-made disaster or public emergency has occurred which warrants the provision of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the ULL; (b) an objective study has determined that the ULL is preventing the County from providing its fair share of affordable housing or regional housing as required by State law, and the Board of Supervisors finds that a change to the ULL is necessary and the only feasible means to enable the County to meet these requirements of State law; (c) a majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the County have approved a change to the ULL affecting all or any December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 167 7 portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement; (d) a minor change to the ULL will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries; (e) an objective study has determined that a change to the ULL is necessary or desirable to further the economic viability of the east Contra Costa County Airport, and either (i) mitigate adverse aviation related to environmental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the County's aviation related needs; (f) a change is required to conform to applicable California or federal law. (g) a five (5) year periodic cyclical review of the ULL has determined, based on criteria and factors for establishing the ULL set forth above, that new information is available (from city or County growth management studies or otherwise) or circumstance have changed, warranting a change to the ULL. Any General Plan amendment that would expand the ULL by more than 30 acres shall require voter approval of the proposed General Plan amendment, following the public hearing and the four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors approving the General Plan amendment and making one or more of the findings set forth in subsections (a) through (g) above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a proposed General Plan amendment to expand the ULL by more than 30 acres does not require voter approval if, after a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors by a four-fifths vote approves the General Plan amendment and makes either of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (i) the expansion of the ULL is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property; or (ii) the expansion of the ULL is necessary to comply with state or federal law. Expansions of the December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 168 8 ULL totaling 30 acres or less do not require voter approval. [ADD THE FOLLOWING NEW PARAGRAPHS UNDER THE HEADING “CHANGES TO THE URBAN LIMIT LINE”, at page 3-9 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as follows] The Board of Supervisors may conduct a cyclical review of the ULL every five years. The Board of Supervisors will review the boundary of the ULL in the year 2016. The purpose of the year 2016 review is to determine whether a change to the boundary of the County’s Urban Limit Line Map is warranted, based on facts and circumstances resulting from the County’s participation with the cities in a comprehensive review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County sufficient to satisfy housing and jobs needs for 20 years thereafter. This review of the ULL is in addition to any other reviews of the ULL the Board of Supervisors may conduct. Any change to the ULL proposed as a result of any review authorized by this section must be adopted pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. These provisions are effective until December 31, 2026. B. ORDINANCE CODE CHANGES 1. To be consistent with the amendments to the General Plan that change the boundary of the Urban Limit Line, the People of the County of Contra Costa hereby enact Ordinance No. 2006-06 as follows: TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE Ordinance No. 2006-06 Section 1. Title. This ordinance shall be entitled the “2006 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line.” December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 169 9 Section 2. Summary. This ordinance amends Chapter 82-1 of the County Ordinance Code to extend the term of the County’s Urban Limit Line to the year 2026, to establish new procedures to review the boundaries of the Urban Limit Line and to prohibit expansion of the line by more than 30 acres without voter approval. Section 3. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.010 is amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is shown in bold italics and underline [example], text in strikeout font [example] is deleted from the existing text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure): 82-1.010 Urban limit line. To ensure the enforcement of the 65/35 standard set forth in Section 82-1.006, an urban limit line shall be established, in approximately the location depicted on the illustrative 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Map attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 90-66 “Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line Map” adopted by the voters on November 7, 2006. The urban limit line shall be is incorporated into the county’s open space conservation plan. The urban limit line shall limit limits potential urban development in the county to thirty-five percent of the land in the county and shall prohibit prohibits the county from designating any land located outside the urban limit line for an urban land use. The criteria and factors for determining whether land should be considered for location outside the urban limit line should include (a) land which qualifies for rating as Class I and Class II in the Soil Conservation Service Land Use Capability Classification, (b) open space, parks and other recreation areas, (c) lands with slopes in excess of twenty-six percent, (d) wetlands, and (e) other areas not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability for development, unstable geological conditions, inadequate water availability, the lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development, likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, and other similar factors. (Ords. 2006-06 §3, 91-1 § 2, 90-66 § 4). December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 170 10 Section 4. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.018 is amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is shown in bold italics and underline [example], text in strikeout font [example] is deleted from the existing text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure): 82-1.018 Changes to the urban limit line. (a) There shall be no change to the urban limit line that violates the 65/35 standard set forth in Section 82-1.006. After adoption of the new general plan, as Except as otherwise provided in this Section, as long as there is no violation of the 65/35 standard, the urban limit line can be changed by a four-fifths vote of the board of supervisors after holding a public hearing and making one or more of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (1) A natural or manmade disaster or public emergency has occurred which warrants the provision of housing and/or other community needs within land located outside the urban limit line; (2) An objective study has determined that the urban limit line is preventing the county from providing its fair share of affordable housing, or regional housing, as required by state law, and the board of supervisors finds that a change to the urban limit line is necessary and the only feasible means to enable the county to meet these requirements of state law; (3) A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement; (4) A minor change to the urban limit line will more accurately reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries; December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 171 11 (5) A five-year periodic cyclical review of the urban limit line has determined, based on the criteria and factors for establishing the urban limit line set forth in Section 82-1.010 above, that new information is available (from city or county growth management studies or otherwise) or circumstances have changed, warranting a change to the urban limit line; (6) An objective study has determined that a change to the urban limit line is necessary or desirable to further the economic viability of the East Contra Costa County Airport, and either (i) mitigate adverse aviation-related environmental or community impacts attributable to Buchanan Field, or (ii) further the county’s aviation related needs; or (7) A change is required to conform to applicable California or federal law. (b) Any such change shall be subject to referendum as provided by law. Changes to the urban limit line under any other circumstances, shall require a vote of the people. (b) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any proposed general plan amendment that would expand the urban limit line by more than 30 acres will require voter approval of the proposed general plan amendment in addition to and following a four- fifths vote of the board of supervisors approving the general plan amendment and making one or more of the findings required by subsection (a) above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a proposed general plan amendment to expand the urban limit line by more than 30 acres does not require voter approval if, after a public hearing, the board of supervisors by a four-fifths vote makes either of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (i) the expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property; or December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 172 12 (ii) the expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to comply with state or federal law. Proposed expansions of 30 acres or less do not require voter approval. (c) The board of supervisors may conduct a cyclical review of the urban limit line every five years. (d) The board of supervisors will review the boundary of the urban limit line in the year 2016. The purpose of the year 2016 review is to determine whether a change to the boundary of the county’s urban limit line map is warranted, based on facts and circumstances resulting from the county’s participation with the cities in a comprehensive review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County sufficient to meet housing and jobs needs for 20 years. This review of the urban limit line is in addition to any other reviews of the urban limit line the board of supervisors may conduct. (e) Any change to the urban limit line proposed as a result of any review authorized by this section will not be effective unless it is approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. (Ords. 2006-06 §4, 91-1 §2, 90- 66 §4.) Section 5. Ordinance Code Section 82-1.028 is amended to read as follows (new text to be inserted is shown in bold italics and underline [example] while text in strikeout font [example] is deleted from the existing text and text in ordinary font is unchanged by this measure): 82-1.028 Duration. The provisions of this chapter shall be in effect until December 31, 2010 December 31, 2026, to the extent permitted by law. (Ords. 2006-06 §5, 91-1 § 2, 90-66 § 4). December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 173 13 SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This measure shall become effective immediately upon approval by the voters. Upon the effective date, Section 4.A) 1. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN MAP DIAGRAM and Section 4.A) 2. CHANGE TO GENERAL PLAN TEXT of this measure are hereby inserted into the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), as one of the four consolidated general plan amendments for calendar year 2006 allowed under state law. Upon the effective date, Ordinance No. 2006-06 is hereby enacted as a County ordinance, amending the County Ordinance Code. SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY If any portion of this ordinance is hereafter determined to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all remaining portions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Each section, subsection, sentence, phrase, part or portion of this ordinance would have been adopted and passed regardless of whether any one or more section, subsections, sentences, phrases, parts or portions was declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 7. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL Except as otherwise provided herein, this measure may be amended or repealed only by the voters of Contra Costa County at a countywide election. December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 174 14 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 175 ATTACHMENT C: Board Order February 2nd, 2016 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 176 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ACCEPT the report from Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) staff on the proposed approach and schedule for the 2016 Urban Limit Line (ULL) Mid-term Review required under Measure L - 2006. 2. PROVIDE comments on the proposed methodology and any necessary direction to DCD staff. FISCAL IMPACT: The 2016 ULL Mid-term Review is being funded 100% from Land Development fund, FY 2015/2016 and FY 2016/2017 budgets. Based on the costs associated with efforts of similar scale, such as ordinance amendments, staff estimates a cost of approximately $50,000. BACKGROUND: On November 6, 1990, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure C – 1990, the Contra Costa County 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (“65/35 Ordinance”). The 65/35 Ordinance limited urban development to no more than 35% of the land in the County and required that at least 65% be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses ("65/35 standard"). Measure C – 1990 also established the ULL, a boundary beyond which no urban land use could be established. Measure C – 1990 was set to expire on December 31, 2010. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 02/02/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 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: February 2, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:February 2, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Report on 2016 Urban Limit Line Mid-term Review December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 177 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > On November 7, 2006, County voters approved Measure L (see Attachment A, current map of the ULL and Attachment B, Voter Information Pamphlet Containing Measures L and M), which extended the term of the 65/35 Ordinance (including the ULL) to December 31, 2026. Measure L also included the following requirement for a mid-term (2016) review of the ULL: “The Board of Supervisors will review the boundary of the ULL in the year 2016. The purpose of the year 2016 review is to determine whether a change to the boundary of the County’s Urban Limit Line Map is warranted, based on facts and circumstances resulting from the County’s participation with the cities in a comprehensive review of the availability of land in Contra Costa County sufficient to satisfy housing and jobs needs for 20 years thereafter. This review of the ULL is in addition to any other reviews of the ULL the Board of Supervisors may conduct.” It should also be noted that the process for changing the boundary is outlined in Measure L. Expansions exceeding 30 acres require a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors after making at least one of seven specified findings, followed by voter approval. Expansions of 30 acres or fewer may be approved by a 4/5 vote of the Board after making at least one of the seven findings. Staff proposes the following approach and schedule for completing the ULL review and requests the Board's concurrence. Work Plan Concepts that Affect the 2016 ULL Mid-term Review Measure L requires the County to assess whether there is sufficient land inside the ULL to satisfy housing and jobs needs until 2036. However, two important concepts must be understood prior to answering this question. First, the amount of developable land in Contra Costa County is ultimately limited by the 65/35 standard. The ULL acts to direct urban development into certain areas and away from others and works in concert with the 65/35 standard. Currently, the ULL contains more than 35% of the land in the county, some of which is park or other non-urban land that counts toward the 65% minimum. Second, answering the question of "whether there is sufficient land" requires a discussion of density, which is the number of housing units or jobs in a given geographic area. Because the County and cities can increase density through land-use regulations such as general plans and zoning ordinances, one can conclude that there is enough land inside the ULL to satisfy housing and jobs needs until 2036 and beyond, contingent on the desire to approve development at the necessary densities and presuming a sufficient quantity of applications. However, it is possible that the densities necessary to accommodate housing and jobs needs within the existing ULL may be higher than the densities that have historically been permitted in Contra Costa County. Since the end of World War II, most growth in the county has occurred in the low-density suburban development pattern common throughout the United States during the post-war period. The low-density pattern focuses mainly on development of single-family residential neighborhoods and grouping of similar land uses, and results in high automobile dependency. This pattern continued through the housing boom preceding the Great Recession and was the predominant pattern in those parts of the county that were experiencing significant growth when Measure L was adopted. However, in late September 2006, less than two months prior to Measure L’s adoption, the State took its first major step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions with the adoption of Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. Subsequent legislation, such as Senate Bills 375 and 743, aim at cutting greenhouse gas emissions primarily by changing land use patterns and decreasing the number of vehicle miles traveled. As they relate to land use, the State’s actions are intended to refocus development pressures inward, emphasizing transit-oriented development, mixed-uses, higher densities, and development of vacant and underutilized lots instead of pushing December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 178 the suburban footprint farther out. In the unincorporated area, we are seeing projects that embrace these concepts, such as the proposed Saranap Village Mixed-Use Project and the recently-approved doubling of density from 100 to 200 units at the Avalon Bay Block C Project at Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART. Estimating Housing and Jobs Needs in Contra Costa County To estimate housing and jobs needs in the county over the next 20 years, staff proposes using the Association of Bay Area Governments-Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG-MTC) Year 2040 projections for employment, population, and housing growth in the Bay Area as the primary data set. According to ABAG-MTC, these projections have been validated by the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, UC Berkeley, and Strategic Economics, all of which are outside consultants hired by ABAG-MTC. Staff will consult the adopted General Plan Housing Elements for the 19 cities, which demonstrate how housing needs can be met through 2022. Staff will also consider historic development pressures and trends in various sub-areas of the county and the practical effects of State legislation passed since Measure L’s adoption. Survey for Cities To satisfy the Measure L requirement for participation with the cities, staff proposes one or more meetings with city staff and distribution to each city of a short survey or questionnaire similar to the Measure J Growth Management Compliance Checklist developed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, which the County and the cities must respond to every two years in order to receive certain transportation sales tax revenue. While the survey has not yet been developed, staff envisions a series of questions related mostly to the supply of developable land within city limits relative to the ABAG-MTC growth projections and other factors described above. Public Meetings While not required under Measure L, staff proposes holding at least three public meetings, one each in West, Central, and East Contra Costa County, to provide opportunities in addition to Board of Supervisor meetings for direct citizen participation in the ULL review process. General Approach Factoring in the ABAG-MTC projections, current Housing Element numbers, survey responses from the cities, comments received at the public meetings, and any other relevant information that surfaces during the process, staff would analyze whether anticipated housing and jobs needs could be accommodated within the existing ULL through 2036. Given the uncertainty of future development patterns, including the density of development proposed and approved, staff proposes analyzing two “bookend” development scenarios. The first, or "lower-density" scenario, assumes that development occurs according to the existing General Plans of the County and the 19 cities. This would be accomplished by analyzing the County's General Plan Land Use Element Map to determine whether the ABAG-MTC projected growth could be accommodated on vacant land inside the existing ULL, including land that is currently designated for non-urban use. Lower-density development would be assumed for agricultural areas inside the ULL that may realistically be converted to an urban use. Staff would analyze the cities' survey responses to help determine whether anticipated growth in incorporated areas could be accommodated. The second, or "higher-density" scenario, would assume that future development would occur in a manner more in line with current trends in State policy. This scenario anticipates development of existing vacant and underutilized lands that already have urban land use designations, but generally at higher densities. As with the lower-density scenario, this scenario assumes conversion of non-urban lands inside the ULL that may realistically be converted to urban use. However, this scenario assumes that conversion would occur at a higher average density. This scenario will illustrate how much development could realistically occur inside the existing ULL if policies supporting higher density and mixed uses were to be adopted at the local level. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 179 As outlined above, the 2016 review must satisfy the purpose set forth in Measure L: to determine if enough land exists to satisfy housing and jobs needs through 2036. Consequently, staff does not propose to review the location of the ULL boundary as a part of the analysis (i.e., the report to the Board will not include recommendations regarding specific locations where the ULL boundary should be expanded or contracted). If this review indicates that there may be difficulty in accommodating projected jobs and housing needs in the county within the timeframe specified by Measure L, then a detailed land planning process will be necessary to determine how best to address the issue. Options may include increasing existing densities and adjusting the ULL boundary. Timeline Upon receiving the Board’s approval to proceed, staff intends to develop the ULL survey and distribute it to the cities as soon as possible. Staff’s goal is to distribute the survey in February 2016 with a request for responses by the end of June. Staff intends to conduct the public meetings from approximately April through June. Staff’s analysis would be conducted from July through September, with a report to the Board of Supervisors in the final quarter of 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Board of Supervisors. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Urban Limit Line Map Attachment B - Voter Information Pamphlet Containing Measures L and M December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 180 ATTACHMENT D: ULL Presentation December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 181 0 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 182 US Census Bureau's 2010 Census Source:US Census US Census Bureau Bureau Year Published:2011 2011 Jurisdiction:Measurement:Households Housing Units Antioch 32,250 34,850 Brentwood 16,490 17,520 Clayton 4,010 4,090 Concord 44,280 47,130 Danville 15,420 15,930 El Cerrito 10,140 10,720 Hercules 8,120 8,550 Lafayette 9,220 9,650 Martinez 14,290 14,980 Moraga 5,570 5,750 Oakley 10,730 11,480 Orinda 6,550 6,800 Pinole 6,780 7,160 Pittsburg 19,530 21,130 Pleasant Hill 13,710 14,320 Richmond 36,090 39,330 San Pablo 8,760 9,570 San Ramon 25,280 26,220 Walnut Creek 30,440 32,680 Cities Total 317,660 337,860 Unincorporated 57,710 62,400 Contra Costa County 375,370 400,260 2010 1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 183 Association of Bay Area Government's 2013 'Plan Bay Area' Forecast 2010-2040 Source:US Census US Census ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay Bureau Bureau Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Year Published:2011 2011 2013 2013 2013 2013 Jurisdiction:Measurement:Households Housing Units Jobs Households Housing Units Jobs Antioch 32,250 34,850 19,090 38,790 40,340 25,530 Brentwood 16,490 17,520 8,670 18,690 19,420 11,660 Clayton 4,010 4,090 1,540 4,150 4,240 1,950 Concord 44,280 47,130 47,640 63,190 65,200 69,450 Danville 15,420 15,930 13,460 16,920 17,440 17,620 El Cerrito 10,140 10,720 5,880 11,560 12,000 7,310 Hercules 8,120 8,550 3,910 12,690 13,070 6,440 Lafayette 9,220 9,650 9,940 10,640 11,020 12,430 Martinez 14,290 14,980 18,320 15,690 16,240 22,490 Moraga 5,570 5,750 4,740 6,350 6,540 5,940 Oakley 10,730 11,480 3,750 16,440 17,010 6,680 Orinda 6,550 6,800 5,530 7,340 7,610 6,940 Pinole 6,780 7,160 6,740 7,970 8,240 8,490 Pittsburg 19,530 21,130 14,180 27,510 28,520 19,800 Pleasant Hill 13,710 14,320 17,370 15,060 15,530 22,940 Richmond 36,090 39,330 30,790 47,090 49,020 42,320 San Pablo 8,760 9,570 7,470 11,030 11,460 9,660 San Ramon 25,280 26,220 43,960 30,730 31,550 58,320 Walnut Creek 30,440 32,680 41,720 38,520 40,050 57,380 Cities Total 317,660 337,860 304,700 400,360 414,500 413,350 Unincorporated 57,710 62,400 40,220 63,770 67,090 54,040 Contra Costa County 375,370 400,260 344,920 464,130 481,590 467,390 20402010 2 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 184 Association of Bay Area Government's 2013 Projections for 2015 Source:US Census US Census ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG ABAG ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay Bureau Bureau Area' Forecast Projections Projections Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Year Published:2011 2011 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 Jurisdiction:Measurement:Households Housing Units Jobs Households Housing Units Jobs Households Housing Units Jobs Antioch 32,250 34,850 19,090 33,320 20,630 38,790 40,340 25,530 Brentwood 16,490 17,520 8,670 16,850 9,410 18,690 19,420 11,660 Clayton 4,010 4,090 1,540 4,010 1,630 4,150 4,240 1,950 Concord 44,280 47,130 47,640 45,380 52,900 63,190 65,200 69,450 Danville 15,420 15,930 13,460 15,660 14,520 16,920 17,440 17,620 El Cerrito 10,140 10,720 5,880 10,370 6,230 11,560 12,000 7,310 Hercules 8,120 8,550 3,910 8,860 4,460 12,690 13,070 6,440 Lafayette 9,220 9,650 9,940 9,450 10,580 10,640 11,020 12,430 Martinez 14,290 14,980 18,320 14,520 19,260 15,690 16,240 22,490 Moraga 5,570 5,750 4,740 5,700 5,020 6,350 6,540 5,940 Oakley 10,730 11,480 3,750 11,660 4,410 16,440 17,010 6,680 Orinda 6,550 6,800 5,530 6,680 5,910 7,340 7,610 6,940 Pinole 6,780 7,160 6,740 6,970 7,150 7,970 8,240 8,490 Pittsburg 19,530 21,130 14,180 20,840 15,490 27,510 28,520 19,800 Pleasant Hill 13,710 14,320 17,370 13,930 18,680 15,060 15,530 22,940 Richmond 36,090 39,330 30,790 37,890 33,490 47,090 49,020 42,320 San Pablo 8,760 9,570 7,470 9,130 7,970 11,030 11,460 9,660 San Ramon 25,280 26,220 43,960 26,180 47,560 30,730 31,550 58,320 Walnut Creek 30,440 32,680 41,720 31,770 45,550 38,520 40,050 57,380 Cities Total 317,660 337,860 304,700 329,170 330,850 400,360 414,500 413,350 Unincorporated 57,710 62,400 40,220 58,700 43,760 63,770 67,090 54,040 Contra Costa County 375,370 400,260 344,920 387,870 374,610 464,130 481,590 467,390 2010 20402015 ? 3 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 185 Calculating 2015 'Baseline' Housing Units with the Conversion Factor US Census US Census 2010 Units ABAG 2010 Units 2015 Households Bureau Bureau divided by Projections divided by times 2011 2011 2010 Households 2013 2010 Households 2010 Multiplier Housing Units Households Conversion Factor Households Conversion Factor Housing Units Antioch 34,850 /32,250 =1.08062016 33,320 x 1.08062016 =36,006 Brentwood 17,520 /16,490 =1.06246210 16,850 x 1.06246210 =17,902 Clayton 4,090 /4,010 =1.01995012 4,010 x 1.01995012 =4,090 Concord 47,130 /44,280 =1.06436314 45,380 x 1.06436314 =48,301 Danville 15,930 /15,420 =1.03307393 15,660 x 1.03307393 =16,178 El Cerrito 10,720 /10,140 =1.05719921 10,370 x 1.05719921 =10,963 Hercules 8,550 /8,120 =1.05295567 8,860 x 1.05295567 =9,329 Lafayette 9,650 /9,220 =1.04663774 9,450 x 1.04663774 =9,891 Martinez 14,980 /14,290 =1.04828551 14,520 x 1.04828551 =15,221 Moraga 5,750 /5,570 =1.03231598 5,700 x 1.03231598 =5,884 Oakley 11,480 /10,730 =1.06989748 11,660 x 1.06989748 =12,475 Orinda 6,800 /6,550 =1.03816794 6,680 x 1.03816794 =6,935 Pinole 7,160 /6,780 =1.05604720 6,970 x 1.05604720 =7,361 Pittsburg 21,130 /19,530 =1.08192524 20,840 x 1.08192524 =22,547 Pleasant Hill 14,320 /13,710 =1.04449307 13,930 x 1.04449307 =14,550 Richmond 39,330 /36,090 =1.08977556 37,890 x 1.08977556 =41,292 San Pablo 9,570 /8,760 =1.09246575 9,130 x 1.09246575 =9,974 San Ramon 26,220 /25,280 =1.03718354 26,180 x 1.03718354 =27,153 Walnut Creek 32,680 /30,440 =1.07358739 31,770 x 1.07358739 =34,108 Cities Total 350,161 Unincorporated 62,400 /57,710 =1.08126841 58,700 x 1.08126841 =63,470 Contra Costa County 400,260 375,370 387,870 413,631 20152010 4 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 186 Housing and Employment 'Baseline' for 2015 and ABAG Anticipated Growth by 2040 Source:US Census US Census ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 2015 Households ABAG ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay Bureau Bureau Area' Forecast Projections times Projections Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Year Published:2011 2011 2013 2013 Conversion Factor 2013 2013 2013 2013 Jurisdiction:Measurement:Households Housing Units Jobs Households Housing Units Jobs Households Housing Units Jobs Antioch 32,250 34,850 19,090 33,320 36,006 20,630 38,790 40,340 25,530 Brentwood 16,490 17,520 8,670 16,850 17,902 9,410 18,690 19,420 11,660 Clayton 4,010 4,090 1,540 4,010 4,090 1,630 4,150 4,240 1,950 Concord 44,280 47,130 47,640 45,380 48,301 52,900 63,190 65,200 69,450 Danville 15,420 15,930 13,460 15,660 16,178 14,520 16,920 17,440 17,620 El Cerrito 10,140 10,720 5,880 10,370 10,963 6,230 11,560 12,000 7,310 Hercules 8,120 8,550 3,910 8,860 9,329 4,460 12,690 13,070 6,440 Lafayette 9,220 9,650 9,940 9,450 9,891 10,580 10,640 11,020 12,430 Martinez 14,290 14,980 18,320 14,520 15,221 19,260 15,690 16,240 22,490 Moraga 5,570 5,750 4,740 5,700 5,884 5,020 6,350 6,540 5,940 Oakley 10,730 11,480 3,750 11,660 12,475 4,410 16,440 17,010 6,680 Orinda 6,550 6,800 5,530 6,680 6,935 5,910 7,340 7,610 6,940 Pinole 6,780 7,160 6,740 6,970 7,361 7,150 7,970 8,240 8,490 Pittsburg 19,530 21,130 14,180 20,840 22,547 15,490 27,510 28,520 19,800 Pleasant Hill 13,710 14,320 17,370 13,930 14,550 18,680 15,060 15,530 22,940 Richmond 36,090 39,330 30,790 37,890 41,292 33,490 47,090 49,020 42,320 San Pablo 8,760 9,570 7,470 9,130 9,974 7,970 11,030 11,460 9,660 San Ramon 25,280 26,220 43,960 26,180 27,153 47,560 30,730 31,550 58,320 Walnut Creek 30,440 32,680 41,720 31,770 34,108 45,550 38,520 40,050 57,380 Cities Total 317,660 337,860 304,700 329,170 350,161 330,850 400,360 414,500 413,350 Unincorporated 57,710 62,400 40,220 58,700 63,470 43,760 63,770 67,090 54,040 Contra Costa County 375,370 400,260 344,920 387,870 413,631 374,610 464,130 481,590 467,390 2010 2015 2040 5 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 187 Determining the ABAG Anticipated Growth between 2015 and 2040 Source:ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay 2015 Households ABAG Area' Forecast Area' Forecast times Projections Year Published:2013 2013 Conversion Factor 2013 Jurisdiction:Measurement:Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Antioch 40,340 25,530 36,006 20,630 4,334 4,900 Brentwood 19,420 11,660 17,902 9,410 1,518 2,250 Clayton 4,240 1,950 4,090 1,630 150 320 Concord 65,200 69,450 48,301 52,900 16,899 16,550 Danville 17,440 17,620 16,178 14,520 1,262 3,100 El Cerrito 12,000 7,310 10,963 6,230 1,037 1,080 Hercules 13,070 6,440 9,329 4,460 3,741 1,980 Lafayette 11,020 12,430 9,891 10,580 1,129 1,850 Martinez 16,240 22,490 15,221 19,260 1,019 3,230 Moraga 6,540 5,940 5,884 5,020 656 920 Oakley 17,010 6,680 12,475 4,410 4,535 2,270 Orinda 7,610 6,940 6,935 5,910 675 1,030 Pinole 8,240 8,490 7,361 7,150 879 1,340 Pittsburg 28,520 19,800 22,547 15,490 5,973 4,310 Pleasant Hill 15,530 22,940 14,550 18,680 980 4,260 Richmond 49,020 42,320 41,292 33,490 7,728 8,830 San Pablo 11,460 9,660 9,974 7,970 1,486 1,690 San Ramon 31,550 58,320 27,153 47,560 4,397 10,760 Walnut Creek 40,050 57,380 34,108 45,550 5,942 11,830 Cities Total 414,500 413,350 350,161 330,850 64,339 82,500 Unincorporated 67,090 54,040 63,470 43,760 3,620 10,280 Contra Costa County 481,590 467,390 413,631 374,610 67,959 92,780 2015 - 2040 2015 - 2040 =2040 2015-ABAG's Anticipated Growth 6 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 188 ABAG's Housing and Jobs Anticipated Growth Source:US Census US Census 2010 Units ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 2015 Households ABAG ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay Anticipated Anticipated Bureau Bureau divided by Area' Forecast Projections times Projections Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Growth Growth Year Published:2011 2011 2010 Households 2013 2013 2010 Multiplier 2013 2013 2013 2013 2015 - 2040 2015 - 2040 Jurisdiction:Measurement:Households Housing Units Conversion Factor Jobs Households Housing Units Jobs Households Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Antioch 32,250 34,850 1.08062016 19,090 33,320 36,006 20,630 38,790 40,340 25,530 4,334 4,900 Brentwood 16,490 17,520 1.06246210 8,670 16,850 17,902 9,410 18,690 19,420 11,660 1,518 2,250 Clayton 4,010 4,090 1.01995012 1,540 4,010 4,090 1,630 4,150 4,240 1,950 150 320 Concord 44,280 47,130 1.06436314 47,640 45,380 48,301 52,900 63,190 65,200 69,450 16,899 16,550 Danville 15,420 15,930 1.03307393 13,460 15,660 16,178 14,520 16,920 17,440 17,620 1,262 3,100 El Cerrito 10,140 10,720 1.05719921 5,880 10,370 10,963 6,230 11,560 12,000 7,310 1,037 1,080 Hercules 8,120 8,550 1.05295567 3,910 8,860 9,329 4,460 12,690 13,070 6,440 3,741 1,980 Lafayette 9,220 9,650 1.04663774 9,940 9,450 9,891 10,580 10,640 11,020 12,430 1,129 1,850 Martinez 14,290 14,980 1.04828551 18,320 14,520 15,221 19,260 15,690 16,240 22,490 1,019 3,230 Moraga 5,570 5,750 1.03231598 4,740 5,700 5,884 5,020 6,350 6,540 5,940 656 920 Oakley 10,730 11,480 1.06989748 3,750 11,660 12,475 4,410 16,440 17,010 6,680 4,535 2,270 Orinda 6,550 6,800 1.03816794 5,530 6,680 6,935 5,910 7,340 7,610 6,940 675 1,030 Pinole 6,780 7,160 1.05604720 6,740 6,970 7,361 7,150 7,970 8,240 8,490 879 1,340 Pittsburg 19,530 21,130 1.08192524 14,180 20,840 22,547 15,490 27,510 28,520 19,800 5,973 4,310 Pleasant Hill 13,710 14,320 1.04449307 17,370 13,930 14,550 18,680 15,060 15,530 22,940 980 4,260 Richmond 36,090 39,330 1.08977556 30,790 37,890 41,292 33,490 47,090 49,020 42,320 7,728 8,830 San Pablo 8,760 9,570 1.09246575 7,470 9,130 9,974 7,970 11,030 11,460 9,660 1,486 1,690 San Ramon 25,280 26,220 1.03718354 43,960 26,180 27,153 47,560 30,730 31,550 58,320 4,397 10,760 Walnut Creek 30,440 32,680 1.07358739 41,720 31,770 34,108 45,550 38,520 40,050 57,380 5,942 11,830 Cities Total 317,660 337,860 304,700 329,170 350,161 330,850 400,360 414,500 413,350 64,339 82,500 Unincorporated 57,710 62,400 1.08126841 40,220 58,700 63,470 43,760 63,770 67,090 54,040 3,620 10,280 Contra Costa County 375,370 400,260 344,920 387,870 413,631 374,610 464,130 481,590 467,390 67,959 92,780 2010 2015 2040 ABAG's Anticipated Growth 7 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 189 Estimating Housing and Jobs Capacity: GIS Analysis There are @ 352,000 parcels* inside the Urban Limit Line 8 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 190 GIS Analysis - Initial Methodology There are @14,000 potentially vacant* parcels indicated by Assessor data 9 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 191 GIS Analysis - Initial Methodology Removed @4,000 parcels assumed non-developable * 10 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 192 GIS Analysis - Preliminary Vacant Inventory Preliminary Vacant Parcel Inventory - General Plan land use map* 11 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 193 Components of Capacity: General Plan Calculation Residential General Plan Calculations of Vacant Lots for Housing and Jobs Unbuilt Subdivisions and Single Vacant Lots Conversion of Land Designated Agricultural in the General Plan General Plan Density Range Input from Cities Residential Land Priority Development Area Growth Use Descriptions Low High 12 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 194 Components of Capacity: General Plan Calculation Employment General Plan Calculations of Vacant Lots for Housing and Jobs Unbuilt Subdivisions and Single Vacant Lots Conversion of Land Designated Agricultural in the General Plan Input from Cities Low High Priority Development Area Growth Sq Ft per Employee * 13 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 195 Components of Capacity: Subdivided Lots / Under Construction General Plan Calculations of Vacant Lots for Housing and Jobs Unbuilt Subdivisions and Single Vacant Lots Conversion of Land Designated Agricultural in the General Plan Input from Cities Priority Development Area Growth 14 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 196 Components of Capacity: Agricultural to Residential General Plan Calculations of Vacant Lots for Housing and Jobs Unbuilt Subdivisions and Single Vacant Lots Conversion of Land Designated Agricultural in the General Plan Input from Cities Priority Development Area Growth 15 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 197 Components of Capacity: Detailed Plans & Studies / Proposed or Approved Projects General Plan Calculations of Vacant Lots for Housing and Jobs Unbuilt Subdivisions and Single Vacant Lots Conversion of Land Designated Agricultural in the General Plan Input from Cities Priority Development Area Growth 16 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 198 Components of Capacity: Included Priority Development Growth General Plan Calculations of Vacant Lots for Housing and Jobs Unbuilt Subdivisions and Single Vacant Lots Association of Bay Area Government's Conversion of Land Designated Agricultural in the General Plan Input from Cities Priority Development Area Growth "Priority Development Areas" 17 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 199 Lower Density Scenario: Components of Capacity General Plan Calculations of Vacant Lots for Housing and Jobs - Low Density Unbuilt Subdivisions and Single Vacant Lots Conversion of Land Designated Agricultural in the General Plan (to Residential Low Density) Input from Cities Priority Development Area Growth 18 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 200 Capacity Summary: Lower Density Scenario Components of Employment Capacity (Inside ULL) General Plan Subdivided Agricultural Proposed/Detailed ABAG 'Plan Bay Estimated General Plan Proposed/Detailed ABAG 'Plan Bay Estimated Source:Calculation Lots / Under to Residential Approved Studies Area' Forecast Housing Calculation Approved Studies Area' Forecast Employment Residential Low Construction Low Density Projects & Plans *PDA Growth Capacity Employment Projects & Plans *PDA Growth Capacity Jurisdiction:Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Antioch 1,657 384 6 4,000 (PDA 6,047 28,395 (PDA 28,395 Brentwood 4,934 1,347 76 1,432 7,789 24,509 24,509 Clayton 277 growth 277 86 growth 86 Concord 346 151 12,200 12,697 3,159 26,530 29,689 Danville 992 was 992 1,900 was 1,900 El Cerrito 1,706 1,706 372 372 Hercules 402 38 144 not 584 3,322 not 3,322 Lafayette 101 156 4 261 137 50 187 Martinez 279 121 152 factored 552 1,113 factored 1,113 Moraga 657 111 314 1,082 501 501 Oakley 3,822 841 131 into 4,794 15,899 into 15,899 Orinda 175 270 75 520 0 84 84 Pinole 493 lower 493 660 lower 660 Pittsburg 1,198 703 1,851 4,652 8,404 12,951 1,300 14,251 Pleasant Hill 490 density 490 332 density 332 Richmond 2,369 556 180 3,105 19,059 19,059 San Pablo 508 71 scenario)579 1,035 scenario)1,035 San Ramon 7,198 7,198 11,673 11,673 Walnut Creek 149 86 278 513 651 233 884 Cities Total 16,597 4,835 2,558 10,737 23,356 0 58,083 111,809 367 41,775 0 153,951 Unincorporated 1,401 2,215 3,530 2,201 0 0 9,347 15,223 1,413 1,450 0 18,086 County Total 17,998 7,050 6,088 12,938 23,356 0 67,430 127,032 1,780 43,225 0 172,037 * Detailed Studies & Plans include Housing Elements, Specific Plans, General Plans, Reuse Plans, or Master Plans Components of Housing Capacity (Inside Urban Limit Line) 19 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 201 Higher Density Scenario: Components of Capacity General Plan Calculations of Vacant Lots for Housing and Jobs - Higher Density ** Outside of Included PDAs Only Unbuilt Subdivisions and Single Vacant Lots * Conversion of Land Designated Agricultural in the General Plan (to Residential Higher Density *) Input from Cities Priority Development Area Growth 20 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 202 Capacity Summary: Higher Density Scenario Components of Employment Capacity (Inside ULL) General Plan Subdivided Agricultural Proposed/General Plans ABAG 'Plan Bay Estimated General Plan Proposed/General Plans ABAG 'Plan Bay Estimated Source:Calculation Lots / Under to Residential Approved Specific Plans Area' Forecast Housing Calculation Approved Specific Plans Area' Forecast Employment Residential High ^Construction ^High Density ^Projects Housing Elements PDA Growth Capacity Employment ^Projects ^Job Estimates PDA Growth Capacity Jurisdiction:Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Antioch 1,645 372 88 4,000 4,062 10,167 29,923 3,402 33,325 Brentwood 8,104 1,347 366 1,432 11,249 31,506 31,506 Clayton 364 364 107 107 Concord 344 151 12,200 3,026 15,721 3,772 26,530 1,483 31,785 Danville 1,555 1,555 1,900 1,900 El Cerrito 1,706 1,706 460 460 Hercules 12 4 4,023 4,039 0 1,740 1,740 Lafayette 129 156 4 849 1,138 0 50 1,142 1,192 Martinez 408 106 152 677 1,343 1,300 863 2,163 Moraga 633 80 1,550 330 2,593 95 303 398 Oakley 6,337 827 401 3,139 10,704 2,563 2,478 5,041 Orinda 127 270 75 203 675 0 50 539 589 Pinole 74 644 718 1,039 1,039 Pittsburg 946 602 1,851 3,484 6,071 12,954 12,835 3,780 16,615 Pleasant Hill 180 356 536 338 2,712 3,050 Richmond 3,105 373 860 3,712 8,050 13,842 4,591 18,433 San Pablo 353 64 1,334 1,751 298 1,759 2,057 San Ramon 7,392 7,392 11,673 11,673 Walnut Creek 137 85 200 3,500 3,922 855 378 5,600 6,833 Cities Total 22,280 4,437 5,116 9,347 26,971 28,426 96,577 97,434 478 46,163 25,831 169,906 Unincorporated 1,927 2,020 6,889 1,469 0 1,975 14,280 14,631 874 2,600 2,712 20,817 County Total 24,207 6,457 12,005 10,816 26,971 30,401 110,857 112,065 1,352 48,763 28,543 190,723 * Detailed Studies & Plans include Housing Elements, Specific Plans, General Plans, Reuse Plans, or Master Plans ^ These components are only tallied outside of included PDAs in this Higher Density Scenario Components of Housing Capacity (Inside Urban Limit Line) 21 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 203 Capacity Compared to Anticipated Growth: Lower Density Scenario Anticipated Anticipated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Growth Growth Housing Employment Deficit or Deficit or 2015 - 2040 2015 - 2040 Capacity Capacity Surplus Surplus Jurisdiction:Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Antioch 4,334 4,900 6,047 28,395 1,713 23,495 Brentwood 1,518 2,250 7,789 24,509 6,271 22,259 Clayton 150 320 277 86 127 -234 Concord 16,899 16,550 12,697 29,689 -4,202 13,139 Danville 1,262 3,100 992 1,900 -270 -1,200 El Cerrito 1,037 1,080 1,706 372 669 -708 Hercules 3,741 1,980 584 3,322 -3,157 1,342 Lafayette 1,129 1,850 261 187 -868 -1,663 Martinez 1,019 3,230 552 1,113 -467 -2,117 Moraga 656 920 1,082 501 426 -419 Oakley 4,535 2,270 4,794 15,899 259 13,629 Orinda 675 1,030 520 84 -155 -946 Pinole 879 1,340 493 660 -386 -680 Pittsburg 5,973 4,310 8,404 14,251 2,431 9,941 Pleasant Hill 980 4,260 490 332 -490 -3,928 Richmond 7,728 8,830 3,105 19,059 -4,623 10,229 San Pablo 1,486 1,690 579 1,035 -907 -655 San Ramon 4,397 10,760 7,198 11,673 2,801 913 Walnut Creek 5,942 11,830 513 884 -5,429 -10,946 Cities Total 64,339 82,500 58,083 153,951 (6,256)71,451 Unincorporated 3,620 10,280 9,347 18,086 5,727 7,806 County Total 67,959 92,780 67,430 172,037 (529)79,257 Anticipated Growth ABAG's Lower Density Scenario 22 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 204 Capacity Compared to Anticipated Growth: Higher Density Scenario Anticipated Anticipated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Growth Growth Housing Employment Deficit or Deficit or 2015 - 2040 2015 - 2040 Capacity Capacity Surplus Surplus Jurisdiction:Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Antioch 4,334 4,900 10,167 33,325 5,833 28,425 Brentwood 1,518 2,250 11,249 31,506 9,731 29,256 Clayton 150 320 364 107 214 -213 Concord 16,899 16,550 15,721 31,785 -1,178 15,235 Danville 1,262 3,100 1,555 1,900 293 -1,200 El Cerrito 1,037 1,080 1,706 460 669 -620 Hercules 3,741 1,980 4,039 1,740 298 -240 Lafayette 1,129 1,850 1,138 1,192 9 -658 Martinez 1,019 3,230 1,343 2,163 324 -1,067 Moraga 656 920 2,593 398 1,937 -522 Oakley 4,535 2,270 10,704 5,041 6,169 2,771 Orinda 675 1,030 675 589 0 -441 Pinole 879 1,340 718 1,039 -161 -301 Pittsburg 5,973 4,310 12,954 16,615 6,981 12,305 Pleasant Hill 980 4,260 536 3,050 -444 -1,210 Richmond 7,728 8,830 8,050 18,433 322 9,603 San Pablo 1,486 1,690 1,751 2,057 265 367 San Ramon 4,397 10,760 7,392 11,673 2,995 913 Walnut Creek 5,942 11,830 3,922 6,833 -2,020 -4,997 Cities Total 64,339 82,500 96,577 169,906 32,238 87,406 Unincorporated 3,620 10,280 14,280 20,817 10,660 10,537 County Total 67,959 92,780 110,857 190,723 42,898 97,943 Anticipated Growth ABAG's Higher Density Scenario 23 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 205 Capacity Compared to Anticipated Growth Anticipated Anticipated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Growth Growth Housing Employment Deficit or Deficit or Housing Employment Deficit or Deficit or 2015 - 2040 2015 - 2040 Capacity Capacity Surplus Surplus Capacity Capacity Surplus Surplus Jurisdiction:Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Antioch 4,334 4,900 6,047 28,395 1,713 23,495 10,167 33,325 5,833 28,425 Brentwood 1,518 2,250 7,789 24,509 6,271 22,259 11,249 31,506 9,731 29,256 Clayton 150 320 277 86 127 -234 364 107 214 -213 Concord 16,899 16,550 12,697 29,689 -4,202 13,139 15,721 31,785 -1,178 15,235 Danville 1,262 3,100 992 1,900 -270 -1,200 1,555 1,900 293 -1,200 El Cerrito 1,037 1,080 1,706 372 669 -708 1,706 460 669 -620 Hercules 3,741 1,980 584 3,322 -3,157 1,342 4,039 1,740 298 -240 Lafayette 1,129 1,850 261 187 -868 -1,663 1,138 1,192 9 -658 Martinez 1,019 3,230 552 1,113 -467 -2,117 1,343 2,163 324 -1,067 Moraga 656 920 1,082 501 426 -419 2,593 398 1,937 -522 Oakley 4,535 2,270 4,794 15,899 259 13,629 10,704 5,041 6,169 2,771 Orinda 675 1,030 520 84 -155 -946 675 589 0 -441 Pinole 879 1,340 493 660 -386 -680 718 1,039 -161 -301 Pittsburg 5,973 4,310 8,404 14,251 2,431 9,941 12,954 16,615 6,981 12,305 Pleasant Hill 980 4,260 490 332 -490 -3,928 536 3,050 -444 -1,210 Richmond 7,728 8,830 3,105 19,059 -4,623 10,229 8,050 18,433 322 9,603 San Pablo 1,486 1,690 579 1,035 -907 -655 1,751 2,057 265 367 San Ramon 4,397 10,760 7,198 11,673 2,801 913 7,392 11,673 2,995 913 Walnut Creek 5,942 11,830 513 884 -5,429 -10,946 3,922 6,833 -2,020 -4,997 Cities Total 64,339 82,500 58,083 153,951 (6,256)71,451 96,577 169,906 32,238 87,406 Unincorporated 3,620 10,280 9,347 18,086 5,727 7,806 14,280 20,817 10,660 10,537 County Total 67,959 92,780 67,430 172,037 (529)79,257 110,857 190,723 42,898 97,943 Rounded to Nearest 100 67,400 172,000 (500)79,300 110,900 190,700 42,900 97,900 ABAG's Anticipated Growth Lower Density Capacity Lower Density Surplus/Deficit (C = B - A) Higher Density Capacity Higher Density Surplus/Deficit (E = D - A) A B C D E 24 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 206 APPENDIX A: ABAG's Plan Bay Area 'Preferred Scenario - 2017' December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 207 Association of Bay Area Government's 2017 'Plan Bay Area' Preferred 2010-2040 Source:US Census ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 2015 Households ABAG ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay Anticipated Anticipated Bureau Area' Preferred Area' Forecast Area' Preferred Projections times Projections Area' Preferred Area' Preferred Growth Growth Year Published:2011 2017 2013 2017 2013 Conversion Factor 2013 2017 2017 2015 - 2040 2015 - 2040 Jurisdiction:Measurement:Households Households Jobs Jobs Households Housing Units Jobs Households Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Antioch 32,250 32,252 19,090 20,110 33,320 36,006 20,630 40,300 25,700 ?5070 Brentwood 16,490 16,494 8,670 11,620 16,850 17,902 9,410 26,100 11,990 ?2580 Clayton 4,010 4,006 1,540 1,990 4,010 4,090 1,630 4,100 2,090 ?460 Concord 44,280 44,278 47,640 54,270 45,380 48,301 52,900 64,400 95,500 ?42600 Danville 15,420 15,420 13,460 11,840 15,660 16,178 14,520 16,020 13,100 ?(1420) El Cerrito 10,140 10,142 5,880 5,320 10,370 10,963 6,230 12,100 5,910 ?(320) Hercules 8,120 8,115 3,910 4,950 8,860 9,329 4,460 9,650 5,420 ?960 Lafayette 9,220 9,223 9,940 8,990 9,450 9,891 10,580 9,970 9,940 ?(640) Martinez 14,290 14,287 18,320 20,710 14,520 15,221 19,260 15,300 26,100 ?6840 Moraga 5,570 5,570 4,740 4,570 5,700 5,884 5,020 5,920 5,700 ?680 Oakley 10,730 10,727 3,750 3,410 11,660 12,475 4,410 16,400 5,350 ?940 Orinda 6,550 6,553 5,530 4,840 6,680 6,935 5,910 6,830 5,500 ?(410) Pinole 6,780 6,775 6,740 6,700 6,970 7,361 7,150 7,290 8,500 ?1350 Pittsburg 19,530 19,527 14,180 11,840 20,840 22,547 15,490 26,500 15,600 ?110 Pleasant Hill 13,710 13,708 17,370 16,360 13,930 14,550 18,680 14,310 19,800 ?1120 Richmond 36,090 36,093 30,790 30,680 37,890 41,292 33,490 54,900 61,800 ?28310 San Pablo 8,760 8,761 7,470 7,430 9,130 9,974 7,970 9,800 9,100 ?1130 San Ramon 25,280 25,284 43,960 47,950 26,180 27,153 47,560 30,300 71,800 ?24240 Walnut Creek 30,440 30,443 41,720 50,860 31,770 34,108 45,550 37,500 58,100 ?12550 Cities Total 317,660 317,658 304,700 324,440 329,170 350,161 330,850 407,690 457,000 ?126150 Unincorporated 57,710 57,706 40,220 35,790 58,700 63,470 43,760 67,700 41,100 ?(2660) Contra Costa County 375,370 375,364 344,920 360,230 387,870 413,631 374,610 475,390 498,100 ?123,490 2010 2015 2040 ? Anticipated Growth ABAG's Revised A-1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 208 Comparing 2017 'Plan Bay Area' Preferred to 2013 'Plan Bay Area Forecast' Source:2010 Census U ABAG 2015 Households ABAG ABAG 'Plan Bay 2040 Households ABAG 'Plan Bay Anticipated Anticipated Anticipated Anticipated divided by Projections times Projections Area' Preferred times Area' Preferred Growth Growth Growth Growth Year Published:2010 Census HH 2013 Conversion Factor 2013 2017 Conversion Factor 2017 2015 - 2040 2015 - 2040 2015 - 2040 2015 - 2040 Jurisdiction:Measurement:Conversion Factor Households Housing Units Jobs Households Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Antioch 1.08062016 33,320 36,006 20,630 40,300 41,910 25,700 5,904 5,070 4,334 4,900 Brentwood 1.06246210 16,850 17,902 9,410 26,100 27,119 11,990 9,217 2,580 1,518 2,250 Clayton 1.01995012 4,010 4,090 1,630 4,100 4,189 2,090 99 460 150 320 Concord 1.06436314 45,380 48,301 52,900 64,400 66,448 95,500 18,148 42,600 16,899 16,550 Danville 1.03307393 15,660 16,178 14,520 16,020 16,512 13,100 334 (1,420)1,262 3,100 El Cerrito 1.05719921 10,370 10,963 6,230 12,100 12,561 5,910 1,597 (320)1,037 1,080 Hercules 1.05295567 8,860 9,329 4,460 9,650 9,939 5,420 610 960 3,741 1,980 Lafayette 1.04663774 9,450 9,891 10,580 9,970 10,326 9,940 435 (640)1,129 1,850 Martinez 1.04828551 14,520 15,221 19,260 15,300 15,836 26,100 615 6,840 1,019 3,230 Moraga 1.03231598 5,700 5,884 5,020 5,920 6,097 5,700 213 680 656 920 Oakley 1.06989748 11,660 12,475 4,410 16,400 16,969 5,350 4,494 940 4,535 2,270 Orinda 1.03816794 6,680 6,935 5,910 6,830 7,081 5,500 146 (410)675 1,030 Pinole 1.05604720 6,970 7,361 7,150 7,290 7,537 8,500 176 1,350 879 1,340 Pittsburg 1.08192524 20,840 22,547 15,490 26,500 27,473 15,600 4,926 110 5,973 4,310 Pleasant Hill 1.04449307 13,930 14,550 18,680 14,310 14,757 19,800 207 1,120 980 4,260 Richmond 1.08977556 37,890 41,292 33,490 54,900 57,150 61,800 15,858 28,310 7,728 8,830 San Pablo 1.09246575 9,130 9,974 7,970 9,800 10,182 9,100 208 1,130 1,486 1,690 San Ramon 1.03718354 26,180 27,153 47,560 30,300 31,109 71,800 3,955 24,240 4,397 10,760 Walnut Creek 1.07358739 31,770 34,108 45,550 37,500 38,989 58,100 4,882 12,550 5,942 11,830 Cities Total 329,170 350,161 330,850 407,690 422,185 457,000 72,024 126,150 64,339 82,500 Unincorporated 1.08126841 58,700 63,470 43,760 67,700 71,225 41,100 7,754 (2,660)3,620 10,280 Contra Costa County 387,870 413,631 374,610 475,390 493,410 498,100 79,778 123,490 67,959 92,780 2013 PBA Forecast201520402017 PBA Preferred A-2 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 209 APPENDIX B: Comparing Lower Density Scenario to Housing Elements December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 210 Capacity Compared to Anticipated Growth: Lower Density Scenario vs Housing Element ABAG's Anticipated Estimated Estimated Residential Estimated Growth Housing Deficit or Development Deficit or 2015 - 2040 Capacity Surplus Capacity Surplus Jurisdiction:Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Antioch 4,334 6,047 1,713 2,448 -1,886 Brentwood 1,518 7,789 6,271 8,097 6,579 Clayton 150 277 127 265 115 Concord 16,899 12,697 -4,202 16,723 -176 Danville 1,262 992 -270 1,555 293 El Cerrito 1,037 1,706 669 943 -94 Hercules 3,741 584 -3,157 2,732 -1,009 Lafayette 1,129 261 -868 868 -261 Martinez 1,019 552 -467 1,156 137 Moraga 656 1,082 426 886 230 Oakley 4,535 4,794 259 7,854 3,319 Orinda 675 520 -155 525 -150 Pinole 879 493 -386 493 -386 Pittsburg 5,973 8,404 2,431 5,006 -967 Pleasant Hill 980 490 -490 490 -490 Richmond 7,728 3,105 -4,623 1,912 -5,816 San Pablo 1,486 579 -907 825 -661 San Ramon 4,397 7,198 2,801 7,198 2,801 Walnut Creek 5,942 513 -5,429 3,186 -2,756 Cities Total 64,339 58,083 (6,256)63,162 (1,177) Unincorporated 3,620 9,347 5,727 3,590 30 County Total 67,959 67,430 (529)66,752 (1,207) Lower Density ScenarioAnticipated Growth Housing Element 2015-2023 B-1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 211 APPENDIX C: Alternative Baseline Estimates for Housing and Jobs December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 212 Alternate Housing/Employment 'Baseline' for 2010 and Estimates for 2014, 2015 and 2030 Source:ABAG 'Plan Bay LEHD LEHD US Census ABAG 2015 Households California ABAG ABAG ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay Area' Forecast On the Map On the Map A.C.S. Survey Projections times Dept of Finance Projections Projections Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Year Published:2013 2016 2016 2011 2013 Conversion Factor 2015 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 Jurisdiction:Measurement:Jobs Jobs Jobs Households Households Housing Units Housing Units Jobs Households Households Housing Units Jobs Antioch 19,090 19,343 20,210 32,900 33,320 36,006 35,750 20,630 36,600 38,790 40,340 25,530 Brentwood 8,670 7,494 9,899 17,138 16,850 17,902 18,663 9,410 17,960 18,690 19,420 11,660 Clayton 1,540 1,193 1,511 4,134 4,010 4,090 4,111 1,630 4,150 4,150 4,240 1,950 Concord 47,640 47,435 51,659 44,987 45,380 48,301 47,170 52,900 54,840 63,190 65,200 69,450 Danville 13,460 12,149 11,204 15,685 15,660 16,178 16,075 14,520 16,440 16,920 17,440 17,620 El Cerrito 5,880 5,132 5,315 10,027 10,370 10,963 10,731 6,230 11,080 11,560 12,000 7,310 Hercules 3,910 3,479 4,595 8,184 8,860 9,329 8,551 4,460 11,140 12,690 13,070 6,440 Lafayette 9,940 8,874 10,296 9,150 9,450 9,891 9,866 10,580 10,170 10,640 11,020 12,430 Martinez 18,320 21,091 20,012 14,192 14,520 15,221 15,151 19,260 15,230 15,690 16,240 22,490 Moraga 4,740 3,660 4,075 5,719 5,700 5,884 5,763 5,020 6,090 6,350 6,540 5,940 Oakley 3,750 3,099 3,448 11,136 11,660 12,475 12,206 4,410 14,520 16,440 17,010 6,680 Orinda 5,530 3,588 3,621 6,647 6,680 6,935 6,970 5,910 7,080 7,340 7,610 6,940 Pinole 6,740 4,705 5,337 6,679 6,970 7,361 7,161 7,150 7,570 7,970 8,240 8,490 Pittsburg 14,180 12,935 14,265 19,629 20,840 22,547 21,915 15,490 24,840 27,510 28,520 19,800 Pleasant Hill 17,370 16,328 15,603 13,774 13,930 14,550 14,329 18,680 14,610 15,060 15,530 22,940 Richmond 30,790 28,513 29,920 36,413 37,890 41,292 39,396 33,490 43,390 47,090 49,020 42,320 San Pablo 7,470 5,251 5,868 8,967 9,130 9,974 9,483 7,970 10,270 11,030 11,460 9,660 San Ramon 43,960 35,787 42,360 25,215 26,180 27,153 27,696 47,560 28,900 30,730 31,550 58,320 Walnut Creek 41,720 52,188 55,251 30,328 31,770 34,108 33,038 45,550 35,810 38,520 40,050 57,380 Cities Total 304,700 292,244 314,449 320,904 329,170 350,161 344,025 330,850 370,690 400,360 414,500 413,350 Unincorporated 40,220 32,343 33,567 59,279 58,700 63,470 63,636 43,760 61,740 63,770 67,090 54,040 Contra Costa County 344,920 324,587 348,016 380,183 387,870 413,631 407,661 374,610 432,430 464,130 481,590 467,390 2010 20152014 20402030 C-1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 213 APPENDIX D: CALCULATING PDA GROWTH 2015 to 2040 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 214 Housing and Jobs Projections inside Priority Development Areas Source:ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Year Published:2013 2013 2013 2013 PDA Growth PDA Growth Measurement:Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Antioch PDA 1,760 4,060 5,880 7,790 Brentwood No PDA Clayton No PDA Concord Downtown PDA 4,600 7,850 7,740 10,200 Danville PDA 1,450 5,320 2,200 7,290 El Cerrito PDA 1,340 3,520 2,350 4,350 Hercules PDA 1,720 2,770 5,900 4,900 Lafayette PDA 2,030 5,250 2,930 6,730 Martinez PDA 820 4,040 1,510 5,110 Moraga PDA 440 1,140 780 1,510 Oakley PDA 2,200 1,770 5,530 4,560 Orinda PDA 340 3,220 550 3,980 Pinole PDA 1,990 5,270 2,690 6,630 Pittsburg PDA 5,800 7,140 12,260 11,580 Pleasant Hill PDA 2,090 7,140 2,480 10,390 Richmond PDA 11,390 15,730 15,670 21,700 San Pablo PDA 3,210 5,690 4,680 7,830 San Ramon PDA 620 21,860 3,320 32,260 Walnut Creek PDA 1,520 7,450 4,100 12,070 Cities Total 43,320 109,220 80,570 158,880 Unincorporated PDA 7,870 7,250 9,980 10,600 Contra Costa County 51,190 116,470 90,550 169,480 ?? 2010 2015 2040 Anticipated PDA Growth D-1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 215 Calculating Growth Factor for Jobs and Housing between 2010 to 2015 Housing Unit Employment 2015 /2010 =Growth Factor 2015 /2010 =Growth Factor 2015 Households US Census 2015 Units ABAG ABAG 'Plan Bay 2015 Jobs times Bureau divided by Projections Area' Forecast divided by Conversion Factor 2011 2010 Units 2013 2013 2010 Jobs Housing Units Housing Units Growth Factor Jobs Jobs Growth Factor Antioch Total 36,006 /34,850 =1.03317829 20,630 /19,090 =1.08067051 Brentwood Total 17,902 /17,520 =1.02183141 9,410 /8,670 =1.08535179 Clayton Total 4,090 /4,090 =1.00000000 1,630 /1,540 =1.05844156 Concord Total 48,301 /47,130 =1.02484192 52,900 /47,640 =1.11041142 Danville Total 16,178 /15,930 =1.01556420 14,520 /13,460 =1.07875186 El Cerrito Total 10,963 /10,720 =1.02268245 6,230 /5,880 =1.05952381 Hercules Total 9,329 /8,550 =1.09113300 4,460 /3,910 =1.14066496 Lafayette Total 9,891 /9,650 =1.02494577 10,580 /9,940 =1.06438632 Martinez Total 15,221 /14,980 =1.01609517 19,260 /18,320 =1.05131004 Moraga Total 5,884 /5,750 =1.02333932 5,020 /4,740 =1.05907173 Oakley Total 12,475 /11,480 =1.08667288 4,410 /3,750 =1.17600000 Orinda Total 6,935 /6,800 =1.01984733 5,910 /5,530 =1.06871609 Pinole Total 7,361 /7,160 =1.02802360 7,150 /6,740 =1.06083086 Pittsburg Total 22,547 /21,130 =1.06707629 15,490 /14,180 =1.09238364 Pleasant Hill Total 14,550 /14,320 =1.01604668 18,680 /17,370 =1.07541739 Richmond Total 41,292 /39,330 =1.04987531 33,490 /30,790 =1.08769081 San Pablo Total 9,974 /9,570 =1.04223744 7,970 /7,470 =1.06693440 San Ramon Total 27,153 /26,220 =1.03560127 47,560 /43,960 =1.08189263 Walnut Creek Total 34,108 /32,680 =1.04369251 45,550 /41,720 =1.09180249 Cities Total 350,161 330,850 304,700 Unincorporated Total 63,470 /62,400 =1.01715474 43,760 /40,220 =1.08801591 Contra Costa County 413,631 400,260 374,610 344,920 D-2 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 216 Housing and Jobs Projections inside Priority Development Areas - from Source:ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay 2015 Units 2015 Jobs 2015 Households ABAG ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay ABAG 'Plan Bay Area' Forecast Area' Forecast divided by divided by times Projections Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Area' Forecast Year Published:2013 2013 2010 Units 2010 Jobs 2010 Multiplier 2013 2013 2013 PDA Growth PDA Growth Measurement:Housing Units Jobs Growth Factor Growth Factor Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Antioch PDA 1,760 4,060 x 1.03317829 1.08067051 =1,818 4,388 5,880 7,790 =4,062 3,402 Brentwood No PDA 1.02183141 1.08535179 Clayton No PDA 1.00000000 1.05844156 Concord Downtown PDA 4,600 7,850 x 1.02484192 1.11041142 =4,714 8,717 7,740 10,200 =3,026 1,483 Danville PDA not Included 1,450 5,320 1.01556420 1.07875186 1,473 5,739 2,200 7,290 727 1,551 El Cerrito PDA not Included 1,340 3,520 1.02268245 1.05952381 1,370 3,730 2,350 4,350 980 620 Hercules PDA 1,720 2,770 x 1.09113300 1.14066496 =1,877 3,160 5,900 4,900 =4,023 1,740 Lafayette PDA 2,030 5,250 x 1.02494577 1.06438632 =2,081 5,588 2,930 6,730 =849 1,142 Martinez PDA 820 4,040 x 1.01609517 1.05131004 =833 4,247 1,510 5,110 =677 863 Moraga PDA 440 1,140 x 1.02333932 1.05907173 =450 1,207 780 1,510 =330 303 Oakley PDA 2,200 1,770 x 1.08667288 1.17600000 =2,391 2,082 5,530 4,560 =3,139 2,478 Orinda PDA 340 3,220 x 1.01984733 1.06871609 =347 3,441 550 3,980 =203 539 Pinole PDA 1,990 5,270 x 1.02802360 1.06083086 =2,046 5,591 2,690 6,630 =644 1,039 Pittsburg PDA 5,800 7,140 x 1.06707629 1.09238364 =6,189 7,800 12,260 11,580 =6,071 3,780 Pleasant Hill PDA 2,090 7,140 x 1.01604668 1.07541739 =2,124 7,678 2,480 10,390 =356 2,712 Richmond PDA 11,390 15,730 x 1.04987531 1.08769081 =11,958 17,109 15,670 21,700 =3,712 4,591 San Pablo PDA 3,210 5,690 x 1.04223744 1.06693440 =3,346 6,071 4,680 7,830 =1,334 1,759 San Ramon PDA not Included 620 21,860 1.03560127 1.08189263 642 23,650 3,320 32,260 2,678 8,610 Walnut Creek PDA not Included 1,520 7,450 1.04369251 1.09180249 1,586 8,134 4,100 12,070 2,514 3,936 Cities Total 43,320 109,220 45,245 118,332 80,570 158,880 28,426 25,831 Unincorporated PDA 7,870 7,250 x 1.01715474 1.08801591 =8,005 7,888 9,980 10,600 =1,975 2,712 Contra Costa County 51,190 116,470 53,250 126,220 90,550 169,480 30,401 28,543 2010 Anticipated PDA Growth20402015Total City Growth Factor =x = D-3 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 217 ATTACHMENT E: Public Meeting Sign-in Sheets December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 218 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 219 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 220 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 221 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 222 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 223 ATTACHMENT F: Beacon Report December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 224 OUTLOOK Economic RecentTrends Employment HealthCare I n d u s t r y Te c h n o l o g y & I nnovat ion Ports&Trade C o n s u m e r Demand BusinessTrends Residential RealEstate C o m m e r c i a l Long-Run Considerations Education TheImpactof Educationon Employment andIncome Health Insurance andSocial ServicesShifting Demographics RecessionEffects East Bay ECONOMIC 2015-16 EDA_Outlook15-16_COVER_final.indd 1 5/4/15 11:52 PM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 225 ABOUT THIS REPORT East Bay Economic Development Alliance (East Bay EDA) is a public/private partnership serving the San Francisco Bay Area’s East Bay (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties). East Bay EDA’s mission is to be the regional voice and networking resource for strengthening the economy, building the workforce and enhancing the quality of life in the East Bay. One of East Bay EDA’s core strategies is to provide valuable information about the trends impacting the East Bay economy. Each year we produce an annual East Bay Economic Outlook report, which is both a forecast and a summary of key economic indicators for the East Bay as it compares to the Bay Area region, the state of California, and the nation as a whole. To access East Bay EDA’s reports, economic forecasts and business resources data, please visit: www.EastBayEDA.org REPORT AUTHORS This report was prepared for East Bay EDA by Beacon Economics Christopher Thornberg, Ph.D., Founding Partner Jordan G. Levine, Economist & Director of Economic Research Dustin Schrader, Public Policy Manager Brian Vanderplas, Senior Research Associate Christian Cruz, Research Associate Max Saia, Research Associate Alan Hooper, Research Associate To contact Beacon Economics: Rick Smith Director of Business Development Beacon Economics, LLC (858) 997-1834 rick@beaconecon.com www.beaconecon.com Reproduction of this document or any portion therein is prohibited without the express written permission of East Bay Economic Development Alliance and Beacon Economics LLC. Copyright ©2015 by East Bay Economic Development Alliance. EDA_Outlook15-16_COVER_final.indd 2 5/4/15 11:52 PM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 226 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EAST BAY EMPLOYMENT 4 EAST BAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY 10 EAST BAY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 21 EAST BAY RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE 27 DEMOGRAPHICS / QUALITY OF LIFE 34 CONCLUSION 40 OUTLOOKEAST BAY ECONOMIC 2015-16 EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 3 5/5/15 10:14 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 227 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 3 The East Bay Economy continues to move forward and build on the economic expansion that has taken place in the post-recession era these last few years. With virtually every major economic indicator trending in the right direction, the region is poised for steady growth in 2015 as the local economic engine continues firing on all cylinders. From the job market to spending and real estate, the East Bay remains one of the bright spots in the state of California. Nonfarm Employment in the Alameda and Contra Costa County metropolitan area has grown steadily over this last year and the unemployment rate in the region continues to be lower than the statewide and national averages. The Leisure and Hospitality industry has been one of the main drivers of job growth for local businesses and highlights the strong growth mainly in business travel. The East Bay also continues to be home to many outbound commuters, who tend to find high paying jobs in the West and South Bay job centers, which ultimately boosts local incomes and spending. Just as trends in the local labor market have been moving in the right direction, business activity indicators have trended favorably as well. The gains in the job market have resulted in higher spending levels in the region, measured by taxable sales, which have risen across the region. Higher employment levels in the Leisure and Hospitality industry have also coincided with rising hotel occupancy, which is at historically high levels. What’s more, venture capital funding surged in 2014 with solar tech companies being the major driver of the increased investment. These gains have carried over to property owners, where vacancy rates for office, retail, and industrial properties continued to decline and rents improved. Residential real estate continues to appreciate at a rapid pace, driven by strong demand from buyers who are more confident with their employment situation and are eager to take advantage of historically low interest rates. The East Bay continues to have one of the fastest growing population bases in Northern California as home prices are relatively affordable compared to the South Bay and San Francisco. The amount of available housing currently on the market in the East Bay remains limited, but more units will become available in the near future as residential construction activity picked up considerably in 2014. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 3 5/5/15 10:14 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 228 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-164 | EAST BAY EMPLOYMENT OVERVIEw The East Bay’s labor market has finally hit its stride, and is poised for further growth in 2015 and 2016. Recently revised estimates show that East Bay employment growth in 2014 was much better than previously reported. Nonfarm jobs from December 2013 to December 2014 grew by 3.0%, rather than the 2.4% originally estimated by the State. And, while this is slightly behind its neighbors in San Francisco and San Jose, the East Bay was on par with the state as a whole and well above the national average of just 2.3%. The East Bay’s unemployment rate fell to 5.1% in February 2015, compared to 6.7% in the state of California. Employment in the East Bay’s Leisure and Hospitality sector has led the pack – outgrowing every other major industry over the last two years (10.4%), which signals the strength of business travel, tourism, and increased consumer spending in the region. Outbound commuting among East Bay residents remains most common in high-skilled industries – which means that these workers bring home relatively higher-wages. While many of these workers migrated to the East Bay in search of more affordable housing and increased quality of life while maintaining jobs in San Francisco or the South Bay, they represent a local asset that can be leveraged to attract businesses to the East Bay and to foster further growth at existing firms. Overall, the future of the East Bay is looking bright, and Beacon Economics forecasts that payroll employment will continue to grow at more than 2% during 2015. L ABOR MARkETS Employment levels in the East Bay increased at a faster pace than previously estimated over the past year, now outpacing the nation and many other notable economies. The East Bay outpaced Miami, Austin, Las Vegas, Boulder, San Diego, Indianapolis and Boston, amongst others. With the new revisions, growth in the East Bay for December 2013 to December 2014 went from an estimated 2.4% to 3.0%. That translates into an additional 11,800 new jobs created over the past year, and puts the East Bay well ahead of the 2.3% growth in the nation during the same period. In 2013, the East Bay finally surpassed its all-time high for nonfarm employment levels, joining the state and nation in recovering jobs lost during the downturn. From February 2014 to February 2015, nonfarm employment in the East Bay grew by 2.4% (25,500 jobs), matching the pace set in the nation (2.4%) over the period. However, job growth in the East Bay was overshadowed by the State (3.1%), San Jose (5.3%), and San Francisco (4.4%) over the same period. The unemployment rate in the East Bay is continuing to fall, coming in at 5.1% in February 2015. While well below the unemployment rate in the state overall (6.7%), the unemployment rate remains elevated compared to San Francisco (3.7%) and San Jose (4.4%). As unemployment has fallen, the labor force has expanded by 6,800 over the past year. The average hours worked in the East Bay has steadily increased since the end of the recession. While the average hours worked has dipped slightly in recent months, the average work week in the East Bay was 35.3 hours in January 2015 on a seasonally adjusted basis. This is up from 33.2 hours in 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 Total Jobs (000s, SA)Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 2014 Benchmark 2015 Benchmark Source: CA Employment Development Department Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted Jan-10 to Dec-14 East Bay Payroll Employment 3 5 7 9 11 13 Unemployment Rate (%, SA)1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 Household Employment (000s, SA)Jan-05 Jan-10 Jan-15 Household Employment Unemployment Rate Source: CA Employment Development Department Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted East Bay, Feb-05 to Feb-15 Household Employment & Unemployment Rate EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 4 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 229 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 5 January 2010. Importantly, the number of those who are employed part-time for economic reasons has steadily declined across the state, falling by 5.4% from 1,258,000 workers in February 2014 to 1,190,000 workers in February 2015. Employment gains have been seen across a broad range of sectors in the East Bay in recent years, and the region is creating jobs on both ends of the wage spectrum. Some of the fastest growing sectors over the past year have been Construction (7.3%), Administrative Support (7.5%), and Leisure & Hospitality (3.7%). However, high-skilled sectors like Professional Scientific, and Technical Services (3.5%) also posted significant growth over the year. In addition, EAST BAY EMPLOYMENT manufacturing jobs expanded in 2014, growing by 2.2% in the East Bay. Only two major sectors saw employment levels decline over the last year: Finance Activities (contracted by -2.1%) and Natural Resource and Mining (contracted by -12.7%). Clearly, high-tech jobs are a strong presence in the East Bay. Computer Systems Design and Related Services was the single-largest source of new jobs at the 4-digit industry level in 2014, generating 2,199 new positions. However, the demand for skilled workers extends well beyond “tech” jobs: Management of Companies, Architectural/Engineering Services, Information Services, and Doctor’s Offices combined to create 2,600 new jobs in the East Bay last year as well. East Bay Payroll Employment Growth by Industry Feb-15 1-YearChange (%)2-YearChange (%) Total Nonfarm 1,079.4 2.4 4.9 Total Private 912.1 2.6 5.2 Admin Support 61.7 7.5 10.3 Construction 61.6 7.3 9.7 Educational Services 24.5 5.2 8.6 Leisure and Hospitality 106.0 3.7 10.4 Prof Sci and Tech 93.4 3.5 6.2 Transport,Warehouse,Util.35.6 2.5 7.7 Management 30.4 2.3 7.1 Manufacturing 82.9 2.2 4.2 Wholesale Trade 46.7 1.5 3.9 Other Services 38.0 1.4 3.0 Information 21.4 1.4 -0.8 Government 167.3 1.3 3.2 Retail Trade 109.6 1.3 2.9 Health Care 151.1 1.0 3.0 Financial Activities 48.5 -2.1 -2.1 NR/Mining 0.7 -12.7 -22.3 Employment gains have been seen across a broad range of sectors in the East Bay in recent years, and the region is creating jobs on both ends of the wage spectrum. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 5 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 230 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-166 | EAST BAY EMPLOYMENT Trade, Healthcare, Government, and Construction—largely inward- facing industries serving the local population. Over the past 20 years, the East Bay region has become more concentrated in Professional Scientific, and Technical Services, which represents 3.3 percentage points more of the jobs in the East Bay today than it did in the past. This outpaces California, which saw shares rise by just 2.1 percentage points over the same period. The East Bay’s Manufacturing sector has also been more resilient over the INDuSTRY CONCENTRATION AND FIRM SIzE The industrial composition of the economy in the East Bay is noticeably different from San Jose and San Francisco. San Francisco has a higher share of payroll jobs in Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services and Tourism/Leisure and Hospitality, while San Jose is more concentrated in Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services and Manufacturing. The East Bay is more concentrated in Retail Share of Total Payroll Employment by Industry East Bay San Francisco San Jose California 2015 1995 2015 1995 2015 1995 2015 1995 Government 15.5 19.0 11.8 13.7 9.1 10.9 15.2 17.0 Health Care 14.0 10.1 9.8 8.1 10.6 7.0 13.1 8.9 Retail Trade 10.2 11.5 7.8 8.7 8.4 9.3 10.3 11.2 Leisure & Hospitality 9.8 7.5 13.1 11.1 9.1 7.4 11.3 9.4 Prof Sci and Tech 8.7 5.4 16.4 8.9 13.7 8.9 7.7 5.6 Manufacturing 7.7 11.0 3.5 7.0 15.7 26.5 8.0 13.8 Construction 5.7 4.8 3.5 2.9 3.9 3.4 4.4 4.0 Admin Support 5.7 5.8 6.2 5.6 5.8 6.6 6.5 5.7 Financial Activities 4.5 5.4 7.0 10.2 3.5 3.7 5.0 5.9 Wholesale Trade 4.3 4.7 2.6 3.9 3.6 4.4 4.6 4.5 Other Services 3.5 3.2 4.0 4.0 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.5 Trans.,Warehouse,Util. 3.3 4.1 3.8 6.6 1.5 1.8 3.4 3.7 Management 2.8 2.5 2.6 4.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.8 Educational Services 2.3 1.5 2.6 1.7 4.2 2.7 2.3 1.5 Information 2.0 3.3 5.4 3.5 7.0 3.0 2.9 3.4 NR/Mining 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 Employment Shares by Size of Business, 2013 0-49 Employees 50-99 Employees 100-499 Employees 500 + Employees East Bay 45.7 14.6 26.1 13.6 San Francisco 44.1 13.0 24.2 18.8 South Bay 35.8 12.4 22.3 29.5 California 40.8 14.2 24.3 20.7 0 5 10 15 20 Share of Payroll Employment (%, SA)Jan-95 Jan-00 Jan-05 Jan-10 Jan-15 East Bay San Francisco San Jose California Source: CA Employment Development Department Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted Share of Payroll Employment, Feb-95 to Feb-15 Professional, Scientific, & Technical Employment 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Share of Payroll Employment (%, SA)Jan-95 Jan-00 Jan-05 Jan-10 Jan-15 East Bay San Francisco San Jose California Source: CA Employment Development Department Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted Share of Payroll Employment, Feb-95 to Feb-15 Manufacturing Employment EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 6 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 231 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 7 been a huge asset to the region during the recovery, and accounted for over half of the new jobs added in the East Bay from 2012 to 2013. The distribution of employment in the East Bay indicates that the region is well equipped to support small businesses, though it is home to fewer large businesses compared to its neighbors. COMM u TING The gap between the number of residents employed in the East Bay and the number of workers employed by East Bay businesses reveals the region has a large share of outbound commuters. However, that gap has fallen in recent years as the East Bay begins to create local jobs at a faster past 20 years, with its share of total employment falling by 3.3 percentage points, relative to California (-5.8 percentage points), San Francisco (-3.5 percentage points), and San Jose (-10.8 percentage points). As a result, the region has transformed into a higher-skilled labor market more quickly than the rest of the state, while losing fewer of its mid-skilled jobs at the same time. The East Bay is particularly friendly to small businesses and has a higher concentration of small firms compared to San Francisco and San Jose. Small businesses account for 45.7% of employment in the area, compared to 44.1% in San Francisco and 35.9% in the South Bay. These small businesses have EAST BAY EMPLOYMENT Place of Work for East Bay Residents County of Work EmployedResidents (2013) 2013 Share (%) East Bay 868,902 62.2 Other 249,200 17.8 San Francisco 146,538 10.5 San Mateo 45,628 3.3 Santa Clara 87,235 6.2 Total 1,397,503 100.0 Place of Work for East Bay Residents by Industry (%) East Bay San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Other Share (%)Number Share (%)Number Share (%)Number Share (%)Number Share (%)Number Information 49.0 19,421 16.7 6,619 5.0 1,981 10.8 4,283 18.5 7,357 Prof Sci and Tech 53.0 82,494 16.5 25,693 4.9 7,552 9.8 15,299 15.7 24,467 Construction 53.5 44,584 11.6 9,663 4.8 3,973 5.9 4,909 24.2 20,149 Manufacturing 55.1 67,465 4.3 5,325 3.2 3,938 20.2 24,764 17.2 21,043 Utilities 58.1 6,923 28.1 3,351 0.9 113 4.6 545 8.2 982 Finance & Insurance 61.7 44,213 18.6 13,334 2.7 1,946 3.3 2,359 13.6 9,752 Admin Support 64.4 47,039 8.3 6,036 2.6 1,906 2.9 2,086 21.8 15,929 NR/Mining 65.2 4,309 8.4 556 1.0 66 5.7 376 19.7 1,303 Transport/Warehousing 66.1 34,477 9.3 4,833 9.1 4,731 2.5 1,317 13.0 6,803 Accommodations 66.3 61,279 11.9 11,041 3.0 2,745 2.0 1,846 16.8 15,490 Government 66.7 80,288 12.1 14,591 2.4 2,896 4.6 5,493 14.2 17,052 Retail Trade 66.7 97,772 9.1 13,379 2.8 4,156 3.9 5,715 17.5 25,662 Other Services 68.4 48,541 10.4 7,347 3.3 2,306 1.6 1,163 16.3 11,567 Wholesale Trade 68.4 24,884 6.1 2,222 4.6 1,686 5.8 2,091 15.1 5,481 Educational Services 69.1 30,808 8.3 3,703 1.4 620 5.7 2,550 15.5 6,890 Art & Entertainment 69.9 21,960 8.5 2,662 2.1 658 2.1 662 17.4 5,474 Health Care 70.5 129,621 6.8 12,572 2.1 3,903 5.7 10,393 14.8 27,256 Real Estate 72.4 22,104 11.8 3,611 1.5 452 4.3 1,315 10.0 3,062 Management 75.7 720 0.0 0 0.0 0 7.3 69 17.0 162 Total 62.2 868,902 10.5 146,538 3.3 45,628 6.2 87,235 17.8 249,200 EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 7 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 232 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-168 | Bay. East Bay residents account for most of the jobs in the Petroleum and Coal Manufacturing Products locally. AGE A ND EDuCATIONAL AT TAINMENT The unemployment rate for East Bay residents with a bachelor’s degree was just 5.0% in 2013, compared to 10.4% for residents with only a high school diploma.1 These unemployment rates are lower than the statewide average across the board. Thus, the East Bay is creating more job opportunities for both higher-skilled and lower-skilled workers in the region relative to other parts of the state. In addition, millions of dollars have been invested in the East Bay for workforce development through the local community colleges, curricular practical training grants, and trade adjustment assistance career training programs have made a difference. In 2013, the unemployment rate for East Bay residents under 25 remains 1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey pace. Over 37.8% of the workers in the East Bay commute out of the area each day, with San Francisco County and Santa Clara County being the most popular destinations. Outbound commuters tend to be some of the highest-skilled residents of the East Bay. Top industries for outbound commuters include Information (51%), Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (47%), and Manufacturing (45%). Clearly, many Bay Area residents are taking advantage of housing that is more affordable in the East Bay and choosing to commute to nearby counties for employment opportunities. While this has implications for the region’s infrastructure needs, the East Bay benefits from these commuters over the short run through increased demand for housing and more spending in the local economy. Over the longer term, these commuters represent a significant local asset that can be leveraged for a variety of economic development efforts. Contra Costa County and Alameda County both saw significant inflows of domestic migrants from 2013 to 2014. In fact, Contra Costa received the second most domestic migrants in the state over the same period. This indicates that the region continues to entice new residents to the area, thereby capturing the benefits of more residents. While the East Bay sees a large share of residents commute each day, a closer look shows the region has many home-grown industries as well. For example, East Bay residents employed in Management (75.7%), Real Estate (72.4%), and Health Care (70.5%) sectors work primarily in the East EAST BAY EMPLOYMENT East Bay Residents 25 to 64 (2013) Age Unemployment Rate Under 25 18.4% 25 to 34 8.8% 35 to 44 7.6% 45 to 54 7.3% 55 to 64 6.6% Over 65 7.3% Educational Attainment Less Than High School 10.5% High School Graduate 10.4% Some College 9.4% Bachelors Degree +5.0% The East Bay is creating more job opportunities for both higher-skilled and lower-skilled workers in the region relative to other parts of the state. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 8 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 233 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 9 EAST BAY EMPLOYMENT elevated (18.4%); however it is lower than the unemployment rate for the same age range in the state overall (20.2%). Young professionals in the East Bay are also faring better than in other parts of the state, with the unemployment rate for residents 25 to 34 at 8.8% in the East Bay, compared to 10.0% in the state overall. L ABOR MARkET FORECAST Beacon Economics forecasts East Bay payroll employment will continue to grow at a rate above 2% over the course of 2015. With these gains, the unemployment rate in the East Bay is expected to fall to 5.1% by the end of 2015. These gains over the next year are also forecasted to continue in the long run. The region continues to attract people from all over the United States, and indeed all over the world. Further, the region is one of the major regions in the United States for Biotechnology and clean energy. Payroll employment levels are forecasted to grow by 11.3% (122,500 jobs) from current levels to 2020. Perhaps more importantly, high-wage sectors are expected to be at the forefront of this growth, with Management and Professional Services expected to grow by 21% (26,000 jobs) over current levels for the same period. East Bay Employment Forecast, Q1-15 to Q4-20 by Industry Q1-15 Q1-16 Q1-17 Q4-20 Total Nonfarm 1083.4 1102.4 1125.0 1206.0 Unemployment Rate 5.4 5.1 4.7 4.3 Government 167.9 169.9 171.5 177.5 Education/Health 177.1 179.4 181.7 195.1 Management/Professional 123.7 128.3 133.0 149.7 Retail Trade 111.4 112.6 113.8 116.9 Leisure/Hospitality 104.8 105.4 107.0 115.9 Manufacturing 83.5 83.1 84.1 86.6 Construction 60.9 64.5 68.3 81.7 Admin Support 60.6 61.5 63.9 70.9 Financial Activities 49.5 50.8 52.3 55.4 Wholesale Trade 46.7 47.5 48.3 50.1 Other Services 38.2 38.8 39.5 41.9 Trans/Warehouse/Util 36.9 38.1 38.7 39.5 Information 21.3 21.5 21.9 23.7 Natural Resources/Mining 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 850 950 1,050 1,150 1,250 Total Jobs (000s, SA)Q1-95 Q1-00 Q1-05 Q1-10 Q1-15 Q1-20 Actuals Forecast Forecasts by Beacon Economics Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted East Bay, Q1-95 to Q4-20 Payroll Employment Forecast 3 5 7 9 11 13 Unemployment Rate (%, SA)Q1-95 Q1-00 Q1-05 Q1-10 Q1-15 Q1-20 Actuals Forecast Forecasts by Beacon Economics Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted East Bay, Q1-95 to Q4-20 Unemployment Rate Forecast 65 80 95 110 125 140 155 Total Jobs (000s, SA)Q1-95 Q1-00 Q1-05 Q1-10 Q1-15 Q1-20 Actuals Forecast Forecasts by Beacon Economics Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted East Bay, Q1-95 to Q4-20 Management and Prof. Employment Forecast 120 110 100 90 80 70 60Total Jobs (000s, SA)Q1-95 Q1-00 Q1-05 Q1-10 Q1-15 Q1-20 Actuals Forecast Forecasts by Beacon Economics Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted East Bay, Q1-95 to Q4-20 Manufacturing Employment Forecast EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 9 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 234 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1610 | EAST BAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY BuSINESS ACTIVITY OVERVIEw Business activity is booming in the East Bay with local spending on the rise across the whole region. Economic growth in the East Bay has helped bring increased levels of business and tourist related travel trips. Local hotels have benefited from the activity. Hotel occupancy in the East Bay is now roughly even with occupancy in the South Bay at 80%. Personal income growth in the East East Bay Taxable Sales by Area, Q4-2013 to Q4-2014 City Q4-2013 ($) Q4-2014 ($) Chg (%) Hercules 37,682 45,511 20.8 Piedmont 4,795 5,494 14.6 San Leandro 548,575 604,898 10.3 Fremont 867,911 951,275 9.6 Alameda 187,957 205,974 9.6 Concord 660,709 714,138 8.1 Dublin 407,052 434,088 6.6 Antioch 263,327 279,416 6.1 Livermore 561,097 594,951 6.0 Oakley 32,027 33,943 6.0 Berkeley 390,112 412,672 5.8 Pleasanton 523,301 552,973 5.7 Newark 225,697 237,614 5.3 Richmond 340,510 357,419 5.0 Brentwood 150,796 157,278 4.3 Pittsburg 157,024 163,464 4.1 Albany 54,171 55,980 3.3 Oakland 1,087,853 1,120,367 3.0 Pinole 81,426 83,759 2.9 Union City 211,936 217,218 2.5 Pleasant Hill 187,245 191,227 2.1 Walnut Creek 509,525 519,404 1.9 Emeryville 192,233 195,695 1.8 Clayton 9,950 10,066 1.2 Hayward 717,363 724,947 1.1 Danville 130,727 131,644 0.7 Orinda 22,942 22,829 -0.5 San Pablo 45,305 44,692 -1.4 Moraga 24,713 24,363 -1.4 San Ramon 204,409 199,393 -2.5 Lafayette 67,580 65,742 -2.7 Martinez 137,074 120,766 -11.9 El Cerrito 70,594 54,522 -22.8 Source: CA Board of Equalization 100 110 120 130 140 150 Taxable Sales (Indexed, SA)Q4-09 Q4-10 Q4-11 Q4-12 Q4-13 Q4-14 East Bay San Francisco South Bay Source: CA Board of Equalization Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted Bay Area Comparison, Q4-2009 to Q4-2014 Taxable Sales EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 10 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 235 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 11 EAST BAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY Bay has closely tracked that of the state overall, though it is somewhat slower than in San Francisco and the South Bay. There were concerns that the labor dispute at West Coast ports might slow economic activity in the region, but trade activity in 2014 was actually higher than in 2013. East Bay venture capital funding in 2014 was substantially higher than in 2013 with solar tech firms receiving much of that funding. With the economy growing stronger and venture capital funding at very high levels, it is important to remember that the current economic expansion is not like the Bay Area boom of the late 1990s that resulted in the crash of the early 2000s. In that period, new and unstable firms were receiving very high levels of venture capital funding that they were unprepared to invest. In today’s economic climate, firms receiving most of the venture capital dollars are older stable firms using those dollars for further expansion or research and development. LOCAL SPENDING Post-recession taxable sales growth in the East Bay lagged that of San Francisco and the South Bay, but 2014 proved a very strong year for local spending. In the preceding five years, taxable sales increased slightly less in the East Bay than in neighboring regions, but from the fourth quarter of 2013 to the fourth quarter of 2014, taxable sales in the East Bay increased 5.1%, outpacing San Francisco (4.1%) and the South Bay (2.9%). Taxable sales growth last year was spread across the region. Strong growth occurred in some of the East Bay’s local economies. Taxable sales declined by double-digits in a few East Bay cities, though smaller communities experienced greater volatility in spending throughout the year. Clearly, the 2014 holiday season was a brighter one for local economic activity than a year prior in both Alameda County and Contra Costa County. Taxable receipts data show that consumer-to-business and business- to-business spending increased in the East Bay from 2013 to 2014. Business and Industry taxable receipts increased 7.2% over the past 12 months as East Bay businesses had more revenue for capital expenditures to help grow, and much of that spending occurred locally. Low gasoline prices helped boost Auto and Transportation spending (11.8%) but Fuel and Service Stations spending remained up (3.2%). The growth in local housing prices encouraged new East Bay Taxable Receipts, Q3-2013 to Q3-2014 Category Q3-2013 ($) Q3-2014 ($) Chg (%) Autos and Transportation 16,234,454 18,147,004 11.8 Restaurants and Hotels 10,364,294 11,182,936 7.9 Business and Industry 16,660,562 17,854,548 7.2 Building and Construction 8,832,776 9,279,357 5.1 Consumer Goods 21,195,790 22,048,880 4.0 Fuel and Service Stations 10,870,755 11,218,518 3.2 Food and Drugs 5,705,557 5,862,352 2.7 Total 103,873,808 110,884,888 6.7 Source: HdL Companies 90 100 110 120 130 Index (Nov-2009 = 100), SA and SmoothedNov-09 Nov-10 Nov-11 Nov-12 Nov-13 Nov-14 Oakland Intl. Airport San Francisco Intl. Airport San Jose Intl. Airport All California Airports Source: Visit California Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted Bay Area and California, November 2009 to November 2014 Airport Traffic East Bay venture capital funding in 2014 was substantially higher than in 2013 with solar tech firms receiving much of that funding. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 11 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 236 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1612 | EAST BAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY residential construction, while the growth of the East Bay renewable energy sector encouraged new commercial construction. This led to a significant increase in Building and Construction taxable receipts from the fourth quarter of 2013 to the fourth quarter of 2014. The full effects of the minimum wage ordinances recently passed in the East Bay are yet unclear, but already some businesses are feeling a squeeze on profits. In March 2015, the citywide minimum wage in Oakland was increased to $12.25 per hour, 36% higher than the $9-per-hour statewide minimum wage. In turn, some Oakland restaurants claim to be raising prices by as much as 20%. Other Oakland restaurants have reported charging a 20% service fee in lieu of a tip.1 Some restaurants have altered their pay schedules to meet the new wage floor. For example, at an Oakland restaurant, Homestead, servers are now earning a flat wage of $18 to $24 per hour with no tips, compared to $35 to $55 per hour that they were earning before the new minimum wage ordinance was implemented. Servers were largely making more through tip income. In Emeryville, 1 “Oakland’s Minimum Wage Gets a Big Hike Starting Monday.” ABC7. Mar. 1, 2015. restaurant owners have expressed concerns that citywide minimum wages are a risk to businesses where consumers could go to restaurants in neighboring cities just blocks away. Emeryville’s City Council has drafted an ordinance to raise the citywide minimum wage to $12.25 per hour for businesses with 55 or fewer employees and $14.42 per hour for businesses with 56 or more employees. These minimum wage increases may lead to higher consumer spending among some low-income workers affected by the policies, but they may also lead to job losses or reductions in hours. Business and industry non-labor spending will likely decrease in the face of the wage increase. Meanwhile, sales taxes in Alameda County, as well as cities like El Cerrito, Pinole, and Richmond in Contra Costa County, have grown to 9.5% or in some cases 10% in 2015. These policies will likely have a significant impact on local spending over the long run, and at least in the case of some East Bay businesses, they have already had some substantial negative consequences. Bay Area Hotel Data, January-November 2013 to January-November 2014 Occupancy Rate (%)Average Daily Room Rate ($)Revenue Per Available Room ($) Region 2013 2014 Chg (pp) 2013 2014 Chg (%) 2013 2014 Chg (%) East Bay 76.4 79.8 3.4 113.69 125.16 10.1 86.82 99.91 15.1 San Francisco 86.3 87.1 0.8 232.05 255.35 10.0 200.25 222.33 11.0 South Bay 78.9 80.7 1.8 155.99 174.39 11.8 123.01 140.71 14.4 Source: PKF Consulting Minimum wage increases may lead to higher consumer spending among some low-income workers affected by the policies, but they may also lead to job losses or reduction in hours. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 12 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 237 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 13 EAST BAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY TOuRISM AND Bu SI NESS T RAV EL The strength of the economy, not only in the East Bay but throughout the country, combined with growth in international tourism and business related travel to the Bay Area led to a 9.3% increase in tourist and business related travel at Oakland International Airport. That was much faster growth than at San Francisco International Airport (+4.3%), at San Jose International Airport (+7.2%) and at California airports overall (+3.0%). The warm winter of 2014 provided an especially great venue for East Bay conferences, compared to the unusually cold winter in eastern states that had played host to conferences in past years. The great weather also helped to encourage tourist travel to the region. Meanwhile, Norwegian Air offers extremely low-cost flights for tourists from Stockholm and Oslo, while providing connections for tourists from Africa, the Middle East, and other parts of Europe.2 In the coming year, passenger traffic at Oakland International Airport will be bolstered by a new Allegiant Air route to Omaha, Nebraska in May, while the continued growth of the economy should increase passenger traffic even further.3 2 Linda Zavoral, “Free Parking at Oakland A irport.” San Jose Mercury News. Jan. 13, 2015. 3 Linda Zavoral, “Bay Area’s New Nonstop Flights to Omaha.” Eureka Times-Standard. Feb. 26, 2015. The East Bay proved to be the hottest hotel market in the Bay Area in 2014. Hotel occupancy in the East Bay caught up to the South Bay in 2014, and the growth in occupancy led to a faster increase in revenues per hotel room in the East Bay than in any other part of the Bay Area. Hotel room nights in the East Bay were roughly 10% more expensive in 2013 than in 2014, but were still much more affordable for travelers than hotel room nights in the rest of the Bay Area. PERSONAL INCOME Personal income growth in the East Bay has paralleled that of the state overall for several years. From 2003 to 2013 (the most recent year of available data), personal income in the East Bay increased by 49.5%, virtually equal to the state overall at 49.2%. However, both San Francisco and the South Bay gained ground on the East Bay in recent years, such that personal income grew by roughly two-thirds in those 10 years. Although growth in economic activity in the East Bay has translated into more income for East Bay workers, this economic activity has not boosted earnings as much as it has for workers in the rest of the Bay Area. 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Total Value ($ Millions, SA)Dec-09 Dec-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13 Dec-14 Exports (Smoothed)Imports (Smoothed) Source: WISERTrade Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted Port of Oakland, December 2009 to December 2014 Exports & Imports EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 13 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 238 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1614 | EAST BAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY INTERNATIONAL TRADE In spite of concerns about the tenuous West Coast port labor negotiations over the past several months, traffic at the Port of Oakland seaport was markedly higher in 2014 than in 2013. The total value of maritime exports for 2014 was 4.6% higher than for 2013, while the total value of imports was 5.8% higher than for 2013. The resolution to the labor dispute was an important step, however, in ensuring that the Port of Oakland builds on the growth it has made amid the economic recovery. In December 2014, the total value of maritime imports was roughly 35% higher than in December 2009, while the total value of exports was over 40% higher than five years prior. Although the scale of maritime exports at the Port of Richmond is smaller than at the Port of Oakland, growth was higher at the Port of Richmond than at the Port of Oakland in 2014. The total dollar value of exports for 2014 was 63.9% higher than for 2013. The growth in exports was driven primarily by a substantial increase in the Port of Richmond’s top export, mineral fuels and oils, which increased by 71.2% from 2013 to 2014. The increase in local petroleum production may be playing a role in this increase in exports. Indeed, the West Coast exports significantly more petroleum products than in the recent past, due to the large-scale emergence of advanced production techniques. However, despite the increase in production, the West Coast remains a substantial importer of petroleum products. In fact, the Port of Richmond is the only port in the Bay Area that imports crude oil from foreign sources. That crude oil is then refined in Contra Costa County and then exported. The Port of Richmond imports more mineral fuels and oils than any other category of goods, and the total value of imports of mineral fuels and oils at the Port of Richmond increased by 30.8% from 2013 to 2014. Exports of agricultural products, in which the Port of Oakland specializes relative to other California ports, grew steadily over the course of 2014. At the same time, although durable manufactured goods represents a smaller proportion of total exports at the Port of Oakland as compared to the state overall, the total value of exports of those types of goods grew faster from 2013 to 2014 than for most other categories of exports. For instance, vehicles and parts exports nearly doubled in value at the Port of Oakland during that period. Exports of these goods may continue to increase into 2015, with consumer Maritime Trade Activity, East Bay Ports, 2013-2014 Category Port of Richmond Port of Oakland Total Value of Exports, 2013 ($ 000s) 1,485.6 20,143.8 Total Value of Exports, 2014 ($ 000s) 2,434.9 21,062.9 Change, 2013 to 2014 (%) 63.9 4.6 Total Value of Imports, 2013 ($ 000s) 8,415.1 27,535.8 Total Value of Imports, 2014 ($ 000s) 10,515.8 29,120.2 Change, 2013 to 2014 (%) 25.0 5.8 Source: WISERTrade The West Coast exports significantly more petroleum products than in the recent past, due to the large-scale emergence of advanced production techniques. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 14 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 239 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 15 10% of California’s exports of these goods. On the other hand, though exports such as industrial machinery or medical and surgical instruments are some of the Port of Oakland’s top exports, the Port accounts for a relatively small proportion of the state’s total exports of those goods at roughly 5% or less. Though the Port of Oakland is one of the state’s largest ports of trade and is growing, the scale of advanced manufacturing exporting in California overall is massive. spending continuing to rise. In November 2014, Tesla Motors urged the Port of Oakland to prepare for an increase in cargo, even as the Port already had to take on cargo originally intended for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in recent months.4 Looking at some of these advanced manufacturing goods, it is clear that the Port of Oakland is an especially strong maritime exporter of vehicles and parts. This represents over 4 “Port of Oakland Outlook: More Cargo Coming; It’s Time to Prepare.” Port of Oakland. Press Release. Nov. 5, 2014. EAST BAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY Port of Oakland Top Exports by Commodity Commodity 2013 ($000s)2014 ($000s)Chg (%) % of All Oakland Exports % of All CA Exports Difference, Oak vs. CA (pp) Edible Fruit/Nuts/Citrus Fruit/Melon Peel 5,384,272 5,625,531 4.5 13.4 3.1 10.3 Meat/Edible Meat Offal 2,555,575 2,722,003 6.5 6.5 0.2 6.3 Industrial Machinery, Incl Computers 1,072,432 1,236,664 15.3 2.9 6.9 -4.0 Beverages/Spirits/Vinegar 1,080,122 964,936 -10.7 2.3 0.5 1.8 Vehicles/Parts 498,202 945,600 89.8 2.2 2.6 -0.4 Dairy, Eggs, Honey, Animal Products 724,795 851,915 17.5 2.0 0.6 1.4 Electrical Machinery/Sound Equip/TV Equip 573,474 612,259 6.8 1.5 8.6 -7.1 Iron/Steel 552,713 542,185 -1.9 1.3 0.7 0.6 Medic or Surgical Instruments/Parts 529,848 530,378 0.1 1.3 4.9 -3.6 Prep Veg/Fruit/Nuts/Other Plant Parts 421,601 487,152 15.5 1.2 0.4 0.8 Source: WISERTrade Port of Oakland Maritime Exports, Advanced Manufactured Goods Commodity 2014 ($000s)Port Export Rank % of All Oakland Exports % of CA’s Export of Commodity Industrial Machinery, Incl Computers 1,236,664 3 2.9 5.1 Vehicles/Parts 945,600 9 2.2 10.3 Electrical Machinery/Sound Equip/TV Equip 612,259 8 1.5 2.1 Medic or Surgical Instruments/Parts 530,378 6 1.3 3.1 Source: WISERTrade The Port of Oakland is an especially strong maritime exporter of vehicles and parts. This represents 10% of California’s exports of these goods. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 15 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 240 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1616 | Freight cargo out of Oakland International Airport is up as well. Inbound cargo weight is roughly equal to outbound cargo weight, though that may soon change, as growth in inbound cargo has been very strong of late. The airport serves as a major EAST BAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY hub for FedEx Express and has begun to transport goods through its new Norwegian Cargo routes. The airport has not yet reached pre-recession levels of freight cargo, though the growth over the course of 2014 is reason to be optimistic going forward, Oakland International Airport Cargo, 2013 to 2014 Freight Cargo 2013 (000 lb) 2014 (000 lb)Change (%) Inbound 539,861 579,083 7.3 Outbound 558,432 588,872 5.5 Total 1,098,293 1,167,955 6.3 Source: Port of Oakland Solar Energy Capacity by Sector, Selected Counties in California Residential Megawatts Commercial Megawatts Non-Profit Megawatts Government Megawatts Los Angeles 92.8 Los Angeles 80.7 San Diego 13.4 Los Angeles 70.3 San Diego 88.6 San Diego 60.2 Los Ange-les 11.4 Riverside 58.7 Riverside 87.2 San Ber-nardino 50.2 Riverside 8.7 Santa Clara 47.9 Orange 52.9 Tulare 50.0 San Joa-quin 5.7 San Ber-nardino 38.3 San Ber-nardino 50.7 Orange 38.6 Orange 5.6 Contra Costa 36.6 Santa Clara 38.0 Fresno 34.6 Santa Clara 3.7 San Diego 35.3 Fresno 28.5 Riverside 34.4 San Ber-nardino 3.3 Kern 33.0 Contra Costa 24.7 Kern 29.0 Butte 2.4 Orange 23.2 Kern 23.6 Santa Clara 21.3 Alameda 1.9 Alameda 22.7 Ventura 23.3 Ventura 18.5 Madera 1.8 Fresno 19.2 Alameda 19.8 Alameda 17.9 San Fran-cisco 1.8 Tulare 16.5 Sonoma 17.7 Sonoma 16.1 Sonoma 1.6 Kings 14.5 Placer 14.8 Kings 13.2 Ventura 1.4 Ventura 13.2 Tulare 14.2 Napa 11.1 Contra Costa 1.1 San Mateo 13.0 San Mateo 11.3 San Joa-quin 10.9 Shasta 1.0 Monterey 9.6 San Joaquin 8.3 Contra Costa 10.1 Yuba 1.0 Sonoma 8.8 El Dorado 8.1 Yolo 8.8 Merced 1.0 San Joaquin 8.5 San Luis Obispo 7.5 Butte 8.7 Marin 0.9 Solano 8.2 Marin 7.2 San Luis Obispo 6.9 Fresno 0.8 Yolo 5.3 San Francisco 7.1 Merced 6.8 Monterey 0.8 Madera 5.3 Source: Go Solar California 2014 was a phenomenal year for venture capital funding in the East Bay with the total amount of funding for the year-to-date (Q1-Q3) up nearly 60% from 2013 to 2014. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 16 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 241 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 17 EAST BAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY especially as trade activity is expected to swell at the Port of Oakland and the Port of Richmond in the coming year. VENTuRE CAPITAL 2014 was a phenomenal year for venture capital funding in the East Bay with the total amount of funding for the year-to-date (Q1-Q3) up nearly 60% from 2013 to 2014. Roughly 0.8% of all U.S. jobs are located in the East Bay, but in 2014 roughly 3% of all U.S. venture capital funding was located there. In keeping with the region’s highly skilled workforce, Software and Industrial/Energy firms were the biggest recipients of venture capital funds in 2014 with solar energy firms generating some of the largest amounts. For example, Sungevity, Inc. in Oakland received $72.5 million in expansion stage funding in the second quarter of 2014, while GlassPoint Solar, Inc. in Fremont received $53.0 million in expansion stage funding in the third quarter of 2014. East Bay solar energy firms are also being recognized for their advanced research and development through incubator awards. Mosaic, a solar energy financing firm based in Oakland, received a $650,000 award from the U.S. Department of Energy’s SunShot Initiative incubator program in late 2014. It was the firm’s second award through the SunShot Initiative, having already earned a $2 million award in 2012.5 Smash Solar, Inc., based in Richmond, received $1 million from the SunShot Initiative to help develop a snap-together 5 “Mosaic Receives Second Award from the U.S. Department of Energy SunShot Initiative to Grow its Home Solar Loan Program.” PR Newswire. Oct. 22, 2014. East Bay Venture Capital Funding by Industry Industry Q1-Q3, 2013 ($ millions) Q1-Q3, 2014 ($ millions)Chg (%) Share of Total VC Funding, 2013 (%) Share of Total VC Funding, 2014 (%) Software 104.9 385.0 266.9 18.7 43.3 Industrial/Energy 46.2 171.9 272.3 8.2 19.3 Biotechnology 195.1 93.9 -51.8 34.8 10.6 Consumer Products and Services 65.9 69.4 5.3 11.8 7.8 Medical Devices and Equipment 37.1 58.2 56.7 6.6 6.5 Semiconductors 41.0 54.7 33.3 7.3 6.2 IT Services 24.9 26.2 5.3 4.4 2.9 Financial Services 22.0 0.0 2.5 Electronics Instrumentation 10.0 6.0 -40.0 1.8 0.7 Business Products and Services 1.7 0.0 0.2 Networking and Equipment 1.4 0.2 Telecommunications 0.5 0.1 Media and Entertainment 0.5 0.1 Total 560.1 889.0 58.7 100.0 100.0 Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association MoneyTree™ Report, Data: Thomson Reuters. Software and Industrial/ Energy firms were the biggest recipients of venture capital funds in 2014 with solar energy firms generating some of the largest amounts. GlassPoint Solar, Inc. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 17 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 242 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1618 | EAST BAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY photovoltaic mounting system to quickly and easily install rooftop solar panels.6 The East Bay is one of the key producers of solar energy in California. Many of the state’s largest renewable energy firms are located there. It is also one of the largest consumers of renewable energy in the state. Together, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties have a total residential solar energy capacity of 44.5 megawatts, which is behind only five counties, all of which are located in Southern California. With regard to commercial solar energy capacity, the East Bay has a smaller presence. Solar intensity in the East Bay is much weaker than in counties like Tulare or San Bernardino, where commercial capacity is high. Within the East Bay public sector, however, solar energy capacity is very high relative to the rest of California. Alameda and Contra Costa combined have a total government sector solar energy capacity of 59.3 megawatts, which trails only Los Angeles at 70.3 megawatts. Biomedical manufacturing, one of the East Bay’s brightest industries, did not have as strong a year as Software or Industrial/Energy in terms of attracting venture capital funding. Several biomedical manufacturing firms nonetheless received millions of dollars to help them grow. Firms in the Biotechnology sector received $93.9 million in venture capital funding from the first quarter of 2014 to the third quarter of 2014, while medical devices and equipment firms received $58.2 million in funding in that time. Aduro Biotech, Inc., based in Berkeley, received $40.6 million in later stage funding in the second quarter of 2014, 6 “Current SunShot Incubator Projects.” U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. http://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/ current-sunshot-incubator-projects. while Eureka Therapeutics, Inc., in Emeryville received $21.0 million in early stage funding in the third quarter of 2014. Neotract, Inc., a medical technology development firm in Pleasanton, received $18.2 million in later stage funding in the first quarter of 2014. The East Bay, like the rest of the Bay Area, is undergoing another boom in venture capital funding, similar to that of the late 1990s, but in this case, the boom is much less volatile and unlikely to crash. What differentiates the current technological boom from the boom-and-bust period of the late 1990s is that in the current case, firms receiving substantial amounts of venture capital funding are older, more stable firms. Data for East Bay venture capital funding clearly demonstrates that most venture capital funding is going to firms in later stages of their development. From the first quarter of 2014 to the third quarter of 2014, just 2.4% of all venture capital funding went to firms in the seed stage. Over three- fourths of venture capital funds were expansion-stage or later-stage funds. Oakland, Pleasanton, Fremont and Berkeley led all East Bay cities in venture capital funding, primarily due to substantial investment in the industries heavily concentrated in those cities: Industrial/Energy, Biotechnology, Consumer Products and Services, and Software. Within the category of Consumer Products and Services, for instance, Revolution Foods, Inc., an Oakland firm that provides healthy, affordable meals to schools, received $31.5 million in venture capital funding in the second quarter of 2014. Blue Bottle Coffee, Inc., a coffee roaster and retailer also based in Oakland, received $25.8 million in venture capital What differentiates the current technological boom from the boom-and-bust period of the late 1990s is that in the current case, firms receiving substantial amounts of venture capital funding are older, more stable firms. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 18 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 243 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 19 EAST BAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY funding in the first quarter of 2014. However, venture capital funding also spread to relatively smaller cities like Lafayette, where Providence Medical Technology, Inc., received $6.8 million in funding in the first quarter of 2014, and Union City, where Vicarious FPC, Inc., received $40.0 million in funding in the first quarter of 2014. Although venture capital funding remains concentrated primarily in the largest economic centers in the East Bay, businesses in all parts of the East Bay are earning substantial amounts of money to help them grow. In the East Bay, funding to help further research and development and advanced manufacturing generates significant positive effects on economic output and employment. Using multiplier effects provided by IMPLAN, Beacon Economics estimates that $1 million in investment in scientific research and development in the East Bay yields nearly $1.9 million in local economic output, $850,000 in total labor income and 10 full-time equivalent jobs. Similarly, $1 million in investment in biomedical manufacturing generates an estimated $1.6 million in local economic output, $536,000 in total labor income and six full- time equivalent jobs. Investments in research and development and advanced manufacturing support growth at specialized firms in the East Bay. They are also supporting the economic growth of the entire region, generating revenues for businesses in East Bay Venture Capital Funding by Stage, Q1-Q3 2014 Industry Seed Stage ($ millions)Early Stage ($ millions)Expansion Stage ($ millions)Later Stage ($ millions) Biotechnology 32.4 81.8 108.1 Business Products and Services Computers and Peripherals 35.0 Consumer Products and Services 5.0 60.9 Electronics Instrumentation 10.0 Financial Services IT Services 0.4 24.5 Industrial Energy 6.5 24.7 18.2 Media and Entertainment 9.8 Medical Devices and Equipment 5.2 37.4 Networking and Equipment 1.4 Semiconductors 22.7 19.0 1.0 Software 14.8 15.6 50.1 38.5 Telecommunications 0.5 1.5 Total 14.8 128.1 215.0 267.1 Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association MoneyTree™ Report, Data: Thomson Reuters $1 million in investment in scientific research and development in the East Bay yields a total of nearly $1.9 million in local economic output, $850,000 in total labor income and 10 full-time equivalent jobs. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 19 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 244 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1620 | EAST BAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY a wide range of industries, including professional services, retail and wholesale trade, real estate, and leisure and hospitality. Foreign investments are playing a larger role in helping firms in the East Bay to grow. The EB-5 visa program has helped to bring substantial amounts of investment to support new development in the area. This program was developed by the U.S. Congress in 1990 and is administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It provides permanent worker visas to foreign nationals that invest $1 million (or $500,000, if the investment is in a high-unemployment or rural area) in new commercial enterprises that generate at least 10 full-time jobs for U.S. workers. The program is set to expire in September, after being extended in 2012, but the American Entrepreneurship and Investment Act of 2015, a bill currently in Congressional subcommittee, would make the program permanent.7 The bill holds bipartisan support in the U.S. House and is likely to pass by fall. Many of these new commercial enterprises have been located in the East Bay. For instance, Comprehensive Care of Oakland has already hired over 100 employees to provide skilled nursing care with plans to use EB-5 investments to hire 75 additional workers over the next few years. A 20,000-square-foot independent grocery store planned for West Oakland is seeking $10 million in EB-5 funding for development with plans to employ 300 full-time workers. The growth of the EB-5 program could generate millions of dollars in foreign investments in the East Bay. The program promises to help create and retain local jobs and businesses. 7 Allissa Wickham, “Reps. Introduce Bill to Make EB-5 Visa Program Permanent.” Law360. Jan. 29, 2015. East Bay Venture Capital Funding by City, Q1-Q3 2014, ($ millions) Industry Alameda Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Lafayette Livermore Newark Oakland Pleasanton Union City Biotechnology 42.1 21.0 7.9 19.9 Consumer Products and Services 11.0 1.1 57.3 Electronics Instrumentation 6.0 Financial Services 22.0 IT Services 21.2 Industrial Energy 62.5 0.04 105.0 4.4 Medical Devices and Equipment 1.1 6.8 27.6 20.2 Semiconductors 2.5 1.0 16.2 35.0 Software 4.2 131.0 41.1 24.2 12.7 32.4 99.4 40.0 Total 10.2 186.6 1.1 84.3 110.8 1.1 6.8 0.04 75.3 216.6 139.4 44.4 Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association MoneyTree™ Report, Data: Thomson Reuters. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 20 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 245 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 21 EAST BAY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 847% to reach a 6-year high. Overall, the 46.2% increase in permits in the East Bay easily surpasses the 14.7% growth in San Francisco, and the 39% decline in the South Bay. OFFICE R ENTAL MARkET From the fourth quarter of 2013 to the fourth quarter of 2014, office vacancy rates in the East Bay fell 60 basis points from 17.9% to 17.3%. This marks the largest year-over-year decline since the end of 2013 and is a sign that the office market is starting to heat up. Over the same time period, San Francisco vacancy rates fell from 12.9% to 11.7%, and South Bay rates fell from 18.0% to 17.7%. The cost of rent for office space in the East Bay continues to edge up slowly, but rent for office space in San Francisco and the South Bay have accelerated more rapidly, making the East Bay more affordable by comparison. However, it remains a good time for local property owners as the $0.55 year-over-year increase in local office rents has been the fastest rate of growth since 2011. COMMERCIAL REAL E STAT E O VE RVIE w Commercial real estate in the East Bay continues to improve. Vacancy rates have fallen across all major property types over the past year as rents have grown. The improved local economy has spurred demand for new commercial space. Strategically, the East Bay is well positioned within the broader Bay Area. The region offers lower rents relative to the cost of space in San Francisco and San Jose while remaining in close proximity to many of the high-skilled residents who work in these markets. Migration to the East Bay is a potentially attractive option for many firms. As a result of these trends, nonresidential construction permits in the East Bay have increased 106% over the past two years. Although not quite as strong as in 2013, nonresidential permits increased 46% in the East Bay last year. Retail permits accounted for the largest amount of activity in the East Bay in 2014 with $115.5 million in permits issued during the year. Office permits grew the fastest, expanding by Nonresidential Building Permit Values, in Millions ($) Type of Property 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 East Bay 2013 - 2014 Change (%)San Francisco 2013 - 2014 Change (%)South Bay 2013 - 2014 Change (%) Office 21.5 3.5 67.5 13.5 8.1 76.4 847.4 19.4 60.0 Retail 57.5 43.0 102.8 33.3 66.9 155.5 132.4 -0.4 -60.6 Industrial 101.1 112.1 24.7 35.0 149.0 116.3 -22.0 -15.0 -84.6 Renovations/Alter. 604.2 568.6 606.7 477.1 695.2 958.9 37.9 28.1 9.5 Total 912.3 850.1 1029.8 622.9 1025.3 1499.1 46.2 14.7 -39.1 Source: Construction industry Research Board EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 21 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 246 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1622 | OFFICE SuBMARkETS Other than the flex market, the office market in the East Bay is the most polarized commercial market. North Alameda and the Central Business District submarkets (which include Oakland primarily, but also parts of Alameda) are drawing more tenants than other East Bay submarkets. This is evident in their lower vacancy rates and premium rents. Markets that are in the South I-680 corridor have the highest vacancy rates and the most vacant square footage, yet the cost of rent is currently at a premium compared to other submarkets with comparable vacancy rates. DEVELOPMENT OPPORTuNITIES: OFFICE R EN T DISCOuNTS Recent growth in the East Bay office markets stems partly from the fact that local offices enjoy the steepest discount of any property type when compared to San Francisco and the South Bay. Class A space has the greatest discount, which is another advantage for the East Bay because Class A space has been in higher demand over the past several years relative to demand for Class B/C office buildings. The substantial cost savings for tenants who move to the East Bay from San Francisco or the South Bay should increase local absorption and stimulate new construction projects in the coming years. EAST BAY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES: O FFICE R EL ATED EMPLOYMENT The post-recession breakdown between growth in employment and absorption of office space has continued over the past couple of years: office-related employment in the East Bay grew by 4% in 2014 while occupied stock in office buildings only grew by 1.5%. Compared to the past, there will be less demand for new office space relative to each new office job. Firms are continuing to enable workers to telecommute and are moving towards more modern, hotel-style spaces. NE w O FFICE CONSTRuCTION New office construction in the East Bay has been robust over the past year – expanding to a 6-year high. The growth continues despite challenges associated with the changing face for office space as related to demand. Office space construction activity has been heavily concentrated: 90% of all new office permits were issued in Fremont, Berkeley, the Tri-Valley, or other parts of the I-80/I-880 corridor, which contains parts of Fremont, Berkeley, and Alameda, as well as Hayward, San Leandro, Union City, and San Pablo. RETAIL RENTAL MARkET After reaching a high of 7.1% in the third quarter of 2010, retail vacancy Office Construction by Submarket City/Submarket 2014 Change (%) Fremont 40,719,379 4,710.90 Berkeley 15,073,000 N/A Tri-Valley 7,000,338 880.0 I-80/I-880 6374689 44.7 East Contra Costa 3,773,027 N/A Alameda 990,000 N/A Other 328,000 -38.9 East Bay Total 76,367,316 847.4 Source: CIRB EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 22 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 247 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 23 Retail rent growth in the East Bay has increased for the past seven quarters and growth that had been sluggish has picked up slightly over the past year. The slower growth in retail rents in the East Bay has widened the discount that the region enjoys compared to San Francisco and the South Bay. The demand for new retail space will continue to expand with increased robust growth in the local population. rates in the East Bay have gradually dropped to a post-recession low of 6%. That is below the 10% threshold that is typically associated with the development of new property. The pace of decline in the East Bay’s vacancy rate has been faster than in the highly saturated San Francisco market, but slower than in the South Bay where vacancy rates fell to 4.3% at the end of 2014. EAST BAY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE Office Submarket Snapshot: 2014-Q4 Submarket Rent ($ per sq. ft. per year)Vacancy Rate (%)Vacant Square Feet (000s) North Alameda 28.39 9.9 533 Central Business District 29.52 11.7 1,235 North I-680 27.59 13.4 1,008 West Contra Costa 23.29 16.2 316 North Contra Costa 28.25 17.0 1,906 Airport/San Leandro/Hayward 21.57 22.9 946 Fremont/Newark 20.85 24.2 768 South I-680 25.47 29.3 2,520 S. Clara/Sunnyvale 35.21 20.6 4,227 San Francisco (MD)46.83 11.7 10,700 Source: REIS Rent Discounts in the East Bay relative to San Francisco and the South Bay Property Type Property Class East Bay Avg. Rent in Q4-2014 ($ per sq. ft. per year) Discount from San Francisco (%) Discount from the South Bay (%) Office Total 26.96 42.4 21.6 Office A 30.41 42.4 23.8 Office BC 23.36 38.0 22.3 Retail Total 28.68 17.3 11.8 Warehouse/Distribution Total 5.24 39.5 25.2 Flex/R&D Total 9.07 36.8 36.2 Source: REIS Office Related Employment and Ocupied Square Feet of Office Space Location Office-Related Employment Growth from December 2012 to December 2014 (%)Occupied Square Feet Growth from Q4-2012 to Q4-2014 (%) East Bay 4.0 1.5 San Francisco 9.1 3.8 South Bay 12.6 9.0 Source: REIS and the California Employment Development Department EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 23 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 248 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1624 | in Alameda County. Looking ahead, the more populous East Bay submarkets should continue to attract the majority of retail growth. wAREHOuSE RENTAL MARkET Over the past two years, warehouse space in the East Bay has attracted tenants at an increasing rate, with vacancies falling from 11.4% to 10.3%. The East Bay has had more success in filling unoccupied warehouse space than the South Bay (which has increasing year-over-year vacancy rates)—likely owing to export growth and the presence of the Port of Oakland. Unoccupied space is still being filled faster in San Francisco where the warehouse vacancy rate has fallen from 10% to 7.7% over the past two years. The cost of rent for warehouse space in the East Bay has grown at a slow but steady pace over the past three years, increasing from $4.98 to $5.24 from the fourth quarter of 2011 to the fourth quarter of 2014. Growth in rents has been slightly faster over the past few years in the East Bay compared to San Francisco or the South Bay. Warehouse rents in the East Bay are still 40% cheaper than they are in San Francisco and 25% cheaper than in the South Bay, which will keep local demand robust. RETAIL SuBMARkETS The West Contra Costa and Central Contra Costa retail submarkets, along with the Central/North Alameda submarkets, are showing the most absorption and healthiest rent growth among the retail submarkets. Collectively, the markets have vacancy rates that are 1.6% to 1.7% lower than the next closest market and the cost of rent is anywhere between a 15.4% and 41.8% premium compared to other markets. East Contra Costa has struggled the most with a vacancy rate in the high single-digits and a significant rent discount. R ETAIL CONSTRuCTION TRENDS Growth in retail permits has been strong in most submarkets, with double-digit increases across the board. The fastest growing submarkets with the most activity are those where the most populous cities and large residential communities are located. For example, the North I-680 submarket contains Concord, which is the most populous city in Contra Costa County. The I-80/I-880 submarket includes Hayward, the sixth largest city in the Bay Area, and third largest EAST BAY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE Retail Submarket Snapshot: 2014-Q4 Submarket Rent ($ per sq. ft. per year)Vacancy Rate (%)Vacant Square Feet (000s) West Contra Costa 33.68 4.9 114 Central Contra Costa 28.60 5.0 293 Central/North Alameda 31.55 5.0 377 South Alameda 24.78 6.6 307 East Alameda 27.58 7.5 332 East Contra Costa 23.75 9.5 291 N. San Jose County 32.45 7.2 231 San Francisco (MD)34.67 3.3 324 Source: REIS Retail Construction by Submarket City/Submarket 2014 Change (%) North I-680 46,508,640 465.8 I-80/I-880 31,334,647 72.3 Alameda 22,590,688 1,053.00 Tri-Valley 12,856,821 16.5 Berkeley 11,159,125 5,773.20 Richmond 9,686,520 4,458.40 Fremont 9,564,828 21.3 East Contra Costa 4,987,251 N/A Other 3,604,811 -8.2 East Bay Total 155,539,602 132.4 Source: CIRB EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 24 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 249 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 25 The cost advantages of operating in the East Bay in addition to the proximity to the port and the freeway system make the area a strategic fit for the ecommerce giant. FLEx/R&D RENTAL MARkET The East Bay is also a rising hub for innovation. The region houses the University of California, Berkeley and is the only region with three National Laboratories (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories) and the soon to be developed Berkeley Global Campus at Richmond Bay. Additionally, there has been an increase in incubators and accelerators in the East Bay around these entities – examples include TopLine in Richmond, and iGate in Livermore. The type of commercial space that is suitable for laboratories is known as Flex space, which is a term used for research and development compatible with office space. After rising at the beginning of 2014, vacancy rates for East Bay flex/R&D properties decreased 1.3% over the past 9 months to hit a post-recession low of 15.1%. Flex vacancy rates have come down fairly quickly in all Bay One caveat here is that demand may be high, but many facilities in the East Bay are also outdated. Tenants have many new requirements for warehouse space due to advanced manufacturing, broadband, higher ceilings and other physical requirements. It can be cheaper for companies to demolish a structure and build new ones than make accommodations. If this is the case, then we can expect the downward path of vacancy rates to slow somewhat while permit activity should continue to rise. wAREHOuSE AND DISTRIBuTION CENTER SuBMAR k ET S The warehouse and distribution market has the greatest amount of parity between commercial submarkets. The Newark/Fremont submarket is clearly the healthiest with the lowest vacancy rate by a solid 70 basis point margin and higher, yet still maintains competitive rental costs. Interestingly, the two submarkets where vacancy rates are the highest are the same two where it is most expensive to rent warehouse space. This suggests that lowering rents could improve vacancy rates in those submarkets. In fact, Amazon just recently opened a 575 – thousand square foot distribution center in Newark. EAST BAY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE Warehouse and Distribution Center Submarket Snapshot: 2014-Q4 Submarket Rent ($ per sq. ft. per year)Vacancy Rate (%)Vacant Square Feet (000s) Newark/Fremont 5.38 8.9 1,873 Union City 5.31 9.6 1,399 Berkeley/Richmond/Martinez 5.02 9.7 984 Concord/Pittsburg 4.64 9.8 2,709 Oakland/San Leandro 5.24 10.1 1,704 Pleasanton/Livermore 5.63 10.5 2,110 Hayward 5.50 12.2 1,539 Santa Clara 6.73 14.0 830 San Francisco County 8.73 6.7 690 Source: REIS EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 25 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 250 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1626 | EAST BAY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE Area markets, falling by 1.8% in San Francisco and by a more modest 0.5% in the South Bay. The cost of flex rent in the East Bay has grown slowly but consistently, increasing every single quarter over the past year, and totaling 3.3% growth. Over the last year, rent growth has picked up slightly, but it is important to note that flex properties in the East Bay are even more discounted than their warehouse counterparts, boasting roughly a 36% discount compared to both the South Bay and San Francisco. This will continue to attract research-based firms to the area. FLE x/R&D SuBMAR k ET S Certain flex submarkets have had great success rapidly filling space over the past several years thanks to attractive rent prices relative to San Francisco and the South Bay. The Oakland/San Leandro submarket has a mere 4.7% vacancy rate. This is less than half compared to the next closest submarket. Likewise, the high cost of rent in the Berkeley/ Richmond/Martinez submarket – a commercial submarket pre-defined by REIS, Inc. - is being driven by newer facilities being built in the area, properties that command a premium. Flex and Research and Development Submarket Snapshot: 2014-Q4 Submarket Rent ($ per sq. ft. per year)Vacancy Rate (%)Vacant Square Feet (000s) Oakland/San Leandro 9.00 4.7 104 Berkeley/Richmond/Martinez 18.52 10.9 127 Pleasanton/Livermore 9.78 12.6 486 Hayward 8.33 15.2 622 Concord/Pittsburg 9.75 16.0 351 Newark/Fremont 5.29 17.9 174 Union City 8.15 19.3 2,048 Santa Clara 13.30 14.7 2,031 San Francisco County 16.25 6.3 108 Source: REIS Industrial Construction by Submarket City/Submarket 2014 Change (%) Fremont 54,308,271 -59.9 I-80/I-880 33,182,000 643.2 Richmond 20,488,175 180.8 Other 30,628 N/A East Bay Total 116,259,074 -22.0 Source: CIRB I NDuS TRIAL CONSTRuCTION TRENDS Construction of industrial properties in the East Bay slowed somewhat over the past year, but the general level of activity remained strong with almost all construction occurring in just three submarkets. Areas such as Fremont are seeing significant construction because although they already house a significant amount of industrial space, much of it is older. There is demand for newer class A industrial space as well as Flex space in the area. Given the relative affordability of Flex space in the Union City submarket, it may come as a surprise to some that vacancy rates are 220 basis points higher in Union City than in the much more expensive Santa Clara submarket where rents are $13.30 versus $5.29 in Union City. While this is certainly a peculiar case, Union City is by no means an outlier as the neighboring Newark/Fremont and Hayward submarkets both have higher vacancy rates than Santa Clara. This indicates that there is an inherent advantage to renting flex property in Santa Clara for now. Certain flex submarkets have had great success rapidly filling space over the past several years thanks to attractive rent prices relative to San Francisco and the South Bay. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 26 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 251 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 27 EAST BAY RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE OVERVIEw The direction of the East Bay housing market has been primarily dictated by lingering supply constraints. Demand for housing in the region remains strong, bolstered by rising incomes and rapid population growth. Meanwhile, a significant gap has developed between the rate of household formation in the region and the supply of available housing. As a result, prices continue to grow at a rapid clip while the volume of sales has consistently underwhelmed. However, residential construction activity picked up considerably in 2014, although the gap between population demand and available units remains wide. Going forward, we see further improvement in the East Bay housing market despite the persistence of supply issues in the region. HOME PRICES Although the rate of price appreciation for existing single-family homes in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties remained strong in 2014, prices grew at a faster clip elsewhere in the Bay Area. This means that housing in the East Bay has increased in affordability relative to San Francisco and the South Bay, which should entice more potential Bay Area homeowners to move into the region. CONDOMINIuM PRICES The market for condominiums in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties went in different directions in 2014. The market in Alameda County behaved as expected—price growth, while relatively high at 12.3% over the year, began to cool. Meanwhile, the median price for a condo in Contra Costa County surged in early 2014 only to fall back to where the market stood during the fourth quarter of 2013 by the end of the year. HOuSING AFFORDABILITY The absolute affordability of living in the East Bay, as opposed to elsewhere in the Bay Area, grew in 2014. As of the fourth quarter of 2014, a typical household in the East Bay would have to spend just under half (49.4%) of their income in order to afford the mortgage payment on a median-priced home in the region. By comparison, 200 325 450 575 700 Median Prices ($ 000s, SA)Q1-05 Q3-06 Q1-08 Q3-09 Q1-11 Q3-12 Q1-14 Alameda County Contra Costa County California Source: DataQuick Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted Q1-05 to Q4-14 Existing Single-Family Home Prices 150 240 330 420 510 600 Median Prices ($ 000s, SA)Q1-05 Q3-06 Q1-08 Q3-09 Q1-11 Q3-12 Q1-14 Alameda County Contra Costa County California Source: DataQuick Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted Q1-05 to Q4-14 Existing Condominium Prices Household Income and Housing Costs for Select East Bay Cities in 2014 City Median Household Income ($000s)Median Prices ($000s)Home and Condo Sales Annual Housing Costs as a % of Income Berkeley 62 788 744 71.5 Oakland 54 442 3,918 45.7 Hayward 59 420 1,707 39.8 Pleasanton 122 828 998 38.3 San Leandro 64 430 885 37.9 San Ramon 131 800 1,353 34.3 Concord 66 400 1,585 34.0 Richmond 55 286 832 29.4 Antioch 59 307 1,654 29.1 Pittsburg 61 301 1,009 27.7 Source: DataQuick EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 27 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 252 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1628 | households in San Francisco and San Jose are facing mortgage payments in excess of 60% of their income, which should encourage many potential homeowners to consider purchasing an East Bay home and commuting to work. Potential homeowners may also be lured to the East Bay because of the relatively affordable housing in the region. A median-priced single-family home in Alameda County is nearly 40% less expensive than a home sold in San Francisco and 24.9% less expensive than a home sold in the South Bay. The affordability gap is even more pronounced in Contra Costa County, where a buyer could purchase two-and-a-quarter homes for the price of one in San Francisco. The northern and eastern sub-regions of the East Bay exhibit the highest levels of affordability. Households in the Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg would only have to pay 27.7% and 29.1%, respectively, of their annual household income to purchase the median priced home or condominium in these cities. Affordability issues in San Francisco, San Jose, and the western portion of the East Bay will continue to push potential homebuyers further east. If supply issues in the East Bay persist, many potential homebuyers will be priced out of the region’s housing market entirely and will be forced to consider moving further east to less-expensive areas in Solano, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Counties. In fact, this eastward transition has already begun as 27,000 people left the East Bay and moved out of the Bay Area between 2008 and 2013. D EFA u LTS A ND FORECLOSuRES Notices of default in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties have nearly returned to pre-recession levels. Furthermore, continued improvement of household finances in the East Bay means fewer homes will default on their mortgages. Defaulting is the first component of the foreclosure process. Defaults and foreclosures alike should continue their downward trend towards long-term historical averages. Foreclosures are becoming an increasingly smaller share of the overall housing market in the East Bay. Only 0.76 per thousand homes in Alameda County with a mortgage 0 10 20 30 (SA)Q1-05 Q3-06 Q1-08 Q3-09 Q1-11 Q3-12 Q1-14 Alameda County Contra Costa County California Source: DataQuick Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted Q1-05 to Q4-14 Defaults per 1,000 Mortgaged Housing Units Foreclosures in Select Cities in the East Bay City 1998-2006 Average Q4-2013 Q4-2014 Q4-2013 to Q4-2014 Change (%) 1998-2006 Average to Q4-2014 Change (%) Berkeley 3 5 0 -100 -100 Oakland 37 91 49 -47 30 Fremont 6 12 8 -32 34 Concord 9 31 15 -53 63 Richmond 12 23 22 -8 85 Hayward 10 28 20 -30 107 Antioch 15 47 36 -24 132 Brentwood 3 23 7 -68 139 Alameda 1 6 5 -18 391 Source: DataQuick EAST BAY RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 28 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 253 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 29 went into foreclosure in the fourth quarter of 2014. A little less than 1 in every thousand mortgaged homes in Contra Costa County went into foreclosure during this time. Foreclosures in the East Bay continued their widespread decline in 2014. Although the number of foreclosures in most cities remains elevated relative to pre-recession averages, the continued improvement of household finances, coupled with a downward trend in the number of defaults, indicates that foreclosures will continue their move towards their long-run average. SuPPLY As distressed properties continue to dwindle, the supply of existing homes in the East Bay remains tight. Only 5.4% of all housing units in the region were vacant as of 2013 compared to 8.3% of all housing units statewide. This downward trend has persisted since 2009. Construction activity has been slow to respond to the rapid rate of price appreciation seen during this period. Construction activity in the East Bay has been unable to keep up with the rate of household formation. This gap grew even bigger in 2014. The number of households moving into the East Bay outnumbered the number of housing units permitted for construction by 6,351 households. Overall, more than 21,000 units would need to be constructed in addition to the 23,200 units that were built over the past five years in order to keep up with the number of new households that have entered the region during this time period. HOME AND CONDOMINIuM SALES A persistent shortage in the supply of available housing in the East Bay continues to limit the volume of home and condominium sales in the region. The decline in sales is not limited to the East Bay; existing home and condominium sales fell 8.3% statewide during this period. Sales were also down in San Francisco (-4.4%) and the South Bay (-5.3%) in 2014, a clear indication of the extent of the region’s supply shortage. Housing Vacancy % Year Alameda Contra Costa East Bay California 2007 8.0 6.7 7.4 8.3 2008 8.6 7.0 7.9 9.1 2009 8.7 8.1 8.5 9.1 2010 7.8 8.1 7.9 9.3 2011 6.7 6.2 6.5 9.1 2012 6.1 5.2 5.7 8.4 2013 5.4 5.4 5.4 8.3 Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey EAST BAY RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 29 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 254 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1630 | HOME AND CONDOMINIuM PRICES AND SALES Home price appreciation was highest in some of the East Bay’s more affordable cities during 2014. In the City of Emeryville, where the median home price was 27.3% less expensive than the median price in Alameda County, home prices grew by 16.7%. Price appreciation was considerably stronger throughout Contra Costa County, as five cities saw prices grow in excess of 20% year-over-year. Home price appreciation was slowest in many of the East Bay’s most expensive cities. The “slowest” growing city, Albany, in Alameda County, only grew by 5.8% from 2013 to 2014, while the median price in the only town with negative growth in Contra Costa County, Moraga, was exactly twice the county average. Overall, high-cost areas in the East Bay saw home prices appreciate by 8.3% from 2013 to 2014. The number of home and condominium sales in these areas, however, was dragged down by a 6.2% decline in Danville and a 1% drop in San Ramon. Home prices continue to rise sharply in many of the East Bay’s more affordable locales as a result of a persistent shortage in the supply of available housing. In fact, the number of home and condominium sales fell in cities with relatively affordable housing. A greater share of local residents have now been priced out of these markets due to both the declining number of foreclosures and persistent supply constraints throughout the East Bay. APARTMENT VAC ANCIES AND RENTS Rising rents and an unchanged vacancy rate indicate that demand for apartments in the East Bay continued to grow during 2014. Meanwhile, rents grew at a faster clip in San Francisco (5.1%) and the South Bay (6.2%), which has made 200 600 1,000 1,400 1,800 200 600 1,000 1,400 1,800 Housing Permits (SA and Smoothed)Q1-05 Q3-06 Q1-08 Q3-09 Q1-11 Q3-12 Q1-14 Single-Family Multifamily Source: Construction Industry Research Board Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted Q1-05 to Q4-14 Single-Family and Multifamily Construction Permits 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Housing Permits (SA and Smoothed)Q1-05 Q3-06 Q1-08 Q3-09 Q1-11 Q3-12 Q1-14 East Bay San Francisco South Bay Source: Construction Industry Research Board Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted Q1-05 to Q4-14 Residential Construction Permits Home and Condominium Sales and Median Prices in East Bay Areas with the Fastest Growing Prices in 2014 Area Annual Sales Median Prices ($000s)Year-Over-Year Change in Price (%) Newark 513 540 24.4 Emeryville 500 410 17.0 Hayward 1,707 420 16.7 Dublin 1,245 790 16.5 San Lorenzo 290 430 16.2 Alameda County 17,011 564 16.2 Rodeo 81 366 36.3 Richmond 832 286 36.2 San Pablo 504 275 22.1 Pinole 218 384 21.7 Pittsburg 1,009 301 20.4 Contra Costa County 16,097 450 14.6 Source: DataQuick EAST BAY RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE Overall, more than 21,000 units would need to be constructed in addition to the 23,200 units that were built over the past five years in order to keep up with the number of new households that have entered the region during this time period. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 30 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 255 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 31 renting in the East Bay relatively more affordable than other markets in the Bay Area. Given that many potential homeowners are now renting, demand for rental properties in the East Bay is expected to remain strong. RESIDENTIAL CONSTRuCTION Developers have started to respond to rapidly rising home prices in the East Bay with increased construction activity. In fact, the number of permits issued in the region grew by 8.0% to just under 5,700 in 2014—the most permits issued in any year since the start of the recovery. Meanwhile, over 12,000 permits were issued in the South Bay in 2014, while construction activity plummeted in San Francisco during this same period. Multi-family construction was the primary driver of increased construction activity in the East Bay. Activity in multi-family construction increased significantly while activity in the single-family sector declined. In fact, 55% of all residential permits issued in the East Bay were for multi- family units in 2014. Developers facing a shortage of developable land are focusing on increase density by building more units on less ground. Dublin, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg led the way in single- family construction in the East Bay, relative to their respective stock of single-family homes. This is positive news for the region overall, as it demonstrates that construction activity is picking up in both expensive (Orinda) and inexpensive (Oakley) locales. Five cities are expected to see their stock of multi-family housing increase by over 10% as units currently under construction enter the market. Beacon Economics expects this trend to persist as developers turn increasingly to multi-family developments due to a shortage of developable land in the region’s urban cores. Home and Condominium Sales and Median Prices in East Bay Areas with the Slowest Growing Prices in 2014 Area Annual Sales Median Prices ($000s)Year-Over-Year Change in Price (%) Albany 172 638 5.8 Castro Valley 671 575 7.6 Berkeley 744 788 9.4 Pleasanton 998 828 10.4 San Leandro 885 430 13.2 Alameda County 17,011 564 16.2 Moraga 268 900 -1.4 Lafayette 391 1,103 3.0 San Ramon 1,353 800 3.9 Hercules 308 369 5.4 Clayton 191 640 7.6 Contra Costa County 16,097 450 14.6 Source: DataQuick Cities in the East Bay Developing the Most Single-Family Units Relative to their Current Single- Family Housing Stock City Permits 2012 to 2014 Permits as a Share of Housing Stock (%) Dublin 1,701 16.3 Brentwood 1,146 7.1 Oakley 429 4.2 Pittsburg 569 3.6 Hayward 561 2.0 Orinda 113 1.8 Antioch 480 1.7 Source: Construction Industry Research Board Cities in the East Bay Developing the Most Multifamily Units Relative to their Current Multifamily Housing Stock City Permits 2012 to 2014 Permits as a Share of Housing Stock (%) Orinda 66 25.3 Emeryville 1,069 18.5 Dublin 1,074 17.9 Lafayette 194 12.1 Oakley 74 11.6 Pleasanton 528 8.5 Brentwood 54 4.9 Walnut Creek 639 4.3 Livermore 199 3.3 Source: Construction Industry Research Board EAST BAY RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 31 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 256 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1632 | FORECAST OF ExISTING SINGLE- FAMILY HOME PRICES AND SALES As persistent supply concerns are alleviated, Beacon Economics expects home appreciation in the East Bay to return to a more sustainable pattern of growth. Driven by an expanding population and improved household finances, demand for housing in the region will remain strong. The recent uptick in construction activity throughout the East Bay should also help address the shortage of housing. As price growth continues to cool in the upcoming quarters, sales activity will begin to pick up and is expected to grow for the duration of this forecast. Home and Condominium Median Prices and Sales in Higher Cost East Bay Areas in 2014 City/County Median Prices($000s)Year-Over-Year Change in Price (%)Annual Sales Year-Over-Year Change in Sales (%) Orinda 1,175 15.5 326 10.9 Danville 1,000 11.2 1,087 -6.2 Alamo 1,410 10.6 275 10.9 Pleasanton 828 10.4 998 -1.4 Berkeley 788 9.4 744 4.3 San Ramon 800 3.9 1,353 -1.0 Lafayette 1,103 3.0 391 1.6 Moraga 900 -1.4 268 18.6 Diablo 1,500 22 Total 925 8.3 5,477 0.8 Source: DataQuick 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Units (000s, SA)Q1-01 Q1-05 Q1-09 Q1-13 Q1-17 Single-Family Single-Family Forecast Multifamily Multifamily Forecast Forecasts by Beacon Economics Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted East Bay, Q1-01 to Q4-19 Residential Contruction Permits Forecast 0 200 400 600 800 Median Prices ($000s, SA)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Sales (000s, SA)Q1-01 Q1-05 Q1-09 Q1-13 Q1-17 Sales Sales Forecast Price Price Forecast Forecasts by Beacon Economics Note: SA stands for Seasonally Adjusted East Bay, Q1-01 to Q4-19 Median Home Price and Sales Forecast FORECAST OF CONSTRuCTION AC TIVITY Beacon Economics expects home appreciation in the East Bay to return to a more sustainable pattern of growth. Beacon Economics is forecasting that the number of permits issued for single-family construction will grow considerably through 2018, while recent momentum in the multi- family sector will carry over into 2015 with growth in excess of 30.0%. EAST BAY RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 32 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 257 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 33 Home and Condominium Median Prices and Sales in Affordable East Bay Areas in 2014 City/County Median Prices($000s)Year-Over-Year Change in Price (%)Annual Sales Year-Over-Year Change in Sales (%) Rodeo 366 36.3 81 -12.9 Richmond 286 36.2 832 -7.5 San Pablo 275 22.1 504 -10.0 Pinole 384 21.7 218 -3.1 Pittsburg 301 20.4 1,009 -9.9 Discovery Bay 450 18.7 440 6.3 Martinez 415 18.2 689 -5.5 Emeryville 410 17.0 500 -0.2 Hayward 420 16.7 1,707 -8.1 San Lorenzo 430 16.2 290 -17.4 El Sobrante 388 15.5 310 -1.3 Antioch 307 14.6 1,654 -11.0 Concord 400 14.3 1,585 -11.7 Oakley 342 14.0 727 -8.1 Oakland 442 13.5 3,918 -5.6 San Leandro 430 13.2 885 -10.8 Hercules 369 5.4 308 -15.2 Bethel Island 187 30 Crockett 330 40 Total 387 16.2 15,727 -8.0 EAST BAY RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE With comparatively lower costs of living, the East Bay has become an attractive destination for households squeezed out of pricier locales in San Francisco County and the South Bay. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 33 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 258 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1634 | POPuLATION GROw TH The East Bay continues to be a leader in overall population growth in the Bay Area. From July 2013 to July 2014, the East Bay experienced a population increase of 1.3%, with total population reaching close to 2.7 million residents. Looking over a much wider horizon, the East Bay has increased its population base by nearly 9% over the last ten years. With comparatively lower costs of living, the East Bay has become an attractive destination for households squeezed out of pricier locales in San Francisco County and the South Bay. The East Bay is also attracting higher income households. Since 2013, domestic migration has indicated that the East Bay is becoming more of a destination for those living in the Bay Area. However, growth in the East Bay’s population continues to be dominated by natural increases—the difference between births and deaths—which average 17,000 per year. Immigration has also been a source of population growth, with the East Bay averaging close to 13,000 foreign immigrants per year over the last decade. Overall net migration was negative in the East Bay over the last five years. This is primarily due to many lower income households relocating outside the area in search of more affordable living arrangements. There has been positive net migration to the East Bay from neighboring counties. Inbound migration from San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties has accounted for nearly half of all inbound migration into the East Bay over the last five years. This has been the result of greater affordability, ongoing modernization, and development in the region. The East Bay is not only a relatively more affordable place to live, it is also in the midst of a transformation that will allow its residents to enjoy more food and entertainment venues locally. In addition, as will be discussed in greater detail below, the East Bay is becoming increasingly diverse, with Alameda County having the highest racial diversity index in the Bay Area. According to the 2014 East Bay EDA Quality of Life report, “… productivity flourishes in culturally diverse cities and people are willing to pay to live and work in such fertile environments.”1 1 “East Bay Economic Development Alliance, “East Bay Quality of Life Report”, Page 26, September 2014. DEMOGRAPHICS / QUALITY OF LIFE East Bay In-State Migration (2008-2013) Inbound Migration Outbound Migration Net Migration Origin County Amount Share Migration County Amount Share County Amount Marin 4,608 2.5% Marin 7,130 3.6% Marin -2,522 Non Bay Area Counties 90,500 48.5% Non Bay Area Counties 117,515 59.6% Non Bay Area Counties -27,015 San Francisco 37,764 20.2% San Francisco 29,738 15.1% San Francisco 8,026 San Mateo 19,547 10.5%San Mateo 14,336 7.3% San Mateo 5,211 Santa Clara 34,223 18.3% Santa Clara 28,417 14.4% Santa Clara 5,806 Total 186,642 100.0% Total 197,136 100.0% Total -10,494 Source: 2008-2013 American Community Survey EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 34 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 259 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 35 DEMOGRAPHICS / QUALITY OF LIFE This bodes well for local businesses, as increased levels of diversity will certainly create an economic environment conducive to increased levels of spending, especially in the entertainment and specialty retail sectors. As more and more Bay Area residents have moved into the East Bay, there has also been an increase in the number of residents who commute to locations outside the East Bay for work. The growing pattern of commuting from the East Bay to the Bay Area’s tech hubs has become troublesome for many commuters, who face long commutes to and from Silicon Valley and San Francisco. However, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) is undergoing major transformations in the form of increased capital expenditures on new train cars, improvements to existing tracks and the modernization of the BART Maintenance Complex in Hayward2. The planned transformations will be able to accommodate the increased ridership from the East Bay into San Francisco and Silicon Valley. Nevertheless, the increased volume of commuters will benefit the East Bay from increased spending by these commuters. As more high-skilled workers move to the East Bay from San Francisco, some 2 San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, 2015 Report to Congress. firms should consider relocating to the East Bay. An analytics firm recently relocated to Oakland, where office rents are lower than San Francisco and the commute is more favorable to East Bay located tech workers.3 POPuLATION COMPOSITION (AGE AN D R ACE ) The continued outflow of many young professionals from more expensive Bay Area communities into the East Bay is becoming increasingly noticeable. From 2012 to 2013, the population age 25 to 34 increased in the East Bay by 3.3%. Over the last five years, however, the population in this age group increased by nearly 19%. Of the four major ethnic groups, the population of Asians and Hispanics continues to grow the most in the East Bay. Asians now comprise over 22% and Hispanics comprise nearly 24% of the East Bay’s population. Over the last five years, the two highest income groups have experienced the largest increase in their share of the East Bay population, reflecting the inbound migration of higher skilled workers from professional and tech industries. 3 Joe Garofoli, “Horrible commute is a boon to East Bay tech firms”, SF Gate, January 18, 2015. East Bay Residents Commute Pattern Shares (2008-2013) County of Work 2008 (%) 2009 (%) 2010 (%) 2011 (%) 2012 (%) 2013 (%) East Bay 68.6 65.0 64.1 62.8 62.9 62.2 Other 10.4 14.5 16.4 17.4 17.4 17.8 San Francisco 9.9 9.3 8.6 9.3 10.0 10.5 San Mateo 3.5 3.5 3.4 2.9 3.2 3.3 Santa Clara 5.8 6.0 5.8 5.7 6.5 6.2 Source: 2008-2013 American Community Survey Increased levels of diversity will certainly create an economic environment conducive to increased levels of spending, especially in the entertainment and specialty retail sectors. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 35 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 260 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1636 | INCOME AND EDuCATION Annual earnings have grown throughout the Bay Area and California over the last year. The East Bay experienced annual earnings growth of 2.4% for those with a Bachelor’s Degree. Annual earnings for those with less than a high school diploma grew at a faster rate (3.3%) over the last year, however, there is still a 210% earnings gap between those with less than a high school degree and those with a Bachelor’s Degree. Higher educational attainment remains imperative in achieving higher earning potential. Still, earning any bachelor’s degree is no longer sufficient in guaranteeing a decent paying occupation. The Bay Area is a hub that is concentrated on STEM related fields.4 Current and future college students should be considering degrees and certificated programs closely tied to the fields now 4 STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics thriving in the Bay Area. Universities and community colleges are working more closely with industry to ensure that their curriculum is aligned to needed skill sets and knowledge bases that make their students more employable. The East Bay has benefited from multi-year, multi- million dollar grants from state and federal sources supporting this alignment through community college districts. Community colleges have fast become a more viable alternative to the pricier four-year colleges in the East Bay. With the help of California Career Pathways Trust grants, the Oakland-based Peralta Community College District, in 2014, received $15 million to bolster programs in engineering, public service, digital media, and other fields.5 This should help local community college students transition into more rigorous curricula found at four-year institutions and develop skillsets that are paramount in today’s work place. 5 Michelle, Maitre, “Winners of Career Pathways grants lay out ambitious goals”, EdSource, June 11, 2014. DEMOGRAPHICS / QUALITY OF LIFE East Bay Population Distribution by Age Age 2008 2013 2008-2013 % Change Under 5 years 167,632 161,488 -3.7% 5 to 9 years 168,217 176,547 5.0% 10 to 14 years 158,482 164,146 3.6% 15 to 19 years 171,892 168,660 -1.9% 20 to 24 years 168,217 176,097 4.7% 25 to 34 years 322,300 382,428 18.7% 35 to 44 years 379,613 383,660 1.1% 45 to 54 years 388,716 387,387 -0.3% 55 to 59 years 166,883 177,492 6.4% 60 to 64 years 126,818 151,867 19.8% 65 to 74 years 152,444 196,815 29.1% 75 to 84 years 92,651 98,151 5.9% 85 years and over 39,176 48,358 23.4% Total 2,504,071 2,673,096 6.8% Source: 2013 American Community Survey East Bay Population by Household Income Income Category Share 2008 Share 2013 Less than $10,000 5.0% 5.2% $10,000 to $14,999 4.4% 4.1% $15,000 to $24,999 7.5% 7.7% $25,000 to $34,999 6.9% 6.9% $35,000 to $49,999 10.9% 10.7% $50,000 to $74,999 16.1% 15.2% $75,000 to $99,999 13.0% 12.5% $100,000 to $149,999 18.2% 16.6% $150,000 to $199,999 8.7% 9.1% $200,000 or more 9.3% 11.9% Source: 2013 American Community Survey EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 36 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 261 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 37 DEMOGRAPHICS / QUALITY OF LIFE Local school districts are also collaborating with various businesses that will help support STEM coursework. Some of these include Bayer HealthCare, Kaiser Permanente, Wareham Development and Chevron. According to a study conducted by Bayer Corporation, approximately 90% of talent recruiters say that today’s four-year STEM degree holders are as, or more, in demand than their counterparts without STEM degrees.6 Thus, the East Bay is responding to the increased demand for a higher-skilled workforce proactively, and is taking steps 6 Bayer Corporation, “The Bayer Facts of Science Education XVI: U.S. STEM Workforce Shortage – Myth or Reality? Fortune 1,000 Talent Recruiters on the Debate”, October 2013. towards ensuring students will be adequately prepared for the rigors of STEM education. This will lead to higher workforce productivity, wage growth, and increased spending throughout the region. The portion of the East Bay population with a post-secondary education grew last year, while in San Francisco County there was a slight decline. The growing talent pool migrating to the East Bay should incentivize firms (either existing or start-ups) to establish operations in the region, taking into consideration both the long commute times from the East Bay to Silicon Valley or San Francisco, and the sizeable discount on the cost of commercial space. East Bay Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment, 2013 ($) Educational Attainment California East Bay San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Less than high school graduate 18,945 20,834 19,277 22,047 21,225 High school graduate (includes equivalency)27,354 31,167 25,438 31,066 29,674 Some college or associate’s degree 35,911 40,787 35,635 41,386 41,291 Bachelor’s degree 54,680 63,186 62,833 62,156 73,642 Graduate or professional degree 77,805 87,455 85,353 100,906 103,236 Source: 2013 American Community Survey East Bay Educational Attainment, 2013 (Share of Population Age 25 and Older) Education Level California East Bay San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Less than 9th Grade 10.1% 6.7% 8.2% 6.2% 7.0% 9th to 12th Grade, no Diploma 8.4% 5.8% 5.3% 5.0% 6.3% High School Graduate (includes equivalency)20.8% 19.0% 13.1% 17.4% 15.5% Some College, no Degree 22.0% 20.3% 15.2% 19.4% 17.1% Associate’s Degree 7.8% 7.3% 5.3% 7.4% 7.1% Bachelor’s Degree 19.5% 24.8% 32.1% 26.8% 25.9% Graduate or Professional Degree 11.3% 16.1% 20.8% 17.7% 21.1% Total Post Secondary Education 30.8% 40.9% 52.9% 44.5% 47.0% Source: 2013 American Community Survey The growing talent pool migrating to the East Bay, should incentivize firms (either existing or start-ups) to establish operations in the region. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 37 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 262 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1638 | INCOME INEquALITY AND POVERTY While incomes throughout the Bay Area have increased for the most part over the last year, the distribution of income remains an issue. In the East Bay, the Gini Coefficient of Inequality—where 1, or 100%, represents perfect inequality and 0 represents perfect equality—has increased by 3.5%, which is second only to Santa Clara County. The growing inequality is tied to a rising poverty rate: 12.1% of the East Bay’s population is living below the poverty threshold (up from 10% in 2008). Poverty and income inequality have become a significant issue throughout the East Bay. Increasing educational attainment is a key component in alleviating these ills. It is well understood that higher educational attainment can lead to higher wages and a lower likelihood of living below the poverty threshold. However, it is important to also emphasize the pursuit of degrees and certificates recognized by industry that are applicable to current occupational needs in the Bay Area. College students should consider pursuing degrees and certificates that are likely to lead to well-paying jobs, most notably in STEM-related fields. Job seekers who are not in the four-year college system should also seek training programs and opportunities that are aligned with employment in STEM-related fields prevalent in the region. The Bayer study mentioned earlier reports that nearly 80% of talent recruiters said that today, two-year STEM degree holders are as, or more, in demand than their counterparts without STEM degrees.7 Thus, even two-year STEM degrees are in adequate demand and are a more viable educational option, compared to even four-year, non- STEM degrees. 7 Bayer Corporation, “The Bayer Facts of Science Education XVI: U.S. STEM Workforce Shortage – Myth or Reality? Fortune 1,000 Talent Recruiters on the Debate”, October 2013. Poverty by Educational Attainment, 2013 (Share of Population Age 25 and Older) Education Level California East Bay San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Less Than High School Graduate 26.3% 22.8% 26.9% 15.9% 22.3% High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency)15.8% 13.6% 17.0% 9.2% 13.3% Some college, no degree 11.3% 9.8% 14.7% 6.4% 8.5% Bachelor’s Degree or Above 5.4% 4.5% 6.5% 3.8% 3.6% Source: 2013 American Community Survey DEMOGRAPHICS / QUALITY OF LIFE College students should consider pursuing degrees and certificates that are likely to lead to well-paying jobs, most notably in STEM-related fields. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 38 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 263 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-16 | 39 OCCuPATIONS AND wORkFORCE R EADINESS The East Bay’s occupational composition is centered around the professional services industry, primarily in finance and technology. Overall, 44.1% of the population age 16 and over work in management, business, science, and art related occupations—an improvement of nearly two percentage points over 2008. This is consistent with the East Bay’s transition to becoming a center for technology, innovation, and advanced manufacturing. In order to maintain this positive trend, local leaders need to focus on creating an educational environment that fosters growth in STEM-related programs. The East Bay is home to the University of California at Berkeley, one of the top research universities in the world and a magnet for top tech firms. The promotion of STEM education, especially early on, is a win-win proposition for all East Bay residents and businesses. East Bay Occupation Composition of Civilian Employed Population Age 16 and Over Occupation Type East Bay 2008 East Bay 2013 Management, Business, Science, and Arts 42.2%44.1% Service 16.0%17.2% Sales and Office 24.2%22.6% Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance 8.3%7.5% Production, Transportation, and Material Moving 9.3%8.6% Source: 2008 and 2013 American Community Survey DEMOGRAPHICS / QUALITY OF LIFE The East Bay is clearly transitioning, becoming more of a center for technology, innovation, and advanced manufacturing. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 39 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 264 East Bay Economic OUTLOOK 2015-1640 | CONCLUSION The East Bay’s economy continued to show strong growth in 2014. Numerous economic indicators have been trending in the right direction and the fundamentals indicate that the economy will continue to expand over the next five years. Jobs are being added to industries that serve the local economy, such Administrative Support Services, Construction, and Educational Services, indicative of higher incomes and higher spending among local residents. Indeed, taxable sales have also been growing throughout the East Bay’s cities. Home prices, which have been growing at a double-digit pace, should moderate to single-digit growth in the coming years. The East Bay will continue to attract migrants from the surrounding San Francisco Bay Area due to its relative affordability. For the long term, economic growth throughout the East Bay can be bolstered by more adequately preparing the local workforce to better meet employers growing demand for skilled labor and workers with technical experience, spurred by innovation throughout the Bay Area. EDA_Outlook15-16_vfinal3.indd 40 5/5/15 10:15 AM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 265 This report was supported and prepared in partnership with 1221 Oak Street, Suite 555, Oakland, CA 94612 www.EastBayEDA.org EDA_Outlook15-16_COVER_final.indd 4 5/4/15 11:52 PM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 266 ATTACHMENT G: Housing Affordability December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 267 Housing Affordability ATTACHMENT G: Housing Affordability 2016 Housing Median Sales Price by Census Block Group G-1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 268 Housing Affordability in Proximity to Growth Capacity Areas ATTACHMENT G: Housing Affordability G-2 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 269 ATTACHMENT H: Transportation Network and Growth Capacity December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 270 Transportation Network and Growth Capacity ATTACHMENT H: Transportation Network and Growth Capacity Public Transportation H-1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 271 Transportation Network and Growth Capacity ATTACHMENT H: Transportation Network and Growth Capacity Roadway Network H-2 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 272 Transportation Network and Growth Capacity ATTACHMENT H: Transportation Network and Growth Capacity Transportation Network H-3 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 273 ATTACHMENT I: Parcels Crossed by the ULL and Islands in the ULL December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 274 The Urban Limit Line was not drawn following parcel lines The ULL was drawn on the '1972 Official Map' at 1 inch = 4,000 feet I-1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 275 Parcels Crossed by the Urban Limit Line The Urban Limit Line is over 353 miles long and crosses @ 600 parcels I-2 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 276 Parcels Crossed by the Urban Limit Line 33% (117 of 353 miles) of the ULL crosses parcel boundaries I-3 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 277 "Islands" inside the Urban Limit Line There are 5 "Islands" inside the Urban Limit Line I-4 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 278 "Islands" inside the Urban Limit Line Two "Islands" near East Richmond Heights were created in 2004 I-5 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 279 "Islands" inside the Urban Limit Line Two more "Islands" from 2004, North Richmond and Northeast Antioch I-6 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 280 "Islands" inside the Urban Limit Line This "Island" in Alhambra Valley near Martinez was created in 2006 I-7 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 281 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONSIDER accepting a report regarding the Keller Canyon Landfill (KCL) operator's future compliance with the "Direct Haul" conditions of approval associated with the landfill's approved land use permit. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the County General Fund for preparing or accepting this report. Keller Canyon Landfill Company, the landfill operator, is responsible for providing reimbursement for the County's staff costs associated with the preparation of this report (100% landfill operator fees). BACKGROUND: At the November 1, 2016, meeting of the Board of Supervisors (agenda item D.6), Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) staff presented the second Keller Canyon Landfill (KCL) land use permit (LUP) review report as recommended by the County Planning Commission (CPC) in October 2016. The Board was asked to accept the recommended permit review report which concluded that no new or modified conditions of approval were needed. After staff’s presentation, several interested parties commented on the permit review report or on the landfill in general. A recurring theme in the comments raised by interested parties during the second permit review hearings before the CPC and the Board pertained to several of the new conditions of approval anticipated to take effect on March 22, 2017, following the Board’s approval of the first permit review in September 2015. The Board’s final action on that first permit review and public hearing process added five new conditions of approval and modified 82 of the original conditions. Four of the five new conditions that were added limit the direct haul of materials that would be potentially APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Brockbank (925)674-7794 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Keller Canyon Landfill Future Compliance with "Direct Haul" Conditions of Approval December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 282 recovered if first delivered to a transfer station in accordance with previously approved Board policy that had not been formally integrated into the LUP. These new conditions and the companion modification of condition 8.1(b) will primarily impact acceptance of loads containing mixed Construction and Demolition (C&D) material. The 82 modified conditions as well as one of the new conditions took effect at the time they were approved. However, the Board’s final approval allowed a grace period of 18 months for the four new “Direct Haul” conditions to take effect following the September 22, 2015 hearing. As a result of the public hearing testimonies and discussion between staff and members of the Board on November 1, 2016, Board members wanted to know what steps were being taken by the landfill operator in order to comply with the new “Direct Haul” conditions. Specifically, the Board was interested in understanding what actions the County and landfill operator would need to take in order to facilitate and achieve timely compliance with the new conditions of approval. As a result of this discussion, the Board requested that DCD staff prepare a follow-up report by the end of this calendar year about what has been done or is planned to occur to prepare for the new “Direct Haul” conditions taking effect in March 2017. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 283 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) New “Direct Haul” Conditions The first two new “Direct Haul” conditions, 8.5 and 8.6 identify the types of material(s) that may be directly hauled to the landfill for disposal and the procedures for screening eligibility and processing those loads. The other two “Direct Haul” conditions, 8.7 and 8.8 describe the requirements for generating quarterly reports and procedures for allowing emergency direct haul loads in the event of a natural disaster or other similar emergency. The four new “Direct Haul” conditions that will take effect on March 22, 2017 are attached as Exhibit A. It is worth noting that Condition 8.1(b) pertaining to C&D waste hauling vehicles was modified in 2015 linking it to the new “Direct Haul” conditions. A number of factors (only some of which are facility specific) dictate whether loads are sorted or processed to divert recoverable materials and which waste types each local transfer station chooses to recover from incoming loads prior to transferring remaining waste to a landfill for disposal. These factors include but are certainly not limited to recycling markets, regulatory requirements, certification standards, processing capacity and technological advancements. Each of these factors have and will continue to change over time and some factors, like recycling markets, are subject to frequent and potentially substantive changes tied to fluctuating supply and demand as well as volatile shifts in commodity values. The new “Direct Haul” conditions were designed with these factors in mind and provide a means to address the changing nature of the materials that are actively being recovered from loads accepted at local transfer stations on an annual basis without having to modify the conditions themselves. Condition 8.5 requires the landfill operator to submit a list of waste and material types that would be recycled or otherwise diverted from disposal if processed through local transfer stations (hereafter referred to as the Annual Ineligible List for Direct Haul or Ineligible List). To address the above described changes in transfer station recovery operations over time, the new “direct haul” conditions are designed around this Ineligible List which must be updated at least once a year. The Annual Ineligible Lists submitted by KCL are subject to the review and approval of DCD. This Ineligible List will delineate which types of wastes/materials are not allowed to be directly hauled to the landfill for disposal and is intended to be used by the operator when determining direct haul eligibility. However, this Annual Ineligible List is not intended to apply to loads containing materials that would be used as cover or otherwise beneficially reused on-site as long as such materials are treated as diversion under the Integrated Waste Management Act (e.g. concrete). In other words the landfill is allowed to continue accepting direct haul loads of cover/beneficial reuse materials whether or not the materials would be recovered at local transfer stations. Condition 8.6 identifies the screening procedures to be conducted by the landfill operator prior to accepting direct haul waste/material loads. The landfill operator is required to document specific details in writing during the screening process to substantiate direct haul eligibility determinations. The procedures will necessitate that the operator implement a number of changes ranging from preparing and maintaining additional load specific documentation to gathering information from direct haul customer’s describing their in-house material handling/prescreening processes(e.g. waste reduction and recycling, testing/sampling). Condition 8.7 requires the operator to submit quarterly reports which must contain waste types and a number of other details about direct haul loads accepted for disposal. In conjunction with these quarterly reports, the summarized results of all direct haul eligibility screening conducted by the operator is also required to be submitted. Facilitating Timely Condition of Approval Compliance Staff and the landfill operator have identified the following actions that would need to be completed in advance of the new "Direct Haul" conditions taking effect. Actions Required Prior to March 22, 2017 – There are only a couple of preparatory actions that need to be completed ahead of time in order to enable the landfill operator to comply with the new “Direct Haul” conditions December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 284 when they take effect in March 2017. These actions include establishing the first approved Annual Ineligible List for Direct Haul and notifying customers about certain landfill requirements. There are a limited number of customer notification requirements in the new “Direct Haul” conditions. Specifically, the operator is required to ensure that they have the following information on-hand by March 22, 2017 to ensure that new customers receive the following information prior to gaining access to the site: 1. Requirements of Keller Canyon Landfill Company describing contract for landfill use, rules and regulations of the landfill (e.g. on-site speed limit), prescribed haul route, load inspection program, driver training program, and any other such information as required. 2. Requirements for proper load covering or containerization and consequences for non-compliance specified in Condition 7.2. While account customers may be contacted directly, the landfill operator does not have contact information for those customers that do not have accounts which pay at the time of disposal. Therefore, the primary customer notification method used by KCL is disseminating verbal or written information to customers at the landfill scale house when they conduct transactions for incoming loads. Advance dissemination of any required information would most likely occur in late February or early March because the operator has found that it is best to notify customers roughly 15-30 days prior to new regulations or procedures taking effect. Based on discussions with the landfill operator, staff has identified an approximate date range of 45-50 days prior to the “Direct Haul” conditions taking effect for the landfill operator to begin developing the initial Ineligible List so that it can be reviewed and approved in time for its use on March 22, 2017. The landfill operator estimates it may take up to 30-days to develop the initial Ineligible List. Staff believes it may take an additional three weeks for DCD to review, modify as needed and ultimately approve the initial Ineligible List to be used for determining which waste loads are eligible for acceptance and disposal if hauled directly to the landfill. Additional Actions That May Be Taken Prior to March 22, 2017– Although not required, the landfill operator is considering providing customers with advance notice of the impending change in direct haul eligibility. If such notice is provided, the landfill operator will do so about two weeks in advance. Direct contact by phone or mail are the most likely methods to be used to notify account customers known to direct haul loads of wastes likely to be on the Annual Ineligible List (most notably mixed construction and demolition debris). However, scale house based notification methods would be used if the operator elects to provide advance notice to any customers without accounts (also called cash or one-time customers). Achieving and Maintaining Compliance One of the new mandatory direct haul screening procedures requires the operator to confirm in writing that the waste/material types in accepted direct haul loads are not on the Ineligible List as part of the load checking program/process. The load checking program already being implemented by the landfill operator necessitates that incoming loads be visually inspected to avoid acceptance and disposal of unallowable wastes, such as those classified as hazardous. Visual inspections needed to confirm vehicle type eligibility can readily be conducted at the scale house quite effectively. However, restricted visibility of what each incoming load contains limits the effectiveness of any load inspection conducted at the scale house and this is especially true for loads containing mixed waste, including mixed C&D waste. Therefore, in order to ensure the effectiveness of load screening conducted at a landfill it is critical that waste types be inspected to verify eligibility for disposal as they are being unloaded at the landfill’s active working face. Minimal changes are likely to be needed to adapt KCL’s load checking program to address the requirements in the new “Direct Haul” conditions. If unallowable waste loads arrive at the landfill, the existing practice is to refuse acceptance and explain why to ensure the customer understands so that similar occurrences can be avoided in the future. The Load Inspection conditions of approval (7.1 and 7.2) require the operator to keep a log of customers attempting to bring ineligible wastes to the landfill, pursuant to Eligible Vehicle and Loads Program. Supplemental notification should be provided at the scale house as warranted when customers attempt to direct December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 285 haul ineligible waste loads to the landfill for disposal. Such notifications could include one or more of the following: 1. Provide a written notice to those customers (explaining the acceptable waste types and / or where to take existing load), 2. Verbally direct customer(s) to take the load to a transfer station. 3. Post signage at the scale house indicating acceptable waste material types. While the new “Direct Haul” conditions do not require the customer notification processes or methods provided above, implementing such methods would minimize the amount of customers attempting to direct haul ineligible waste loads for disposal after March 22, 2017. The landfill operator is required to use the standardized computer system for waste tracking purposes. Unfortunately, that system mandates use of general waste types for mixed C&D waste loads which don’t provide for differentiating between recoverable and non-recoverable C&D wastes (unless the load solely contains a single source-separated materials type like concrete or dirt). Therefore, the operator will need to update waste acceptance procedures to require that the supplemental documentation called for to document results of direct haul screening be generated or gathered on an on-going basis. Monitoring Staff expects to monitor implementation of the new “Direct Haul” conditions using a combination of written documentation and on-site inspections. Staff anticipates the need to conduct more on-site inspections during the initial transition as the operator and customers address potential confusion or refine procedures. When conducting on-site inspections DCD staff will monitor activities occurring at the scale house as well as the active working face. Staff will be prepared to gather photographic evidence when conducting on-site monitoring as circumstances warrant, for the purpose of documenting any areas of concern that may be observed (e.g. disposal of direct haul loads containing waste type(s) on the Annual Ineligible List). Scale House – As each incoming load arrives, staff would seek to confirm the adequacy of information disseminated to customers. Additionally, staff would observe incoming loads for the purpose of confirming whether KCL refuses to accept direct haul waste loads readily identifiable as being ineligible for disposal. As noted above, limited visibility of wastes contained in incoming loads can compromise the effectiveness of scale house load inspections. Working Face- As each direct haul load that is accepted for disposal, is being unloaded, staff would also monitor the waste type(s) being tipped at the active working face as they will be more readily visible. Staff will be watching for any direct haul loads containing a majority of waste types listed on the Ineligible List, noting what the remaining types of waste are and any other noteworthy details that may be helpful in identifying and addressing potential causal factors to avoid similar occurrences in the future. Enforcement Options Available to Address Non-Compliance Staff will seek to gather any evidence demonstrating the operator’s non-compliance with these new conditions, which may include reporting data, documentation called for by the new conditions as well as photos taken during inspections. Initially, staff would work with the operator seek timely remedy of violations through implementation of appropriate corrective actions. However, where such proves to be ineffective, staff would rely on evidence to pursue appropriate enforcement action(s) accordingly. The enforcement options provided for in the LUP, Franchise Agreement and County Code are summarized below. Land Use Permit Condition 3.4 requires the landfill operator to comply with the provisions and requirements of its Land Use Permit (County File #LP2020-89). It further specifies that a violation of any of these conditions may be cause for revocation of the LUP, pursuant to County Code Section 418-4.020, following reasonable written notice. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 286 Alternatively, the condition notes that the County has the option of issuing formal notices and assessing penalties. Pursuant to County Code section 26-2.2028(b), the County Planning Agency (DCD) may take one or more actions depending on the nature, severity, and frequency of conditional use permit violations. The Code Section lists seven actions the County may take, four of which are listed below: 1. Modification of permit terms, limitations, or conditions; 2. Specification of a probationary period to correct permit violations; 3. Permit Suspension – the use authorized shall cease for the term of suspension and each day the use continues during the suspension period, is a separate code violation; and 4. Permit Revocation – the use shall terminate. Each day use continues after termination, is a separate violation. Franchise Agreement Section 4.19 – Penalty Schedule for Noncompliance. Director may impose (monetary) penalties after providing the Operator with three days’ notice of noncompliance with any condition or provision of Franchise Agreement, or any applicable Permits or Regulatory Agency "requirements" are determined by the County. The following CPI adjusted penalties can be imposed if the operator is not “diligently” pursuing the required corrective actions: $936.61 per day in first week of noncompliance $1404.92 per day in second week of noncompliance $1,873.22 per day in third week of noncompliance $2,341.53 per day thereafter. The landfill operator has the right to arbitrate any action taken by the County in accordance with Section 13.8 – Arbitration, of the Franchise Agreement. Depending on the outcome of any arbitration, that decision may be appealed. Section 11.1 – Failure to Prosecute Work . To remedy actions or inactions which constitute default on the part of the Contractor, the County may take such actions as provided in law, including seeking monetary damages or termination of the Landfill Franchise Agreement. Such remedies may only be sought if the operator fails to take specified corrective action(s) within 30 days of the County’s issuance of the required first and second notices. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Dana Dean; Evan Edgar; Rosa Fallon, resident of Pittsburg; Jennette Borcic, resident of Pittsburg (handout attached) ; David Frasier, Chief of Staff for Supervisor Glover, read a letter to the Board into the record (attached). AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Direct Haul Conditions of KCL Land Use Permit MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Correspondence Received December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 287 EXHIBIT A: SELECTED LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (full Conditions of Approval available on-line at www.cccounty.us/kcl) New Conditions 8.5 – 8.8 do not take effect until 18 months from September 22, 2015, pursuant to the Board of Supervisors approval in conjunction with the Permit Review for Land Use Permit 2020-89. Page 1 of 2 8.1 Eligible Vehicles. The Landfill operator shall admit only the following refuse transport vehicles: b) Demolition and construction material trucks hauling debris that would not be recycled or otherwise diverted from disposal if processed at a local Transfer Station. There are waste reduction requirements that apply to such wastes generated by businesses and industries, therefore the operator shall assist the County to help ensure compliance with such requirements or goals through implementation and compliance with Conditions 8.5 – 8.7. 8.5 Direct Haul. Only wastes in the prescribed vehicles which would not be recycled or otherwise diverted from disposal if processed through a local transfer station may be considered for direct haul pursuant to the Procedures specified in Condition 8.6. At least once per year, the Landfill operator shall submit an updated list of waste and material types recovered prior to transfer for disposal at the landfill if contained in loads delivered to any of the local transfer stations open to the public. The annual list shall be subject to the review and approval of the Department of Conservation and Development and is intended to be used when screening direct haul eligibility pursuant to Condition 8.6(g). Loads containing materials that will be used as cover or otherwise beneficially reused on-site and treated as diversion under the Integrated Waste Management Act may be direct hauled without going through a transfer station. 8.6 Direct Haul Procedures. Direct haul process and materials shall be consistent with the Solid Waste Facility Permit (No. 07-AA-0032), this LUP, and applicable policies adopted by the Board of Supervisors including those identified in 8.6(k) below. The operator shall ensure new customers receive information consistent with i) and j) prior to gaining access to the site. The operator shall conduct screening procedures specified in a) through h) prior to allowing customers to direct haul waste/material loads to the landfill. Operator shall provide written confirmation that eligibility has been demonstrated consistent with these procedures prior to loads being accepted for disposal. Operator shall summarize results of direct haul eligibility screening completed each quarter in the direct haul reports required under Condition 8.7. a) Name of company and physical location at which the waste or material was generated. b) Complete description of waste including chemical analysis and solids-to-liquid ratio when appropriate. c) Description of originator’s in-house waste inspection program(s) to ensure screening for hazardous and/or toxic materials or originator’s written confirmation that their practices comply with uniform waste inspection program prepared by the Landfill operator. d) Description of volume and expected frequency of waste to be hauled and a description of the specialized waste transport vehicle(s) to be utilized. e) Description of the waste originator’s in-house waste reduction and recycling program(s) or originator’s written confirmation that their practices comply with a uniform waste reduction and recycling plan to be prepared by Landfill operator and approved by the Department of Conservation and Development. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 288 EXHIBIT A: SELECTED LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (full Conditions of Approval available on-line at www.cccounty.us/kcl) New Conditions 8.5 – 8.8 do not take effect until 18 months from September 22, 2015, pursuant to the Board of Supervisors approval in conjunction with the Permit Review for Land Use Permit 2020-89. Page 2 of 2 f) Originator’s or transporter’s affirmation to adhere to County imposed haul route and peak hour hauling restrictions. g) Written confirmation by the Landfill operator that the waste or material is not on the approved annual list described in condition 8.5, and h) Written waste eligibility determination from Keller Canyon Landfill Company based on a) through g) above. i) Requirements of Keller Canyon Landfill Company describing contract for landfill use, rules and regulations of the landfill (e.g. on-site speed limit), prescribed haul route, load inspection program, driver training program, and any other such information as required. j) Requirements for proper load covering or containerization and consequences for non- compliance specified in Condition 7.2. k) Any other information required by the Director of Conservation and Development, or by the actions of the Board on August 11, 1992 October 27, 1992, November 24, 1992, August 17, 1993 and December 14, 1993. 8.7 Direct Haul Reports. The Landfill operator shall submit quarterly direct haul reports to the Department of Conservation and Development. The quarterly reports shall contain details about all direct haul loads, including the date accepted, customer (company) name, waste type, tonnage, location and jurisdiction of waste/material origin (city and county) and end use (disposal, cover or other on-site beneficial reuse). Summarized results of all direct haul eligibility screening conducted during each period shall be submitted in conjunction with the quarterly waste origin reports. The quarterly reports shall also identify the total tonnage of municipal solid waste (Class III waste) received that quarter, total tonnage of Class II wastes received that quarter, and the percentage of total waste received which is characterized as Class II. If determined necessary by DCD, additional reporting information or more frequent reporting may be required in the future. 8.8 Emergency Direct Haul. In the event that a natural disaster or other emergency prevents the timely processing of wastes through a transfer station before disposal at the landfill, such waste or loads may be considered for direct haul. The landfill operator shall submit a written request to the County Department of Conservation and Development when circumstances or conditions warrant, or may warrant, emergency direct haul to the landfill. The landfill operator shall not proceed with emergency direct haul until written approval has been provided by the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development. The landfill operator shall submit an incident report describing the basis for emergency direct haul and the contingency actions taken.     M:\Keller\Board Order 12‐20‐2016\Exhibit A_Direct Haul COAs.docx  December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 289 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 290 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 291 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 292 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 293 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 294 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 295 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 296 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 297 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 298 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 299 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 300 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 301 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 302 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 303 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 304 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 305 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 306 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to execute an Amendment to the Real Property Services Agreement between Contra Costa County and Bay Area Infrastructure Financing Authority (BAIFA), to revise the effective date of the Agreement from June 14, 2016 to May 1, 2016, and increase the payment limit by $35,000, to a new payment limit of $60,000, to provide right-of-way services for the I-880 Express Lane Project, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. (Project No.: 4500-6X5860) FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Bay Area Infrastructure Financing Authority (BAIFA) funds. BACKGROUND: On June 14, 2016, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the Agreement with BAIFA to provide a variety of right-of-way services for its I-880 Express Lane Project. Under the Real Property Services Agreement, Public Works, Real Estate Division staff will perform various right-of-way services, including but not limited to right-of-way appraisal, negotiations, supervision of independent consultants, and condemnation support. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Carmen Pina-Delgado, (925) 313-2012 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 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:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment to Real Property Service Agreement with BAIFA - I880 Express Lane Project December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 307 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The parties wish to amend the Agreement to revise the effective date from June 14, 2016 to May 1, 2016 to cover planning and programming work provided prior to approval of the Agreement and to increase the payment limit for reimbursement of those costs and additional right-of-way services. BAIFA will pay the County for those services based on County’s labor costs, up to the new payment limit. If the payment limit is reached and/or additional services are necessary, the parties would need to amend the Agreement. The Amendment and Pay Rate are attached. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board of Supervisors does not approve the Amendment to the Agreement between the County and BAIFA, the Public Works Department will not be compensated for work furnished prior to June 20, 2016 nor have sufficient funds to cover the services requested by BAIFA. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS I880 Express Lanes ROW Agreement Amendment with Attachment 1 I880 Express Lanes ROW Agreement Amendment - Pay Rate - Attachment C MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Real Property Agreement December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 308 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 309 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 310 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 311 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 312 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 313 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 314 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/677 accepting the Grant Deed of Development Rights (Creek Structure Setback) for minor subdivision MS14-0006, for a project being developed by MMA Homes 2013 LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (District IV) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Grant Deed of Development Rights (Creek Structure Setback) is required per Condition of Approval No. 39 of minor subdivision MS14-0006. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Grant Deed of Development Rights (Creek Structure Setback) will not be recorded. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: MMA Homes 2013 LLC, Developers Surety and Idemnity Company C. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT a Grant Deed of Development Rights for minor subdivision MS14-0006, Walnut Creek area. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 315 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/677 GDDR COA#39 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/677 Signed: Grant Deed Development Rights December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 316 Recorded at the request of:Jocelyn LaRocque Return To:Naila Thrower THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 12/20/2016 by the following vote: AYE:John Gioia, District I SupervisorCandace Andersen, District II SupervisorMary N. Piepho, District III SupervisorKaren Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor NO: ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/677 IN THE MATTER OF accepting the Grant Deed of Development Rights (Creek Structure Setback) for minor subdivision MS14-0006, for a project being developed by MMA Homes 2013 LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (District IV) NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following instrument is hereby ACCEPTED: INSTRUMENT: Grant Deed of Development Rights REFERENCE: APN: 180-131-001 GRANTOR: MMA HOMES 2013 LLC AREA: Walnut Creek DISTRICT: IV 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: MMA Homes 2013 LLC, Developers Surety and Idemnity Company December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 317 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 318 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 319 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 320 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 321 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 322 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 323 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 324 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 325 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 326 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 327 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 328 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 329 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 330 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/680 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute the Deferred Improvement Agreement for minor subdivision MS14-0006, for a project being developed by MMA Homes 2013 LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (District IV) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: This Deferred Improvement Agreement is required by Condition of Approval No. 25 of minor subdivision MS14-0006. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Deferred Improvement Agreement will not be approved and executed. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Karen Piona, Records, Sherri Reed, Design and Construction, Chris Lau, Maintenance, Liza Mangabay, Finance, Jocelyn LaRocque, Engineering Services, MMA Homes 2013 LLC C. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE Deferred Improvement Agreement along Mountain View Boulevard for minor subdivision MS14-0006, Walnut Creek area. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 331 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/680 DIA COA #25 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/680 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 332 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 12/20/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff NO: ABSENT:Federal D. Glover ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/680 IN THE MATTER OF approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute the Deferred Improvement Agreement for minor subdivison MS14-0006, for a project being developed by MMA Homes 2013 LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (District IV) WHERE AS, the Public Works Director has recommended that she be authorized to execute the Deferred Improvement Agreement with MMA Homes 2013 LLC, as required by the Conditions of Approval for minor subdivision MS14-0006. This agreement would permit the deferment of construction of permanent improvements along Mountain View Boulevard, which is located in the Walnut Creek area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Public Works Director is 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Karen Piona, Records, Sherri Reed, Design and Construction, Chris Lau, Maintenance, Liza Mangabay, Finance, Jocelyn LaRocque, Engineering Services, MMA Homes 2013 LLC 4 1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 333 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 334 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 335 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 336 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 337 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 338 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 339 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/684 approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute the Deferred Improvement Agreement for land use permit LP14-2068, for a project developed by JDF Holdings, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Martinez area. (District V) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: This Deferred Improvement Agreement is required by Condition of Approval No. 14 of land use permit LP14-2068. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Deferred Improvement Agreement will not be approved and executed. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Karen Piona, Records, Sherri Reed, Design and Construction, Chris Lau, Maintenance, Kara Schuh-Garibay, Engineering Services, Liza Mangabay, Finance, Jocelyn LaRocque, Engineering Services C. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE Deferred Improvement Agreement along Pacheco Boulevard for land use permit LP14-02068, Martinez area. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 340 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/684 Deferred Improvement Agreement LP14-2068_122016 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/684 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 341 Recorded at the request of:Jocelyn LaRocque Return To:Naila Thrower THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 12/20/2016 by the following vote: AYE:John Gioia, District I SupervisorCandace Andersen, District II SupervisorMary N. Piepho, District III SupervisorKaren Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor NO: ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/684 IN THE MATTER OF approving and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute the Deferred Improvement Agreement for land use permit LP14-2068, for a project being developed by JDF Holdings, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Martinez area. (District V) WHERE AS, the Public Works Director has recommended that she be authorized to execute the Deferred Improvement Agreement with JDF Holdings, LLC, as required by the Conditions of Approval for land use permit LP14-02068. This agreement would permit the deferment of construction of permanent improvements along Pacheco Boulevard, which is located in the Martinez area. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Public Works Director is 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Karen Piona, Records, Sherri Reed, Design and Construction, Chris Lau, Maintenance, Kara Schuh-Garibay, Engineering Services, Liza Mangabay, Finance, Jocelyn LaRocque, Engineering Services December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 342 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors343 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors344 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors345 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors346 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors347 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors348 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 349 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/685 approving reduction of performance bond amount of the Road Improvement Agreement for road acceptance RA12-01250 (cross-reference subdivision SD14-09341) 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: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code allows a reduced performance security to guarantee repair of any defective work upon acceptance of the work as complete. The work has been accepted as completed and the developer requested this bond reduction. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The performance bond amount reduction will not be approved. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Sherri Reed, Design and Construction, Lori Leontini, Engineering Services, Jorge Hernandez, Engineering Services, Liza Mangabay, Finance, Chris Low, City of San Ramon, Shapell Homes, LLC, North American Specialty Insurance Company C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE reduction of performance bond amount for road acceptance RA12-01250, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 350 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/685 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/685 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 351 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 12/20/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff NO: ABSENT:Federal D. Glover ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/685 IN THE MATTER OF: Approving reduction of the performance bond amount of the Road Improvement Agreement for road acceptance RA12-01250 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) On November 15, 2016 (Resolution No. 2016/599) the Public Works Director has notified this Board that the improvements in the road acceptance have been completed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the performance and guarantee surety bond of the Road Improvement Agreement for road acceptance RA12-01250 approved by the Board on October 13, 2015, is hereby REDUCED to $93,150, Bond No. 2177749, dated August 26, 2015, issued by North American Specialty Insurance Company, and submitted by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, be RETAINED until further action by this Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the payment (labor and materials) cash bond for $27,000, auditor's Deposit Permit No. DP694126 submitted by Toll Bros.,Inc., be RETAINED until further action by this Board. Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, (925) 313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Sherri Reed, Design and Construction, Lori Leontini, Engineering Services, Jorge Hernandez, Engineering Services, Liza Mangabay, Finance, Chris Low, City of San Ramon, Shapell Homes, LLC, North American Specialty Insurance Company 4 1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 352 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 353 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/687 approving the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for SD16-9326, 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 SD16-09326 and has determined that all conditions of approval for the Final Map 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: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Sherri Reed, Design and Construction, Chris Low, City of San Ramon, Shapell Homes, LLC, Western Surety Company, First American Title Company C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD16-09326, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 354 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/687 Map SD16-09326_122016 Subdivision Agreement SD16-9326_122016 Improvement Bond_122016 Tax Letter SD16-9326_122016 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/687 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 355 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 12/20/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff NO: ABSENT:Federal D. Glover ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/687 IN THE MATTER OF approving the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for SD16-09326, 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 SD16-09326, 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: $4,000 Auditor’s Deposit Permit No. DP725407 Date: December 6, 2016 Submitted by: Toll Brothers, Inc. B. Surety Bond Bond Company: Western Surety Company Bond No: 58741056 Date: November 14, 2016 Performance Amount: $303,000 Labor & Materials Amount: $153,500 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 2016-2017 tax lien has been paid in full. 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. 4 1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 356 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Sherri Reed, Design and Construction, Chris Low, City of San Ramon, Shapell Homes, LLC, Western Surety Company, First American Title Company December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 357 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 358 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 359 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 360 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 361 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 362 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 363 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 364 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 365 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 366 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 367 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 368 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 369 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 370 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 371 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 372 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 373 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 374 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 375 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 376 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 377 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 378 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 379 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/681 approving the Parcel Map and Subdivision Agreement for minor subdivision MS14-0006, for a project being developed by MMA Homes 2013 LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (District IV) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department has reviewed the conditions of approval for minor subdivision MS14-0006 and has determined that all conditions of approval for Parcel Map approval have been satisfied. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Parcel 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: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Sherri Reed, Design and Construction C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Parcel Map and Subdivision Agreement for minor subdivision MS14-0006, Walnut Creek area. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 380 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/681 SD Agreement 1 SD Agreement 2 Tax Letter and Bond Reduced Parcel Map MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/681 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 381 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 12/20/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff NO: ABSENT:Federal D. Glover ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/681 IN THE MATTER OF approving the Parcel Map and Subdivision Agreement for minor subdivision MS14-0006, for a project being developed by MMA Homes 2013 LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut area. WHERE AS, the following documents were presented for Board approval this date: I. Map - The Parcel Map minor subdivision MS14-0006, property located in the Walnut Creek area, Supervisorial District IV, said map having been certified by the proper officials. II. Subdivision Agreement - A subdivision agreement with MMA Homes 2013 LLC, principal, whereby said principal agrees to complete all improvements as required in said subdivision agreement within two 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: $1,250 Auditor's Deposit Permit No.: 711742 Date: May 25, 2016 Submitted by: MMA Homes 2013 LLC B. Surety Bond Bond Company: Developers Surety and Indemnity Company Bond Number: 651222S Date: May 3, 2016 Performance Amount: $123,750 Labor and Materials Amount: $62,500 Principal: MMA Homes 2013 LLC 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 that the 2015-2016 tax lien has been in full and the 2016-2017 tax lien, which became a lien on the first day of January 2016, is estimated to be $12,900, with security guaranteeing payment of said tax lien as follows: Tax Surety Bond Company: Developers Surety and Indemnity Company Bond Number: 651223S Date: May 31, 2016 4 1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 382 Amount: $12,900 Submitted by/Principal: MMA Homes 2013 LLC 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 Parcel 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, roads, avenues, 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Sherri Reed, Design and Construction December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 383 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 384 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 385 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 386 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 387 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 388 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 389 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 390 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 391 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 392 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 393 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 394 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 395 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 396 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 397 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 398 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 399 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 400 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/690 approving the Parcel Map and Subdivision Agreement for minor subdivision MS16-00001, for a project being developed by Pacific Crest Builders, Inc., as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (District IV) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department has reviewed the conditions of approval for minor subdivision MS16-00001 and has determined that all conditions of approval for Parcel Map approval have been satisfied. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Parcel 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: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Sherri Reed, Design and Construction, Pacific Crest Builders, Inc., Indemnity Company of California C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Parcel Map and Subdivision Agreement for minor subdivision MS16-00001, Walnut Creek area. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 401 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/690 Subdivision Agreement MS16-00001_122016 Improvement Bond MS16-00001_122016 Tax Letter MS16-00001_122016 Parcel Map MS16-00001_122016 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/690 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 402 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 12/20/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff NO: ABSENT:Federal D. Glover ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/690 IN THE MATTER OF approving the Parcel Map and Subdivision Agreement for minor subdivision MS16-00001, for a project being developed by Pacific Crest Builders, Inc., as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (District IV) WHERE AS, the following documents were presented for board approval this date: I. Map The Parcel Map of minor subdivision MS16-00001, property located in the Walnut Creek area, Supervisoral District IV, said map having been certified by the proper officials. II. Subdivision Agreement A subdivision agreement with Pacific Crest Builders, Inc., principal, whereby said principal agrees to complete all improvements as required in said subdivision agreement within two year(s) from the date of said agreement. Accompanying said subdivision agreement is security guaranteeing completion of said improvements as follows: A. Cash Bond Performance amount: $1,000 Auditor's Deposit Permit No. DP725407 Date: December 6, 2016 Submitted by: Pacific Crest Builders, Inc. B. Surety Bond Bond Company: Indemnity Company of California Bond Number: 705081P Date: November 17, 2016 Performance Amount: $33,000 Labor & Materials Amount: $17,000 Principal: Pacific Crest Builders, Inc. 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 2016-2017 tax lien has been paid in full. 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 4 1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 403 County's general and specific plans. 2. That said Parcel Map is APPROVED. 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Sherri Reed, Design and Construction, Pacific Crest Builders, Inc., Indemnity Company of California December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 404 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 405 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 406 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 407 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 408 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 409 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 410 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 411 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 412 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 413 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 414 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors415 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors416 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 417 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 418 RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by Anthony Ferreira, Leah, Tatum, Dane & Mercy Karson as successors of Matthew Karson, Silvia Moreno, 21st Century Ins. for Raphael Nomeh, Brian Rogan, Nicholas Sveiven, and Darnell Washington. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: * APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 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:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 419 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE public report of litigation settlement agreements that became final during the period of November 1, 2016, through November 30, 2016, as recommended by County Counsel. FISCAL IMPACT: Settlement amounts are listed below. BACKGROUND: One agreement to settle pending litigation, as defined in Government Code section 54956.9, became final during the period of November 1, 2016, through November 30, 2016. Marcus Hurt, et al., v. Contra Costa County Sergeant David Adams, et al., USDC Case No. C15-05223 JCS (N.D. Cal.). On November 8, 2016, the Board approved settlement of this lawsuit involving a detention and search of a home. Settlement in the amount of $275,000, inclusive of attorneys fees and costs, was authorized in closed session by a 5-0 vote. The settlement agreement was fully executed on November 17, 2016. The funding source is the Risk Management Liability Internal Service Fund. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Thomas Geiger, (925) 335-1800 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Thomas Geiger, Assistant County Counsel, Sharon Hymes-Offord, Risk Manager C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Public report of litigation settlement agreements that became final during the period of November 1, 2016, through November 30, 2016. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 420 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) This report includes final settlements of litigation matters handled by the Office of the County Counsel. This report does not include litigation settlements that were reported by the Risk Management Division of the County Administrator’s Office as a consent item on the Board’s open session agenda. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The report would not be accepted. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 421 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Director of Risk Management to execute contracts with selected legal firms for defense of the County in workers' compensation, medical malpractice and civil rights claims for a period of one year effective January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 in accordance with a specified fee schedule for the following: Bold, Pilsner, Maddow, Nelson & Judson; Craddick, Candland & Conti; D'Andre Peterson, Bobas & Rosenburg; Edrington, Schirmer & Murphy; Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen; McClellan & Corren; McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher; Mullen & Filippi; and Thomas, Lyding, Cartier & Gaus. FISCAL IMPACT: Legal costs are funded through the Workers' Compensation, Liability, and Medical Malpractice Internal Service Funds. BACKGROUND: Legal firms are selected for their experience and expertise in particular areas of legal defense. Risk Management assigns cases to various firms. The following legal firms selected for defense of claims agree to a one-year contract APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharon Hymes-Offord 925.335.1450 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon Offord Hymes, Risk Manager Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Risk Management Legal Defense Contracts December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 422 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017: Bold, Pilsner, Maddow, Nelson & Judson; Craddick, Candland & Conti; DAndre, Peterson, Bobas & Rosenberg; Edrington, Schirmer & Murphy; Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen; McClellan & Corren; McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher; Mullen & Filippi; and Thomas, Lyding, Cartier & Gaus. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not have the benefit of the aforementioned firms' legal expertise. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 423 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for November 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 October 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: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT Board Members meeting reports for November 2016 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 424 ATTACHMENTS District II November 2016 Report District I November 2016 Report District III November 2016 Report December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 425 Supervisor John Gioia November – 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.) Supervisor Gioia did not seek reimbursement from the County for any meetings that he attended in his capacity as a County Supervisor during the month of November 2016. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 426 Supervisor Candace Andersen – Monthly Meeting Report November 2016 Date Meeting Location 1 Board of Supervisors Martinez 2 CCCERA Concord 2 BOS Joint Training Concord 2 Mental Health Commission Concord 3 Philanthropy Awards Danville 3 East Bay EDA Walnut Creek 3 MHSA Planning Pleasant Hill 4 Riviera Apt Groundbreaking Walnut Creek 5 Electric Trolley Walnut Creek 7 SWAT Danville 8 Board of Supervisors Martinez 9 LAFCO Martinez 10 East Bay EDA Oakland 10 TWIC Martinez 11 Veterans Day Events Moraga/Danville 14 Family & Human Services Martinez 15 Board of Supervisors Martinez 15 Partners for Justice Pleasant Hill 17 CCCTA Concord 17 Industrial Assoc Pleasant Hill 17 ABAG Oakland 18 Lafayette Community Meeting (2) Lafayette 21 Alamo Liaison Danville 22 CCCERA Concord 28-30 CSAC Convention So. Cal December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 427 Date Meeting Name Location Purpose 1-Nov Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 1-Nov Meeting with County Administrator David Twa Martinez Business Meeting 2-Nov Community Services Bureau Joint Training Concord Business Meeting 3-Nov and Development, Public Works, Environmental Health and First Generation Farmers Brentwood Business Meeting 3-Nov Meeting with County Staff Brentwood Business Meeting 3-Nov Meeting with Conservation and Development Director, John Kopchik Brentwood Business Meeting 3-Nov Meeting with PG&E Brentwood Business Meeting 8-Nov Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 9-Nov Constituent Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 9-Nov Meeting with Public Health Director, Dan Peddycord Martinez Business Meeting 9-Nov LAFCO Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 9-Nov Town Hall Meeting: Tassajara Parks Project Danville Community Outreach 10-Nov Phone Meeting with Delta Counties Coalition Brentwood Business Meeting 10-Nov Delta Water Meeting with Staff Martinez Business Meeting 10-Nov Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 14-Nov Constituent Meeting Brentwood Business Meeting 14-Nov * Delta Plan Interagency Implementation Committee Meeting Sacramento Business Meeting 14-Nov Delta Counties Coalition Dinner Vacaville Business Meeting 15-Nov * Phone Meeting with Delta Stewardship Council Staff Brentwood Business Meeting Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho – November 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). December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 428 15-Nov Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 15-Nov Finance Committee Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 15-Nov Phone Meeting with Tri Delta Transit Alternate, Michael Daugelli Brentwood Business Meeting 15-Nov Meeting with Supervisor-Elect, Diane Burgis Brentwood Business Meeting 16-Nov Meeting with Supervisor-Elect, Diane Burgis Brentwood Business Meeting 16-Nov * Phone Meeting with Delta Stewardship Council Staff Brentwood Business Meeting 17-Nov * Delta Stewardship Council Meeting Sacramento Business Meeting 17-Nov Delta Protection Commission Meeting Knightsen Business Meeting 28-Nov CSAC Annual Conference Palm Springs Business Meeting 29-Nov CSAC Annual Conference Palm Springs Business Meeting 30-Nov CSAC Annual Conference Palm Springs Business Meeting * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 429 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/647 expressing appreciation to District 14 Assemblymember Susan Bonilla for her service to Contra Costa County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR DISTRICT 14 ASSEMBLYMEMBER SUSAN BONILLA December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 430 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/647 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/647 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 431 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/647 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DISTRICT 14 ASSEMBLYMEMBER SUSAN BONILLA FOR HER SERVICE TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WHEREAS, Assemblywoman Susan A. Bonilla was first elected to the State Assembly in November 2010, and represents California’s 14th Assembly District, which includes Contra Costa County and Solano County; and WHEREAS, Assemblywoman Bonilla is chair of the Assembly Human Services Committee, and sits on the Assembly Appropriations Committee, Banking and Finance, Health Committee, and Local Government Committee. She also chairs the Assembly Select Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Education in California K-14 Schools; and WHEREAS in 2014, Assemblywoman Bonilla authored the groundbreaking business innovation and consumer protection bill, AB 2293, which clarifies insurance coverage for Transportation Network Companies such as Uber and Lyft. This law ensures that drivers, passengers and pedestrians are protected, while supporting the innovative ride-sharing business model. AB 2293 has become the national and international legal framework for Uber and Lyft to operate in each state and in many nations; and WHEREAS in 2016, Assemblywoman Bonilla’s forward-looking AB 1592, which was signed by Governor Brown, will authorize the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to test the first fully autonomous vehicle, not equipped with a steering wheel, brake pedal, accelerator or operator, on a California public road. This bill, which expands CCTA’s existing transportation technology testing program, will help advance the development of connected vehicle and autonomous vehicle technologies; and WHEREAS in addition, Assemblywoman Bonilla has authored legislation to stop taxpayer money from funding call centers that are operated outside of California, allow midwives to have hospital privileges and order medical equipment for their patients, decrease the cost of college textbooks by funding open educational resources, provide cities and local law enforcement the necessary tools in stopping human trafficking, and increase access to quality health care; and WHEREAS, adding to her legislative accomplishments, Assemblywoman Bonilla led efforts to save transitional kindergarten, state preschool programs, child nutrition programs, and the Cal Grant to ensure that quality of education for California’s children would not be further eroded. Assemblywoman Bonilla’s devoted efforts to improve our education system secured $1.25 billion for Common Core implementation, professional development for teachers, and technology upgrades for our schools. In the last two years, Assemblywoman Bonilla has secured an additional $100 million for our schools to meet internet requirements necessary for the implementation of the Common Core State Standards; and WHEREAS, Assemblywoman Bonilla has been honored by numerous organizations for her legislative leadership and advocacy, and for championing various causes; and WHEREAS, prior to serving in the California State Legislature, Assemblywoman Bonilla was the Mayor of Concord and County Supervisor for Contra Costa County. Before entering her career as an elected official, she was a high school English teacher in the Mt. Diablo Unified School District; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby congratulates Assemblymember Susan A. Bonilla upon completion of three consecutive terms in the California State Assembly and one term with the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, and expresses its appreciation and admiration for his leadership to improve our education system, advance transportation technology, expand and improve cancer research, increase voter access to information and election process transparency. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA MARY N. PIEPHO District I Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 432 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: December 20, 2016 , By: ____________________________________, Deputy December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 433 C.19 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 434 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/638 expressing appreciation to District III Chief of Staff Tomi Riley for her service to Contra Costa County and the constituents of District III. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR DISTRICT III CHIEF OF STAFF TOMI RILEY December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 435 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/638 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/638 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 436 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/638 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DISTRICT III CHIEF OF STAFF TOMI RILEY FOR HER SERVICE TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND THE CONSTITUENTS OF DISTRICT III WHEREAS, Tomi Riley began her County service in November 2007, when she was appointed as District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho's Chief of Staff, joining the office with a bachelor's degree in Political Science/Public Administration from San Jose State University and extensive experience in government and community relations, communications, and water and land use policy; and WHEREAS while Tomi has worked for Fortune 500 companies, was the managing partner of a Walnut Creek communications firm and has also worked for the California Alliance for Jobs, an organization dedicated to rebuilding California’s aging infrastructure, her true passion as a native Contra Costan is constituent services and local community engagement; and WHEREAS, Tomi resigned from her position in January 2011 to pursue her longtime aspiration to run for a seat on the County Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS in her continual quest for new challenges, Tomi resumed her government career in 2013, serving as the District Director for Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla; and was reappointed in January 2014 as Supervisor Piepho's Chief of Staff, where she manages the affairs of the Supervisor's office and mentors the office staff; and WHEREAS Tomi has worked diligently on behalf of Supervisor Piepho to mediate and resolve District III code enforcement issues; and WHEREAS, Tomi has been a major participant in the development of County transportation policies and tax measures; and WHEREAS not one to sit back and watch things happen, Tomi, in addition to her County government career, served on the Contra Costa Community College District Governing Board for seven years, serving as President of that board in 2008 and 2012, and during which time she oversaw a $160 million operating budget and encouraged a more goal and performance-based approach to managing the district; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board takes great pleasure in congratulating Tomi Riley on her indispensable service to Supervisor Piepho and the District III community, to her profession, and to Contra Costa County, and wishes her many more wonderful, exciting, and fulfilling years of professional service. ___________________ 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: December 20, 2016 , By: ____________________________________, Deputy December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 437 C.13 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 438 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/639 expressing appreciation to District III Deputy Chief of Staff Lea Castleberry for her service to Contra Costa County and the constituents of District III. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR DISTRICT III DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF LEA CASTLEBERRY December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 439 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/639 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/639 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 440 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/639 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DISTRICT III DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF LEA CASTLEBERRY FOR HER SERVICE TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND THE CONSTITUENTS OF DISTRICT III WHEREAS, Lea Castleberry began her County service on February 7, 2005 as a Board of Supervisors Assistant, performing general office work for newly elected District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, and after only a year in her position, assumed responsibility for managing the Danville district office and handling correspondence and a wide range of administrative tasks, including scheduling, advisory body appointments, managing the office website and district newsletter, and a variety of special assignments; and WHEREAS, Lea joined the Office of County Supervisor Mary N. Piepho with an extensive administrative background from engineering and legal firms; and WHEREAS, as the Deputy Chief of Staff, Lea continues to manage the daily operations of the district office, assist the Chief of Staff in policy research, inquiry, and correspondence, and also directs and manages the scheduling and affairs of the County Supervisor and Chief of Staff; and WHEREAS, during her more than 12 years of County service, Lea coordinated many successful community projects and events including health and safety fairs, town parades, car shows, and community clean-up days; and facilitated the adoption of several key policy initiatives, including the Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ban, the Social Host Ordinance, the No Tow Zone and the Aquatic Weeds Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Lea forged strong and healthy relationships with the District III communities, earning their confidence and trust through her professionalism, responsiveness, and competence; and WHEREAS, Lea immersed herself in her community, generously lending her personal time and talents to assist with events such as the East Bay Stand Down, the Sheriff's Charity Golf Tournament, and the West Coast Barrel Racing Association; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board takes great pleasure in congratulating Lea Castleberry on her indispensable service to Supervisor Piepho and the District III community, to her profession, and to Contra Costa County, and wishes her many more wonderful, exciting, and fulfilling years of professional service. ___________________ 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: December 20, 2016 , By: ____________________________________, Deputy December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 441 C.14 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 442 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/640 expressing appreciation to District III Field Representative Alicia Nuchols for her service to Contra Costa County and the constituents of District III. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR DISTRICT III FIELD REPRESENTATIVE ALICIA NUCHOLS December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 443 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/640 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/640 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 444 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/640 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DISTRICT III FIELD REPRESENTATIVE ALICIA NUCHOLS FOR HER SERVICE TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND THE CONSTITUENTS OF DISTRICT III WHEREAS, Alicia joined the Office of County Supervisor Mary N. Piepho in May 2014 with a bachelor's degree in Business Administration from Sonoma State University and with extensive experience in banking and mortgage lending; and WHEREAS Alicia, as a District III Field Representative and as Supervisor Piepho's Scheduler, quickly built a rapport with the District III leaders and residents, earning her their trust and confidence; and WHEREAS among Alicia's accomplishments, she worked closely with the Byron Municipal Advisory Council and County staff to create a truck route along Highway 4/Marsh Creek Road that would take truck traffic off of Camino Diablo/Holway Drive and to establish an ordinance to prohibit trucks over seven tons on Camino Diablo/Holway Drive; and WHEREAS, Alicia helped to initiate planning for the Marsh Creek Multi-Use Trail, a 15-mile trail through the Marsh Creek Corridor between the Cities of Clayton and Brentwood; and WHEREAS, Alicia helped the District III Supervisor's Office to win back, in 2014, the Little Apple Award, raising that year $7,844 in donations for the Food Bank of Contra Costa & Solano Counties; and WHEREAS, Alicia actively worked to address the concerns of both the applicants and neighbors of the Diablo Motocross Park; and WHEREAS, Alicia was active in liaising with the Diablo community regarding their concerns about historic preservation policies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board takes great pleasure in congratulating Alicia Nuchols on her indispensable service to Supervisor Piepho and the District III community, to her profession, and to Contra Costa County, and wishes her many more wonderful, exciting, and fulfilling years of professional service. ___________________ 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: December 20, 2016 , By: ____________________________________, Deputy December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 445 C.15 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 446 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/641 expressing appreciation to District III Field Representative Melissa Margain for her service to Contra Costa County and the constituents of District III. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR DISTRICT III FIELD REPRESENTATIVE MELISSA MARGAIN December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 447 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/641 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/641 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 448 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/641 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DISTRICT III FIELD REPRESENTATIVE MELISSA MARGAIN FOR HER SERVICE TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND THE CONSTITUENTS OF DISTRICT III WHEREAS, Melissa joined the Office of County Supervisor Mary N. Piepho in November 2014 with extensive military and public medical office reception and administrative experience; and WHEREAS Melissa, as a District III Field Representative, established and maintained excellent working relationships with County Departments to enhance the outcome of any constituent inquiries; and WHEREAS, Melissa has ably served county Veterans as a liaison for the inaugural Veterans Stand Down on the Delta in 2015 which served over 350 homeless or at-risk Veterans, for the public relations team during the East Bay Stand Down in 2016 which served over 400 at-risk Veterans and family members, and as a member of the Veterans Day Planning Committee; and WHEREAS, Melissa has engaged the constituents of District III by supporting local chambers of commerce events, attending each State of the City address, and via community programs such as Rubicon, Opportunity Junction, STAND-Antioch, East County Women's Leadership Council; and WHEREAS, Melissa has ably represented the District III Supervisor at Mayors' conferences, city council meetings and school district meetings; and WHEREAS Melissa has used her knowledge of public service to work across social media, email campaigns, and other public relations outreach to effect viral engagement; and WHEREAS Melissa's leadership abilities have served as an inspiration to her colleagues and often made her the "point person" and resource for information and advice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board takes great pleasure in congratulating Melissa Margain on her indispensable service to Supervisor Piepho and the District III community, to her profession, and to Contra Costa County, and wishes her many more wonderful, exciting, and fulfilling years of professional service. ___________________ 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: December 20, 2016 , By: ____________________________________, Deputy December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 449 C.16 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 450 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/642 expressing appreciation to District III Scheduler Manny Bowlby for his service to Contra Costa County and the constituents of District III. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR DISTRICT III SCHEDULER MANNY BOWLBY December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 451 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/642 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/642 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 452 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/642 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DISTRICT III SCHEDULER MANNY BOWLBY FOR HIS SERVICE TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND THE CONSTITUENTS OF DISTRICT III WHEREAS, Manny joined the Office of County Supervisor Mary N. Piepho with extensive experience in food service management and supervision; and WHEREAS, Manny ably managed the District III office's operations and Supervisor Piepho's day-to-day schedule; and WHEREAS, Manny worked as a member of the team that earned the 2015 Contra Costa / Solano County Food Bank Little Apple Award for the District III Supervisor's Office, raising $7,450 towards the bi-county food drive; and WHEREAS Manny effectively liaised with local, federal and State agencies to promote the County's program objectives; and WHEREAS Manny has been known to work miracles to accommodate requests to meet with Supervisor Piepho and respond to constituent concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board takes great pleasure in congratulating Manny Bowlby on his indispensable service to Supervisor Piepho and the District III community, to his profession, and to Contra Costa County, and wishes him many more wonderful, exciting, and fulfilling years of professional service. ___________________ 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: December 20, 2016 , By: ____________________________________, Deputy December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 453 C.17 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 454 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/645 expressing appreciation to District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho for her service to Contra Costa County and the constituents of District III. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR DISTRICT III SUPERVISOR MARY N. PIEPHO December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 455 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/645 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/645 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 456 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/645 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DISTRICT III SUPERVISOR MARY NEJEDLY PIEPHO FOR HER SERVICE TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND THE CONSTITUENTS OF DISTRICT III WHEREAS, Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho was elected to the District III County Supervisor seat in November 2004 and served as Chair of the Board of Supervisors in 2007 and 2012. As the District III Supervisor, she has represented the largest of the five districts, geographically, covering Antioch, Bethel Island, Brentwood, Byron, Discovery Bay, Knightsen, and Oakley in East Contra Costa County and Blackhawk, Diablo and Tassajara Valley in the southern portions of the county; and WHEREAS Mary was re-elected in November 2008 and again in 2012 and, as a member of the County Board of Supervisors, tackled difficult issues that required considerable diplomacy, consensus development, and sheer determination. Her efforts resulted in the award-winning Contra Costa County Vasco Road Safety Improvements Project to improve the safety of approximately one mile of Vasco Road between the cities of Brentwood and Livermore with lane dividing delineators, safety realignment and roadway widening; and WHEREAS during her tenure on the Board, Mary championed critical services to the historically underserved population of far east county, and worked with determination to open up economic opportunities and future potential for county farmers and agricultural lands with value-added marketing and wine and olive processing. She also advocated for many transportation improvements to ease East County traffic woes and spearheaded the acquisition of property in Brentwood for a one-stop county government center to better serve the needs of east county residents and businesses; and WHEREAS a hallmark of Mary’s County service has been her leadership in the fight against the California Water Fix initiative, bringing the five Delta counties together to help solve water issues they have in common, and continuing the legacy of her father, former State Senator John Nejedly, who in 1982 fought to prevent the construction of the Peripheral Canal, which would have sent water from the Sacramento River to Southern California by way of an aqueduct east of the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta; and WHEREAS Mary fought for improved Veteran support services countywide, supported funding for improvement to the Brentwood VFW Hall, lead the effort to transfer the Danville Veterans Hall to the Town of Danville and, in 2007, initiated the County's annual Veteran's Day celebration; and WHEREAS Mary demonstrated her leadership in protecting the County's public safety budgets and in her efforts to create an opportunity for a more viable and sustainable East Contra Costa Fire Protection District; and WHEREAS Mary actively promoted sound fiscal policies, including building reserves, substantially reducing the OPEB liability, and adopting structurally balanced budgets, which helped the County to regain its AAA bond rating from Standard & Poors and to upgrade its Moody's lease bond rating from A1 to Aa3, with both agencies commenting on fact that Contra Costa County was “fundamentally sound, and had a stable outlook for the future"; and WHEREAS, Mary, throughout her outstanding career of public service, was able to balance the demands of work and family successfully in both arenas; and WHEREAS Mary leaves her own legacy of devotion to the mission of local government. During her 12 years as the District III Supervisor, she has been a tireless advocate for the people of Contra Costa County and has earned the trust and confidence of constituents to make decisions on their behalf for the betterment of Contra Costa County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby congratulates Mary Nejedly Piepho upon completion of three consecutive terms as the District III Supervisor of Contra Costa County, and expresses its appreciation and admiration for her leadership in advancing public services to the residents of far east county, protecting our precious Bay Delta resources, and improving the quality of life throughout Contra Costa County; and wishes her new challenges and opportunities, and many years of happiness with husband David and daughter Mariah doing things that they enjoy. ______________________________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN JOHN GIOIA Chair, District II Supervisor District I Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 457 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: December 20, 2016 , By: ____________________________________, Deputy December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 458 PR.1, C.18 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 459 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/648 expressing appreciation to State Senator Lois Wolk, 3rd Senate District, for her service to Contra Costa County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR STATE SENATOR LOIS WOLK, 3RD SENATE DISTRICT December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 460 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/648 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/648 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 461 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/648 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO STATE SENATOR LOIS WOLK, 3RD SENATE DISTRICT, FOR HER SERVICE TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WHEREAS, during her many years of public service, Lois Wolk has earned a reputation as a problem solver by successfully tackling difficult issue areas such as water, end-of-life care, firearm violence prevention, flood management, elder abuse, political reform, transportation, and health; and has authored over 100 new laws over her 12 years serving in the State Legislature; and WHEREAS, elected to the State Senate in 2008, Senator Wolk represents the Third Senate District, which includes all of Napa and Solano Counties, most of Yolo County, several cities in Sonoma and Contra Costa Counties, and a portion of Sacramento County; and WHEREAS, Senator Wolk serves as the Majority Whip and chairs Senate Budget Subcommittee #2 on Resources, Environmental Protection, Energy and Transportation. She serves on numerous policy committees, the California Wildlife Conservation Board’s Legislative Advisory Committee and is a liaison advisor to the Delta Conservancy Board; and WHEREAS, prior to her election to the State Senate, Wolk served three terms — from 2002 to 2008 — as the representative for the Eighth Assembly District. She was the first woman to chair the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, and used her four-year chairmanship to bring heightened attention to important topics including flood protection, the crisis in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, water management and climate change, land use, state parks, fisheries, and invasive species; and WHEREAS, before serving in the State Legislature, Wolk built a long record of community and public service. A resident of Davis since 1978, she won a seat on the Davis City Council in 1990, and served two terms as Mayor from 1992-94 and 1996-98. From 1998 to 2002, Wolk served as Yolo County Supervisor; and WHEREAS, Senator Wolk was one of the authors of the landmark End of Life Option Act, a 2015 measure that provides mentally competent, terminally ill adults the option of requesting a doctor’s prescription for aid-in-dying drugs to painlessly and peacefully shorten their dying process; and WHEREAS, Wolk was also one of two lead authors of Proposition 1, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. In 2007, Wolk led efforts to craft a package of laws to strengthen flood protection in California’s Central Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region, authoring two bills in the package; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby congratulates Senator Lois Wolk upon completion of two consecutive terms in the California State Senate, three consecutive terms in the California State Assembly, and one term with the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, and expresses its appreciation and admiration for her leadership in upholding integrity and personal ethics in business and government, for her leadership in water policy and flood management, and for her work to improve safety conditions on State Highway Route 12; prevent elder abuse; and support preservation of parks, recreation, open space, and conservation. ___________________ 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 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 462 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 , By: ____________________________________, Deputy December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 463 C.20 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 464 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-24, which would require drug manufacturers to establish a stewardship program for the collection and disposal of unwanted pharmaceutical drugs, and WAIVE reading. 2. FIND that the adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-24 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 15061, subdivision (b)(3), of the CEQA Guidelines. 3. DIRECT the Conservation and Development Director or his designee to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk-Recorder. 4. DIRECT the Health Services Director or his designee to arrange for payment of a $25 processing fee to the Department of Conservation and Development and $50 filing fee to the County Clerk-Recorder. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no anticipated impact to the County general fund. The proposed Safe Drug Disposal Ordinance would require the producers of covered drugs to fully fund the administrative and operational cost of an approved APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord, (925) 313-6700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Sharon L. Anderson, John Kopchik, Daniel Peddycord C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Adoption- Ordinance No. 2016-24, establishing pharmaceutical drug stewardship program in unincorporated area and determination of exemption under CEQA December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 465 FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D) product stewardship program for the safe disposal of prescription drugs. Revenue from proposed fees to be paid by producers would cover costs incurred by the County health officer related to the inspection of stewardship plans and any related investigation, audits, enforcement and adjudication. BACKGROUND: On December 13, 2016, the Board introduced Ordinance No. 2016-24 (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance, which is similar to ordinances adopted by other counties, would require drug manufacturers to establish and pay for a system to collect unwanted pharmaceutical drugs. The goal would be to establish at least three drop-off sites in each of the five supervisorial districts in locations that allow for convenient and equitable access by residents of the unincorporated areas of those districts. If achievement of this goal is not feasible in a supervisorial district, the stewardship program would need to provide for a mail-back service and periodic take-back events that are at least six hours in length, held a least once per quarter and located in at least three locations in the district. Under the Ordinance, preference would be given to having retail pharmacies and law enforcement agencies serve as collectors. In addition, mail-back services would need to be made available to individuals who are disabled or homebound. If adopted, the Ordinance would require the producer of a covered drug to submit a product stewardship plan to the County health officer, describing how it would provide for the disposal options described above. Covered drugs include both prescription and non-prescription drugs. The Ordinance would allow a producer to satisfy its obligations either individually or jointly with other producers, in the form of a stewardship organization. As drafted, the ordinance would require producers to provide notice to all retail pharmacies and all law enforcement agencies located in the County of the opportunity to participate as collectors. In the event a provision of the Ordinance is violated, the responsible person would be notified and given time to cure the violation before administrative fines are imposed. Violations could also be prosecuted as criminal infractions, punishable by fines that are equal in amount to administrative fines. Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) staff has completed an environmental review of Ordinance No. 2016-24. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that an activity may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15061, subd. (b)(3).) DCD staff has concluded that adoption of the ordinance and the mandates set forth in the ordinance, including the establishment of a drug stewardship program, implementation and monitoring of the program, will not have a significant effect on the environment. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If Ordinance No. 2016-24 is not adopted, the proposed drug stewardship program would not go into effect. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2016-24 Final December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 466 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 467 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 468 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 469 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 470 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 471 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 472 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 473 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 474 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 475 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 476 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 477 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 478 RECOMMENDATION(S): Appoint Judy Bendix to the district 1 seat of the Fish & Wildlife Committee to a term expiring on 2/28/2020, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Fish & Wildlife Committee advises the Board of Supervisors on fish and wildlife issues in Contra Costa County. Make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for the expenditure of funds from the Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 13103. Address issues surrounding the enforcement of fish and game laws and regulations in the County. Consider other issues which may from time to time be referred to the Committee by the Board of Supervisors. Judy Bendix Richmond, CA 94803 Supervisor Gioia advertises his open advisory body seats in numerous ways including through his website, eblasts, newsletters, as well as with traditional media. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: James Lyons, 510-231-8692 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINT Judy Bendix to the District 1 seat of the Fish & Wildlife Committee December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 479 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. ATTACHMENTS Judy Bendix Application December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 480 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors481 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors482 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors483 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors484 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors485 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors486 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors487 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors488 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors489 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors490 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. APPOINT the individuals identified in Exhibit A to serve on the 2017 Community Corrections Partnership (CCP), pursuant to Penal Code § 1230(b)(2); and 2. APPOINT the individuals identified in Exhibit B to serve on the 2017 Community Corrections Partnership Executive Committee, pursuant to Penal Code § 1230.1(b). FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 109 (Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011), which transferred responsibility for supervising certain lower-level inmates and parolees from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to counties. Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109) took effect on October 1, 2011 and realigned three major areas of the criminal justice system. On a prospective basis, the legislation: • Transferred the location of incarceration for lower-level offenders (specified nonviolent, non-serious, non-sex offenders) from state prison to local county jail and provides for an expanded role for post-release supervision for these offenders; APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT OF THE CY2017 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP (CCP) AND CCP-EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 491 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > • Transferred responsibility for post-release supervision of lower-level offenders (those released from prison after having served a sentence for a non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offense) from the state to the county level by creating a new category of supervision called Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS); and • Transferred the custody responsibility for parole and PRCS revocations to local jail, administered by county sheriffs. AB109 also created an Executive Committee of the local Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) and tasked it with recommending a Realignment Plan (Plan) to the county Board of Supervisors for implementation of the criminal justice realignment. The Community Corrections Partnership is identified in statute as the following: Community Corrections Partnership 1. Chief Probation Officer (Chair) 2. Presiding Judge (or designee) 3. County supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOS 4. District Attorney 5. Public Defender 6. Sheriff 7. Chief of Police 8. Head of the County department of social services 9. Head of the County department of mental health 10. Head of the County department of employment 11. Head of the County alcohol and substance abuse programs 12. Head of the County Office of Education 13. CBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal offenders 14. Victims’ representative Later in 2011, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 117 (Chapter 39, Statutes of 2011), which served as “clean up” legislation to AB 109. Assembly Bill 117 (AB 117) changed, among other things, the composition of the local CCP-Executive Committee. The CCP-Executive Committee is currently identified in statute as the following: Community Corrections Partnership-Executive Committee 1. Chief Probation Officer (Chair) 2. Presiding Judge (or designee) 3. District Attorney 4. Public Defender 5. Sheriff 6. A Chief of Police 7. The head of either the County department of social services, mental health, or alcohol and drug services (as designated by the board of supervisors) Although AB 109 and AB 117 collectively place the majority of initial planning activities for Realignment on the local CCP, it is important to note that neither piece of legislation cedes powers vested in a county Board of Supervisors’ oversight of and purview over how AB 109 funding is spent. Once the Plan is adopted, the Board of Supervisors can choose to implement that Plan in any manner it may wish. Today’s recommended actions were approved by the Public Protection Committee (PPC) at the December 12, 2016 meeting. The Committee recommends an appointment term of one-year for all non ex-officio seats and plans to make appointment/reappointment recommendations to the Board of Supervisors annually. The PPC continues to acknowledge that, under California law, the Police Chief seat is appointed by the Board of Supervisors and December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 492 recommends that the appointee be rotated between the cities with the highest number of AB 109 population (which currently are Richmond, Pittsburg, Antioch and Concord). The PPC is recommending the appointment of Police Chief Allwyn Brown from the City of Richmond to serve on the CY2017 CCP and CCP-Executive Committees. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) and CCP-Executive Committee will not be formally seated for calendar year 2017. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - 2016 Community Corrections Partnership & Exhibit B - 2016 Community Corrections Partnership Executive Committee December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 493 EXHIBIT A ‐ 2017 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIPSeatAppointeeTerm ExpirationChief Probation Officer (Chair)Todd Billeciex‐officioPresiding Judge (or designee)Stephen Nash (designee of Presiding Judge)ex‐officioCounty supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOSDavid J. Twa, County AdministratorDecember 31, 2017District AttorneyMark A. Petersonex‐officioPublic DefenderRobin Lipetzkyex‐officioSheriffDavid O. Livingstonex‐officioChief of PoliceAllwyn Brown, City of RichmondDecember 31, 2017Head of the County department of social servicesKathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services Directorex‐officioHead of the County department of mental healthCynthia Belon, Director of Behavioral Health Servicesex‐officioHead of the County department of employmentDonna Van Wert, Interim Executive Director‐Workforce Developmentex‐officioHead of the County alcohol and substance abuse programs Fatima Matal Sol, Director of Alcohol and Other Drugsex‐officioHead of the County Office of EducationKaren Sakata, County Superintendent of Schoolsex‐officioCBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal offendersRoosevelt TerryDecember 31, 2017Victim's RepresentativeDevorah Levine, Zero Tolerance Program ManagerDecember 31, 2017December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors494 EXHIBIT B ‐ 2017 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEESeatAppointeeTerm ExpirationChief Probation Officer (Chair)Todd Billeciex‐officioPresiding Judge (or designee)Stephen Nash (designee of Presiding Judge)ex‐officioDistrict AttorneyMark A. Petersonex‐officioPublic DefenderRobin Lipetzkyex‐officioSheriffDavid O. Livingstonex‐officioChief of PoliceAllwyn Brown, City of RichmondDecember 31, 2017Representative approved by BOS from the following CCP members: Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services DirectorDecember 31, 2017     *Head of County department of Social Services     *Head of County department of mental health     *Head of County department of alcohol and substance abuse programsDecember 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors495 RECOMMENDATION(S): REAPPOINT the following person to the Trustee 3 Seat of the Alamo-Lafayette Cemetery District Board of Directors for a four-year term with an expiration date of January 4, 2021, as reccomended by Supervisor Candace Andersen: Carolyn Thiessen Alamo, CA 94507 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Established by the Board of Supervisors on April 5, 1937, the purpose of the Alamo-Lafayette Cemetery District Board of Directors is to establish rates to be charged for burials within the cemeteries of the district which will allow the grave to be maintained on a self-supporting basis; to prepare and maintain maps detailing information about the lots; to keep records of all remains interred in the cemeteries. (Health and Safety Code, Section 8961.4 and 8963). Membership is comprised of three trustees who must live in the district. Terms are for four years with an expiration date of the first Monday in January. Due to redistricting, all three Trustee Seats fall within District Two, therefore the District Two Supervisor is responsible for the recruitment and recommendations for appointment to the Board of Supervisors for all three seats. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: District 2 Supervisor, Maddy Book, Alamo-Lafayette Cemetery District, Appointee C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO THE ALAMO-LAFAYETTE CEMETERY DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 496 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Ms. Thiessen has done an excellent job in her role as a Trustee. Supervisor Andersen would like to reappoint her for another term. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: There will be one vacant seat on the Alamo-Lafayette Cemetery District. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 497 RECOMMENDATION(S): RE-APPOINT the following individuals to the following seats of the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council for four-year terms with a start date of January 1, 2017 and an expiration date of December 31, 2020, as recommended by Supervisor Candace Andersen: Appointee 1 Seat David Barclay Alamo, CA 94507 Appointee 2 Seat Aron DeFerrari Alamo, CA 94507 Appointee 3 Seat Jill Winspear Alamo, CA 94507 Appointee 4 Seat Anne Struthers Alamo, CA 94507 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: District 2 Supervisor, Maddy Book, Alamo MAC, Appointees C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENTS TO THE ALAMO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 498 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) Appointee 5 Seat Susan Rock Alamo, CA 94507 Appointee 7 Seat Steve Mick Alamo, CA 94507 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Alamo MAC may advise the Board of Supervisors on services that are or may be provided to the Alamo community by Contra Costa County or other local government agencies. Such services include, but are not limited to, parks and recreation, lighting and landscaping, public health, safety, welfare, public works, code enforcement, land use and planning, transportation and other infrastructure. The Council may also provide input and reports to the District Supervisor, Board of Supervisors, County staff or any County hearing body on issues of concern to the community. The Council may represent the Alamo community before the Board of Supervisors, County Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator. The Council may also represent the Alamo community before the Local Agency Formation Commission on proposed boundary changes effecting the community. The Council may advocate on parks and recreation issues to the Town of Danville and the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. Supervisor Andersen recruited through public announcements for interested parties to apply to the Alamo MAC. Supervisor Andersen is pleased to recommend these individuals as Alamo MAC members to continue their fine work for another four years. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: There will not be a quorum. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 499 RECOMMENDATION(S): REAPPOINT Nolan Armstrong to the Member of the Bar seat on the Law Library Board of Trustees to a new one-year term expiring December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Public Law Library Board of Trustees was established by State law and County Ordinance to maintain a law library in Martinez and a branch library in Richmond. The Board of Trustees is the governing body for the Law Library with the authority to determine personnel, fiscal, and administrative policies to fulfill the legal information needs of the community. The Internal Operations Committee annually reviews the appointment to the Member of the Bar seat, which term expires each December 31. The Law Librarian recruited for the seat and received interest only from Mr. Armstrong, who wishes to be reappointed. The IOC recommends the reappointment of Mr. Armstrong to a new one-year term. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: IOC Staff, Law Librarian C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 500 ATTACHMENTS Letter of Interest_Nolan Armstrong_Law Library December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 501 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 502 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 503 RECOMMENDATION(S): REAPPOINT Bob Case (Concord) to the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Board of Directors to a new term ending on November 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: No County cost. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa Resource Conservation District (RCD) director recruitment is conducted by the County pursuant to a 1998 RCD resolution ordering that all future directors shall be appointed by the County Board of Supervisors in lieu of election (Public Resources Code Section 9314). The mission of the RCD is to carry out natural resources conservation projects through voluntary and cooperative efforts. The RCD is a non-regulatory agency that works with individuals, growers, ranchers, public agencies, non-profit organizations and corporations to accomplish its mission. The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service provides technical support for the RCD's programs. On November 30, 2016, the terms of office for three of the five RCD Director seats expired: President, Director 1, and Director 3. Terms of office are four years beginning on December 1. Staff opened a recruitment on September 2 for a five-week period that ended on October 7. The recruitment garnered four applications from the following APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: IOC Staff, CCRCD C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE CONTRA COSTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 504 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > individuals, who were invited to be interviewed by the Internal Operations Committee on October 24: Tom Brumleve, incumbent Director 1 (Walnut Creek) Bob Case, incumbent Director 3 (Concord) Jency James (Martinez) Igor Skaredoff, incumbent President (Martinez) Candidates Igor Skaredoff and Tom Brumleve were unable to attend the October 24 IOC meeting due to prior commitments. Neither of the other candidates attended the meeting. On November 8, 2016, the IOC recommended and the Board of Supervisors approved the reappointment of Directors Skaredoff and Brumleve, but no appointment was made to the remaining vacant seat. The two remaining candidates (applications are attached) were invited to be interviewed at the December 12, 2016 IOC meeting. Based on our interview of Bob Case on December 12, the IOC recommends his reappointment to the Board of Directors. ATTACHMENTS Candidate Application_Bob Case_CCRCD Candidate Application_Jency James_CCRCD December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 505 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors506 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors507 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors508 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 509 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 510 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 511 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Emily Barnett to the At Large #3 (former the Diablo Valley College) seat to complete the unexpired term ending on March 1, 2019, and REAPPOINT DeWitt Hodge to the At Large #2 seat to new term that will expire on March 1, 2020, on the Aviation Advisory Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: None. AAC members are not compensated. BACKGROUND: The Aviation Advisory Committee was established by the Board of Supervisors in 1977. Its current charge is to provide advice and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on the aviation issues related to the economic viability and security of airports in Contra Costa County. The Committee may initiate discussions, observations, or investigations, in order to make its recommendations to the Board. The Committee may hear comments on airport and aviation matters from the public or other agencies for consideration and possible recommendations to the Board of Supervisors or their designees. The Aviation Advisory Committee shall cooperate with local, state, and national aviation interests for the safe and orderly operation of airports. The Aviation Advisory Committee shall advance and promote the interests of aviation and protect the general welfare of the people living and working near the airport and the County in general. In conjunction with all of the above, the Aviation Advisory Committee shall provide a forum for the Director of Airports regarding policy matters at and around the airports. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT: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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: IOC Staff, Airports Director, AAC Staff C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO THE AVIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 512 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > On March 1, 2017, the At Large 2 seat term of office will expire. Additionally, the former Diablo Valley College seat was converted to an At Large (#3) seat and is currently vacant. The Airports Director opened a four-week recruitment on October 27, 2016 to fill the current and pending vacancies, garnering four applications, attached. Seat terms are three years. The term for the next At Large 2 appointment will be March 2, 2017-March 1, 2020. The current term for the At Large 3 (formerly DVC) seat will expire on March 1, 2019. On December 12, 2016, the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) interviewed the following candidates for the two At Large seats on the Aviation Advisory Committee: Emily Barnett, Pleasant Hill Christopher Hansen, Concord DeWitt Hodge (incumbent), Pittsburg Geoffrey Logan, Walnut Creek At the conclusion of the interviews, the IOC decided to recommend the reappointment of DeWitt Hodge and the appointment of Emily Barnett. CLERK'S ADDENDUM MODIFIED to consider appointment of only Emily Barnett, leaving At Large #2 seat of DeWitt Hodges open.; REQUESTED Airport Commission to resolve the issue of Mr. Hodges having a business interest on the premises, to return to the Board after its next meeting with a boardorder to appoint a member to the vacant seat. ATTACHMENTS Airports Director Recruitment Summary Candidate Application_AAC_Emily Barnett Candidate Application_AAC_Christopher Hansen Candidate Application_AAC_DeWitt Hodge Candidate Application_AAC_Geoffrey Logan December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 513 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 514 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 515 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 516 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 517 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 518 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 519 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 520 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 521 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 522 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 523 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 524 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 525 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 526 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 527 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 528 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 529 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 530 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 531 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 532 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 533 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 534 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Heather Rosmarin (Pleasant Hill) to the At Large #4 seat and REAPPOINT Jeffrey Skinner (Martinez) to the At Large #3 seat on the Fish & Wildlife Committee to four-year terms beginning on January 1, 2017 and ending on December 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Fish & Wildlife Committee was established by the Board of Supervisors in December 1994 to advise the Board on fish and wildlife issues, make recommendations for the expenditure of funds from the Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund, and to address issues surrounding the enforcement of fish and game laws and regulations of the County. The Committee comprises ten members: one nominated by each County Supervisor, four At Large seats, and one At Large Alternate seat. Seat terms were recently converted from two to four years. The Internal Operations Committee (IOC) conducts interviews for the At Large and At Large Alternate seats. On December 31, 2016, the terms for the At Large #3 and #4 seats will expire. The Conservation & Development Department recruited for applicants as described in the attached transmittal memo. Six applications were received and are attached hereto along with a report from the Fish & Wildlife Committee staff. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: IOC Staff, FWC Staff C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO THE FISH & WILDLIFE COMMITTEE December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 535 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > On December 12, the IOC interviewed the following six candidates for the two pending vacancies: Scott Cashen (Walnut Creek) Edmond Linscheid (Orinda) Joshua Porter (Kensington) Heather Rosmarin (Pleasant Hill) Jeffrey Skinner, incumbent (Martinez) Rodney Smith (Danville) At the conclusion of the interviews, the IOC decided to recommend Heather Rosmarin and Jeffrrey Skinner for appointment to the two seats. ATTACHMENTS FWC Recruitment Report and Candidate Applications December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 536 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 537 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors538 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors539 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors540 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors541 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 542 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 543 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 544 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 545 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 546 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 547 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 548 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 549 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 550 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 551 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 552 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 553 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 554 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 555 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 556 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 557 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 558 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 559 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 560 FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMITTEE ROSTER Appointment Date Term Expires Vacant (District 1) Susan Heckly (District II) Pleasant Hill April 14, 2015 February 28, 2018 Clark Dawson (District III) Antioch March 31, 2015 February 28, 2018 Brett Morris (District IV) Walnut Creek March 3, 2015 February 28, 2019 Daniel Pellegrini (District V) Martinez March 3, 2015 February 28, 2019 Roni Gehlke (At-Large 1) Oakley January 5, 2016 December 31, 2018 Kathleen Jennings (At-Large 2) Concord January 5, 2016 December 31, 2018 Jeff Skinner(At-Large 3) Martinez December 9, 2014 December 31, 2016 Scott Stephan (At-Large 4) San Ramon December 9, 2014 December 31, 2016 Dawn Manley (At-Large Alternate 1) Walnut Creek September 13, 2016 January 1, 2017 December 31, 2016 December 31, 2021 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 561 RECOMMENDATION(S): REAPPOINT Chris Cowen (San Pablo) to the At Large #2 seat and Darryl Young to the At Large #3 seat on the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees to new four-year terms ending on January 2, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact to the County. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District was established in 1986 through the consolidation of two such districts. The boundaries of the current District are all of Contra Costa County. The District provides Countywide public health services through the control of mosquitoes, rats, skunks, yellowjackets and other vectors. Of the 22 members of the Board of Trustees, the Board of Supervisors appoints three to represent the unincorporated area. The Internal Operations Committee (IOC) screens the nominations for the three County seats. On January 2, 2017, the terms of office of the At Large 2 and 3 seats will expire. New appointments to the seats may be made for either two or four years, at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: IOC Staff, MVCD C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO THE MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 562 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Staff initiated a four-week recruitment on October 3, 2016 that garnered interest from the two incumbents who wished to be reappointed: Chris Cowen and Darryl Young. Based on our deliberations on December 12, 2016, the IOC recommends reappointment of Mr. Cowen and Mr. Young to four-year terms. ATTACHMENTS MVCD Press Publication Candidate Application_Chris Cowen_MVCD December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 563 Contra Costa County County Administrator’s Office • 651 Pine Street • Martinez, CA 94553 • www.co.contra-costa.ca.us Media Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea Monday, October 3, 2016 Phone: (925) 335-1077 Email: julie.enea@cao.cccounty.us WOULD YOU LIKE TO SERVE ON THE CONTRA COSTA MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES ? The Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District was established in 1986. The boundaries of the current District are all of Contra Costa County. The District provides Countywide public health services through the control of mosquitoes, rats, skunks, yellowjackets and other vectors. This is important to prevent the transmission of disease and to minimize vector population outbreaks, which would interfere with recreational, residential, agricultural, and industrial activities. The District Board of Trustees meets on the second Monday of every other month at 7 p.m. in Concord. The County is recruiting for volunteers to fill two vacancies for four-year terms ending on January 2, 2021. The County Board of Supervisors will make the appointments. County residents are encouraged to apply. Application forms can be obtained from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors by calling (925) 335-1900 or by visiting the County webpage at www.co.contra-costa.ca.us. Applications should be returned to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553 no later than Friday, November 4, 2016 by 5 p.m. Applicants should plan to be available for public interviews in Martinez on Monday, November 28. More information about the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District can be obtained by visiting the District’s website at http://www.contracostamosquito.com/ . # # # # December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 564 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 565 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 566 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 567 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5036 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $75,000 from CSA P-6 Zone funding and appropriating it into the Plant Acquisition-Sheriff account (0111/4407) to partially fund the relocation of the Sheriff's Office - Delta Patrol station from the old Oakley Library to the Brentwood Police Department. FISCAL IMPACT: This action increases revenues and appropriations by $75,000. There is no impact on the County General Fund. BACKGROUND: The Office of the Sheriff's Delta Patrol station is currently housed in the old Oakley Library. This patrol station is inadequate for our needs, as it is in a state of disrepair and not centrally located for deployment. Moving Sheriff's Office personnel to the Brentwood Police Department building will provide a modern, clean and professional work environment that is ideally located for service to all East County APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Liz Arbuckle, 925-335-1529 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Liz Arbuckle, Heike Anderson, Tim Ewell C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appropriation Adjustment - Office of the Sheriff Delta Station December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 568 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) residents. This will also allow for a collaborative approach to policing in East County, as it will provide an excellent opportunity for Sheriff's Office Deputies to work closely with Brentwood PD Officers to exchange area information and crime trends. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Expenditure appropriations and offsetting revenue identified to fund the facility transfer will not be reflected in the County Budget. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5036 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5036 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 569 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors570 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors571 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 572 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 573 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriation adjustment No. 5037authorizing the transfer of appropriations in the amount of $16,000 from Buchanan Field Operations (4841) to Buchanan Field Fixed Assets (4853) to cover the cost of replacing the County Airports' server. FISCAL IMPACT: Funded 100% by the Airport Enterprise Fund BACKGROUND: The current computer server at Buchanan Field is more than 5 years old, is no longer under warranty, and is reaching storage capacity putting the Airport at risk of losing valuable data. This action revises the Airport budget due to cost increases (Airport computer server) at Buchanan Field Airport. The appropriation transfers funds within the budget from the Buchanan Field Operations account to the Buchanan Field Fixed Asset account; no new funds are being added as there are sufficient resources to cover the purchase of a replacement server. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT to transfer appropriations from Buchanan Field Operations to Buchanan Field Fixed Assets December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 574 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the Airports' data will be at risk and the Airport Enterprise Fund budget will be out of balance as expenditures for Buchanan Field Fixed Assets (4853) will far exceed current appropriations. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TC 27 5037 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriation and Adjustment No. 5037 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 575 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors576 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 577 RECOMMENDATION(S): Public Defender's Office (0243): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5035 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $50,000 from the van Loben Sels/RembeRock Foundation and appropriating it to fund temporary contract help for a Youth Advocate position for advocacy support services to juvenile clients in the Office of the Public Defender. FISCAL IMPACT: Grant revenues fully fund anticipated program expenditures, for a twelve months (12) month period beginning November 2016. There is no increase to Net County Cost. $50,000 in new revenue from the van Loben Sels/RembeRock Foundation $50,000 appropriated for salary expense of Contract Temporary Help APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Richard Loomis, 925-335-8093 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Youth Advocacy Program - van Loben Sels/RembeRock Foundation Grant December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 578 BACKGROUND: At its meeting on September 20, 2016, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Public Defender to apply for and accept a grant renewal with the van Loben SelsRembeRock Foundation to fund continuation of the Community Lawyering for Youth Project (CYLP). The Office of the Public Defender received funding from this private foundation in each of the past two Budget Years, and based on the success of the Youth Advocacy program for Juvenile Clients additional funding is available for renewal of the grant for an additional year. The Service Plan for the Youth Advocate includes, the following services: Pre-adjudication/pre-probation client service needs assessment, Disposition (sentencing) support in devising a probation plan, Post-disposition (out of custody) support to assure provision of support services, Post-disposition (in custody) support to develop reentry plans, Post-probation follow up with former clients who have completed probation. Diligent solicitation of supplemental funding from non-profit foundations has resulted in the award of grant revenues to augment the public funding commitment to pursue this important work. The Department will employ one (1) temporary contract position to work under the supervision of a Deputy Public Defender to complete the assigned work . CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the new revenue and appropriations are not authorized and approved, the Public Defender's Office will not have access to the additional staffing needed to effectively address the support needs of juvenile clients. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This Youth Advocacy program is designed to provide support services to mitigate barriers in employment and education that youthful offenders face in community reintegration, following a juvenile delinquency placement or commitment. Support services may include housing, employment and education advocacy. The ultimate measure of success of this program is a decrease in probation violations and an increase in successful probation terminations. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5035 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5035 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 579 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors580 December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors581 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 582 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 583 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22004 to add one (1) permanent full-time Administrative Analyst (APWA) position at salary level ZB5-1277 ($3,941-$4,790) and cancel vacant Clerk-Specialist Level (JWXD) position #7163 at salary level 3RX-1156 ($3,626-$4631) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, there is an annual cost of approximately $5,704, which includes estimated pension costs of $1,494. The funding source for this position will be Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: The Materials Management Unit has just completed a two (2) year multi-million dollar improvement project streamlining and expanding the utilization of Meditech inventory control system to electronically send their requisition and eliminate manual process. Meditech is an inventory system which manages supplies across the whole Health Services Department from requisition to receiving. With this change in operation, the unit needs a skilled Administrative Analyst position to manage the new inventory control process, provide training and monitor staff compliance converting to this new process. This position will also gather and prepare data, costing analysis, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Shelanda Adams, 925-957-5263 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add and Cancel positions in the Health Services Department December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 584 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) pricing discrepancies, manage allocated funds on Blanket POs, and audit departmental spending. Since Xerox role in managing the day to day Meditech operation has been reduced at the Supply Chain level, the role of this position is to continue what Xerox started as we expand the deployment of Meditech Materials Management inventory control system. The Clerk-Specialist position will not meet the operational needs of the department. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action not approved, the department will not have the appropriate staffing levels to implement the Meditech inventory control system. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22004 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 22004 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 585 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22004 DATE 11/1/2016 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. 6441 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one (1) full-time Administrative Analyst (APWA) position and cancel one (1) full-time Clerk – Specialist Level position #7163 in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 12/21/2016 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 $5,704.17 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $4,125.50 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Shelanda Adams ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 12/12/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ 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 12/12/2016 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 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 586 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 12/13/2016 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 587 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 588 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21999 to add one (1) full-time Legal Assistant (2Y7B) (represented) position at salary level ZB5 1337 ($4,349- $5,287) and cancel one (1) vacant full-time Clerk Experienced Level (JWXB) position No. 15561 at salary level 3RH 0750 ($2,905 - $3,605) in the Office of the County Counsel. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost increase will be absorbed by the service fee for client billings. BACKGROUND: Legal Assistants are trained to assist with litigation matters, document and pleading assembly and review as well as other critical legal functions that fall between the clerical and attorney level of assignments. The addition of a Legal Assistant position will best serve the current needs of the office by creating efficiency for the Department and the County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Denial of this request will hamper the Department's ability to streamline operations and create operational efficiencies. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Wanda McAdoo, (925) 335-1811 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Wanda McAdoo C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one full-time Legal Assistant position and cancel one full-time Clerk-Experienced Level position in the Office of the County Counsel December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 589 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 21999 Legal Assistant - County Counsel MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21999 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 590 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21999 DATE 12/13/2016 Department No./ Department Office of the County Counsel Budget Unit No. 0030 Org No. 1700 Agency No. 17 Action Requested: ADD one (1) full-time Legal Assistant position (2Y7B) (represented) at salary level ZB5 1337 ($4,349- $5,287) and CANCEL one (1) full-time Clerk Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) vacant position #15561 in the Office of County Counsel. Proposed Effective Date: 12/14/2016 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 $22,814.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $11,407.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Position funded from client billings Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Sharon L. Anderson ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Lisa Driscoll 12/2/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 12/5/2016 Add one (1) Legal Assistant (2Y7B) (represented) at salary plan and grade ZB5 337 ($4,349-$5,287) and cancel one (1) Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented #15561) at salary plan and grade 3RH 0750 ($2,905-$3,605). Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) LaShonda Smith 12/5/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 12/14/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Lisa Driscoll 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 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 591 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 12/14/2016 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 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 592 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 593 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21989 to: CANCEL 35 POSITIONS Seventeen (17) Permanent Intermittent Library Assistants – Journey Level (3KVB) (represented) Salary plan and grade QXX-1030 ($3,078 - $3,931) (Position #6101, 6105, 6108, 6109, 6111, 6172, 6173, 6174, 6199, 11397, 11399, 11404, 11402, 11403, 11405, 12733, 12734) Fourteen (14) Permanent Intermittent Clerks – Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) Salary plan and grade 3RH-0750 ($2,905 - $3,605) (Position #6157, 6158, 6159, 6160, 6176, 6177, 6178, 6180, 6196, 6198, 6201, 6202, 11411, 11413) Four (4) Permanent Intermittent Librarians (3AWA) (represented) Salary plan and grade QXX-1341 ($4188 - $5,348) (Position # 11406, 11408, 11409, 11410) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Michelle McCauley, 925-927-3202 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Michelle McCauley C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:Melinda Cervantes, County Librarian Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Cancel Thirty-Five Positions, Increase the Hours of Seven Positions, and Add Eleven Positions in the Library Department December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 594 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) INCREASE HOURS FOR 7 VACANT POSITIONS One (1) 20/20 Library Specialist (3AVA) (represented) Salary plan and grade QXX-1479 ($4801 - $6,131) (Position # 13370) Four (4) Librarians (3AWA) (represented) Salary plan and grade QXX-1341 ($4188 - $5,348) (Position # 6069, 11671, 6023, 6188) One (1) Clerk – Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) Salary plan and grade 3RH-0750 ($2,905 - $3,605) (Position # 14101) One (1) Clerk – Senior Level (JWXC) (Position # 6087) (represented) Salary plan and grade 3RH-0750 ($2,905 - $3,605) ADD 11 POSITIONS One (1) 40/40 Community Library Manager (3AGG) (represented) Salary plan and grade ZAX-1624 ($5764 - $7361) Two (2) 40/40 Librarians (3AWA) (represented) Salary plan and grade QXX-1341 ($4,188 - $5,348) Six (6) 32/40 Librarians (3AWA) (represented) Salary plan and grade QXX-1341 ($4,188 - $5,348) One (1) 40/40 Library Assistant – Journey Level (3KVB) (represented) Salary plan and grade QXX-1030 ($3,078- $3,931) One (1) 20/40 Clerk – Experience Level (JWXB) (represented) Salary plan and grade 3RH-0750 ($2,905 - $3,605) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in an annual cost to the Library Fund of approximately $499,589. The estimated cost to increase the hours of seven (7) positions is $252,908, and to add eleven (11) positions is $746,893. The estimated cost savings of canceling thirty-five (35) vacant permanent-intermittent positions is $226,800, and once this action is implemented the Library estimates that an additional savings of $273,412 will result from the reduction in use of overtime and additional hours worked will partially offset the annual cost. In anticipation of this transition, funds have been appropriated from FY 2015/16 fund balance. BACKGROUND: Ensuring that there is an adequate number of staff available and willing to work at all of the community libraries is challenging and has become a chronic and difficult balancing act. Keeping the libraries open and/or avoiding a delayed opening has become a constant struggle. In response to these circumstances, the Library Department conducted a careful and thorough evaluation of staffing assignments for all of its 22 full service libraries and 4 outlets system wide. The Library determined that there are sufficient funds available in the FY 2016-17 Library budget to convert vacant permanent intermittent (PI) positions, and vacant part-time (20/40) professional and para-professional positions to permanent full-time (40/40) positions or permanent part-time (32/40) positions. New permanent positions will stabilize library staffing difficulties and create a more desirable option for recruitment and retention purposes. Added positions also provide promotional opportunities and will improve customer service by strengthening the Librarian work force who are dedicated to adult and teen services. It should be noted that this action will not impact Library hours of operation nor will it change the work schedules December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 595 It should be noted that this action will not impact Library hours of operation nor will it change the work schedules of existing staff. New permanent positions will be assigned to community libraries with high circulation demand and to those libraries with the least number of staff or having the most difficulty hiring or retaining employees. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If these position changes are not implemented, the Library will continue to have insufficient staffing levels to open its libraries as scheduled and to meet the needs of the communities it serves. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS AIR 27698 P300 21989 BOS DATE 12202016 P300 21989 Attachment MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21989 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 596 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21989 DATE 10/28/2016 Department No./ Department County Library Budget Unit No. 0621 Org No. #12 Agency No. 85 Action Requested: Cancel thirty-five permanent -intermittent positions, Increase hours of seven positions, and add eleven positions (see attached details) Proposed Effective Date: 12/1/2016 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 $499,589.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $291,427.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Library Fund Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melinda S. Cervantes ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BR for JE 11/28/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 12/2/2016 See Attachment Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Eldreai Ellis 12/2/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 597 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 12/2/2016 No. xxxxx 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 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 598 Page 1 of 2 P300 21989 ATTACHMENT LIBRARY DEPARTMENT CANCEL 35 POSITIONS DEPT 0620, ORG 3732 Seventeen (17) Permanent Intermittent Library Assistants – Journey Level (3KVB) Salary plan and grade QXX-1030 ($3,078 - $3,931) (Position #6101, 6105, 6108, 6109, 6111, 6172, 6173, 6174, 6199, 11397, 11399, 11401, 11402, 11403, 11405, 12733, 12734) Fourteen (14) Permanent Intermittent Clerks – Experienced Level (JWXB) Salary plan and grade 3RH-0750 ($2,905 - $3,605) (Position #6157, 6158, 6159, 6160, 6176, 6177, 6178, 6180, 6196, 6198, 6201, 6202, 11411, 11413) Four (4) Permanent Intermittent Librarians (3AWA) Salary plan and grade QXX-1341 ($4188 - $5,348) (Position # 11406, 11408, 11409, 11410) INCREASE HOURS FOR 7 VACANT POSITIONS DEPT 0621, ORG 3785 One (1) 20/20 Library Specialist (3AVA) Salary plan and grade QXX-1479 ($4801 - $6,131) (Position # 13370) DEPT 0621, ORG 3792, 3792, 3793, 3753 Four (4) Librarians (3AWA) Salary plan and grade QXX-1341 ($4188 - $5,348) (Position # 6069, 11671, 6023, 6188) DEPT 0621, ORG 3783 One (1) Clerk – Experienced Level (JWXB) Salary plan and grade 3RH-0750 ($2,905 - $3,605) (Position # 14101) DEPT 0621, ORG 3792 One (1) Clerk – Senior Level (JWXC) (Position # 6087) Salary plan and grade 3RH-0750 ($2,905 - $3,605) ADD 11 POSITIONS DEPT 0621, ORG 3784 One (1) 40/40 Community Library Manager (3AGG) Salary plan and grade ZAX-1624 ($5764 - $7361) DEPT 0621, ORG 3761, 3785 Two (2) 40/40 Librarians (3AWA) Salary plan and grade QXX-1341 ($4,188 - $5,348) DEPT 0621, ORG 3793, 3795, 3753, 3764, 3765, 3798 Six (6) 32/40 Librarians (3AWA) Salary plan and grade QXX-1341 ($4,188 - $5,348) December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 599 Page 2 of 2 DEPT 0621, ORG 3783 One (1) 40/40 Library Assistant – Journey Level (3KVB) Salary plan and grade QXX-1030 ($3,078- $3,931) DEPT 0621, ORG 3794 One (1) 20/40 Clerk – Experience Level (JWXB) Salary plan and grade 3RH-0750 ($2,905 - $3,605) December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 600 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 601 RECOMMENDATION(S): Adopt Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22006 to decrease the hours of the vacant Occupational Therapist II (V5VH) position #8546 from 9/40 to 2/40 at salary level TC5-1746 ($6,521 - $7,927) and increase the hours of Occupational Therapist I (V5VG) position #14887 from 35/40 to 40/40 at salary level TC5-1651 ($5,963 - $7,215) and Physical Therapist I (V5VE) position #8593 from 38/40 to 40/40 at salary level TC5-1651 in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, annual savings of approximately $42, which includes estimated pension costs of $10, are expected. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to decrease the hours of vacant Occupational Therapist II position #8546 to offset the costs to increase of hours of Occupational Therapist I position #14887 and Physical Therapist I position #8593 from 35/40 to 40/40 and 38/40 to 40/40 respectively. The incumbents have been working the increased hours for the past six months to prevent mandatory overtime and these hours APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Melissa Carofanello - 925-957-5248 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Decrease and Increase position hours of a Occupational and Physical Therapist in the Health Services Department December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 602 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) are certified by the manager as being operationally necessary to continue the mandated functions of the department, to ensure client care at the California Children's Services program within the Public Health Division. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Public Health Division's California Children's Services of the Health Services Department will not have adequate staffing to meet the demand and volume of client care for those we serve. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 #22006 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 22006 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 603 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22006 DATE 12/8/16 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0460 Org No. 5891 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Decrease the hours of the Occupational Therapist II (V5VH) position #8546 from 9/40 to 2/40 at salary level TC5-1746 ($6,521 - $7,927) and increase the hours of Occupational Therapist I (V5VG) position #14887 from 35/40 to 40/40 at salary level TC5-1651 ($5,963 - $7,215) and Physical Therapist I (V5VE) position #8593 38/40 to 40/40 at salary level TC5-1651 in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 12/21/2016 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 $0.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $0.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Cost Savings Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melissa Carofanello ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 12/6/2016 _____Enid Mendoza _______________ ________________ 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 12/6/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: Approve as recommended by the department. _____Enid Mendoza_______________ (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 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 604 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 12/8/16 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 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 605 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 606 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21988 to increase the hours of one (1) part-time (20/40) Library Assistant-Journey Level (3KVB) (represented) vacant position No. 6211 to full-time (40/40) at salary plan and grade QXX-1030 ($3,078-$3,931); and add one (1) part-time (20/40) Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) position at salary plan and grade 3RH-0750 ($2,905-$3,605) in the Library Department, at the San Ramon Library. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in an annual cost of $66,751. There is no fiscal impact to the County General Fund. The cost is funded in the Library budget. BACKGROUND: The San Ramon Library is undergoing a major remodel and is due to open to the public on March 11, 2017. The remodel includes a new second floor, which requires staffing sufficient to ensure the proper amount of service and safety for patrons and staff. The increase of hours for a Library Assistant-Journey Level position and the addition of a part time Clerk-Experienced Level position will allow for adequate staffing of the new second floor at the San Ramon Library. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Michelle McCauley, (925) 927-3202 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Michelle McCauley C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:Melinda Cervantes, County Librarian Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Increase the Hours of One (1) Library Assistant-Journey Level position and Add One (1) Part-time Clerk-Experienced Level position in the Library Depar December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 607 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If these position changes are not implemented, the San Ramon Library will have insufficient staffing levels to meet the needs of the community it serves. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 21988 AIR 27697 Increase Hrs and Add PT MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21988 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 608 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21988 DATE 10/28/2016 Department No./ Department County Library Budget Unit No. 0621 Org No. 3782 Agency No. 85 Action Requested: Increase the Hours of One Part-Time Library Assistant-Journey Level Position No. 6211 from 20/40 to 40/40 and Add One Part-time Clerk-Experienced Level Position in the Library Department Proposed Effective Date: 12/1/2016 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 ($66,751.00) Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY ($38,938.00) N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Library Fund & City billing for extra hours Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melinda S. Cervantes ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BR for JE 11/1/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 12/2/2016 Increase the hours of one (1) part-time (20/40) Library Assistant-Journey Level (3KVB) (represented) vacant position No. 6211 to full-time (40/40) at salary plan and grade QXX-1030 ($3,078-$3,931); and add one (1) part-time (20/40) Clerk- Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) position at salary plan and grade 3RH-0750 ($2,905-$3,605) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Eldreai Ellis 12/2/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 609 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 12/7/2016 No. xxxxx 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 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 610 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 611 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22001 to reallocate the classification of Payroll Systems Administrator (SAHM) (unrepresented) on the pay schedule from salary plan and grade B82 1755 ($6,781-$8,681) nine (9) merit steps and two (2) outstanding pay for performance steps to salary plan and grade B85 1857 ($7,282-8,851) five (5) merit steps, and modify Resolution Number 2007/141 excluding the outstanding pay provisions for the classification of Payroll Systems Administrator as recommended by the Office of the Auditor-Controller. FISCAL IMPACT: Annual increase to the Office of the Auditor-Controller is $9,130. Retirement costs will annually increase by $1,178. BACKGROUND: The Office of the Auditor-Controller has two (2) full time permanent Payroll Systems Administrator positions assigned to the Office. Presently, one position is vacant due to an internal promotion and the Office plans to open recruitment to fill the vacancy. The Office of the Auditor-Controller requested the Human Resources Department to conduct a salary study for the Payroll Systems Administrator classification. After reviewing the salaries of comparable counties, it was recommended that the class of Payroll Systems Administrator be reallocated on the Salary Schedule to a slightly higher amount to reach the median salary of the comparable agencies. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elizabeth Verigin, (925) 335-8603 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Elizabeth Verigin C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:Dianne Dinsmore, Human Resources Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Reallocate the classification of Payroll Systems Administrator on the Salary Schedule December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 612 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Resolution No. 2007/141 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 6, 2007 to implement a performance pay plan for the class of Payroll Systems Administrator. The Payroll Systems Administrator classification has nine (9) merit steps and two (2) Outstanding Pay for Performance steps for a total of eleven (11) steps. The Human Resources Department recommends collapsing the Outstanding Pay for Performance steps and moving from eleven (11) merit and performance steps to a standard five-step salary range at 5% increments between each step. These actions will increase the salary's competitiveness and relativity to the external public sector market. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve this request will hinder the Office of the Auditor-Controller's ability to fill the present vacant position, retain qualified staff, and remain salary competitive with other comparable counties. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22001 Auditor-Controller's Office MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 22001 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 613 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22001 DATE 12/20/2016 Department No./ Department Office of the Auditor-Controller Budget Unit No. 0010 Org No. 1013 Agency No. 10 Action Requested: ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22001 to Reallocate the classification of Payroll Systems Administrator (SAHM) from salary plan and grade B82 1755 ($6,781-$8,681) to salary plan and grade B85 1857 ($7,282- $8,851) five (5) merit steps, and cancel Resolution Number 2007/141 excluding the outstanding pay provisions for the classification of Payroll Systems Administrator. Proposed Effective Date: 12/21/2016 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 $9,130.00 Net County Cost $9,130.00 Total this FY $4,565.00 N.C.C. this FY $4,565.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Salary savings due to vacancy Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Elizabeth Verigin ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Lisa Driscoll 12/12/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 12/7/2016 Reallocate the salary of the Payroll Systems Administrator (SAHM) on the pay schedule from salary plan and grade B82 1755 ($6,781-$8,681) to B85 1857 ($7,282-$8,851) and cancel reslution number 2007/141 in the Auditor's Office. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Tanya Williams 12/7/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 12/14/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Lisa Driscoll 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 Effective January 1, 2017 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 614 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 12/15/2016 No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 615 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 616 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21983 to reallocate the classification of the Workforce Investment Board Executive Director-Exempt (XAD4) (unrepresented) on the Salary Schedule from Salary Plan and Grade B85 1972 ($8,160 - $10,414) five merit steps and one performance step to Salary Plan and Grade B85 2044 ($8,763 - $10,651) five merit steps and no Performance Pay, as recommended by the Human Resources Director. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in annual costs of approximately $5,068, which includes $1,774 in pension costs. (61% Federal, 39% State) BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) is requesting to reallocate the salary of the Workforce Investment Board Executive Director classification to appropriately compensate for the level of managerial responsibilities. The Workforce Investment Board Executive APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Holly Trieu (925) 313-1560 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Holly Trieu C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Reallocate the classification of Workforce Investment Board Executive Director - Exempt (XAD4) on the salary schedule in EHSD December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 617 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Director’s primary responsibility is policy development and compliance with federal and state statutory mandates for a series of county-wide programs under the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act (WIOA) including fiscal administration of the WIOA budget. Additional responsibilities include operational oversight of three Americas Job Centers, and consulting with individual Board of Supervisor members and other community leaders on workforce development and training systems that support local economic development policies. In addition, the Workforce Investment Board Executive Director serves as the Executive Officer to the Workforce Development Board overseeing the operations of the Board and ensures congruence with local policies. The Workforce Investment Board Executive Director reports to the Employment and Human Services Director and to the chair of the Workforce Development Board on policy and planning matters. The classification of Workforce Investment Board Executive Director was established in April 1999 and was exempted from the merit system. On September 12, 2000, Resolution No. 2000/439 was adopted to reallocate the salary from a five-step salary range to a six step salary range including one performance step. Human Resources reviewed the duties of the Workforce Investment Board Executive Director and found that the level of responsibilities and primary duties of the classification require having the authority to exercise discretion and independent judgment on matters that impact policy and planning for county-wide workforce development programs. Therefor, Human Resources conducted an external and internal review of the management responsibilities and compensation and found that the current compensation is below market. Human Resources recommends Resolutio No. 2000/439 be cancelled to eliminate the performance step, the range be changed from a six (6) step salary range to a (5) merit step salary range, and the salary be increased to align with the responsibilities and duties of the classification. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the department will be unable to recruit and retain highly skilled candidates. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 #21983 EHSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21983 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 618 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21983 DATE 10/24/2016 Department No./ Department Employment and Human Services Dept Budget Unit No. 0583 Org No. 5619 Agency No. A19 Action Requested: Reallocate the salary schedule for the Workforce Investment Board Executive Director - Exempt (XAD4) classification in the Employment and Human Services Department Proposed Effective Date: 12/1/2016 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 $13,078.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $9,809.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 61% Federal, 39% State Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Holly Trieu 313-1560 ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kevin J. Corrigan 10/26/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 12/7/2016 Reallocate the classification of the Workforce Investment Board Executive Director-Exempt (XAD4) (unrepresented) on the salary schedule from salary plan and grade B85 1972 ($8,160.26 - $10,414.79) five merit steps and one performance step to salary plan and grade B85 2044 ($8,763 - $10,651) five merit steps and no Performance Pay, as recommended by the Director of Human Resources. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Otilia Parra 12/7/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 12/15/2016 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 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 619 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 12/15/2016 No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 620 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 621 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a fair market value lease agreement and purchase order with Xerox Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,109,441, for the lease of a Xerox Color Press iGen5 digital printer including maintenance and supplies, for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Department User Fees BACKGROUND: Print and Mail Services provides high-speed copying and printing for departments. The Xerox Color Copier iGen5 will provide high-quality color prints at a reduced cost. The new agreement reduces the copy click charges almost in half compared to the existing Xerox Color Copier XP1000, at a savings of $458,309 for 60 months. The iGen5 is a faster machine, allowing Print and Mail Services to better meet the department's urgent requests. It is a more robust color copier, which will reduce maintenance/repair down-time. The existing XP1000's maintenance/repair down-time is an average of 29 hours per month due to the volume of copying Print and Mail Services produces. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Marie Estrada (925) 646-5515 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve a Purchase Order and Lease Agreement for a Xerox iGen5 Color Copier December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 622 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Xerox will be cancelling the existing XP1000 lease of 24 remaining months in the amount of $510,636 on PO 49916. Xerox will also be lowering the lease of the existing Nuvera 144 black ink copier at a savings of $960.43 a month. This is a 60 month, fair market value lease for an amount not to exceed $1,109,441. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this request is not approved, costs for copying services may increase. ATTACHMENTS Xerox iGen5 Price Proposal December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 623 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 624 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 625 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 626 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Amendment Agreement #28-700-23 (State #14-10498-A03) with the California Department of Public Health, effective December 1, 2016 to amend Agreement #28-700-20 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #28-700-21 and #28-700-22), to increase the total payment to County by $7,372 from $4,302,269, to a new total Payment Limit of $4,309,641, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this Amendment Agreement will result in an increase of $7,372 to a new total of $4,309,641 of funding from the California Department of Public Health Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the Public Health Emergency Preparedness, and Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) & Comprehensive Program through June 30, 2017. No County match required. BACKGROUND: The California Department of Public Health has agreed to fund multiple Public Health Emergency Preparedness activities including, but not limited to, the Centers for Disease APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 925-313-6712 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment Agreement #28-700-23 with the California Department of Public Health December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 627 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Control (CDC) preparedness activities, the Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI) activities, State General Fund Pandemic Influenza preparedness and Hospital Preparedness Program activities, for the County’s Public Health Emergency Preparedness Response Program. Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) will utilize these funds to respond to any disease outbreaks in Contra Costa County. On December 16, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Agreement #28-700-20 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #28-700-21 and #28-700-22) with the California Department of Public Health for County’s Public Health Emergency Preparedness, Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) & Comprehensive Program, for the period July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. Approval of this Amendment Agreement #28-700-23 will make technical adjustments to the budget and scope of work, allowing County to receive additional funding for continuation of the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Response services, through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, County will not be able to continue to develop and test all hazards health emergency preparedness activities and hospital preparedness in response to any disease outbreaks in Contra Costa County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 628 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Grant Award Amendment #29-338-22, with the Department of Health Care Services, Children Medical Services, effective November 1, 2016, to amend Grant Award #29-338-21 to decrease the amount payable to County by $35,588 from $1,929,816 to a new total of $1,894,228 for the Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) and the Health Care Program for Children in Foster Care (HCPCFC), for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment will result in an decrease of $35,588 for the base award from the California Department of Health Care Services State and the Federal Financial Participation for the County’s CHDP and HCPCFC projects. The increase in county match of $38,289 will be covered by the department's budgeted County General Funds. BACKGROUND: The CHDP Program carries out State mandates regarding early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment and case coordination of health and dental services for children on Medi-Cal or within the 200% poverty level. These services are federally required and consistent APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 925-313-6712 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Award #29-338-22 with the Department of Health Care Services, Children Medical Services December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 629 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) with approved standards of medical practice. The CHDP program is responsible for provider certifications, network and resource development, training, outreach, care coordination, follow up and communications with medical and dental providers. This program works closely with community providers, other health related agencies, Managed Care, County Departments including Employment and Human Services, Probation, and Community Services as well as other Health Services Divisions to provide a wide variety of health related consultation services. On November 1, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved a Grant Award #29-338-21 with the Department of Health Care Services, Children Medical Services for County’s CHDP and HCPCFC projects for July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. Approval of Grant Award Amendment #29-338-22 will decrease funds necessary for the continuation of this long standing state and federal funding that supports these ongoing Public Health Programs CHDP and HCPCFC through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not receive funding to support the CHDP and the HCPCFC programs to comply with State and Federal requirements. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 630 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to apply for and accept Community Development Block Grant funds, in an amount not to exceed $60,000 ($20,000 for each of 3 FY funding cycles), to support services at the Bay Point Community Career Center, for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: County to receive an amount not to exceed $60,000. (100% federal) (No County match) BACKGROUND: Funding will be used to address several community needs related to the high rates of poverty and unemployment and the lack of community opportunities to address those needs. This grant focuses on low income Bay Point residents, however, the Community Career Center-SparkPoint, is open to all East County residents. The objective of the program is to assist at least 75 clients, by finding employment, improving job status, filing 100 tax returns, and connecting 25 clients to services at SparkPoint such as to the Debtor's Rights Clinic. To meet the objectives, the Bay Point Community Career Center staff will provide community residents with a wide range of job related resources and services, such as developing high quality resumes, offering access to internet connected computers for job searches, and access to basic technology such as fax machines, printers, copies, and telephones. The Career APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 925-313-1717 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contra Costa County Community Development Block Grant Funding December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 631 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Center is offered as a place for employers and other agencies to outreach and connect with potential employees. In addition, the Career Center also offers the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without funding, Bay Point Community Career Center services could be curtailed. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 632 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, as follows: A. Grant Award (County #29-393-26), from the California Department of Public Health, Tuberculosis Control Branch, to pay the County, an amount not to exceed $291,306, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, for the Tuberculosis (TB) Control Program, and B. Authorize the Purchasing Agent establish purchase orders and/or approve procurement methods (vouchers, gift cards, etc.) as appropriate for the issuance of payments(s) in an amount not to exceed $15,889, to be used for food, shelter, incentives and enablers (FSIE). The FSIE allotment will be used for taxi vouchers and rent subsidies. FISCAL IMPACT: Acceptance of this Award will result in up to $291,306 in funding from the California Department of Public Health, Tuberculosis Control Branch, for fiscal year 2016-2017. No County match required. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord 925-313-6712 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Grant Award #29-393-26 from the California Department of Public Health, Tuberculosis Control Branch December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 633 BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County, Public Health Department maintains a TB Control Program, which serves all reported TB patients and their contacts in Contra Costa County. Outreach services are provided to reach the “Hard-to Reach” people with TB and those at high risk. The TB control staff work within the Communicable Disease Section in collaboration with the HIV/AIDS Program, Substance Abuse Programs, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, and providers throughout the County. Approval of Grant Award #29-393-26 will allow the Department to continue to expand its prevention and control activities which are essential to decreasing TB transmission, prevent the development of drug resistance, and cure TB patients, through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this grant is not approved, the County will not receive funds to continue identifying and treating Contra Costa County residents who have active TB, and ensure that they complete appropriate therapy. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 634 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to apply for and accept three grants in an aggregate amount not to exceed $6,000 from the California Center for the Book and California Library Association to provide programs and materials for the Bay Point, San Pablo and Concord Libraries for the period December 9, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: No Library Fund match. BACKGROUND: The California Center for the Book and California Library Association "Book to Action" program encourages civic engagement through the book group concept. Along with discussing a book and hearing the author speak, communities put their new-found knowledge into action by engaging in community service projects related to the book topic. The Bay Point, Concord and San Pablo Libraries have identified relevant books and service projects to engage participants in their respective communities: The Bay Point Library will conduct children's and family programs related to Maybe Something Beautiful by Rafael Lopez. In honor of El Día de los Niños/El Día de los Libros, participants will assist in creation of a community mural in a festival setting featuring stories, music, and dance. Children, their families and community members will become the painters creating artwork specific to the Bay Point community. Additionally, the library will offer a StoryWalk at each of the four elementary schools in Bay Point during the month of April, further encouraging literacy and participation in the community mural project. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Alison McKee, 925-927-3290 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:Melinda Cervantes, County Librarian Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Grants from California Center for the Book and California Library Association December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 635 The Concord Library conduct adult programs related to December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 636 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Essential Urban Farmer and Farm City by Novella Carpenter and Willow Rosenthal. Participants will work with the UC Master Gardeners of Contra Costa County to plant a vegetable garden at the Concord Library. During the process the participants will receive hand-on advice on planting and garden sustainability practices. Participants will also learn seed saving techniques and will save seeds for a new Seed Lending program at the Concord Library. The San Pablo Library will conduct adult programs related to Life is So Good by George Dawson. Participants will then work with the San Pablo Senior Center, the Contra Costa Middle College Black Student Union, and local Girl Scouts to create a Black History Month celebration and book program for senior citizens. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the grants are not awarded then the programs will not occur. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Bay Point Library “Maybe Something Beautiful” Book-to-Action program supports the “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School” and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families” outcomes. By bringing the Community Mural project to the elementary schools in Bay Point, the library will engage families in a community art project while emphasizing the role of reading in developing children’s literacy and sense of community. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 637 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to execute the Second Amendment to the County Franchise Agreement with Crockett Sanitary Service to extend the term of the Agreement through March 1, 2017, to provide adequate time to facilitate Republic Services' corporate review and approval of finalized terms and conditions of a proposed nine-year extension of the Crockett Franchise in conjunction with the associated proposed service enhancements and rate adjustment. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the County General Fund. Approval of the recommended Franchise Amendment would obligate Crockett Sanitary Service to continue paying solid waste/recycling franchise fees to the County through the end of February 2017. BACKGROUND: On November 5, 1996, the County entered into a franchise agreement with Walter Botta, the sole proprietor of the Crockett Garbage Company to provide collection and recycling services for the unincorporated communities of Crockett, Port Costa and Tormey. Walter Botta immediately assigned his rights and obligations under the Agreement to Crockett Garbage Service, Inc. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Demian Hardman (925) 674-7826 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with Crockett Sanitary Service December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 638 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) (name was subsequently changed to Crockett Sanitary Service, Inc.), which is a subsidiary of Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc, which itself is owned by Republic Services. On November 1, 2016, the County executed a First Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with Crockett Garbage Company, which changed the name of the Agreement to “Franchise Agreement with Crockett Sanitary Service, Inc.” and extended the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2016, to allow for negotiation of terms and conditions of a proposed long-term extension of the Agreement and the exclusive franchise granted thereunder. The County and Contractor have a couple of remaining details to lock down regarding the proposed service enhancements and associated rate adjustment in order to conclude negotiations that may impact the proposed terms of the more substantive Amendment that would extend the term for an additional nine year period. The Contractor has indicated that the more substantive Amendment must go through Republic Services' corporate review and approval process which adds to the amount of time needed to present the Board with a proposed Amendment agreed to by the Contractor. Therefore, County staff recommends that the agreement be amended to extend the term of the Agreement through March 1, 2017. This is the last of the four Franchise Agreements that the County entered into between 1993 and 1996. It is also the last proposed to be amended in order to extend the term for nine years (ten years for the other franchises). In order to seek direction from the Board regarding whether or not to extend these solid waste and recycling collection franchise agreements again in future years, staff will return to the Board of Supervisors three years prior to their termination dates, which fall between 2023 and 2025. This three-year "tickler" should allow adequate time for staff to conduct a Request for Proposals process should the Board so direct, including soliciting and selecting a contractor as well as completing negotiations with the selected contractor. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Unless and until an Amendment or new Franchise Agreement was approved by both parties, as of January 1, 2017, the County would no longer have a Franchise Agreement in effect to regulate the waste and recycling collection services provided or associated rates charged to residential and commercial customers in Crockett, Port Costa or Tormey. ATTACHMENTS 2nd Amendment- Crockett Franchise Agreement December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 639 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 640 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 641 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and Authorize the County Administrator, or designee, to accept additional grant funds in the amount of $5,650 for a total grant amount not to exceed $35,650 from the State of California, California Arts Council, for the County to provide advocacy for the advancement of the arts in Contra Costa County for the term of October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: The grant requires a 1:1 County match of the awarded amount applied for, of which 50% can be in-kind contributions. The County applied for a $30,000 grant, but was awarded a grant of $35,650, which includes the Poetry Out Loud grant award amount of $2,450. The County's match is budgeted and does not require a 1:1 match of the grant amount in excess of the amount applied for. BACKGROUND: Established by the Board of Supervisors in December 1996 as an official County commission and the authorized County partner with the California Arts Council, the Arts and Culture Commission (AC5) first applied for and received funding from the State-Local Partnership Program in July 1995 for fiscal year 1995-1996. Since that time, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:State-Local Partnership Grant from the California Arts Council December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 642 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the Board of Supervisors has designated and reaffirmed the Arts and Culture Commission as the authorized partner of the State-Local Partnership Program of the California Arts Council. This designation allows the County to apply for and accept funding from the State to enhance art and culture programs in the county. The State-Local Partnership Program fosters community development through the arts at the county level via partnerships between the California Arts Council and a local arts agency. Partners benefit from funding, technical assistance and coordinated activities that support their efforts that enrich the lives of the members of their communities through the arts. On August 2, 2016, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to apply for and accept a grant in an amount not to exceed $30,000 from the State of California Arts Council. On November 4, 2016, the County was notified of the increased grant amount, which does not require a 1:1 match. Therefore, the County Administrator is requesting Board approval to accept the full grant award amount of $35,650, which includes the Poetry Out Loud grant. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not receive the additional grant funds awarded. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 643 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment & Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with First Baptist Church of Pittsburg, California, to increase the payment limit by $36,798 to a new limit of $2,089,154 for Head Start Delegate Agency childcare services, with no change to the term January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Federal funds / CFDA #93.600 Program is federally funded by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF). County will fund $2,089,154 from the ACF allocation; Contractor is responsible for the local, non-cash, in-kind match of $522,289. No pension costs. 33-499-45a APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Carolyn Nguyen, Christina Reich, Haydee Ilan, Cassandra Youngblood C. 85 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016 Head Start Delegate Agency Contract Amendment #1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 644 BACKGROUND: On June 5, 2012, the Board approved and authorized submission of the Head Start Re-competition grant application to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to continue the provision of Head Start services in Contra Costa County. The grant included the plan submitted by the County's Head Start Delegate Agency, First Baptist Church of Pittsburg, California. ACF awarded the County a five year operating grant, including County oversight of the Head Start Delegate Agency. The Board Order approved the 2016 Delegate Agency contract on December 15, 2015 (C.74). The Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) granted a 1.8% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Head Start program in 2016 to increase the salaries of Head Start staff. The Board approved receipt of funds on June 7, 2016 (C.37). As a Delegate Agency of Head Start, First Baptist will receive a proportionate increase of 1.8% or $36,798 to increase the salaries of its staff. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, contract will not be executed. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment & Human Services Department Community Services Bureau 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. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 645 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE The Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with 3M Cogent, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $7,883, including modified indemnification language, for services to move software, configurations and transactional data from end-of-life server hardware to new server hardware for the term of December 13, 2016 through February 17, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: No County Cost. $7,883.00 from CAL ID Funds. BACKGROUND: The California Identification System (Cal-ID) is the automated system maintained by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) for retaining fingerprint files and identifying latent fingerprints. Cal-ID monies are collected from the fees from each vehicle registered, two dollars for non-commercial vehicles and four dollars from commercial vehicles, and are used to fund programs that enhance the capacity of the state and local law enforcement to provide automated mobile, fixed Livescan fingerprint capture stations and Cogent Automated Biometric Identification System (CABIS), formerly known as Cogent Automated Fingerprint Identification System (CAFIS), that allow APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:3M Cogent Incorporated December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 646 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) identification of individuals involved in motor vehicle crimes. The California Department of Justice has established the Remote Access Network (RAN), which is a uniform statewide network of equipment and procedures allowing local law enforcement agencies direct access to the Cal-ID System. The Contra Costa County local RAN board determines the placement of RAN equipment within the County, and coordinates the acceptance, delivery, and installation of RAN equipment. Acting as the local RAN board, mobile fingerprint identification hardware has been distributed to local law enforcement agencies within the County pursuant to the criteria specified in the Penal Code. Under the proposed contract, replacement of the aging server hardware for the Workflow server will provide updated hardware in compliance with recommendations. Based on the County CIO’s office, server replacement is recommended at year five. The server was purchased in 2010 making the age of this server at six years. The Workflow Server is part of the CABIS and serves as the “traffic cop” of all transactions the enter the identification system. The transactions that flow through the server include Livescan fingerprints, Latent prints (from crime scenes) and the Mobile ID transactions from officers on the street. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Office of the Sheriff is not allowed to contract with 3M Cogent for the Workflow sever hardware replacement, all processes for identification will halt. The Livescan capture stations where officers capture the requisite fingerprint and arrest or booking data, required by the state and federal mandates, could not be processed. This would lead to the release of subjects from booking facilities because they have not been identified and may be wanted for a more serious offense under another name. In addition, the lack of ability to identify an arrested subject may detain an individual that is not the person sought in a warrant or an investigation. Unsolved crime scene prints will not be able to be searched and identified to solve cases with no know suspects. Mobile ID transactions from officers on the street will no longer function. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: N/A December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 647 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Agreement #72–070-2 with the County of Plumas, a government agency, to pay the County of Plumas (Host County), a participation fee, in an amount not to exceed $110,396, to participate in the Medi-Cal Administrative Activities (MAA) and Targeted Case Management (TCM) programs, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Agreement is funded 100% by County MAA/TCM funds. BACKGROUND: Medi-Cal Administrative Activities (MAA) is a program which allows local governing agencies (LGA), including Contra Costa County, to receive federal reimbursement for activities necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the Medi-Cal State plan. TCM allows LGAs to receive federal funds for providing services which assist a Medi-Cal individual in a defined target population to gain access to needed medical, social, educational, and other services. To APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord 925-313-6712 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 77 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #72-070-2 with the County of Plumas December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 648 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) participate in the MAA and TCM programs, each LGA must pay a participation fee. The participation fee is paid to the "host" (Plumas County). The "host" county administers the supporting funds for the state program that oversees the MAA/TCM programs and for the activities of the LGA consortium. The "host" county invoices each participating LGA on an annual basis. The participation fee is calculated yearly from base year, claiming amounts for county-based MAA/TCM for each participating LGA. On December 2, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Agreement #72-070 (as amended by #72-070-1), with the County of Plumas to provide MAA/TCM host county services, for the period from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016. Approval of Agreement #72-070-2 allows the County to continue participation in the MAA/TCM program through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, County will not be a participant in the LGA consortium, and will not receive the financial support needed to provide MAA/TCM services for County’s Medi-Cal clients. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 649 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Seneca Family of Agencies, a non-profit corporation, effective January 1, 2017, increasing the payment limit by $163,800 to a new payment limit of $800,546 for additional services to increase placement stability of children, for the period August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2017. (County 27%, State 54%, Federal 19%) FISCAL IMPACT: $800,546: $216,000 County (27%); $151,086 Federal (19%) (CFDA #93.658); $433,460 State (54%). BACKGROUND: Seneca Family of Agencies provides Wraparound Services, a community-based intervention program that provides children with service alternatives to group home care through expanded family-based services. Wraparound services are services that are wrapped around a child living with his or her birth parent, relative, adoptive parent, foster parent or guardian. These services build on the strengths of each child and family and are tailored to address their unique and changing needs. Funding also provides 24 hours, 7 days a week non-emergency advice and consultation APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, 925-313-1514 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 65 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with Seneca Family of Agencies December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 650 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) with foster parents and other caregivers by phone. Family Finding Services is provided, as defined in the Kevin Campbell Family Finding Model. This amendment provides facilitation for 15 Child and Family Team meetings per week for 30 weeks. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: At risk youth in restrictive group home service settings will have less opportunities to transition into family-based services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports four 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 Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and (4) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families." This will be accomplished by placing at risk youth into family-based or less restrictive service settings. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #26-692-12 with Applied Remedial Services, Inc., a corporation, effective July 1, 2016, to amend Contract #26-692-11, to increase the payment limit by $21,560, from $350,000 to a new payment limit of $371,560, with no change in the original term of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On January 5, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-692-11 with Applied Remedial Services, Inc., for the provision of removal and disposal of hazardous waste and chemicals for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. At the time of negotiations, the payment limit was based on target levels of utilization. However, the utilization during the term of the agreement was higher than originally anticipated. County did not receive invoice for July services until November, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 82 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-692-12 with Applied Remedial Services, Inc. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 652 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 2016, therefore Division is requesting the invoice be paid. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-692-12 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide services through December 31, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, Contractor will not be paid for services rendered in good faith. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 653 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #74-277-17 with Jackson & Coker LocumTenens, LLC, a limited liability company, effective December 1, 2016, to amend Contract #74-277-14, (as amended by Contract Amendment Agreement #74-277-15) to increase the payment limit by $70,000 from $974,400 to a new total of $1,044,400 with no change in the original term of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This Amendment is funded 100% Mental Health Realignment. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: For several years, the County has contracted with registries to provide temporary licensed personnel to assist during peak loads, temporary absences, and emergency situations. On January 5, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-277-14 (as amended by Contract Amendment Agreement #74-277-15) with Jackson & Coker LocumTenens, LLC, to provide temporary psychiatric services at the County’s APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 83 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-277-17 with Jackson & Coker LocumTenens, LLC December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 654 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Mental Health Outpatient Clinics, to cover vacations, sick and extended leaves and emergency situations, for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #74-277-17 will allow the Contractor to provide additional temporary psychiatric services, through December 31, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the County’s Mental Health Outpatients Clinics would not have appropriate psychiatric coverage during temporary staff absences therefore patients would go untreated. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 655 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Amendment/Extension Agreement #25–012–35 with The Center for Common Concerns, Inc. (dba HomeBase), a non-profit corporation, effective December 1, 2016, to amend Contract #25-012-33 (as amended by #25-012-34), to increase the payment limit by $346,546, from $305,509 to a new payment limit of $652,055 and extend the term from December 31, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 15% by Federal Medi-Cal Administrative Activities (MAA), 36% Behavioral Health Administration, and 49% by Medi-Cal Administrative Activities/Housing and Urban Development. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On December 8, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #25–012–33 (as amended by Amendment/Extension Agreement #25-012-34) with The Center for Common Concerns, Inc. (dba HomeBase), for the period from October 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016, for the provision of consultation and technical assistance to the Department with regard to the Continuum APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lavonna Martin, 925-313-7704 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 70 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment/Extension #25–012–35 with The Center for Common Concerns, Inc. (dba HomeBase) December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 656 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of Care planning and resource development, including grant-writing services for County’s McKinney-Vento application. Approval of Amendment/Extension Agreement #25–012–35 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide services through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Amendment/Extension is not approved, County will no longer have the expertise needed to meet all federal guidelines to secure maximum McKinney-Vento funding required to implement the 10-year plan to eliminate homelessness in Contra Costa County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 657 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Smith, Watts & Company, LLC (dba Smith, Watts & Hartmann), in an amount not to exceed $165,000, to provide legislative advocacy and monitoring services, for the period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Local Road Funds. BACKGROUND: Smith,Watts & Company is the County's current legislative advocate in Sacramento for transportation and related matters. Mark Watts has developed a solid working relationship with the Public Works Department and the Department of Conservation and Development. Smith, Watts & Company has provided these services on retainer to the County since 2005. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that Smith, Watts & Company continue to be retained for legislative monitoring and advocacy for the 2017-2019 calendar years. The firm's services to the County include, but are not limited to, the following: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Steve Kowalewski, (925) 313-2225 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE a contract with Smith, Watts & Company, LLC, for legislative advocacy and monitoring services, Countywide December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 658 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) * Assisting the County in developing and implementing an effective state advocacy strategy and annual legislative program to influence state laws and policies as they relate to roads and transportation. * Research, monitor, and provide information to the County on such matters as state bills and laws, congressional hearings, reports and testimony, funding opportunities and availability, state regulations, guidelines, directives and other administrative policies, and technical memoranda and reports impacting County operations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Public Works will not have legislative monitoring and advocacy in Sacramento for the 2017-2019 calendar years and will be left at a great disadvantage in the areas of growth management, infrastructure finance, transportation finance, planning and zoning (including transportation planning), public works contracting, community development, energy restructuring and associated administrative issues in relation to the State legislative, state executive and regulatory agencies. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 659 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment & Human Services Director, a purchase order with Kaplan Early Learning Company (#38509), in an amount not to exceed $1,800,000 to procure childcare center equipment and supplies, for the period July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: Preferred pricing agreement #C-1146 which includes $100 minimum order for agreement discount and free standard shipping. Orders will be placed by e-mail, phone, fax, US mail or in person using the above purchase order as needed. 40% State ($720,000) California Department of Education 60% Federal ($1,080,000) Department of Health and Human Services / Administration for Children and Families CFDA # 93.600 BACKGROUND: The Department utilizes this company to furnish supplies for the 15 childcare centers operated by the Department. Supplies include school supplies, classroom equipment, pre-school furniture and related items. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6389 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Eric Pormento, Nasim Eghlima, Cassandra Youngblood C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Blanket Purchase Order with Kaplan Early Learning Company December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 660 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not be able to make necessary purchases to operate the childcare centers. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment & Human Services Department Community Services Bureau 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 Kaplan Purchase Order December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 661 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 662 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchase Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order in the amount of $9,000, for $20 Target gift cards to be used as an incentive for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) Members to participate in activities to improve their health, for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds come from CCHP premiums and are expected to result in lowering costs by encouraging improved health status. BACKGROUND: Since 2000, the Board of Supervisors has approved utilization of small incentives for CCHP members. The California Department of Health Care Services recommends incentives to promote healthy behavior and the proposal and program were created following their guidelines. Incentives are tied to the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), which is used to determine how many “default” Medi-Cal members are assigned to CCHP, and subsequently increases the capitation CCHP is APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary, 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Kevin Drury C. 69 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:CCHP Member Incentives to Promote Better Health Behaviors December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 663 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) paid by the State. Ultimately, the higher the HEDIS rate the higher the default rate and capitation becomes, so the investment in incentives is expected to pay off monetarily. Our default rate recently decreased, and we would like to be able to bring it back up. W&I Code, Section 14407.1 and Title 28, CCR, Section 1300.46 authorize the use of non-monetary incentives to promote good health practices provided they are pre-approved by the Department of Health Care Services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this item is not approved, CCHP and its Disease Management Program and Health Outreach efforts will lose an important tool for influencing member behavior, and the population’s health may suffer as a consequence. Additionally, lack of member incentives may lead to a further loss in the allocation of new Medi-Cal members to CCHP. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Some of the incentives are specifically aimed at children’s care and at getting them off to a better, healthier start in life. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 664 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Information Technology, a purchase order with Integrated Archive Systems in the amount of $108,072 for the renewal of Cisco Smartnet hardware and software maintenance of Cisco switches and network infrastructure hardware, for the period October 5, 2016 through November 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% User Fees, the entire cost is charged to the receiving departments through DoIT's billing process. BACKGROUND: DOIT deploys Cisco computer network products throughout the county wide area network. These products provide reliable high-speed networks connecting all of our County departments to the central computer applications, email, and internet access. The requested purchase order will renew the Cisco annual maintenance services, which are essential for ongoing performance and reliability of the countywide area network by providing product software patches/updates and replacement of defective components. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ed Woo (925) 383-2688 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:Ed Woo, Chief Information Officer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Cisco Smartnet Hardware and Software Maintenance Renewal December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 665 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Cisco Smartment helps reduce risk and downtime while increasing operational efficiency and security of the county wide area network. Failure to renew this purchase order would put the County’s communications and technical infrastructure at risk. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 666 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #26-350-17 with Merritt, Hawkins and Associates, LLC, a Corporation, effective December 1, 2016, to amend Contract #26-350-16, to provide additional recruitment services and increase the original Payment Limit by $100,000 from $300,000 to a new total Payment Limit of $400,000, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding is 100% Hospital Enterprise I Funds. BACKGROUND: On June 14, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-350-16, Merritt, Hawkins and Associates, LLC, to provide recruitment services including, but not limited to marketing, screening, interviewing and referring physician candidates, whom County may hire for Contra Costa Regional Medical and Contra Costa Health Centers, through June 30, 2017. Approval of Amendment Agreement #26-350-17 will allow the Contractor to provide additional recruitment services for a Contra Costa Health Plan Medical Director and a Behavioral Health Medical Director, through June 30, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, MD, 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 75 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment Agreement #26-350-17 with Merritt, Hawkins and Associates, LLC December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 667 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the Department may not be able to fill the vacant Medical Director positions. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 668 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Cardno, Inc., to extend the term of Contract #47772 from December 31, 2016 through December 31, 2018, with no change in the payment limit of $434,521, to provide continued service for the completion of the environmental impact report (EIR) for the Shell Martinez Refinery's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Project (County File #LP14-2006). FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact to the General Fund. All application, environmental review, and project processing costs and fees are to be paid by the project applicant. BACKGROUND: The Department of Conservation and Development (Department) received an application from Shell Oil Products U.S. (Shell) for a Land Use Permit for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Project (County File #LP14-2006) at its Martinez refinery, which will require physical and operational changes to several of the refinery's hydrocarbon processing units. The Department of Conservation and Development determined that this project required the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The County solicited qualified independent contractors to prepare the EIR for the project, and Contract #47772 was awarded to Cardno, Inc. This contract is due to expire on December 31, 2016. The Department of Conservation and Development has halted work on the EIR at the request of Shell, but in anticipation of work on the EIR restarting in early 2017, the Department is recommending a change in contract term to allow sufficient time to complete the work. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gary Kupp (925) 674-7799 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment to Extend the Contract Term with Cardno, Inc., for the Preparation of an EIR for the Shell Greenhouse Gas Reduction Project December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 669 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the contract amendment is not approved, the contractor will be unable to complete the environmental review for the pending application. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. This Board Order is to extend the term of a consultant's contract to prepare an environmental impact report and will not affect children’s programs in the County. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 670 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Conservation and Development, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with ImagingTek, Inc., to extend the term from January 31, 2017 through January 31, 2018 with no change to the payment limit of $412,000, to allow the Contractor to continue to provide document imaging services. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the County General Fund. The contract is funded by 100% Land Development Fees. BACKGROUND: In January of 2014, the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) entered into a contract with ImagingTek, Inc., to provide technical assistance and services to DCD related to the conversion of DCD documents and files into the Laserfiche electronic format. The conversion will help DCD access all permits via electronic format, thereby reducing DCD storage needs as well as costs associated with it. DCD still has data that requires conversion; this amendment will allow the Contractor to continue to provide the services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the proposed contract amendment is not approved, ImagingTek, Inc., would not be able to continue to provide the services, which may result in DCD staff not having the ability to access permits via electronic format. This would result in the necessity of DCD having to store data at storage facilities and pay for renting the facilities. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Victoria Mejia 925-674-7726 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 84 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract amendment with ImagingTek, Inc., for “Document Imaging Services” December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 671 ATTACHMENTS December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 672 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 $63,000 to a new payment limit of $324,000, for consulting services in the Juvenile Hall with no change to the termination date of June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: The increased fiscal impact of $63,000 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: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:Todd Billeci, County Probation Officer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment with University of Cincinnati Research Institute (UCRI) December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 673 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." December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 674 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Montague DeRose & Associates, LLC, to extend the term from June 30, 2016 through June 30, 2018, with no change to the original payment limit of $350,000, for Independent Registered Municipal Financial Advisor services. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of financial advisory services is covered in the cost of issuance included in each bond issue. Fees are negotiated for each borrowing transaction based upon the size and complexity of the transaction. Other special bond related projects are billed on an hourly basis and charged to occupants of the property for which the bond was issued. Non-issuance and Special Project services are billed hourly and will be funded by General Fund debt management monies. BACKGROUND: On October 21, 2014 the Board of Supervisors approved a contract with Montague DeRose & Associates, LLC, to provide Independent Registered Municipal Financial Advisor (IRMA) services, with a two year renewal option. County Administration staff recommends extending the contract term from June 30, 2016 to December 31, 2018, with no change to the original payment limit, to allow for the continued provision of IRMA services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County would not have the necessary expertise of an Independent Registered Municipal Financial Advisor. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Timothy Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator C. 78 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Extension with Montague DeRose & Associates, LLC December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 675 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Defender, or designee, to execute a contract with The Justice Management Institute in an amount not to exceed $116,886 to design, implement and monitor the Misdemeanor Early Representation Program (MERP) for the period December 14, 2016 through October 1, 2018 in the Public Defender's Office. FISCAL IMPACT: Total cost of this contract is $116,886: FY 2016-17 = $68,409 FY 2017-18 = $48,477 Expenditures for this contract are fully grant reimbursed (2016-AJ-AX-0001/ BJA FY15 Smart Defense Initiative). There is no increase to Net County Cost. BACKGROUND: The Smart Defense Initiative grant from the federal Bureau of Justice APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Richard Loomis, (925) 335-8093 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Payable (The Justice Management Institute) December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 676 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Assistance will fund the West County Misdemeanor Early Representation Program (MERP), which is designed to provide immediate representation for persons cited for misdemeanor offenses, so as to reduce incarceration and collateral consequences stemming from failures to appear (FTA's) for indigent clients in Richmond, California. The grant provides sufficient funding for additional staffing (1.5-FTE) for two (2) years, along with funding for a subgrantee partner (The Justice Management Institute) to assist with program design, implementation and tracking of multiple data points to evaluate program performance. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If approval is not authorized to execute this contractt the Pubic Defender will not have access to the resources needed design and implement a Misdemeanor Early Representation Program to reduce the high rate of failures to appear (FTA's) by indigent defendants at the Richmond Court. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 677 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with STAND! For Families Free of Violence, in an amount not to exceed $101,955, to provide services for the Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Project, for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. (100% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $101,955: 100% Federal Department of Justice grant (CFDA 16.590), no County cost. BACKGROUND: The Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative (ZTDVI) received funds from the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Project. The ZTDVI is engaging the Contractor to assist in carrying out activities consistent with the funding application. The primary purpose of the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence, Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Project is to develop and strengthen effective responses to reducing violence against women. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, 925-313-1514 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 58 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with STAND! For Families Free of Violence December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 678 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Valuable services to assist in the prevention of violence against women will not be offered to citizens of Contra Costa County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 679 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute Contract #23-604 with Unify Inc., a Delaware corporation, in an amount not to exceed $375,000 for hardware, software implementation and support services for vendor’s Openscape HiPath 4000 phone system for Contra Costa County Regional Medical Center for, for the period from December 20, 2016 through December 19, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department has been using the aging and current phone system to support the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center for several years. This product will replace the outdated technology and hardware with the new Openscape HiPath 400 software and hardware. Approval of Contract #23–604 will allow the Contractor to continue providing services through December 19, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Runt, 925-335-8700 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 80 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23–604 with Unify Inc. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 680 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #25–046–17 with Shelter, Inc. of Contra Costa County, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $252,528, to provide support services for County residents in the Supportive Housing Program, for the period from December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Federal McKinney-Vento Homeless funds. (No Rate Increase) BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing support services to County residents that are homeless and have a diagnosis of mental illness or a dual-diagnosis of mental illness and substance abuse. On February 9, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #25-046-16 with Shelter, Inc., of Contra Costa County, for the provision of support services for County residents in the Supportive Housing Program, for the period from December 1, 2015 through November 30, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: E SUISALA, M Wilhelm C. 74 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #25-046-17 with Shelter, Inc. of Contra Costa County December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 681 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 2016. Approval of Contract #25-046-17, will allow the Contractor to continue to provide support services to County residents that are homeless and have a diagnosis of mental illness or dual-diagnosis of mental illness and substance abuse, through November 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s residents who are homeless with a disability and are receiving services in the Support Housing Program will not receive services from this contractor. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 682 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Contract #26-606-12 with Sodexo America, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $375,000, to provide management and oversight of the Food and Nutrition Services Unit at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from November 1, 2016 through October 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On December 8, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-606-10 with Sodexo America, LLC, for the provision of management and oversight of the Food and Nutrition Services Unit at CCRMC, for the period from November 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #26-606-12 will allow the Contractor to continue providing services through October 31, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 71 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-606-12 with Sodexo America, LLC December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 683 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center would be operating without management oversight in the Food and Nutritional Services Unit and be out of compliance with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requirements. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 684 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-700-10 with Jaison James, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $880,000, to provide orthopedic services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On February 2, 2016 the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-700-9 with Jaison James, M.D., for the provision of orthopedic services at CCRMC, including, but not limited to: training, on-call coverage and medical/surgical procedures, for the period from February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017. Approval of Contract #26-700-10 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide orthopedic services at CCRMC through January 31, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Contract is not approved, patients requiring orthopedic services at CCRMC will not have access to Contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-700-10 with Jaison James, M.D. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 685 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 686 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Contract #26-788-4 with Peyman Keyashian, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $505,000, to provide anesthesiology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers (CCRMC) for the period from February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On February 9, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-788-3, for the provision of anesthesiology services at CCRMC, including but not limited to, consultation, training, medical procedures, and on-call coverage for the General and Obstetric Units, for the period from February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017. Approval of Contract #26-788-4 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide anesthesiology services at CCRMC through January 31, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring anesthesiology services at CCRMC will not have access to Contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 59 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-788-4 with Peyman Keyashian, M.D. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 687 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 688 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-704-5 with Diablo Dialysis Access Center, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $750,000, to provide dialysis access services for the period from December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On January 6, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-704-4 with Diablo Dialysis Access Center, A California Professional Medical Corporation, for the provision of dialysis access services, for the period from December 1, 2014 through November 30, 2016. Approval of Contract #27-704-5 will allow Contractor to continue providing dialysis access services through November 30, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized professional health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: A Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-704-5 with Diablo Dialysis Access Center, Inc. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 689 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 690 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-827-3 with Thomas A. Mampalam, M.D. (DBA Thomas A. Mampalam, M.D, APC), in an amount not to exceed $150,000, to provide neurosurgery services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On January 20, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-827-2 with Thomas A. Mampalam, M.D., A Professional Corporation for the provision of neurosurgery services for Contra Costa Health Plan members, for the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #27-827-3 will allow Contractor to continue providing neurosurgery services through December 31, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: A Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 64 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-827-3 with Thomas J. Mampalam, M.D. (DBA, Thomas J. Mampalam, M.D., December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 691 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized professional health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 692 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-964-1 with Valerie J. Keim, MFT, an individual, in an amount not to exceed $150,000, to provide outpatient psychotherapy services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. BACKGROUND: In April 2015, the County Administrator approved, and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #27-964 with Valerie J. Keim, MFT, for the provision of outpatient psychotherapy for Contra Costa Health Plan members, for the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #27-964-1 will allow Valerie J. Keim, MFT, to continue providing outpatient psychotherapy services through December 31, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the Contra Costa Health Plan Management Team will not receive the benefits of consultation and technical assistance from this contractor. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 63 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-964-1 with Valerie J. Keim, MFT December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 693 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 694 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #76-506-11 with Robert Liebig, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $1,966,000, to provide radiology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers (CCRMC) for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On December 10, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-506-9 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #76-506-10) with Robert Liebig, M.D., for the provision of radiology services including, but not limited to: consultation, on-call coverage and interpretation of CT Scans, MRIs, ultrasounds, invasive procedures and plain films at CCRMC, for the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #76-506-11 will allow Contractor to continue providing radiology services at CCRMC through December 31, 2019. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 60 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-506-11 with Robert Liebig, M.D. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 695 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s clients will not have access to Contractor’s radiology services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 696 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #76-553 with The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco, a California Constitutional Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $50,000, to provide pediatric cardiology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers (CCRMC) for the period from December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: Under Contract #76-553, the Contractor will provide pediatric cardiology services, including, but not limited to: fetal echocardiograms and electrocardiograms for the Pediatrics Unit at CCRMC through November 30, 2017. This contract includes mutual indemnification. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Contractor will not provide pediatric cardiology services at CCRMC. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 68 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-553 with The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 697 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #77-049 with LTP Care Continuum, Corp., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $150,000, to provide skilled nursing services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members, for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. BACKGROUND: The Health Plan has an obligation to provide certain specialized health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. Under Contract #77-049, the Contractor will provide skilled nursing services to CCHP members through December 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized health care services for Contra Costa Health Plan members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided by this contractor. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary, 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 62 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-049 with LTP Care Continuum, Corp. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 698 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve clarification of Board action of November 15, 2016, Agenda Item (C.57), which approved termination of Contract #27-865-2 effective October 31, 2016, to change the termination date to the close of business on December 31, 2016 instead of October 31, 2016, with no change in the payment limit of $350,000. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. BACKGROUND: On December 8, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-865-2 for the provision of general surgery services for Contra Costa Health Plan members, for the period from February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2018. On November 15, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Acknowledgement of Termination of Contract #27-865-2 with Walnut Creek Surgical Associates, Inc. effective at the close of business on October 31, 2016. The purpose of this Board Order is to change the contract termination date from October 31, 2016 to December 31, 2016, based on a subsequent request received from the Contractor. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary, 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: A Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 61 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Correct Board Order C.57 with Walnut Creek Surgical Associates, Inc. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 699 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this correction is not approved, the Contract will not be recognized by the Board of Supervisors as being in force during the last three (3) months of 2016. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 700 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Novation Contract #24–213–53 with Desarrollo Familiar, Inc., (dba Familias Unidas), a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $268,124, to provide mental health services 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 $134,062. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 18% Federal Medi-Cal; 39% Substance Abuse/Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Grant; 43% by Mental Health Realignment. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing information and referrals, consultation and education, and outpatient mental health services for Spanish-speaking, mentally ill clients in West Contra Costa County at Familias Unidas Counseling Center. On January 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24–213–52 with Desarrollo Familiar, Inc., for the provision of mental health services in West County for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: E Suisala C. 73 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #24-213-53 with Desarollo Familiar, Inc., (dba Familias Unidas) December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 701 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Novation Contract #24–213–53 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, a significant number of County’s mentally ill, Spanish-speaking adult clients in West County will experience reduced access to the information, referrals, consultation, education, and outpatient mental health services that they need. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 702 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Novation Contract #24-958-24, with Rubicon Programs Incorporated, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $140,000, to provide mental health services for CalWORKs clients, 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 $70,000. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% CalWORKs funds. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On January 19, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #24-958-23, with Rubicon Programs Incorporated, for the provision of mental health services to recipients of the CalWORKs Program and their children, including individual, group and family collateral counseling, case management, and medication management APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 72 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #24-958-24 with Rubicon Programs Incorporated December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 703 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) services to reduce barriers to employment, for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2016, Approval of Novation Contract #24-958-24 will replace the automatic extension under prior contract and allow the Contractor to continue to provide mental health services to CalWORKs recipients through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, CalWORKs recipients will not have sufficient access to the mental health services they need. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 704 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Novation Contract #74–331-8 with Helios Healthcare, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $473,840, to provide sub-acute skilled nursing care services for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Mental Health Realignment. (Rate Increase) BACKGROUND: On November 17, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-331-7 with Helios Healthcare, LLC, for the provision of sub-acute skilled nursing care services 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 #74-331-8, replaces the automatic extension under the prior Contract and allows the Contractor to continue providing services APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 79 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74–331-8 with Helios Healthcare, LLC December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 705 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) through June 30, 2017, including mutual indemnification to hold harmless both parties for any claims arising out of the performance of this Contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, there will be fewer sub-acute skilled nursing care services available for County’s seriously mentally ill and neurobehavioral clients. 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). December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 706 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order with OmniPro, in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for laptops and desktop computers and related equipment for the Whole Person Care Pilot Program. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% of total costs will be paid by the Whole Person Care Pilot Program grant. $20 million in annual funding for this program was authorized and approved by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) in October 2016. BACKGROUND: The Whole Person Care Pilot Program is run by the Public Health Department and will include the hiring of roughly 150 new employees. Staff will be providing care coordination services to patients throughout Contra Costa County. The Public Health Department is working to secure a new worksite for this program and will need to purchase laptops and office computers for all new staff. This Board Order will allow for the purchase of around 150 computers and laptops, with associated equipment that will be utilized by the staff for the Whole Person Care Program. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 925-313-6712 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Rachael Birch, Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 67 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:OmniPro Purchase Order December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 707 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If Purchase Order not approved, the Program risks not meeting the deliverables mandated by the State in order to receive continued funding. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 708 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract with Kronos Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $209,892, for the purchase of a subscription to the Kronos Workforce scheduling and timekeeper software for Probation staff shift scheduling and time keeping for the period of December 20, 2016 through December 19, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: $209,892, 100% General Fund. BACKGROUND: Probation is requesting the subscription to the Kronos Workforce Telestaff and Timekeeper software as a service for Juvenile Hall (JH) and the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF) to improve scheduling efficiency. Each of the facilities is staffed by peace officers, clerical, and support staff. The peace officers and support staff are called in to the facilities in the event that someone is not able to report to work. Currently the scheduling and covering of shifts for JH and the OAYRF is accomplished manually by Institutional Supervisors using a system of clipboards and handwritten notes. The Telestaff software will be configured to call staff when APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:Todd Billeci, County Probation Officer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Probation Contract with Kronos Incorporated December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 709 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) open shifts are available, improving efficiency and overtime utilization. Purchase of the Telestaff and Timekeeper systems to effectively handle the scheduling of shifts and filling of vacancies will free management staff to handle more critical issues in the institutions. The Timekeeper software can generate a report for payroll that will also improve accuracy in determining regular and overtime pay compared to the current handwritten reports. Probation will have approximately 250 licensed users. The software and services are being purchased through the U.S. Communities Government Purchasing Alliance that the County participates in. The County is agreeing to the terms and conditions contained in the contract between Kronos and Harford County Public Schools, Maryland (Lead Agency Contract #14-JLR-003). Contracting through the U.S. Communities alliance allows Probation to save over $4,600 a year. The software is hosted by Kronos, which means the software and timekeeping data are stored on Kronos’ servers or its third-party hosts’ servers. The contract provides that data will be backed up daily and adheres to industry standards (SSAE 16, SOC 1, and SOC 2) with respect to data security. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Institutional Supervisor II’s will have less time to spend on more critical issues such as the implementation of Probations Core Correctional Practices. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: N/A December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 710 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order and Fourth Amendment to License Agreement with First Databank Inc., in an amount not to exceed $375,000, for the renewal of MedKnowledge software licenses and support for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: Since 2011 Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) has utilized the First Databank Inc., drug ordering knowledge database (MedKnowledge) and software for physicians to quickly look up and order drugs for patients. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved, CCHS physicians can risk patient lives by prescribing incorrect medication that may do more harm than good. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Runt, 925-335-8700 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, M Wilhelm, Renee Nunez C. 76 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order for First Databank, Inc. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 711 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator or designee to execute a contract with Encore Clinical Consultation, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $250,000 to provide specialized administrative and consulting services with regard to medical and mental health programs in the County's detention system, for the period January 1 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% County General Fund, budgeted - County Administrator. BACKGROUND: Mentally ill people constitute a significant proportion of jails’ populations. Jails face multiple fiscal demands and other complex problems related to their care. Jails require the support of, and partnerships with, mental health agencies to provide the services, training and trained personnel essential to best handle the mentally ill who are in jails. Collaboration between mental health agencies and jails not only supports the appropriate treatment of mentally ill people in custody, it also helps remove those who do not belong in jail, facilitates transition for those being released from jail and reduces relapse and recidivism of those who are released. This contract will provide professional consultation and technical assistance to the County Administrator regarding medical and mental health services provided within the County's jail facilities. The County Administrator may terminate this contract upon three days' notice to the Contractor, or canceled immediately by written mutual consent. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 81 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:SPECIALIZED SERVICES CONTRACT WITH ENCORE CLINICAL CONSULTATION, INC. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 712 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the County Administrator will not secure the specialized professional services needed to improve medical and mental health services provided within the County's jail facilities, and the County, jail staff and jail population may be negatively impacted. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 713 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE the 2016 Annual Report submitted by the Finance Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On June 18, 2002, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2002/377, which requires that each regular and ongoing board, commission, or committee shall annually report to the Board of Supervisors on its activities, accomplishments, membership attendance, required training/certification (if any), and proposed work plan or objectives for the following year. This report fulfills this requirement for the Finance Committee. All Finance Committee reports from 2009 onward and attachments can be found on the County website at http://ca-contracostacounty.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=2286. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: Timothy Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator C. 87 To:Board of Supervisors From:FINANCE COMMITTEE Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 714 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > In 2016, the Finance Committee received reports and/or made recommendations to the Board of Supervisors concerning issues related to: Regular Capital Facility Updates and Specific Building Projects; Special Revenues Administered by the Board of Supervisors Review of the County Budget Policy; Funding shortfall in the Wildcat/San Pablo Creeks Levee Remediation project in North Richmond; Rodeo Hercules Fire Protection District's request for a portion of the County's allocation of Proposition 172 sales tax revenue; Department of Conservation and Development's recommendations regarding a request for additional Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for Infrastructure/Public Facility Projects and amendment to the FY 2016/17 Action Plan; Increasing the Capital Renewal Rate for Facility Maintenance and Replacement for Fiscal Year 2017/18; Funding shortfall in County Service Area M-28; and Single Audit for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2015 At year end, the Finance Committee had pending referrals on: Continuing to develop strategic priorities to guide the budget development process including defining core services; Continuing to evaluate funding priorities for FLIP; and Continuing to implement and evaluate the Real Estate Asset Management Plan (RAMP). December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 715 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Board of Supervisors referred (11) eleven issues to the Public Protection Committee (PPC) for its review and consideration during 2016. 2. FIND that the 2016 PPC convened nine (9) meetings, worked through and provided an opportunity for public input on a number of significant Countywide issues. 3. RECOGNIZE the excellent work of the County department staff who provided the requisite information to the PPC in a timely and professional manner, and members of the Contra Costa community and other public agencies who, through their interest in improving the quality of life in Contra Costa County, provided valuable insight into our discussions, and feedback that helped us to formulate our policy recommendations. 4. ACCEPT year-end productivity report and APPROVE recommended disposition of PPC referrals described at the end of this report. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. This is an informational report only. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 93 To:Board of Supervisors From:PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016 YEAR-END REPORT ON ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND DISPOSITION OF REMAINING REFERRALS TO THE PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 716 BACKGROUND: The Public Protection Committee (PPC) was established on January 8, 2008 to study criminal justice and public protection issues and formulate recommendations for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. At the December 12, 2016 meeting, the Committee discussed all issues currently on referral and has made the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for the 2017 PPC work-plan: 1. Opportunities to Improve Coordination of Response to Disasters and Other Public Emergencies. Approximately three weeks following the November 2007 Cosco Busan oil spill, the Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) presented to the Board of Supervisors its assessment of the emergency response efforts, including what worked well and didn’t work well, and what lessons were learned through those experiences. At the conclusion of the Board discussion, Supervisor Gioia introduced five recommendations that were approved by the Board. On February 5, 2008 the Board of Supervisors referred this matter to the PPC for continuing development and oversight. PPC received a status report from the Office of the Sheriff and Health Services Department in February 2009 and requested the Hazardous Materials Program Manager to report back to the PPC on the development of mutual aid agreements from local oil refineries. Following a second briefing to the PPC by the Office of the Sheriff, the PPC reported out to the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 2009 with recommendations for follow-up by the Sheriff and Human Resources departments. The Health Services Department made a report to the PPC on April 19, 2010 regarding the resources and connections available to respond to hazardous materials emergencies and, again, on October 18, 2010 regarding who determines which local official participates in incident command if an event is in Contra Costa County. On December 5, 2011, Health Services reported to our Committee regarding training and deployment of community volunteers. In January 2008, the Board of Supervisors referred to the PPC the matter of improving public response to emergency instructions and protocols through broader and better education, which had previously been on referral to the IOC. The Board suggested that the PPC work with the Office of the Sheriff, the Health Services Department, and the CAER (Community Awareness & Emergency Response) Program to determine what educational efforts are being made and what additional efforts may be undertaken to improve public response and safety during an emergency. In April 2011, the PPC met with CAER (Community Awareness Emergency Response) Executive Director Tony Semenza and staff from the Office of the Sheriff and Health Services to discuss what has been done to better inform the public and what more can be done to improve public response to emergency warnings. CAER provided a thorough report on its countywide community fairs, and programs targeted at the education system and non-English speaking populations. The PPC asked CAER to provide a written outreach strategy that describes how new homeowners are educated about emergency awareness. The Sheriff's Office of Emergency Services provided an update to the Committee at the April 13, 2015 meeting. In addition, the draft update of the Countywide Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) was reviewed and forwarded to the BOS for review and approval in 2015. Since there will be oppurtunities for the review of future updates to the EOP, we recommend that this issue remain on referral to the Committee. Recommendation: REFER to the 2017 PPC 2. Welfare Fraud Investigation and Prosecution. In September 2006, the Employment and Human Services (EHS) Department updated the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) on its efforts to improve internal security and loss prevention activities. The IOC had requested the department to report back in nine months on any tools and procedures that have been developed and implemented to detect changes in income eligibility for welfare benefits. The EHS Director made follow-up reports to IOC in May and October 2007, describing what policies, procedures, and practices are employed by the Department to ensure that public benefits are provided only to those who continue to meet income eligibility requirements, explaining the complaint and follow-through process, and providing statistical data for 2005/06, 2006/07, and for the first quarter of 2007/08. Upon creation of the PPC in January 2008, this matter was reassigned from the IOC to the PPC. PPC has received status reports on this referral in October 2008, June and October 2010, November 2011, November 2012 and, most recently, in December 2013. The Committee has reviewed the transition of welfare fraud collections from the former December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 717 Office of Revenue Collection to the Employment and Human Services Department; the fraud caseload and percentage of fraud findings; fraud prosecutions and the number of convictions; and the amounts recovered. The Committee received it's annual report on this subject from the District Attorney and Employment and Human Services Director on September 26, 2016. The Committee wishes to continue monitoring the performance of the welfare fraud program annually. It is recommended that this matter be retained on referral. Recommendation: REFER to the 2017 PPC 3. Multi-Language Capability of the Telephone Emergency Notification System. This matter had been on referral to the IOC since 2000 and was reassigned to the PPC in January 2008. The PPC met with Sheriff and Health Services Department staff in March 2008 to receive an update on the County’s efforts to implement multilingual emergency telephone messaging. The Committee learned that the Federal Communications Commission has before it two rulemaking proceedings that may directly affect practices and technology for multilingual alerting and public notification. Additionally, the federally-funded Bay Area “Super Urban Area Safety Initiative” (SUASI) has selected a contractor undertake an assessment and develop a five-year strategic plan on notification of public emergencies, with an emphasis on special needs populations. The Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services reported to the PPC in April 2009 that little has changed since the March 2008 report. On October 18, 2010, the PPC received a report from the Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services on the Community Warning and Telephone Emergency Notification systems, and on developments at the federal level that impact those systems and related technology. Sheriff staff concluded that multi-lingual public emergency messaging is too complex to be implemented at the local level and should be initiated at the state and federal levels. New federal protocols are now being established to provide the framework within which the technological industries and local agencies can work to develop these capabilities. In 2011, the Office of the Sheriff has advised staff that a recent conference on emergency notification systems unveiled nothing extraordinary in terms of language translation. The SUASI project had just commenced and Sheriff staff have been on the contact list for a workgroup that will be developing a gap analysis, needs assessment, and five-year strategic plan. This matter has been on committee referral for more than ten years and technology has yet to provide a feasible solution for multilingual public emergency messaging. On September 18, 2012, following the Richmond Chevron refinery fire, the Board of Supervisors established an ad hoc committee to discuss the Community Warning System and Industrial Safety Ordinance. Since that committee is ad hoc in nature, we recommend that this issue remain on referral to the PPC. The PPC received two updates on this issue in CY 2015; one on April 13, 2015 and one on November 9, 2015. Following the November 2015 discussion, the Committee requested the Sheriff's Office to return in six months for an update. On May 23, 2016, the Committee received an update from the Sheriff's Office on the status of the TEN system and directed staff to provide a summary of the CWS/Emergency services protocols for future review of the Committee and prepare a handout in both English and Spanish that summarizes emergency services protocols. The Committee continues to have interest in monitoring the implementation of a multi-lingual telephone ring down system for emergencies. For this reason, this issue should remain on referral to the Committee in 2017. Recommendation: REFER to the 2017 PPC 4. County support and coordination of non-profit organization resources to provide prisoner re-entry services, implementation of AB 109 Public Safety Realignment, and appointment recommendations to the Community Corrections Partnership . On August 25, 2009, the Board of Supervisors referred to the PPC a presentation by the Urban Strategies Council on how the County might support and coordinate County and local non-profit organization resources to create a network of re-entry services for individuals who are leaving jail or prison and are re-integrating in local communities. On September 14, 2009, the PPC invited the Sheriff-Coroner, County Probation Officer, December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 718 District Attorney, Public Defender, Health Services Director, and Employment and Human Services Director to hear a presentation by the Urban Strategies Council. The PPC encouraged County departments to participate convene a task force to work develop a network for prisoner re-entry services, which has been meeting independently from the PPC. The PPC received a status report from County departments in April 2010. The Employment and Human Services department reported on its efforts to weave together a network of services, utilizing ARRA funding for the New Start Program and on the role of One-Stop Centers in finding jobs for state parolees. Probation reported on the impacts of the anticipated flood of state parolees into the county. The Sheriff reported on the costs for expanding local jail capacity and possible expanded use of GPS (global positioning systems) use in monitoring state parolees released back to our county. The Health Services Department reported on its Healthcare for the Homeless Program as a means to get parolees into the healthcare system and on its development of cross-divisional teams on anti-violence. Supervisors Glover and Gioia indicated that their staff would continue to coordinate this local initiative when the Urban Strategies Council exhausts its grant funding from the California Endowment. The PPC continued to monitor progress on the initiative and, on February 7, 2011, received a presentation of the completed strategic plan and recommendations. In response to public testimony at the PPC meeting regarding concerns over the "Ban the Box" element of the plan, the plan recommendations were modified to exclude from the "Ban the Box" requirement certain identified sensitive positions in public safety and children’s services or as determined by the agency. On March 22, 2011, representatives from the Urban Strategies Council presented the completed Contra Costa County Re-entry Strategic Plan (100 pages), an Executive Summary (6 pages) of the plan, and a slide show to the Board of Supervisors, which approved the strategic plan and implementation recommendations with one modification: rather than adopt a 'Ban the Box' policy as recommended, which would have removed the question about criminal records from county employment applications during the initial application, the Board agreed to consider adopting such a policy at a future date. The Board directed the County Administrator to work with the offices of Supervisors Glover and Gioia to identify the resources needed to implement the strategic plan and to report back to the Board with his findings and recommendations. Later in 2011, the California Legislature passed the Public Safety Realignment Act (Assembly Bills 109), which transfers responsibility for supervising specific low-level inmates and parolees from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to counties. Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109) takes effect October 1, 2011 and realigns three major areas of the criminal justice system. On a prospective basis, the legislation: • Transfers the location of incarceration for lower-level offenders (specified non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders) from state prison to local county jail and provides for an expanded role for post-release supervision for these offenders; • Transfers responsibility for post-release supervision of lower-level offenders (those released from prison after having served a sentence for a non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offense) from the state to the county level by creating a new category of supervision called Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS); • Transfers the housing responsibility for parole and PRCS revocations to local jail custody AB 109 also tasked the local Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) with recommending to the County Board of Supervisors a plan for implementing the criminal justice realignment, which shall be deemed accepted by the Board unless rejected by a 4/5th vote. The Executive Committee of the CCP is composed of the County Probation Officer (Chair), Sheriff-Coroner, a Chief of Police (represented by the Concord Police Chief in 2014), District Attorney, Public Defender, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court or designee, and the Behavioral Health Director. On October 4, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved the CCP Realignment Implementation Plan, including budget recommendations for fiscal year 2011/12. Throughout 2012, the PPC received regular status updated from county staff on the implementation of public safety realignment, including recommendations from the CCP-Executive Committee for 2012/13 budget planning. On January 15, 2013 the Board of Supervisors approved a 2012/13 budget for continuing implementation of public safety realignment programming. The Committee received several reentry/AB 109 related presentations and updates throughout 2014, including December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 719 program updates, review of the proposed fiscal year 2014/15 AB 109 Public Safety Realignment budget and made appointment recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for the CY 2015 Community Corrections Partnership. In addition, the Committee evaluated the feasibility of submitting a grant proposal for the 2014 Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) released by the California Board of State and Community Corrections. In 2016, the Committee reviewed the FY 2016/17 AB 109 budget proposed by the CCP, made appointment recommendations for the CY2017 CCP and CCP-Executive Committee to the Board of Supervisors and advised on grant programs that tie into AB 109 programming infrastructure. In addition, the Committee reviewed the process for allocating the Community Programs portion of the AB109 budget, which was composed of four separate RFPs for: 1) Employment and Placement services, 2) Short and Long-Term Housing services, 3) Monitoring and Family Reunification services and 4) Legal services. In addition, the Committee reviewed the first AB109 Annual Report assembled by Resource Development Associates on behalf of the Community Corrections Partnership and a recommendation to establish an Office of Reentry and Justice in the County Administrator's Office. It is recommended that this matter remain on referral to the 2017 PPC. Recommendation: REFER to the 2017 PPC 5. Countywide 9-1-1 Wireless Capability. On December 14, 2010, the Board of Supervisors referred to the PPC a letter from the Emergency Medical Care Committee regarding the transmission of 9-1-1 emergency calls from cellular phones to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). Our Committee met with representatives from the Office of the Sheriff on April 4 to discuss the status of establishing Sheriff's Dispatch as the PSAP for county unincorporated area wireless emergency calls. Sheriff Department staff advised that the County is not accepting wireless 9-1-1 calls at this time. Staff explained that the GPS (global positioning system) technology exists to enable Sheriff's Dispatch to receive 9-1-1 system emergency calls from cellular phones and to locate the emergency location within some degree of precision. However, due to several years of tight budgets, Sheriff's Dispatch is not currently staffed at a level that is adequate to respond to the call volume associated with the wireless 9-1-1 calls, which are currently routed to the appropriate PSAP by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). While our committee believes that transferring responsibility for handling wireless 9-1-1 calls from the CHP to Sheriff's Dispatch would be more efficient and would improve response time, it is unlikely that the County will be in a position, fiscally, to assume this responsibility. The PPC reported on April 12, 2011 to the Board of Supervisors and requested the Office of the Sheriff to provide a status report to the PPC in the spring of 2012 to advise if any outside funding becomes available to support such a transition of responsibility. On April 2, 2012, the PPC (Supervisor Glover only; Supervisor Uilkema was absent) received a status report prepared by the Office of the Sheriff on the process that has been initiated to make the partial or full transition of 9-1-1 dispatching from the CHP to the Sheriff a reality within funding constraints. The Sheriff reports that if fully implemented, the call volume for Sheriff’s Dispatch is projected to nearly double (from 56,000 calls to about 100,000 calls annually). Since the County can expect no additional outside revenue or other resources to support the increased call volume, the Sheriff is planning a phased implementation at a rate and call volume that current resources will permit. The phased implementation beginning with smaller carriers will provide the necessary experience and feedback to inform future implementation phases. New carriers will not be added unless the previous carrier can be effectively managed. On April 17, 2012, the PPC provided an update to the Board of Supervisors on this topic and recommended continued monitoring of this referral. Staff was directed to only schedule for a future meeting at the request of the Sheriff-Coroner. Since there has been no activity on this topic for the last several years, we recommend terminating this referral for the 2017 PPC Recommendation: TERMINATE REFERRAL 6. Civil gang injunctions. This matter was referred to the PPC on May 12, 2011 at the request of the District Attorney, who suggested under Public Comment at the April 4, 2011 PPC meeting that the Committee consider the December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 720 use of gang injunctions to help prevent gang violence. The District Attorney has advised committee staff that he is currently focusing on implementing a Ceasefire Program with Richmond Police Department and has requested that this referral be postponed until further notice. The referral was only to be scheduled at the request of the District Attorney. Since there has been no activity on this referral by the District Attorney over the past several years, we recommend terminating the referral. Recommendation: TERMINATE REFERRAL 7. Report on Emergency Gas Shut Off Valves for various structures in Unincorporated Contra Costa County. On September 25, during a presentation on Emergency Preparedness within Contra Costa County, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee a report on the county Gas Shut-Off valve ordinance (Ordinance Code § 718-8 et seq.). Originally, the former Building Inspection Department was responsible for regulation related to the Ordinance, now the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) provides oversight through its Building Inspection Division. On November 5, 2012, the Conservation and Development Department provided a review of the program. The Committee requested additional information from staff at the February 2013 regular meeting. The Department returned to the Committee in February 2013 and presented the requested information. The Committee accepted the staff report and recommended no further action. On May 11, 2015, the Department provided an update to the Committee on the status of the ordinance. Following the presentation and discussion, the Committee had no further direction for staff, but indicated that the referral should remain with the Committee. During 2016, there were no issues under this topic that required scheduling on the Committee's calendar. For this reason, we believe that this issue should be terminated. Recommendation: TERMINATE REFERRAL 8. Inmate Welfare Fund/Telecommunications/Visitation Issues. On July 16, 2013, the Board of Supervisors referred a review of the Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF) and inmate visitation policies to the Public Protection Committee for review. The Inmate Welfare Fund is authorized by Penal Code § 4025 for the “…benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates confined within the jail.” The statute also mandates that an itemized accounting of IWF expenditures must be submitted annually to the County Board of Supervisors. The Sheriff's Office has made several reports to the Committee throughout 2013 and 2014 regarding funding of IWF programs, visitation/communication policies and an upcoming RFP for inmate telecommunications services. The referral was placed on hold pending further discussion and outcomes of state and federal level changes to statute or rulemaking that could curtail the collection of telephone commissions individuals contacting inmates and wards housed in county adult and juvenile detention facilities normally pay. Such changes could potentially impact programming provided within the County's detention facilities. In late 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued new regulations significantly curtailing the costs charged to inmates or the families of inmates for use of a jail or prison telecommunications system. During 2016, a final rulemaking process was anticipated by the FCC. Ultimately, the FCC passed updated regulations related to telecommunications in detention facilities. For this reason, this issue should remain on referral to the Committee in 2017. Recommendation: REFER to the 2017 PPC (to be scheduled at the request of the Sheriff-Coroner) 9. Racial Justice Coalition of Contra Costa County . On April 7, 2015, the Board of Supervisors received a letter from the Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition requesting review of topics within the local criminal justice system. The Public Protection Committee (the "Committee") generally hears all matters related to public safety within the County. On July 6, 2015, the Committee initiated discussion regarding this referral and directed staff to research certain items identified in the Coalition's letter to the Board of Supervisors and return to the Committee in September 2015. On September 14, 2015, the Committee received a comprehensive report from staff on current data related to race in December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 721 the Contra Costa County criminal justice system, information regarding the County's Workplace Diversity Training and information regarding diversity and implicit bias trainings and presentations from across the country. On December 14, 2015, the Committee received an update from the Public Defender, District Attorney and Probation Department on how best to proceed with an update to the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) report completed in 2008. At that time, the concept of establishing a new task force was discussed. The Committee directed the three departments above to provide a written project scope and task force composition to the Committee for final review. At the November 9, 2015 meeting, the Committee received a brief presentation reintroducing the referral and providing an update on how the DMC report compares with the statistical data presented at the September meeting. Following discussion, the Committee directed staff to return in December 2015 following discussions between the County Probation Officer, District Attorney and Public Defender with thoughts about how to approach a new DMC initiative in the County. On April 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors accepted a report and related recommendations from the Committee resulting in the formation of a 17-member Disproportionate Minority Contact Task Force composed of the following: •County Probation Officer •Public Defender •District Attorney •Sheriff-Coroner •Health Services Director •Superior Court representative •County Police Chief’s Association representative •Mount Diablo Unified School District representative •Antioch Unified School District representative •West Contra Costa Unified School District representative •(5) Community-based organization (CBO) representatives (at least 1 representative from each region of the County and at least one representative from the faith and family community) •Mental Health representative (not a County employee) •Public Member – At Large Subsequently, a seven-week recruitment process was initiated to fill the (5) five CBO representative seats, the (1) one Mental Health representative seat and the (1) one Public Member - At Large seat. The deadline for submissions was June 15, 2016 and the County received a total of 28 applications. On June 27, 2016, the PPC met to consider making appointments to the (5) five CBO representative seats, the (1) one Mental Health representative seat and the (1) one Public Member - At Large seat. The PPC nominated to following individuals to be considered by the full Board of Supervisors: 1.CBO seat 1: Stephanie Medley (RYSE, AB109 CAB) (District I) 2.CBO seat 2: Donnell Jones (CCISCO) (District I) 3.CBO seat 3: Edith Fajardo (ACCE Institute) (District IV) 4.CBO seat 4: My Christian (CCISCO) (District V, but works in District III) 5.CBO seat 5: Dennisha Marsh (First Five CCC; City of Pittsburg Community Advisory Council) (District V) 6.Mental Health: Christine Gerchow, PhD. (Psychologist, Juvenile Hall-Martinez) (District IV) 7.Public (At-Large): Harlan Grossman (Past Chair AB 109 CAB, GARE participant) (District II) During the meeting, it was noted that Ms. Christine Gerchow had an exceptional background in mental health that would be very beneficial to the Task Force discussions. Ms. Gerchow is a County employee in the Health Services department working in the juvenile hall. In light of Ms. Gerchow's qualifications, the Committee voted to recommend her for appointment to the Mental Health representative seat and request that the full Board remove the requirement that the Mental Health representative not be a County employee. At the conclusion of the of the meeting, the Committee directed staff to set a special meeting for early August to consider the final composition of the entire (17) December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 722 seventeen member Task Force once all names were received from county departments, school districts, etc. In addition, the Committee recommended changing the title of the Task Force to the "Racial Justice Task Force", which was determined to be more reflective of the current efforts to evaluate racial disparities in the local criminal justice system. On August 15, 2016, the Committee approved nominations for appointment to the Task Force for consideration by the Board of Supervisors, including a recommendation that the Superior Court designee seat be a non-voting member of the Task Force at the request of the Superior Court. On September 13, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved the Task Force. The Task Force will make reports to the Public Protection Committee, as needed, over the course of its work. For this reason, the referral should be continued to the 2017 PPC Recommendation: REFER to the 2017 PPC 10. Review of Juvenile Fees assessed by the Probation Department. On July 19, 2016, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee a review of fees assessed for services provided while a minor is in the custody of the Probation Department. Welfare and Institutions Code 903 et seq. provides that the County may assess a fee for the provision of services to a minor in the custody of its Probation Department. This referral follows a statewide discussion as to whether or not these fees should be imposed by counties on the parents or legal guardians of minors in the custody of the County. On September 26, 2016, the Public Protection Committee accepted an introductory report on the issue and voted unanimously to refer the issue to the full Board of Supervisors with two separate options: 1) to adopt a temporary moratorium on the fees and/or 2) refer the issue to the newly formed Racial Justice Task Force for review. On, October 25, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved a moratorium on certain juvenile fees and directed staff to further review the assessment of juvenile fees and report back to the Public Protection Committee. Ultimately, the Board directed staff and the Committee to return back to the full Board no later than May 2017 with a recommendation as to whether or not juvenile fees should be permanently repealed. For this reason, we recommend that this referral remain with the 2017 PPC. Recommendation: REFER to the 2017 PPC 11. Review of Community Warning System Operating Contracts . AtHoc Inc., is a full-service alert and warning company specializing in fixed siren systems and emergency notification systems. Alerting Solutions, Inc., provides support for the Contra Costa County Community Warning System. The Contra Costa County Community Warning System consists of 25 separate and linked control centers, monitoring systems, and communication systems between emergency responders, sirens (40), and other alerting devices (700+), and automated links to radio and television stations serving the community. On October 18, 2016, the Board of Supervisors referred this contract to the Public Protection Committee for additional review and discussion and on October 24, 2016, the Committee met to discuss this item. Representatives from the Sheriff's Office were present to discuss the item and it's importance to the County's Community Warning System (CWS) operations. Following that discussion, the Committee recommended that the contract be rescheduled on the Board of Supervisors' agenda for approval, but directed staff to continue reporting on CWS operating contracts on a periodic basis. Since the Committee has an existing referral on the CWS telephone electronic notification system (TENS), we are recommending that this referral be combined with the TENS referral that the Committee receives coordinated updates on both issues in the future. Recommendation: COMBINE with existing referral on the Community Warning System - Telephone Electronic Notification (TEN) system LIST OF REFERRALS TO BE TERMINATED Report on Emergency Gas Shut Off Valves for various structures in unincorporated Contra Costa County Directing 9-1-1 emergency calls to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (schedule at the request ofDecember 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 723 Directing 9-1-1 emergency calls to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (schedule at the request of the Sheriff) Civil gang injunctions (schedule at the request of the District Attorney) Review of Community Warning System operating contracts (combined with existing referral on Multilingual capabilities of the TENs system) LIST OF ITEMS TO BE REFERRED TO THE 2017 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE Welfare fraud investigation and prosecution Multilingual capabilities of the telephone emergency notification system County support and coordination of non-profit organization resources to provide prisoner re-entry services and implementation of AB109 public safety realignment Inmate Welfare Fund/Telecommunications/Visitation Issues Opportunities to improve coordination of response to disasters and other public emergencies Racial Justice Coalition of Contra Costa County Review of juvenile fees assessed by the Probation Department CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board of Supervisors will not receive the annual report from the 2016 Public Protection Committee. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 724 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the 2016 Annual Report of the Internal Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors. 1. RECOGNIZE the excellent work of the County department staff who provided the requisite information to the IOC in a timely and professional manner, and members of the Contra Costa community and private industry who, through their interest in improving the quality of life in Contra Costa County, provided valuable insight into our discussions, and feedback that helped us to formulate our policy recommendations. 2. REMOVE without taking any further action the referrals listed under Exhibit A. 3. REFER to the 2017 IOC the items listed under Exhibit B.4. FISCAL IMPACT: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: IOC Staff C.104 To:Board of Supervisors From:INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016 YEAR-END REPORT ON INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE REFERRALS AND THEIR DISPOSITION December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 725 BACKGROUND: During 2016, the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) received 13 referrals from the Board of Supervisors (BOS), made 16 reports to the Board, interviewed 17 candidates and made recommendations to fill 30 seats for certain advisory bodies whose composition requirements must be monitored. Our Committee appreciates the time and effort taken by the staff to the Board’s advisory bodies to recruit, screen, and nominate individuals to our Committee for approval and appointment by the Board. Their efforts in this regard allowed the IOC to focus more of its time on the following subjects: 1. Small Business Enterprise (SBE) and Outreach Programs. The IOC accepted an SBE Program report on October 24, 2016 from the County Administrator’s Office, covering the period January 2015-June 2016, and reported out to the Board of Supervisors on November 8, 2016. This is a standing referral. REFER 2. County Financial Audit Program . Since 2000, the IOC reviews, each February, the annual schedule of audits and best practices studies proposed by the Auditor-Controller. The Auditor-Controller’s Office presented a report of their 2015 audits and the proposed 2016 Audit Schedule to the IOC on February 29, 2016. This is a standing referral. REFER 3. Annual Report on Fleet Internal Service Fund and Disposition of Low Mileage Vehicles . Each year, the Public Works Department Fleet Manager has analyzed the fleet and annual vehicle usage, and made recommendations to the IOC on the budget year vehicle replacements and on the intra-County transfer of underutilized vehicles, in accordance with County policy. In FY 2008/09, following the establishment of an Internal Services Fund for the County Fleet, to be administered by Public Works, the Board requested the IOC to review annually the Public Works department report on the fleet and on low-mileage vehicles. The IOC received the 2015 annual fleet report on March 28, 2016 and reported out to the Board of Supervisors on April 12, 2016. This is a standing referral. REFER 4. Local Bid Preference Program. In 2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted the local bid preference ordinance to support small local businesses and stimulate the local economy, at no additional cost to the County. Under the program, if the low bid in a commodities purchase is not from a local vendor, any responsive local vendor who submitted a bid over $25,000 that was within 5% percent of the lowest bid has the option to submit a new bid. The local vendor will be awarded if the new bid is in an amount less than or equal to the lowest responsive bid, allowing the County to favor the local vendor but not at the expense of obtaining the lowest offered price. Since adoption of the ordinance, the IOC has continued to monitor the effects of the program through annual reports prepared and presented by the Purchasing Agent or designee. The Purchasing Services Manager made a report to the IOC on September 26, 2016 and the IOC report out to the Board of Supervisors on November 15, 2016. This is a standing referral. REFER 5. Advisory Body Recruitments. On December 12, 2000, the Board of Supervisors approved a policy on the process for recruiting applicants for selected advisory bodies of the Board. This policy requires an open recruitment for all vacancies to At Large seats appointed by the Board. The IOC made a determination that it would conduct interviews for At Large seats on the following bodies: Retirement Board, Fire Advisory Commission, Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, Treasury Oversight Board, Airport Land Use Commission, Aviation Advisory Committee and the Fish & Wildlife Committee; and that screening and nomination to fill At Large seats on all other eligible bodies would be delegated to each body or a subcommittee thereof. In 2016, the IOC submitted recommendations to the Board of Supervisors to fill 30 vacant seats on various committees and commissions. The IOC interviewed 17 individuals for seats on the Airport Land Use Commission, Aviation Advisory Committee, Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee, East Bay Regional Parks Advisory December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 726 Committee, Fish & Wildlife Committee, Resource Conservation District, and the Treasury Oversight Committee. In 2017, the IOC will need to recruit and interview for multiple seats on the Retirement Board. This is a standing referral. REFER 6. Process for Allocation of Propagation Funds by the Fish and Wildlife Committee. On November 22, 2010, the IOC received a status report from Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) regarding the allocation of propagation funds by the Fish and Wildlife Committee (FWC). The IOC accepted the report along with a recommendation that IOC conduct a preliminary review of annual FWC grant recommendations prior to Board of Supervisors review. On April 25, 2016 the IOC received a report from DCD proposing, on behalf of the FWC, 2016 Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund Grant awards. The IOC approved the proposal and, on May 10, recommended grant awards for six projects totaling $22,450, which the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved. This is a standing referral. REFER 7. Advisory Body Triennial Review. Beginning in 2010 and concluding in 2011/2012, the Board of Supervisors conducted an extensive review of advisory body policies and composition, and passed Resolution Nos. 2011/497 and 2011/498, which revised and restated the Board’s governing principles for the bodies. The Resolutions dealt with all bodies, whether created by the BOS as discretionary or those that the BOS is mandated to create by state or federal rules, laws or regulations. The Resolutions directed the CAO/COB’s Office to institute a method to conduct a rotating triennial review of each body and to report on the results of that review and any resulting staff recommendations to the Board, through the IOC, on a regular basis. The first phase report of the current Triennial Review Cycle was considered by the IOC on April 13, 2015. At that time, the Supervisors approved many of the recommendations in the report. However, they also asked the CAO’s Office to return with additional information about a number of the advisory bodies. On October 12, 2015 the IOC accepted the follow-up report from the County Administrator on outstanding issues and information requests stemming from Phase 1 of the Board Advisory Body Triennial Review. The IOC reported back to the Board on December 8 with results of Phase I of the review and recommendations for follow-up. The IOC made four follow-up reports to the Board of Supervisors with additional recommendations, concluding Phase I of the Triennial Review: Reconstitute the Agriculture Task Force, April 2016; Reauthorize and update the Library Commission, April 2016; Modify the bylaws of the Advisory Council on Aging, September 2016; and Abolish the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board (November 2016). REFER 8. Waste Hauler Ordinance. On May 8, 2012, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Internal Operations Committee a proposal to develop a waste hauler ordinance. The IOC received a preliminary report from the Environmental Health (EH) Division of the Health Services Department on May 14, 2012 and status report on November 13, 2013 showing substantial work and progress. The IOC requested EH staff to bring a final draft ordinance to the Committee for further consideration but staff subsequently identified issues with the interplay between the proposal and current franchise agreements that had to be examined before the County could proceed with an ordinance. The IOC has continued to work on a draft ordinance with staff and the franchises throughout 2015 and 2016, and expects to bring a report to the Board of Supervisors in early 2017. As this continues to be a work in progress, we recommend that this referral be continued to the 2017 IOC. REFER 9. Social Media Policy. On June 17, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved a social media policy governing the use of various online engagement tools by County employees for business communication purposes. The County Administrator requested the Office of Communications and Media, with assistance from Risk Management and County Counsel, to develop guidelines for use and training. Input and direction from the Internal Operations Committee in 2013 and 2014 shaped the contents of the umbrella policy. Due to staffing and resource limitations, the implementation of the policy was deferred to 2016. On March 28, the IOC accepted a status report from the OCM Director on implementation of the social media policy, including staff training plans. TERMINATE December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 727 10. Animal Benefit Fund Review. On April 21, 2015, the Board of Supervisors received several comments regarding the Animal Benefit Fund from members of the public during fiscal year 2015/16 budget hearings. As part of budget deliberations, the Board directed staff to include a review of the Animal Benefit Fund to a Board Standing Committee for further review. On May 12, 2015, the Board of Supervisors adopted the fiscal year 2015/16 budget, including formal referral of this issue to the Internal Operations Committee. On September 14, 2015 IOC received a staff report summarizing prior year expenditures and current fund balance of the Animal Benefit Fund. On March 28, 2016, the IOC approved a proposal to expand the animal services donation program and reported out to the Board of Supervisors on April 19, 2016. The Board Order directed the Animal Services Director to report annually to the IOC on the impact of the Animal Benefit Fund on the community and families, creating a new standing referral. REFER 11. Community Choice Energy. On August 18, 2015, the Board of Supervisors referred to the IOC the topic of Community Choice (Energy) Aggregation. Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) is the practice of aggregating consumer electricity demand within a jurisdiction or region for purposes of procuring energy. On March 15, 2016, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to work with interested cities in Contra Costa County to obtain electrical load data from PG&E and conduct a technical study of CCE alternatives. Fourteen Contra Costa cities participated in the study with nine contributing towards the cost of the study. An outside consulted was engage to conduct the study, which was presented to the IOC on December 12, 2016 and will be presented to the Board of Supervisors on January 17, 2017. Pending further direction from the Board on this matter, it is recommended that CCE remain on referral to the IOC. REFER 12. Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE). On June 16, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved the recommendation of the IOC to direct the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) to establish an application process and accept applications from PACE providers to operate within the unincorporated area of the county. The Board also approved the form of an Operating Agreement the County would require PACE providers to enter into with the County as a condition of operations. The purpose of the Operating Agreement is to protect the County and the general public from the potential costs and risk of PACE programs. The Operating Agreement requires PACE providers to participate in the State PACE Loss Reserve Program, disclose financial costs and risks to participating property owners, and indemnify the County from legal claims arising from the operation of PACE programs. On November 17, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved an Operating Agreement with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and adopted a resolution authorizing WRCOG to operate the California HERO PACE financing program within the unincorporated area of the county. On November 1, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved an Operating Agreement with the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to operate the CaliforniaFirst PACE financing program in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. TERMINATE 13. Animal Noise Ordinance Update. On December 6, 2016, the Board of Supervisors referred to the IOC development of an ordinance to authorize administrative penalties for barking dogs and other noisy animals, and to limit the number of roosters on private property in the county unincorporated areas. The 2016 IOC was unable to give consideration to this referral and recommends that it be assigned to the 2017 IOC. REFER EXHIBIT A LIST OF REFERRALS TO BE REMOVED 9. Social Media Policy 12. PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 728 EXHIBIT B LIST OF ITEMS TO BE REFERRED TO THE 2017 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Standing Referrals 1. Continued policy oversight and quarterly monitoring of the Small Business Enterprise and Outreach programs, and e-Outreach 2. Review of the annual financial audit schedule 3. Review of annual Master Vehicle Replacement List and disposition of low- mileage vehicles 4. Local Bid Preference Program 5. Advisory Body Candidate Screening/Interview 6. Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund Allocation 7. Advisory Body Triennial Review 10. Animal Benefit Fund Review Non-Standing Referrals 8. Waste Hauler Ordinance 11. Community Choice Energy Aggregation 13. Animal Noise Ordinance Update CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Should the Board elect not to approve the recommendations, the Internal Operations Committee will not have clear direction on the disposition of prior year referrals for discussion in calendar year 2017. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 729 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the expenditure of up to $250,000 from the Livable Communities Trust (District III Portion) for the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail Feasibility Study, as recommended by Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the General Fund. Up to $250,000 from the Livable Communities Trust (District III portion) will be allocated toward the Study. As further described below, these funds would cover approximately half of the estimated $500,000 cost of the feasibility study. An additional $50,000 has already been committed from other sources. Other potential sources of funding, including additional contributions from other partner agencies, grants and additional contributions from the Livable Communities Trust, will continue to be explored. BACKGROUND: Marsh Creek Road is a major thoroughfare that connects Central and East County. Currently, a significant number of bicycle trips take place on Marsh Creek Road, despite of the lack of dedicated bicycle facilities. A new multi-use trail has been proposed along the Marsh Creek Corridor. The purpose of the trail would be to provide a new, major APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: TOMI RILEY, 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: John Kopchik, DCD Director C.105 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Allocation of Funds from the Livable Communities Trust to the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail Study December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 730 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > non-motorized east-west thoroughfare that would expand commuting and recreational opportunities. Once this trail and adjacent paths are completed, there will be one continuous non-motorized trail from Downtown Concord to Oakley. Construction of the trail could be incorporated into, and performed in conjunction with restoration activities along Marsh Creek as called for in the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). The intent is that the trail would be constructed in a sensitive manner that reflects the scenic and natural resources of the area. On April 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2016/326, supporting exploration of the concept of the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail and efforts to identify and secure funding for this project. Other project stakeholders have adopted or are in the process of adopting a resolution in support or a letter of support for this project. The District III and IV Supervisors and their staff, along with staff from the Public Works and Conservation and Development Departments, have been holding meetings with the following interested organizations: · City of Clayton · City of Brentwood · East Bay Regional Park District · Save Mount Diablo · Friends of the Marsh Creek Watershed The meetings have focused on identifying existing conditions, challenges, and opportunities along the Marsh Creek Corridor, developing a scope-of-work for a potential feasibility study, and identifying potential funding sources for the feasibility study. The next step in the exploration of the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail is to develop a feasibility report. The County is proposed to be the lead agency to contract with a consultant to prepare a feasibility study. The feasibility analysis would include the following key steps: · Further defining goals and objectives · Data Collection and Base Mapping · Public Outreach and Involvement · Transportation Analysis · Define Alternatives · Alternatives Analysis · Prepare Draft and Final Feasibility Report The preliminary estimated cost for the feasibility study is $500,000. The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, a joint exercise of powers authority formed by the County and the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley and Pittsburg, has agreed to contribute $25,000 toward completing the study. The Public Works Department has agreed to contribute an additional $25,000. The recommendation is to approve the expenditure of up to $250,000 from the Livable Communities Trust Fund (District III portion) as a primary funding source. An additional $250,000 still needs to be identified to close the estimated $200,000 funding gap and provide a small contingency. Staff will work with the other project stakeholders to identify other potential funding sources for the feasibility study, including additional contributions from other partner agencies, grants and additional contributions from the Livable Communities Trust. The Livable Communities Trust Fund (Fund) was established to implement the County’s Smart Growth Action Plan. One goal of the Action Plan is to help fund transit and other transportation improvements that foster smart growth principles. In reviewing the purpose of the Fund, the Board of Supervisors determined on December 3, 2013 that "the goal shall be to spend the money equally among supervisorial districts." At build-out of the development projects December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 731 contributing revenue to the Fund, deposits to the Fund will total $8,448,000. The interest-bearing trust account has earned over $300,000 in interest to date. So far, one expenditure has been made from the Fund (a $250,000 expenditure approved on October 22, 2013 for the Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative) and another expenditure has been authorized (on June 14, 2016, with $1,432,830 from the District I portion providing matching funds for the development of the Heritage Point affordable housing project in North Richmond). The Livable Communities Trust Fund balance is $7,471,514.41 (as of December 8, 2016). The expenditure proposed here is consistent with the purpose of the Fund and with adopted Board policy. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the funding is not allocated to the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail for feasibility studies, planning and project development activities will be delayed and a non-motorized facility gap along the Marsh Creek Corridor will continue to exist. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 732 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/691 authorizing the issuance and sale of "Antioch Unified School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2008, Series D" in an amount not to exceed $20,800,000 by the Antioch Unified School District on its own behalf pursuant to Sections 15140 and 15146 of the Education Code, as permitted by Section 53508.7(c) of the Government Code. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the County. BACKGROUND: The Antioch Unified School District intends to issue General Obligation bonds to fund capital improvements throughout the District. The District has requested that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution authorizing the direct issuance and sale of bonds by the District on its own behalf as authorized by Section 15140(b) of the Education Code. The District adopted a resolution on December 14, 2016 authorizing the sale and issuance of the bonds (attached). This issuance was approved by the voters as part of a bond measure listed on the June 3, 2008 ballot. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 95 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Antioch Unified School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2008, Series D December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 733 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorization, the School District would not be able to issue the bonds. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following Children's Report Card outcome: Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/691 District Resolution MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/691 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 734 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 12/20/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff NO: ABSENT:Federal D. Glover ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/691 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CONSENTING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ISSUE ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1), ELECTION OF 2008, SERIES D ON ITS OWN BEHALF RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Contra Costa County (the "County"), State of California: WHEREAS, sections 53506 et seq. of the California Government Code, including section 53508.7 thereof, provide that California public school district may issue and sell bonds on its own behalf at private sale pursuant to sections 15140 or 15146 of the California Education Code the Education Code; WHEREAS, section 15140(b) of the California Education Code provides that the board of supervisors of county may authorize California public school district in the county to issue and sell its own bonds without the further action of the board of supervisors or officers of the county; WHEREAS, the Board of Education of the Antioch Unified School District (the "District"), a public school district under the jurisdiction of the County, has heretofore adopted and filed with the Clerk of this Board, a resolution (the "Bond Resolution") providing for the issuance and sale of its Antioch Unified School District (School Facilities Improvement District No. 1) (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2008, Series D (the "Series D Bonds"), through negotiated sale pursuant to sections 53506 et seq. of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, it has been requested on behalf of the District that this Board consent to such issuance of the Series D Bonds and authorize the District to issue and sell the Series D Bonds on its own behalf at negotiated sale pursuant to sections 15140 and 15146 of the California Education Code as permitted by section 53508.7 of the California Government Code and the terms set forth in the Bond Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, as follows: Section 1. Recitals. All of the foregoing recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Consent and Authorization of Negotiated Sale. This Board hereby consents to and authorizes the issuance and negotiated sale by the District on its own behalf of the Series D Bonds pursuant to sections 15140 and 15146 of the California Education Code, as permitted by section 53508.7 of the California Government Code and the terms and conditions set forth in the Bond Resolution. This consent and authorization set forth herein shall only apply to the Series D Bonds. Section 3. Source of Payment. The County acknowledges receipt of the Bond Resolution as adopted and the requests made by the District to levy collect and distribute ad valorem tax revenues pursuant to section 15250 et seq. of the California Education Code to pay for principal of and interest on the Series D Bonds when and if sold. Correspondingly, and subject to the issuance and sale of the Series D Bonds and transmittal of information concerning the debt service requirements thereof to the appropriate County officers, there shall be levied by the County on all of the taxable property in the District in addition to all other taxes, a continuing direct ad valorem tax annually during the period the Series D Bonds are outstanding commencing with fiscal year 2017-18 in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Series D Bonds when due which tax revenues when 4 1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 735 2017-18 in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Series D Bonds when due which tax revenues when collected will be placed in the Debt Service Funds established pursuant to the Bond Resolution and have been irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Series D Bonds, when and as the same fall due. The monies in the Debt Service Funds, to the extent necessary to pay the principal of and interest on the Series D Bonds, as the same become due and payable, shall be transferred by the County to the Paying Agent for such bonds to pay the principal of and interest on the Series D Bonds as set out in California law and in the Bond Resolution. Section 4. Approval of Actions. Officers of the Board and County officials and staff are authorized to do any and all things and are hereby authorized and directed jointly and severally to execute and deliver any and all documents which they may deem necessary or advisable in order to assist the District with the issuance of the Series D Bonds and otherwise carry out give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution. Such actions heretofore taken by such officers officials and staff are hereby ratified confirmed and approved. Section 5. Indemnification of County. The County acknowledges and relies upon the fact that the District has represented that it shall indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent permitted by law, the County and its officers and employees ("Indemnified Parties"), against any and all losses, claims, damages or liabilities, joint or several, to which such Indemnified Parties may become subject because of action or inaction related to the adoption of this resolution, or related to the proceedings for sale, award, issuance and delivery of the Series D Bonds in accordance herewith and with the District's resolution and that the District shall also reimburse any such Indemnified Parties for any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with investigating or defending any such claims or actions. Section 6. Limited Responsibility for Official Statement. Neither the Board nor any officer of the County has prepared or reviewed the official statement of the District describing the Series D Bonds (the "Official Statement") and this Board and the various officers of the County take no responsibility for the contents or distribution thereof; provided, however, that solely with respect to a section contained or to be contained therein describing the County's investment policy, current portfolio holdings and valuation procedures, as they may relate to funds of the District held by the County Treasurer-Tax Collector, the County Treasurer-Tax Collector is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and review such information for inclusion in the Official Statement and in a preliminary official statement, and to certify in writing prior to or upon the issuance of the Series D Bonds that the information contained in such section does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein in the light of the circumstances under which they are made not misleading. Section 7. Limited Liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the Series D Bonds or in any other document mentioned herein, neither the County nor the Board shall have any liability hereunder or by reason hereof or in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and the Series D Bonds shall be payable solely from the moneys of the District available therefore as set forth in the Bond Resolution and herein. Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 736 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 737 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 738 ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 2016-17-19 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (SFID NO. 1), IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $20,752,944 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, an election was duly and regularly held in School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 (the "Improvement District") of the Antioch Unified School District (the "District") on June 3, 2008, in accordance with Section 1(b)(3) of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, for the purpose of submitting Measure C to the qualified electors of the Improvement District, authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $61,600,000 (the "Measure C Bonds"), and more than 55% of the votes cast were in favor of the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the abbreviated form of Measure C is: "To address critical renovation and modernization needs as schools that have all served Antioch for more than forty years, replace aging roofs, aging plumbi ng, old heating and air conditioning units with energy efficient systems, upgrade restrooms, electrical systems, renovate and expand libraries, and make schools accessible to all students, shall the School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 of the Antioch Unified School District issue $61,600,000 in bonds at legal interest rates with funds monitored by an Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee and no funds spent on administrators?" WHEREAS, the District has previously issued four series of Measure C Bonds, being Series A, Series B, Series C-1 and Series C-2, in the combined aggregate principal amount of $40,847,056, leaving $20,752,944 of authori zed but unissued Measure C Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Board of Education of the District (the "Board") has full authority to provide for the issuance and sale of any series of Measure C Bonds under the provisions of Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code, commencing at Section 53506 (the "Bond Law"); and WHEREAS, the District's First Interim Report for fiscal year 2016-17 is expected to be certified positive; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Senate Bill 1029 ("SB 1029") approved September 12, 2016 and effective as of January 1, 2017, the Board will at its January 25, 2017 meeting consider approval of a local debt policy meeting the requirements of SB 1029; and WHEREAS, as such, the District wishes at this time to initiate proceedings for the issuance of a fifth and final series of Measure C Bonds under the Bond Law in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $20,752,944 (the "Series D Bonds") as December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 739 provided in this Resolution for the purpose of providing additional financing for projects which are authorized under the Measure C; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Education of the Antioch Unified School District as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS; AUTHORITY SECTION 1.01. Definitions. The terms defined in this Section 1.01, as used and capitalized herein, shall, for all purposes of this Resolution, have the meanings given them below, unless the context clearly requires some other meaning. "Authorized Investments" means the County Investment Pool, the Local Agency Investment Fund, any investments authorized pursuant to Sections 53601 and 53635 of the California Government Code, provided that said investments are part of the County treasury, in accordance with Education Code Section 15146(g). The Treasurer Tax­ Collector shall assume no responsibility in the reporting, reconciling and monitoring in the investment of proceeds related to the Series D Bonds. "Board" means the Board of Education of the District. "Bond Counsel" means (a) the firm of Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, or (b) any other attorney or firm of attorneys nationally recognized for expertise in rendering opinions as to the legality and tax exempt status of securities issued by public entities. "Bond Law" means Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 53506 of said Code, as in effect on the date of adoption hereof and as amended hereafter. "Bond Purchase Agreement" means the Bond Purchase Agreement between the District and the Underwriter, under which the Underwriter agrees to purchase the Series D Bonds and pay the purchase price therefor. "Building Fund" means the fund established and held by the County Treasurer under Section 3.03. "Closing Date" means the date upon which there is a delivery of the Series D Bonds in exchange for the amount representing the purchase price of the Series D Bonds by the Underwriter. "Continuing Disclosure Certificate" means the Continuing Disclosure Certificate which is executed and delivered by a District Representative on the Closing Date. "Costs of Issuance" means all items of expense directly or indirectly payable by or reimbursable to the District and related to the authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of the Series D Bonds, including but not limited to the costs of preparation and -2- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 740 reproduction of documents, printing expenses, filing and recording fees, initial fees and charges of the Paying Agent and its counsel, legal fees and charges, fees and disbursements of consultants and professionals, rating agency fees and any other cost, charge or fee in connection with the original issuance and sale of the Series D Bonds. "County" means the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. "County Auditor-Controller" means the Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller, or any authorized deputy thereof. "County Treasurer" means the Contra Costa County Treasurer-Tax Collector, or any authorized deputy thereof. "Debt Service Fund" means the account established and held by the County Treasurer under Section 4.02. "Depository" means (a) initially, DTC, and (b) any other Securities Depository acting as Depository under Section 2.09. "Depository System Participant" means any participant in the Depository's book­ entry system. "District" means the Antioch Unified School District, a school district organized under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, and any successor thereto. "District Representative" means the President of the Board, the Superintendent, the Chief Business Official, the Associate Superintendent-Business and Operations, any person acting in such capacity, or any of such officer's written designees, or any other person authorized by resolution of the Board of the District to act on behalf of the District with respect to this Resolution and the Series D Bonds. "DTC" means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and its successors and assigns. "Education Code" means the Education Code of the State of California, as in effect on the Closing Date or as thereafter amended from time to time. "Federal Securities" means: (a) any direct general obligations of the United States of America (including obligations issued or held in book entry form on the books of the Department of the Treasury of the United States of America), for which the full faith and credit of the United States of America are pledged; (b) obligations of any agency, department or instrumentality of the United States of America, the timely payment of principal and interest on which are directly or indirectly secured or guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. "Improvement District" means School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 duly formed by the District pursuant to Education Code sections 15320 et seq. -3- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 741 "Interest Payment Dates" means February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing on the date set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement, provided, however, that such dates are subject to modification as provided in the Bond Purchase Agreement. "Measure C" means the bond measure submitted to the qualified electors of the District on June 3, 2008, authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $61,600,000 "Office" means the office or offices of the Paying Agent for the payment of the Series D Bonds and the administration of its duties hereunder. The Paying Agent may designate and re-designate the Office from time to time by written notice filed with the County and the District. "Outstanding," when used as of any particular time with reference to Series D Bonds, means all Series D Bonds except: (a) Series D Bonds theretofore canceled by the Paying Agent or surrendered to the Paying Agent for cancellation; (b) Series D Bonds paid or deemed to have been paid within the meaning of Section 9.02; and (c) Series D Bonds in lieu of or in substitution for which other Series D Bonds have been authorized, executed, issued and delivered by the District under this Resolution. "Owner", whenever used herein with respect to a Series D Bond, means the person in whose name the ownership of such Series D Bond is registered on the Registration Books. "Paying Agent" means the bank, trust company, national banking association or other financial institution appointed as paying agent for the Series D Bonds in the manner provided in Article VI of this Resolution. "Record Date" means the 15th day of the month preceding an Interest Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day. "Registration Books" means the records maintained by the Paying Agent for the registration of ownership and registration of transfer of the Series D Bonds under Section 2.08. "Resolution" means this Resolution, as originally adopted by the Board and including all amendments hereto and supplements hereof which are duly adopted by the Board from time to time in accordance herewith. "Securities Depositories" means OTC; and, in accordance with then current guidelines of the Securities and Exchange Commission, such other addresses and/or such other securities depositories as the District may designate in a Written Request of the District delivered to the Paying Agent. "Series D Bonds" means the not to exceed $20,752,944 aggregate principal amount of Antioch Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds (School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 ), Election of 2008, Series D issued and at any time Outstanding under this Resolution. -4- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 742 "Tax Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect on the Closing Date or (except as otherwise referenced herein) as it may be amended to apply to obligations issued on the Closing Date, together with applicable proposed, temporary and final regulations promulgated, and applicable official public guidance published, under said Code. "Underwriter" means Raymond James & Associates, Inc., the original underwriter of the Series D Bonds upon the negotiated sale thereof, as designated pursuant to Section 3.01. "Written Certificate of the District" means an instrument in writing signed by a District Representative or by any other officer of the District duly authorized by the District and listed on a Written Request of the District for that purpose. SECTION 1.02. Interpretation. (a)Unless the context otherwise indicates, words expressed in the singular include the plural and vice versa and the use of the neuter, masculine, or feminine gender is for convenience only and include the neuter, masculine or feminine gender, as appropriate. (b)Headings of articles and sections herein and the table of contents hereof are solely for convenience of reference, do not constitute a part hereof and shall not affect the meaning, construction or effect hereof. (c)All references herein to "Articles," "Sections" and other subdivisions are to the corresponding Articles, Sections or subdivisions of this Resolution; the words "herein," "hereof," "hereby," "hereunder" and other words of similar import refer to this Resolution as a whole and not to any particular Article, Section or subdivision hereof. SECTION 1.03. Authority for this Resolution; Findings. This Resolution is entered into under the provisions of the Bond Law. The Board hereby certifies that all of the things, conditions and acts required to exist, to have happened or to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of the Series D Bonds do exist, have happened or have been performed in due and regular time and manner as required by the laws of the State of California, and that the amount of the Series D Bonds, together with all other indebtedness of the District, does not exceed any limit prescribed by any laws of the State of California. -5- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 743 ARTICLE II THE SERIES D BONDS SECTION 2.01. Authorization. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance of the Series D Bonds in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $20,752,944 under and subject to the terms of Article XIIIA, Section 1 paragraph (b} of the California Constitution, the Bond Law and this Resolution, for the purpose of raising money for the acquisition or improvement of educational facilities in accordance with Measure C. This Resolution constitutes a continuing agreement between the District and the Owners of all of the Series D Bonds issued or to be issued hereunder and then Outstanding to secure the full and final payment of principal thereof and interest and premium, if any, on all Series D Bonds, subject to the covenants, agreements, provisions and conditions herein contained. The Series D Bonds shall be designated the "Antioch Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds (School Facilities Improvement District No. 1), Election of 2008, Series D", together with any additional designations as may be necessary to sufficiently identify the Series D Bonds, and may be issued in separate series from time to time provided that the aggregate principal amount does not exceed the maximum principal amount authorized herein. SECTION 2.02. Terms of Series D Bonds. (a)Form; Numbering. The Series D Bonds shall be issued as fully registered current interest bonds, without coupons, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof. The Series D Bonds shall be lettered and numbered as prescribed by the Paying Agent. (b)Date of Series D Bonds. The Series D Bonds shall be dated as of the Closing Date. (c)CUSIP Identification Numbers. "CUSIP" identification numbers shall be imprinted on the Series D Bonds, but such numbers shall not constitute a part of the contract evidenced by the Series D Bonds and any error or omission with respect thereto shall not constitute cause for refusal of any purchaser to accept delivery of and pay for the Series D Bonds. In addition, failure on the part of the District to use CUSIP numbers in any notice to Owners of the Series D Bonds will not constitute an event of default or any violation of the District's contract with the Owners and will not impair the effectiveness of any such notice. (d)Maturities; Basis of Interest Calculation. The Series D Bonds shall mature on August 1 in the years and in the amounts, and shall bear interest at the rates, as determined upon the sale thereof and as set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement. The final maturity of the Series D Bonds shall be not later than thirty years following the Closing Date. Interest on the Series D Bonds shall be calculated on the basis of a 360- day year comprised of twelve 30-day months. Each Series D Bond shall bear interest from the Interest Payment Date next preceding the date of registration and authentication thereof unless (i) it is authenticated as of an Interest Payment Date, in which event it shall bear interest from such date, or (ii)it is authenticated prior to an Interest Payment Date and after the close of business on the preceding Record Date, in which event it shall bear interest from such Interest -6- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 744 Payment Date, or (iii) it is authenticated on or before the first Record Date, in which event it shall bear interest from the Closing Date; provided, however, that if at the time of authentication of a Series D Bond, interest is in default thereon, such Series D Bond shall bear interest from the Interest Payment Date to which interest has previously been paid or made available for payment thereon. (e)Payment. Interest on the Series D Bonds (including the final interest payment upon maturity or redemption) is payable by check of the Paying Agent mailed to the Owner thereof at such Owner's address as it appears on the Registration Books at the close of business on the preceding Record Date; provided that at the written request of the Owner of at least $1,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Series D Bonds, which written request is on file with the Paying Agent as of any Record Date, interest on such Series D Bonds shall be paid on the succeeding Interest Payment Date to such account as shall be specified in such written request. Principal of the Series D Bonds is payable in lawful money of the United States of America upon presentation and surrender at the Principal Office of the Paying Agent. (f)Provisions of Bond Purchase Agreement to Control. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section and the following provisions of Section 2.03, any of the terms of the Series D Bonds may be established or modified under the Bond Purchase Agreement. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between this Resolution and the Bond Purchase Agreement relating to the terms of the Series D Bonds, the provisions of the Bond Purchase Agreement shall be controlling. SECTION 2.03. Redemption of Series D Bonds. (a)Optional Redemption Dates and Prices. The Series D Bonds may be subject to redemption prior to maturity, at the option of the District, in whole or in part among maturities on such basis as designated by the District and by lot within a maturity, from any available source of funds, on the dates and at the respective redemption prices as shall be designated in the Bond Purchase Agreement. (b)Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption. If the Bond Purchase Agreement specifies that any one or more maturities of the Series D Bonds are term bonds which are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption, each such maturity of Series D Bonds shall be subject to such mandatory sinking fund redemption on August 1 in each of the years and in the respective principal amounts as set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof to be redeemed (without premium), together with interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption. (c)Selection of Series D Bonds for Redemption. Whenever less than all of the Outstanding Series D Bonds of any one maturity are designated for redemption, the Paying Agent shall select the Outstanding Series D Bonds of such maturity to be redeemed by lot in any manner deemed fair by the Paying Agent. For purposes of such selection, each Series D Bond will be deemed to consist of individual bonds of $5,000 principal amount. The Series D Bonds may all be separately redeemed. (d)Redemption Procedure. The Paying Agent will cause notice of any redemption to be mailed, first class mail, postage prepaid, at least 20 days but not more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption, to the respective Owners of any -7- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 745 Series D Bonds designated for redemption, at their addresses appearing on the Registration Books. Such mailing is not a condition precedent to such redemption and the failure to mail or to receive any such notice will not affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of such Series D Bonds. In addition, the Paying Agent will give notice of redemption by telecopy or certified, registered or overnight mail to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and each of the Securities Depositories at least two days prior to such mailing to the Series D Bond Owners. Such notice shall state the redemption date and the redemption price and, if less than all of the then Outstanding Series D Bonds are to be called for redemption, shall designate the serial numbers of the Series D Bonds to be redeemed by giving the individual number of each Series D Bond or by stating that all Series D Bonds between two stated numbers, both inclusive, or by stating that all of the Series D Bonds of one or more maturities have been called for redemption, and shall require that such Series D Bonds be then surrendered at the Office of the Paying Agent for redemption at the said redemption price, giving notice also that further interest on such Series D Bonds will not accrue from and after the redemption date. Upon surrender of Series D Bonds redeemed in part only, the District shall execute and the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver to the Owner, at the expense of the District, a new Series D Bond or Bonds, of the same maturity, of authorized denominations in aggregate principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion of the Series D Bond or Bonds. From and after the date fixed for redemption, if notice of such redemption has been duly given and funds available for the payment of the principal of and interest (and premium, if any) on the Series D Bonds so called for redemption have been duly provided, the Series D Bonds called for redemption will cease to be entitled to any benefit under this Resolution other than the right to receive payment of the redemption price, and no interest will accrue thereon on or after the redemption date specified in the notice. The Paying Agent will cancel all Series D Bonds redeemed under this Section and will furnish a certificate of cancellation to the District. (e)Right to Rescind Notice of Redemption. The District has the right to rescind any notice of the optional redemption of Series D Bonds under subsection (a) of this Section by written notice to the Paying Agent on or prior to the dated fixed for redemption. Any notice of redemption shall be cancelled and annulled if for any reason funds will not be or are not available on the date fixed for redemption for the payment in full of the Series D Bonds then called for redemption. The District and the Paying Agent shall have no liability to the Series D Bond Owners or any other party related to or arising from such rescission of redemption. The Paying Agent shall mail notice of such rescission of redemption in the same manner as the original notice of redemption was sent under subsection (d) of this Section. SECTION 2.04. Form of Series D Bonds. The Series D Bonds, the form of the Paying Agent's certificate of authentication and registration and the form of assignment to appear thereon will be substantially in the form, with necessary or appropriate variations, omissions and insertions, as permitted or required by this Resolution and the Bond Purchase Agreement, as are set forth in Appendix A attached hereto. -8- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 746 SECTION 2.05. Execution of Series D Bonds. The Series D Bonds shall be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of the President of the Board and shall be attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the Clerk or Secretary of the Board. Only those Series D Bonds bearing a certificate of authentication and registration in the form set forth in Appendix A attached hereto, executed and dated by the Paying Agent, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this Resolution, and such certificate of the Paying Agent is conclusive evidence that the Series D Bonds so registered have been duly authenticated, registered and delivered hereunder and are entitled to the benefits of this Resolution. SECTION 2.06. Transfer of Series D Bonds. Subject to Section 2.10, any Series D Bond may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred, upon the Registration Books, by the person in whose name it is registered, in person or by his duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of such Series D Bond for cancellation at the Office at the Paying Agent, accompanied by delivery of a written instrument of transfer in a form approved by the Paying Agent, duly executed. The District may charge a reasonable sum for each new Series D Bond issued upon any transfer. Whenever any Series D Bond or Bonds is surrendered for transfer, the District shall execute and the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver a new Series D Bond or Bonds, for like aggregate principal amount. No transfers of Series D Bonds shall be required to be made (a) 15 days prior to the date established by the Paying Agent for selection of Series D Bonds for redemption or (b) with respect to a Series D Bond which has been selected for redemption. SECTION 2.07. Exchange of Series D Bonds. Series D Bonds may be exchanged at the principal Office of the Paying Agent for a like aggregate principal amount of Series D Bonds of authorized denominations and of the same maturity, together with a request for exchange signed by the owner or by a person legally empowered to do so in a form satisfactory to the Paying Agent. The District may charge a reasonable sum for each new Series D Bond issued upon any·exchange (except in the cases of any exchange of temporary Series D Bonds for definitive Series D Bonds). No exchange of Series D Bonds is required to be made (a) 15 days prior to the date established by the Paying Agent for selection of Series D Bonds for redemption or (b) with respect to a Series D Bond after it has been selected for redem ption. SECTION 2.08. Registration Books. The Paying Agent shall keep or cause to be kept sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Series D Bonds, which shall at all times be open to inspection by the District upon reasonable notice; and, upon presentation for such purpose, the Paying Agent shall, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, register or transfer or cause to be registered or transferred, on said books, Series D Bonds as herein before provided. SECTION 2.09. Book-Entry System. Except as provided below, OTC shall be the Owner of all of the Series D Bonds, and the Series D Bonds shall be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee for OTC. The Series D Bonds shall be initially executed and delivered in the form of a single fully registered Series D Bond for each maturity date of the Series D Bonds in the full aggregate principal amount of the Series D Bonds maturing on such date. The Paying Agent and the District may treat OTC (or its nominee) as the sole and exclusive owner of the Series D Bonds registered in its name for all purposes of this Resolution, and neither the Paying Agent nor the District -9- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 747 shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. The Paying Agent and the District have no responsibility or obligation to any Depository System Participant, any person claiming a beneficial ownership interest in the Series D Bonds under or through OTC or a Depository System Participant, or any other person which is not shown on the register of the District as being an owner, with respect to the accuracy of any records maintained by OTC or any Depository System Participant or the payment by OTC or any Depository System Participant by OTC or any Depository System Participant of any amount in respect of the principal or interest with respect to the Series D Bonds. The District shall cause to be paid all principal and interest with respect to the Series D Bonds only to OTC, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the District's obligations with respect to the principal and interest with respect to the Series D Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. Except under the conditions noted below, no person other than OTC shall receive a Series D Bond. Upon delivery by OTC to the District of written notice to the effect that OTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the term "Cede & Co." in this Resolution shall refer to such new nominee of OTC. If the District determines that it is in the best interest of the beneficial owners that they be able to obtain Series D Bonds and delivers a written certificate to OTC and the District to that effect, OTC shall notify the Depository System Participants of the availability through OTC of Series D Bonds. In such event, the District shall issue, transfer and exchange Series D Bonds as requested by OTC and any other owners in appropriate amounts. OTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Series D Bonds at any time by giving notice to the District and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. Under such circumstances (if there is no successor securities depository), the District shall be obligated to deliver Series D Bonds as described in this Resolution. Whenever OTC requests the District to do so, the District will cooperate with OTC in taking appropriate action after reasonable notice to (a) make available one or more separate Series D Bonds evidencing the Series D Bonds to any Depository System Participant having Series D Bonds credited to its OTC account or (b) arrange for another securities depository to maintain custody of certificates evidencing the Series D Bonds. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to the contrary, so long as any Series D Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of OTC, all payments with respect to the principal and interest with respect to such Series D Bond and all notices with respect to such Series D Bond shall be made and given, respectively, to OTC as provided in the representation letter delivered on the date of issuance of the Series D Bonds. Section 2.10. Transfer Under Book-Entry System: Discontinuation of Book­ Entry System. Registered ownership of the Series D Bonds, or any portion thereof, may not be transferred except as follows: (i)To any successor of Cede & Co., as nominee of OTC, or its nominee, or to any substitute depository designated pursuant to clause (ii) of this Section (a "substitute depository"); provided that any successor of Cede & Co., as nominee of OTC or substitute depository, shall be qualified under any applicable laws to provide the services proposed to be provided by it; -10- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 748 (ii)To any substitute depository not objected to by the District or the County, upon (1) the resignation of OTC or its successor (or any substitute depository or its successor) from its functions as depository, or (2) a determination by the County (upon consultation with the District) to substitute another depository for OTC (or its successor) because OTC or its successor (or any substitute depository or its successor) is no longer able to carry out its functions as depository; provided, that any such substitute depository shall be qualified under any applicable laws to provide the services proposed to be provided by it; or (iii)To any person upon (1) the resignation of DTC or its successor (or substitute depository or its successor) from its functions as depository, or (2) a determination by the County (upon consultation with the District) to remove OTC or its successor (or any substitute depository or its successor) from its functions as depository. ARTICLE Ill SALE OF SERIES D BONDS; APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS SECTION 3.01. Sale of Series D Bonds; Approval of Sale Documents. (a)Negotiated Sale Authorized. Pursuant to Section 53508.7 of the Bond Law, the Board hereby expressly authorizes the negotiated sale of the Series D Bonds to Raymond James & Associates, Inc., as Underwriter. The Series D Bonds shall be sold pursuant to the Bond Purchase Agreement in substantially the form on file with the Clerk of the Board with such changes therein, deletions therefrom and modifications thereto as a District Representative may approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement; provided that the Bond Purchase Agreement shall contain the following terms: (i)the Series D Bonds shall bear a rate of interest of not to exceed 8 percent per annum; (ii)the Series D Bonds shall have a final maturity date of 30 years or less from the date of issuance; (iii)the Series D Bonds shall have a ratio of total debt service to principal of not to exceed four to one; (iv)the Underwriter's discount, net of Underwriter's reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed 0.60% of the aggregate principal amount of the Series D Bonds. The Board hereby authorizes a District Representative to execute and deliver the final form of the Bond Purchase Agreement in the name and on behalf of the District. (b)Reasons for Negotiated Sale. In accordance with Section 53508.7 of the Bond Law, the Board has determined to sell the Series D Bonds at negotiated sale for the following reasons: (a) a negotiated sale provides more flexibility to choose the time -11- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 749 and date of the sale which is often advantageous in the municipal bond market; (b) the involvement of the Underwriter in preparing documents, rating agency presentations and structuring bonds generally enhances the quality and results of the bond offering; (c) a negotiated sale will permit the time schedule for the issuance and sale of the Series D Bonds to be expedited, if necessary; (d) a negotiated sale provides the District access to the underwriter's trading desk for providing estimates of the cost of various bond structures (yields, discounts, premiums and maturities) for the purpose of evaluating alternative potential bond structures with the goal of producing the best match between District objectives and investor acceptance and demand; and (e) a negotiated sale provides time for underwriters to educate potential investors about the District and the Series D Bonds with the goal of maximizing investor orders/reducing interest cost on the day of bond pricing. (c)Official Statement. The Board hereby approves, and hereby deems final within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Preliminary Official Statement describing the Series D Bonds in substantially the form on file with the Clerk of the Board. A District Representative is hereby authorized to execute an appropriate certificate stating the Board's determination that the Preliminary Official Statement has been deemed final within the meaning of such Rule. A District Representative is hereby authorized and directed to approve any changes in or additions to a final form of said Official Statement, and the execution thereof by a District Representative shall be conclusive evidence of his or her approval of any such changes and additions. The Board hereby authorizes the distribution of the Official Statement by the Underwriter. The final Official Statement shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the District by a District Representative. (d)Bond Insurance. If the District is advised by its financial advisor that it is in the best financial interests of the District to obtain a municipal bond insurance policy to insure the payment of debt service on the Series D Bonds, a District Representative is authorized to apply for said insurance and to take all actions and execute all documents and certifications relating thereto. (e)Actions to Close Bond Issuance. Each District Representative and any and all other officers of the District are each authorized and directed in the name and on behalf of the District to execute and deliver any and all certificates, requisitions, agreements, notices, consents, warrants and other documents, which they or any of them might deem necessary or appropriate in order to consummate the lawful issuance, sale and delivery of the Series D Bonds, including but not limited to the execution and delivery of a document with respect to the engagement of the Paying Agent appointed hereby, and the payment of Costs of Issuance. Whenever in this Resolution any officer of the District is authorized to execute or countersign any document or take any action, such execution, countersigning or action may be taken on behalf of such officer by any person designated by such officer to act on his or her behalf if such officer is absent or unavailable. SECTION 3.02. Application of Proceeds of Sale of Series D Bonds. The proceeds of the Series D Bonds paid to the County Treasurer on the Closing Date shall be applied by the County Treasurer as follows: (a)The portion of the proceeds representing the premium (if any) received by the County Treasurer on the sale of the Series D Bonds -12- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 750 will be deposited in the Debt Service Fund established pursuant to Section 4.02. (b)All remaining proceeds received by the County Treasurer from the sale of the Series D Bonds will be deposited in the Building Fund established pursuant to Section 3.03. At the option of the District, a portion of the proceeds to be used to pay Costs of Issuance may be deposited with a fiscal agent selected by the District, as provided in Section 15146(g) of the Education Code, as directed by the District, in order the facilitate the payment of Costs of Issuance. In addition, the Bond Purchase Agreement may provide that the Underwriter shall apply its funds to the payment of Costs of Issuance. SECTION 3.03. Building Fund. The County Auditor-Controller shall create and maintain a fund designated as the "Antioch Unified School District, Election of 2008, Series D Building Fund," into which the proceeds from the sale of the Series D Bonds shall be deposited, to the extent required under Section 3.02(b). In order to ensure that the District is able to meet its federal tax law covenants with respect to separate accounting of funds holding proceeds of the Series D Bonds, the County Auditor­ Controller is requested to maintain separate accounting for the proceeds of the Series D Bonds, including all earnings received from the investment thereof. Amounts credited to the Building Fund for the Series D Bonds shall be expended by the District solely for the financing of projects for which the Series D Bond proceeds are authorized to be expended under Measure C (which includes related Costs of Issuance). All interest and other gain arising from the investment of proceeds of the Series D Bonds shall be retained in the Building Fund and used for the purposes thereof. At the Written Request of the District filed with the County Auditor-Controller, any amounts remaining on deposit in the Building Fund and not needed for the purposes thereof shall be withdrawn from the Building Fund and transferred to the Debt Service Fund, to be applied to pay the principal of and interest on the Series D Bonds. If excess amounts remain on deposit in the Building Fund after payment in full of the Series D Bonds, any such excess amounts shall be transferred to the general fund of the District, to be applied for the purposes for which the Series D Bonds have been authorized or otherwise in accordance with the Bond Law. SECTION 3.04. Professionals; Estimated Financing Costs. The Board has previously engaged the services of PFM Financial Advisors LLC (previously Public Financial Management) to act as the District's financial advisor, and has engaged the firm of Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, to act as bond counsel and disclosure counsel to the District. Such engagements are affirmed in connection with the issuance of the Series D Bonds. A District Representative is authorized to execute agreements relating to said engagements pursuant to substantially the same terms as the previous engagement. The estimated Costs of Issuance of the Series D Bonds is approximately $132,500, which includes legal and financial advisory expenses, rating fees, paying agency fees, and other issuance related costs, but which does not include Underwriter's fees and expenses and the bond insurance premium, if bond insurance is obtained. In accordance with Government Code Section 53509.5, actual cost information relating to the sale of the Series D Bonds shall be presented to the Board of Trustees at its next public meeting following the sale of the Series D Bonds, and an -13- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 751 itemized summary of the costs of the Series D Bonds sale shall be submitted to the California Debt and Investment Commission. SECTION 3.05. Costs of Issuance Agreement. In order to facilitate the payment of all or some Costs of Issuance, the Board hereby authorizes a District Representative to enter into or acknowledge an agreement, designating a bank identified therein, to serve as a custodian for receipt of a portion of the proceeds of the Series D Bonds to pay all or a portion of Costs of Issuance. Such funds may be paid directly by the Underwriter to the custodian identified therein, and may represent premium on the Series D Bonds which the Underwriter may, pursuant to the Bond Purchase Agreement, contract to provide for payment of Costs of Issuance. ARTICLE IV SECURITY FOR THE SERIES D BONDS; DEBT SERVICE FUND SECTION 4.01. Security for the Series D Bonds. The Series D Bonds are general obligations of the District. The Board has the power to direct the County to levy ad valorem taxes upon all property within the Improvement District that is subject to taxation by the District, without limitation of rate or amount, for the payment of the Series D Bonds and the interest and redemption premium (if any) thereon. The District hereby directs the County to levy on all the taxable property in the Improvement District, in addition to all other taxes, a continuing direct and ad valorem tax annually during the period the Series D Bonds are Outstanding in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Series D Bonds when due, including the principal of any Series D Bonds upon the mandatory sinking fund redemption thereof under Section 2.03(b), which moneys when collected will be paid to the County Treasurer and placed in the Debt Service Fund. The principal of and interest and redemption premium (if any) on the Series D Bonds does not constitute a debt of the County, the State of California, or any of its political subdivisions other than the District, or any of the officers, agents or employees thereof. Neither the County, the State of California, any of its political subdivisions nor any of the officers, agents or employees thereof are liable for the Series D Bonds. In no event are the principal of and interest and redemption premium (if any) on Series D Bonds payable out of any funds or properties of the District other than ad valorem taxes levied on taxable property in the Improvement District. The Series D Bonds, including the interest thereon, are payable solely from taxes levied under Sections 15250 and 15252 of the Education Code. As required by Education Code Section 15140(c), the District shall transmit a copy of this resolution, together with the debt service schedule for the Series D Bonds, to the office of the County Auditor-Controller and County Treasurer in sufficient time to permit the County to establish tax rates for the Series D Bonds. SECTION 4.02. Establishment of Debt Service Fund. The District hereby directs the County Auditor-Controller to establish, hold and maintain a fund to be known as the "Antioch Unified School District (School Facilities Improvement District No. 1) -14- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 752 Election of 2008, Series D General Obligation Bonds Debt Service Fund", which the County Auditor-Controller shall maintain as a separate account, distinct from all other funds of the County and the District. All taxes levied by the County, at the request of the District, for the payment of the principal of and interest and premium (if any) on the Series D Bonds shall be deposited in the Debt Service Fund by the County promptly upon apportionment of said levy. The District hereby pledges all revenues from the property taxes collected from the levy by the Board of Supervisors of the County for the payment of the Series D Bonds and the amounts in the Debt Service Fund to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Series D Bonds when and as the same become due, including the principal of any term Series D Bonds required to be paid upon the mandatory sinking fund redemption thereof. Amounts in the Debt Service Fund shall be transferred by the County Auditor-Controller to the Paying Agent to the extent required to pay the principal of and interest and redemption premium (if any) on the Series D Bonds when due. In addition, amounts on deposit in the Debt Service Fund shall be applied to pay the fees and expenses of the Paying Agent insofar as permitted by law, including specifically by Section 15232 of the Education Code. SECTION 4.03. Disbursements From Debt Service Fund. The County Auditor­ Controller shall administer the Debt Service Fund and make disbursements therefrom in the manner set forth in this Section. The County Auditor-Controller shall transfer amounts on deposit in the Debt Service Fund, to the extent necessary to pay the principal of and interest on the Series D Bonds when due and payable, to the Paying Agent which, in turn, shall pay such moneys to OTC to pay the principal of and interest on the Series D Bonds. OTC will thereupon make payments of principal and interest on the Series D Bonds to the OTC Participants who will thereupon make payments of principal and interest to the beneficial owners of the Series D Bonds. If, after payment in full of the Series D Bonds, and all other general obligation bonded indebtedness of the District, any amounts remain on deposit in the Debt Service Fund, the County shall transfer such amounts to the General Fund of the District as provided in Section 15234 of the Education Code. SECTION 4.04. Investments. All moneys held in any of the funds or accounts established with the County hereunder may be invested in Authorized Investments in accordance with the investment policies of the County, as such policies exist at the time of investment. Obligations purchased as an investment of moneys in any fund or account will be deemed to be part of such fund or account. The County has no responsibility in the reporting, reconciling and monitoring of the investment of the proceeds of the Series D Bonds. All interest or gain derived from the investment of amounts in any of the funds or accounts established hereunder shall be deposited in the fund or account from which such investment was made, and shall be expended for the purposes thereof. The District covenants that all investments of amounts deposited in any fund or account created by or under this Resolution, or otherwise containing proceeds of the Series D Bonds, shall be acquired and disposed of at the Fair Market Value thereof. For purposes of this Section, the term "Fair Market Value" shall mean, with respect to any investment, the price at which a willing buyer would purchase such investment from a willing seller in a bona fide, arm's length transaction (determined as of the date the contract to purchase or sell the investment becomes binding) if the investment is traded -15- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 753 on an established securities market (within the meaning of Section 1273 of the Tax Code) and, otherwise, the term "Fair Market Value" means the acquisition price in a bona fide arm's length transaction (as described above) if (i) the investment is a certificate of deposit that is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations under the Tax Code, (ii) the investment is an agreement with specifically negotiated withdrawal or reinvestment provisions and a specifically negotiated interest rate (for example, a guaranteed investment contract, a forward supply contract or other investment agreement) that is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations under the Tax Code, or (iii) the investment is a United States Treasury Security -State and Local Government Series that is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations of the United States Bureau of Public Debt. ARTICLE V OTHER COVENANTS OF THE DISTRICT SECTION 5.01. Punctual Payment. The Board will direct the County to levy ad valorem taxes in the Improvement District, as provided in Section 15250 of the Education Code, so as to enable the District to punctually pay, or cause to be paid, the principal of and interest on the Series D Bonds, in conformity with the terms of the Series D Bonds and of this Resolution. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the District from making advances of its own moneys howsoever derived to any of the uses or purposes permitted by law, including, in its sole discretion, to pay debt service on the Series D Bonds. SECTION 5.02. Books and Accounts; Financial Statements. The District will keep, or cause to be kept, proper books of record and accounts, separate from all other records and accounts of the District in which complete and correct entries are made of all transactions relating to the expenditure of the proceeds of the Series D Bonds. Such books of record and accounts shall at all times during business hours be subject to the inspection of the Paying Agent and the Owners of not less than 10% in aggregate principal amount of the Series D Bonds then Outstanding, or their representatives authorized in writing. SECTION 5.03. Protection of Security and Rights of Series D Bond Owners. The District will preserve and protect the security of the Series D Bonds and the rights of the Series D Bond Owners, and will warrant and defend their rights against all claims and demands of all persons. Following the issuance of the Series D Bonds by the District, the Series D Bonds shall be incontestable by the District. SECTION 5.04. Tax Covenants. (a)Private Activity Bond Limitation. The District shall assure that the proceeds of the Series D Bonds are not so used as to cause the Series D Bonds to satisfy the private business tests of Section 141 (b) of the Tax Code or the private loan financing test of Section 141 (c) of the Tax Code. (b)Federal Guarantee Prohibition. The District shall not take any action or permit or suffer any action to be taken if the result of the same would be to cause any of -16- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 754 the Series D Bonds to be "federally guaranteed" within the meaning of Section 149(b) of the Tax Code. (c)No Arbitrage. The District shall not take, or permit or suffer to be taken by the Paying Agent or the County or otherwise, any action with respect to the proceeds of the Series D Bonds which, if such action had been reasonably expected to have been taken, or had been deliberately and intentionally taken, on the Closing Date would have caused the Series D Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Tax Code. (d)Maintenance of Tax-Exemption. The District shall take all actions necessary to assure the exclusion of interest on the Series D Bonds from the gross income of the Owners of the Series D Bonds to the same extent as such interest is permitted to be excluded from gross income under the Tax Code as in effect on the Closing Date. (e)Rebate of Excess Investment Earnings to United States. The District shall calculate or cause to be calculated excess investment earnings with respect to the Series D Bonds which are required to be rebated to the United States of America under Section 148(f) of the Tax Code, and shall pay the full amount of such excess investment earnings to the United States of America in such amounts, at such times and in such manner as may be required under the Tax Code, if and to the extent such Section 148(f) is applicable to the Series D Bonds. Such payments shall be made by the District from any source of legally available funds of the District. The District shall keep or cause to be kept, and retain or cause to be retained for a period of six years following the retirement of the Series D Bonds, records of the determinations made under this subsection (e). In order to provide for the administration of this subsection (e), the District may provide for the employment of independent attorneys, accountants and consultants compensated on such reasonable basis as the District may deem appropriate. SECTION 5.05. Continuing Disclosure. The District hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate, which shall be executed by a District Representative and delivered on the Closing Date. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, failure of the District to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate does not constitute a default by the District hereunder or under the Series D Bonds; however, any Participating Underwriter (as that term is defined in the Continuing Disclosure Certificate) or any holder or beneficial owner of the Series D Bonds may, take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate to compel performance, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order. SECTION 5.06. Further Assurances. The District will adopt, make, execute and deliver any and all such further resolutions, instruments and assurances as may be reasonably necessary or proper to carry out the intention or to facilitate the performance of this Resolution, and for the better assuring and confirming unto the Owners of the Series D Bonds of the rights and benefits provided in this Resolution. -17- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 755 ARTICLE VI THE PA YING AGENT SECTION 6.01. Appointment of Paying Agent. A District Representative is authorized to identify and appoint a bank or trust company to act as the initial Paying Agent for the Series D Bonds and, in such capacity, shall also act as registration agent and authentication agent for the Series D Bonds. The Paying Agent undertakes to perform such duties, and only such duties, as are specifically set forth in this Resolution, and even during the continuance of an event of default with respect to the Series D Bonds, no implied covenants or obligations shall be read into this Resolution against the Paying Agent. The Paying Agent shall signify its acceptance of the duties and obligations imposed upon it by the District by executing and delivering to the District a certificate or agreement to that effect. A District Representative is authorized to enter into a paying agency agreement in connection with such appointment. The District may remove the Paying Agent initially appointed, and any successor thereto, and may appoint a successor or successors thereto, but any such successor shall be a bank or trust company doing business and having an office in the State of California, having a combined capital (exclusive of borrowed capital) and surplus of at least $50,000,000, and subject to supervision or examination by federal or state authority. If such bank or trust company publishes a report of condition at least annually, under law or to the requirements of any supervising or examining authority above referred to, then for the purposes of this Section the combined capital and surplus of such bank or trust company shall be deemed to be its combined capital and surplus as set forth in its most recent report of condition so published. The Paying Agent may at any time resign by giving written notice to the District and the Series D Bond Owners of such resignation. Upon receiving notice of such resignation, the District shall promptly appoint a successor Paying Agent by an instrument in writing. Any resignation or removal of the Paying Agent and appointment of a successor Paying Agent will become effective upon acceptance of appointment by the successor Paying Agent. SECTION 6.02. Paying Agent May Hold Series D Bonds. The Paying Agent may become the owner of any of the Series D Bonds in its own or any other capacity with the same rights it would have if it were not Paying Agent. SECTION 6.03. Liability of Agents. The recitals of facts, covenants and agreements herein and in the Series D Bonds contained shall be taken as statements, covenants and agreements of the District, and the Paying Agent assumes no responsibility for the correctness of the same, nor makes any repres entations as to the validity or sufficiency of this Resolution or of the Series D Bonds, nor shall incur any responsibility in respect thereof, other than as set forth in this Resolution. The Paying Agent is not liable in connection with the performance of its duties hereunder, except for its own negligence or willful default. In the absence of bad faith, the Paying Agent may conclusively rely, as to the truth of the statements and the correctness of the opinions expressed therein, upon -18- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 756 certificates or opinions furnished to the Paying Agent and conforming to the requirements of this Resolution. The Paying Agent is not liable for any error of judgment made in good faith by a responsible officer of its corporate trust department in the absence of the negligence of the Paying Agent. No provision of this Resolution shall require the Paying Agent to expend or risk its own funds or otherwise incur any financial liability in the performance of any of its duties hereunder, or in the exercise of any of its rights or powers, if it has reasonable grounds for believing that repayment of such funds or adequate indemnity against such risk or liability is not reasonably assured to it. The Paying Agent may execute any of the powers hereunder or perform any duties hereunder either directly or by or through agents or attorneys and the Paying Agent is not responsible for any misconduct or negligence on the part of any agent or attorney appointed with due care by it hereunder. SECTION 6.04. Notice to Paying Agent. The Paying Agent may rely and shall be protected in acting or refraining from acting upon any notice, resolution, request, consent, order, certificate, report, warrant, bond or other paper or document believed by it to be genuine and to have been signed or presented by the proper party or proper parties. The Paying Agent may consult with counsel, who may be counsel to the District, with regard to legal questions, and the opinion of such counsel shall be full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken or suffered by it hereunder in good faith and in accordance therewith. Whenever in the administration of its duties under this Resolution the Paying Agent shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking or suffering any action hereunder, such matter (unless other evidence in respect thereof be herein specifically prescribed) may, in the absence of bad faith on the part of the Paying Agent, be deemed to be conclusively proved and established by a certificate of the District, and such certificate shall be full warrant to the Paying Agent for any action taken or suffered under the provisions of this Resolution upon the faith thereof, but in its discretion the Paying Agent may, in lieu thereof, accept other evidence of such matter or may require such additional evidence as to it may seem reasonable. SECTION 6.05. Compensation; Indemnification. The District shall pay to the Paying Agent from time to time reasonable compensation for all services rendered under this Resolution, and also all reasonable expenses, charges, counsel fees and other disbursements, including those of their attorneys, agents and employees, incurred in and about the performance of their powers and duties under this Resolution. The District further agrees to indemnify and save the Paying Agent harmless against any liabilities which it may incur in the exercise and performance of its powers and duties hereunder which are not due to its negligence or bad faith. -19- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 757 ARTICLE VII REMEDIES OF SERIES D BOND OWNERS SECTION 7 .01. Remedies of Series D Bond Owners. Any Series D Bond Owner has the right, for the equal benefit and protection of all Series D Bond Owners similarly situated: (a)by mandamus, suit, action or proceeding, to compel the District and its members, officers, agents or employees to perform each and every term, provision and covenant contained in this Resolution and in the Series D Bonds, and to require the carrying out of any or all such covenants and agreements of the District and the fulfillment of all duties imposed upon it; (b)by suit, action or proceeding in equity, to enjoin any acts or things which are unlawful, or the violation of any of the Series D Bond Owners' rights; or (c)upon the happening and continuation of any default by the District hereunder or under the Series D Bonds, by suit, action or proceeding in any court of competent jurisdiction, to require the District and its members and employees to account as if it and they were the trustees of an express trust. SECTION 7 .02. Remedies Not Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon the Owners of Series D Bonds is exclusive of any other remedy. Each and every remedy is cumulative and may be exercised in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or thereafter conferred on the Series D Bond Owners. SECTION 7 .03. Non-Waiver. Nothing in this Article VII or in any other provision of this Resolution or in the Series D Bonds, affects or impairs the obligation of the District, which is absolute and unconditional, to pay the principal of and interest on the Series D Bonds to the respective Owners of the Series D Bonds at the respective dates of maturity, as herein provided, or affects or impairs the right of action against the District, which is also absolute and unconditional, of such Owners to institute suit against the District to enforce such payment by virtue of the contract embodied in the Series D Bonds. A waiver of any default by any Series D Bond Owner shall not affect any subsequent default or impair any rights or remedies on the subsequent default. No delay or omission of any Owner of any of the Series D Bonds to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver of any such default or an acquiescence therein, and every power and remedy conferred upon the Series D Bond Owners by this Article VII may be enforced and exercised from time to time and as often as shall be deemed expedient by the Owners of the Series D Bonds. If a suit, action or proceeding to enforce any right or exercise any remedy be abandoned or determined adversely to the Series D Bond Owners, the District and the -20- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 758 Series D Bond Owners shall be restored to their former positions, rights and remedies as if such suit, action or proceeding had not been brought or taken. ARTICLE VIII AMENDMENT OF THIS RESOLUTION SECTION 8.01. Amendments Effective Without Consent of the Owners. The Board may amend this Resolution from time to time, without the consent of the Owners of the Series D Bonds, for any one or more of the following purposes: (a)To add to the covenants and agreements of the District in this Resolution, other covenants and agreements to be observed by the District which are not contrary to or inconsistent with this Resolution as theretofore in effect; (b)To confirm, as further assurance, any pledge under, and to subject to any lien or pledge created or to be created by, this Resolution, of any moneys, securities or funds, or to establish any additional funds or accounts to be held under this Resolution; (c)To cure any ambiguity, supply any omission, or cure or correct any defect or inconsistent provision in this Resolution, in a manner which does not materially adversely affect the interests of the Series D Bond Owners in the opinion of Bond Counsel filed with the District; or (d)To make such additions, deletions or modifications as may be necessary or desirable to assure exemption from federal income taxation of interest on the Series D Bonds. SECTION 8.02. Amendments Effective With Consent of the Owners. The Board may amend this Resolution from time to time for any purpose not set forth in Section 8.01, with the written consent of the Owners of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Series D Bonds Outstanding at the time such consent is given. Without the consent of all the Owners of such Series D Bonds, no such modification or amendment shall permit (a) a change in the terms of maturity of the principal of any Outstanding Series D Bonds or of any interest payable thereon or a reduction in the principal amount thereof or in the rate of interest thereon, (b) a reduction of the percentage of Series D Bonds the consent of the Owners of which is required to effect any such modification or amendment, (c) a change in any of the provisions in Section 7.01 or (d) a reduction in the amount of moneys pledged for the repayment of the Series D Bonds, and no right or obligation of any Paying Agent may be changed or modified without its written consent. -21- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 759 ARTICLE IX MISCELLANEOUS SECTION 9.01. Benefits of Resolution Limited to Parties. Nothing in this Resolution, expressed or implied, gives any person other than the District, the County, the Paying Agent and the Owners of the Series D Bonds, any right, remedy, claim under or by reason of this Resolution. The covenants, stipulations, promises or agreements in this Resolution are for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Owners of the Series D Bonds. SECTION 9.02. Defeasance of Series D Bonds. (a)Discharge of Resolution. Any or all of the Series D Bonds may be paid by the District in any of the following ways, provided that the District also pays or causes to be paid any other sums payable hereunder by the District: (i)by paying or causing to be paid the principal or redemption price of and interest on such Series D Bonds, as and when the same become due and payable; (ii)by irrevocably depositing, in trust, at or before maturity, money or securities in the necessary amount (as provided in Section 9.02(c) hereof) to pay or redeem such Series D Bonds; or (iii)by delivering such Series D Bonds to the Paying Agent for cancellation by it. If the District pays all Outstanding Series D Bonds and also pays or causes to be paid all other sums payable hereunder by the District, then and in that case, at the election of the District ( evidenced by a certificate of a District Representative filed with the Paying Agent, signifying the intention of the District to discharge all such indebtedness and this Resolution), and notwithstanding that any Series D Bonds have not been surrendered for payment, this Resolution and other assets made under this Resolution and all covenants, agreements and other obligations of the District under this Resolution shall cease, terminate, become void and be completely discharged and satisfied, except only as provided in Section 9.02(b). In such event, upon request of the District, the Paying Agent shall cause an accounting for such period or periods as may be requested by the District to be prepared and filed with the District and shall execute and deliver to the District all such instruments as may be necessary to evidence such discharge and satisfaction, and the Paying Agent shall pay over, transfer, assign or deliver to the District all moneys or securities or other property held by it under this Resolution which are not required for the payment or redemption of Series D Bonds not theretofore surrendered for such payment or redemption. (b)Discharge of Liability on Series D Bonds. Upon the deposit, in trust, at or before maturity, of money or securities in the necessary amount (as provided in Section 9.02(c) hereof) to pay or redeem any Outstanding Series D Bond (whether upon or prior to its maturity or the redemption date of such Series D Bond), provided that, if such Series D Bond is to be redeemed prior to maturity, notice of such redemption has been -22- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 760 given as provided in Section 2.03 or provision satisfactory to the Paying Agent has been made for the giving of such notice, then all liability of the District in respect of such Series D Bond shall cease and be completely discharged, except only that thereafter the Owner thereof shall be entitled only to payment of the principal of and interest on such Series D Bond by the District, and the District shall remain liable for such payment, but only out of such money or securities deposited with the Paying Agent as aforesaid for such payment, provided further, however, that the provisions of Section 9.02(d) shall apply in all events. The District may at any time surrender to the Paying Agent for cancellation by it any Series D Bonds previously issued and delivered, which the District may have acquired in any manner whatsoever, and such Series D Bonds, upon such surrender and cancellation, shall be deemed to be paid and retired. (c)Deposit of Money or Securities with Paying Agent. Whenever in this Resolution it is provided or permitted that there be deposited with or held in trust by the Paying Agent money or securities in the necessary amount to pay or redeem any Series D Bonds, the money or securities so to be deposited or held may include money or securities held by the Paying Agent in the funds and accounts established under this Resolution and shall be: (i)lawful money of the United States of America in an amount equal to the principal amount of such Series D Bonds and all unpaid interest thereon to maturity, except that, in the case of Series D Bonds which are to be redeemed prior to maturity and in respect of which notice of such redemption has been given as provided in Section 2.03 or provision satisfactory to the Paying Agent has been made for the giving of such notice, the amount to be deposited or held shall be the principal amount or redemption price of such Series D Bonds and all unpaid interest thereon to the redemption date; or (ii)Federal Securities (not callable by the issuer thereof prior to maturity) the principal of and interest on which when due, in the opinion of a certified public accountant delivered to the District, will provide money sufficient to pay the principal or redemption price of and all unpaid interest to maturity, or to the redemption date, as the case may be, on the Series D Bonds to be paid or redeemed, as such principal or redemption price and interest become due, provided that, in the case of Series D Bonds which are to be redeemed prior to the maturity thereof, notice of such redemption has been given as provided in Section 2.03 or provision satisfactory to the Paying Agent has been made for the giving of such notice. (d)Payment of Series D Bonds After Discharge of Resolution. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Resolution, any moneys held by the Paying Agent in trust for the payment of the principal or redemption price of, or interest on, any Series D Bonds and remaining unclaimed for two years after the principal of all of the Series D Bonds has become due and payable (whether at maturity or upon call for redemption or by acceleration as provided in this Resolution), if such moneys were so held at such date, or two years after the date of deposit of such moneys if deposited after said date when all of the Series D Bonds became due and payable, shall, upon request of the District, -23- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 761 be repaid to the District free from the trusts created by this Resolution, and all liability of the Paying Agent with respect to such moneys shall thereupon cease; provided, however, that before the repayment of such moneys to the District as aforesaid, the Paying Agent may (at the cost of the District) first mail to the Owners of all Series D Bonds which have not been paid at the addresses shown on the Registration Books a notice in such form as may be deemed appropriate by the Paying Agent, with respect to the Series D Bonds so payable and not presented and with respect to the provisions relating to the repayment to the District of the moneys held for the payment thereof. Thereafter, the District shall remain liable to the Owners for payment of any amounts due on the Series D Bonds, which amounts shall be deemed to be paid by the District from moneys remitted to it by the Paying Agent under this subsection (d). SECTION 9.03. Execution of Documents and Proof of Ownership by Series D Bond Owners. Any request, declaration or other instrument which this Resolution may require or permit to be executed by Series D Bond Owners may be in one or more instruments of similar tenor, and shall be executed by Series D Bond Owners in person or by their attorneys appointed in writing. Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, the fact and date of the execution by any Series D Bond Owner or his attorney of such request, declaration or other instrument, or of such writing appointing such attorney, may be proved by the certificate of any notary public or other officer authorized to take acknowledgments of deeds to be recorded in the state in which he purports to act, that the person signing such request, declaration or other instrument or writing acknowledged to him the execution thereof, or by an affidavit of a witness of such execution, duly sworn to before such notary public or other officer. Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, the ownership of registered Series D Bonds and the amount, maturity, number and date of holding the same shall be proved by the Registration Books. Any request, declaration or other instrument or writing of the Owner of any Series D Bond shall bind all future Owners of such Series D Bond in respect of anything done or suffered to be done by the District or the Paying Agent in good faith and in accordance therewith. SECTION 9.04. Waiver of Personal Liability. No Board member, officer, agent or employee of the District shall be individually or personally liable for the payment of the principal of or interest on the Series D Bonds; but nothing herein contained shall relieve any such Board member, officer, agent or employee from the performance of any official duly provided by law. SECTION 9.05. Limited Duties of County; Indemnification. Notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary in this Resolution, the Series D Bonds are not a debt of the County, including its Board, officers, officials, agents and employees, and the County, including its Board, officers, officials, agents and employees, has no obligation to repay the Series D Bonds. Neither the County, nor its Board of Supervisors, nor any officer, official, agent or employee of the County, shall have any obligation or liability hereunder or in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby other than as specified in the Education Code. The Series D Bonds, including the interest thereon, are payable solely from taxes levied under Section 15250 of the Education Code. The -24- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 762 County has no responsibility and assumes no liability whatsoever arising from the expenditure of the proceeds of the Series D Bonds by the District. The County (includin g its officers, agents and employees) shall undertake only those duties of the County under this Resolution which are specifically set forth in this Resolution and in applicable provisions of the Bond Law and the Education Code, and even during the continuance of an event of default with respect to the Series D Bonds, no implied covenants or obligations shall be read into this Resolution against the County (including its officers, agents and employees). The District further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent permitted by law, the County, including its officers, agents and employees (the "Indemnified Parties") against any and all losses, claims, damages or liabilities, joint or several, which it may incur in the exercise and performance of its powers and duties hereunder, including legal and other expenses incurred in connection with investigating or defending any such claims or actions, which are not due to its negligence or bad faith. SECTION 9.06. Destruction of Canceled Series D Bonds. Whenever in this Resolution provision is made for the surrender to the District of any Series D Bonds which have been paid or canceled under the provisions of this Resolution, a certificate of destruction duly executed by the Paying Agent shall be deemed to be the equivalent of the surrender of such canceled Series D Bonds and the District shall be entitled to rely upon any statement of fact contained in any certificate with respect to the destruction of any such Series D Bonds therein referred to. SECTION 9.07. Partial Invalidity. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution shall for any reason be held illegal or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The District hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each and every other section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof and authorized the issue of the Series D Bonds pursuant thereto irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases of this Resolution may be held illegal, invalid or unenforceable. If, by reason of the judgment of any court, the District is rendered unable to perform its duties hereunder, all such duties and all of the rights and powers of the District hereunder shall be assumed by and vest in the chief financial officer of the District in trust for the benefit of the Series D Bond Owners. -25- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 763 SECTION 9.08. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED on December 14, 2016, by the following vote: [Majority vote required] AYES: 5' NOES: <I ABSENT: � ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Education Antioch Unified School District, Contra Costa County, Califo rnia -26- December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 764 APPENDIX A FORM OF SERIES D BOND REGISTERED BOND NO. __ ***$ ***----- ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Contra Costa County, California) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND (School Facilities Improvement District No. 1) ELECTION OF 2008, SERIES D INTEREST RATE PER ANNUM: MATURITY DATE: REGISTERED OWNER: DATED DATE: CUSIP: PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: *** DOLLARS*** ----------------- The Antioch Unified School District (the "District"), located in the County of Contra Costa (the "County"), for value received, hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner named above, or registered assigns, the principal amount on the Maturity Date, each as stated above, and interest thereon, calculated on a 30/360 day basis, until the principal amount is paid or provided for, at the Interest Rate stated above, such interest to be paid on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2017 (the "Interest Payment Dates"). This Bond will bear interest from the Interest Payment Date next preceding the date of authentication hereof, unless (a) it is authenticated as of a business day following the 15 th day of the month immediately preceding any Interest Payment Date and on or before such Interest Payment Date, in which event it shall bear interest from such Interest Payment Date, or (b) it is authenticated on or before July 15, 2017, in which event it shall bear interest from the Dated Date referred to above. Principal hereof is payable at the corporate trust office of the paying agent for the Bonds (the "Paying Agent"), initially being . Interest hereon (including the final interest payment upon maturity) is payable by check or draft of the Paying Agent mailed by first-class mail to the Owner at the Owner's address as it appears on the registration books maintained by the Paying Agent as of the close of business on the 15 1h day of the month next preceding such Interest Payment Date (the "Record Date"), or at such other address as the Owner may have filed with the Paying Agent for that purpose. Principal hereof is payable at the corporate trust office of the Paying Agent. Interest hereon (including the final interest payment upon maturity) is payable by check or draft of the Paying Agent mailed by first-class mail to the Owner at the Owner's A-1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 765 address as it appears on the reg·istration books maintained by the Paying Agent as of the close of business on the 151h day of the month next preceding such Interest Payment Date (the "Record Date"), or at such other address as the Owner may have filed with the Paying Agent for that purpose. This Bond is one of a duly authorized issue of Bonds of the District designated as "Antioch Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds (School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 ), Election of 2008, Series D" (the "Bonds"), in an aggregate principal amount of $ , all of like tenor and date (except for such variation, if any, as may be required to designate varying numbers, maturities, interest rates or redemption and other provisions) and all issued under the provisions of Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (the "Bond Law"), and under a resolution of the Board of Education of the District adopted on December 14, 2016 (the "Resolution"), authorizing the issuance of the Bonds. The issuance of the Bonds has been authorized by the requisite 55% vote of the electors of School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 (the "Improvement District") cast at a special bond election held on June 3, 2008 within the boundaries of the Improvement District, upon the question of issuing bonds in the amount of $61,600,000. All capitalized terms herein and not otherwise defined have the meaning given them in the Resolution. Reference is hereby made to the Resolution (copies of which are on file at the office of the Paying Agent) and the Bond Law for a description of the terms on which the Bonds are issued and the rights thereunder of the owners of the Bonds and the rights, duties and immunities of the Paying Agent and the rights and obligations of the District thereunder, to all of the provisions of which Resolution the Owner of this Bond, by acceptance hereof, assents and agrees. The principal of and interest and redemption premium, if any, on this Bond does not constitute a debt of the County, the State of California, or any of its political subdivisions other than the District, or any of the officers, agents and employees thereof, and neither the County, the State of California, any of its political subdivisions, nor any of the officers, agents and employees thereof shall be liable hereon. In no event shall the principal of and interest and redemption premium, if any, on this Bond be payable out of any funds or properties of the District other than ad valorem taxes levied upon all taxable property in the Improvement District. The Bonds of this issue are issuable only as fully registered Bonds in the denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. This Bond is exchangeable and transferable for Bonds of other authorized denominations at the principal corporate trust office of the Paying Agent, by the Registered Owner or by a person legally empowered to do so, upon presentation and surrender hereof to the Paying Agent, together with a request for exchange or an assignment signed by the Registered Owner or by a person legally empowered to do so, in a form satisfactory to the Paying Agent, all subject to the terms, limitations and conditions provided in the Bond Resolution. Any tax or governmental charges shall be paid by the transferor. The District and the Paying Agent may deem and treat the Registered Owner as the absolute owner of this Bond for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of principal or interest and for all other purposes, and neither the District nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. A-2 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 766 The Bonds maturing on or before August 1, 20_ are not subject to redemption prior to their respective stated maturities. The Bonds maturing on or after August 1, 20_ are subject to redemption prior to maturity as a whole, or in part among maturities on such basis as shall be designated by the District and by lot within a maturity, at the option of the District, from any available source of funds, on August 1, 20_ and on any date thereafter, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of Bonds to be redeemed, together with interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption, without premium. [If applicable:] The Bonds maturing on August 1, 20_ (the "Term Bonds") are also subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption on or before August 1 in the years, and in the amounts, as set forth in the following table, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof to be redeemed (without premium), together with interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption; provided, however, that if some but not all of the Term Bonds have been redeemed under the preceding paragraph, the aggregate principal amount of Term Bonds to be redeemed under this paragraph shall be reduced on a pro rata basis in integral multiples of $5,000, or on such other basis as designated pursuant to written notice filed by the District with the Paying Agent. Sinking Fund Redemption Date (August 1) Principal Amount To Be Redeemed The Paying Agent shall give notice of the redemption of the Bonds at the expense of the District. Such notice shall specify: (a) that the Bonds or a designated portion thereof are to be redeemed, (b) the numbers and CUSIP numbers of the Bonds to be redeemed, (c) the date of notice and the date of redemption, (d) the place or places where the redemption will be made, and (e) descriptive information regarding the Bonds including the dated date, interest rate and stated maturity date. Such notice shall further state that on the specified date there shall become due and payable upon each Bond to be redeemed, the portion of the principal amount of such Bond to be redeemed, together with interest accrued to said date, the redemption premium, if any, and that from and after such date interest with respect thereto shall cease to accrue and be payable. Notice of redemption shall be by registered or otherwise secured mail or delivery service, postage prepaid, to the registered owner of the Bonds, to a municipal registered securities depository and to a national information service that disseminates securities redemption notices and, by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the District and the respective Owners of any Bonds designated for redemption at their addresses appearing on the Bond registration books, in every case at least 30 days, but not more than 60 days, prior to the redemption date; provided that neither failure to receive such notice nor any defect in any notice so mailed shall affect the sufficiency of the proceedings for the redemption of such Bonds. Neither the District nor the Paying Agent will be required: (a) to issue or transfer any Bond during a period beginning with the opening of business on the 151h calendar A-3 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 767 day next preceding either any Interest Payment Date or any date of selection of any Bond to be redeemed and ending with the close of business on the Interest Payment Date or a day on which the applicable notice of redemption is given, or (b) to transfer any Bond which has been selected or called for redemption in whole or in part. Reference is made to the Bond Resolution for a more complete description of the provisions, among others, with respect to the nature and extent of the security for the Bonds of this series, the rights, duties and obligations of the District, the Paying Agent and the Registered Owners, and the terms and conditions upon which the Bonds are issued and secured. The owner of this Bond asse nts, by acceptance hereof, to all of the provisions of the Bond Resolution. It is certified, recited and declared that all acts and conditions required by the Constitution and laws of the State of California to exist, to be performed or to have been met precedent to and in the issuing of the Bonds in order to make them legal, valid and binding general obligations of the District, have been performed and have been met in regular and due form as required by law; that payment in full for the Bonds has been received; that no statutory or constitutional limitation on indebtedness or taxation has been exceeded in issuing the Bonds; and that due provision has been made for levying and collecting ad valorem property taxes on all of the taxable property within the District in an amount sufficient to pay principal and interest when due, and for levying and collecting such taxes the full faith and credit of the District are hereby pledged. This Bond shall be not be valid or obligatory for any purpose and is not entitled to any security or benefit under the Bond Resolution (described on the reverse hereof) until the Certificate of Authentication below has been manually signed by the Paying Agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Antioch Unified School District has caused this Bond to be executed by the facsimile signature of its President and attested by the facsimile signature of the Clerk of its Board of Education, all as of the date stated above. Attest: {EXHIBIT ONLY7 Clerk of the Board ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT By����...i.:fE=X....;.;H....;.;/=B.._.IT __ O __ N--=-LY ...... l.__���� President A-4 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 768 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Resolution. Authentication Date: _____ , as Paying Agent EXHIBIT ONLY Authorized Signatory FORM OF ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned do(es) hereby sell, assign and transfer unto (Name, Address and Tax Identification or Social Security Number of Assignee) the within Bond and do(es) hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint ______ _ ______ , attorney, to transfer the same on the registration books of the Bond Registrar, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: ------- Signature Guaranteed: Note: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a an eligible guarantor institution. Note: The signature(s) on this Assignment must correspond with the name(s) as written on the face of the within Bond in every particular without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. A-5 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 769 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board 2016 Annual Report. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: On June 18, 2002, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2002/377, which requires that each regular and ongoing board, commission, or committee shall annually report to the Board of Supervisors on its activities, accomplishments, membership attendance, required training/certification (if any), and proposed work plan or objectives for the following year, on the second Tuesday in December. Annual reports shall follow the following format and shall not exceed two typewritten pages: Advisory Body Name: Contra Costa County Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board Advisory Body Meeting Time/Location: 1220 Morello Ave. Martinez 4:00 to 6:15PM, Chair (during the reporting period): Dr. Anne Sutherland Staff person (during the reporting period): Fatima Matal APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Fatima Matal Sol, 925-335-3307 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Fatima Matal Sol C. 98 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:AOD BOARD 2016 ANNUAL REPORT December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 770 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Sol Reporting Period: January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 I. Activities (1/2 page) II. Accomplishments (1/2 page) III. Attendance/Representation (1/4 page) IV. Training/Certification (1/4 page) V. Proposed Work Plan/Objectives for Next Year (1/2 page) ATTACHMENTS Report December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 771 Contra Costa County Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board 2016 ANNUAL REPORT Mission (as approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 28, 2012): The mission of the Contra Costa County Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board is to assess family and community needs regarding prevention and treatment of alcohol and other drug- related problems. Resultant findings and recommendations are forwarded to the Health Services Department and the Board of Supervisors. The Board also serves as an advocate for these findings and recommendations to the communities that we serve. Activities: During this calendar year, our Board adopted new goals and priorities which were the following: (1) Support the Reduction of Youth Use and Access of Alcohol and Marijuana, (2) Assess AOD-Related Reentry Resources and Needs. (3) Increase Awareness of Prescription Drug Abuse (PDA), (4) Advocate for More Affordable Sober Living Housing, and (5) Strengthen our Relationships with Existing Committees and Associated Boards and Commissions. We continued the following Priority Areas: (1) Raise Awareness about 55+ AOD related needs; (2) Promote and support more interaction between the Board and its constituents and (3) Prepare recommendations for the Board of Supervisors (BOS) legislative platform as they relate to AOD. As in previous years, we sponsored annual campaigns to celebrate recovery and recognize those who combat substance abuse. Our Board recognized two advocates as this year’s “Recovery Champions.” On May 24th, the Board of Supervisors recognized three individuals, two organizations and t h r e e Youth Leadership efforts with our “People Who Make a Difference Awards.” The Community Awareness Committee organized the Marijuana Speaker Series to understand and educate the community in anticipation of the Marijuana Initiative in the 2016 November Ballot. Drug Medi-Cal (DMC) Organized Delivery System (ODS) for Substance Use Disorders (SUD) Currently, the AOD Administration has received approval to its County Implementation Plan (IP) DMC Waiver. The County has also submitted a Fiscal Plan and when approved Contra Costa will be able to expand services for our residents. The Board remained active participants in the ODS-DMC Waiver process through participation in work sessions specifically related to the development of Guidelines for Recovery Residences and Recovery Support Specialists, both of which will be new services under the Waiver. During the work sessions, the recovering community, other advocates and Board members provided positive feedback towards the development of each service component. Meeting Time and Location: Generally on the fourth Wednesday of each month from 4:00 to 6:15 pm in Martinez; except when the Board meets within each supervisorial district to outreach to those residents. Board: 18 members; 3 from each supervisorial district plus 3 at large. Each member is appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Chair: Anne Sutherland M.D. Staff: Fatima Matal Sol December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 772 Accomplishments: Reduce Youth Use and Access of Alcohol and Marijuana. In February we started the Board sponsored Marijuana Lecture Series with a presentation regarding Marijuana and the Adolescent Brain, followed by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney’s Office presentation about the effects of legalization in Colorado. We also heard from Oaksterdam University regarding the benefits of Cannabis Use. The Speaker Series concluded with the Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) discussion on the fiscal impact of legalization. We supported the Alcohol Awareness Month in April and the annual Red Ribbon Week Proclamation in October led by AOD Prevention programs. Assess AOD-Related Reentry Resources and Needs. The Programs and Services Committee heard a presentation from the Reentry Coordinator in October. This presentation was an opportunity to learn about Reentry resources in Contra Costa. Increase Awareness of Prescription Drug Abuse (PDA). Prescription drug abuse is still a matter of concern to the Board Concerted activities to increase awareness regarding prescription drug abuse have included: attending CC MEDS Coalition monthly coalitions meetings, and supporting local Take Back Days sponsored by the CCC MEDS coalition and local law enforcement. Strengthen our Relationships with Existing Committees and Associated Boards and Commissions. The Advisory Board has had a representative attend the Contra Costa County Inter-jurisdictional Council on Homelessness, Mental Health Commission, and CCC MEDS Coalition. Members of the Advisory Board also attended the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Strategic Planning community forums. Promote and Support More Interactions between the Board and its Constituents: We held a table at the Dose of Awareness Walk in March that was held in San Ramon which promoted positive interactions with community members. Prepare Recommendations for the Board of Supervisors Legislative Platform as they Relate to AOD: The Board requested a letter of support from the Board of Supervisors pertaining to AB 2121 which would require Responsible Beverage Training for anyone who is involved in the sale and/or distribution of Alcohol. During this calendar year, the Board tracked three additional Senate and Assembly bills Advisory Board Challenges: We met during eight months in 2016 and canceled four meetings due to lack of quorum. This year we faced leadership challenges that impacted member’s engagement in Board activities. We also experienced a significant number of vacancies which affected the Board’s ability to make quorum at meetings. Training and Certification: Upon appointment, new members received an orientation, which included internal functioning of the Board, the Brown Act and Better Government Ordinance, confidentiality laws, and AOD services, etc. Proposed Work Plan/Objectives for 2017: We plan to update our goals and priorities for 2017 next year, which will include tracking the impact of any of the initiatives on the November ballot and continue participation in the DMC-ODS Implementation Plan. The members of AOD Advisory Board are grateful to be of service to the Board of Supervisors and the people of Contra Costa County. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 773 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Participation Agreement #72-096 with the University of California, on behalf of the UCSF Medical Center and Benioff Children’s Hospital, an educational institution, to allow the County’s Public Health Department to access medical information for the California Children’s Services, for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2020 including mutual indemnification to hold harmless both parties for any claims arising out of the performance of this Contract. FISCAL IMPACT: None. This is a non-financial agreement. BACKGROUND: Under this Participation Agreement the Public Health Department will be able to utilize UCSF’s MD Link System to access referred client’s records to determine medical eligibility and authorization for California Children’s Services, through December 31, 2020. This agreement includes mutual indemnification to hold harmless both parties for any claims arising out of the performance of this Contract. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 99 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approval of Participation Agreement #72-096 with the University of California, on behalf of the UCSF Medical Center and Benioff Children’s Hospital December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 774 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, the Department would not be able to access patient data necessary for referred clients from UCSF or Benioff Children’s Hospital. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 775 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the list of providers recommended by Contra Costa Health Plan's Medical Director on November 30, 2016 and by the Health Services Director, as required by the State Departments of Health Care Services and Managed Health Care, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) requires that evidence of Board of Supervisors approval must be contained within each CCHP provider’s credentials file. Approval of this list of providers as recommended by the CCHP Medical Director will enable the Contra Costa Health Plan to comply with this requirement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, Contra Costa Health Plan’s Providers would not be appropriately credentialed and not be in compliance with the NCQA. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary, 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Heather Wong, Marcy Wilhelm C. 97 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve New Providers in Contra Costa Health Plan’s Community Provider Network December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 776 ATTACHMENTS Attachment December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 777 Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director November 30, 2016 CREDENTIALING PROVIDERS NOVEMBER 2016 Name Specialty Baril, Mario, OT Occupational Therapy Bennett, Amy, OT Occupational Therapy Halstenrud, Terri, PT Physical Therapy Hernandez, David, PT Physical Therapy Jimenez, Laura, PT Physical Therapy Kelly, Laura, PT Physical Therapy Merken, Leslie, PT Physical Therapy Otani, Jill, OT Occupational Therapy Pisani, Mario, PT Physical Therapy Richardson, Joyce, PT Physical Therapy Sayo, Legson, PT Physical Therapy Seaver, Joann, PT Physical Therapy Thornburg, Jay-Paul, PT Physical Therapy Vance, William, PT Physical Therapy Vargas, Kristine, PT Physical Therapy Wang, Kathryn, PT Physical Therapy Wensley, Linda, OT Occupational Therapy Wills, Robinson, PT Physical Therapy Wong, Stacy, PT Physical Therapy Bopl-November 30, 2016 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 778 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE amended Conflict of Interest Code for the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office, including the list of designated positions. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office has amended its Conflict of Interest Code and submitted the revised code, attached as Exhibit A, to the Board for approval pursuant to Government Code section 87306 and 87306.5. This amendment updates the conflict of interest code to conform to FPPC Regulation 18730, updates the list of designated positions to add and eliminate positions, and designates positions that manage public investments. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Schwerin, Deputy County Counsel, (925) 335-1800 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: Cynthia Schwerin, Deputy County Counsel, David Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Russell V. Watts, Treasurer-Tax Collector, Ronda Boler, Executive Secretary C. 94 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Conflict of Interest Code for the Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 779 ATTACHMENTS Ex. A - Treasurer-Tax Collector COI Code December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 780 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 781 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 782 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 December 6, 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: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 86 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Continue Extension of Emergency Declaration Regarding Homelessness December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 783 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 784 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Resolution No. 2016/650 approving the Contra Costa County Section 125 Benefits Plan document as amended and restated effective 1/1/2017; and AUTHORIZE the Benefits Manager to take all necessary actions to implement the revised plan document. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no additional fiscal impact to county general funds in implementing the revised plan. BACKGROUND: Effective January 1, 1989, Contra Costa County (the "County") established the "Contra Costa County Dependent Care Assistance Program" for the benefit of eligible employees. Effective January 1, 1991, the County established the "County of Contra Costa Premium Conversion Plan" for the benefit of eligible employees. Effective January 1, 1997, the County integrated these two plans, in conjunction with the introduction of a new Health Care Spending Account Program. These plans became the "Contra Costa County §125 Benefits Plan" APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ann Elliott 335-1747 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C.102 To:Board of Supervisors From:Dianne Dinsmore, Human Resources Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contra Costa County Section 125 Benefits Plan December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 785 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) (the "Plan"). The Plan is now amended and restated effective January 1, 2017, with the introduction of the new Kaiser Health Savings Account Program. The purpose of the Plan is to provide eligible employees a choice between certain taxable and nontaxable benefits, including those listed above as well as Medical, Dental and Vision plans, offered through the County or PEMHCA. The Plan is intended to qualify as a cafeteria plan under Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Code. The revised document is amended to add language regarding the recently added Kaiser Health Savings Account, HIPAA privacy rules relating to the Health Care Spending Account, and a revised the list of Change in Status Qualifying Events. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the plan revisions are not approved, the Health Savings Account Program would not be eligible for pre-tax payroll deductions in compliance with Section 125 IRS Guidelines. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: N/A AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/650 Section 125 Plan MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/650 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 786 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 12/20/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff NO: ABSENT:Federal D. Glover ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/650 Adopting Resolution No. 2016/650 approving the Contra Costa County Section 125 Benefits Plan. The purpose of the Contra Costa County Section 125 Benefits Plan is to provide eligible employees with a choice between certain taxable and nontaxable benefits offered under this and other plans maintained by the County. The Plan is intended to qualify as a cafeteria plan under the Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Code. the Contra Costa County Section 125 Benefits Plan is approved as amended effective January 1, 2017. Contact: Ann Elliott 335-1747 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: 4 1 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 787 12907047.2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY § 125 BENEFITS PLAN Restated as of January 1, 2017 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 788 Contra Costa County § 125 Benefits Plan Table of Contents Article Page Introduction 1 Article I Definitions 2 Article II Eligibility Provisions 5 Article III Contributions 8 Article IV Participant Elections/Benefit Options 10 Article V COBRA Rights 14 Article VI Amendment or Termination 15 Article VII Administration 16 Article VIII Miscellaneous Provisions 18 Article IX Health Care Spending Accounts 20 Article X Dependent Care Assistance Program 24 Article XI Claims Procedure for Spending Accounts 27 Article XII Health Savings Account 29 Article XIII HIPAA Provisions for Health Care Spending Account 31 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 789 12907047.2 INTRODUCTION Effective January 1, 1989, Contra Costa County (the "County") established the "Contra Costa County Dependent Care Assistance Program" for the benefit of eligible employees. Effective January 1, 1991, the County established the "County of Contra Costa Premium Conversion Plan" for the benefit of eligible employees. Effective January 1, 1997, the County integrated these two plans, in conjunction with the introduction of a new Health Care Spending Account Program. These plans became the "Contra Costa County §125 Benefits Plan" (the "Plan"). The Plan was amended and restated effective January 1, 2010. The Plan is now amended and restated effective January 1, 2017, with the introduction of the new Health Savings Account Program. The purpose of the Plan is to provide eligible employees a choice between certain taxable and nontaxable benefits, including those listed above as well as Medical, Dental and Vision plans, offered through the County or PEMHCA. The Plan is intended to qualify as a cafeteria plan under Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Code. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 790 2 ARTICLE I Definitions As used herein, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings unless a different meaning is plainly required by the context. Words in the masculine gender shall be deemed to include the feminine gender and words in the feminine gender shall be deemed to include the masculine gender; and, unless the context otherwise requires, the singular shall include the plural and the plural the singular. Any headings herein are included for reference only and are not to be construed so as to alter any of the terms of the Plan. 1.01 Benefit Option means one or more non-taxable programs available in accordance with Section 4.01 of this Plan. 1.02 Board of Supervisors means the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa. 1.03 Change in Status Qualifying Event means that a Participant may revoke his election and make new elections with respect to the remainder of the Plan Year in accordance with the circumstances listed in Section 4.08. 1.04 COBRA means the extension of medical coverage that must be offered in accordance with the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, along with any amendments to such law and any pertinent Treasury regulations, rulings, notices or other promulgations. 1.05 Code means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time, along with any pertinent Treasury regulations, rulings, notices or other promulgations. Reference to any section or subsection of the Code includes references to any comparable or successor provisions of any legislation that amends, supplements or replaces such section or subsection. 1.06 Compensation means a Participant's salary, as determined by the County. 1.07 County means the County of Contra Costa, California. 1.08 Dependent means for purposes of accident or health coverage (to the extent funded under the Premium Conversion Program), a dependent who is defined under Code Section 105(b) and is eligible to participate in County-provided health plan coverage. Special definitions of “Dependent” may be provided under the Dependent Care Assistance Program and the Health Care Spending Account, which definitions shall prevail for purposes of those programs. 1.09 Dependent Care Assistance Program means the benefit as described in Article X. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 791 3 1.10 Effective Date of Restatement means January 1, 2017. 1.11 Election Form means the enrollment form provided by the County by which an Employee makes his benefits selection and by which the Employee may authorize the County to reduce his Compensation in order to obtain certain benefits. Such Election Form may include a telephonic enrollment, electronic transmission, online enrollment, or other non- paper method of transmission, as designated by the Plan Administrator. 1.12 Election Period means the period designated by the County, which precedes the beginning of each Plan Year, during which the Employee must complete his Election Form. 1.13 Elective Employer Contributions means contributions as described in Section 3.01. 1.14 Eligible Employee means an Employee who is eligible to participate in one or more of the programs offered under this Plan in accordance with the terms of Article II. 1.15 Employee means all active Employees of the Employer, other than Employees who are employed on a temporary basis. 1.16 Employer means Contra Costa County, Board of Supervisor governed Special Districts and other public bodies as authorized by ordinance or resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County. 1.17 FMLA means the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as amended from time to time along with any pertinent Department of Labor regulations, rulings, notices or other promulgations. 1.18 Health Care Spending Account means the benefit as described in Article IX. 1.19 Health Plan means any of the health (medical, dental and/or vision care) plans, including any HMO or PPO plans, that are offered by the Employer excluding the Health Care Spending Account. All of these plans, are maintained in accordance with, and described in one or more documents that are not contained within this Plan document, but are incorporated by reference herein. 1.20 Health Savings Account (HSA) means the benefit as described in Article XII. 1.21 Highly Compensated Employee means those participants who are determined to be highly compensated under Code Section 414(q). 1.22 High Deductible Health Plan means a health plan that meets statutory requirements for annual deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses set forth in Code section 223(c)(2). December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 792 4 1.23 HIPAA means the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended from time to time along with any pertinent Treasury or Department of Labor regulations, rulings, notices or other promulgations. 1.24 HMO means any of one or more health maintenance organizations that may be offering health benefits to eligible Employees, from time to time. 1.25 Key Employee means those participants who are determined to be key employees under Code Section 416(i)(1). 1.26 Participant means any Eligible Employee covered under this Plan who completes and delivers an Election Form to the County, as described in Article II. 1.27 PEMHCA means any one or more medical plans offered through the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Act. 1.28 Plan means this Contra Costa County § 125 Benefits Plan. 1.29 Plan Administrator means the person or persons responsible for the administration of the Plan, as identified in Section 7.01. 1.30 Plan Year means the twelve (12) month period beginning each January 1 and ending December 31. 1.31 PPO means any of one or more preferred provider organizations that may be offering health benefits to Eligible Employees. 1.32 Premium Conversion Program means the portion of the Plan which allows Participants to elect to have pre-tax contributions made to fund their portion of Health Plan premiums, in accordance with Section 4.01. 1.33 Qualified Beneficiary means any person afforded rights of continued medical coverage under COBRA as a result of a Qualifying Event, as defined in COBRA and in the Health Plan plan document. 1.34 Spouse means an individual who is treated as a spouse for federal tax purposes. Notwithstanding the above, for purposes of the Dependent Care Assistance Program, the term Spouse does not include (a) an individual legally separated from the Participant under a divorce or separate maintenance decree; or (b) an individual who is married to the Participant and files a separate federal income tax return, where (i) the Participant maintains a household that constitutes a qualified individual's (as defined in Section 10.05) principal place of abode for more than one-half of the taxable year, (ii) the Participant furnishes more than half the cost of maintaining such household, and (iii) during the last six months of such taxable year, the individual is not a member of such household. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 793 5 ARTICLE II Eligibility Provisions 2.01 Eligible Employees. An Employee is an Eligible Employee under this Plan in accordance with the following rules: (a) Premium Conversion Program. For purposes of premium conversion, any Employee who is in active pay status with the Employer shall be considered an Eligible Employee on the date on which he first becomes eligible to participate under one or more of the Health Plans, including medical, dental and/or vision, offered through the County. (b) Dependent Care Assistance Program. For purposes of the Dependent Care Assistance Program, any permanent full-time Employee or permanent part-time Employee of the Employer shall be eligible to participate on the date on which he first becomes an Employee. Permanent intermittent Employees shall not be eligible to participate in the Dependent Care Assistance Plan. (c) Health Care Spending Account. For purposes of the Health Care Spending Account, any permanent full-time Employee or permanent part-time Employee who is regularly scheduled to work twenty (20) or more hours per week shall be eligible to participate on the date on which he first completes six (6) months as a permanent Employee. Neither permanent part-time Employees who work less than twenty (20) hours per week nor permanent intermittent Employees shall be eligible to participate in the Health Care Spending Account. (d) Health Savings Account. For the purposes of the Health Savings Account, any permanent full-time Employee or permanent part-time Employee who is regularly scheduled to work twenty (20) or more hours per week shall be eligible to participate on the date on which he first becomes an Employee. The Employee must also be enrolled in a qualifying High Deductible Health Plan. (e) In addition to the above-referenced rules, participation under the Plan may commence in accordance with the details of an applicable Memorandum of Understanding between the County and one or more bargaining units. 2.02 Effective Date of Participation for Eligible Employees. To become a Participant, the Eligible Employee must first complete and deliver an Election Form to the County or to its authorized representative. For plans offered through the Public Employees’ Medical December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 794 6 and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA), participation begins on the first of the month coincident with or next following receipt of a properly completed election. For plans offered through other Health Plan providers, participation begins on the first of the month following completion of a thirty (30) day waiting period and receipt of a properly completed election. 2.03 Termination of Participation for Eligible Employees. Except as otherwise required by Article V, coverage with respect to a Participant shall end on the earliest of the following events: (a) The date this Plan terminates; (b) The date the Participant no longer has an election in effect under the terms of this Plan; (c) The date the Participant ceases making the contributions required under the terms of the Plan; (d) The last day of the month in which the individual ceases to be an Employee; or (e) The end of the month following the last day in which the individual ceases to be an Employee for those enrolled in PEMHCA plans. 2.04 Termination of Benefit Plan Coverage. Coverage of any benefit plan option elected under this Plan shall terminate at the earlier of: (a) The date so specified in the plan document of the respective benefit plan; or (b) The end of each Plan Year. Coverage for subsequent Plan Years can only be obtained in accordance with the election procedures set forth in Section 4.02. 2.05 COBRA Rights. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary herein, nothing in this Article II shall affect the rights of a Qualified Beneficiary under COBRA. 2.06 Reenrollment (a) In the case of an individual whose participation has ended in accordance with Section 2.03(b) or (c), such individual shall again be entitled to become a Participant on the next open enrollment date following the date on which he submits a completed Election Form. (b) Subject to the restrictions of Section 125 of the Code, in the case of an individual whose participation has ended in accordance with Section 2.03(d), such individual shall again be entitled to become a Participant on the date he again becomes an December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 795 7 Eligible Employee. To again become a Participant, the Employee must complete and deliver an Election Form to the County or its authorized representative. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 796 8 ARTICLE III Contributions 3.01 Elective Employer Contributions. A Participant may elect to reduce his Compensation for a Plan Year and to use such amounts to purchase one or more of the various nontaxable benefit options offered under this Plan, including the Premium Conversion Plan options of medical, dental and/or vision, the Health Care Spending Account, or the Dependent Care Assistance Program, or the Health Savings Account. The monetary amount associated with this election constitutes Elective Employer Contributions. Such salary reduction shall be authorized by the Participant on an Election Form. 3.02 Pay Reduction and Payroll Withholding. A Participant's Compensation for a Plan Year shall be reduced by the amount of the Elective Employer Contributions that the Participant elects for the Plan Year under Section 3.01. Such contributions shall be made only by payroll reduction. At the end of each Participant's taxable year, however, those Participants who are Highly Compensated Employees with respect to such year will have the amount of the discriminatory excess, if any, as determined in the sole discretion of the County in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code, added to such Participant's Compensation for purposes of reporting gross income to the Internal Revenue Service via Form W-2. 3.03 Maximum Amount of Elective Employer Contributions. The maximum amount of Elective Employer Contributions for any Plan Year may vary from Participant to Participant, and/or from year to year as determined under the Code. 3.04 Reduction of Certain Elections. The County shall have the power to partially reduce, or completely revoke, Elective Employer Contribution elections made by certain Participants in accordance with Section 3.01 of this Plan, at any time prior to or during a Plan Year, subject to the following: (a) Reduction of Certain Elections to Prevent Discrimination. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, the Plan Administrator, at the direction of the County, may reduce or revoke an election of a Participant described below to the extent necessary to prevent this Plan from being considered discriminatory under Section 125(b), or 105(h)(2) or 129(d)(2) of the Code. (1) In the case that such reduction affects health benefits, only the elections of Participants who are highly compensated as defined by either Section 105(h) or Section 125(e) of the Code may be reduced. (2) In the case that such reduction affects other qualified benefits, only the elections of Participants who are highly compensated as defined in Section 125(e) of the Code, or are otherwise Key Employees as defined in Section 125(b) of the Code may be reduced. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 797 9 (3) In the case that such reduction affects Dependent Care Assistance benefits, only the elections of Participants who are officers, owners, or highly compensated individuals as defined in Section 129(d) of the Code may be reduced. (b) Reduction of Certain Elections Affecting Code Section 415. The County may reduce the amount of contributions made on behalf of any Participant to the extent it deems it necessary to enable any qualified retirement plan maintained by the Employer under Code Section 401 to comply with the limitation on annual additions as set forth in Code Section 415. 3.05 Forfeitures. Any forfeiture of Elective Employer Contributions shall be used by the County for any legitimate Plan purpose, including without limitation, payment of benefits under the Plan or the reasonable costs of administering the Plan. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 798 10 ARTICLE IV Participant Elections and Benefit Options 4.01 Benefit Options. Subject to all other provisions of this Plan, a Participant may choose between taxable cash or any of the following nontaxable benefits: (a) Health Plan (varying coverage options). (b) Health Care Spending Account (varying amounts). (c) Dependent Care Assistance Program (varying amounts). (d) Health Savings Account (varying amounts). 4.02 Election Procedures. Prior to the commencement of each Plan Year, the County shall provide an Election Forms and/or an Online Electronic Enrollment process to each Participant and to each other Employee who is eligible to become a Participant at the beginning of the Plan Year. Each Participant shall specify on the Election Forms the benefits described in Section 4.01 which are desired for the forthcoming Plan Year. Such Employee shall also agree to a reduction in his Compensation, if applicable, as provided in Article III. The elections made pursuant to the Election Forms shall be effective as of the first day of the Plan Year. Each Election Form must be completed and returned to the County on or before such date as the County shall specify, which date shall be no later than the beginning of the first pay period for which the Participant's Plan Year's elections will apply. 4.03 New Employees. If an Employee first becomes eligible to be a Participant under this Plan at some time other than at the beginning of a Plan Year, the County will provide such Employee with an Election Form and/or access to an Online Electronic Enrollment process. Such Employee may elect one or more of the benefits options described in this Article IV and so specify on the Election Forms. Such Employee shall also agree to a reduction in his Compensation, if applicable, as provided in Article III. The Election Form must be completed and returned to the County on or before such date as the County shall specify, which date shall be no later than the beginning of the first pay period for which the Participant's Plan Year's elections will apply. 4.04 Duration of Elections. Except as provided in Section 4.08, each Participant's election is irrevocable and shall remain in effect through the last day of the Plan Year, subject further to the conditions set forth in the plan document of the respective benefit plan. 4.05 Benefit Enrollment. Enrollment in any of the benefit plans offered under this Plan shall be governed by the terms, conditions and provisions of that plan's plan document. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 799 11 4.06 Value of Benefits. The County shall determine and set the cost associated with each benefit offered under this Plan. Such cost can be changed at any time at the beginning of, or during, a Plan Year without prior notification to Participants or any Participating Employer. 4.07 Absence of Completed Election Form. Failure to return a completed Election Form to the County on or before the specified due date for the Plan Year in which an eligible Employee first becomes eligible to participate shall be considered a choice by the Employee to select cash only and to select no nontaxable Benefit Option. A Participant who fails to return an Election Form for any subsequent Plan Year shall be deemed to have selected cash only, except that with respect to any Health Plan, a Participant who fails to return an Election Form shall be deemed to have elected to continue whatever Health Plan he had selected on the most recent Election Form previously filed with the County; and shall further be treated as an agreement on the part of the Participant to reduce his Compensation by whatever amount is then necessary to purchase such Health Plan as provided in accordance with Article III of this Plan. 4.08 Change in Status Qualifying Event. A Participant may revoke his elections and make new elections with respect to the remainder of the Plan Year upon the occurrence of any of the following events and to the extent permitted under the Code: (a) HIPAA Special Enrollment Rights. A Participant who qualifies for “special enrollment rights” as defined under HIPAA may revoke his elections under a Health Plan option and make a new election as corresponds with such rights, provided such election is made within the minimum time periods described by HIPAA. (b) Change in Status. A Participant may revoke his elections and make new elections with respect to the remainder of the Plan Year if a change in status described in subsections i-v occurs; and the revocation and the new elections are on account of and consistent with a change in status, and only if such change is allowed under the terms of the respective benefit plan. The Participant must elect such change within thirty (30) days of the Change in Status event. i. Legal Marital Status. Events that change the Participant’s marital status including the following: marriage, divorce, death of Spouse, legal separation or annulment. ii. Number of Dependents. Events that change a Participant’s number of Dependents, including the following: birth, adoption, placement for adoption, and death. iii. Employment Status. Any of the following events that change the employment status of the Participant, the Spouse, or Dependent; a termination or commencement of employment; change in employment status resulting in gaining or losing eligibility under the Plan; a commencement or return from an approved unpaid leave of absence; or a change in worksite. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 800 12 iv. Dependent Satisfies or Ceases to Satisfy Eligibility. An event that causes a Dependent to satisfy or cease to satisfy the requirements for coverage due to age, student status, or similar circumstances. v. Residence. A change in the place of residence of the Participant, Spouse, or Dependent. (c) FMLA Leave. A Participant, who takes a leave of absence under the FMLA, may revoke an existing election under a Health Plan option and make such other election for the remaining portion of the period of coverage as may be provided for under the FMLA, provided such election is made within the minimum time periods prescribed by FMLA. (d) Health Plan Option Changes. In the event that a Health Plan option is significantly curtailed or eliminated during a Plan Year, each affected Participant may make a new election on a prospective basis for coverage under another Health Plan providing similar coverage. If a new Health Plan is made available to Participants during a Plan Year, Participants may revoke an existing election and make a new election under the new Health Plan option providing similar coverage. If the cost of a Benefit Option increases or decreases, the County may require Participants to make a corresponding change in their elections for the remainder of the Plan Year. If a cost increase is significant, the County may in its sole discretion allow Participants to either make a corresponding prospective increase in their elections or to revoke such election and receive coverage under such alternate Benefit Options as may be specified by the County. (e) Judgment, Decree or Order. A Participant may revoke his elections and make new elections with respect to the remainder of a Plan Year if both the revocation and the new election result from a change in the health plan coverage of an Employee’s child as ordered by a Qualified Medical Child Support Order (as such term is defined in ERISA) or other court order resulting from divorce, legal separation, annulment or change in legal custody. (f) Medicare or Medicaid. A Participant may revoke his elections and make new elections with respect to the remainder of a Plan Year if both the revocation and the new election result from the enrollment or disenrollment of an Employee, Spouse or Dependent either under Part A or Part B of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (Medicare) or under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (Medicaid). (g) Purchase of a Qualified Health Plan. A Participant may revoke his elections and make new elections with respect to the remainder of a Plan Year if both the revocation and the new election result from the enrollment of an Employee, December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 801 13 Spouse or Dependent in a Qualified Health Plan purchased through a competitive marketplace recognized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (h) Benefit Plan Option. In the event that a Benefit Plan option is added during the Plan Year, each affected Participant may make a new election on a prospective basis. Changes in contributions and benefits attributable to a change in the Participant’s election shall be effective with respect to the pay period which begins coincident with or immediately following the date the new Election Form is accepted by the County. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 802 14 ARTICLE V COBRA Rights 5.01 In General. The health benefits provided under this Plan may be subject to COBRA. In the event any provision of this document is inconsistent with COBRA, the provisions of COBRA are applicable. A statement of COBRA rights under any Health Plan, if applicable, is contained in such plan's own plan document. 5.02 Definition of Employee and Participant. For purposes of COBRA, the terms Employee and Participant may include former Employees who have terminated employment with the County and persons who are current or former Dependent Spouses or Dependents of Employees. Accordingly, to the extent required by COBRA, any Qualified Beneficiary who has elected certain rights under COBRA shall be afforded privileges otherwise restricted to Participants, as defined in this Plan. 5.03 Enrollment Options. During open enrollment periods described in Section 4.02, a Participant who has election rights on account of his status as a Qualified Beneficiary shall be limited to electing prospective coverage under a Health Plan, unless other options are required by COBRA. Unless otherwise provided herein, no other plan or coverage presented in this Plan shall be available to anyone who is a Qualified Beneficiary. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 803 15 ARTICLE VI Amendment or Termination 6.01 Amendment or Termination. Except as provided herein, the Board of Supervisors reserves the right to amend or terminate this Plan at any time and in any manner. The Board may delegate this authority to any officer of the County. In the event of a termination of the Plan, all liabilities of the Plan shall be satisfied to the extent and as required by this plan document and any applicable law. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 804 16 ARTICLE VII Administration 7.01 Administrator. The administration of the Plan shall be under the supervision of the Plan Administrator. The Plan Administrator shall be the person, entity or committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors, with authority and responsibility to manage and direct the operation and administration of the Plan. Unless otherwise specified by the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator or his duly authorized designee shall be the Plan Administrator. It shall be a principal duty of the Plan Administrator to see that the Plan is carried out, in accordance with its terms, for the exclusive benefit of persons entitled to participate in the Plan without discrimination among them. 7.02 Powers and Duties. The Plan Administrator will have full power to administer the Plan in all of its details, subject to applicable requirements of law. For this purpose, the Plan Administrator's powers will include, but will not be limited to, the following discretionary authority, in addition to all other powers provided by this Plan: (a) To establish a funding policy and method consistent with the objectives of the Plan. (b) To make and enforce such rules and regulations as it deems necessary or proper for the efficient administration of the Plan, including the establishment of any claims procedures that may be required by applicable provisions of law. (c) To interpret the Plan, its interpretation in good faith to be final and conclusive on all persons claiming benefits under the Plan. (d) To decide all questions concerning the Plan and the eligibility of any person to participate in the Plan. (e) To appoint such agents, counsel, accountants, consultants and other persons as may be required to assist in administering the Plan. (f) To allocate and delegate its responsibilities under the Plan and to designate other persons to carry out any of its responsibilities under the Plan, including but not limited to delegating certain claims administration duties to a claims administrator, provided that any such allocation, delegation or designation shall be set out in a written instrument executed by the Plan Administrator and the designated party. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 805 17 (g) To communicate to any insurer or other supplier or administrator of benefits under this Plan in writing all information required to carry out the provisions of the Plan. (h) To notify the Participants in writing of any substantive amendment or termination of the Plan or of a change in benefits available under the Plan. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, the powers and duties allocated to the Plan Administrator and described in this section shall only be applicable with respect to a claim arising under any plan or to the administration of such plan to the extent that such power or duty is not allocated (either expressly or by implication) to the individual(s) or entity appointed to serve as administrator of such plan. 7.03 Reliance on Tables, etc. In administering the Plan, the Plan Administrator will be entitled to the extent permitted by law to rely conclusively on all tables, valuations, certificates, opinions and reports which are furnished by, or in accordance with the instructions of, the administrators of any of the plans offered within the Plan, or by accountants, counsel or other experts employed or engaged by the County. 7.04 Nondiscriminatory Exercise of Authority. Whenever, in the administration of the Plan, any discretionary action by the Plan Administrator is required, the Plan Administrator shall exercise its authority in a nondiscriminatory manner so that all persons similarly situated will receive substantially the same treatment. 7.05 Standard of Review. The Plan Administrator shall perform its duties as the Plan Administrator and in its sole discretion shall determine appropriate courses of action in light of the reason and purpose for which this Plan is established and maintained. In particular, the Plan Administrator shall interpret all Plan provisions, and make all determinations as to whether any particular Participant or beneficiary is entitled to receive any benefit under the terms of this Plan, which interpretation shall be made by the Plan Administrator in its sole discretion. Any construction of the terms of the Plan that is adopted by the Plan Administrator and for which there is a rational basis shall be final and legally binding on all parties. Any interpretation of the Plan or other action of the Plan Administrator shall be subject to review only if such interpretation or other action is without rational basis. Any review of a final decision or action of the Plan Administrator shall be based only on such evidence presented to or considered by the Plan Administrator at the time it made the decision that is the subject of review and shall be entitled to the maximum deference permitted by law. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 806 18 ARTICLE VIII Miscellaneous Provisions 8.01 Information to be Furnished. Participants shall provide the Plan Administrator with such information and evidence and shall sign such documents, as may reasonably be requested from time to time, for the purpose of administration of the Plan. 8.02 Limitation of Rights. Neither the establishment of the Plan nor any amendment thereof, nor the payment of any benefits, will be construed as giving to any Participant or other person any legal or equitable right against the County or any Participating Employer, except as provided herein. This Plan shall not be deemed to constitute a contract between the County and any Participant or to be a consideration of an inducement for the employment of any Participant or Employee. Nothing contained in this Plan shall be deemed to give any Participant or Employee the right to be retained in the service of the County or to interfere with the right of the County to discharge any Participant or Employee at any time regardless of the effect which such discharge shall have upon him as a Participant of this Plan. 8.03 Governing Law. This Plan shall be construed, administered and enforced according to the laws of California except as may be preempted by federal law. 8.04 Facility of Payment. If the Plan Administrator deems any person entitled to receive any amount under the provisions of this Plan incapable of receiving or disbursing the same by reason of minority, death, illness or infirmity, mental incompetency or incapacity of any kind, the County may, in its discretion, direct the payment of such benefit: (a) Directly to such person; (b) To the legally appointed guardian or conservator of such person; (c) To a relative, friend or institution for the comfort, support and maintenance of the person entitled to receive such amount, including without limitation, any relative who had undertaken, wholly or partially, the expense of such person's comfort, care and maintenance, or any institution caring for such person; or (d) As directed by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Plan Administrator may, in its discretion, deposit any amount due to a minor to his credit in any savings or commercial bank of the Plan Administrator's choice. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 807 19 8.05 Lost Payee. Any amount due and payable to a Participant or beneficiary shall be forfeited if the Plan Administrator, after reasonable effort, is unable to locate the Participant or beneficiary to whom payment is due. Such forfeited amounts shall be applied toward Employer contributions to the Plan. However, any such forfeited amount will be reinstated through a special contribution to the Plan by the Employer and become payable if a claim is made by the Participant or beneficiary. The Plan Administrator shall prescribe uniform and nondiscriminatory rules for carrying out this provision. 8.06 No Guarantee of Tax Consequences. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the County neither insures nor makes any commitment or guarantee that any amounts paid to a Participant pursuant to the Plan or any amounts by which a participant's wages are reduced pursuant to Article III will be excludable from the Participant's gross income for federal, state or local income tax purposes. It shall be the obligation of each Participant to notify the Plan Administrator if the Participant has reason to believe that any payment made or to be made to the Participant pursuant to the Plan is not excludable from the Participant's gross income for federal, state or local income tax purposes. 8.07 Funding. Payments due under the Plan will be made from the general assets of the Employer, and no funds will be escrowed or earmarked to pay benefits. Notwithstanding the immediately preceding sentence, different funding mechanisms may be used to provide benefits under any Health Plan or other Benefit Option in the County's sole discretion. 8.08 Indemnification of Employer by Participant. If a Participant receives one or more payments in accordance with applicable Plan provisions that are not for eligible dependent care expenses or eligible medical expenses, such Participant shall indemnify and reimburse the Employer for any liability it may incur for failure to withhold federal, state or local income taxes or employment taxes from such payments. Such indemnification and reimbursement shall not exceed the sum of the amount of additional federal and state income tax that the Participant would have owed if the payments had been made to the Participant as regular cash compensation plus the Participant's share of any Social Security tax that would have been paid on such Compensation. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 808 20 ARTICLE IX Health Care Spending Account 9.01 Health Care Spending Account Authority. The benefit plan described in this Article IX is intended to qualify as a nontaxable Employee benefit under Section 105(b) of the Code, providing health care benefits to Participants and is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 105 of the Code. 9.02 Maximum Contributions. The maximum amount of Elective Employer Contributions that a Participant can elect to allocate to this benefit will be the maximum amount permissible under the Code for any Plan Year. Except as may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.04, the amount of Elective Employer Contributions for the Plan Year shall be contributed in a number of substantially equal installments throughout the Plan Year. The number of installments shall equal the number of pay periods in the Plan Year, or portion thereof, during which the eligible Employee is a Participant in this Health Care Spending Account. The installments shall be made coincident with the last day of each of the Participant's pay periods. 9.03 General Limitation on Benefits. The amount of reimbursement hereunder for any Plan Year to any Participant is limited to the amount of Eligible Expenses actually incurred by the Participant during such Plan Year and after the date he became a Participant. At no time may a Participant receive reimbursement of Eligible Expenses in excess of the amount scheduled to be credited to his Health Care Spending Account for such Plan Year, reduced by any prior payments to the Participant for such Plan Year. Provided further, that no reimbursement shall be made to a Participant for an expense that is submitted for reimbursement after the March 31 following the end of the Plan Year. 9.04 Health Savings Accounts. Health Savings Account benefits cannot be elected with Health Care Spending Account benefits. If the Participant has elected to contribute to the Health Savings Account in Article XII of the Plan, then that Participant who is eligible for and elects to contribute to a Health Savings Account may not simultaneously participate in this Article. 9.04 Changes in Employee Elections. A Participant may revoke his Health Care Spending Account election and make a new Health Care Spending Account election with respect to the remainder of the Plan Year in accordance with the terms of Section 4.08 of this Plan and to the extent permissible under the Code. Provided however, that in the event a Participant elects to change his Health Care Spending Account maximum amount during the Plan Year, such newly elected December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 809 21 maximum, reduced by the amount of prior reimbursements for that Plan Year, shall be applicable only to Eligible Expenses incurred after the date the change is effective. 9.05 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this Article IX: (a) Dependent means a Participant's dependent as defined in Section 105(b) of the Code. (b) Eligible Expenses means any expense that meets all of the following requirements: (1) It must be an expense for medical care as defined in Code Section 213(d). The term "medical care" means amounts paid for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body, and for transportation primarily for and essential to such medical care. Provided, however, that insurance premiums shall not be an Eligible Expense under this Health Care Spending Account. (2) It must be an expense incurred by either the Participant or his Spouse or Dependent. (3) It must not be a reimbursable expense under any health plan other than this Health Care Spending Account. (4) It must be incurred during a period of time during which the Employee was a Participant under this Plan and had elected to participate in this Health Care Spending Account plan, and must be incurred after the effective date of such election. (5) It must be an expense with respect to which the Participant or his Spouse or Dependent has provided adequate substantiation. For purposes of paragraph (4) above, an expense shall be deemed "incurred" as of the date the service is rendered or purchase is made from which the expense arises, regardless of when the Participant or his Dependent is actually billed or pays for the expense. 9.06 Time for Payments. A Participant may submit proof of payment for reimbursement consideration at any time. Reimbursement for the Participant's Eligible Expenses, however, will be made as soon as practical after complete documentation has been submitted by the Participant and approved by the Plan Administrator, but in any event, reimbursements shall be made not less frequently than monthly, but only to the extent the amount of the Participant's unreimbursed Eligible Expenses at that point in time exceeds December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 810 22 twenty dollars ($20.00). Notwithstanding the preceding, if Eligible Expenses of twenty dollars ($20.00) or less for any Plan Year remain unreimbursed on the March 31 immediately following the end of such Plan Year, the Participant will be reimbursed for the full amount of such expenses before any remaining balances are forfeited in accordance with Section 9.08. 9.07 Terminated Employees. Except as may otherwise be provided in Section 9.10, a Participant whose coverage under this Plan terminates during a Plan Year due to termination of employment or failure to satisfy the Plan's definition of an Employee may continue coverage under the Health Care Spending Account by making after-tax contribution installments as described in Section 9.02 in the form of timely, direct payments from the individual to the Health Care Spending Account, not by means of any payroll withholding, or other contribution made by the Employer on behalf of the Participant until the earliest of the following dates: (a) The last day of the Plan Year. (b) The date the individual elects to terminate coverage. (c) The last day of the period for which the last contribution was paid by the individual. An individual whose participation has terminated shall have until the March 31 following the end of the Plan Year to submit expenses for reimbursement consideration. 9.08 Forfeitures. Any balance attributable to Elective Employer Contributions for any given Plan Year that remains in a Participant's Health Care Spending Account on the day after the March 31 following the end of the Plan Year in which such contributions were made will be forfeited. 9.09 Mandatory Reduction of Contributions. The Plan Administrator, or any authorized representative operating on its behalf, retains the right to reduce any Participant's allocation of Elective Employer Contributions to this account in accordance with the terms of Section 3.04 of this Plan. 9.10 COBRA. The benefits provided under this Health Care Spending Account may be subject to COBRA. In the event any provision of this document is inconsistent with COBRA, the provisions of COBRA are applicable. (a) Definition of Employee and Participant. For purposes of COBRA, the terms Employee and Participant may include former Employees who have terminated employment with the County and persons who are current or former dependent Spouses or dependents of Employees. Accordingly, to the extent required by COBRA, any Qualified Beneficiary who has elected certain rights under COBRA shall be afforded privileges otherwise restricted to Participants, as defined in Article I of this Plan. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 811 23 (b) Continuation of Benefits. To the extent required by COBRA, rights under this Health Care Spending Account will continue for any Qualified Beneficiary beyond the date of normal termination of coverage, but not beyond the end of the Plan Year. (c) Premiums. Contribution installments, as described in Section 9.02, made after the date the Qualified Beneficiary elected COBRA coverage shall be made in the form of timely, direct premium payments from the Beneficiary to the County, not by means of any Elective Employer Contributions. Such premiums shall be subject to the maximum surcharge permitted by COBRA. (d) Other COBRA Provisions. Provisions concerning the length of COBRA benefits, COBRA election periods, and COBRA notification requirements, which apply to this Health Care Spending Account, shall be consistent with the minimum requirements imposed on this Health Care Spending Account by COBRA. No further rights shall be granted to a Qualified Beneficiary by this Plan. 9.11 Other Conditions. All other provisions of this document shall be applied to, and will govern with respect to, the Health Care Spending Account benefit plan, unless expressly contradicted by a provision within this Article IX or by a provision of any applicable law or regulation. 9.12 New Participants. Notwithstanding anything in Article III to the contrary, in the case of an Employee who first becomes a Participant after the first day of a Plan Year, the maximum amount of Elective Employer Contributions available to such Participant for the remainder of the Plan Year under this Health Care Spending Account shall be prorated. Provided that the rules of this Section do not alter the general requirements on the effective date of participation for Employees as set out in Section 2.01 of this Plan. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 812 24 ARTICLE X Dependent Care Assistance Program 10.01 Dependent Care Assistance Program Authority. The benefit plan described in this Article X is intended to qualify as a nontaxable Employee benefit under Section 129(a) of the Code, providing dependent care assistance benefits to Participants and is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 129. 10.02 Maximum Contributions. The maximum amount of Elective Employer Contributions that a Participant can elect to allocate to this benefit will be the maximum amount permissible under the Code for any Plan Year. Except as may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.04, the amount of Elective Employer Contributions for the Plan Year shall be contributed in a number of substantially equal installments throughout the Plan Year. The number of installments shall equal the number of pay periods in the Plan Year, or portion thereof, during which the eligible Employee is a Participant in this Dependent Care Assistance Program Account. The installments shall be made coincident with the last day of each of the Participant's pay periods. 10.03 General Limitations on Benefits. The amount of reimbursement hereunder in any Plan Year to any Participant is limited to the amount of Eligible Expenses actually incurred by the Participant during such Plan Year and after the date he became a Participant. At no time may a Participant receive reimbursement of Eligible Expenses in excess of the amount then standing to the credit of the Participant in his Dependent Care Assistance Program Account. Provided further, that no reimbursement shall be made to a Participant for an expense that is submitted for reimbursement after the March 31 following the end of the Plan Year. 10.04 Changes in Employee Elections. A Participant may revoke his Dependent Care Assistance Program Account election and make a new Dependent Care Assistance Program Account election with respect to the remainder of the Plan Year in accordance with the terms of Section 4.08 of this Plan and to the extent permissible under the Code. Additionally, a change in the cost imposed by a dependent care provider who is not a relative of the Employee, as defined in Section 152(d)(2)(A) through (G) of the Code, or an event which causes a child to satisfy or cease to satisfy the definition of a “qualified individual” under Section 21(b) (1) of the Code will be considered a change in status. In the event a Participant elects to change his Dependent Care Assistance Program Account maximum amount during the Plan Year, such newly elected maximum, reduced by the amount of prior reimbursements for that Plan Year, shall be applicable only to Eligible Expenses incurred after the date the change is effective. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 813 25 10.05 Definitions, Only for Purposes of this Article X. The following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this Article X: (a) Dependent means a "qualified individual" as defined in Section 21(b) (1) of the Code. (b) Eligible Expenses means those expenses that meet each of the following requirements: (1) Which are considered employment-related expenses defined in Section 21(b) (2) of the Code; (2) Which are incurred by the Employee during a period of time during which he was a Participant under this Plan and had elected to participate in this Dependent Care Assistance Program, (regardless of when the Participant was actually billed or paid for the expense) and which are provided after the effective date of such election; and (3) Which is an expense with respect to which the Participant has provided adequate substantiation. 10.06 Time for Payments. A Participant may submit proof of payment for reimbursement consideration at any time. Reimbursement for the Participant's Eligible Expenses, however, will be made as soon as practical after complete documentation has been submitted by the Participant and approved by the Plan Administrator, but in any event reimbursements shall be made not less frequently than monthly. 10.07 Terminated Employees. A Participant whose coverage under this Plan terminates during a Plan Year due to termination of employment or failure to satisfy the Plan's definition of an Employee will continue coverage under the Dependent Care Assistance Program by making contribution installments as described in Section 10.02 in the form of timely, direct payments from the individual to the Dependent Care Assistance Program Account, not by means of any payroll withholding, or other contribution made by the Employer on behalf of the Participant, until the earliest of the following dates: (a) The last day of the Plan Year. (b) The date the individual elects to terminate coverage. (c) The last day of the period for which the last contribution was paid by the individual. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Plan Administrator, in its sole discretion, may waive the condition of continued installments on behalf of Participants who terminate employment during a Plan Year, and permit such an individual to continue to submit December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 814 26 expenses eligible for reimbursement to the extent such expenses do not exceed the balance credited to a Participant's Dependent Care Assistance Program Account at the time the expense is submitted for reimbursement. Any such waiver shall be made on a nondiscriminatory basis, treating all similarly situated Participants substantially alike. An individual whose participation has terminated shall have until March 31 following the end of the Plan Year to submit expenses for reimbursement consideration. 10.08 Forfeitures. Any balance attributable to Elective Employer Contributions for any given Plan Year that remains in a Participant's Dependent Care Assistance Program Account on the day after the March 31 following the end of the Plan Year in which such contributions were made will be forfeited. 10.09 Mandatory Reduction of Contributions. The County, or any authorized representative operating on its behalf, retains the right to reduce any Participant's allocation of elected contributions to this account in accordance with the terms of Section 3.04 of this Plan. 10.10 Other Conditions. All other provisions of this document shall be applied to, and will govern with respect to, the Dependent Care Assistance Program Account benefit plan, unless expressly contradicted by a provision within this Article X or by a provision of any applicable law or regulation. 10.11 Statements. Subsequent to a reimbursement request, the Plan Administrator shall furnish each Participant who has elected to allocate any contribution to the Dependent Care Assistance Program, a written statement showing the amount of eligible dependent care expenses paid to the Participant in accordance with the applicable provisions of this Plan. 10.12 New Participants. Notwithstanding anything in Article III to the contrary, in the case of an Employee who first becomes a Participant after the first day of a Plan Year, the maximum amount of Elective Employer Contributions available to such Participant for the remainder of the Plan Year under this Dependent Care Spending Account shall not be prorated. Provided, that the rules of this Section do not alter the general requirements on the effective date of participation for Employees as set out in Section 2.01 of this Plan. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 815 27 ARTICLE XI Claims Procedure for Spending Accounts 11.01 Claims Filing Procedure. Claims with respect to a Participant's Health Care Spending Account or Dependent Care Assistance Program Account shall be submitted directly to the claims administrator on such forms as are prescribed by the claims administrator for filing proof of claim. The claimant may be required to provide such other information as the claims administrator may deem necessary or appropriate for determining the validity of any claim. 11.02 Conditions on Benefits. A Participant, by electing to receive reimbursements under the Health Care Spending Account, shall be deemed to have warranted that each expense for which he seeks reimbursement qualifies for tax-free medical reimbursement under Section 105 of the Code. A Participant, by electing to receive dependent care assistance under the Plan, shall be deemed to have warranted that each expense for which he seeks reimbursement qualifies for tax-free dependent care assistance under Sections 129 and 21 of the Code. Neither the County, nor the Plan Administrator, nor any third party administrator shall be responsible to investigate or determine the eligibility of such Participant to exclude such medical reimbursements or dependent care assistance from his taxable income. Each Participant shall be responsible for his portion of any additional federal, state or local income taxes or employment taxes owing in connection with any medical reimbursements or dependent care assistance paid under the Plan, and shall reimburse the County upon demand for any taxes assessed by reason of the County's failure to withhold such taxes (including any interest and penalties for the late payment thereof). 11.03 Payment of Claims. Upon submission of proof of a valid claim, any benefits shall be paid to the Participant in accordance with all relevant provisions of this Plan. 11.04 Denial of Claims. If a claim is denied in whole or in part, the claimant will be notified in writing by the County within ninety (90) days after receipt of the claim, unless special circumstances require an extension of time for processing the claim. If such an extension of time is required, written notice of this extension will be sent to the claimant prior to the termination of the ninety (90) day period. The extension notice will indicate the special circumstances requiring an extension of time and the date by which the Plan expects to render a final decision. In no event will this date be more than ninety (90) days after the end of the initial ninety (90) day period. The notice of the claim denial shall state (in a manner calculated to be understood by a claimant): December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 816 28 (a) The specific reason or reasons for the denial; (b) Specific references to pertinent Plan provisions on which the denial is based; (c) A description of any additional material or information necessary for the claimant to perfect the claim and an explanation of why such material or information is necessary; and (d) Appropriate information as to the steps to be taken if the claimant wishes to submit the claim for review. 11.05 Claims Review Procedure. Within sixty (60) days after receiving written notice of claim denial, the claimant or his duly authorized representative may submit a written request for review to the County. When requesting a review, the claimant should state the reasons he believes the claim denial was improper and submit any additional information, material, issues or comments in writing which he considers appropriate. He or his duly authorized representative may also review any pertinent documents related to the claim. The County will make a decision on the review within sixty (60) days after receipt of the request for review unless special circumstances require an extension of time for processing, in which case a decision will be made as soon as possible, but not later than one hundred twenty (120) days after receipt of the request for review. If such an extension is required, the claimant will be notified within sixty (60) days after receipt of the request for review. The decision on the review will be in writing and will include the specific reasons for the decision as well as specific references to the pertinent Plan provisions on which the decision is based. The decision by the County will be final. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 817 29 ARTICLE XII Health Savings Account 12.01 Health Savings Account Authority. The benefit described in this Article XII is intended to qualify as nontaxable under Section 223 of the Code and is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 223. A Participant can elect benefits under the Health Savings Account (HSA) portion of this Plan by electing to pay his or her HSA contributions on a pre-tax salary reduction basis. HSA benefits under this Plan consist solely of the ability to make contributions to an HSA on pre-tax salary reduction basis. The HSA is an individual trust or custodial account separately established and maintained by a trustee/custodian outside the Plan. Terms and conditions of benefits (e.g., eligible medical expenses and claims procedures) will be provided by and set forth in the HSA, not this Plan. 12.02 Enrollment in High Deductible Health Plan. To participate in the Health Savings Account, the Employee must also be enrolled in a County High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). 12.03 Maximum Contributions. The maximum amount of Elective Employer Contributions that a Participant can elect to allocate to this benefit will be the maximum amount permissible under the Code for any Plan Year. Except as may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.04, the amount of Elective Employer Contributions for the Plan Year shall be contributed in a number of substantially equal installments throughout the Plan Year. The number of installments shall equal the number of pay periods in the Plan Year, or portion thereof, during which the eligible Employee is a Participant in this Health Savings Account. The installments shall be made coincident with the last day of each of the Participant's pay periods. 12.04 Changes in Employee Elections. A Participant may increase, decrease or revoke his Health Savings Account election and make a new Health Savings Account election with respect to the remainder of the Plan Year at any time during the Plan Year. 12.05 Health Care Spending Account. Health Care Spending Account benefits cannot be elected with Health Saving Account benefits. If the Participant has elected to contribute to the Health Care Spending Account in Article IX of the Plan, then that Participant who is eligible for and elects to contribute to a Health Care Spending Account may not simultaneously participate in this Article. 12.06 Mandatory Reduction of Contributions. The County, or any authorized representative operating on its behalf, retains the right to reduce any Participant's allocation of elected contributions to this account in accordance with the terms of Section 3.04 of this Plan. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 818 30 12.07 No Forfeitures. Any balance remaining in a Participant’s HSA Account at the end of any Plan Year shall be carried forward and used to fund such benefits permitted by the Code in any subsequent Plan Year. 12.08 Other Conditions. All other provisions of this document shall be applied to, and will govern with respect to, the Health Savings Account benefit plan, unless expressly contradicted by a provision within this Article XII or by a provision of any applicable law or regulation. 12.09 New Participants. Notwithstanding anything in Article III to the contrary, in the case of an Employee who first becomes a Participant after the first day of a Plan Year, the maximum amount of Elective Employer Contributions available to such Participant for the remainder of the Plan Year under this Health Savings Account shall not be prorated. Provided, that the rules of this Section do not alter the general requirements on the effective date of participation for Employees as set out in Section 2.01 of this Plan. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 819 31 Article XIII HIPAA Provisions for the Health Care Spending Account 13.01 Application. Members of the Employer's workforce have access to the individually identifiable health information of Plan participants for administrative functions of the Health Care Spending Account. When this health information is provided from the Health Care Spending Account to the Employer, it is Protected Health Information (PHI). The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and its implementing regulations restrict the Employer's ability to use and disclose PHI. 13.02 Disclosure of PHI. The Health Care Spending Account will not disclose Protected Health Information to any member of the Employer's workforce unless each of the conditions set out in this Article are met. "Protected Health Information" means information that is created or received by the Health Care Spending Account and relates to the past, present or future physical or mental health or condition of a Participant; the provision of health care to a Participant; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to a Participant; and that identifies the Participant or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the Participant. Protected Health Information includes information of persons living, or deceased for a period of 50 years following the death of the individual. 13.03 Permitted disclosure of enrollment/disenrollment information. The Health Care Spending Account may disclose to the Employer information on whether the individual is participating in the Plan. 13.04 Permitted uses and disclosure of summary health information. The Health Care Spending Account may disclose Summary Health Information to the Employer, provided that the Employer requests the Summary Health Information for the purpose of modifying, amending, or terminating the Health Care Spending Account. “Summary Health Information” means information (a) that summarizes the claims history, claims expenses, or type of claims experienced by individuals for whom a plan sponsor had provided health benefits under a health plan; and (b) from which the information described at 42 CFR Section 164.514(b)(2)(i) has been deleted, except that the geographic information described in 42 CFR Section 164.514(b)(2)(i)(B) need only be aggregated to the level of a five-digit ZIP code. 13.05 PHI disclosed for administrative purposes. Unless otherwise permitted by law, and subject to the conditions of disclosure described in Section 13.06 and obtaining written certification pursuant to Section 13.07, the Health Care Spending Account may disclose Protected Health Information to the Employer, provided that the Employer uses or discloses such PHI only for Plan administration purposes. "Plan administration purposes" means administration functions performed by the Employer on behalf of the Health Care Spending Account, such as quality assurance, claims processing, auditing, and December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 820 32 monitoring. Plan administration functions do not include functions performed by the Employer in connection with any other benefit or benefit plan of the Employer, and they do not include any employment-related functions. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Plan to the contrary, in no event will the Employer be permitted to use or disclose PHI in a manner that is inconsistent with 45 CFR Section 164.504(f). 13.06 PHI disclosed to certain workforce members. The Plan will disclose Protected Health Information for Plan administration purposes only to members of the Employer's workforce who are designated and authorized to receive such Protected Health Information, and only to the extent and in the minimum amount necessary for that person to perform his or her duties with respect to the Health Care Spending Account. "Members of the Employer's workforce" refers to all employees and other persons under the control of the Employer. The Employer will allow the following members of the Employer's workforce to access to PHI: benefits staff, the Plan Administrator, and payroll staff performing Health Care Spending Account functions and any other Employee who needs access to PHI in order to perform Plan administration functions that the Employer performs for the Health Care Spending Account (such as quality assurance, claims processing, auditing, monitoring, payroll, and appeals). No other persons will have access to PHI. The Employer will keep an updated list of those authorized to receive Protected Health Information. (a) An authorized member of the Employer's workforce who receives Protected Health Information will use or disclose the Protected Health Information only to the extent necessary to perform the Plan administration functions that the Employer performs for the Health Care Spending Account. (b) In the event that any member of the Employer's workforce uses or discloses Protected Health Information other than as permitted by this Article and the Privacy Standards, the incident will be reported to the Plan's Privacy Official. The Privacy Official will take appropriate action, including: (1) investigation of the incident to determine whether a breach occurred and if the breach occurred inadvertently, through negligence or deliberately; whether there is a pattern of breaches; and the degree of harm caused by the breach; (2) appropriate sanctions against the persons causing the breach which, depending upon the nature of the breach, may include oral or written reprimand, additional training, or termination of employment; (3) mitigation of any harm caused by the breach, to the extent practicable; and (4) documentation of the incident and all actions taken to resolve the issue and mitigate any damages. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 821 33 13.07 Certification. This provision constitutes certification by the Employer that it agrees to: (a) Not use or further disclose PHI other than as permitted or required by the Health Care Spending Account or as required by law; (b) Ensure that any agent or subcontractor, to whom it provides Protected Health Information received from the Plan, agrees to the same restrictions and conditions that apply to the Employer with respect to such information; (c) Not use or disclose Protected Health Information for employment-related actions and decisions or in connection with any other benefit or employee benefit plan of the Employer; (d) Report to the Plan any use or disclosure of the Protected Health Information of which it becomes aware that is inconsistent with the uses or disclosures permitted by this Section, or required by law; (e) Make available Protected Health Information to individual Plan members in accordance with Section 164.524 of the Privacy Standards; (f) Make available Protected Health Information for amendment by individual Plan members and incorporate any amendments to Protected Health Information in accordance with Section 164.526 of the Privacy Standards; (g) Make available the Protected Health Information required to provide an accounting of disclosures to individual Plan members in accordance with Section 164.528 of the Privacy Standards; (h) Make its internal practices, books and records relating to the use and disclosure of Protected Health Information received from the Health Care Spending Account available to the Department of Health and Human Services for purposes of determining compliance by the Health Care Spending Account with the Privacy Standards; (i) If feasible, return or destroy all Protected Health Information received from the Health Care Spending Account that the Employer still maintains in any form, and retain no copies of such information when no longer needed for the purpose for which disclosure was made, except that, if such return or destruction is not feasible, limit further uses and disclosures to those purposes that make the return or destruction of the information infeasible; and (j) Ensure the adequate separation between the Plan and members of the Employer's workforce, as required by Section 164.504(f)(2)(iii) of the Privacy Standards and set out in 13.06 above. 13.08 Privacy Official. The Employer will designate a Privacy Official, who will be responsible for the Plan’s compliance with HIPAA. The Privacy Official may contract with or December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 822 34 otherwise utilize the services of attorneys, accountants, brokers, consultants, or other third party experts as the Privacy Official deems necessary or advisable. In addition and notwithstanding any provision of this Plan to the contrary, the Privacy Official will have the authority to and be responsible for: (a) accepting and verifying the accuracy and completeness of any certification provided by the Employer under this Article; (b) transmitting the certification to any third parties as may be necessary to permit them to disclose PHI to the Employer; (c) establishing and implementing policies and procedures with respect to PHI that are designed to ensure compliance by the Plan with the requirements of HIPAA; (d) establishing and overseeing proper training of personnel who will have access to PHI; and (e) any other duty or responsibility that the Privacy Official, in his or her sole capacity, deems necessary or appropriate to comply with the provisions of HIPAA and the purposes of this Article. 13.09 Interpretation and Limited Applicability. This Article serves the sole purpose of complying with the requirements of HIPAA and will be interpreted and construed in a manner to effectuate this purpose. Neither this Article nor the duties, powers, responsibilities, and obligations listed therein will be taken into account in determining the amount or nature of the benefits provided to any person covered under the Health Care Spending Account, nor will they inure to the benefit of any third parties. To the extent that any of the provisions of this Article are no longer required by HIPAA or do not apply to the Plan because the Plan is otherwise excepted from HIPAA, they will be deemed deleted and will have no force or effect. 13.10 Breach Notification. Following the discovery of a breach of unsecured PHI, the Health Care Spending Account will notify each individual whose unsecured PHI has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, accessed, acquired, or disclosed as a result of the breach, in accordance with 45 CFR Section 164.404, and will notify the Department of Health and Human Services in accordance with 45 CFR Section 164.408. For a breach of unsecured PHI involving more than 500 residents of a State or jurisdiction, the Health Care Spending Account will notify the media in accordance with 45 CFR Section 164.406. "Unsecured PHI" means PHI that is not secured through the use of technology or methodology specified in regulations or other guidance issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. 13.11 Compliance with HIPAA Electronic Security Standards. Under the Security Standards for the Protection of Electronic Protected Health Information (45 CFR Part 164.300 et. seq., the “Security Standards”): December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 823 35 (a) Implementation. The Employer agrees to implement administrative, physical and technical safeguards that reasonably and appropriately protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of Electronic Protected Health Information that the Employer creates, maintains or transmits on behalf of the Plan. "Electronic Protected Health Information" will have the same definition as set out in the Security Standards, but generally shall mean Protected Health Information (other than enrollment or disenrollment information and Summary Health Information, which are not subject to these restrictions) that is transmitted by or maintained in electronic media. (b) Agents or subcontractors will meet security standards. The Employer will ensure that any agent or subcontractor to whom it provides Electronic Protected Health Information agrees, in writing, to implement reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect the Electronic Protected Health Information. (c) Employer will ensure security standards. The Employer will ensure that reasonable and appropriate security measures are implemented to comply with the conditions and requirements set forth in this Article. The Employer will report to the Privacy Officer any security incident of which it becomes aware. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 824 36 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County has caused this Plan to be executed in its name and behalf this ________ day of ________________, 20___, by its representative thereunto duly authorized. ATTEST (SEAL) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY _____________________________ __________________________________________ December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 825 37 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 826 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 827 RECOMMENDATION(S): DECLARE as surplus and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to dispose of fully depreciated vehicles and equipment no longer needed for public use, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Section 1108-2.212 of the County Ordinance Code authorizes the Purchasing Agent to dispose of any personal property belonging to Contra Costa County and found by the Board of Supervisors not to be required for public use. The property for disposal is either obsolete, worn out, beyond economical repair, or damaged beyond repair. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Public Works would not be able to dispose of surplus vehicles and equipment APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Nida Rivera, (925) 313-2124 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 90 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Disposal of Surplus Property December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 828 ATTACHMENTS Surplus Vehicles & Equipment December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 829 ATTACHMENT TO BOARD ORDER DECEMBER 20, 2016 Department Description/Unit/Make/Model Serial No. Condition A. Obsolete B. Worn Out C. Beyond economical repair D. Damaged beyond repair PUBLIC WORKS 2006 FORD F-250 TRUCK #5571 (134155 MILES) 1FTNF20536EA69983 B. WORN OUT PUBLIC WORKS 2001 FREIGHTLIN TRUCK #6859 (131487 MILES) 1FVXTECB51DH31573 B. WORN OUT HEALTH SERVICES 2002 CHEVY S-10 BLAZER #3656 (121661 MILES) 1GNDT13W42K202868 B. WORN OUT EHS/COMM. SERVICES 2000 FORD TAURUS SEDAN #0301 (86607 MILES) 1FAFP52271G241344 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2000 FORD E-250 VAN #4533 (98315 MILES) 1FTNE24L8YHA06018 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2009 FORD CROWN VIC. #2946 (122369 MILES) 2FAHP71V99X138173 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2009 FORD CROWN VIC. #2953 (95839 MILES) 2FAHP71V49X139036 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2010 FORD CROWN VIC. #2031 (99244 MILES) 2FABP7BV9ax115436 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2006 FORD EXPLORER. #3680 (107935 MILES) 1FMEU62E16UB35717 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2004 THOMAS BUS #6612 (196547 MILES) 1T7YT2C2841137595 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2016 FORD INTERCEP SUV #3605 (25293 MILES) 1FM5K8AT3GGA47026 D. DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR SHERIFF 2011 FORD CROWN VIC. #2143 (108995 MILES) 2FABP7BV8BX179792 B. WORN OUT AGRICULTURE 2003 FORD RANGER #5046 (92937 MILES) 1FTYR10E83PB19498 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2010 FORD E-350 VAN #4680 (94349 MILES) 1FTSS3EL6ADA85427 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2010 FORD CROWN #2033 (99648 MILES) 2FABP7BVXAX136697 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2007 FORD CROWN VIC. #1949 (53403 MILES) 2FAFP71W77X132594 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 1999 FORD TAURUS SEDAN. #0577 (78571 MILES) 1FAFP52U0XG253748 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 1998 FORD TAURUS SEDAN #0500 (83171 MILES) 1FAFP52U0WG154569 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2000 CHEVY MALIBU SEDAN. #0416 (84090 MILES) 1G1ND52J8Y6226866 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2011 FORD CROWN VIC. #2052 (116758 MILES) 2FABP7BV6BX152364 B. WORN OUT PUBLIC WORKS 2002 FORD F-350 TRUCK #5643 (134435 MILES) 1FTWW32F92ED71594 B. WORN( OUT PUBLIC DEFENDER 2011 TOYOTA CAMRY HYB. #1238 (93645 MILES) 4T1BB3EK9BU140294 B. WORN OUT December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 830 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the report from the Health Services Department on the six month implementation of the County's Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program, as authorized by the Board of Supervisors and AB 1421 (Laura's Law). FISCAL IMPACT: Mental Health Services Act funding to support the program is budgeted within the Health Services Department budget, and there is no impact to the County General Fund. BACKGROUND: Board Resolution No. 2015/9, adopted February 3, 2015, approved the implementation of Laura’s Law (AOT) for a three year term project; continuance to be contingent upon demonstration of the efficacy of court ordered out-patient treatment. Additionally, this Resolution directed the Health Services Department to develop an evaluation design that determines the difference, if any, in program impact and cost savings to the county for individuals who are ordered to participate in services versus those individuals who voluntarily participate in the same level and type of services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C.103 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:F&HS Referral No. 107 - Laura's Law: Data Report on 6 Month AOT Implementation December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 831 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On June 16, 2015 the Board approved and ordered the implementation of the AOT Program Design. This approved AOT Program Design included contracting with a Principal Investigator via competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) to apply an independent, objective social research design to address whether voluntary versus involuntary participation makes a difference, and whether the newly implemented service delivery has a better program impact and cost savings to the County than existing Full Service Partnership (FSP) programs in the County who are currently serving persons with serious and persistent mental illness. California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5348 also sets forth requirements for annual evaluation of County AOT programs. Through the a competitive RFP process, Resource Development Associates (RDA) was selected to provide evaluation functions as authorized by the Board. Since then, Health Services has been working closely with RDA to ensure evaluation metrics are documented and tracked. On September 27, 2016, the Board accepted the report, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee (FHS), from the Health Services Department on the implementation of the County's AOT program. During the time of this report, data on the initial 6 month implementation period was not yet available and the Board accepted the department's proposal to report back to FHS and the Board when the data report was finalized. On December 12, 2016, the Health Services Department and Resource Development Associates presented the attached report and presentation document to FHS. FHS approved forwarding the report to the full Board for their information and as follow up to the information presented to the Board on September 27, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board will not have accepted the data presented. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Barbara Serwin, Vice-Chair, Mental Health Commission (handout attached); Lauren Rettagliata; Douglas Dunn, resident of Antioch (handout attached); Teresa Pasquini, resident of El Sobrante (handout attached). AGENDA ATTACHMENTS AOT 6 Month Implementation Report AOT Evaluation Presentation MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Correspondence Received December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 832 Contra Costa County Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) Evaluation 2016 Interim Evaluation Report December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 833 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | i Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................5 AOT in Contra Costa County ..................................................................................................................... 5 AOT Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Methodology .....................................................................................................................................9 ACT Fidelity Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 9 AOT Program Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 10 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 14 ACT Fidelity ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Pre-AOT Enrollment Outcomes............................................................................................................... 24 Post-AOT Enrollment Outcomes ............................................................................................................. 37 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 50 AOT Referrals .......................................................................................................................................... 50 Outreach and Engagement ..................................................................................................................... 51 ACT Fidelity ............................................................................................................................................. 52 Preliminary Outcomes ............................................................................................................................ 54 CCBHS and MHS Data Capacity ............................................................................................................... 54 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 55 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 834 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | ii Table of Figures Figure 1. Contra Costa County AOT Program Implementation Timeline ...................................................... 1 Figure 2. Contra Costa County AOT Client Engagement Process Flowchart ................................................. 7 Figure 3. AOT Eligibility Determinations for all Referred Consumers by Month ........................................ 26 Figure 4. Average Investigation Contact Attempts per Consumer ............................................................. 28 Figure 5. Average Duration (in Minutes) of Investigation Contacts per Consumer10 ................................. 29 Figure 6. Locations of CCBHS Investigation Contacts for All Eligible Consumers, ...................................... 30 Figure 7. Type of Outreach and Engagement Contact Attempts for All Consumers .................................. 31 Figure 8. Type and Number of Outreach and Engagement Attempts per Consumer, ................................ 32 Figure 9. Proportion of Successful Outreach Attempts by Provider for All Consumers ............................. 33 Figure 10. Successful Outreach and Engagement Attempts by Provider per Consumer ........................... 34 Figure 11. Average Duration (in Minutes) of Successful Outreach and Engagement Attempts by Provider for All Eligible Consumers ........................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 12. Average Duration (in Minutes) of Successful Outreach Attempts by Provider per Consumer . 35 Figure 13. Locations of Successful Outreach and Engagement Attempts for All Eligible Consumers ........ 36 Figure 14. Average Days Spent in Each Step by Month for AOT Consumers .............................................. 37 Figure 15. Consumers’ History of Incarceration or Arrest in the 12 Months Prior to AOT Enrollment ...... 40 Figure 16. Episodes of Service Use Other than ACT for AOT Consumers ................................................... 43 Figure 17. Number of Consumers Experiencing Adverse Events Pre-AOT Enrollment .............................. 44 Figure 18. County Hospitalization and Other Service Costs Pre-Enrollment for AOT Consumers .............. 48 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 835 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | iii Table of Tables Table 1. Data Sources and Elements ........................................................................................................... 10 Table 2. ACT Fidelity Assessment Scores .................................................................................................... 14 Table 3. Action Team Monthly Intake January 2016 to July 2016 .............................................................. 17 Table 4. Quartile Ranking of Service Hours Received for July 2016 ........................................................... 20 Table 5. Action Team Face-to-face Contacts with Clients by Week for July 2016 ..................................... 21 Table 6. Summary of Requestor Type ......................................................................................................... 25 Table 7. Status of All AOT-Eligible Consumers at Conclusion of Evaluation Period, ................................... 27 Table 8. Total Number of Investigation Contacts by Consumer Status ...................................................... 28 Table 9. Total Number of Outreach and Engagement Contact Attempts by Consumer Status ................. 31 Table 10. AOT Consumer Demographics .................................................................................................... 38 Table 11. AOT Consumer Primary Diagnosis at Enrollment ........................................................................ 39 Table 12. Average and Median Hospital Episodes and Days in Hospital .................................................... 39 Table 13. Housing Status 12 Months Prior to and at Enrollment for AOT Consumers ............................... 40 Table 14. Sources of Financial Support for AOT Consumers ...................................................................... 41 Table 15. Length of Enrollment in AOT ....................................................................................................... 42 Table 16. Safety SSM Scores for AOT Consumers (n = 16) .......................................................................... 45 Table 17. Social Functioning and Independent Living SSM Scores for AOT Consumers (n = 16) ............... 45 Table 18. MHS Costs ................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 19. Contra Costa County Department Costs ..................................................................................... 47 Table 20. Service Costs Pre-AOT Enrollment .............................................................................................. 48 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 836 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 1 Executive Summary Background On February 3, 2015, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution to authorize the implementation of AOT in accordance with the Welfare and Institutions Code, Sections 5345-5349.5. Figure 1 below shows the implementation timeline of AOT in Contra Costa County. Figure 1. Contra Costa County AOT Program Implementation Timeline The County has designed an AOT program model that exceeds AB 1421 requirements and responds to the needs of its communities. The Care Team (CCBHS and Mental Health Systems) collaborates to conduct investigation, outreach, and engagement activities. MHS provides Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) services for individuals enrolled in ACT. When implemented to fidelity, ACT produces reliable results for consumers, including decreased negative outcomes, such as hospitalization, incarceration, and homelessness, and improved psychosocial outcomes, such as increased life skills and involvement in meaningful activities. This preliminary report captures the first six months of AOT implementation in Contra Costa County, specifically addressing the following research questions: 1. How faithful are Contra Costa County’s ACT services to the ACT model? 2. What are the outcomes for the people who participate in AOT, including the DHCS- required reporting outcomes? In addition to adopting a new legal mechanism for providing mental health services to individuals with serious mental illness, the County contracted with a new service provider (MHS) to introduce a new service model (ACT). Given the number of new elements being introduced in Contra Costa County in the first six months of starting-up the AOT program, this report’s discussion about the AOT program’s implementation and preliminary outcomes should be interpreted cautiously until the County’s AOT program has become more firmly established. What is ACT? ACT is an evidence-based behavioral health program for people with serious mental illness who are at-risk of or would otherwise be served in institutional settings such as a hospital or jail, or experience homelessness. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 837 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 2 Key Findings Pre-AOT Enrollment The Pre-AOT Enrollment period includes the referral process and the investigation and outreach and engagement conducted by the Care Team. From 108 referrals, investigation of 101 cases resulted in 38 AOT eligible consumers receiving outreach and engagement. As of July 31, 2016, 17 consumers were enrolled in ACT and 11 were still receiving outreach and engagement services. Investigation of the referral process suggests that individuals for whom AOT is appropriate are being identified for services. Additional key findings regarding referral to AOT include:  Consumers’ family members, spouses, and housemates made the majority (60%) of referrals to CCBHS, suggesting that AOT has increased the capacity of this group to seek help for their loved ones.  There may be an opportunity for the County to increase its education and outreach to law enforcement officials and mental health service providers to further inform them about AOT, their role as qualified requestors, and the opportunities to refer eligible individuals for service. The Care Team is intended to work collaboratively to investigate and engage consumers in order to connect them to long-term services, either voluntarily or through AOT enrollment. Research on the Care Team’s efforts suggests that the Care Team is conducting many activities to connect with consumers and their families in the community in order to engage them in long-term mental health services. Findings also suggest that in the final months of the evaluation period, the program model shifted so that investigation and outreach and engagement efforts operated consecutively instead of concurrently. Post-AOT Enrollment The County appears to be reaching the target population of consumers who have a history of repetitive hospitalization, incarceration, and homelessness and are unable or unwilling to engage in voluntary services. Although consumer enrollment dates span the six-month period, consumers are receiving a high degree of mental health services through this program. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 838 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 3 Preliminary Outcomes Given the small sample size and enrollment periods, this evaluation only reports baseline findings. Key demographic characteristics of the 17 AOT consumers include:  Gender: 47% male, 53% female  Race/Ethnicity: 29% Black/African American, 59% White, 12% Other  Region: 47% Central, 29% East, 24% West  Diagnosis at Enrollment: 30% mood disorders, 65% schizophrenia, 6% other, 65% co- occurring SUD At baseline, the 17 AOT consumers reported experiencing a variety of adverse life events prior to enrollment, including hospitalization (13), incarceration (5), arrest (7), and homelessness (2). AOT Investments and Costs Given the preliminary nature of the AOT program at the end of the evaluation period, it is premature to estimate per person service delivery costs or project potential cost savings. The County has made the following investments with AOT implementation: MHS Costs Cost Type Oct-June 2016 Start-up Costs $242,832 (Oct ’15 - Jan ’16) Service Delivery Costs $661,660 (Feb ’16 - Jun ‘16) Total $904,492 (Oct ’15 - Jun ’16) Contra Costa County Department Costs County Department Feb-July 2016 CCBHS $262,500 County Counsel $22,733 Public Defender’s Office $66,750 Superior Court $64,000 Recommendations Following the interim six-month evaluation of the new AOT program in Contra Costa County, RDA makes the following recommendations: AOT Referrals  Increase outreach and education to qualified requestors, including professional staff (e.g. LEAs and mental health providers)  Monitor “ineligible” consumers for a period of time to determine if re- referral to AOT is needed Investigations and Outreach  Utilize all ACT team members to provide outreach and engagement  Strengthen communication practices during the transition between the investigation and outreach and engagement phases AOT Consumers and Service Participation  There may be a high proportion of AOT consumers who have forensic needs or are connected with the criminal justice system. MHS should consider training in forensic ACT and forensic mental health interventions. ACT Fidelity The MHS ACTiOn Team received an overall fidelity score of 4.73, indicating a high level of fidelity to the ACT Model. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 839 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 4 Data Capacity  CCBHS: Track investigation information electronically so that the data is available for each evaluation period and the County can learn more about who is and is not referred to MHS for AOT enrollment.  MHS: Consistently input PAT, KET, and 3M data in the County’s DCR system. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 840 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 5 Introduction In 2004, stakeholders throughout the mental health system in California joined together in support of Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). The MHSA was intended to “expand and transform” the public mental health system according to the following principles of 1) Recovery, Wellness, and Resiliency, 2) Consumer and Family Driven, 3) Community Collaboration, 4) Cultural Competency, and 5) Integrated Services. MHSA provided an infusion of funds for Full Service Partnership (FSP) programs, among others, to provide services using a “whatever it takes” model for people with serious mental illness. However, the implementation of MHSA did not sufficiently address one of the largest issues facing the mental health community across the nation: the cycle of repetitive psychiatric crises and resulting hospitalizations, incarcerations, and homelessness of the most seriously mentally ill who struggle to engage in services. As California counties began recognizing these limitations of the MHSA, some counties began choosing to implement California Assembly Bill 1421 (AB 1421). Passed in 2002, AB 1421 (also known as “Laura’s Law”) authorized the provision of Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) in counties that adopt a resolution to implement AOT. AOT is designed to interrupt the repetitive cycle of hospitalization, incarceration, and homelessness for people with serious mental illness who have been unable and/or unwilling to engage in voluntary services through an expanded referral and outreach process which may include civil court involvement, whereby a judge may order participation in outpatient treatment. The Welfare and Institutions Code defines the target population, intended goals, and the specific suite of services required to be available for AOT consumers in California. AOT in Contra Costa County On February 3, 2015, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution to authorize the implementation of AOT in accordance with the Welfare and Institutions Code, Sections 5345-5349.5. On February 1, 2016, Contra Costa County’s AOT program became operational. In March 2016, the County accepted their first consumer into AOT. Contra Costa County provides behavioral health services to AOT consumers through an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team operated by Mental Health Systems (MHS), a contracted provider organization. ACT is an evidence-based behavioral health program for people with serious mental illness who are at-risk of or would otherwise be served in institutional settings or experience homelessness. ACT has the strongest evidence base of any mental health practice for people with serious mental illness and, when implemented to fidelity, ACT produces reliable results for consumers, including decreased negative outcomes, such as hospitalization, incarceration, and homelessness and improved psychosocial outcomes, such as improved life skills and increased involvement in meaningful activities. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 841 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 6 It is important to note that in adopting a resolution to implement AOT, Contra Costa County not only adopted a new legal mechanism to connect individuals with serious mental illness to mental health services, they also contracted a new service provider, MHS, to implement the County’s first ACT program in order to ensure they are providing the highest quality of care for individuals enrolled in AOT. Because there are a number of new components coming together at once, it is natural to expect programmatic modifications to be implemented over the course of the evaluation period (February 2016 - July 2016), and beyond. Contra Costa County’s AOT Program Model Contra Costa County has designed an AOT program model that exceeds the requirements set forth in the legislation and responds to the needs of its communities. The Contra Costa County AOT program includes a Care Team comprised of CCBHS and MHS staff, including a County clinician, family advocate, and peer counselor, as well as an ACT team operated by MHS. The first stage of engagement with Contra Costa County’s AOT program is through a telephone referral whereby any “qualified requestor”1 can make an AOT referral. Within five business days, a CCBHS mental health clinician connects with the requester to gather additional information on the referral, as well as reach-out to the individual referred to begin to identify whether he/she meets AOT eligibility criteria (see Appendix I. AOT Eligibility Requirements). If the person appears to initially meet eligibility criteria, a CCBHS investigation from the Care Team staff facilitates a face-to-face meeting with the family and/or consumer to gather information, attempt to engage the consumer, and develops an initial care plan. If the consumer continues to appear to meet eligibility criteria, the Care Team provides a period of outreach and engagement while furthering the investigation to determine eligibility. If at any time the consumer accepts voluntary services and continues to meet eligibility criteria, he/she is immediately connected to and enrolled in ACT services. However, if after a period of outreach and engagement, the consumer does not accept voluntary services and continues to meet criteria, the County mental health director or designee may choose to file a petition with the court. Utilizing a collaborative court model that combines judicial supervision with community mental health treatment and other support services, Contra Costa County then holds 1-2 court hearings to determine if criteria for AOT are met. At this time, the individual may enter into a voluntary settlement agreement to receive ACT services, or be ordered to AOT for a period of no longer than six months. After six months, if the judge deems that the person continues to meet AOT criteria, they may authorize an additional six-month period. At every stage of the process, CCBHS and MHS staff continue to offer the individual opportunities to voluntary engage in services and may recommend a 72-hour hold, at any stage of the process, if they meet existing involuntary criteria. Figure 2 depicts this process. 1 Qualified requestors include: An adult who lives with the individual; Parent, spouse, adult sibling, or adult child of the individual; Director of an institution or facility where the individual resides; Director of the hospital where the person is hospitalized; Treating or supervising mental health provider; Probation, parole, or peace officer. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 842 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 7 Figure 2. Contra Costa County AOT Client Engagement Process Flowchart December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 843 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 8 AOT Evaluation The AOT program in Contra Costa County presents three main areas of interest to both the program’s implementation as well as its evaluation. The issues include: 1. There is little evidence that indicates who may be best served in a voluntary program and who may be most likely to require and subsequently benefit from AOT services. 2. In order to determine how to best target outreach efforts, it is necessary to understand how people with serious mental illness become engaged in outpatient mental health services, particularly the AOT program. 3. As consumers receive Contra Costa County’s AOT services, understanding the factors that affect their service participation, retention, and outcomes, specifically as it pertains to the AOT intervention, will allow Contra Costa County to best identify individuals with serious mental illness who are most likely to benefit from AOT. In order to assess these issues, CCBHS contracted with Resource Development Associates (RDA) to provide external evaluation services to better understand the role of ACT and AOT in Contra Costa County’s system of care, as well as to inform the required annual report to DHCS. This initial report addresses the following evaluation research questions: 1. How faithful are Contra Costa County’s ACT services to the ACT model? 2. What are preliminary outcomes for the people who participate in AOT, including the DHCS- required reporting outcomes? This report is intended to provide information to the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services, stakeholders, and the public about how AOT implementation is progressing, with special attention paid to the referral and outreach and engagement process, as well as preliminary findings as they relate to consumers enrolled in AOT. Each section begins with a short list of highlighted key findings for quick reference. Future reports will include comparisons of consumers who participate in AOT with and without court involvement, as well as comparisons of consumers who engage in existing FSP services and those who participate in AOT without court involvement. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 844 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 9 Methodology ACT Fidelity Assessment The intention of the fidelity assessment process is to measure the extent to which MHS’ ACT team is in alignment with the ACT model and identify opportunities to strengthen ACT/AOT services. For this component of the evaluation, RDA applied the ACT Fidelity Scale, developed at Dartmouth University2 and codified in a SAMHSA toolkit.3 This established assessment process sets forth a set of data collection activities and scoring process in order to determine a fidelity rating as well as qualifications of assessors. The fidelity assessment began with a series of project launch activities. This included: 1. Project launch call with CCBHS to confirm desired outcomes for the fidelity assessment and identify contact persons for each of the activities. 2. Project launch call with CCBHS and MHS to introduce the fidelity assessment and desired outcomes, describe the assessment process, and confirm logistics for the assessment site visit. 3. Data request to CCBHS and MHS in advance of the site visit to obtain descriptive data about consumers enrolled in ACT since program inception. The assessors conducted a full-day site visit at MHS’ ACT team office in Concord, CA on August 26, 2016. During the site visit, the assessors engaged in the following activities:  ACT program meeting observation  Interviews with eight (8) ACT team members including the Team Leader, Clinical Director, Clinician, Nurse, Family and Peer Partners, and Housing and Vocational Specialists.  Review of available documentation  Consumer focus group (11 of 17 enrolled consumers in attendance)  Family member focus group (13 family members of 9 enrolled consumers in attendance)  Debrief with the Team Leader and Clinical Director Concurrently, RDA obtained data from CCBHS and MHS and conducted descriptive analyses of the demographics and service utilization patterns of consumers enrolled in ACT. Following the site visit and data analysis, the assessors each independently completed the fidelity rating scale and then met to seek consensus on each individual rating as well as identify recommendations to strengthen MHS’ ACT program fidelity rating. The results of that discussion and the fidelity assessment are presented in the proceeding Results and Discussion sections. 2 http://www.dartmouth.edu/~implementation/page15/page4/files/dacts_protocol_1-16-03.pdf 3 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Assertive Community Treatment: Evaluating Your Program. DHHS Pub. No. SMA-08-4344, Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services Administration, U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 2008. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 845 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 10 AOT Program Evaluation RDA worked with CCBHS and MHS staff to obtain the data necessary for addressing the second research question about AOT consumers’ outcomes since the program’s implementation, from February 1, 2016 through July 31, 2016. Table 1 below presents the data sources utilized for this evaluation, as well as the data elements captured by each data source, and the questionnaires and/or forms that were used to measure each data element. Appendix II. Description of Evaluation Data Sources provides a description of each data source. Table 1. Data Sources and Elements Data Source Data elements Questionnaires/Forms CCC Referral Log  AOT Referrals  Demographics  Referral Log CCC Blue Notes  Outreach and Engagement Encounters  Blue Notes for each Outreach and Engagement Encounter CCC PSP Billing System  Behavioral Health services  Hospitalizations  Diagnoses  Service Claims MHS Outreach and Engagement Log  Outreach and Engagement Encounters  Outreach and Engagement Log Data Collection & Reporting (DCR) Files  Arrests  Incarceration  Homelessness  Employment  Partnership Assessment Form (PAF)  Key Event Tracking Form (KET)  Quarterly Assessment (3M) MHS Outcomes Spreadsheet  Social Functioning  Independent Living  Violent Behavior  Victimization  Recovery  High Risk Assessment (HRA)  Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS)  Self Sufficiency Matrix (SSM) CCBHS Financial Data  Costs associated with AOT  CCBHS Expenditures to MHS  Staffing Expenditures: County Counsel, Public Defender’s Office, and Civil Court Data Analysis RDA worked closely with CCBHS and MHS staff throughout the data collection and analysis processes. Upon receiving each data set, RDA performed a review of its contents and collaborated with CCBHS and MHS staff to ensure the evaluation team understood each data element and could seek additional data as needed. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 846 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 11 Given that data for this evaluation came from multiple sources, RDA first ensured that identifying information for consumers was consistent and could be matched across sources so that each consumer could be tracked throughout his or her involvement in AOT. For example, data from MHS regarding consumers’ enrollment into AOT was matched with County billing data to establish enrollment dates and create a variable indicating whether or not County services occurred before or after AOT enrollment. RDA consulted with CCBHS and MHS on any consumers where their timeline was unclear. After verifying our understanding of the data with the Care Team and matching consumers across data sources, RDA began the analysis. Throughout this process, several key analytic decisions were made:  Though some data sources provided consumer data through August, the evaluation team decided to use July 31, 2016 as a cut-off date for data collection and analysis in order to consistently report on all consumer outcomes. For example, episodes open beyond July 31, 2016 were given an end date of July 31 for this interim report’s analyses.  RDA decided to categorize consumers based on their four disposition or status categories as of July 31, 2016 (i.e., Ongoing Outreach and Engagement, Accepted ACT Services Voluntarily, Accepted ACT Services with a Settlement Agreement, and Closed).  RDA also created several variables for analysis based on multiple data sources, which were used to describe the average duration of time consumers spent moving through the AOT process, depending on what month they were referred: o Length of time (in days) from referral to first CCBHS contact o Length of time (in days) from first CCBHS contact to last (or July 31, 2016 if investigation still ongoing) CCBHS contact o Length of time (in days) from first CCBHS contact to first MHS contact o Length of time (in days) from first MHS contact to AOT enrollment o Length of time (in days) from referral to enrollment  Given the different sample sizes in the above-mentioned four disposition groups (11, 14, 3, and 10, respectively) and variability in length of enrollment for those in AOT, findings were reported per month and per consumer when possible. This allowed RDA to standardize results and account for differences in sample size and length of enrollment.  For this report, RDA used self-reported data for all outcomes except hospitalization and billable services. The majority of this data captured consumers’ experiences for 12 months prior to their enrollment in AOT; however, RDA was able to use three years of pre-data for hospitalizations and other billable CCBHS services. RDA chose to use all years of available PSP billing data, standardized by month, when reporting on hospitalization costs and the consumer profile, but used only the year prior to enrollment when reporting on pre-AOT hospitalizations in the “AOT Consumer Outcomes” section.  RDA chose not to report on any data at an individual level in order to ensure confidentiality. For all analyses in this report, RDA used descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies, mean, median, and mode) to describe the data in meaningful ways. In future reports with larger sample sizes and longer enrollment December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 847 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 12 periods for consumers, RDA will look to employ both descriptive and inferential statistics to answer the evaluation’s research questions. Limitations As is the case with all real-world evaluations, there are limitations to consider. One major limitation is the preliminary nature of this evaluation. Given that the County’s AOT program became operational on February 1, 2016, and that the County embarked on implementing its first ACT program with a new service provider at this time, there are natural programmatic developments and modifications that took place over the course of the evaluation period. It is important to note that program modifications are to be expected, and results should be interpreted cautiously until the County’s AOT program has become more firmly established. It is also important to note that from February 1, 2016 - July 31, 2016 Contra Costa County’s AOT program enrolled only 17 AOT consumers, six of which enrolled in June or July. Moreover, AOT consumers had only spent, on average, 77 days enrolled in the AOT program, with participation ranging from two weeks to five months through July 31, 2016. Because relatively few individuals enrolled in AOT during the evaluation period, and they only spent, on average, short periods in AOT, this report does not assess changes in DHCS outcomes, including costs, pre- and post-AOT enrollment. Instead pre-AOT criminal justice involvement and histories of hospitalization and homelessness are reported, while baseline psychosocial assessment data from MHS are reported. Future reports will analyze changes over time as greater numbers of AOT participants have been enrolled for longer periods of time. For this report, RDA also relied on AOT consumer self-reported measures of criminal justice involvement to identify pre-AOT criminal justice involvement. While self-report measures may serve as an accurate proxy, they are not ideal measures and limit the precision of the analyses. In order to produce more robust analyses for future reports, RDA has established agreements with the Superior Court and Sheriff’s Office to collect arrest and sentencing data to measure criminal justice involvement pre- and post-AOT enrollment. MHS has been operational for a short time period and thus there is a relatively small number of AOT consumers enrolled in the program. In order to the average monthly cost of providing MHS services for AOT consumers, RDA utilized the most recent month’s (June 2016) financial data from MHS. While this measure is not ideal, RDA made the assumption that the costs incurred during the most recent month of AOT implementation would be the most reflective of the current costs. Once the program has matured and greater number of consumers are enrolled, RDA will be able to calculate a more usable average monthly MHS costs. A final limitation is the County’s data capacity for tracking AOT services. CCBHS has no electronic records of their investigation process; instead, all of this information exists in hard copy, hand-written notes. RDA spent one day working with CCBHS staff to collect pertinent information on all individuals eventually referred to MHS; moving forward, in order to better describe and compare the consumer profiles of those December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 848 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 13 who are and are not referred to MHS for AOT enrollment, it is imperative that CCBHS begin to transfer data from field notes into an electronic platform. MHS also has data limitations, as large numbers of PAF, KET, and 3M data were not available via the County’s DCR data system. It appears that PAF data is only available for consumers’ first assessment, so if AOT consumers have already had assessments entered into the system there was no way to retrieve this data. Moreover, large numbers of KET and 3M data were missing from the DCR. As a result, RDA staff spent one day working with MHS to transfer hard copies of PAF, KET, and 3M assessments into Excel spreadsheets for evaluation. Moving forward, RDA will work with MHS to streamline this process. Despite these limitations, the following evaluation will help CCBHS and MHS better understand how AOT implementation is progressing, as well as some of the individual, program, and systems-level processes that have resulted from the implementation of AOT. This evaluation will help CCBHS and MHS develop program improvements, and also help the County begin to answer critical questions that will assist them as they continue to improve their capacity to meet the needs of those with the most serious mental illnesses. This evaluation would not be able to answer such questions if AOT implementation took place under the constraints of a randomized control trial. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 849 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 14 Results RDA’s evaluation of Contra Costa County’s AOT program is structured to explore specific research questions. This initial report addresses the following to evaluation research questions: 1. How faithful are Contra Costa County’s ACT services to the ACT model? 2. What are the outcomes for the people who participate in AOT, including the DHCS-required reporting outcomes? In this Results section, RDA first presents its findings addressing the first research question of assessing Contra Costa County’s implementation fidelity of ACT services. Following the presentation of RDA’s ACT Fidelity Assessment findings, RDA then presents its findings of outcomes exhibited and experienced by AOT participants, broken down by pre- and post-AOT enrollment related outcomes. ACT Fidelity The ACT program was rated on the three domains set forth in the ACT Fidelity Scale, including:  Human Resources: Structure and Composition  Organizational Boundaries  Nature of Services Each domain has specific criterion rated on a five-point Likert scale with clearly defined descriptions for each rating. The following chart provides an overview of the domains, criterion, and ACTiOn Team’s program rating. As shown in the table below, the ACTiOn Team received an overall fidelity score of 4.73 indicating a high level of fidelity to the ACT Model. The proceeding section provides descriptions, justifications, and data sources for each criterion and rating. Table 2. ACT Fidelity Assessment Scores Domain Criterion Rating Human Resources: Structure and Composition Small caseload 5 Team approach 5 Program meeting 5 Practicing ACT leader 4 Continuity of staffing 4 Staff capacity 5 Psychiatrist on team 5 Nurse on team 5 Substance abuse specialist on team 5 Vocational specialist on team 5 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 850 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 15 Domain Criterion Rating Program size 5 Organizational Boundaries Explicit admission criteria 3 Intake rate 5 Full responsibility for treatment services 5 Responsibility for crisis services 5 Responsibility for hospital admissions N/A Responsibility for hospital discharge planning N/A Time-unlimited services 5 Nature of Services In vivo services 3 No drop-out policy 5 Assertive engagement mechanisms 5 Intensity of services 5 Frequency of contact 4 Work with support system 5 Individualized substance abuse treatment 5 Co-occurring disorder treatment groups 5 Co-occurring disorders model 5 Role of consumers on treatment team 5 ACT Fidelity Score 4.73 Human Resources: Structure and Composition Small caseload refers to the consumer-to-provider ratio, which is 10:1 for ACT programs. MHS’ ACTiOn Team received a rating of 5 for this criterion as they have 11.5 FTEs who provide direct services, as well as 2 administrative staff, for 17 consumers and clearly exceeds the 10:1 ratio. This was assessed through personnel records and staff interviews. Team approach refers to the provider group functioning as a team rather than as individual team members with all ACT team members knowing and working with all consumers. MHS’ ACTiOn Team received a rating of 5 for this criterion as more than 90% of consumers had face-to-face interactions with more than one team member in a two-week period. This was assessed through consumer records and further supported through the morning meeting observation, staff interviews, and consumer and family focus groups. The Program meeting item measures the frequency with which the ACTiOn team meets to plan and review services for each consumer. MHS’ ACTiOn Team received a rating of 5 for this criterion as they team meets at least four times per week and reviews every consumer in each meeting. Assessors observed the December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 851 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 16 program meeting during the site visit and observed the team discussion for every consumer as well as confirmed the frequency of program meeting through available documentation and staff interviews. Practicing ACT leader refers to the supervisor of frontline staff providing direct service to consumers. Full fidelity requires that the supervisor provide direct service at least 50% of the time. MHS’ ACTiOn Team received a rating of 4 because the Team Leader provides direct services about 40% of the time. These direct services include both formal and informal interactions and may or may not include formal progress notes. As such, this rating is solely based on staff interviews. Continuity of staffing measures the program’s level of staff retention. Full fidelity requires less than 20% turnover within a two-year period, which was adjusted to a 6-month period for MHS’ ACTiOn Team as per the Dartmouth protocol for evaluating new programs. During the evaluation period, there were four of 20 staff who discontinued employment with MHS’ ACTiOn Team, which is a 20% turnover rate for the first six months of program operation. This results in a rating of 4 based on the scoring rubric and was assessed through a review of personnel records and staff interviews. Staff capacity refers to the ACT program operating at full staff capacity. According to personnel records, the MHS’ ACTiOn Team has operated at or above full staffing capacity 100% of the time, which exceeds the 95% benchmark set forth in the scoring rubric. Fidelity to the ACT model requires 1.0 FTE psychiatrist per 100 consumers. For 17 consumers, the ACT team would require a 0.17 FTE psychiatrist. Currently, MHS’ ACTiOn Team provides 0.5 FTE psychiatrist, as reported by staff and personnel records. This results in a rating of 5. Once the program is at full capacity of 75 enrolled consumers, the team will require a .75 FTE psychiatrist to meet full fidelity to the ACT model. The ACT model requires a 1.0 FTE nurse per 100 consumers. Currently, MHS’ ACTiOn Team employs two full-time nurses, including a registered nurse and licensed vocational nurse, as observed by personnel records and staff interviews. This exceeds the required ratio and results in a rating of 5. The ACT model includes a substance abuse specialist position on the ACT team. Currently, MHS’ ACTiOn Team employs a 1.0 FTE dual recovery specialist as well as a family partner who is a Certified Drug and December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 852 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 17 Alcohol Counselor (CADC), as observed by personnel records and staff interviews. This exceeds the required ratio and results in a rating of 5. The ACT model includes a vocational specialist position on the ACT team. Currently, MHS’ ACTiOn Team employs a 1.0 FTE vocational rehabilitation specialist, as observed by personnel records and staff interviews. This exceeds the required ratio and results in a rating of 5. When at full capacity, the program will need to ensure that there are 1.5 FTE with the requisite experience in vocational rehabilitation. Program size refers to the size of the staffing to provide necessary staffing diversity and coverage. MHS’ ACTiOn Team exceeds the staffing ratio, as observed by personnel records and staff interview. This results in a rating of 5. Organizational Boundaries Explicit admission criteria refer to: 1) measureable and operationally defined criteria to determine referral eligibility, and 2) ability to make independent admission decisions based on explicitly defined criteria. MHS’ ACTiOn Team, in partnership with CCBHS, has explicit admission criteria for enrollment into ACT. However, the responsibility for actively identifying and engaging potential ACT consumers lies primarily with CCBHS as a part of the larger Assisted Outpatient Treatment program. The measureable and operationally defined criteria clearly meets ACT fidelity while the decision-making authority is not in alignment with the model. This is not to suggest that a partnership between CCBHS and MHS could not meet fidelity but more that the partnership must involve both parties working together to determine and confirm eligibility. For this reason, MHS’ ACTiOn Team received a score of 3, which is the average of a 5 for the clearly defined criteria and a 1 because they take all cases as determined outside of the program. Intake rate refers to the rate at which consumers are accepted into the program to maintain a stable service environment. In the past six months, there have been no more than six consumers admitted in any given month resulting in a rating of 5. This was observed through a review of consumer records. MHS’ Action Team admitted new clients from March to July for the reporting period. There were no intakes in the months of January and February. For the five months that the team conducted intakes, they averaged 3.4 clients per month. The most intakes they had in month was four in March, June, and July and the lowest intakes was two in the month of April. Table 3. Action Team Monthly Intake January 2016 to July 2016 Month of Intake Total Intakes March 4 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 853 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 18 Month of Intake Total Intakes April 2 May 3 June 4 July 4 Total Intakes 17 Monthly Average 3.4 In order to implement ACT with fidelity, a provider should have a monthly intake rate of six or lower. The Action Team’s highest monthly intake was four and receive a score of 5 for this item. Fidelity to the ACT model requires that ACT programs not only provide case management services but also provide psychiatric services, counseling/psychotherapy, housing support, substance abuse treatment, and employment and rehabilitative services. Currently, MHS’ ACTiOn Team provides the full range of services, including psychiatric services, counseling/psychotherapy, housing support, substance abuse treatment, and employment and rehabilitative services. This was observed through program meeting observation, staff interview, a review of consumer personnel records, and input from a consumer focus group and results in a rating of 5. The ACT model includes a 24-hour responsibility for covering psychiatric crises. MHS’ ACTiOn Team provides 24-hour coverage through a rotating on-call system that is shared by all program staff, with the exception of administrative staff. The Team Leader and Program Supervisor provide back-up coverage and support. This was observed through program meeting observation and staff interview as well as a review of personnel records and results in a rating of 5. The ACT model includes the ACT program participating in decision-making for psychiatric hospitalization. Currently, MHS’ ACTiOn Team is willing and available to participate in all decisions to hospitalize ACT consumers. During the initial six-month period, there were no inpatient psychiatric hospitalizations. It is important to note that some consumers were hospitalized at the time of referral and/or enrollment into the program, and those hospitalizations were not considered in this ACT Fidelity Assessment criterion as the decision to hospitalize occurred either before or as a part of the enrollment process. Some consumers did access other crisis services post ACT-enrollment, including Psychiatric Emergency Services and Crisis Residential Treatment, but none were actually hospitalized following enrollment. As such, this criterion was not scored and removed from the overall fidelity score. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 854 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 19 The ACT model includes the ACT program participating in hospital discharge planning. Currently, MHS’ ACTiOn Team is willing and available to participate in all decisions to hospitalize ACT consumers. During the initial six-month period, there were no inpatient psychiatric hospitalizations. It is important to note that some consumers were hospitalized at the time of referral and/or enrollment into the program, and those hospitalizations were not considered in this criterion as the hospitalization occurred either before or as a part of the enrollment process. Some consumers did access other crisis services post ACT- enrollment, including Psychiatric Emergency Services and Crisis Residential Treatment, but none were actually hospitalized following enrollment. As such, this criterion was not scored and removed from the overall fidelity score. The ACT model is designed to be time-unlimited with the expectation that less than 5% of consumers graduate annually. MHS’ ACTiOn Team did not graduate any consumers during the assessment period, although any consumer who moved out of the area was removed from the analysis for this criterion. This was determined through consumer records, staff interview, and via input from family members. Nature of Services ACT services are designed to be provided in the community, rather than in an office environment. The Community-based services item measures the number of MHS’ ACTiOn Team contacts in a client’s natural settings which refers to location where clients live, work, and interact with other people. To calculate this measure, we randomly selected 10 of the 17 ACT clients and counted the total number of community based encounters for each client from January 1, 2016 to July 31, 2016. We calculated a ratio of community based encounters to the total number of encounters for each client. We then ranked the ten ratios and determined the median value to score this measure. For this time period, 53% of all encounters between the Action Team and Clients occurred in the Community-based settings. As this percentage falls between the range of 40% to 59%, the score for this measure is 3. This criterion refers to the retention rate of consumers in the ACT program. According to consumer records and staff report, no consumer dropped out of MHS’ ACTiOn Team in the past 12 months. Any consumer who moved out of the area was removed from the analysis for this criterion, and this was determined through consumer records, staff interview, and via input from family members. As part of ensuring engagement, the ACT model includes using street outreach and legal mechanisms as indicated and available to the ACT team. The ACT team includes a subsection of consumers who are December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 855 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 20 enrolled in Assisted Outpatient Treatment via agreement with the court, a legal mechanism for supporting engagement, as well as a variety of outreach mechanisms to engage consumers. During the program meeting observation and staff interviews, team members discussed places where they regularly frequent to locate and interact with consumers. This results in a rating of 5. Intensity of services is defined by the face-to-face time service time MHS’ ACTiOn Team staff spend with clients. Fidelity to the ACT model requires that consumers receive an average of two hours per week of face-to-face contact. We measured intensity of services by analyzing data from the most recent and up to date time period, which was July 2016. Following ACT Assessment protocols, we calculated the weekly mean values of encounter time (converted from minutes to hours) between MHS’ ACTiOn Team staff and clients over a four-week period. From the mean values over the four-week period we determined the median number of services hours. We excluded phone contacts and collateral contacts. For the month of July, 17 ACT clients received a total of 362.7 hours of face-to-face services. The intensity of service rate was 5.4 hours of services per week per client. In order to be in alignment with the ACT model, providers are expected to provide more than two hours of services per week. Since the MHS’ ACTiOn Team well exceeds that level, they receive a score of 5. Across individual clients, we noted some variability in the intensity of services for the month. The range of intensity was relatively large; from a minimum value of 5.2 hours to 50.7 hours with the median being 17.7. Similarly, when ranking clients in quartiles, as depicted in Table 4, the top quartile of four clients accounts for 164 hours, or forty-eight percent (45%) of all hours (n = 341) for that month. Similarly, the second quartile of five clients accounts for 104 hours or 30% of service hours in July. If the first and second quartiles are combined, nine clients account for 267 or seventy-eight percent (78%) of logged service hours in July. The remaining eight clients in the third and fourth quartiles account for only a total of 74 services hours or twenty-two percent of services hours. Table 4. Quartile Ranking of Service Hours Received for July 2016 Quartile Range of Hours # of Clients Total Hours Percent of Total (n = 341) Quartile 1 51– 27 4 163.8 48% Quartile 2 26 – 17 5 103.6 30% Quartile 3 16 – 10 4 52.2 15% Quartile 4 9 – 0 4 21.8 6% This variability indicates that while nearly all clients are receiving the appropriate intensity of services, a small portion of clients receive services at much higher rate of intensity than the rest. Currently, with the smaller pool of clients, this does not appear to impact MHS’ ACTiOn Team’s capacity to provide services at a rate that is in alignment with the ACT model. However, as MHS’ ACTiOn Team expands the number of clients they serve, continuing this trend will likely cause inconsistencies in service delivery across clients and may result in decreased fidelity to the model. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 856 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 21 Fidelity to the ACT model requires that ACT consumers have an average of at least four (4) face-to-face contacts per week. We measured frequency of contact by analyzing at data from the most recent and up to date time period, which was July 2016. Following ACT Assessment protocols, we calculated the mean values over a four-week period of face-to-face contacts between ACT team member and ACT clients. From the mean values over the four-week period, we determined the median number of services hours. We excluded phone contacts and collateral contacts. For the month of July, MHS’ ACTiOn Team conducted a total of 223 face-to-face contacts with 16 clients. Using the ACT assessment methodology, the frequency of contact rate was 3.8 face-to-face contacts per week with the Action Team. In order to be in full alignment with the ACT model, providers must have an average of four contacts per week. As the average is slightly lower than 4, the ACTiOn team receives a score of 4. Table 5. Action Team Face-to-face Contacts with Clients by Week for July 2016 Week Weekly Total Contact Weekly Average Contacts Week 1 (July 1 – 7) 37 2.6 Week 2 (July 8 - 15 64 4.5 Week 3 (July 16- 23) 62 3.9 Week 4 (July 24 – 31) 60 3.7 Looking at face-to-face contacts per client for the entire month, we also noted a large range in face-to- face contacts. The lowest number of contacts for the month was five while the max number of contacts was 28 with the median value being 13. Similarly, as depicted in Table 5, there is some variation in the total number of contact by from Week One to the other three weeks in the month. The ACT model includes support and skill-building for the consumer’s support network, including family, landlords, and employers. This criterion measures the extent to which MHS’ ACTiOn Team provides support and skill-building for the client’s informal support network as a way to further enhance the client’s integration and functioning. Per the ACT Fidelity Assessment methodology, we identified a subgroup of 11 clients with collateral contacts from January 1, 2016 to July 31, 2016 and calculated the average rate of contact for this for the subgroup. We then calculated the rate of contact for the entire caseload of 17 clients. The rate of collateral contact for the Action Team for this time period is 4.8 contacts per month per client. In order to be in full alignment with the model, ACT providers must have 4 or more collateral contacts per client, per month. As the Action Team’s rate of contact is higher than four, they receive of score of 5. When looking at the contact data of clients with collateral contacts, we noticed that there is a wide range in the number of contacts for each client. Most clients were in a range of 1 to 6 contacts per client, while one client had 50 contacts. It is important to note, that this individual does skew the rate of contact to increase substantially. If we exclude this individual from the calculation, the rate of collateral contact drops from 4.8 to 2 while the median value drops to 3.5. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 857 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 22 The ACT model is based on an interdisciplinary team that provides all of the services a consumer may need to support their recovery and address their psychosocial needs, including individualized substance abuse treatment. MHS’ ACTiOn Team provides individualized substance abuse services via the dual recovery specialist, family partner, and other clinical staff. This was observed through a review of personnel and consumer records, staff interview, and consumer focus groups and results in a rating of 5. The ACT model is based on an interdisciplinary team that provides all of the services a consumer may need to support their recovery and address their psychosocial needs, including co-occurring disorder treatment groups. MHS’ ACTiOn Team provides co-occurring disorder groups led by the dual recovery specialist, family partner, and other clinical staff. This was observed through a review of personnel and consumer records, staff interview, and consumer focus groups and results in a rating of 5. The ACT model is based on a non-confrontational, stage-wise treatment model that considers the interactions between mental illness and substance use and has gradual expectations of abstinence. The assessors were impressed with the implementation of motivational interviewing and stages of change principles throughout the program meeting and staff interviews and found that MHS’ ACTiOn Team clearly meets and exceeds the treatment philosophy set forth in the ACT model. This results in a rating of 5. The ACT model includes the integration of consumers as full-fledged ACT team members, usually in the provision of peer support and/or peer counseling. MHS’ ACTiOn Team does include consumer membership as a part of the ACT team staffing. This was observed through a review of personnel records, team meeting observation, and staff interview and results in a rating of 5. Other Feedback ACT consumers and family members were generally appreciative of the ACT program and believed that participating in ACT had been beneficial. Program strengths included:  Partnership and Responsivity: Consumers commented on the unique qualities of the ACT program with respect to feeling like a partner and participating in shared decision making with the team to determine recovery goals and strategies. They specifically highlighted the psychiatrist as someone who cares about their opinions, asks for their feedback, and considers their experiences in making medication decisions. One participant also acknowledged that the team nurse has been willing to administer injections at her home to help her feel more comfortable because she is afraid of needles. Consumers also acknowledged how responsive staff are. Consumers shared, “I get assistance right away,” and “you can explain your need and someone December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 858 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 23 will come find you.” Another consumer stated, “Someone is always within your reach. Telephone, stop by, or they come find you.”  Professionalism: Consumers discussed the professionalism of the ACT team and staff. Consumers specifically mentioned their consistency in returning phone calls and clear communication as well as the staff training in supporting individuals when in crisis to deescalate the situation and avoid interaction with the police and/or hospital.  Inclusive approach to services: Participants highlighted that the ACT team is responsive to a variety of support needs, including: o Coordinating, reminding, and providing transportation to attend appointments, including doctor and psychiatry appointments o Support with medications, specifically injections and delivering prescriptions o Helping navigate the legal system, either the court component of AOT or because of previous victimization o Activity-based and recovery-oriented groups, including the fitness class Discussion participants also provided suggestions for improving the program, including:  Meaningful Activities: Consumers and family members shared that despite the frequent contact with members of MHS’ ACTiOn Team, people still have a fair amount of free time. Both consumers and family members suggested that activity-based groups may be helpful to support consumers with their recovery goals. Suggestions included more game nights, art groups, barbeques, trips to the library or other community locales, and volunteering at the local animal shelter.  Family Component: While family members and consumers alike discussed how the program is supporting them to rebuild relationships, family members also discussed how difficult it can be to support their loved ones and that it would be useful to have a family support group for ACT family members as a part of the program. This group could provide support to family members as well as provide psychoeducation to build additional skills to support their loved one. The assessors recommend, in addition to a family support group, a multi-family group whereby ACT consumers and their family members attend a group and participate in recovery-oriented activities together. Multi-family groups are an evidence based practice and support improved communication within a family unit as well as develop shared goals and tools to support recovery, provide additional opportunities for consumers and family members to build positive experiences as the consumer stabilizes, and encourage community amongst consumer and family members.  Housing and Supervision: While many consumers and family members appreciated that they received housing as a part of enrolling in MHS’ ACTiOn Team, family members cited both the lack of available housing in the County, the lack of a diversity of housing options, and supervision concerns. While there were no ready solutions, some family members wished that there was a higher degree of supervision within the housing placements for their loved ones as well as more housing choices. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 859 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 24 Pre-AOT Enrollment Outcomes As noted above, CCBHS and MHS conduct an extensive set of activities from the time of referral to enrollment (refer to Figure 2 above for a visual representation of Contra Costa County’s AOT process). Findings regarding the intended program model indicate that in practice this process has occurred in two consecutive steps, with some overlap. Given that in adopting AOT the County also implemented its first ACT program while working with a new service provider (MHS), it is natural for program modifications to occur. Currently, CCBHS staff conducts investigations to determine whether individuals referred to AOT meet eligibility criteria. Then, if an individual does meet eligibility criteria, the CCBHS staff in charge of the investigation connects MHS with the consumer to enroll them in AOT, either voluntarily or with court involvement. Given the modification to the AOT program implementation, RDA reports separate findings for CCBHS investigation and MHS outreach and engagement. Referral for AOT As previously described, qualified requestors refer individuals who appear to meet AOT eligibility criteria by calling the County’s AOT referral line. CCBHS staff determine the status of the qualified requestor prior to beginning their investigation of the referred consumer. CCBHS received 108 total referrals during the evaluation period. Of these 108 referrals for AOT, 105 were for unique individuals.4 Seven of the 108 total referrals were from unqualified requestors or requestors labeled as “other.” The majority of unqualified requestors were individuals referring themselves for AOT. Table 6 depicts the percentage of referrals by each category of qualified requestor. The majority of qualified requestors who referred consumers to CCBHS for investigation were family members or housemates of consumers, which suggests that the implementation of AOT in Contra Costa County provides an opportunity for non-professionals to refer their loved ones for services. It also suggests that the County may need to increase its educational efforts with law enforcement and mental health providers to further inform them about the program and their role as qualified requestors. No referrals were made by the Director of the institution where a referred individual resides. It is unlikely that any 4 None of the three individuals referred multiple times met AOT eligibility criteria. KEY FINDINGS  Individuals for whom AOT is appropriate are being identified for services.  Consumers’ family members, spouses, and housemates made the majority (60%) of referrals to CCBHS, suggesting that AOT has increased the capacity of this group to seek help for their loved ones.  There may be an opportunity for the County to increase its education and outreach to law enforcement officials and mental health service providers to further inform them about AOT, their role as qualified requestors, and the opportunities to refer eligible individuals for service. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 860 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 25 referrals would be made by this type of requestor because Contra Costa County does not have any in- county mental health institutions. Given the large proportion of referrals from non-professionals, it is possible that the County may need to implement more targeted recruitment of eligible consumers who may not have loved ones advocating for them. Table 6. Summary of Requestor Type5 Requestor Percent of Total Referrals (N = 108) Parent, spouse, adult sibling, or adult child 58.3% Treating or supervising mental health provider 16.7% Probation, parole, or peace officer 14.8% Adult who lives with individual 1.9% Director of hospital where individual is hospitalized 1.9% Director of institution where individual resides 0.0% Not a qualified requestor or “other” 6.5% Care Team Contra Costa County’s Care Team consists of CCBHS and MHS staff. As previously described, the AOT program is designed so that the County’s investigation and MHS’s outreach and engagement efforts occur concurrently; however, quantitative and qualitative findings from the six-month evaluation period indicate that program implementation has modified over time. At the conclusion of the evaluation period, investigation efforts and outreach and engagement services were operating as a consecutive process. Therefore, this section reports findings from the different Care Team processes separately and concludes with findings from the time of referral to enrollment. 5 Source: CCBHS Care Team Referral Log KEY FINDINGS  Members of the Care Team (CCBHS and MHS) are conducting many activities to connect with consumers and their families in the community in order to get them engaged in long-term mental health services.  In the final months of the evaluation period, investigation and outreach and engagement efforts operated consecutively instead of concurrently.  At the conclusion of the evaluation period (July 31, 2016), eligible consumers could be grouped into four different dispositions: o Ongoing Outreach and Engagement (29%) o Accepted ACT Services Voluntarily (26%) o Accepted ACT Services with a Settlement Agreement (8%) o Closed (26%) December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 861 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 26 Following referral by a qualified requestor, CCBHS staff conduct a screening of the client’s information and face sheet. If the client appears to meet AOT eligibility criteria, CCBHS meets with the qualified requestor. If the client continues to appear to meet eligibility criteria following a meeting with the qualified requestor, CCBHS begins a four- to six-week investigation to determine eligibility. Investigation consists of attempts to contact consumers via phone and in-person at various locations to determine if referred consumers meet the criteria for AOT. Consumers’ family members are also included in this process, when appropriate and as permitted by law. Figure 3 depicts CCBHS’s eligibility determination for each referred consumer, by month. Individuals were either considered eligible for AOT, ineligible, or no determination had been made at the time of the evaluation. For the first three months of the program’s implementation, an eligibility determination was made for all consumers. Qualitative data from focus groups with the County’s investigation team suggest that the increase in consumers without an eligibility determination in May, June, and July may be partially due to a program modification requiring CCBHS to sign a document verifying that a referred consumer meets eligibility criteria before connecting them to MHS. This modification may have increased the duration of investigation periods. Additionally, the increase in consumers without a determination in more recent months may also be reflective of investigations that are still ongoing because consumers are difficult to connect or with locate. Future evaluation reports capturing a greater implementation period are expected to help explain these patterns. Figure 3. AOT Eligibility Determinations for all Referred Consumers by Month6 During the evaluation period of February-July 2016, CCBHS’s investigation identified and connected 38 individuals to MHS for outreach and engagement services. The remaining 67 consumers who were 6 Source: CCBHS Care Team Referral Log 7 7 15 7 5 1 6 12 12 1 6 11 18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Feb. March April May June July Number of Consumers Eligible for AOT Not Eligible for AOT No Determination December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 862 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 27 referred either had an unqualified requester, were considered ineligible, were unable to be located, were connected to other services, or still have an ongoing investigation. For the purposes of this evaluation, RDA established the following four eligibility status categories to reflect the disposition of consumers at the conclusion of the evaluation period (July 31, 2016):  Ongoing Outreach and Engagement: Consumers connected by the County to MHS for intensive outreach and engagement services who are still being engaged with the goal of connecting them to long-term services  Accepted ACT Services Voluntarily: Consumers connected to MHS who enrolled in AOT and are receiving ACT services without court involvement  Accepted ACT Services with a Settlement Agreement: Consumers connected to MHS who needed court involvement to enroll in AOT and receive ACT services  Closed: Eligible consumers who were connected to MHS but closed in collaboration with the County for reasons including no longer meeting eligibility requirements, revocation of referral from the qualified requestor, or if consumers could not be located Table 7 depicts the disposition of the 38 consumers considered eligible for AOT by CCBHS at the conclusion of the evaluation period. As of July 31, 2016, 45% of referred consumers who were considered eligible for AOT and connected to MHS enrolled in AOT, 29% were still receiving outreach services, and 26% were closed to investigation and outreach and engagement. Table 7. Status of All AOT-Eligible Consumers at Conclusion of Evaluation Period7,8 Consumer Status Number of Consumers % of Total Eligible Consumers Ongoing Outreach and Engagement 11 29% Accepted ACT Services Voluntarily 14 37% Accepted ACT Services with Settlement Agreement 3 8% Closed 10 26% During the evaluation period, CCBHS’s investigation team made a total of 420 investigation contact attempts with consumers who appeared to meet AOT eligibility criteria (N = 38).9 The proportion of total investigation contacts made with each consumer group is reported in Table 8. The majority of contacts were made with either consumers who were still receiving outreach and engagement services (32%) or who voluntarily enrolled in AOT (31%). 7 Three individuals who were receiving outreach at the time of the evaluation have since been enrolled in AOT. 8 Sources: CCBHS Care Referral Log; MHS Outreach and Engagement Log 9 Data determining the outcome of each investigation contact is currently unavailable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 863 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 28 Table 8. Total Number of Investigation Contacts by Consumer Status Consumer Status Number of Contact Attempts Ongoing Outreach and Engagement 135 Accepted ACT Services Voluntarily 131 Accepted ACT Services with Settlement Agreement 62 Closed 92 Figure 4 shows the average number of contacts per consumer by each disposition category. Though consumers who eventually accepted ACT services with a settlement agreement received the fewest total investigation contacts, they experienced the most contacts per consumer compared to any other group. This likely reflects: 1) the small size of this group (n = 3), and 2) the challenges associated with finding and engaging this group of consumers, which requires more attempts at contact to determine eligibility and successfully connect them with MHS for outreach and engagement. Figure 4. Average Investigation Contact Attempts per Consumer10 The median duration of time spent with all eligible consumers (N = 38) at every contact was 20 minutes. Figure 5 shows the average duration of contacts per consumer by disposition. As with the number of contacts per consumer (see Figure 4), CCHBS staff spent more time per contact with consumers who eventually enrolled in AOT through a settlement agreement, likely for similar reasons. 10 Source: CCCBHS Care Team Referral Log 9 21 9 12 Closed Accepted ACT Services with Settlement Agreement Accepted ACT Services Voluntarily Ongoing Outreach and Engagement 0 10 20 30 Contacts per Consumer December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 864 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 29 Figure 5. Average Duration (in Minutes) of Investigation Contacts per Consumer10 A key component of the investigation process is CCBHS’s ability to meet consumers and their families at whatever location is necessary to find consumers and determine their eligibility for AOT. During the evaluation period, CCBHS connected with consumers and their family members in several locations and through both in-person and phone contacts. Figure 6 shows that 38% of contacts with all consumers occurred in a clinic setting in the County, including CCBHS’ network of clinics, while 25% of contact attempts occurred in the field. Visits to correctional or inpatient facilities comprised 15% of investigation contacts and 21% of contacts occurred over the phone. Healthcare and licensed care facility visits accounted for two percent of contacts and the remaining four percent were at other locations or unknown. It is interesting that most contacts are occurring in clinic settings; future evaluations will explore the outcomes of these contacts to see if there are any differences in the success of contacts based on their location.11 11 The total investigation contacts (N = 420) is lower than the total locations of contacts (N = 438) because some contacts occurred at multiple locations. Percentages of contact locations are reported for the total number of contacts. 3.4 10.5 2.5 2.4 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Closed Accepted ACT Services with Settlement Agreement Accepted ACT Services Voluntarily Ongoing Outreach and Engagement Minutes per Contact December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 865 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 30 Figure 6. Locations of CCBHS Investigation Contacts for All Eligible Consumers12, 13 In sum, the CCBHS investigation team identified and connected 38 eligible consumers for AOT outreach and engagement services. The majority of their contact attempts during the investigation were with those for whom outreach and engagement was still ongoing at the conclusion of the evaluation and with consumers who accepted ACT services voluntarily. However, they engaged in more contacts per consumer and had longer contacts on average with consumers who enrolled in ACT with a settlement agreement. Most of their total contacts occurred in their office (38%) or the field (25%). Given data constraints, RDA was unable to determine how many contacts were successful or the nature of the contact (e.g., in-person, collateral). The CCBHS investigation team connects all consumers who appear to meet AOT eligibility requirements to MHS for outreach and engagement services. MHS conducts intensive outreach and engagement services to collect information about and build rapport with consumers and their families so that consumers ultimately agree to enroll in AOT and accept ACT services voluntarily. As previously reported, CCBHS identified 38 eligible consumers and connected them to MHS. From February-July 2016, MHS attempted to provide outreach and engagement services 252 times to those consumers. RDA could not determine the outcomes of six of the 252 attempts and therefore removed them from the analysis. Contacts were considered unsuccessful if the consumer did not show, if MHS staff were unable to locate the consumer, or if MHS left a message for the consumer or family member. Figure 12 Source: CCBHS Care Team Referral Log 13 In order to protect consumers’ confidentiality, correctional and inpatient facility categories were condensed to “Institutional Setting” and healthcare and licensed care facilities were condensed to “Community -Based Programs and Facilities.” 158 105 87 63 7 18 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Office Field Phone Institutional Setting Community Programs & Facilities Other or UnknownContact AttemptsDecember 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 866 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 31 7 shows that of the remaining 246 attempts at contact, 74% were successful and resulted in either an in- person contact; a telephone, email, or mail contact; or a collateral contact (e.g., contact with a family member, friend, clinician, etc.). This indicates that MHS’s contact strategy is working effectively, as they were able to reach consumers or their loved ones the majority of the time. Figure 7. Type of Outreach and Engagement Contact Attempts for All Consumers14 The proportion of total outreach and engagement contacts made with each consumer group is reported in Table 9. The majority of contact attempts were made with consumers who were still receiving outreach and engagement services (44%) or those who voluntarily enrolled in AOT (37%). Table 9. Total Number of Outreach and Engagement Contact Attempts by Consumer Status Consumer Status Number of Contact Attempts Ongoing Outreach and Engagement 109 Accepted ACT Services Voluntarily 90 Accepted ACT Services with Settlement Agreement 18 Closed 29 Figure 8 depicts the type and number of outreach and engagement attempts by MHS per consumer by consumer groups. Consumers who were still receiving outreach and engagement services at the conclusion of the evaluation period had the most successful in-person contacts per consumer. They also had the most unsuccessful contacts per person, which could reflect the higher number of total contact attempts for this group. Consumers for whom outreach and engagement was closed received the fewest total contact attempts (12%) and more unsuccessful attempts per consumer than either group of consumers enrolled in AOT. Interestingly, though consumers who voluntarily enrolled in AOT had five 14 Source: MHS Outreach and Engagement Log 57% 2% 15% 26% In-Person Contact (n = 139) Phone/Email/Mail Contact (n = 4) Collateral Contact (n = 38) Unsuccessful Contact (n = 65) December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 867 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 32 times as many total contact attempts than those who enrolled with a settlement agreement, the two groups had comparable outreach attempts per person. This is likely due to the difference in group size, with only three consumers enrolling in AOT through a settlement agreement. Figure 8. Type and Number of Outreach and Engagement Attempts per Consumer15,16 As previously mentioned, MHS’s outreach and engagement team consists of MHS clinicians and staff, family partners, and peer partners. Family partners are individuals with the lived experience of having a loved one with a serious mental illness. Peer partners are individuals with lived experience as consumers of the mental health system. Figure 9 shows the proportion of successful outreach and engagement attempts by provider for all consumers (N = 38). Family partners made almost half of the successful outreach contacts with all consumers, while peer partners made about one third. 15 Source: MHS Outreach and Engagement Log 16 There were 0.3 Phone/Email/Mail contacts for Ongoing Outreach and Engagement Consumers and 0.2 for Closed Consumers 0.7 4.3 4.0 5.6 0.4 0.3 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.2 2.5 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Closed Accepted ACT Services with Settlement Agreement Accepted ACT Services Voluntarily Ongoing Outreach and Engagement Outreach Attempts per Consumer In-Person Contact Phone/Email/Mail Contact Collateral Contact Unsuccessful Contact December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 868 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 33 Figure 9. Proportion of Successful Outreach Attempts by Provider for All Consumers17 Figure 10 depicts the rate of outreach and engagement attempts by provider per consumer by disposition. Clinicians and MHS staff had zero successful contacts with consumers who were eventually closed in collaboration with the County. They had the most contacts per consumer with those who were still receiving outreach and engagement services. Compared to other providers, family partners had the highest rates of contact per consumer with those who accepted ACT services voluntarily and with those who still receiving outreach and engagement services at the conclusion of the evaluation period. Peer and family partners had equal contact with those who accepted ACT services with a settlement agreement. 17 Source: MHS Outreach and Engagement Log 22%of successful attempts 46%of successful attempts 32%of successful attempts Clinician/MHS/Other Staff Family Partner Peer Partner December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 869 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 34 Figure 10. Successful Outreach and Engagement Attempts by Provider per Consumer18 The average duration of successful outreach and engagement attempts for all eligible consumers (N = 38) for the evaluation period was 44 minutes. Figure 11 shows the average length of successful attempts across all consumers by provider. Though peer partners had fewer contacts than family providers, their contacts lasted longer than family partners or clinicians and MHS staff, on average. 18 Source: MHS Outreach and Engagement Log 1.3 1.0 2.0 0.5 1.7 2.4 3.5 0.8 1.7 1.8 1.7 0 2 4 6 8 Closed Accepted ACT Services with Settlement Agreement Accepted ACT Services Voluntarily Ongoing Outreach and Engagement Successful Outreach Attempts per Consumer Clinician/MHS/Other Staff Family Partner Peer Partner December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 870 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 35 Figure 11. Average Duration (in Minutes) of Successful Outreach and Engagement Attempts by Provider for All Eligible Consumers19 Figure 12 shows the average length of providers’ successful outreach and engagement attempts per consumer. Interestingly, though there were fewer overall contacts between providers and consumers who eventually enrolled in ACT with a settlement agreement, the contacts that were made lasted longer per consumer than for any other consumer group. Figure 12. Average Duration (in Minutes) of Successful Outreach Attempts by Provider per Consumer20 19 Source: MHS Outreach and Engagement Log 20 Source: MHS Outreach and Engagement Log 54 minutes per consumer 68 minutes per consumer 88 minutes per consumer Clinician/MHS/Other Staff Family Partner Peer Partner 23 5 3 2 12 4 3 5 16 4 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Closed Accepted ACT Services with Settlement Agreement Accepted ACT Services Voluntarily Ongoing Outreach and Engagement Minutes per Successful Outreach Attempt Clinician/MHS/Other Staff Family Partner Peer Partner December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 871 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 36 As with the investigation process, MHS’ outreach and engagement services are characterized by a willingness to engage with consumers and their families in the community and other settings. Figure 13 shows the various locations of MHS’ successful contacts with consumers and their families. Most contacts occurred in hospitals or psychiatric emergency facilities (PES; 25%) or the community (21%). Figure 13. Locations of Successful Outreach and Engagement Attempts for All Eligible Consumers21 In summary, the MHS outreach and engagement team made most of their successful contacts with consumers who were still receiving outreach services at the conclusion of the evaluation period (44%) or who voluntarily enrolled in ACT (37%). Though they made fewer total contact attempts with consumers who enrolled in AOT with a settlement agreement, the rate of contacts per consumer was similar acros s the two AOT groups. MHS family partners made the most successful contacts (46%) and had the highest rate of contacts with consumers still receiving outreach and engagement services; however, peer partners tended to have longer-lasting contacts. The longest contacts for all MHS providers were with consumers who enrolled in AOT with a settlement agreement. Throughout the evaluation period, there was variability in the time it takes from initial referral to AOT enrollment. Figure 14 depicts the timeline from referral through enrollment by each month of program implementation. Each month consists of all AOT consumers who were referred that month. The chart captures the average length in days of each stage of contact for consumers who enrolled in AOT during the evaluation period:  Referral to first CCBHS contact  First CCBHS contact to first MHS contact 21 Source: MHS Outreach and Engagement Log 41 24 34 48 13 19 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 872 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 37  First MHS contact to AOT enrollment  First CCBHS contact to last CCBHS contact Figure 14 suggests that individuals are getting from referral to enrollment more quickly as the AOT program model matures. In the program’s first month of operation the average number of days from referral to enrollment was 70 days; by June the average number of days had dropped to approximately 22 days from referral to enrollment. Figure 14 also shows that there is less overlap between the investigation and the outreach and engagement services in the more recent months of program implementation. This represents the aforementioned modifications to the program implementation that occurred in more recent months and suggests that in the final months of the evaluation period, efforts at finding and engaging consumers are happening consecutively, as opposed to concurrently. Figure 14. Average Days Spent in Each Step by Month for AOT Consumers22 Post-AOT Enrollment Outcomes During the evaluation period, 17 of the 38 consumers identified by the Care Team as eligible for AOT enrolled in AOT and accepted ACT services. Of those 17 consumers, three enrolled following a petition to the court and a settlement agreement and 14 enrolled voluntarily. This section reports the consumer profile of these 17 individuals, including their diagnosis and past service history, as well as a description of the intensity, frequency, and type of services they received. 22 Sources: CCBHS Forensic Mental Health Referral Log; MHS Outreach and Engagement Log December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 873 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 38 AOT Consumer Profile This section reports the demographic information and characteristics of consumers enrolled in AOT, including their diagnosis at enrollment and service utilization history. The CCBHS Care Team collected demographic information for every consumer referred for AOT. Table 10 depicts the demographic characteristics of the 17 individuals enrolled in AOT at the conclusion of the evaluation period. The majority of AOT consumers were female, white, and from the Central region of Contra Costa County. Table 10. AOT Consumer Demographics23 Category Percent Gender Male 47% Female 53% Race/Ethnicity Black/African American 29% White 59% Other 12% Region Central 47% East 29% West 24% MHS staff documents the primary diagnosis of AOT consumers at every encounter. For descriptive purposes in this evaluation, we report diagnosis at enrollment into the AOT program. Table 11 shows that the majority of consumers had a primary diagnosis of either schizophrenia (65%) or a mood disorder (30%), which includes bipolar and depressive disorders. Secondary diagnosis information will be included in future reports. 23 Source: CCBHS Forensic Mental Health Referral Log KEY FINDINGS  The County is reaching the target population of consumers who have a history of repetitive hospitalization, incarceration, and homelessness.  Sixty-five percent of AOT consumers self-report having co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 874 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 39 Table 11. AOT Consumer Primary Diagnosis at Enrollment24 Diagnosis Percent Mood Disorder, Including Bipolar and Depressive Disorders 30% Schizophrenia 65% Other 6% According to County billing data, 12% of consumers had at least one episode of substance use treatment prior to enrollment; however, 65% of AOT consumers had a self-reported co-occurring substance use disorder at some point in their life and 59% had a self-reported co-occurring substance use disorder at enrollment. MHS clinicians administered the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) for 16 of the 17 consumers at enrollment. The BPRS measures psychiatric symptoms in 18 domains, including hostility, suspiciousness, and hallucination. For each question, the clinician rated the participant’s observed symptomology over the previous days from 1 (not present) to 7 (extremely severe). The total rating scale ranges from 24 to 160. The average BPRS score of the 16 AOT consumers assessed at enrollment was 65, with scores ranging from 29 to 118 and a median score of 59. County PSP data was used to track consumers’ history of psychiatric hospitalization in the three years prior to the implementation of AOT in Contra Costa County. During that time, 13 consumers had at least one inpatient psychiatric hospitalization at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, Mount Diablo Medical Pavilion, or Napa State Hospital. As shown in Table 12, of those consumers with at least one hospital stay, there was an average of five hospitalizations per consumer. Their prior hospital stays lasted an average of 23 days. On average, all 17 AOT consumers had about 3.8 hospitalizations per consumer. Table 12. Average and Median Hospital Episodes and Days in Hospital Average Median Hospital Episodes 5 5 Hospital Days 23 21 Consumers reported their history of justice system involvement for the 12 months prior to AOT enrollment. As show in Figure 15, 29% of consumers were in jail and 41% were arrested at some point in the 12 months prior to enrollment. The 41% of consumers with a history of arrest were arrested an average of five times during that period. Qualitative data from CCBHS and MHS suggests there is greater proportion of consumers referred to AOT who have forensic involvement than is currently reflected in self-report data. 24 Source: PSP Data 25 RDA currently only has self-report criminal justice data. Data from the criminal justice system will be accessible and included in future reports. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 875 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 40 Figure 15. Consumers’ History of Incarceration or Arrest in the 12 Months Prior to AOT Enrollment26 In addition to incarceration and arrest history, 24% of consumers were on probation and had been on probation at some point in the previous 12 months. According to self-report data, among 17 AOT consumers enrolled during the evaluation period, 35% (n=6) were homeless when they enrolled in AOT and 12% (n=2) were living in an emergency shelter. Another 29% (n=5) of consumers were either living with their parents; an adult family member; or in a house or apartment with a spouse or partner, minor children, dependents, or a roommate while either holding the lease or contributing to the rent or mortgage at enrollment. Additionally, in the year prior to enrollment, 88% (n=15) of AOT consumers self-reported having spent time in an acute medical or psychiatric hospital, community care center, or residential treatment facility. Table 13 depicts the housing status of AOT consumers at enrollment and, during the 12 months prior to enrollment, and the average number of days they had a given housing status during that 12-month period. Table 13. Housing Status 12 Months Prior to and at Enrollment for AOT Consumers27 Housing Status Status at Enrollment Status in the Last 12 Months Average Number of Days in the Last 12 Months Lives in the Community 29% 18% 340 Homeless 35% 12% 257.5 Jail 0% 29% 50.5 26 Sources: PAF and PSP Data 27 Source: PAF 5 7 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Incarcerations ArrestsPercent of AOT Consumers (n = 17)December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 876 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 41 Housing Status Status at Enrollment Status in the Last 12 Months Average Number of Days in the Last 12 Months Acute Medical or Psychiatric Hospital, Community Care Center, or Residential Treatment 18% 88% 55 Emergency Shelter 12% 12% 15.5 Other 6% 6% 177 Unknown 0% 6% 365 Consumers reported their different sources of financial report at enrollment and in the 12 months prior to enrollment. As shown in Table 14 consumers received financial support from a variety of sources both prior to and at enrollment. The majority of consumers received support from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in the 12 months prior to enrollment and continued to receive SSI support at enrollment. Additionally, 24% had a representative payee at enrollment, and 29% had a payee in the 12 months prior to enrollment. Table 14. Sources of Financial Support for AOT Consumers28 Source of Financial Support Received in the 12 Months Prior to Enrollment Receiving at Enrollment Supplemental Security Income 59% 53% Social Security Disability Insurance 12% 18% Support from family or friends 18% 18% Retirement/Social Security 12% 12% Other (including Housing Subsidy, General Relief/ Assistance, and Food Stamps) 24% 12% AOT Consumers’ Service Participation AOT consumers in Contra Costa County receive ACT services from a multidisciplinary team who provide direct services in the community and are available 24-hours a day to provide time-unlimited services. This section reports the intensity and frequency of ACT services for the 17 AOT consumers, as well as the types of services they experienced in addition to ACT. 28 Source: PAF KEY FINDINGS  The length of participation varies across AOT consumers.  Consumers are receiving substantial service provision from the ACT team.  In addition to ACT, consumers receive services from other County and contracted providers. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 877 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 42 There was variability in the length of time spent receiving ACT services, depending on consumers’ initial referral and enrollment dates. AOT enrollment dates ranged from March to July and consumers were enrolled for an average of 77 days through the end of the evaluation period on July 31, 2016 (see Table 15). There was an average of 24 ACT service encounters per month with an average duration of 156 minutes per contact. Table 15. Length of Enrollment in AOT Average Minimum Maximum Median 77 days 13 149 72 ACT is intended to provide 100% of services, including providing opportunities for participation in recovery-oriented activities such as game nights, art groups, barbecues, and other activities that support life skills development. MHS only recently started to track the participation of AOT consumers in significant meaningful activities; future reports will report on changes in rates of participation in these activities during program participation. Though ACT is designed to provide comprehensive FSP services, some consumers receive additional services while enrolled in AOT. During the evaluation period, AOT Consumers in Contra Costa County engaged in the following additional services:  Crisis: This includes services received at the CCRMC Psychiatric Emergency Services, Miller Wellness Center, and clinical services provided by the CCBHS forensic unit in partnership with local law enforcement agencies.  Crisis residential treatment: A 24-hour unlocked facility that provides an alternative to inpatient hospitalization, including admissions at Hope House and Neireka House.  Inpatient: Any psychiatric hospitalization in a locked setting, including services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Unit 4C and Mt Diablo Psychiatric Hospital. Any out of county hospitalization billed to Medi-Cal or reimbursed by CCBHS are included. Hospitalizations covered by private insurance or Medicare only may not be included.  Outpatient: Any non-residential outpatient specialty mental health service, including Full Service Partnership, case management, medication, and other outpatient services.  Jail mental health: Mental health services provided by CCBHS to consumers while incarcerated in a Contra Costa County jail facility. Mental health services received while consumers were incarcerated in other county or state prisons are not included. As shown in Figure 16, the majority of consumers’ non-ACT service episodes were either for crisis services (48%) or crisis residential treatment stays (32%). Notably, six of the 17 AOT consumers had not engaged in any services other than those provided by MHS at the conclusion of the evaluation period. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 878 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 43 Figure 16. Episodes of Service Use Other than ACT for AOT Consumers29 Data on AOT consumers’ adherence to treatment plans was not available for this report. Retention is a proxy of adherence, and all participants who enrolled in ACT remained engaged with the program through the evaluation period. RDA is exploring the possibility of receiving pharmacy data to assess medication possession ratios as a proxy for adherence to medication plans in future reports. AOT Consumer Outcomes One key objective of AOT is to interrupt the cycle of repeated psychiatric hospitalizations, incarcerations, and homelessness among individuals with serious mental illness who are unwilling or unable to engage in voluntary specialty mental health services. Given the preliminary nature of the AOT program at the end of the evaluation period, this section reports only on pre-enrollment and baseline measures of these outcomes. Future reports will report on changes in outcomes during AOT participation. 29 Source: PSP Data 15 10 1 2 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Crisis CRT Inpatient Jail MH OutpatientEpisodes KEY FINDINGS  Given the preliminary nature of the AOT program at the end of the evaluation period, it is premature to evaluate AOT consumer outcomes.  This section reports on pre-enrollment and baseline measures of DHCS outcomes. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 879 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 44 Figure 17 indicates consumers’ hospitalization, incarceration, arrests, and homelessness from the 12 months prior to enrollment. The chart depicts the number of AOT consumers who experienced an adverse life event or hospitalization at least once in the 12 months prior to their enrollment in AOT. As noted in the consumer profile section, the findings below indicate that the County is reaching the target population of consumers who have a history of hospitalization, incarceration, and homelessness. Figure 17. Number of Consumers Experiencing Adverse Events Pre-AOT Enrollment30 At the time of this report, substance use data was only available for pre-enrollment and at enrollment. As previously reported, 12% of consumers had at least one episode of substance use treatment prior to enrollment, while 65% of AOT consumers self-reported having a co-occurring substance at some point in their lives and 59% reported a substance problem at enrollment. Changes in consumers’ substance use will be reported in the next evaluation report. The primary enforcement mechanism in AOT occurs when a judge issues a mental health evaluation order at a designated facility for a consumer who does not meet 5150 criteria established in the WIC. No enforcement mechanisms were used in the first six months of the program. 30 Sources: PAF and PSP Data 13 5 7 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Hospitalizations Incarcerations Arrests HomelessnessAOT ConsumersDecember 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 880 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 45 At the time of this report, data on violent behavior was only available for AOT consumers at enrollment. Baseline data from the High Risk Assessment (HRA) indicates that all consumers had a history of violent impulses and/or homicidal ideation toward a reasonably identified victim. Changes in consumers’ violent behavior will be reported in the next evaluation report. For this report, data from the “safety” domain of the Self Sufficiency Matrix (SSM) at enrollment was used to indicate consumers’ victimization experience. The “safety” domain is scored from 1 (in crisis) to 5 (thriving) and captures the extent to which consumers’ environment is stable and safe. Table 16 reports consumers’ scores on the SSM for safety. On average, the 16 consumers who were given the assessment reported feeling stable regarding safety in their community. For future reports, additional data will be collected to report the victimization of consumers with greater specificity. Table 16. Safety SSM Scores for AOT Consumers (n = 16)31 Domain Average Median Mode Safety 2.5 3 4 For this report, the majority of social functioning and independent living data is only available for pre- enrollment and at enrollment to AOT. MHS clinicians completed the SSM for all but one consumer at enrollment to gauge consumers’ baseline social functioning and independent living. Table 17 depicts consumers’ baseline scores for the life skills, family/social relations, and community involvement domains of the SSM. Table 17. Social Functioning and Independent Living SSM Scores for AOT Consumers (n = 16)32 Domain Average Median Mode Life Skills 2.7 2.5 2 Family/Social Relations 2.1 2 2 Community Involvement 2.3 2 2 On average, consumers were rated between being able to meet between a few and most of the needs of daily living without assistance. On average their family/friends may be supportive but lack the resources or ability to help and there is some potential for abuse or neglect. Additionally, consumers are socially isolated and/or lack social skills and/or the motivation to become socially involved, on average. According to self-report data, in the 12 months prior to AOT enrollment all AOT consumers were unemployed, none were in school, and 29% had a primary care physician. At enrollment, 18% of consumers were employed and 53% of consumers included employment in their recovery goals. No 31 Source: SSM 32 Source: SSM December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 881 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 46 consumers were in school at enrollment, but 47% included education in their recovery goals and one consumer enrolled in a community college or four-year college while receiving ACT services. Eighteen percent of consumers had a primary care physician at enrollment. Consumer satisfaction surveys will be administered further into the four-year evaluation; therefore, data is not currently available but will be included in future reports. AOT Costs and Cost Savings There are a number of expenses associated with the implementation of Contra Costa County’s AOT program. RDA collected cost related information from the CCBHS Finance Department, as well as from County Departments involved in AOT who outlined their costs associated with the program. These costs are discussed in greater detail below. While there are expenses associated with implementing the County’s AOT program, ideally there are also costs savings generated through program implementation. For instance, if AOT consumers have reduced numbers of hospitalizations, arrests, and incarcerations after enrolling in AOT this saves the County money they would be spending on these events. Additionally, the County generates revenue when MHS provides Medi-Cal eligible services for AOT consumers. The sections below provide a preliminary look at costs associated with AOT program implementation, as well as the extent to which AOT has generated revenue through Medi-Cal billing. Future reports will assess the extent to which AOT has produced cost savings, if at all, through reduced numbers of hospitalizations and reduced criminal justice involvement post- enrollment in AOT. The County contracted with MHS to provide ACT services as part of the AOT program in October 2015. The costs paid to MHS during the fiscal year 2015-2016 (October 2015 – June 201633) were $904,492. Approximately $242,832 went towards start-up costs (October 2015 – January 2016) while approximately $661,660 went towards service delivery (February 2016 – June 2016). 33 RDA does not include MHS cost data for the month of July because financial data was only available for fiscal year 2015 – 2016. KEY FINDINGS  Given the preliminary nature of the AOT program at the end of the evaluation period, it is premature to project MHS service delivery costs or project potential cost savings.  Because there are only 17 AOT consumers during the evaluation period, MHS per person service costs are higher than they will be once AOT reaches its capacity of 75 consumers. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 882 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 47 Table 18. MHS Costs MHS Costs October - June 2016 Start-up Costs $242,832 (Oct ’15 - Jan ’16) Service Delivery Costs $661,660 (Feb ’16 - Jun ‘16) Total $904,492 (Oct ’15 - Jun ’16) Of the costs paid to MHS for service delivery during the February through June 2016 time period, the County estimated they would receive approximately 35% (accounting for a 15% disallowance rate) in revenue from Medi-Cal billing, or $231,581.07. In actuality, MHS provided approximately $30,413.44 worth of Medi-Cal eligible services during this time period, and the County estimates they will receive approximately $10,644.70. While this figure is much below the amount the County anticipated they would generate through ACT service provision, it is important to remember that the County’s AOT program is in its early stages; only 17 consumers had enrolled in AOT during the evaluation period, and none of these individuals were enrolled for the full time. With this in mind, it is important to note that the amount of revenue generated through ACT service provision will grow as the AOT program enrolls more individuals. Contra Costa County reported AOT-related expenses for the following public agencies: CCBHS, County Counsel, the Office of the Public Defender, and the Superior Court. Table 19 shows the approximate dollar amount each department spent on AOT related services from February-July 2016. To calculate costs associated with CCBHS, the Public Defender’s Office, and the Superior Court, RDA assumed approved budgets were expended on a 1/12 basis. For costs associated with County Counsel, RDA received actual monthly costs for the time period. Table 19. Contra Costa County Department Costs34 County Department February - July 2016 Cost CCBHS $262,500 County Counsel $22,733 Public Defender’s Office $66,750 Superior Court $64,000 Costs associated with CCBHS are for CCBHS Care Team operations that include managing the AOT referral line and conducting investigation and outreach for all individual referred to AOT by qualified requestors. County Counsel provides consultation services for CCBHS, and also prepares and files all petitions to Court and represents the County in Court hearings. Finally, the Office of the Public Defender has one full-time employee who represents all AOT clients, and the Superior Court is responsible for holding AOT court hearings each week. 34 Source: County AOT Financial Data December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 883 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 48 Pre-AOT Enrollment Service Costs RDA utilized PSP billing data to determine the total costs of services for the 17 enrolled AOT consumers in the three years prior to AOT enrollment. The total cost of services for the 17 AOT consumers during this time period was $2,856,712 or $952,237 annually. Figure 18 shows that psychiatric inpatient hospitalizations accounted for 28% of those total costs. Figure 18. County Hospitalization and Other Service Costs Pre-Enrollment for AOT Consumers Table 20 shows the breakdown of these costs per month and per consumer. Though RDA had access to three years of billing data from PSP, eight of the 17 consumers had less than three years’ worth of data. Of those eight consumers, five had between two and three years of data, two had less than one year of data, and one had no pre-data. On average, in the three years prior to enrolling in AOT, hospitalization costs were $1,853 per consumer per month; all other service costs were approximately $3,954. This indicates that the average monthly service cost was approximately $5,806 for AOT consumers in the three years prior to their enrollment in AOT. Table 20. Service Costs Pre-AOT Enrollment Services Average Annual Cost Average Cost per Month Average Annual Cost Per Consumer Average Cost per Month per Consumer Hospitalization $285,420 $23,785 $22,544 $1,853 Other Services $872,652 $72,721 $48,094 $3,953 Total $1,158,072 $96,506 $70,638 $5,806 $893,486 69% $1,963,226 Hospitalizations All Other Services 31% 69% December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 884 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 49 Post-AOT Enrollment Service Costs Given the preliminary nature of the AOT program at the end of this evaluation period, it is premature to estimate per person service delivery costs or project potential cost savings. RDA will report these types of post-AOT enrollment service costs in future evaluation reports after the AOT program has been in existence for a longer period of time. Because 17 AOT consumers had spent, on average, only 77 days enrolled in the County’s AOT program during the evaluation period RDA does not report on cost savings at this time; it is imperative to monitor greater numbers of individuals for longer periods of time before suggesting an association between enrollment in AOT and reduced hospitalizations and/or criminal justice involvement for AOT consumers in Contra Costa County. Future reports will assess potential costs savings associated with reduced hospitalizations and criminal justice involvement once greater number of AOT consumers have been enrolled for longer periods. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 885 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 50 Discussion AOT Referrals Since program inception, there have been 108 referrals concerning 105 individuals, suggesting that people who meet criteria as qualified requestors are knowledgeable about how to refer eligible individuals to the program. However, more than half of referrals are coming from family. While a consistent number of referrals have been made to AOT since the start of the program, only approximately one-third have been made by Mental Health providers and/or Law Enforcement Partners. The County may wish to consider how to continue to educate these partners about the County’s AOT program. Intervening while individuals are in secure settings where County staff can locate them is often ideal; in these cases, individuals who are referred to AOT while in a secure setting may be more likely to voluntarily accept ACT services. Additionally, CCBHS and/or MHS staff will be more able to locate these individuals to begin the investigation and outreach and engagement process. It is ideal for providers from psychiatric hospitals, PES, and/or jail staff to make referrals to AOT for eligible individuals as close to intake as possible so that CCBHS and/or MHS staff have an opportunity to engage them prior to their release to help link them to appropriate services. This may also ensure that eligible individuals without involved family members also gain access to the program. Suggestions to promote access for all County residents who may benefit from this program include:  Outreach and engagement presentations and other communications strategies throughout the County to promote access and ensure that all communities have the knowledge to refer eligible individuals; and  Continued outreach efforts to professionals who meet criteria as qualified requestors, including CCRMC, jail, and law enforcement staff who are likely to come into contact with eligible individuals who may not have involved family. The CCBHS Care Team conducts an investigation to determine eligibility and need for all consumers referred. Their approach includes reviewing the consumer’s service history and diagnosis, gathering collateral information from the qualified requestor and/or family, and conducting an assessment with the consumer referred. Thirty-one of the consumers referred were unable to be located or were otherwise connected to services. The CCBHS Care Team described that for the “ineligible consumers,” they had a history of participating in mental health services on a voluntary basis but had some sort of disruption in services. For these individuals, the CCBHS Care Team has been able to determine if it is more beneficial to re-connect the individual to services where they had previously been successful or refer the person to AOT, if eligible. This may be an unexpected benefit of AOT implementation in that the CCBHS Care Team has established a safety net whereby they are able to assess and link consumers in need to the most appropriate service, which may include AOT but also may include other services, as clinically indicated. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 886 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 51 The majority of the consumers referred to AOT who needed mental health services agreed to participate in mental health services on a voluntary basis. This includes 82% of consumers who enrolled in ACT services with MHS on a voluntary basis as well as the consumers previously discussed who were re- connected to other CCBHS mental health services (e.g., FSP or other outpatient services). Additionally, there was a percentage of referrals who were unable to be located. For referred consumers who either cannot be located or agree to participate in voluntary services:  The County may wish to consider monitoring the hospitalization and/or incarceration of these individuals for a set period of time to o Contact those who are unable to be located when in secure settings (e.g. hospital, jail); and o Ensure that those who agree to voluntary services sustain service participation and achieve certain outcomes as expected in ACT (e.g., reduced hospitalization and incarceration) or can be proactively identified and re-referred, if clinically indicated.  CCBHS and MHS may also wish to monitor those who enroll in ACT services on a voluntary basis for service participation and progress, such as hospitalization and/or incarceration, to determine if an agreement with the court, such as AOT court order or voluntary settlement agreement, would further support the consumer. Outreach and Engagement In adopting a resolution to implement AOT, Contra Costa County not only adopted a new legal mechanism to connect individuals with severe mental illness to mental health services, they also contracted a new service provider, MHS, to implement the County’s first ACT program in order to ensure they are providing the highest quality of care for individuals enrolled in AOT. The program model, as designed, included a Care Team consisting of CCBHS clinical staff and MHS peer and family staff. The original intent was that the Care Team, including CCBHS and MHS staff, would work together to concurrently conduct the referral investigation and outreach and engagement efforts. In practice, the program model has changed in that 1) CCBHS clinical staff conduct the referral investigation first to determine eligibi lity, and then 2) refer only eligible consumers to MHS for outreach and engagement by the peer and family partners. Because there are a number of new components coming together at once, it is natural to expect programmatic modifications to occur. While it is normal and expected that any program will make modifications during initial implementation as a response to unexpected challenges and to ensure that the program is able to meet its intended goals, it is important that any modifications are explicit and that any implications of program adaption are planned for and addressed. Changing the Care Team from a concurrent to consecutive approach to investigation and outreach has implications, including:  Currently, the de facto care transition from AOT referral to ACT enrollment occurs between CCBHS clinicians and the MHS family partner. Moving forward, it may be important to schedule an in-person transition between CCBHS and MHS staff that includes the consumer, and family as permitted, as well as clinical staff from MHS. In alignment with the ACT model, all team members December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 887 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 52 provide services to all consumers, so that the “warm handoff” could also occur with a clinical case manager, nurse, dual recovery specialist, or other ACT team member and not be limited to the family partner, as originally suggested in the program design.  While the original design suggested concurrent approaches to investigation and outreach, separating these activities into two discrete phases may create ambiguity in terms of roles and responsibilities. In order to ensure that each phase of the process is successful and that eligible consumers are able to efficiently and effectively move through the process and enroll in ACT, it may be important to clarify roles and responsibilities as well as establish set communication procedures to ensure that MHS receives all relevant information from the CCBHS clinical staff to engage and serve the person, and CCBHS is notified when someone is at risk of or experiencing hospitalization and/or incarceration so that they can re-evaluate if a petition or other legal mechanism is appropriate to support the person.  This change may also shorten the length of time that MHS engages in pre-admission “outreach and engagement” and move outreach and engagement activities post-enrollment. While outreach and engagement for an ACT team can happen pre or post formal enrollment, this change may: o Reduce MHS’ staff ability to work with parents/family in advance of ACT enrollment if the consumer does not provide express written consent upon enrollment; and o Increase the likelihood that MHS staff sign people up while in secure settings (e.g. hospital, jail) rather than wait until release back into the community. If the County continues this program modification, which would be expected, it may be important to “complete” the modification and make the modified design as explicit as the planned design. This includes documenting the modified process, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and establishing set communication procedures that promote bi-directional communication beginning at referral and extending throughout ACT service participation. It may also be useful to set shared expectations about enrolling consumers while in secure settings and the role of family engagement at each phase of the process. ACT Fidelity Overall, MHS’ ACTiOn Team received an average fidelity rating of 4.73 and scored in the “high fidelity” range. The assessors were impressed with a variety of elements of MHS’ ACTiOn Team and observed that many of the program elements were present and met or exceeded fidelity measures. The program was robustly staffed with more team members than required with staff who are clearly committed to the success of the program and consumers. Staff demonstrated their familiarity with motivational interviewing and the recovery model in conversations with assessors and are working as a cohesive team. The program is structured to provide adequate staffing that can do “whatever it takes” to support consumers and meet them “wherever they’re at,” literally and figuratively. Team members appeared to work together throughout the day to ensure that all consumers receive individualized support to achieve their goals. Both consumers and family members expressed gratitude to MHS’ ACTiOn Team and staff for December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 888 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 53 the accomplishments that ACT consumers have achieved during program participation. Throughout the focus groups, assessors heard consumer and family member accounts of increasing stability and finding hope, as well as a number of tangible successes, including:  Obtaining housing and income  Reducing hospitalizations  Feeling safe  Improving and repairing family relationships  Believing that recovery is possible While the fidelity assessment revealed a high degree of alignment with the ACT model, this is a relatively new program that is not yet operating at full capacity. MHS’ ACTiOn Team is contracted to provide services to 75 individuals, is currently serving 17 individuals, and is fully staffed with 13.5 direct service staff and two administrative staff. As admissions increase, the team may need to consider how to scale their operations to maintain a high degree of fidelity with the model. For example, the assessors noted the following areas that may require more focused attention:  In the team meeting, staff discussed all 17 consumers. When at full capacity, their meetings will need to include 75 consumers.  Staff are currently delivering medication to some consumers on a daily basis. While this is a common practice for ACT teams, MHS’ ACTiOn Team may need to consider how to structure medication delivery to more consumers as the program grows.  Groups are currently held at the MHS’ ACTiOn Team office in Concord, CA, and staff provide transportation to consumers who live in East and West County. With a larger group of consumers throughout the County, it may be more feasible to hold activities in other locations to minimize travel time while still providing the same level of support. This may also improve the ratio of community-based services provided in-vivo.  Currently, the psychiatrist works half-time. When at full capacity, the team will need a ¾ time psychiatrist to remain in fidelity with the model.  As noted previously, there is a high variability in the frequency and intensity of services consumers receive. As the program grows, MHS’ ACTiOn Team may need to consider how to ensure that all consumers receive the appropriate level of service.  In order to meet the needs of the community, MHS’ ACTiOn Team may need to accept more than six consumers per month until at capacity. The specific enrollment numbers should be determined in partnership with the County. Given that the ACT model is new to Contra Costa County and is a part of the AOT pilot project, the assessors acknowledge that there is a need to continue to attend to the partnership between CCBHS and MHS’ ACTiOn Team. While this currently shows up around admissions in this fidelity assessment, it may also play a role in how CCBHS and MHS work together around hospital admission and discharge. While there were was only one hospitalizations in the first six months of implementation, it is likely that more hospitalizations will occur at some point, and the partnership between CCBHS and MHS is key to both December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 889 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 54 supporting consumers to avoid unnecessary hospitalizations as well as transition back into the community upon discharge. Preliminary Outcomes While the County’s AOT program is in its early stages, it appears that the program is enrolling people who are eligible and have a high degree of need. Thirteen of 17 AOT consumers (76%) had at least one psychiatric hospitalization in the three years prior to their AOT enrollment. Among these 13 individuals, each had an average of three hospitalizations in the three years prior to their AOT enrollment. The majority of AOT consumers (59%) also self-reported experiencing a mental health or substance abuse related emergency intervention in the 12 months prior to enrollment, and approximately 59% also self-reported having a co-occurring substance use disorder at the time of their AOT enrollment. Moreover, approximately 41% (n=7) of AOT consumers reported being arrested and 24% (n=5) reported being incarcerated in the 12 months prior to AOT enrollment. Approximately 41% of AOT consumers also reported being homeless or living in an emergency shelter at the time of their enrollment. Additionally, it appears that there may be a high proportion of AOT consumers who have forensic needs or are also connected with the criminal justice system. While ACT is an appropriate service intervention for consumers with forensic needs and AOT is a less restrictive intervention than incarceration and criminal court involvement, this may require additional preparation and/or training to appropriately respond to the emerging needs. CCBHS and MHS Data Capacity CCBHS does not currently track their AOT referral investigation process electronically or in a spreadsheet format; this information only exists as hard copies of their field notes. In order to analyze the investigation and outreach and engagement process more robustly in future reports so that we can learn more about the consumer profiles of who is and is not referred to MHS for AOT enrollment, it is imperative that, at a minimum, CCBHS begin to transfer data from field notes into an electronic platform. A large amount of PAF, KET, and 3M data were also not available via the County’s DCR data system for this evaluation. It appears that PAF data is only available for consumers’ first assessment, so for AOT consumers who have already had assessments entered into the system there is no way to pull this data from the DCR. Significant amounts of KET and 3M data were also missing from the DCR. Moving forward, MHS should enter PAF, KET, and 3M data into the DCR on a daily, weekly, and/or monthly basis to ensure these data are up-to-date and available for each evaluation period. RDA will work with MHS to develop a process for collecting PAF data in a usable format for each evaluation period moving forward. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 890 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 55 Append ices Appendix I. AOT Eligibility Requirements35 In order to be eligible, the person must be referred by a qualified requestor and meet the defined criteria:  The person is 18 years of age or older.  The person is suffering from a mental illness  There has been a clinical determination that the person is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision.  The person has a history of lack of compliance with treatment for his or her mental illness, in that at least one of the following is true: a. At least 2 hospitalizations within the last 36 months, including mental health services in a forensic environment. b. One or more acts of serious and violent behavior toward himself or herself or another, or threats, or attempts to cause serious physical harm to himself or herself or another within the last 48 months.  The person has been offered an opportunity to participate in a treatment plan by the director of the local mental health department, or his or her designee, provided the treatment plan includes all of the services described in Section 5348, and the person continues to fail to engage in treatment.  The person's condition is substantially deteriorating.  Participation in the assisted outpatient treatment program would be the least restrictive placement necessary to ensure the person's recovery and stability.  In view of the person's treatment history and current behavior, the person is in need of assisted outpatient treatment in order to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would be likely to result in grave disability or serious harm to himself or herself, or to others, as defined in Section 5150.  It is likely that the person will benefit from assisted outpatient treatment. 35 Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 5346 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 891 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 56 Appendix II. Description of Evaluation Data Sources CCBHS Referral Log: This spreadsheet includes the date of each AOT referral, as well as the demographic characteristics of each individual referred to AOT and the disposition of each referral upon CCBHS’ last contact with the individual referred (e.g., unqualified requestor, open AOT investigation, voluntarily accept MHS services, court involved MHS participation). Using these data RDA identified the total number of referrals to the County’s AOT program from February 1, 2016 – July 31, 2016, as well as the number of referrals made to AOT each month, and the number of individuals who have received more than one AOT referral. CCBHS Blue Notes: RDA staff converted CCBHS’s Blue Notes (i.e., field notes from successful outreach events) into a spreadsheet tracking the date, location and length of each CCBHS Investigation Team outreach encounter. RDA used these data to assess the average length of time (i.e., days) between AOT referrals and the County Investigation Team’s first contact with referrals, as well as the average length (i.e., days and encounters) of outreach and engagement provided by the CCBHS Investigation Team per referral. MHS Outreach and Engagement Log: This spreadsheet tracks the date and outcome of each MHS outreach encounter, including information on who provided outreach (e.g., family partner, peer partner, clinician) to whom (consumer or collateral contact such as friend, family, or physician), and the location and length of each outreach encounter. RDA used these data to calculate the average number of outreach encounters per month the MHS team provided each referral, as well as the average length of each outreach encounter, the type (who provided outreach and who received outreach) and location (e.g., community, secure setting, telephone) of outreach provided, and the average number of days of outreach provided for reach referral. Contra Costa County PSP Billing System (PSP): These data track all services provided to AOT participants, as well as diagnoses at the time of each service. Using PSP service claims data RDA identified the clinical diagnoses of AOT participants at enrollment, as well as the types and costs of services consumers received pre- and post-AOT enrollment (e.g., outpatient, inpatient, residential, and crises), the average frequency with which consumers received AOT FSP services, and the average duration of each service encounter. Data Collection & Reporting (DCR) Files: RDA attempted to and was unable to collect reliable Partnership Assessment Form (PAF), Key Event Tracking (KET) and Quarterly Assessment (3M) data from the DCR. Instead RDA staff converted MHS’ paper forms into excel spreadsheets to include all PAF, KET, and 3M data utilized in this report to generate consumer profile measures and self-reported changes in outcome measures such as homelessness, arrests, and incarcerations pre- and post-AOT enrollment. MHS Outcomes Files: These files include assessment data for a number of clinical assessments MHS conducts on AOT participants. For the purposes of this evaluation, RDA utilized information from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), High Risk Assessment (HRA), and Self Sufficiency Matrix (SSM) to calculate December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 892 Contra Costa County Behavioral Health Services Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program – Interim Evaluation Report November 4, 2016 | 57 baseline measures to serve as proxies for symptomology (BRPS), violent behaviors (HRA), and social functioning, independent living, and victimization (SSM). RDA did not assess changes in assessment measures over time because the majority of participants had only been enrolled in AOT long enough to conduct baseline assessments. CCBHS Financial Data: Financial data provided by CCBHS indicate the County’s allocated AOT budget, as well as actual expenses paid for MHS ACT services, County Counsel, Civil Court, and Public Defender services. RDA used these data to calculate the AOT costs incurred by the County, as well as revenue generated through Medi-Cal billing. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 893 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ASSISTED OUTPATIENT TREATMENT INTERIM EVALUATION Roberta Chambers, PsyD December 14, 2016 Resource Development Associates December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 894 Agenda 2 Introduction AOT Snapshot Pre-AOT Enrollment ACT Services Preliminary Findings Discussion December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 895 Introduction3 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 896 AOT Timeline 4 February 5, 2015: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors authorized Assisted Outpatient Treatment. February 1, 2016: CCBHS began accepting AOT referrals. February 1, 2016: CCBHS received its first referral and conducted its first investigation. February 5, 2016: MHS outreaches to the first eligible individual. March 4, 2016: MHS enrolls the first ACT consumer. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 897 6-month Interim Evaluation Purpose of 6-month Interim Evaluation Provide information to the Board of Supervisors, CCBHS, stakeholders, and the public about AOT program implementation and preliminary findings. Support Contra Costa County in a continuous quality improvement process to ensure that the AOT program is meetings its intended goals. Interim Evaluation Activities Measure MHS’ Fidelity to ACT Model with Dartmouth ACT Fidelity Scale Assess AOT implementation and preliminary findings Interim Evaluation Period February 1, 2016 –July 31, 2016 5 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 898 Data and Limitations Data Provided CCBHS Referral and investigation information, including focus group with AOT investigators Service utilization and cost data for all specialty mental health services provided or paid for by CCBHS MHS contract payments Estimated expenditures from CCBHS and justice partners MHS Outreach and engagement contacts Clinical assessments/outcomes FSP assessments (PAF, KET, 3M) ACT staff interviews and observation ACT consumer and family focus groups Planned Sheriff and court data Limitations CCBHS and MHS have limited data capacity RDA transferred hard copies of data into electronic formats for this evaluation period Relatively few AOT consumers in the program (17 who have spent an average of 77 days in the AOT program), so RDA could only measure baseline psychosocial outcomes and conduct descriptive analyses Findings are preliminary and should be interpreted cautiously Criminal justice involvement data are self reported and may be imprecise Future reports will include data from the Sheriff’s Office and Superior Court 6 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 899 AOT Snapshot7 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 900 6-Month AOT Snapshot 8 17 individuals enrolled in the ACT team 14 accepted ACT services on a voluntary basis 3 accepted ACT services with a voluntary settlement agreement 38 individuals received outreach and engagement 17 enrolled in the ACT team 11 still receiving outreach and engagement 10 closed 101 referrals investigated 38 determined to be AOT eligible 63 were ineligible, unable to be located, or still being investigated 108 referrals received 105 individuals 7 referrals from non-qualified requestors December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 901 Pre-AOT Enrollment 9 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 902 Referrals 108 referrals received 105 individuals 7 referrals from non-qualified requestors 10 Qualified Requestors AOT Referrals and Eligibility Determinations 7 7 15 7 5 1 6 12 12 1 6 11 18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Feb. March April May June July Number of Consumers Eligible for AOT Not Eligible for AOT No Determination 60.20% 16.70% 14.80% 6.50%1.90% Parent, spouse, adult sibling, adult child, or adult who lives with individual Treating or supervising mental health provider Probation, parole, or peace officer Not a qualified requestor or “other” Director of hospital where individual hospitalized December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 903 Investigation 11 101 referrals investigated 38 determined to be AOT eligible 63 were ineligible, unable to be located, or still being investigated Contact attempts: 9-21 Avg. duration: 20 min 158 105 87 63 7 18 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% County Clinic Setting Field Phone Institutional Setting Community Programs & Facilities Other or UnknownContact AttemptsLocations of CCBHS Investigation Contacts for All Eligible Consumers December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 904 Outreach and Engagement 12 38 individuals received outreach and engagement 17 enrolled in the ACT team 11 still receiving outreach and engagement 10 closed Outreach attempts: 18-109 Avg. duration: 44 min 75% of all outreach attempts are successful 57% 26% 15% 2% In-Person Contact (n = 139) Unsuccessful Contact (n = 65) Collateral Contact (n = 38) Phone/Email/Mail Contact (n = 4) Type of Outreach and Engagement Contacts December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 905 Pre-AOT Enrollment Snapshot 13 Referral to Enrollment Process December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 906 ACT Services14 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 907 AOT Consumer Profile (n=17) 15 Category Percent Gender Male 47% Female 53% Race/Ethnicity Black/African American 29% White 59% Other 12% Region Central 47% East 29% West 24% Diagnosis at Enrollment Mood Disorders 30% Schizophrenia 65% Other 6% Co-Occurring SUD 65% 35% 29% 18% 12% 6% Homeless Community Medical Setting Emergency Shelter Other Housing Status at Enrollment 0%20%40%60%80%100% Medical Setting Jail Community Homeless Emergency Shelter Other Unknown Housing Status in 12 Months prior to Enrollment December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 908 Service Participation (n=17) Avg. length of enrollment: 77 days Avg. number of service encounters: 24 per month Avg. length of service encounter: 156 min ACT consumers also received other MH services post AOT enrollment. 16 ACT Services Other Specialty MH Services 15 10 1 2 3 Crisis CRT Inpatient Jail MH Outpatient Additional MH Service Episodes December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 909 ACT Fidelity Assessment Site visit on 8/26/16 that included: Team meeting observation Data and documentation review Interviews with ACT team members (8) Consumer Focus Group (11) Family Focus Group (13) ACT Fidelity Score:4.73 High fidelity Strengths Committed, professional staff Use of motivational interviewing and recovery model Team approach to client care Development Areas Scaling program to 75 consumers Safe, supervised housing options Family and multi-family groups Increased activities and socialization during the day 17 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 910 •Given the preliminary nature of the AOT program, it is premature to evaluate AOT consumer outcomes. Preliminary Findings18 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 911 Hospitalizations and Other Events Prior to AOT Enrollment (n=17) 19 13 5 7 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Hospitalizations Incarcerations Arrests HomelessnessAOT ConsumersDecember 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 912 Preliminary AOT Investments and Costs Expenses Revenue Medi-Cal revenue is relatively low (estimated at $10,645) but is likely to increase as the census grows and program matures. Pre-AOT MH Service Costs Total annual cost of mental health services for the 17 enrolled individuals is $952,237 (three-year average) 75% of mental health service costs were for psychiatric hospitalization MH Service Costs are higher post-AOT enrollment MHS per person service costs are much higher than they will be once AOT reaches its capacity of 75 consumers Preliminary findings suggest a reduction in costs associated with hospitalizations post-AOT enrollment Pre-AOT: $1,400 per month per consumer Post-AOT: $682 per month per consumer 20 AOT Investments MH Service Costs Cost Type Oct -Jun 2016 Start-up Costs $242,832 (Oct ’15 -Jan ’16) Service Delivery Costs $661,660 (Feb ’16 -Jun ‘16) Total $904,492 (Oct ’15 -Jun ’16) County Department Feb -Jul 2016 Cost CCBHS $262,500 County Counsel $22,733 Public Defender’s Office $66,750 Superior Court $64,000 Contra Costa County and Court Costs MHS Costs December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 913 Discussion21 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 914 AOT Referrals 22 Some County residents who have not been referred to AOT may benefit from the program Consider providing additional outreach to qualified requestors across the county and from underserved communities Consider additional ways to outreach to non-family qualified requestors Gain access for people without family member advocates Conduct investigation while consumer is in a secure setting/able to be located Some “ineligible consumers” may require a re-referral to AOT when necessary Consumers who are “unable to be located” may show up in PES, hospital, and jails Consumers who agree to “re-connect” to their existing service providers may disengage once the referral is closed December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 915 Investigations and Outreach 23 Not all ACT team members are providing outreach and engagement Consider discussing all outreach and engagement consumers in daily ACT team meeting Care Team communications during the transition between the investigation and outreach and engagement phases are evolving in order to ensure: Warm handoffs for consumer and family member, when possible Clinical handoffs from investigator to ACT team Petitions for individuals not able to engage on a voluntary basis once transitioned to MHS December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 916 AOT Consumers and Service Provision 24 There may be a high proportion of AOT consumers who have forensic needs or are connected with the criminal justice system This may require additional preparation and/or training to appropriately respond to emerging needs December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 917 Data Capacity 25 CCBHS does not yet track their investigation process electronically Consider transitioning to an electronic tracking mechanism so that: 1) data is available for each evaluation period, and 2) the County can learn more about who is and is not referred to MHS for AOT enrollment Currently, MHS is not yet consistently inputting PAF, KET, and 3M data into the County’s DCR system MHS should work towards consistently entering these data into the DCR on a standard basis to ensure the data is up- to-date and available for each evaluation period December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 918 Roberta Chambers, PsyD rchambers@resourcedevelopment.net 510.984.1478 Questions and Answers26 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 919 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 920 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 921 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 922 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 923 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 924 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 925 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Memorandum of Understanding #74-530 with Rubicon Programs, Inc., a non-financial agreement, to allow the Behavioral Health Services Division to provide services for formerly incarcerated residents of Contra Costa County who are clients of the Reentry Success Center (Center), for the period from December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a non-financial agreement. No County funds are required. BACKGROUND: Rubicon is under contract with Contra Costa County (County Contract #F45698-02) to operate and coordinate the provision of services for the Reentry Success Center’s clients, located in Richmond, California. The Center’s services will be provided by numerous agencies and community based organizations, including Behavioral Health Services Division (BHSD) as one of the service providers. Approval of this Memorandum of Understanding will allow BHSD to conduct on-site workshops and orientations APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C.100 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Memorandum of Understanding #74-530 with Rubicon Programs, Inc. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 926 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) on topics relevant to the Center’s clients and partners, hold on-site trainings for the Center’s staff, regularly participate in meetings to assess program implementation progress, provide feedback and make any needed adjustments, through November 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, formerly incarcerated residents of Contra Costa County will not have access to County’s services at Contractor’s facility. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 927 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the October 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: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 925-313-1717 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 88 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Operations Update of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 928 ATTACHMENTS CSB Oct 2016 CAO Report CSB Oct 2016 HS Fiscal Report CSB Oct 2016 EHS Fiscal Report CSB Oct 2016 Partnership Fiscal Report CSB Oct 2016 Credit Card CSB Oct 2018 LIHEAP CSB Oct 2016 Menu CSB Oct 2016 CACFP Mo Report 8.2016 CSB Oct 2016 CACFP Mo Report 9.16 CSB Occt 2016 Outcome Report Infant Toddler CSB Oct 2016 Outcome Report PreSchool CSB Oct 2016 CCP Program Indicator Report CSB Oct 2016 PHR Indicator Report December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 929 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: October 2016 I. Good News Update/Accomplishments: The Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS) were published September 2016 and has been implemented as of November 7, 2016. CSB has progressively been implementing the HSPPS since the publication in September. Content area experts have developed systems to identify areas of improvements and are ensuring adequate preparation for effective and timely transitions. Staff has been conducting program-wide trainings at all levels to Policy Council, Board of Supervisors, staff and parents at directly operated, delegates and partner agencies; including center-based, home-based and family child care programs. Goals and objectives, policies and procedures, family handbooks, and community assessments are being reviewed and processes are revised to ensure service delivery aligns with the new mandates. CSB will continue to coordinate approaches, developments, and trainings to facilitate the continuance of quality services as stated in the standards. CSB’s week-long Triennial Review of the Community Action Program began on October 31, 2016 and concluded on November 4, 2016. Analyst Cha Xiong, from California’s Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) spent the week reviewing fiscal and internal program files, fiscal reports, and interviewed both CSB staff and Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) subcontractors. During her visit, the Analyst also attended the 2016 Joint Training, the Economic Opportunity Council (EOC) Executive Committee meeting, and visited 2 CSBG subcontractors. The review concluded with an exit interview where she praised the work of the CSBG subcontractors and Clerical Assistant Trainee program. In the end, the analyst thanked the Community Action unit for being a small but mighty team and having no findings. On November 2, 2016, Community Services Bureau (CSB), in conjunction with the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Economic Opportunity Council (EOC), and the Head Start Policy Council (PC) gathered for the 2016 Joint Training at the Hilton Hotel in Concord. Keynote speaker Jaime Harris, from Interaction Associates, enlightened the participants on the importance of Shared Governance and The Three Dimensions of Success – results, process and relationships. Several CSB’s partner agencies were also in attendance at the event. October was National Head Start Awareness, and in celebration, CSB had the opportunity to meet with Congressman DeSaulnier’s Chief Education staff from Washington D.C. and District Director at our George Miller Head Start Center in Concord. We provided a tour of the Head Start site and provided education and information about our program strengths and services to the families of Contra Costa County. On October 27th and 28th all CSB Managers and Supervisors participated in a one-day training on Reflective Supervision, which is “the regular collaborative reflection between service provider and supervisor that builds on supervisee’s December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 930 2 use of her thoughts, feelings, and values within a service encounter.” This supervisory approach complements the goals and practices of a Trauma Informed System, which CSB is working to develop alongside many Contra Costa community partners. With this goal in mind, over the next several months CSB will additionally provide Trauma Informed Training to all staff and implement Peer Coaching Circles among managers and supervisors to support their reflective practice. Over the past few months, all of CSB staff has received training on active shooter procedures. In collaboration with Risk Management, retired Sgt. Louis Houle (CCC Office of the Sherriff) conducted several trainings for CSB staff on: Active shooter procedures (Run, Hide, and Fight), what to expect in an active shooter event, steps to take to stay safe, law enforcement response and recovery steps. Sgt. Houle was also able to provide a more customized training for childcare center staff; since their first initial response differs from an office setting (center staff would go on lockdown/shelter in place). CSB regularly evaluates and updates emergency preparedness plans in place, to ensure staff are able to respond appropriately to the numerous potential emergencies that could possibly occur, whether in an office or childcare environment. On October 20, 2016 at 10:20 a.m., CSB participated in its fifth Great California Shake Out drill, along with many schools and businesses throughout the state. Every year, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services conducts the “Great California Shake Out”, to remind Californians that they can increase their chances of surviving an earthquake if they “Drop, Cover and Hold On”. CSB’s Administrative Office and 15 Child Care Center locations dropped, covered and held on, once the earthquake drill had commenced. Children and staff held their position until an “all clear” was given. This was a great opportunity for staff and children to practice on how to be safer during a big earthquake. CSB continues to review and update emergency preparedness plans and supplies, and conduct structural inspections at our center locations in order to prevent damage and injuries. Rita Loza, CSB Comprehensive Services Manager overseeing Parent, Family and Community Engagement hosted and facilitated the Region 9 quarterly Family Services Cluster Meeting at George Miller III Center in Richmond on October 7, 2017. Thirteen representatives from Monterey, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Francisco and Berkeley attended and actively participated in the meeting. This full day interactive meeting was an opportunity for managers from various areas to come together to network, share ideas, and discuss a multitude of topics relevant to Parent, Family and Community Engagement. II. Status Updates: a. Caseloads, workload (all programs) Head Start enrollment: 100.46 % Early Head Start enrollment: 101.29% Early Head Start Child Care Partnership enrollment: 100.00% Head Start Average Daily Attendance: 88.2% Early Head Start Average Daily Attendance: 87.2% December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 931 3 Early Head Start Child Care Partnership Attendance: 87.2% Stage 2: 333 families and 528 children CAPP: 78 families and 122 children In total: 411 families and 650 children Incoming transfers from Stage 1: 22 families and 25 children LIHEAP: 310 households have been assisted Weatherization: 20 units b. Staffing: During the month of October CSB conducted interviews to fill various vacant positions. The Bureau hired 4 Associate Teacher-Project and a Teacher-Project. CSB conducted additional interviews to fill vacant Site Supervisor II - Project, Child Nutrition Worker I- Project and clerical positions. The Bureau continues to hire substitute teaching staff to build a viable pool of substitutes. c. Union issues: N/A III. Emerging Issues and Hot Topics: N/A cc: Policy Council Chair Family & Human Services Committee Maureen Burns-Vermette, ACF December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 932 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total % YTD Actual Budget AB YTD a. PERSONNEL 2,773,814$ 3,764,361$ 990,547$ 74% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 1,801,659 2,452,556 650,897 73% c. TRAVEL - 1,600 1,600 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 305,490 243,000 (62,490) 126% f. CONTRACTUAL 3,265,720 6,689,194 3,423,474 49% g. CONSTRUCTION - - - 0% h. OTHER 896,252 1,749,531 853,279 51% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 9,042,935$ 14,900,242$ 5,857,307$ 61% j. INDIRECT COSTS 575,494 789,488 213,994 73% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 9,618,429$ 15,689,730$ 6,071,301$ 61% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)1,160,871$ 3,922,432$ 2,761,561$ 30% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2014 HEAD START PROGRAM September 2014 Expenditures December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 933 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jan-14 Apr-14 Jul-14 thru thru thru Total YTD Total Remaining % Mar-14 Jun-14 Sep-14 Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)978,021 883,048 912,745 2,773,814 3,764,361 990,547 74% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)606,432 567,086 628,141 1,801,659 2,452,556 650,897 73% c. TRAVEL (Object Class 6c)- - - - 1,600 1,600 0% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies 18,327 23,034 25,090 66,452 74,000 7,549 90% 2. Child and Family Services Supplies (Includesclassroom Supplies)3,364 6,201 10,354 19,920 19,500 (420) 102% 4. Other Supplies - - - - - - Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Computer Replacement 38,669 34,168 131,498 204,336 131,000 (73,336) 156% Health/Safety Supplies 791 2,875 1,737 5,403 6,000 597 90% Mental helath/Diasabilities Supplies 413 - 362 775 1,000 225 78% Miscellaneous Supplies 2,514 2,297 2,394 7,205 9,000 1,795 80% Household Supplies 344 698 358 1,400 2,500 1,100 56% TOTAL SUPPLIES (6e)64,422 69,274 171,794 305,490 243,000 (62,490) 126% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)- - - 1. Adm Svcs (e.g., Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)1,395 17,892 11,496 30,783 35,400 4,617 87% 2. Health/Disabilities Services - - - - - - Estimated Medical Revenue from Medi-Cal (Org 1432 - credit)- (35,467) - (35,467) (230,000) (194,533) 15% Health Consultant 11,480 10,791 11,939 34,210 32,001 (2,209) 107% 3. Food Services - - 60 60 - (60) 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 3,450 - 48,784 52,234 55,662 3,428 94% 7. Delegate Agency Costs - - - - - - First Baptist Church Head Start PA22 294,185 463,591 429,424 1,187,200 2,044,356 857,156 58% First Baptist Church Head Start PA20 - - - - 8,000 8,000 0% 8. Other Contracts - - - Antioch Partnership 21,600 43,200 21,600 86,400 129,600 43,200 67% FB-Fairgrounds Partnership (Wrap)10,643 22,416 11,010 44,069 68,812 24,743 64% FB-Fairgrounds Partnership 28,350 56,700 28,350 113,400 170,100 56,700 67% FB-E. Leland/Mercy Housing Partnership 9,000 18,000 9,000 36,000 54,000 18,000 67% Martinez ECC (18 HS slots x $225/mo x 12/mo)18,000 36,075 17,280 71,355 108,000 36,645 66% Richmond Foundation (78 HS slots x $15.27/day x 215/days) 20,767 35,839 - 56,606 56,606 0 100% YMCA of the East Bay (20 HS slots x $225/mo x 12/mo) 9,000 18,000 4,500 31,500 54,000 22,500 58% Child Outcome Planning and Administration (COPA/Nulinx)4,228 2,591 - 6,819 10,100 3,281 68% Enhancement/wrap-around HS slots with State CD Program 383,691 762,415 404,444 1,550,550 4,092,557 2,542,007 38% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)815,790 1,452,043 997,887 3,265,720 6,689,194 3,423,474 49% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h)- - - - 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 57,318 79,606 61,352 198,276 315,000 116,724 63% (Rents & Leases/Other Income)(81) - - (81) (1,000) (919) 8% 4. Utilities, Telephone 46,713 41,991 40,557 129,262 227,300 98,038 57% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance 3,293 - - 3,293 6,500 3,207 51% 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 1,822 6,468 18,288 26,579 30,600 4,021 87% 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile effective 1/1/2012)6,256 12,506 4,947 23,709 53,532 29,823 44% 9. Nutrition Services - - - - - - Child Nutrition Costs 89,733 130,753 11,428 231,914 557,300 325,386 42% (CCFP & USDA Reimbursements)(87,978) (75,759) - (163,737) (256,400) (92,663) 64% 13. Parent Services - - - - - - Parent Conference Registration - PA11 1,099 - 1,852 2,951 4,866 1,915 61% PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 4,983 65 1,524 6,572 10,100 3,528 65% Policy Council Activities - - 150 150 500 350 30% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation 770 366 3,825 4,961 6,500 1,539 76% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement 2,680 3,051 2,934 8,664 11,100 2,436 78% 14. Accounting & Legal Services - - - - - - 0% Auditor Controllers - 1,598 - 1,598 5,635 4,037 28% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies 3,360 2,654 3,155 9,169 15,000 5,831 61% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing - - - - - - Outreach/Printing - 75 - 75 1,000 925 8% Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- - 31 31 5,500 5,469 1% 16. Training or Staff Development - - - - - - Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC, etc.)1,806 6,507 19,317 27,630 12,175 (15,455) 227% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 14,052 17,840 6,866 38,757 47,956 9,199 81% 17. Other - - - - - - Site Security Guards 4,852 11,144 7,162 23,158 28,000 4,842 83% Dental/Medical Services - - - - 200 200 0% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair 26,476 22,253 12,721 61,449 117,600 56,151 52% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental 9,417 25,962 26,542 61,921 90,000 28,079 69% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)1,679 2,518 3,431 7,628 10,100 2,472 76% Field Trips - - - - 1,000 1,000 0% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)- - - - - - CSD Admin Costs/Facs Mgt Allocation 104,414 55,315 32,597 192,325 449,467 257,142 0% h. OTHER (6h)292,663 344,911 258,679 896,252 1,749,531 853,279 51% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)2,757,328 3,316,361 2,969,246 9,042,935 14,900,242 5,857,307 61% j. INDIRECT COSTS 128,498 338,673 108,323 575,494 789,488 213,994 73% k. TOTALS (ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES)2,885,826 3,655,034 3,077,569 9,618,429 15,689,730 6,071,301 61% Non-Federal match (In-Kind)280,802 492,860 387,209 1,160,871 3,922,432 2,761,561 30% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2014 HEAD START PROGRAM September 2014 Expenditures December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 934 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 320,906$ 589,013$ 268,107$ 54% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 198,068 400,660 202,592 49% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 24,347 25,000 653 97% f. CONTRACTUAL 1,874,822 2,280,836 406,014 82% g. CONSTRUCTION - - - 0% h. OTHER 26,017 94,618 68,601 27% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 2,444,160$ 3,390,127$ 945,967$ 72% j. INDIRECT COSTS 61,532 114,203 52,671 54% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 2,505,693$ 3,504,330$ 998,637$ 72% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)513,565$ 876,083$ 362,518$ 59% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM September 2016 Expenditures December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 935 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jan-16 Apr-16 Jul-16 thru thru thru Total YTD Total Remaining % Mar-16 Jun-16 Sep-16 Actual Budget Budget YTD Expenditures a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 98,938 90,743 99,060 288,740 503,664 214,924 57% Temporary 1013 15,135 9,592 7,439 32,166 85,349 53,183 38% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)114,072 100,335 106,499 320,906 589,013 268,107 54% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)67,224 65,566 65,278 198,068 400,660 202,592 49% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies 209 503 388 1,100 1,600 500 69% 2. Child and Family Serv. Supplies/classroom Supplies 1 3,019 - 3,020 3,700 680 82% 4. Other Supplies - - - - - Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Comp Replacemnt 4,198 12,916 - 17,114 16,200 (914) 106% Health/Safety Supplies 2,226 - 85 2,311 2,600 289 89% Miscellaneous Supplies - 482 65 548 600 52 91% Household Supplies 62 163 30 255 300 45 85% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)6,697 17,082 569 24,347 25,000 653 97% 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 4,637 5,084 14,543 19,200 4,657 76% 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 - - - Interaction - 3,600 - 3,600 3,600 - 100% Josephine Lee ($35,000/2)2,295 4,500 540 7,335 14,200 6,865 52% 8. Other Contracts - FB-Fairgrounds Partnership 9,800 19,600 - 29,400 58,800 29,400 50% FB-E. Leland/Mercy Housing Partnership 11,200 28,000 - 39,200 67,200 28,000 58% Apiranet 46,800 94,400 - 141,200 283,200 142,000 50% Brighter Beginnings 8,000 32,000 8,000 48,000 48,000 - 100% Cameron School 8,400 11,550 - 19,950 45,150 25,200 44% Crossroads - 63,000 - 63,000 105,400 42,400 60% Martinez ECC 11,200 22,400 10,500 44,100 67,200 23,100 66% Child Outcome Planning & Admini. (COPA/Nulinx)405 608 1,121 2,134 3,000 866 71% Enhancement/wrap-around HS slots with State CD Prog.343,312 765,850 353,198 1,462,360 1,555,786 93,426 94% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)446,234 1,050,145 378,443 1,874,822 2,280,836 406,014 82% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 493 (245) 205 453 3,200 2,747 14% (Rents & Leases/Other Income)- (1) - (1) - 1 4. Utilities, Telephone 512 2,329 535 3,376 2,900 (476) 116% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - - - - - 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 25 129 94 248 1,700 1,452 15% 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile)630 2,378 476 3,484 7,000 3,516 50% 9. Nutrition Services - - - (CCFP & USDA Reimbursements)- (7) - (7) - 7 13. Parent Services - - - Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - - - 4,000 4,000 0% Parent Resources (Parenting Books, Videos, etc.) - PA11 - - - - - - PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 386 1 - 387 1,838 1,451 21% Policy Council Activities - - 775 775 3,000 2,225 26% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation - - 100 100 3,200 3,100 3% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement 334 414 330 1,078 1,900 822 57% 14. Accounting & Legal Services - - - Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies 570 978 643 2,192 3,000 808 73% 16. Training or Staff Development - - - Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC)1,442 254 2,364 4,060 9,000 4,940 45% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 165 2,556 165 2,886 31,106 28,220 9% 17. Other - - - Site Security Guards - - - - 2,000 2,000 0% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair 1,202 3,020 457 4,679 9,600 4,921 49% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental 38 303 238 579 2,800 2,221 21% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)- - - - - - Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)765 775 - 1,540 8,174 6,634 19% Other Departmental Expenses - 189 - 189 200 11 h. OTHER (6h)6,562 13,072 6,383 26,017 94,618 68,601 27% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)640,789 1,246,200 557,171 2,444,160 3,390,127 945,967 72% j. INDIRECT COSTS 22,297 39,235 - 61,532 114,203 52,671 54% k. TOTALS - ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 663,087 1,285,435 557,171 2,505,693 3,504,330 998,637 72% Non-Federal Match (In-Kind)36,000 176,565 301,000 513,565 876,083 362,518 59% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM September 2016 Expenditures December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 936 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 115,045$ 291,503$ 176,458$ 39% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 69,297 203,871 134,574 34% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 4,482 4,800 318 93% f. CONTRACTUAL (4,477) 463,000 467,477 -1% g. CONSTRUCTION - 0% h. OTHER 12,250 56,699 44,450 22% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 196,596$ 1,019,873$ 823,277$ 19% j. INDIRECT COSTS - 60,956 60,956 0% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 196,596$ 1,080,829$ 884,233$ 18% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)5,000$ 270,207$ 265,207$ 2% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU EARLY HEAD START- CC PARTNERSHIP September 2016 Expenditures December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 937 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Actual Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Actual Budget Budget YTD Expenditures a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 36,442 38,097 29,784 104,323 273,513 169,190 38% Temporary 1013 3,620 4,993 2,109 10,721 17,990 7,269 a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)40,061 43,090 31,893 115,045 291,503 176,458 39% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b) Fringe Benefits 23,349 25,404 20,543 69,297 203,871 134,574 34% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)23,349 25,404 20,543 69,297 203,871 134,574 34% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies - 2 39 41 300 259 14% 2. Child and Family Serv. Supplies/classroom Supplies - 2,114 1,632 3,746 2,700 (1,046) 139% 4. Other Supplies Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Comp Replacemnt - 544 - 544 1,200 656 45% Health/Safety Supplies - - - - - - Miscellaneous Supplies - - 101 101 200 99 50% Household Supplies - 4 46 50 400 350 13% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)- 2,664 1,819 4,482 4,800 318 93% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f) 1. Adm Svcs (e.g., Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)- - - - 10,000 10,000 0% 8. Other Contracts Contra Costa Child Care Council (4,979) - - (4,979) 318,050 323,029 -2% First Baptist (20 slots x $450)- - - - 109,950 109,950 0% Child Outcome Planning and Administration (COPA/Nulinx)- - 501 501 2,000 1,499 Enhancement/wrap-around HS slots with State CD Prog.- - - - 23,000 23,000 0% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)(4,979) - 501 (4,477) 463,000 467,477 -1% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases - (53) 178 125 1,800 1,675 7% 4. Utilities, Telephone - 229 305 534 4,000 3,466 13% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - - - - - 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy - 44 157 201 1,400 1,199 14% 8. Local Travel (54 cents per mile)614 130 80 823 4,200 3,377 20% 13. Parent Services - - - - - - Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - - - - - Parent Resources (Parenting Books, Videos, etc.) - PA11 - - - - - - Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation - 70 - 70 1,000 930 7% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement - - - - - - 14. Accounting & Legal Services Audit - - - - - - Legal (County Counsel)- - - - 1,000 1,000 0% Auditor Controllers - - - - 2,000 2,000 0% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies - 144 144 288 1,000 712 29% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing - - - - - - Outreach/Printing - - - - 400 400 Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- - - - - - 16. Training or Staff Development Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 628 5,238 2,927 8,793 25,907 17,114 34% 17. Other - - - - - - Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair - - - - 4,000 4,000 0% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental - 297 1,119 1,417 3,000 1,583 47% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)- - (0) (0) 6,992 6,992 0% h. OTHER (6h)1,242 6,099 4,909 12,250 56,699 44,450 22% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)59,674 77,257 59,666 196,596 1,019,873 823,277 19% j. INDIRECT COSTS - - - - 60,956 60,956 0% k. TOTALS - ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 59,674 77,257 59,666 196,596 1,080,829 884,233 0 Non-federal Match In-Kind - - 5,000 5,000 270,207 265,207 2% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU EARLY HEAD START- CC PARTNERSHIP September 2016 Expenditures December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 938 A - 4Authorized Users C. Rand, Bureau Dir Month: September 2016 K. Mason, Div Mgr C. Reich, Div Mgr Credit Card: Visa/U.S. Bank C. Johnson, AD J. Rowley, AD P. Arrington, AD R. Radeva, PSA III S. Kim, Interim Div Mgr CSB Corporate I. Renggenathen Acct. code Stat. Date Card Account #Amount Program 2100 09/22/16 xxxx1907 131.37 Indirect Admin Costs 2100 09/22/16 xxxx1907 870.68 Child Care Svs Program 2100 09/22/16 xxxx1907 8.99 Child Care Svs Program 2100 09/22/16 xxxx0220 36.54 HS Basic Grant 1,047.58 2260 09/22/16 xxxx1907 291.00 Child Care Svs Program 291.00 2300 09/22/16 xxxx4959 690.15 Com Svc Block Grant 690.15 2303 09/22/16 xxxx4959 690.15 Com Svc Block Grant 690.15 2467 09/22/16 xxxx2364 199.00 HS Basic Grant 2467 09/22/16 xxxx0220 320.00 Child Dev Misc Grants 519.00 2477 09/22/16 xxxx4959 1,632.28 EHS-CC Partnership 2477 09/22/16 xxxx2391 2,300.60 HS Basic Grant 2477 09/22/16 xxxx0220 172.90 George Miller Concord Site Costs 2477 09/22/16 xxxx0220 (24.92) George Miller Concord Site Costs 4,080.86 2490 09/22/16 xxxx2423 550.00 Las Deltas Site Costs 2490 09/22/16 xxxx2423 1,003.92 Child Nutrition Food Svc 2490 09/22/16 xxxx2423 4.85 Verde Site Costs 2490 09/22/16 xxxx2364 43.00 HS Parent Services 2490 09/22/16 xxxx8798 1,573.25 HS Basic Grant 2490 09/22/16 xxxx1899 638.00 Indirect Admin Costs 2490 09/22/16 xxxx2391 221.47 HS Parent Services 4,034.49 Total 11,353.23 Agency: Community Services Bureau COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU SUMMARY CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURE C:\DOCUME~1\DESTIN~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 7\@BCL@6C0F494A\@BCL@6C0F494A.xlsx December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 939 A - 4xxxx8798 xxxx2364 xxxx4959 xxxx0220 xxxx2391 xxxx3838 xxxx1899 xxxx1907 xxxx5045 xxxx2423 Purpose/Description Office Exp Office Exp Office Exp Office Exp Rents & Leases - Property Transportation & Travel Other Travel Employees Training & Registration Training & Registration Educational Supplies Educational Supplies Educational Supplies Educational Supplies Misc Services/Supplies Misc Services/Supplies Misc Services/Supplies Misc Services/Supplies Misc Services/Supplies Misc Services/Supplies Misc Services/Supplies C:\DOCUME~1\DESTIN~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 7\@BCL@6C0F494A\@BCL@6C0F494A.xlsx December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 940 CAO Monthly Report CSBG and Weatherization Programs Year-to-Date Expenditures As of September 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 (1,204,143) Balance -$ Expended 100% 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 $ 1,027,911 Total Contract 1,027,911$ Expenditures (273,374) Balance 754,537$ Expended 27% 4. 2016 LIHEAP ECIP/EHA 16 Contract # 16B-4005 Term: Jan. 1, 2016 - Jan. 31, 2017 Amount: EHA 16 $ 955,094 Total Contract 955,094$ Expenditures (529,618) Balance 425,476$ Expended 55% 5. 2015 LIWP (LOW INCOME WX) Contract # 15K-6003 Term: Jan 1, 2015 - Dec 31, 2016 Amount: $ 287,657 Total Contract 287,657$ Expenditures (257,351) Balance 30,306$ Expended 89% 6. 2016 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) Contract # 16F-5007 Term: Jan. 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016 Amount: $ 846,479 Total Contract 846,479$ Expenditures (441,063) Balance 405,416$ Expended 52% fldr/fn:CAO Monthly Reports/WX YTD Exp-CAO Mo Rprt 9-2016December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 941 October 2016 – COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU’S PRESCHOOL MENU Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 3 BREAKFAST FRESH KIWI RICE CHEX CEREAL LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE SUNBUTTER & JELLY SANDWICH STRING CHEESE BABY CARROTS (NO DRESSING) FRESH APPLE WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK CINNAMON BUG BITE CRACKERS 1% LOW FAT MIK 4 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE BRAN CEREAL LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE PIZZA BURGER (ground beef & turkey) SHREDDED MOZZARELLA CHEESE SPRING SALAD MIX WITH ITALIAN DRESSING MANGO CHUNKS WHOLE GRAIN HAMBURGER BUN PM SNACK SUNNY SALSA & CORN TORILLA CHIPS 1% LOW FAT MIK 5 BREAKFAST FRESH STRAWBERRIES CORN CHEX CEREAL LUNCH RANCH STYLE CHICKEN SALAD SHREDDED ROMAINE & TOMATOES FRESH PEAR WHOLE WHEAT PITA PM SNACK FRESH BANANA LOW-FAT PLAIN YOGURT 6 BREAKFAST FRESH APPLE WHOLE WHEAT ENGLISH MUFFIN WITH SUNBUTTER LUNCH CHIPOTLE BEANS (black beans, chunky salsa chilies) SHREDDED CHEESE SPINACH SALAD WITH ITALIAN DRESSING FRESH ORANGE CORN TORTILLA CHIPS PM SNACK HUMMUS & WHEAT CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 7 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA CORNFLAKE CEREAL LUNCH – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE TURKEY HAM & SWISS CHEESE MAYO & MUSTARD DRESSING GREEN LEAF LETTUCE & SLICED TOMATO FRESH CANTALOUPE WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK WHOLE GRAIN FISH CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 10 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE BRAN CEREAL LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE BAJA BEAN WRAP (refried beans & chunky salsa) JICAMA STICKS WITH CHILI FRESH KIWI WHOLE WHEAT TORTILLA PM SNACK GRAHAM CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 11 BREAKFAST FRESH STRAWBERRIES RICE KRISPY CEREAL LUNCH TURKEY SPAGHETTI CASSEROLE (ground turkey, whole wheat spaghetti & tomato paste) ZUCCHINI STICKS WITH RANCH DRESSING FRESH PEAR PM SNACK - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE BANANA SPLIT SALAD (mixed fruit, banana & cottage cheese) 12 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA CORN CHEX CEREAL LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE *HAWAIIAN CHICKEN SALAD (diced chicken, broccoli, spinach, carrots, & pineapple with poppy seed dressing) FRESH APPLE WHOLE WHEAT PITA POCKET BREAD PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE ANTS ON THE LOG (sunbutter, celery sticks & raisins) 1% LOW-FAT MILK 13 BREAKFAST FRESH KIWI WHOLE WHEAT BAGEL WITH SUNBUTTER LUNCH – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE SLOPPY JOE (ground beef, turkey & tomato paste) SPINACH SALAD WITH SWEET & SOUR DRESSING FRESH ORANGE WHOLE GRAIN HAMBURGER BUN PM SNACK MOZZARELLA CHEESE STICK WHEAT CRACKERS 14 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA CHEERIOS LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE DEVILED EGG (Mayo-Mustard) CELERY STICKS FRESH STRAWBERRIES WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK FRESH BROCCOLI & CAULIFLOWER FLORETS VEGETABLE DRESSING WHEAT THIN CRACKERS 17 BREAKFAST FRESH APPLE RICE CHEX CEREAL LUNCH *VEGETABLE CHILI (kidney beans, tomatoes, cheese, yogurt & bulgur wheat) FRESH PEAR WHOLE GRAIN CRACKERS PM SNACK WHOLE WHEAT FISH BREAD SUNBUTTER 18 BREAKFAST FRESH STRAWBERRIES KIX CEREAL LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE BBQ CHICKEN SANDWICH (diced chicken & tomato paste) COLESLAW (Mayo Base ) FRESH ORANGE WHOLE GRAIN HAMBURGER BUN PM SNACK PINEAPPLE TIDBITS COTTAGE CHEESE 19 BREAKFAST FRESH KIWI WHOLE WHEAT CINNAMON TOAST LUNCH – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE TURKEY ROLLER SANDWICH WITH CREAM CHEESE FRESH SPINACH LEAVES & RED BELL PEPPERS FRESH APPLE WHOLE WHEAT TORTILLA PM SNACK FRESH ZUCCHINI & CARROT STICKS RANCH DRESSING WHEAT THINS 20 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA CHEERIOS LUNCH *GROUND BEEF & TURKEY SPANISH RICE (ground beef, turkey, green bell peppers, tomatoes, tomato paste, & brown rice) FRESH PEAR PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE RAINBOW PARFAIT (fresh strawberries, blueberries, low-fat yogurt, & granola) 21 BREAKFAST MANGO CHUNKS WHOLE WHEAT BAGEL WITH CREAM CHEESE LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE CHICKEN SALAD SANDWICH (diced chicken, pickle relish, celery, & mayo) BABY CARROTS (no dressing) FRESH KIWI WHOLE WHEAT PITA BREAD PM SNACK FRESH APPLE SLICES SUNBUTTER 24 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE BRAN CEREAL LUNCH *FARMERS HARVEST CHILI (kidney beans, carrots, corn, & tomatoes) FRESH KIWI WHOLE GRAIN CRACKERS PM SNACK CINNAMON GRAHAM CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 25 BREAKFAST FRESH APPLE CORN CHEX CEREAL LUNCH *BEEFY TOMATO & CORN BAKE WITH WHOLE WHEAT PENNE PASTA FRESH PEAR PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE HUMMUS VEGGIE ROLL (shredded carrots & spinach) WHOLE GRAIN TORTILLA 1% LOW-FAT MILK 26 BREAKFAST PINEAPPLE CHUNKS WHOLE WHEAT BAGEL WITH CREAM CHEESE LUNCH – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE *GREEK CHICKEN SALAD (diced chicken, cucumbers, tomatoes, onions, & olives) WITH FETA CHEESE DRESSING FRESH STRAWBERRIES WHOLE WHEAT PITA BREAD EARLY CLOSURE 27 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA WHOLE WHEAT ENGLISH MUFFIN & SUNBUTTER LUNCH TURKEY ENCHILADA CASSEROLE (diced chicken , tomato, enchilada sauce, & corn tortilla chips) TOSSED LEAFY GREENS WITH ITALIAN DRESSING FRESH KIWI PM SNACK COWBOY QUINOA SALAD 1% LOW-FAT MILK 28 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE WHOLE GRAIN CINNAMON BUN LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE TUNA SALAD SANDWICH (tuna, eggs, mayo, relish, celery, & onions) TANGY COLESLAW (green & red cabbage, carrots, & apple cider vinegar) FRESH PEAR WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK FRESH APPLE SLICES CHEDDAR CHEESE 31 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE CORN CHEX CEREAL LUNCH *BROCCOLI & CAULIFLOWER CHEESE SOUP FRESH APPLE WHOLE GRAIN CRACKERS PM SNACK BANANA SANDWICH SUNBUTTER FRESH BANANA ALL BREAKFAST & LUNCH SERVED WITH 1% LOW-FAT MILK *Indicates vegetable included in main dish Fruit subject to change due to availability WATER IS OFFERED THROUGHOUT THE DAY December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 942 2016 Month covered August Approved sites operated this month 13 Number of days meals served this month 23 Average daily participation 583 Child Care Center Meals Served: Breakfast 11,029 Lunch 13,408 Supplements 11,027 Total Number of Meals Served 35,464 fldr/fn:2016 CAO Monthly Reports FY 2016-2017 EMPLOYMENT & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU CHILD NUTRITION FOOD SERVICES CHILD and ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM MEALS SERVED December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 943 2016 Month covered September Approved sites operated this month 15 Number of days meals served this month 21 Average daily participation 745 Child Care Center Meals Served: Breakfast 12,566 Lunch 15,651 Supplements 11,680 Total Number of Meals Served 39,897 fldr/fn:2016 CAO Monthly Reports FY 2016-2017 EMPLOYMENT & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU CHILD NUTRITION FOOD SERVICES CHILD and ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM MEALS SERVED December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 944 Contra Costa County Community Services Bureau 2015-2016 Child Outcomes Report: Infant/Toddler Assessment 3 –Year End 2015-2016 Infant/Toddler Child Outcomes Report –Year End 3rd Assessment 1 | P a g e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview of Methods The Community Services Bureau (CSB) utilizes DRDP 15-Tech© to assess the development of infants and toddlers enrolled in the program. Three assessments are conducted each program year using this instrument as follows:  1st Assessment: Within 60 days from the date of enrollment  2nd Assessment: Within 150 from the date of enrollment  3rd Assessment: By June 2016 Assessment 3 includes baseline data, mid-year data and end of the year data for infants and toddlers. The data is contained in DRDP15-Tech data management system, and is used to individualize curriculum, identify school readiness goals, and drive program quality. Using the DRDP15-Tech©, CSB staff assesses the development of infants and toddlers on the following five thematic areas (domains): Approaches to Learning Self-Regulation (ATL-REG), Social and Emotional Development (SED), Language and Literacy Development (LLD), Cognition including Math and Science (COG), and Physical Development Health (PD- HLTH). Results are based on developmental level for each domain and measure, and are reported in aggregate across all enrolled children (ages 0-3). Key Findings  Of all infants and toddlers assessed at 18 centers, 30% rated Building Earlier in Approaches to Learning-Self Regulation (ATL-REG) which is an increase of 22% from the baseline assessment.  When compared to the 2015-16 baseline assessment scores for infants and toddlers, the third assessment scores show a 16% increase in the numbers of children rated exploring later or above on Social and Emotional Development (SED).  When compared to the 2015-16 baseline assessment scores, infants and toddlers in the third assessment show similar scoring patterns for children 0-3 years old which occurred in the domains of Cognition Development (COG), Social Emotional Development, and Approaches to learning-Self Regulation. In the third assessment the highest scores occurred in the domain of Physical Development Health (PD-HLTH). December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 945 Contra Costa County Community Services Bureau 2015-2016 Child Outcomes Report: Infant/Toddler Assessment 3 –Year End 2015-2016 Infant/Toddler Child Outcomes Report –Year End 3rd Assessment 2 | P a g e Figure 1: Percentage of Children’s Attainment on the Approaches to Learning and Self-Regulation Domain Figure 1 presents the percentage of infants and toddlers at each developmental level of the Approaches to Learning-Self Regulation domain at baseline assessment, second assessment, and third assessment. For example, at baseline assessment 8% of the children rated at Building Earlier on Approaches to Learning-Self Regulation Domain. On the third assessment, 30% of the children rated at Building Earlier which is the highest rating possible in the domain. Overall, 89% of infants and toddlers rated exploring or above which exceeds our School Readiness goal of 80% of children achieving at this level. Figure 2: Percentage of Children’s Attainment on the Social and Emotional Development Domain Figure 2 presents the percentage of infants and toddlers at each developmental level of the Social Emotional Development domain at baseline assessment, second assessment, and third assessment. For example, at baseline assessment 12% of the children rated at Building Earlier on Social and Emotional Development domain. On the third assessment, 34% of the children rated at Building Earlier achieving 2% 13% 37% 39% 8% 3% 6% 27% 42% 21% 1% 10% 22% 37% 30% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ATL-REG Approaches to Learning−Self−Regulation Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment 3% 13% 36% 37% 12% 3% 8% 26% 39% 24% 10% 24% 31% 34% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% SED Social and Emotional Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 946 Contra Costa County Community Services Bureau 2015-2016 Child Outcomes Report: Infant/Toddler Assessment 3 –Year End 2015-2016 Infant/Toddler Child Outcomes Report –Year End 3rd Assessment 3 | P a g e the highest rating possible in the domain. Overall, 89% of infants and toddlers rated exploring or above which exceeds our School Readiness goal of 80% of children achieving at this level. Figure 3: Percentage of Children’s Attainment on the on the Language and Literacy Development Domain Figure 3 presents the percentage of infants and toddlers at each developmental level of the Language and Literacy Development domain at baseline assessment, second assessment and third assessment. For example, at baseline 10% of the children rated at Building Earlier on Language and Literacy Development domain. On the third assessment, 23% of the children rated at Building achieving the highest rating possible in the domain. Overall, 90% of infants and toddlers rated exploring or above which exceeds our School Readiness goal of 80% of children achieving at this level. Figure 4: Percentage of Children’s Attainment on the Cognition Domain Figure 4 presents the percentage of infants and toddlers at each developmental level of the Cognition domain at baseline assessment, second assessment, and third assessment. For example, at baseline 5% of children rated at Building Earlier. On the second assessment, 23% of the children rated at Building 1% 16% 44% 29% 10% 2% 8% 42% 27% 21% 1% 10% 27% 39% 23% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% LL Language Literacy Development Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment 1% 15% 38% 41% 5% 3% 10% 31% 40% 16% 1% 10% 27% 39% 23% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Cog Cognitive, Including Math and Science Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 947 Contra Costa County Community Services Bureau 2015-2016 Child Outcomes Report: Infant/Toddler Assessment 3 –Year End 2015-2016 Infant/Toddler Child Outcomes Report –Year End 3rd Assessment 4 | P a g e Earlier achieving the highest rating possible in the domain. This increase in achievement reflects the highest amount of growth across all domains. Overall, 89% of infants and toddlers rated exploring or above which exceeds our School Readiness goal of 80% of children achieving at this level. Figure 5: Percentage of Children’s Attainment on the Physical Development and Health Domain Figure 5 presents the percentage of infants and toddlers at each developmental level of the Physical Development-Health domain. For example, at baseline 27% of the children rated at Building Earlier. On the third assessment, 44% of the children rated at Building Earlier achieving the highest rating possible in the domain. Overall, 94% of infants and toddlers rated exploring or above which exceeds our School Readiness goal of 80% of children achieving at this level. Figure 6: Comparison of Infants and Toddlers in each DRDP2015 Domain 3rd Assessment Figure 6 presents a comparison of infants and toddlers scoring exploring or higher level of development in each domain on the third assessment. For example, the data demonstrates that 99% of toddlers achieved a score of exploring or above in the Physical Development-Health domain. At least 96% of toddlers achieved a score of exploring or higher level of development in the four remaining domains. 2% 7% 21% 42% 27% 2% 3% 22% 40% 32% 1% 4% 21% 29% 44% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% PD-HLTH,Physical Development- Health Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment 61% 63% 70% 58% 78% 96% 96% 97% 96% 99% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ATL-REG SED LLD COG PD-HLTH Infant Toddler Comparison Infants Todllers December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 948 Contra Costa County Community Services Bureau 2015-2016 Child Outcomes Report: Preschool Assessment 3 – Year End 2015-2016 Preschool Child Outcomes Report – Year End 3rd Assessment 1 | P a g e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview of Methods The Community Services Bureau (CSB) utilizes the DRDP15-Tech (2015) © to assess the development of pre-school children enrolled in the program. Three assessments will be conducted this program year using this instrument as follows: o 1st Assessment: Within 60 days from the date of enrollment o 2nd Assessment: Within 150 from the date of enrollment o 3rd Assessment: In June 2016 The 3rd Assessment report compares the baseline data, mid-year data and the year-end data assessments, at the end of the year for preschool children. The data is contained in the DRDP15-Tech© data management system, and is used to individualize curriculum, identify school readiness goals, and drive program quality. Using the DRDP15-Tech©, CSB staff assess the development of preschool age children in the following eight thematic areas (domains): Approaches to Learning-Self Regulation (ATL- REG), Social and Emotional Development (SED), Language Development (LANG), Literacy Development (LIT), Mathematics Development (MATH), Science Development (SCI),Physical Development (PD), Health Development (HLTH), History-Social Sciences (HSS), Visual and Performing Arts (VPA), English Language Development (ELD). Results are based on scores for each child in each measure and domain and are reported in aggregate across all enrolled children (ages 3-5). The Developmental Levels The number of levels in a measure varies depending on the competencies that are appropriate for that measure’s developmental continuum. The levels are organized under four categories from early infancy up to kindergarten entry: Responding, Exploring, Building, and Integrating:  Responding (Earlier, Later) Knowledge, skills, or behaviors that develop from basic responses (through using senses and through actions) to differentiated responses. Children generally engage in back-and-forth interactions with familiar adults and communicate through nonverbal messages.  Exploring (Earlier, Middle, Later) Knowledge, skills, or behaviors that include active exploration including purposeful movement, purposeful exploration and manipulation of objects, purposeful communication, and the beginnings of cooperation with adults and peers. Children generally begin this period by using nonverbal means to communicate and, over time, grow in their ability to communicate verbally or use other conventional forms of language.  Building (Earlier, Middle, Later) Knowledge, skills, or behaviors that demonstrate growing understanding of how people and objects relate to one another, how to investigate ideas, and how things work. Children use language to express thoughts and feelings, to learn specific early literacy and numeracy skills, and to increasingly participate in small group interactions and cooperative activities with others.  Integrating (Earlier) Knowledge, skills, or behaviors that demonstrate the ability to connect and combine strategies in order to express complex thoughts and feelings, solve multi-step problems, and participate in a wide range of activities that involve social-emotional, self-regulatory, cognitive, linguistic, and physical skills. Children begin to engage in mutually supportive relationships and interactions. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 949 Contra Costa County Community Services Bureau 2015-2016 Child Outcomes Report: Preschool Assessment 3 – Year End 2015-2016 Preschool Child Outcomes Report – Year End 3rd Assessment 2 | P a g e Key Findings  Demographics data of preschool age children assessed at 21 centers: Four year olds comprise 60% of all children, while 40% are three years old. A total of 10 enrollees are homeless. The primary language is English for 52.2% of children, Spanish for 47%, and other for 0.8% of children; therefore 47.8% of children are English Language Development learners (ELD).  There was an increase in achievement from 66% to 92% of children rated Building and above in the Mathematics domain from the baseline assessment to the third assessment.  There was an increase in achievement from 59% to 90% of children rated Building and above in the Science domain from the baseline assessment to the third assessment. Results by Domain Figure 1: Percentages of Children’s Attainment on the Approaches to Learning-Self Regulation Domain Figure 1 presents the percentage of preschool children at each developmental level of the Approaches to Learning-Self Regulation domain at baseline assessment, second assessment and third assessment. For example, at baseline, 8% of children scored at Building later on the Approaches to Learning- Self Regulation domain. On the third assessment, 28% of the children scored at Building later on Approaches to Learning-Self Regulation domain. 91% of children rated Building and above which exceeds our School Readiness goal of 80% of children achieving a score of Building and above in the domain. 1% 11% 28% 25% 26% 8% 1% 1% 3% 15% 22% 29% 22% 8% 2% 7% 14% 24% 28% 25% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ATL-REG Approaches to Learning−Self−Regulation Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 950 Contra Costa County Community Services Bureau 2015-2016 Child Outcomes Report: Preschool Assessment 3 – Year End 2015-2016 Preschool Child Outcomes Report – Year End 3rd Assessment 3 | P a g e Figure 2: Percentages of Children’s Attainment on the Social and Emotional Development Domain Figure 2 presents the percentage of children at each developmental level of the Social and Emotional Development domain at baseline assessment, second assessment and third assessment. For example, at baseline 10% of children scored at Building Later on the Social and Emotional Development domain. On the third assessment, 29% of children scored at Building Later on Social and Emotional Development in the domain. 95% of children rated Building and above which exceeds our School Readiness goal of 80% of children achieving a score of Building and above in the domain. Figure 3: Percentages of Children’s Attainment on the Language Development Domain Figure 3 presents the percentage of children at each developmental level of the Language Development domain at baseline assessment, second assessment and third assessment. For example, at baseline, 10% of children scored at Building Later on the Language Development domain. On the second assessment, 29% of children scored at Building Later on Language Development in the domain. 94% of children rated 1% 1% 8% 20% 37% 21% 10% 2% 3% 10% 26% 29% 22% 10% 1% 1% 4% 16% 20% 29% 29% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% SED Social and Emotional Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment 7% 21% 38% 23% 10% 2% 1% 2% 10% 28% 28% 23% 8% 1% 1% 5% 18% 20% 29% 26% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% LANG Language Development Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 951 Contra Costa County Community Services Bureau 2015-2016 Child Outcomes Report: Preschool Assessment 3 – Year End 2015-2016 Preschool Child Outcomes Report – Year End 3rd Assessment 4 | P a g e Building and above which exceeds our School Readiness goal of 80% of children achieving a score of Building and above in the domain. Figure 4: Percentages of Children’s Attainment on the Literacy Development Domain Figure 4 presents the percentage of children at each developmental level of the Literacy Development domain at baseline assessment, second assessment, and third assessment. For example, at baseline, 6% of children scored at Building later on the Literacy Development domain. On the third assessment, 27% of children scored at Building Later on Literacy Development in the domain. 94% of children rated Building and above which exceeds our School Readiness goal of 80% of children achieving a score of Building and above in the domain. Figure 5: Percentages of Children’s Attainment on the Mathematics Development Domain Figure 5 presents the percentage of children at each developmental level of the Mathematics Development domain at baseline assessment, second assessment, and third assessment. For example, 10% 19% 38% 27% 6% 1% 3% 9% 31% 33% 19% 5% 2% 4% 18% 28% 27% 21% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% LIT Literacy Development Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment 2% 8% 24% 29% 29% 7% 1% 1% 2% 14% 24% 32% 20% 7% 1% 1% 6% 14% 26% 27% 25% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% MATH Mathematics Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 952 Contra Costa County Community Services Bureau 2015-2016 Child Outcomes Report: Preschool Assessment 3 – Year End 2015-2016 Preschool Child Outcomes Report – Year End 3rd Assessment 5 | P a g e at baseline, 7% of children scored at Building Later on the Mathematics Development domain. On the third assessment, 27% of children scored at Building Later on Mathematics Development in the domain. 92% of children rated Building and above which exceeds our School Readiness goal of 80% of children achieving a score of Building and above in the domain. Figure 6: Percentages of Children’s Attainment on the Science Development Domain Figure 6 presents the percentage of children at each developmental level of the Science Development domain at baseline assessment, second assessment and third assessment. For example, at baseline, 4% of children scored at Building Later on the Science Development domain. On the third assessment, 26% of children scored at Building Later on Science Development in the domain. 90% of children achieved a score of Building and above in the domain. Figure 7: Percentages of Children’s Attainment on the Physical Development Domain Figure 7 presents the percentage of children at each developmental level of the Physical Development domain at baseline assessment, second assessment and third assessment. For example, at baseline, 16% of children scored at Building Later on the Physical Development domain. On the third assessment, 10% 32% 36% 18% 4% 1% 3% 18% 33% 27% 15% 4% 1% 8% 23% 27% 26% 15% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% SCI Science Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment 1% 3% 13% 34% 29% 16% 5% 1% 6% 20% 29% 26% 17% 1% 1% 2% 12% 19% 25% 41% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% PD Physical Development Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 953 Contra Costa County Community Services Bureau 2015-2016 Child Outcomes Report: Preschool Assessment 3 – Year End 2015-2016 Preschool Child Outcomes Report – Year End 3rd Assessment 6 | P a g e 25% of children scored at Building Later on Physical Development in achievement in the domain. 96% of children rated Building and above which exceeds our School Readiness goal of 80% of children achieving a score of Building and above in the domain. Figure 8: Percentages of Children’s Attainment on the Health Development Domain Figure 8 presents the percentage of children at each developmental level of the Health Development domain at baseline assessment, second assessment and third assessment. For example, at baseline, 16% of children scored at Building Later on the Health Development domain. On the third assessment, 27% of children scored at Building Later on Health Development in the domain. 96% of children of children achieved a score of Building and above in the domain. Figure 9: Percentages of Children’s Attainment on the History-Social Science Development Domain Figure 9 presents the percentage of children at each developmental level of the History-Social Science Development domain at baseline assessment, second assessment and third assessment. For example, at baseline, 6% of children scored at Building Later on the History-Social Science domain. On the third 3% 10% 33% 35% 16% 4% 5% 19% 32% 29% 15% 1% 2% 11% 21% 27% 38% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% HLTH Health Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment 7% 20% 42% 23% 6% 1% 2% 8% 34% 31% 20% 5% 1% 3% 20% 26% 28% 21% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% HSS History-Social Sciences Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 954 Contra Costa County Community Services Bureau 2015-2016 Child Outcomes Report: Preschool Assessment 3 – Year End 2015-2016 Preschool Child Outcomes Report – Year End 3rd Assessment 7 | P a g e assessment, 28% of children scored at Building Later on History-Social Science in the domain. 96% of children of children achieved a score of Building and above in the domain. Figure 10: Percentages of Children’s Attainment on the Visual and Performing Arts Domain Figure 10 presents the percentage of children at each developmental level of the Visual and Performing Arts Development domain at baseline assessment, second assessment and third assessment. For example, at baseline, 11% of children scored at Building Later on the Visual and Performing Arts domain. On the second assessment, 36% of children scored at Building Later on Visual and Performing Arts in the domain. Figure 11: Percentages of Children’s Attainment on the English Language Development Domain Figure 11 presents the percentage of children at each developmental level of the English Language Development domain at baseline assessment, second assessment and third assessment. For example, at baseline, 16% of children scored at Integrating English on the English Language Development domain. On the third assessment, 51% of children scored at Integrating English on English Language in the domain. 5% 21% 35% 27% 11% 1% 2% 10% 23% 33% 26% 6% 1% 4% 15% 23% 36% 22% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% VPA Visual and Performing Arts Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment 2% 8% 20% 26% 29% 16% 2% 4% 11% 22% 33% 28% 0% 1% 5% 16% 26% 51% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Discovering Lang Discovering Eng Exploring Eng Developing Eng Building Eng. Integrating Eng English Language Development Baseline Assessment Second Assessment Third Assessment December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 955 Contra Costa County Community Services Bureau 2015-2016 Child Outcomes Report: Preschool Assessment 3 – Year End 2015-2016 Preschool Child Outcomes Report – Year End 3rd Assessment 8 | P a g e Figure 12: ELD children and English speaking children Figure 12 presents the accomplishment at each domain level for children who are English Language Learners and those whose home language is English. The data indicates that children who are English language learners achieved at the same level as those whose home language is English. Figure 13: Comparison of children entering kindergarten and returning children in each domain Figure 13 presents a comparison of children entering kindergarten and returning children that scored building or higher level of development in each domain on the third assessment. The comparison demonstrates that 99% of children entering kindergarten achieved a score of building or above in each domain. 91% 93% 94% 95% 92% 90% 97% 96% 94% 95% 92% 95% 94% 95% 93% 90% 97% 96% 95% 95% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ELD and English Speaking Children English Speaking ELD children 86% 92% 90% 91% 87% 83% 95% 94% 92% 92% 64% 97% 99% 99% 99% 98% 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% 88% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Kindergarten and Returning Children Comparison Returning Children Entering Kindergarten Children December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 956 Date Printed: Nov 8, 2016 at 15:25:05 EST 09HP0012 Page 1 Office of Head Start09HP0012 Contra Costa CountyReport based on the 1 program(s) that have started or completed the PIR out of the 1 total Early Head Start program(s) for thisGrantee. The PIR Performance Indicators highlight annual program PIR data in areas of frequent interest and are not intended to serve as afull summary of programs' performance. The PIR Performance Indicator Formulas document provides the question numbers used for indicator calculations and is availableat http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/pir. Numerators and denominators are included in the report to supply context for percentages. Enrollment - Performance Indicators 2015-2016 PIR PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT - EARLY HEAD STARTGrantStateNationalContextNumberNumberNumberCumulative Enrolled Children8725,951194,9462016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage101 Percentage (%) of children enrolled for multiple years0 0% 8,721 33.6% 70,602 36.2%102 Percentage (%) of children enrolled less than 45 days3 3.4% 1,548 6% 11,372 5.8%ContextNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number PercentageCumulative Enrolled Children and Pregnant Women (if EHS)8727,620209,9822016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage103Percentage (%) of children and pregnant women (if EHS)who left the program and did not re-enroll14 16.1% 9,035 32.7% 61,524 29.3%December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors957 Date Printed: Nov 8, 2016 at 15:25:05 EST 09HP0012 Page 2Services to All Children at Beginning of Enrollment Year Compared to End of Enrollment Year (based on CumulativeEnrollment) - Performance Indicators Services to All Children (based on Cumulative Enrollment) - Performance Indicators GrantStateNationalContextNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number PercentageCumulative Enrolled Children8725,951194,946Children Enrolled less than 45 Days3 3.4% 1,548 6% 11,372 5.8%2016 #PIR Performance Indicator at Beginning of EnrollmentYearNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage111 Percentage (%) of children with health insurance87 100% 25,361 97.7% 185,899 95.4%112 Percentage (%) of children with a medical home86 98.9% 24,615 94.9% 181,103 92.9%113Percentage (%) of children with up-to-date immunizations, allpossible immunizations to date, or exempt87 100% 23,112 89.1% 171,642 88%114 Percentage (%) of children with a dental home79 90.8% 20,334 78.4% 124,126 63.7%2016 # PIR Performance Indicator at End of Enrollment Year Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage111 Percentage (%) of children with health insurance87 100% 25,616 98.7% 189,072 97%112 Percentage (%) of children with a medical home87 100% 25,194 97.1% 185,945 95.4%113Percentage (%) of children with up-to-date immunizations, allpossible immunizations to date, or exempt87 100% 24,241 93.4% 178,642 91.6%114 Percentage (%) of children with a dental home86 98.9% 22,161 85.4% 146,946 75.4%GrantStateNationalContextNumberNumberNumberCumulative Enrolled Children8725,951194,9462016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage121 Percentage (%) of children with an IFSP or IEP5 5.7% 3,266 12.6% 24,253 12.4%122Percentage (%) of children up-to-date on a schedule ofpreventive and primary health care per the state's EPSDTschedule at the end of enrollment year66 75.9% 19,742 76.1% 148,865 76.4%123Of the children up-to-date on health screenings, thepercentage (%) of children diagnosed with a chroniccondition needing medical treatment --7 --10.6% --1,884 --9.5% --12,499 --8.4%December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors958 Date Printed: Nov 8, 2016 at 15:25:05 EST 09HP0012 Page 3Family Services - Performance Indicators Infant/Toddler Staff (EHS and Migrant/Seasonal infants/toddler staff only) - Performance Indicator 124Of the children diagnosed with a chronic conditionneeding medical treatment, the percentage (%) of childrenwho received medical treatment -- --5 -- --71.4% -- --1,777 -- --94.3% -- --11,588 -- --92.7%GrantStateNationalContextNumberNumberNumberTotal Number of Families7623,709175,7132016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage141Percentage (%) of families who received at least one of thefamily services reported in the PIR38 50% 19,485 82.2% 131,634 74.9%ContextNumberNumberNumberTotal Number of Families Experiencing Homelessness that wereServed During the Enrollment Year21,33413,4312016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage142Percentage (%) of families experiencing homelessnessduring the enrollment year that acquired housing during theenrollment year0 0% 346 25.9% 4,867 36.2%GrantStateNationalContextNumberNumberNumberEarly Head Start Center-Based Teachers31,53921,7142016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage161Percentage (%) of infant and toddler classroom teachers thatmeet the degree/credential requirements of Section 645A.(h)(CDA/equivalent or higher) that became effective September,20103 100% 1,435 93.2% 18,429 84.9%December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors959 Date Printed: Nov 8, 2016 at 15:23:30 EST 09CH9115 Page 1 Office of Head Start09CH9115 Contra Costa CountyReport based on the 2 program(s) that have started or completed the PIR out of the 2 total Head Start program(s) for this Grantee. The PIR Performance Indicators highlight annual program PIR data in areas of frequent interest and are not intended to serve as afull summary of programs' performance. The PIR Performance Indicator Formulas document provides the question numbers used for indicator calculations and is availableat http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/pir. Numerators and denominators are included in the report to supply context for percentages. Enrollment - Performance Indicators 2015-2016 PIR PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT - HEAD STARTGrantStateNationalContextNumberNumberNumberCumulative Enrolled Children2,07194,340854,0672016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage101 Percentage (%) of children enrolled for multiple years886 42.8% 31,232 33.1% 277,368 32.5%102 Percentage (%) of children enrolled less than 45 days264 12.7% 4,884 5.2% 36,922 4.3%103Percentage (%) of children and pregnant women (if EHS)who left the program and did not re-enroll1,012 48.9% 17,196 18.2% 136,579 16%December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors960 Date Printed: Nov 8, 2016 at 15:23:30 EST 09CH9115 Page 2Services to All Children at Beginning of Enrollment Year Compared to End of Enrollment Year (based on CumulativeEnrollment) - Performance Indicators Services to All Children (based on Cumulative Enrollment) - Performance Indicators GrantStateNationalContextNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number PercentageCumulative Enrolled Children2,07194,340854,067Children Enrolled less than 45 Days264 12.7% 4,884 5.2% 36,922 4.3%2016 #PIR Performance Indicator at Beginning of EnrollmentYearNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage111 Percentage (%) of children with health insurance2,033 98.2% 91,711 97.2% 810,048 94.8%112 Percentage (%) of children with a medical home2,040 98.5% 90,941 96.4% 798,863 93.5%113Percentage (%) of children with up-to-date immunizations, allpossible immunizations to date, or exempt2,065 99.7% 91,158 96.6% 804,627 94.2%114 Percentage (%) of children with a dental home1,912 92.3% 86,050 91.2% 709,981 83.1%2016 # PIR Performance Indicator at End of Enrollment Year Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage111 Percentage (%) of children with health insurance2,071 100% 93,545 99.2% 827,162 96.8%112 Percentage (%) of children with a medical home2,071 100% 92,796 98.4% 826,417 96.8%113Percentage (%) of children with up-to-date immunizations, allpossible immunizations to date, or exempt2,071 100% 93,408 99% 829,952 97.2%114 Percentage (%) of children with a dental home2,050 99% 90,430 95.9% 791,332 92.7%GrantStateNationalContextNumberNumberNumberCumulative Enrolled Children2,07194,340854,0672016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage121 Percentage (%) of children with an IFSP or IEP242 11.7% 11,171 11.8% 106,933 12.5%122Percentage (%) of children up-to-date on a schedule ofpreventive and primary health care per the state's EPSDTschedule at the end of enrollment year1,971 95.2% 80,848 85.7% 739,232 86.6%123Of the children up-to-date on health screenings, thepercentage (%) of children diagnosed with a chroniccondition needing medical treatment --245 --12.4% --10,328 --12.8% --82,554 --11.2%December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors961 Date Printed: Nov 8, 2016 at 15:23:30 EST 09CH9115 Page 3Services to Preschool Children (based on Cumulative Enrollment) - Performance Indicators Family Services - Performance Indicators 124Of the children diagnosed with a chronic conditionneeding medical treatment, the percentage (%) of childrenwho received medical treatment -- --235 -- --95.9% -- --9,832 -- --95.2% -- --76,430 -- --92.6%GrantStateNationalContextNumberNumberNumberCumulative Enrolled Preschool Children2,07194,340854,067Cumulative Enrolled Preschool Children with an IEP for one of thePrimary Disabilities Reported in the PIR24211,109105,3842016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage131Percentage (%) of preschool children that received specialeducation or related services for one of the primarydisabilities reported in the PIR242 100% 10,956 98.6% 102,069 96.9%132Percentage (%) of preschool children completing professionaldental exams1,935 93.4% 77,302 81.9% 708,738 83%133Of the preschool children receiving professional dentalexams, the percentage (%) of preschool children needingprofessional dental treatment --405 --20.9% --18,725 --24.2% --126,624 --17.9%134Of the preschool children needing dental treatment, thepercentage (%) of preschool children who received dentaltreatment -- --335 -- --82.7% -- --15,094 -- --80.6% -- --92,351 -- --72.9%GrantStateNationalContextNumberNumberNumberTotal Number of Families1,95489,343799,4012016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage141Percentage (%) of families who received at least one of thefamily services reported in the PIR1,816 92.9% 72,594 81.3% 542,344 67.8%ContextNumberNumberNumberTotal Number of Families Experiencing Homelessness that wereServed During the Enrollment Year362,09033,863December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors962 Date Printed: Nov 8, 2016 at 15:23:30 EST 09CH9115 Page 4Preschool Staff and Classes (Head Start and Migrant/Seasonal preschool staff only) - Performance Indicators 2016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage142Percentage (%) of families experiencing homelessnessduring the enrollment year that acquired housing during theenrollment year31 86.1% 576 27.6% 12,081 35.7%GrantStateNationalContextNumberNumberNumberPreschool Classroom Teachers824,23742,574Preschool Classes694,20740,931Preschool Classroom Assistant Teachers973,81043,7702016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage151Percentage (%) of preschool classroom teachers that meetthe degree/credential requirements of Section 648A.(2)(A)(BA or higher - ECE/related) that will become effectiveSeptember, 201338 46.3% 2,869 67.7% 31,297 73.5%152Percentage (%) of preschool classes in which at least oneteacher meets the teacher degree/credential requirements ofSection 648A.(3)(B) (AA or higher - ECE/related) thatbecame effective October, 201169 100% 3,975 94.5% 36,485 89.1%153Percentage (%) of preschool classroom assistant teacherswith a CDA/equivalent or higher, or are enrolled in a CDA orECE degree program97 100% 3,619 95% 39,073 89.3%December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors963 Date Printed: Nov 8, 2016 at 15:23:30 EST 09CH9115 Page 5 Office of Head Start09CH9115 Contra Costa CountyReport based on the 1 program(s) that have started or completed the PIR out of the 1 total Early Head Start program(s) for thisGrantee. The PIR Performance Indicators highlight annual program PIR data in areas of frequent interest and are not intended to serve as afull summary of programs' performance. The PIR Performance Indicator Formulas document provides the question numbers used for indicator calculations and is availableat http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/pir. Numerators and denominators are included in the report to supply context for percentages. Enrollment - Performance Indicators 2015-2016 PIR PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT - EARLY HEAD STARTGrantStateNationalContextNumberNumberNumberCumulative Enrolled Children46125,951194,9462016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage101 Percentage (%) of children enrolled for multiple years267 57.9% 8,721 33.6% 70,602 36.2%102 Percentage (%) of children enrolled less than 45 days37 8% 1,548 6% 11,372 5.8%ContextNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number PercentageCumulative Enrolled Children and Pregnant Women (if EHS)48627,620209,9822016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage103Percentage (%) of children and pregnant women (if EHS)who left the program and did not re-enroll200 41.2% 9,035 32.7% 61,524 29.3%December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors964 Date Printed: Nov 8, 2016 at 15:23:30 EST 09CH9115 Page 6Services to All Children at Beginning of Enrollment Year Compared to End of Enrollment Year (based on CumulativeEnrollment) - Performance Indicators Services to All Children (based on Cumulative Enrollment) - Performance Indicators GrantStateNationalContextNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number PercentageCumulative Enrolled Children46125,951194,946Children Enrolled less than 45 Days37 8% 1,548 6% 11,372 5.8%2016 #PIR Performance Indicator at Beginning of EnrollmentYearNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage111 Percentage (%) of children with health insurance453 98.3% 25,361 97.7% 185,899 95.4%112 Percentage (%) of children with a medical home460 99.8% 24,615 94.9% 181,103 92.9%113Percentage (%) of children with up-to-date immunizations, allpossible immunizations to date, or exempt460 99.8% 23,112 89.1% 171,642 88%114 Percentage (%) of children with a dental home420 91.1% 20,334 78.4% 124,126 63.7%2016 # PIR Performance Indicator at End of Enrollment Year Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage111 Percentage (%) of children with health insurance461 100% 25,616 98.7% 189,072 97%112 Percentage (%) of children with a medical home461 100% 25,194 97.1% 185,945 95.4%113Percentage (%) of children with up-to-date immunizations, allpossible immunizations to date, or exempt461 100% 24,241 93.4% 178,642 91.6%114 Percentage (%) of children with a dental home460 99.8% 22,161 85.4% 146,946 75.4%GrantStateNationalContextNumberNumberNumberCumulative Enrolled Children46125,951194,9462016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage121 Percentage (%) of children with an IFSP or IEP46 10% 3,266 12.6% 24,253 12.4%122Percentage (%) of children up-to-date on a schedule ofpreventive and primary health care per the state's EPSDTschedule at the end of enrollment year461 100% 19,742 76.1% 148,865 76.4%123Of the children up-to-date on health screenings, thepercentage (%) of children diagnosed with a chroniccondition needing medical treatment --61 --13.2% --1,884 --9.5% --12,499 --8.4%December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors965 Date Printed: Nov 8, 2016 at 15:23:30 EST 09CH9115 Page 7Family Services - Performance Indicators Infant/Toddler Staff (EHS and Migrant/Seasonal infants/toddler staff only) - Performance Indicator 124Of the children diagnosed with a chronic conditionneeding medical treatment, the percentage (%) of childrenwho received medical treatment -- --60 -- --98.4% -- --1,777 -- --94.3% -- --11,588 -- --92.7%GrantStateNationalContextNumberNumberNumberTotal Number of Families43423,709175,7132016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage141Percentage (%) of families who received at least one of thefamily services reported in the PIR434 100% 19,485 82.2% 131,634 74.9%ContextNumberNumberNumberTotal Number of Families Experiencing Homelessness that wereServed During the Enrollment Year131,33413,4312016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage142Percentage (%) of families experiencing homelessnessduring the enrollment year that acquired housing during theenrollment year1 7.7% 346 25.9% 4,867 36.2%GrantStateNationalContextNumberNumberNumberEarly Head Start Center-Based Teachers231,53921,7142016 # PIR Performance IndicatorNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage161Percentage (%) of infant and toddler classroom teachers thatmeet the degree/credential requirements of Section 645A.(h)(CDA/equivalent or higher) that became effective September,201023 100% 1,435 93.2% 18,429 84.9%December 20, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors966 RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive and Accept the 2016 Annual Report of the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) as recommended by Supervisor Andersen. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: On June 18, 2002, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2002/377, which requires that each regular and ongoing board, commission, or committee shall annually report to the Board of Supervisors on its activities, accomplishments, membership attendance, required training/certification (if any), and proposed work plan or objectives for the following year. The attached reports fulfill this requirement for the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Alamo Municipal Advisory Council would not be in compliance with Resolution 2002/377. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jen Quallick, (925) 957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 91 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Receive and Accept the 2016 Annual Report of the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) as recommended by Supervisor Andersen December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 967 ATTACHMENTS Alamo MAC Annual Report 2016 December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 968 Contra Costa County 2015 Annual Board Report – Alamo Municipal Advisory Council Advisory Body Name: Alamo Municipal Advisory Council Meeting time/location: 1st Tuesday of the month, 6 p.m. Alamo Women’s Club, 1401 Danville Boulevard, Alamo, CA (Alternate Location: Hap Magee Ranch Park, 1025 La Gonda, Danville, CA) Chair: Anne Struthers Vice Chair: Susan Rock Members: Mike McDonald, Ed Best, Steve Mick, Susan Rock, Jill Winspear, Aron DeFerrari, Alternate (voting member only when another member is absent), and Rachel Etherington, Youth Member Subcommittees: Parks and Recreation – David Barclay, Ed Best, Steve Mick AOB Subcommittee for downtown – David Barclay, Mike McDonald, Susan Rock, Anne Struthers AOB Subcommittee for Schools – Ed Best, Steve Mick, Susan Rock Land Use – David Barclay, Michael McDonald Alamo Police Services Advisory Committee – Jill Winspear Hap Magee Dog Park – Mike McDonald Staff Support: Jennifer Quallick Budget: $3,000/year. The entire $3k budget is used for meeting location rental space at Alamo Women’s Club. No other expenses are incurred for the MAC. Activities and Accomplishments for 2016 Reviewed and provided recommendations for 32 land use applications in Alamo. o Provide forum for public comment; received comments from hundreds of residents o Members Barclay and McDonald conducted field reviews December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 969 Reviewed and provided recommendations regarding proposed budgets for CSA R-7A, and Landscape and Lighting Zones 36, 45, and 54. Participated on the Alamo Police Services Committee (APSAC). Collaborated on issues of importance to Alamo residents, including school traffic safety and speed monitors. Monitored and reviewed construction developments at the new SRVFD Station at Miranda and Stone Valley Road. Construction continues with anticipated completion date of February 2017. Provided oversight and recommendations regarding CSA R-7A recreational programming (4 concerts in the park, and 2 movie nights). Reviewed and provided recommendations for a YMCA Recreation Program that serves Alamo residents. o The YMCA program will cease in January 2017. Program provider (YMCA) decided to focus on their core mission and did not renew their participation. Continued to follow up and monitor Public Works progress regarding the approved Bocce Ball Court project at Livorna Park. The East Bay Regional Park District approved funding for the project using Measure WW funds. The project is fully funded and waiting for final plans and implementation, scheduled to occur in 2016/2017. Continued development and support for the new Hemme Station Park located at the corner of Hemme Way and Danville Boulevard adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail. Public Works has scheduled the project for construction during the winter of 2016. Continued relationship development with the Alamo Improvement Association. AIA continues to participate in each MAC meeting. Worked with Public Works to renew the increase of the Gann limits on CSA R7A funds, which was approved by Alamo voters in 11/2016. Work Plan and Objectives for 2017 Monitor and make recommendations regarding proposed expenditures by CSA R-7A and the lighting and landscaping districts. Proceed with a phased sidewalk improvement and tree protection program on Danville Boulevard with Zone 36 funds as available. Continue working with Public Works in the design and implementation of the Downtown roundabout. Continue working with Public Works in the design and implementation of Hemme Station Park. Work with the Alamo Police Services Advisory Committee, as needed. The MAC is supportive of the proposed ALPR camera system to help with community safety. Continue working with Public Works to support the construction of two bocce ball courts at Livorna Park. Continue to provide recreation programming in the form of Movie Night at Livorna Park and the Summer Concert Series at Livorna Park. Evaluate and develop recommendations for land-use applications that come before the MAC to ensure compliance with code requirements, consistency with the community of Alamo, and listen to public concerns and opinions on such matters. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 970 Attendance January – All present February – DeFerrari absent March – Best and Winspear absent April – McDonald and Mick absent May – Struthers absent June – Barclay and Struthers absent July – Rock absent August – Summer Recess, no meeting September – DeFerrari, Mick, McDonald and Winspear, absent October – All present November – All present December – All present Meeting Summary 11 Regular MAC Meetings, 2 Parks and Recreation Subcommittee Meetings, 1 Downtown Subcommittee Meeting December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 971 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with EAH, Inc., a non-profit corporation, for the development of affordable senior housing and approximately 1,250 sq.ft. of space to be used for programs for senior citizens. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the General Fund. Staff project costs are covered by the Housing Successor budget. BACKGROUND: The County, in its capacity as Housing Successor to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, is the owner of approximately 0.98 acres of vacant real property located near Willow Avenue and San Pablo Avenue in Rodeo, California, having Assessor’s Parcel No. 357-120-074. EAH, Inc. was the developer of the adjacent 50-unit senior housing, Rodeo Gateway Apartments. The County is also the owner of 189/199 Parker Avenue, Rodeo, the site of the existing Rodeo Senior Center. The County is exploring the possibility of selling the 189/199 Parker Avenue site and is exploring an alternative location to relocate the senior services. The purpose of this Agreement is twofold. First, it is intended to enable the parties to assess the feasibility of the Development. Second, if the Development is determined to be feasible, it is intended to enable the parties to negotiate a disposition and development agreement (a “DDA”). Under the DDA, the Property would be conveyed to the Developer for construction of the Development. Because the vacant property is a housing asset of the former Redevelopment Agency, its disposition is governed by the County, in its capacity as Housing Successor. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 925-674-7878 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 89 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Exclusive Negotiating Agreement - EAH Inc. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 972 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Development of a Housing Successor asset will be delayed. ATTACHMENTS Rodeo Exclusive Negotiating Agreement December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 973 1 320/10/2024136.1 EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING RIGHTS AGREEMENT (RODEO SENIOR) This Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (“Agreement”) is dated December20, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), and is between the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California (the “County”), and EAH INC., a nonprofit corporation (the “Developer”). RECITALS A. The County, in its capacity as housing successor to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, is the owner of approximately .98 acres of real property located near Willow Avenue and San Pablo Avenue in Rodeo, California, having Assessor’s Parcel Number 357-120-074, as more particularly described in Exhibit A (the “Property”). B. The County desires the Property to be developed in a manner that will result in (i) affordable housing for seniors at a density of approximately 50 units per acre, and (ii) a senior center, consisting of approximately 1,250 square feet of space, to be used for programs for senior citizens (together, such housing and the senior center are the “Development”). C. Developer has developed projects similar to the proposed Development, including a 50- unit senior housing development that is adjacent to the Property. D. The purpose of this Agreement is twofold. First, it is intended to enable the parties to assess the feasibility of the Development. Second, if the Development is determined to be feasible, it is intended to enable the parties to negotiate a disposition and development agreement (a “DDA”). Under the DDA, the Property would be conveyed to the Developer for construction of the Development. E. Because the property is a housing asset of the former Redevelopment Agency, its disposition is governed by the County, in its capacity as housing successor, and is subject to the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 34176. The parties therefore agree as follows: AGREEMENT Exclusive Negotiations 1. Good Faith Negotiations. The County and the Developer shall negotiate diligently and in good faith during the Negotiating Period (defined below), the terms of a DDA for the development of the Development on the Property. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 974 2 320/10/2024136.1 Among the issues to be addressed in the negotiations are: (i) the price to be paid by the Developer for the Property, (ii) the physical and land title conditions of the Property, (iii) the type of entitlements necessary for the Development, (iv) the design, density, and mix of uses within the Development, (v) the development schedule for the Development, (vi) financing of the Development; (vii) the marketing of, sales process associated with, and management of the Development, (viii) housing affordability and the nature of affordability controls, (ix) the provision of public improvements related to the Development, (x) and the green building components of the Development. 2. Negotiating Period. The "Negotiating Period" under this Agreement is comprised of (i) an initial period of twelve months, beginning on the Effective Date, and, (ii) if agreed to by the parties in writing, three six-month renewal periods. The County’s Director of Conservation and Development (the “Director”) will make the determination for the County with respect to whether the Negotiating Period will be extended through the renewal periods. The Director’s decision will be based on his reasonable judgment as to whether sufficient progress has been made toward a mutually acceptable DDA to merit further negotiations. a. Subject to Section 2.b. below, if a DDA is not executed by the parties prior to the expiration of the Negotiating Period, this Agreement will terminate and neither party will have any further rights or obligations under this Agreement (with the exception of Section 22 (waiver of lis pendens), Section 23(d) (indemnity) and Section 25 (no commissions), all of which survive the termination of this Agreement). Upon the execution of a DDA by the County and the Developer, this Agreement will terminate and all rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the Development will be governed by the DDA. b. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, if at the end of the Negotiating Period, a form of DDA has been mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the Director but the DDA has not been approved by the parties’ governing bodies, the Director may extend the Negotiating Period to the date on which the County holds a public hearing to consider approving the DDA. 3. Exclusive Negotiations. During the Negotiating Period, the County may only negotiate with the Developer regarding development of the Property and may not solicit or entertain bids or proposals for such development from any other entity. 4. Party Representatives. The Developer's representative to negotiate the DDA is Al Bonnett, its Senior Vice President, Real Estate or Errol Dominguez, its Assistant Secretary or Welton Jordan, its Authorized Representative. The County’s representative to negotiate the DDA is Maureen Toms, its Deputy Director of Conservation and Development. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 975 3 320/10/2024136.1 NEGOTIATION TASKS 5. Overview. To facilitate negotiation of the DDA, the parties shall use reasonable good faith efforts to accomplish the negotiation tasks set forth below in an effort to (i) determine the feasibility of the Development, and (ii) complete the negotiation and execution of a mutually acceptable DDA prior to the expiration of the Negotiating Period. 6. Financing and Costs of Development. Within ninety days of the Effective Date, the Developer shall prepare and submit to the County a detailed financial proforma for the Development containing matters typically contained in such proformas, including (without limitation) a detailed development cost budget and tax credit funding analysis. The development cost budget will be used to evaluate the financial feasibility of the Development and to identify financing sources for the Development. The Developer shall cause the financial proformas to include (i) an analysis of the affordable units to be constructed as part of the Development, and (ii) Developer's obligation to pay prevailing wages in connection with the construction of the Development. 7. Purchase Price for the Property. During the Negotiation Period, the County and the Developer shall seek to agree upon a purchase price for the Property. The proposed purchase price for the Property will be subject to approval by the County’s Board of Supervisor following a noticed hearing conducted in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33433. 8. Site and Architectural Plans. During the Negotiation Period, the Developer shall prepare and submit to the County a proposed site plan, including massing diagram and a rendering that identifies the location, general configuration and proposed design characteristics of the buildings, parking spaces, landscaping, and other aspects of the Development. During the Negotiating Period the Developer shall prepare appropriate refinements and modifications to the site plan, diagram and renderings for the County's review and approval. During the Negotiating Period, the Developer shall affirmatively outreach to the local community to obtain and consider community input regarding the design of the Development. 9. Planning Approvals. The Developer acknowledges that the Development requires approvals and entitlements from the County, including a General Plan amendment (together, such approvals and entitlements are the "Planning Approvals"). During the Negotiating Period, the Developer shall submit conceptual site plans and preliminary designs for the Development to the appropriate County departments for their informal review. During the Negotiation Period, the Developer shall submit applications for those components, if any, of the Planning Approvals that are required to be submitted in accordance with the schedule of performance described in Section 10 below. 10. Schedule of Performance. Within ninety (90) days after the Effective Date , the Developer shall provide the County with a proposed detailed schedule of performance for the Development which is to include, but is not limited to: The dates for obtaining Planning Approvals and financing commitments for the Development, the date for the December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 976 4 320/10/2024136.1 submittal of construction plans to the City, the date for satisfaction of all preconditions to conveyance of the Property, the dates for close of escrow and conveyance of the Property, and the dates for the commencement and completion of construction of the Development. 11. Due Diligence. During the Negotiating Period, the Developer shall conduct any and all investigations it deems necessary to enable it to negotiate those aspects of the DDA that relate to the physical condition of the Property at the time of conveyance. 12. Utilities. The Developer shall consult with the utility companies serving the Property to determine if construction of the Development will require existing utility facilities to be expanded, relocated or placed underground. The County shall assist and cooperate with the Developer in such consultations. 13. Reports. The County shall provide the Developer with copies of all reports, studies, analyses, correspondence and similar documents (collectively, "documents"), exclusive of detailed property appraisals, prepared or commissioned by the County or in the County’s possession with respect to the Property, this Agreement and the Development, promptly following execution of this Agreement with respect to documents then in its possession or under its reasonable control, and promptly upon their completion with respect to any subsequently prepared documents. The Developer acknowledges that the County needs sufficient detailed information about the proposed Development (including, without limitation, the financial information described in Section 6) to make informed decisions regarding the DDA. 14. Organizational Documents; Financial Statements. The Developer shall provide the County with copies of its organizational documents evidencing that the Developer has been duly organized, is in good standing and is able to perform its obligations under this Agreement and the DDA. The Developer shall provide the County will copies of its audited financial statements for the three years preceding the Effective Date, along with evidence of its 501(c)(3) status. 15. Environmental Review. The County shall prepare or cause to be prepared the appropriate environmental documentation required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for consideration of approval of the DDA, provided that nothing in this Agreement may be construed to compel the County to approve or make any particular findings with respect to such CEQA documentation. The Developer shall provide any information about the Development that the County requires to enable it to prepare, or cause to be prepared, CEQA-required documents, and shall generally cooperate with the County to complete CEQA-related tasks. 16. Section 33433 Report. The County shall prepare the documentation that is required to be submitted to the County Board and the County Board of Supervisors in conjunction with the County's and the County’s consideration of any DDA, in accordance with Section 33433(a)(2)(B) of the California Health and Safety Code. The Section 33433 report will December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 977 5 320/10/2024136.1 contain the estimated value of the Property determined (i) at its highest and best use, and (ii) at the use and with the conditions, covenants and development costs required pursuant to the DDA. 17. Progress Reports. From time to time as reasonably agreed upon by the parties, each party shall make oral or written progress reports advising the other party on studies being made and matters being evaluated by the reporting party with respect to this Agreement and the Development. 18. Outreach. The Developer shall prepare and submit to the County a plan for community outreach associated with the development of the Development. During the Negotiating Period, the Developer shall prepare appropriate refinements and modifications to the community outreach plan that are reasonably requested by the County. GENERAL PROVISIONS 20. Limitation on Effect of Agreement. This Agreement does not obligate either the County or the Developer to enter into a DDA. By execution of this Agreement, the County is not committing itself to or agreeing to undertake acquisition, disposition or exercise of control over any parcels in the Property. Execution of this Agreement by the County is merely an agreement to conduct a period of exclusive negotiations in accordance with the terms hereof, reserving for subsequent County Board of Supervisors action, the final discretion and approval regarding the execution of a DDA and all proceedings and decisions in connection therewith. Any DDA resulting from negotiations pursuant to this Agreement will be effective only if it is considered and approved by the County Board of Supervisors in accordance with all legally required procedures, and if it is executed by duly authorized representatives of the County and the Developer. Until and unless a DDA is approved by the County Board and executed by the County and the Developer, no agreement drafts, actions, deliverables or communications arising from the performance of this Agreement will impose any legally binding obligation on either party to enter into or support entering into a DDA or be used as evidence of any oral or implied agreement by either party to enter into any other legally binding document. 21. Notices. Any notices required or permitted under this Agreement (other than day to day routine communications) must be in writing and sent by overnight or personal delivery with delivery receipt. Such notices are to be sent to the address listed below: County: Contra Costa County, Housing Successor 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Maureen Toms, Deputy Director Developer: EAH Inc. 2169 E. Francisco Blvd., Ste. B San Rafael, CA 94901 Attn: Mary Murtagh, President December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 978 6 320/10/2024136.1 At any time, either party may designate in writing a substitute address for an address set forth above and thereafter notices are to be directed to such substituted address. Notices will be deemed received as follows: on the date shown on the delivery receipt as the date of delivery, the date delivery was refused, or the date the item was returned as undeliverable. If the date on the delivery receipt is not a business day, notice will be deemed received on the following business day. 22. Waiver of Lis Pendens. It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties that no lis pendens may be filed against any portion of the Property by reason of this Agreement or any dispute or act arising from this Agreement. 23. Right of Entry. If the Developer or its consultants enter upon the Property, the Developer shall: (a) Give the County seventy-two (72) hours’ notice of intent to enter the Property and the purpose of the entry. (b) Repair and restore any damage it may cause. (c) Deliver to the County, within ten (10) days of receipt thereof, a complete copy of any investigation, test, report or study that the Developer conducts, or causes to be conducted, with respect to the Property. (d) Indemnify, defend and hold the County and its directors, officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all claims, liabilities, damages, losses, expenses, costs and fees (including reasonable, attorneys' fees and costs) that may proximately arise out of the Developer's entry upon the Property or the investigation(s) and test(s) the Developer may conduct. (e) Prior to entry, cause the County to be named as an additional insured on a Commercial General Liability insurance policy with limits not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) each occurrence combined single limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including coverage from Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Broadform Property Damage, Products and Completed Operations. The required insurance is to be provided under an occurrence form by an insurer authorized and licensed to provide such insurance in the State of California, and the Developer shall maintain such overage for not less than two (2) years after the expiration of the Negotiating Period. 24. Costs and Expenses. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, each party is responsible for the costs and expenses it incurs as a result of activities and negotiations undertaken in connection with, and the performance of its obligations under, this Agreement. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 979 7 320/10/2024136.1 25. No Commissions. The County is not liable for any real estate commissions or brokerage fees that may arise as a result of this Agreement or a DDA. The County represents that is has not engaged a broker, agent or finder in connection with this transaction and the Developer agrees to defend and hold the County harmless from the claims of any broker, agent or finder retained by the Developer. 26. Default and Remedies. Failure by either party to negotiate in good faith or to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement is an event of default hereunder. At the non-defaulting party’s election, the non-defaulting party may give written notice of a default to the defaulting party, specifying the nature of the default and the action required to cure the default. If the default remains uncured thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice by the defaulting party, the non-defaulting party may terminate this Agreement. a. Following a default and termination, neither party will have any further right, remedy or obligation under this Agreement, except that the obligations under Section 22 (waiver of lis pendens), Section 23(d) (indemnity) and Section 25 (no commissions), all survive the termination of this Agreement. b. Except as expressly provided above, if there is a default under this Agreement, (i) neither party will be liable to the other party for damages or otherwise, and (ii) neither party will have any other claims with respect to performance under this Agreement. Each party specifically waives and releases any such rights or claims it may otherwise have at law or in equity. 27. Governing Law. The laws of the State of California govern all matters arising out of this Agreement. 28. Entire Agreement; Counterparts. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. 29. Assignment. The Developer may not transfer or assign any or all of its rights or obligations under this Agreement; provided, however, the Developer may assign this Agreement to a limited partnership created by the Developer if (i) such limited partnership is created for the purpose of constructing the Development, (ii) the Developer provides documentation reasonably acceptable to the County that such limited partnership is directly under the control of the Developer, and (iii) such limited partnership executes an assignment and assumption agreement that is reasonably acceptable to the Director (such assignment, a “Permitted Assignment”). Upon the occurrence of a Permitted Assignment, the Developer will be released, without the need for further documentation, of all of the Developer’s obligations under this Agreement that are assumed by the assignee under the assignment and assumption agreement. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 980 8 320/10/2024136.1 30. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into solely for the benefit of the County and the Developer and no other person has any right of action under or by reason of this Agreement. The parties are signing this Agreement as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph. COUNTY Contra Costa County, a political subdivision of the State of California By: _____________________________ Maureen Toms, Deputy Director DEVELOPER EAH Housing, a Nonprofit Housing Corporation By: _____________________________ Mary Murtagh, President December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 981 9 320/10/2024136.1 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 982 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-653-1 with Iowa State University of Science and Technology, an educational institution, to provide supervised field instruction at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers for dietician students, for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide dietician students at Iowa State University of Science and Technology with the opportunity to integrate academic knowledge with applied skills at progressively higher levels of performance and responsibility. Supervised fieldwork experience for students is considered to be an integral part of both educational and professional preparation. The Health Services Department can provide the requisite field education, while at the same time, benefiting from the students’ services to patients. Under Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-653-1, Iowa State APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 96 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-653-1 with Iowa State University of Science and Technology December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 983 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) University of Science and Technology students will receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers through December 31, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, the students will not receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 984 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with U.S. HealthWorks Medical Group P.C., to add payment provisions related to medical evaluations and additional testing for employees, potential employees and volunteers, effective December 1, 2016, with no change to the contract term or payment limit. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no additional fiscal impact from this action. BACKGROUND: The Office of the Sheriff contracts with U.S. HealthWorks Medical Group P.C.,for background pre-employment screening services for Deputy Sheriff Recruits, Deputy Sheriff Laterals and Sheriff's Dispatchers. U.S. HealthWorks Medical Group P.C., provides most of the Office of the Sheriff's pre-employment screening services. The amendment will allow for additional tests and assessments and includes Sheriff's Office volunteers. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The current contract does not allow for certain evaluations and testing that are now needed for the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner employees, potential employees and volunteers. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 92 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:US HealthWorks Medical Group P.C. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 985 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 986 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative to change its name to Contra Costa Alliance to End Abuse AND DIRECT staff of the Initiative to revise any relevant communication, marketing material and resources to reflect the new name (Contra Costa Alliance to End Abuse). FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: Founded by the Board of Supervisors in 2001, the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative (ZTDVI) is a public/private partnership of County departments, law enforcement, and community agencies working to improve the County's response to interpersonal violence. The Initiative has successfully piloted numerous approaches, most recently establishing the Family Justice Centers, and raised significant funding (over $12 million) to support improved intervention and prevention services. To better reflect the Initiative's efforts to facilitate public and private partnerships and work toward changing social norms, while implementing supports and policies that improve responses to interpersonal violence, ZTDVI proposes to change its name to: Contra Costa Alliance to End Abuse: Working Together to End Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Elder Abuse, Child Abuse, and Human Trafficking. ZTDVI engaged in an eighteen month evaluation process soliciting input on the effectiveness of the ZTDVI partnership, areas to strengthen the impact of the Initiative and the desirability of changing the Initiative's name APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C.101 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative Name Change December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 987 moving forward in the years to come. The evaluation included key informant interviews and surreys with 21 partners and policymakers. Over 80% supported a name change. The name "Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence" presents numerous challenges including the following: December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 988 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The name implies it is enough to draw a line in the sand, when research shows the need for a much broader, more all-encompassing approach. Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence does not reflect the expanded portfolio of issues Zero Tolerance is addressing including sexual assault, elder abuse, human trafficking, and child abuse. Zero Tolerance (ZT) does not reflect emerging research and industry standards that recognize the need for a more holistic approach to addressing violence and abuse -- including the interconnection of multiple forms of interpersonal violence (domestic violence, sexual assault, child and elder abuse and human trafficking). The name does not embrace one of Zero Tolerance's key activities, partnership engagement, leaving some partners to feel they don't fit under ZT's "big tent'. The name change would address the challenges noted above as well position the Initiative for stronger cross-systems partnerships. The proposed name change is a move in the right direction to remain current and relevant and to highlight the breath of the Initiative and its best proactive work in prevention, innovation, organizational change and multi-disciplinary collaboration. The research from the 18-month evaluation process shows that changing the name: Clearly and unambiguously states the Initiatives's goal. Creates stronger positioning for grater policy impact. Connects the Initiative directly to the County. Provides opportunities for increased community and partner education and training, marketing and re-branding. In recognizing that the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence branding has an established audience, and while the focus has broadened, the Initiative wants to take advantage of the brand already associated with the program and will adopt a "formally known as" status: Contra Costa Alliance to End Abuse, formally known as Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence for an unspecified amount of time. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without a name change, government and private documents, marketing materials, and resources would not be reflective of a consistent initiative name. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative supports three of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card, (children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"' "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing" and "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life") through coordinated intervention services designed to reduce interpersonal violence, including family violence and elder abuse. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 989 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. AUTHORIZE the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD), in consultation with the Contra Costa County Agriculture Advisory Task Force and local agricultural stakeholders, to review existing land use regulations (e.g., General Plan policies and zoning) and identify for future Board consideration specific actions the County could take to further promote and incentivize agricultural sustainability and economic vitality; and 2. APPROVE the expenditure of up to $150,000 from the Livable Communities Trust (District III Portion) for this purpose, as recommended by Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the General Fund. Up to $150,000 from the Livable Communities Trust (District III portion) will be allocated toward the effort. BACKGROUND: Agriculture has historically been an important part of Contra Costa County’s economy and culture, with agricultural APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 12/20/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: TOMI RILEY, 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: December 20, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C.106 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Date:December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Allocation of Funds from the Livable Communities Trust to Develop Recommendations on Agricultural Land Use Policy December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 990 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) activities dating back to the Spanish colonial period. Good soils, a mild climate, and adequate water supplies allowed agriculture to become a principal element of the county’s economy. However, the agricultural sector began a steady decline following World War II, as tens of thousands of acres of productive agricultural land were converted to accommodate urban and suburban growth. Understanding the impact of development pressures on agricultural resources, in 1978 the Board of Supervisors established the Agricultural Core (“Ag Core”) as part of the newly-adopted East County Area General Plan (see Note 1). The Ag Core included 14,600 acres of farmland that were the most capable of supporting and sustaining agricultural production because the soils were considered the best for farming a wide variety of plants or crops. These soils were rated as “Prime Farmland” through a soil survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resource Conservation Service). Additionally, the Ag Core is identified as Prime Farmland through the Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program administered by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection (see Attachment A, Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map 2014 and Note 2). In 1990 Contra Costa voters approved Measure C, which among other things established the County’s Urban Limit Line and resulted in the County rezoning the Ag Core to require 40-acre minimum parcel sizes where 10-acres had been the previous minimum. Unfortunately, the years immediately preceding Measure C’s adoption saw a spike in subdivision applications within the Ag Core, which resulted in creation of numerous parcels that are undersized by today’s zoning standards. These parcels are often developed as estate lots or other non-agricultural uses and may not easily lend themselves to economically-viable agricultural enterprises due to their size. Despite public and private efforts to preserve the county’s productive agricultural land over the past several decades, from 1984 through 2014 Prime Farmland decreased from 41,181 to 25,502 acres and Important Farmland decreased from 116,148 to 88,912 acres (see Note 3). Prime Farmland within the Ag Core itself has decreased from 14,600 acres to approximately 11,500 acres since the Ag Core’s inception. Despite the decrease in agricultural acreage, agriculture is still an important element of the Contra Costa County economy. In 2015 agriculture contributed $225 million and provided 2,277 jobs (1,735 direct and 542 indirect/supporting) (see Note 4). The $128.5 million gross value of the county’s agricultural production ranked 38th out of the 56 California counties submitting crop reports in 2015 and 6th out of the 9 Bay Area counties (see Note 5). While Contra Costa’s agricultural production may be small compared to the $3.23 billion production of San Joaquin County, it is nearly three times larger than the agricultural production of neighboring Alameda County. Local initiatives such as Buy Fresh, Buy Local and Harvest Time in Brentwood have increased awareness of Contra Costa’s agricultural resources and products, but its agricultural tourism (“agritourism”) industry lags behind Alameda County’s relative to the size of its agricultural economy. In part this is because Alameda County has adopted a clear vision for its most prominent agricultural area, the South Livermore Valley, and successfully worked with the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton and local stakeholders, like the Livermore Valley Winegrowers Association, to leverage its agricultural resources. Contra Costa County can learn from and build upon Alameda County’s experience. Food production has also become an issue of intense public interest in recent years. Across the nation people have become increasingly aware of their food sources and production practices. Organically farmed and farm-to-table, concepts which were somewhat obscure a just decade ago, are now mainstream and commonly factor into consumer choices. Therefore, it is important that Contra Costa County farms remain an economically-viable local food source. The District III Supervisor has consistently engaged with the agricultural community over the last twelve years to hear their thoughts on the future of agriculture, including convening town hall style meetings, participating in forums and conferences and engaging with individual farmers and other interested people at numerous other meetings and events. Farmers in Contra Costa County value our agricultural tradition and want to see it continue, but they also feel strongly that opportunities to promote economic vitality for agriculture need to be identified and pursued. With these considerations in mind, the District III Supervisor recommends that the full Board authorize DCD, in December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 991 consultation with the Agricultural Advisory Task Force and stakeholders in the local agricultural community, to identify for future Board consideration specific actions the County could take to further promote and incentivize agricultural sustainability and economic vitality. These could include, but are not limited to: · Researching on how programs to promote agricultural sustainability and economic vitality have been developed and funded throughout California, including agritourism, agricultural marketing opportunities and efforts to make agriculture more sustainable. · Reviewing the County General Plan and zoning ordinance to identify changes necessary to promote the economic vitality and sustainability of agriculture. · Reviewing current permitting procedures for agricultural projects to identify opportunities for streamlining and removing barriers in order to promote the economic sustainability of agricultural uses. · Review policies and programs to identify opportunities for complementing improved economic vitality with retention of the agricultural land and productivity necessary to drive a sustainable and vital agricultural economy. Completing the actions described above will require considerable staff resources. Extensive public outreach and engagement will be necessary. Amendments to the County General Plan and zoning ordinance are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act and must go through a series of public hearings. The District III Supervisor therefore recommends allocating $150,000 from the District III portion of deposits into the Livable Communities Trust Fund to DCD to cover staff time and other costs. The Livable Communities Trust Fund (Fund) was established to implement the County’s Smart Growth Action Plan. Goals of the Action Plan relevant to this proposal are the following: 3) to promote innovative land use planning and design principles that encourage mixed use and infill development (this proposal is to study innovative land use planning and is intended to improve the sustainability of agricultural lands and reduce pressure to convert such lands to urban uses, thereby enabling a focus on mixed use and infill development in existing urban areas; and 4) promote economic revitalization and urban infill communities (this proposal is intended to promote the agricultural economy). In reviewing the purpose of the Fund, the Board of Supervisors determined on December 3, 2013 that "the goal shall be to spend the money equally among supervisorial districts." At build-out of the development projects contributing revenue to the Fund, deposits to the Fund will total $8,448,000. The interest-bearing trust account has earned over $300,000 in interest to date. So far, one expenditure has been made from the Fund (a $250,000 expenditure approved on October 22, 2013 for the Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative). Another expenditure was authorized on June 14, 2016, with $1,432,830 from the District I portion providing matching funds for the development of the Heritage Point affordable housing project in North Richmond. An additional proposal to authorize expenditure of up to $250,000 from the District III portion is on the December 20 agenda for a feasibility study for the Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the funding is not allocated resources will not be available to the County to study and develop policies to improve agricultural sustainability and profitability. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommended action will not affect children’s programs in the County. December 20, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 992