Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 03282016 - Internal Ops Cte Min            INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE March 28, 2016 11:00 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor John Gioia, Chair Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee              1.Introductions   2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).   3. RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the February 29, 2016 IOC meeting. (Julie DiMaggio Enea, IOC Staff)   4. ACCEPT 2014/15 annual report from the Public Works Director on the Internal Services Fund for the County's Vehicle Fleet and identify low-mileage vehicles. (Carlos Velasquez, Fleet Services Manager)   5. RECEIVE status report and CONSIDER approving recommendations of the Office of Communications and Media Director on administration of the County's Social Media Policy. (Betsy Burkhart, Communications & Media Director)   6. CONSIDER report and recommendations on the Animal Benefit Fund and PROVIDE direction to staff regarding next steps. (Beth Ward, Animal Services Director)   7. CONSIDER accepting status report and recommendations from the County Administrator on outstanding issues and information requests stemming from Phase 1 of the Board Advisory Body Triennial Review. (Theresa Speiker, Chief Asst. County Administrator)   8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for April 25, 2016.   9.Adjourn   1 The Internal Operations Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Internal Operations Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Internal Operations Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Staff reports related to items on the agenda are also accessible on line at www.co.contra-costa.ca.us. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1077, Fax (925) 646-1353 julie.enea@cao.cccounty.us 2 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:03/28/2016   Subject:RECORD OF ACTION FOR THE FEBRUARY 29, 2016 IOC MEETING Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION  Presenter: Julie DiMaggio Enea, IOC Staff Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 335-1077 Referral History: County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting. Referral Update: Attached is the Record of Action for the February 29, 2016 IOC meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the February 29, 2016 IOC meeting. Fiscal Impact (if any): None. Attachments DRAFT Record of Action for 2-29-16 IOC Meeting 3 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE RECORD OF ACTION FOR February 29, 2016   Supervisor John Gioia, Chair Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair   Present: John Gioia, Chair      Candace Andersen, Vice Chair    Staff Present:Julie DiMaggio Enea, Staff  Attendees:Ralph Hoffman; Joanne Bohren, Chief Auditor; Sandra Bewley; Agnes Vinluan, Environmental Health; Lynn Mac Michael; Jason Crapo, Deputy DCD Director; Tanya Drlik, Health Services Department; Joe Doser, Environmental Health; Dawn Weisz, MCE; Iris Obregon; John Kopchik, DCD Director; Alexandra Mc Gee; Alexander DeGiorgio; Cara Bautista-Rao; Nati Flores; Larry Brunink; Kelly Davidson; Tom Kelly; Casya del Veergaard; Carol Weed; Kook Huber; Peter Ericson; Brodie Hilp; Helen Sokol; Tom Guarino; Jan Warren; Audrrey Albrecht; Pello Walker; Arvind Goel; Marilyn Underwood, Environmental Health; Linda Wilcox, Deputy County Counsel; Mike Casten, Undersheriff; David Brockbank, DCD; Deidra Dingman, Solid Waste Manager; Cliff Glickman; Gayle Israel, District II Supervisor's Office; Jill Ray, District II Supervisor's Office; Michael Kent, Health Services Department; Elizabeth Verigin, Asst. Auditor-Controller; Bob Campbell, Auditor-Controller; Richard Freeman; Ann Punch; Charley Davidson; Bill Pinkham; David McCord                   1.Introductions    Chair Gioia called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. and County staff introduced themselves at the request of Chair Gioia.   2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).    Ralph Hoffman asked the Committee to do everything possible to reverse the human causes of global warming.   3.INTERVIEW the following candidates for At Large #1, At Large #2 and Public Member Alternate seats on the Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee and DETERMINE recommended appointments for Board of Supervisors consideration: Larry Brunink, Concord Susan Captain, Moraga Kelly Davidson, Clayton James Donnelly, Danville Nati Flores*, Antioch    DRAFT 4 Wayne Lanier, PhD, Walnut Creek Justin B. Sinclaire, Clayton    The Committee interviewed all seven candidates in a group setting and decided to recommend the appointment to the Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee of Susan Captain to the At Large #1 to a term ending on 12/31/19; and James Donnelly to the At Large #3, and Wayne Lanier, PhD, to the Public Member Alternate seats to terms ending on 12/31/18. The Committee also directed staff to provide a current roster showing city of residence and background/affiliation for all future advisory body nominations.    AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Candace Andersen  Passed  4.APPROVE Hazardous Materials Commission nominations to appoint the following individuals to the Commission to terms ending on December 31, 2019: Action Nominee Seat Nominated By Reappoint Frank Gordon General Public Commission Reappoint Tim Bancroft General Public Alternate Commission Reassign Usha Vedagiri Environmental Organizations #2 Commission Reappoint Jim Payne Labor #2 Central Labor Council Reappoint Tracy Scott Labor #2 Alternate Central Labor Council       The Committee approved the staff recommendation to REAPPOINT to the Hazardous Materials Commission Frank Gordon to the General Public seat, Tim Bancroft to the General Public Alternate seat, Jim Payne to the Labor #2 seat, and Tracy Scott to the Labor #2 Alternate seat to terms ending December 31, 2019; REASSIGN Usha Vedagiri to the Environmental Organization #2 seat; and DECLARE vacant the Environmental Organizations #3 Alternate seat held by Usha Vedagiri due to her reassignment to a regular seat and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy.    AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Candace Andersen  Passed  5.APPROVE the proposed plan and schedules for the recruitment to fill one Board of Supervisors seat on each the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association Board of Trustees, the County Planning Commission and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Fire Advisory Commissions that will become vacant on June 30, 2016, and three seats on the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Board of Directors that will become vacant on November 30, 2016.    DRAFT 5    The Committee approved the recommended recruitment plan and schedule and directed staff to send copies of the recruitment materials to the five District Supervisors' offices.    AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Candace Andersen  Passed  6.ACCEPT report on the status of the development of a waste hauler ordinance and provide policy direction to staff.       ↵Chair Gioia thanked staff for the depth and organization of the report. Marilyn Underwood summarized the history of the referral and her objectives for the new ordinance. She explained how prior Committee discussions extended to issues beyond her original proposal for a waste hauler ordinance. She explained that Environmental Health and Conservation and Development staff, working closely with County Counsel, collaborated to develop an ordinance that is legal, workable, and enforceable. She explained that the staff report identifies some of the additional and related issues that surfaced during the development of the ordinance, and includes recommendations about how to address those related issues. She also clarified that the proposed ordinance will regulate waste generated in the county unincorporated (UI) area, and that the way to address waste generated within cities would be to request cities and/or solid waste authorities to adopt ordinances that mirror this ordinance. Joe Doser outlined the key elements of the ordinance and explained some of the steps staff would take to implement the ordinance. Supervisor Gioia agreed with the proposed exemptions to the ordinance, and asked staff to identify those areas where policy direction is needed. Supervisor Andersen wanted some assurance that the ordinance would not impact any similar ordinances adopted by other local agencies, and also noted her preference that the performance bond requirement not be so onerous as to exclude businesses who wish to conduct legitimate hauling activities. Deidra Dingman explained that the County does not have control over all of the UI areas; some of the UI areas are regulated by solid waste authorities. She identified that 47% of the UI population is not regulated by the County. She explained that, under the proposed ordinance, the County would issue permits in areas that the County doesn't directly franchise, but only after an outreach and referral process, giving those franchising agencies a 30-day period within which to alert the County that issuance of a permit would violate their franchise agreements. She presented a graphic of the process to be used by DCD staff to determine if there are County franchise exclusivity rights for hauling activities proposed in a permit application. She explained that the criteria to be reviewed will include the service area and if it involves more than one franchise, the type of waste proposed to be hauled, if the waste is routinely generated, the type of customer that generated the waste, and whether or not the hauling is tied directly to another on-property service that generates the waste to be hauled. Cliff Glickman, representing Garaventa Enterprises, expressed appreciation to County DRAFT 6 Cliff Glickman, representing Garaventa Enterprises, expressed appreciation to County staff for the report/recommendations and commented that while he still has some disagreements with staff related to expanding franchise exclusivity, he is in favor of seeing the proposed ordinance advance to the Board of Supervisors along with commencement of the 5-year noticing required for the County to allow expanded franchise exclusivity. Ms. Dingman presented the staff recommendations and sought direction from the Committee. The Committee made the following decisions:  Directed staff to schedule the 5-Year Rule noticing for Board of Supervisors' consideration, to maximize County’s future decision-making flexibility. Directed staff to provide haulers with proposed model amendments to the County's four franchise agreements to facilitate consistent permitting under the proposed ordinance (clarification for Industrial Waste and Exceptions section). To introduce the proposed ordinance to the Board of Supervisors and have it take effect upon approval of a $20,000 performance bond requirement (to be set by resolution) and minor County Franchise amendments that are needed to clarify the Industrial Waste and Exceptions sections. To ask the Franchise haulers to seek franchise cities’ police departments' willingness to enforce PRC sections 41950, 41951 & 41955 pertaining to the theft of recyclables.   7.Given the interest of Contra Costa cities in participating with the County to further investigate potential implementation of Community Choice Energy, staff recommends the Board direct DCD to continue with the steps required to undertake a technical study of CCE in Contra Costa County. The immediate next step in this process would be for the County to obtain electrical load data from PG&E on behalf of the County and the 16 cities that have authorized the County to do so. This will provide the County with detailed information regarding electrical usage within the covered jurisdictions, and will constitute the raw data necessary to conduct a technical study of potential CCE implementation within the County. Staff recommends that the Board direct DCD to work in partnership with interested cities to jointly fund a technical study of CCE in Contra Costa County that would evaluate three options: a program including only interested jurisdictions within Contra Costa County; a program that is a partnership with Alameda County and interested jurisdictions in the two-county region; and joining the existing CCE program originated in Marin County known as Marin Clean Energy. Such a technical study would be conducted by a qualified consultant selected through a competitive process. The technical study would evaluate electrical load data to determine the amount of electricity a CCE program would need to procure in order to serve electricity consumers in the participating communities, and would estimate the billing rates that a CCE program would need to charge electricity customers in order to pay for program operations.  The study would analyze how rates might vary under scenarios in which the CCE   DRAFT 7 program offered customers different levels of electricity originating from renewable sources (for example, rates associate with 50% renewable or 100% renewable options). Electricity rates for these scenarios would be compared to products offered by the incumbent utility, PG&E (Attachment C). The technical study would also include a risk analysis of factors that could potentially interfere with successful operation of a CCE program within the County, such as risks associated with price volatility in energy markets and risks stemming from legal or regulatory changes. CCE technical studies performed in other Bay Area counties have included additional components, including analysis of the impact a CCE program might have on local renewable power generation and local job creation.  As stated in Table 1 above, roughly half of the cities in Contra Costa County have indicated some degree of willingness to contribute financially towards the cost of a technical study. Staff recommends that the Board direct DCD to work with cities to finalize payment arrangement and initiate the technical study. Staff recommends that the County and each participating city pay for a portion of the cost of the technical study similar to its proportion of the total population covered under the study.  Staff proposes that DCD work with the cities to finalize the scope of the technical study, develop and issue a Request for Proposals (RFP), and select a consultant to perform the technical study. The County would then enter into a contract with the selected consultant. The results of the technical study would be reported to the cities and the Board of Supervisors, and staff would seek further direction. Project Schedule and Budget Completing a technical study of Community Choice Energy would represent the first major phase of activity related to potential implementation of CCE within Contra Costa County. Following a technical study, additional steps would be required to launch a CCE program, should the Board decide to proceed with implementation. An estimated schedule and budget for fully implementing CCE within the County is attached to this report (Attachment D). The time and expense associated with implementing CCE within the County depends heavily on the outcome of the technical study and the resulting direction selected by the Board and participating cities. The CCE option likely to require the greatest commitment of time and resources would be the option to form a new JPA comprised of the County and cities within Contra Costa County. Following the technical study, such an option would involve two additional phases of activity: JPA Formation and Program Launch. The activities associated with these additional project phases and the estimated time and expense to complete these activities are described in greater detail in Attachment D. Staff estimates the total time needed to implement the Contra Costa JPA option and begin providing electricity to customers would be in the range of two to three years and would cost approximately $2 million.  Recommendation(s) Staff recommends the IOC and Board of Supervisors direct DCD and other County staff to take the following actions:  DRAFT 8 Take all actions necessary to obtain electrical load data from PG&E on behalf of the County and all cities in Contra Costa County that have authorized the County to do so. 1. Work with interested cities in Contra Costa County to conduct a technical study of options for potentially implementing CCE within Contra Costa County, anticipating the County’s share of cost is estimated to be in the range of $25,000 to $50,000.  2. Authorize DCD to amend the consulting services contract with LEAN Energy to increase the payment by $75,000 to a new payment limit of $100,000 for consulting services through completion of the technical study. 3.    Jason Crapo introduced consultant Shawn Marshall. Ms. Marshall provided an overview of CCE and explained that the interface is virtually transparent to the energy consumer but the consumer benefits from lower GGE and usually lower costs. Most programs are administered by a JPA and are authorized by a local government ordinance. The local utility would provide the infrastructure and consolidated billing. Special consumer programs such as low-income or senior advantage programs would remain uninterrupted under CCE. CCE and the local utility exit fee would appear as a new line on the consumer's utility bill. The CPUC certifies the CCE plan and oversees the relationship between the CCEs and local utilities. Ms. Marshall presented the remaining slides in the attached Powerpoint presentation. Supervisor Gioia noted that Richmond, San Pablo and El Cerrito are members of MCE. Dawn Weisz added that Pinole, Oakley, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, and Moraga have signed letters of interest in joining MCE. Ms. Marshall emphasized that the three operating CCE programs in California are successful and completely rate payer supported with no taxpayer subsidy. She noted that CCEs are responsive to local Climate Action Plans. Ms. Marshall noted that as CCE becomes more prevalent, local utility exit fees will tend to increase but that over time, is not anticipated to have a significant impact. Supervisor Andersen asked about the long-term clean energy market, as an increasing number of jurisdictions are implementing CCE and rapidly increasing demand for clean energy. She asked if the price for clean energy is expected to remain stable or increase as consumer demand increases. Jason Crapo indicated that a technical study would include market projections, and asked Dawn Weisz to comment on MCE's experience. Ms. Weisz explained that when MCE has shopped for energy, it has typically received proposals for more than ten times the amount needed, indicating the supply of clean energy is currently high and continues to increase as new sources become available. But she cautioned that can change in the future. She, therefore, recommended diversity in the energy supplier portfolio and also among the contract periods for which energy is purchased (a mix of short, medium, and long-term supplier contracts). Supervisor Gioia asked Ms. Weisz to explain how the need to comply with the State's DRAFT 9 Supervisor Gioia asked Ms. Weisz to explain how the need to comply with the State's policy of 50% renewable energy by 2030 will play out in CCE market. Ms. Weisz said that the impact of the State's policy is unknown but that the market is currently unconstrained, with new energy developers looking for buyers. She speculated that in 10 years, perhaps, we may begin to see some market saturation in terms of locations for new power generation. She added that we might see pricing changes or shifts; for example, solar is currently low cost but if the solar market becomes constrained, consumers may turn to other renewable sources such as biomass, hydroelectric, wind, etc. Supervisor Andersen pointed out that many of the solar incentive programs are expiring, which will likely place upward pressure on the solar option. Alex DiGiorgio commented that the expiration of solar tax credits would likely not affect large solar energy suppliers but may price smaller providers out of the market. Supervisor Gioia commented that home battery storage technology is improving and will likely be another option available to consumers, allowing them to store the excess solar energy they capture rather than return it to the grid. Ms. Marshall concluded her presentation and Jason Crapo presented the remainder of the staff report, describing the Board of Supervisors prior direction to staff, and staff's outreach to Contra Costa cities. He reported that all 16 Contra Costa cities that are not members of MCE have authorized the County to obtain their electrical load data from PG&E, but that the cities varied in their willingness to share in the cost of a technical study. Mr. Crapo said that if the Board decided to proceed with a technical study, he would likely recommend that the cost be allocated to cities based on their proportionate share of total population, and that cities that contributed funding would be given a role in defining the technical study. Mr. Crapo proceeded to review the staff recommendations including the next steps involved with each recommendation and estimated costs. He clarified that the County's consultant Lean Energy would not be conducting the technical study. Supervisor Gioia asked about the timing for a technical study and how it relates to MCE's current inclusion period. Ms. Weisz explained MCE's inclusion period policies and stated that MCE was currently only entertaining membership of agencies within the four counties currently served (Marin, Napa, Solano and Contra Costa). The purpose of the inclusion periods is to batch new members together for savings on technical studies and new energy procurement. To be included during the current inclusion period, the County would need to adopt an ordinance by March 31, 2016. Ms. Weisz clarified that MCE has a policy to not enroll new consumers until such time that the MCE rates are either equal to or less than the local utility company rates. She said that the analysis following each inclusion period typically takes 4-6 weeks, after which time MCE would begin conducting outreach in those communities for at least 3 months. Supervisor Andersen asked what the added value would be to forming a Contra Costa CCE Program over joining MCE, and would MCE have the capacity to absorb the County UI and remaining Contra Costa cities. Mr. Crapo described the advantages of either joining MCE or forming a Contra Costa CCE, i.e., joining MCE would be faster, less expensive, and less work; forming our own CCE would provide more control over energy policies and power generation projects. DRAFT 10 control over energy policies and power generation projects. The Committee asked about the MCE governance structure and the role of elected officials on the governing board. More specifically, Supervisor Andersen asked if the board makes decisions about investments and procurement in addition to the budget, or are investment and procurement decisions delegated to staff? Ms. Weisz explained that the board makes decisions on procurement/power supply, power generation projects (she mentioned the Chevron solar project in Richmond), rate-setting, and branding. MCE is currently considering changing its name to "My Clean Energy-Bay Area". She said that the board meetings can be hosted in different places. Ms. Weisz explained the board configuration: one seat per city and one seat per county. The voting rights are partially weighted based on an agency's proportionate share of electrical load. Supervisor Gioia observed that if Contra Costa UI and the remaining Contra Costa cities joined MCE, they would likely have the highest load. Ms. Weisz said that this would not deter MCE because MCE is mission driven. Supervisor Andersen expressed concern over forming a Contra Costa JPA when it could be more efficient to join MCE. Mr. Crapo said it comes down to how much control the Board of Supervisors wishes to exercise over the various CCE policy decisions. Supervisor Gioia was of the opinion that the County could develop local energy projects under either scenario. Supervisor Andersen said she wasn't convinced that we could do CCE better than MCE or that it would be worth spending so much money to form a Contra Costa CCE as long as we had an equal seat at the MCE table. Supervisor Gioia preferred the fast implementation offered by the MCE option and also thought that the County could achieve local project siting as a member of MCE. He also preferred to have all of the county in one program rather than split between two programs, especially if we are doing common community programs. Staff asked Ms. Weisz to clarify whether or not cities or the County could join MCE after March 31 but at their own cost. Ms. Weisz said that it would be reasonable for the County to expect that MCE would open another inclusion period to accommodate Contra Costa County because the County's large load size would make it economical to do so. Ms. Marshall observed that the various CCE options are a good dilemma to have. She thought it was worth studying further based on feedback offered by the cities. Mr. Crapo stressed that this is a big decision that would determine the default energy provider for hundreds of thousands of consumers and that, once that decision is made, it would be very costly and difficult to unwind the County's choice. Mr. Crapo emphasized the value of a technical study to determine the technical data (e.g., economic value, energy sources) needed to inform the Board's decision and also to increase community outreach on CCE. Ms. Marshall clarified that a technical study will not project rates or provide a rate comparison between MCE and a County CCE, but it will predict the economic value of the program. Public Comment was offered by the following individuals: Iris Obregon, Oakley; Peter Ericson, Orinda; Richard Freeman, Kensington; Ann DRAFT 11 Iris Obregon, Oakley; Peter Ericson, Orinda; Richard Freeman, Kensington; Ann Punch, Rodeo; Charley Davidson, Hercules; Helen Sokol, Walnut Creek; Jan Warren, Walnut Creek; Carol Weed, Walnut Creek; Bill Pinkham, Richmond; Pello Walker; Casya de Neergaard, Kensington; Brodie Hilp, Danville; David McCord; and Arvind Goel, San Ramon/Danville.    AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Candace Andersen  Passed  8.ACCEPT report on the Auditor-Controller's audit activities for 2015 and APPROVE the proposed schedule of financial audits for 2016.       Supervisor Gioia accepted the Auditor-Controller's report of audit activities for 2015 and approved the audit plan for 2016. He also asked for copies or links to the County's Procurement Card Policies and Manual and to MAC training materials.    AYE: Chair John Gioia  Other: Vice Chair Candace Andersen (ABSENT)  Passed  9.APPROVE the proposed 2016 Committee meeting schedule and work plan, or provide direction to staff regarding any changes thereto.       Supervisor Gioia approved the recruitment plan and schedule as recommended by staff and requested that the press releases be shared with the Supervisors' offices.    AYE: Chair John Gioia  Other: Vice Chair Candace Andersen (ABSENT)  Passed  10.The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 28, 2016.   11.Adjourn    Chair Gioia adjourned the meeting at 2:30 p.m.     For Additional Information Contact:  Julie DiMaggio Enea, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1077, Fax (925) 646-1353 julie.enea@cao.cccounty.us DRAFT 12 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:03/28/2016   Subject:RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISPOSITION OF LOW MILEAGE FLEET VEHICLES Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer  Department:Public Works Referral No.: IOC 16/3   Referral Name: Review of Annual Master Vehicle Replacement List and Disposition of Low-Use Vehicles  Presenter: Joe Yee, Deputy Public Works Director Contact: Carlos Velasquez 925.... Referral History: Each year, the Public Works Department Fleet Services Manager analyzes the fleet and annual vehicle usage and makes recommendations to the IOC on the budget year vehicle replacements and on the intra-County reassignment of underutilized vehicles, in accordance with County policy. In FY 2008/09, the Board approved the establishment of an Internal Services Fund (ISF) for the County Fleet, to be administered by Public Works (formerly by the General Services Department). The Board requested the IOC to review annually the Public Works department report on the fleet and on low-mileage vehicles. Last year, the IOC requested the Auditor's Office to test the Fleet Program's compliance with County clean air policies. The Chief Auditor, in July 2015, reported that as of February 28, 2015, 18% of the fleet were clean air vehicles, 36.2% were not clean air vehicles but were exempted by the policy or by the Fleet Manager, and 45.8% were not exempt and not in compliance with the clean air vehicle policy. The Fleet Manager emphasized his commitment to downsizing the fleet and right-sizing County vehicles. The Committee asked the Fleet Manager to update the 2008 County Clean Air Vehicle Policy to also to reflect current technology such as electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and current funding incentives, and to segregate large construction vehicles from regular trucks and sedans in future reports to make the statistical reporting more meaningful. That policy was updated, approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 17, 2015, and disseminated to County departments as County Administrative Bulletin 508.5 (attached hereto). Referral Update: Attached for the Committee's review is the 2014/15 annual report on the ISF and low-mileage vehicles, as prepared by the Public Works Department. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): 13 ACCEPT 2014/15 annual report from the Public Works Director on the Internal Services Fund for the County's Vehicle Fleet and identify low-mileage vehicles. Fiscal Impact (if any): Reassigning underutilized vehicles would increase cost efficiency but the fiscal impact was not estimated. Attachments Public Works 2014/15 Fleet Report County Policy on Vehicle Acquisition and Replacement/Clean Air New Vehicle Request Form 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Page 1 of 5 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Office of the County Administrator ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN Number: 508.5 Date: November 17, 2015 Section: Property and Equipment SUBJECT: County Vehicle and Equipment Acquisition and Replacement Policy, and Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals This bulletin sets forth County policy and guidelines for department requests for acquisition and replacement of County vehicles and equipment. I. APPLICABILITY. This bulletin is applicable to addition and replacement vehicles and equipment to be acquired by County departments either through purchase, lease purchase or donation. II. AUTHORITY. By Board Order, Item C.162, July 18, 2000, proposed County Vehicle/Equipment Acquisition and Replacement Policy III. POLICY GUIDELINES Additional and replacement vehicles and equipment to be acquired by County departments either through purchase, lease purchase or donation must be appropriate for the intended use, within the approved budget, safe to operate, and cost efficient both to operate and maintain. The expected annual use of any vehicle should be in excess of 3,000 miles. Dedicated Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and battery electric vehicles with frequent and demonstrated short trip usage patterns may be exempted from the County minimum mileage requirement. Replacement priority will be given to vehicles and/or equipment that are determined by the Public Works Department Fleet Manager (Fleet Manager) to be unsafe, in the poorest condition, uneconomical to operate or maintain, or have the highest program need. A. ACQUISITION OF REPLACEMENT VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT The acquisition of “replacement” vehicles or equipment may be approved by the Fleet Manager and County Administrator, provided that the vehicle being replaced meets or exceeds the minimum mileage criterion and/or the vehicle/equipment is damaged beyond economical repair as determined by the Fleet Manager. Vehicles and equipment will be considered for replacement or, in the case of low utilization, reassignment to another function or department, when one or more of the following conditions exist as determined by the Fleet Manager. 1. Replacement parts are no longer available to make repairs 2. Continued use is unsafe 3. Damage has made continued use infeasible 4. Cost of repair exceeds the remaining value 22 Page 2 of 5 5. Low utilization (usage does not exceed 3,000 miles per year) cannot justify ongoing maintenance and insurance costs B. MILEAGE EVALUATION INTERVALS At the mileage intervals specified below, vehicles will be evaluated to determine their condition and expected life. The Fleet Manager is to make such evaluations in accordance with the following schedule. Evaluations may be conducted sooner under certain conditions, such as when a vehicle needs repairs more often than other vehicles of the same class and age, or when a vehicle has been damaged. After initial evaluations, a vehicle will be re-evaluated every 12,000 miles or until it reaches the end of its life, at which time it will be declared surplus. VEHICLE TYPE EVALUATION INTERVAL Sedans 90,000 miles Sheriff Patrol Sedans 90,000 miles Passenger Vans 90,000 miles Cargo Vans 90,000 miles Sports Utility Truck 100,000 miles Pickups and 4x4 100,000 miles Medium/Heavy Duty Trucks 120,000 miles Buses 180,000 miles School Buses 8 years/(inspect every 45 days by law) Miscellaneous Equipment Depends on Condition C. EQUIPMENT ABUSE, NEGLIGENCE, AND MISUSE Departments utilizing County equipment shall be responsible for all costs associated with driver abuse, negligence, or misuse of County equipment. Determination of abuse, negligence, or misuse will be at the discretion of the Fleet Manager. The Fleet Manager shall notify the department using the equipment of any charges covered under this section. D. VEHICLE CITATIONS, PARKING TICKETS, AND TOLL EVASION NOTICES The department utilizing the equipment shall be responsible for ensuring payment of all citations, parking tickets, and toll evasion notices attributed to any equipment. Citations or tickets attributed to equipment due to administrative reasons (license, titling, registration, etc.) will be the responsibility of the Fleet Manager to resolve, with the exception of expired registration tabs on undercover vehicles. The department utilizing the equipment is responsible for ensuring undercover plated vehicles display a current registration tab. 23 Page 3 of 5 E. ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT Departments requesting acquisition of an additional vehicle or piece of equipment must demonstrate the need and identify the source of funding for the acquisition and its ongoing maintenance. Funds for the acquisition of additional or replacement vehicles/equipment must be appropriated in the County budget before such acquisition can occur. This appropriation may be included in the annual County Budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors or may occur via a budget appropriation adjustment approved by the Board during the fiscal year. The attached form shall be used for each Vehicle and Equipment Request Form and forwarded to the County Administrator’s Office, Budget Divi sion, upon whose approval the request will be sent to the Fleet Manager for technical recommendations. Any vehicle and/or equipment that is offered as a donation to the County must be inspected by the Fleet Manager and determined to be in good operating condition, safe, and efficient to operate and maintain prior to acceptance. If the vehicle does not meet these criteria, the donation is not to be accepted. Donated vehicles and equipment require a signed Board Order before the donated equipment may be accepted. IV. CLEAN AIR VEHICLE POLICY AND GOALS It is the intent of the County to procure the most fuel efficient and lowest emission vehicles and reduce petroleum fuel consumption. Vehicle and equipment purchases shall be operable on available County alternate fuel sources to the greatest extent practicable and must comply with all applicable clean air and vehicle emission regulations. A. VEHICLE PURCHASES Alternate fuel (electric, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), fuel cell, etc.) vehicles shall be procured to the greatest extent practicable. If an alternate fuel vehicle is not operationally feasible, a hybrid electric vehicle shall be the next type considered for procurement. Vehicle purchases other than alternate fuel or hybrid electric require specific justification and approval by the Fleet Manager and shall be rated no lower than Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (PZEV) by the California Air Resources Board when possible. 24 Page 4 of 5 B. EXEMPTION FROM CLEAN AIR VEHICLES POLICY Marked emergency response vehicles (e.g. police patrol, fire, paramedic, and other Code 3 equipped units), may be exempt from the Clean Air Vehicle Policy. The Fleet Manager may also grant exemptions for vehicles used primarily for prisoner transport or when no alternate fuel or low emission vehicle is available that meets the essential vehicle requirements or specifications. The intended use of the vehicle shall be the determining criteria for granting a Clean Air Vehicle Policy exemption. V. DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITY A. Department Head or Designee assigned vehicles 1. Designate a department staff person to serve as the departments point of contact for all fleet related issues 2. Ensure safe operation of all vehicles and bringing in vehicles to the Fleet Services Center for scheduled preventative maintenance and safety inspection when requested by the Fleet Manager 3. Budget appropriately for all expenses 4. Prepare and submit Vehicle and Equipment Request Form to the County Administrator’s Office, Budget Division for approval of replacement and/or addition of vehicles 5. Enter correct mileage when purchasing fuel 6. Ensure vehicle meets minimum use guidelines 7. Notify Fleet Manager of any vehicle assignment changes B. County Administrator’s Office 1. Review requests for purchase of vehicles for operational need, compliance with County policy, and budgetary impact. C. Public Works Department – Fleet Services Division 1. Administer and oversee the County Fleet including providing regular preventative maintenance and repairs. 2. Budget for the acquisition and replacement of vehicles and/or equipment 3. Prepare annual report and summary of the distribution of light vehicles and heavy equipment by department for the current fiscal year, the two prior fiscal years, and the recommended distribution for the new fiscal year. 25 Page 5 of 5 4. Develop light duty vehicle and equipment specifications to increase alternate fuel (CNG, electric, fuel cell, etc.) hybrid electric, and partial zero or less emission vehicle purchases. 5. Identify and procure suitable alternate fuels for use in County vehicles 6. Monitor and identify non-County alternate fuel locations for use by County vehicles Originating Department(s): County Administrator’s Office Public Works Department Information Contacts: County Administrator’s Office –Management Analyst Liaison County Fleet Manager at 925.313.7072 Update Contact: County Administrator Senior Deputy, Municipal Services /s/ David Twa County Administrator 26 C:\Users\mwara\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\4LKZ6ZQD\VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REQUEST FORM - Final revisions Mar 2015.docx 3-30-15 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REQUEST FORM (See Instruction Sheet) Department: Date: Authorized Signature: Telephone: Printed Name: 1. Reason and justification for vehicle request: 2. Funding Source (Budget information will be used to prepare Board Order): _ Is an appropriation adjustment needed?  Yes  No Fiscal Officer: Name: Telephone: 3. Description of vehicle or equipment requested (If applicable, complete an accessories form): 4. Is an alternative fuel vehicle acceptable?  Yes  No If no, reason clean air vehicle will not work: _ 5. If replacement, which vehicle or equipment is being replaced: Type: Vehicle/Equipment Number: Odometer/Hours: 6. Reason purchase cannot wait until next budget cycle: 7. CAO Release to PWD Fleet Manager:  Yes  No Date: CAO Signature: _________________________________ FOR PWD FLEET MANAGER USE 1. Is vehicle/equipment an addition to the fleet?  Yes  No 2. If vehicle/equipment is for replacement, an inspection/evaluation to be completed by Fleet Manager: Date Inspected: Vehicle/Equipment: Make: Model: Year: Condition of vehicle and/or equipment and life expectancy: Accumulated Depreciation: Estimated Salvage Value: Estimated Cost of Request: 3. Any underutilized vehicles in existing department fleet?  Yes  No 4. Fleet Manager Signature: Date: 27 C:\Users\mwara\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\4LKZ6ZQD\VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REQUEST FORM - Final revisions Mar 2015.docx 3-30-15 Instructions 1. Use a separate request form for each vehicle. 2. Funding Source: Information to be descriptive and is to include funding source (i.e., grant funds, etc.) and department charge numbers. This information is used to prepare “Financial Impact” paragraph on Board Order and requisition. No vehicle or equipment will be ordered until funding is transferred into the proper Public Works Department Accounting fund and approval by the Board of Supervisors has been received. 3. Purchase of a car, van or pick-up requires an accessories form to be completed and attached to the Vehicle and Equipment Request Form. Accessories forms (pdf files) are available for download from the intranet site or by calling (925) 313-7071. 4. Alternative Vehicles: CNG = Compressed Natural Gas Hybrid = Combination of gasoline and electric Electric= Charging stations available at 1220 Morello Avenue or 2467 Waterbird Way, Martinez 5. Describe vehicle or equipment type being replaced. Vehicle and odometer or equipment number and hour usage must be completed. 6. Reason must be specific. Poor planning is not a justification. 7. Submit completed Vehicle and Equipment Request form to CAO Analyst assigned to your department. General Information: Purchase Time: Purchase time varies in length depending on type of vehicle or equipment requested and the supplier. On average, the process takes approximately 90 days after the Fleet Manager receives Board of Supervisors approval. Underutilized Vehicles: Fleet Services will determine whether department requesting a new vehicle has any underutilized vehicles in its current inventory prior to approval of the request. Underutilized vehicles must be addressed prior to purchase of any new vehicles. Rev 8-1-03 JE Rev 3-30-15 JY 28 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:03/28/2016   Subject:COUNTY'S SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY IMPLEMENTATION Submitted For: Betsy Burkhart, Communications & Media Director  Department:Office of Communications & Media Referral No.: IOC 16/9   Referral Name: DEVELOPMENT OF A SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY  Presenter: Betsy Burkhart, Communications & Media Director Contact: Betsy Burkhart, 925-313-1180 Referral History: On June 17, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved a social media policy (attached) 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, 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. Referral Update: Risk Management is working with the Office of Communications and Media (OCM) to develop and host custom web-based training, using Target Solutions, for all account administrators. The training will include the following key areas:  how to open and register a new social media account social media as a public record and records retention/archiving legal issues affecting government social media use social media monitoring and effective measurement/analytics social media in crisis and emergency communications The OCM is currently piloting the use of Sprout Social, a tool designed to manage social media use and mentions across multiple platforms. It also offers a higher level of analytics than free tools such as TweetDeck and Hootsuite. At the conclusion of the pilot, a recommendation will be made on the value of having a countywide monitoring and management tool for all County social media accounts. The OCM has extensively researched best practices in implementing government social media policies. Staff is developing content for an intranet-based website that will provide County social media administrators with the guidelines for use of the primary social media tools currently being utilized. Those include Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Vimeo, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Periscope, Snapchat, Flickr and Google+. As more tools emerge, they will be added to the 29 Periscope, Snapchat, Flickr and Google+. As more tools emerge, they will be added to the guidelines section. The County’s current intranet requires IT staff to add and update content, creating extra work for a very small web team. It uses outdated technology, and is used sparingly as a countywide resource. The County Administrator has authorized the OCM to work with CivicPlus, the web content management system vendor for the County website, to develop a new intranet framework in 2016. Departments that currently maintain their own intranet sites may keep them or develop a new ones in CivicPlus. All employees, even those whose departments have created standalone websites outside of the County site, will be able to access the new intranet. Department heads and elected officials will designate which staff members should have access rights to update their content, much as it works now with their public-facing web pages. The benefit to a new, user-friendly intranet as it pertains to social media is that County account holders will have a one-stop shop for “how to” guidelines for each of the tools used, access to the online form for requesting a new account, links to help sites and phone numbers for social media tools, and many other useful resources.  Several County offices have initiated discussions with social media archiving companies, recognizing that managing social media records is much more complex than originally thought. The OCM is working with county departments to consolidate this into an enterprise-wide approach to be more cost-effective and efficient. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): The policy is going to be put into an Administrative Bulletin format, and made available to all employees. The Target Solutions training modules and intranet site with guidelines for use and other resources is expected to be ready for use by September 1, 2016, allowing the policy to go into full effect before the end of the year. Fiscal Impact (if any): Utilizing a social media archive service and analytics tool would have annual costs typically less than $25,000 for both if managed at an enterprise level. Attachments Social Media Policy 30 Contra Costa County Social Media Policy Social Media Policy June 2014 This policy establishes guidelines governing the use of social media by County employees for the purpose of communicating to the public. Social media should be understood to include any web-based tool that allows for open communication on the internet, including but not limited to micro-blog sites (Twitter,) social networking sites (Facebook, LinkedIn,) video sharing sites (YouTube,) and image sharing sites (Instagram). Contra Costa County departments, offices and divisions may use social media when its use will further the business goals of the County and the missions of its departments. The County supports the secure use of approved and established social media tools to deliver information to the public. For departments, offices and divisions that have a business need to communicate via social media, this policy will govern the use of those tools. 1. All official Contra Costa County accounts on social media sites are considered an extension of the County’s business and are governed by applicable County policies pertaining to email, Internet use and security. Accounts must be managed by County employees, not interns, contractors or volunteers. 2. Accounts should be established and managed by departments following terms of service negotiated with social media providers by the federal government and the National Association of State Chief Information Officers. Staff shall use official government accounts rather than personal accounts to represent County services and programs. 3. Departmental and office accounts will be centrally coordinated through a County Social Media Registry. Existing accounts will be grandfathered-in; new accounts will be requested through the Office of Communications and Media for departments that do not have official communications staff. All account administrators will provide their contact information and a backup contact for the registry in the event of a problem or security issue with their account. 4. Social media account managers will attend annual training to ensure compliance with applicable security and privacy laws, copyright, records retention, the California Public Records Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA.) 5. Contra Costa County’s countywide and departmental websites will remain the primary and predominant internet presences. Whenever possible, content posted to County social media sites will also be available on related County websites to make information accessible to residents who do not use social media. Content posted to County social media sites should, when practical, contain links directing users back to official County 31 Contra Costa County Social Media Policy Social Media Policy June 2014 websites for in-depth information, forms, documents or online services necessary for conducting business with Contra Costa County. 6. In the event of an emergency, all County social media contents and postings should be coordinated through the Office of Communication and Media or its designee. Departments with official communications staff will take the lead in delivering their emergency information and keep the Office of Communications and Media informed. The goal will be to ensure that messages are consistent across the many accounts and platforms managed by the County. Depending upon the incident, account managers may be asked to point to specific departmental social media sites that will serve as the main source of information. 7. Employees communicating on behalf of the County via social media are, in fact, representing the County at all times. Employees who fail to adhere to the guidelines and conduct themselves as agents of the County will be removed from account administration and may be subject to disciplinary action. 8. Guidelines for using approved social media tools and specific “how to” instructions for establishing and maintaining accounts will be provided to all County users, and updated regularly in an online tool kit. 32 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:03/28/2016   Subject:Animal Welfare Benefit Fund Submitted For: Beth Ward, Animal Services Director  Department:Animal Services Referral No.: IOC 16/10   Referral Name: Animal Benefit Fund Review  Presenter: Beth Ward Contact: Beth Ward (925) 335-8370 Referral History: 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. Included in the Board’s action was the formal referral of this issue to the Internal Operations Committee. On September 14, 2015, the CAO reported to the IOC on the history of the Animal Benefit Fund (report attached hereto for reference). With the retirement of former Animal Services Director Glenn Howell, further study on this referral was suspended until the new department director (Beth Ward) could review the history and provide input and advice to the Committee. Referral Update: I. BACKGROUND ON THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER The Contra Costa County Animal Shelter (CCCAS) receives approximately 12,000 live domestic and livestock animals annually. CCCAS’ budget is designed to cover the basic needs of incoming stray, abandoned, and homeless animals and our County licensing and field services departments. The basic needs include food, prophylactic medical care (spay/neutering), antibiotics and general veterinary supplies, emergency veterinary treatment, sterilization, microchips, and collars/travel boxes for animals. As an open-door agency, the CCCAS accepts animals suffering from medical or behavioral conditions that while treatable, may initially disqualify the animal from placement into a new home. CCCAS’ operating budget is currently not designed to fund extended medical rehabilitation for injured/ill animals, behavior management, foster care supplies for orphaned animals, supplies designed to enhance animal enrichment in the shelter environment, or marketing and outreach efforts aimed at increasing adoptions. 33 II. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ANIMAL BENEFIT FUND. In 1988, the CCCAS created the Animal Benefit Fund. The original purpose of the Animal Benefit Fund was to allow the Animal Services Department to receive donations from individuals, animal welfare organizations and businesses, to support animal health and welfare projects that are not funded by departmental or general County revenue. Since the creation of the Animal Benefit Fund, monetary contributions and donations for services and supplies for animal welfare have provided for unfunded needs of the animals impounded in CCCAS. These donations have come in the form of grants or “soft ask” gifts over the counter or from our website. IV. PROPOSAL TO EXPAND THE 1988 RESOLUTION. In order to increase our ability to create more funding opportunities and clarity around how funds will be used, the CCCAS is requesting that the Board approve a Resolution that expands upon the 1988 Resolution. Specifically, CCCAS would request that the Board rescind the 1988 Resolution and replace with a new Resolution, authorizing the CCCAS Director to accept any monetary donation, gift, bequest, or devise made to or in favor of the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department as allowed under Government Code section 25355, approve the continued use of the Animal Benefit Fund, establish new programs that receive assistance under that Fund, authorize the CCCASD Director to solicit donations for the benefit of shelter animals, and require the CCCAS Director to provide an annual report to the I/O Committee. The following are the program descriptions: Animal Benefit Fund: Animals have a variety of needs, and CCCAS does not always have the funds to address those needs. The Animal Benefit Fund may be used for such needs as medical treatment of a sick/injured dog, orthopedic repair for a damaged limb, veterinary diagnostic tests, kennel enrichment in the form of toys and beds, upgraded dog training supplies for volunteers such as training collars/harnesses, nutritional supplies for orphaned puppies and kittens, print or radio advertising to promote adoptions, and spay/neuter efforts. In addition to monetary donations to the Animal Benefit Fund, wish lists, in-kind gifts, Amazon Smile gifts, and gift cards to pet stores, home improvement stores, and other big box stores can also help us with these needs. The Animal Benefit Fund would support the following seven new programs: (1) Panda’s Gift Program: This program is for emergency vet care and goes to help animals like Panda, a dog who was brought to us in distress, in labor with a deceased puppy stuck inside, an old injury to her left eye and in overall poor condition. Our medical team acted quickly, rushing her into surgery, removed the puppy from the birth canal, performed an Ovariohysterectomy, and did a third eyelid flap to protect her injured eye. Panda quickly recovered from her surgery and acted like a new pup, snuggling with her foster family and learning what it felt like to be safe and loved. A family met and fell in love with Panda and took her home to join their household. Without donations to this fund, happy endings like Panda’s would not be possible. (2) Education Program : This program is to help pet owners resolve behavioral problems that might cause them to give up their pet, to help shelter animals with behavioral issues that might keep them from being easily adopted, and to create education programs for school age children. CCCAS will be creating a program where local trainers will work with pet owners, shelter dogs, volunteers and foster homes on reducing various behavioral problems, resulting in fewer surrenders and more successful adoptions. This program can also help to support humane education in our communities. 34 (3) Shelter Intervention Program: Often times families get into a crisis situation where they turn to surrendering their pet to a shelter. Our intervention program would help to provide resources to keep animals in their homes. Examples of intervention tools: spay/neuter, behavior/training assistance, and grooming. (4) Transfer Partner Assistance Program: This program would provide support to our smaller transfer partners, who help save the lives of animals with medical concerns or basic Spay/Neuter support for animals pulled from CCASD.  (5) Spay and Neuter Program: This program would make spay and neuter more affordable and accessible in our County by establishing a donation subsidized voucher program to provide free or low cost spay/neuter surgeries in collaboration with local veterinarians.  (6) Pets for Seniors Program: A pet is sometimes the only companion our community’s elders have, and the health and psychological benefits of having a pet are well-documented. This program pays a portion of the adoption fee for qualifying seniors, allowing them to use the money they saved to help pay for the initial items necessary for keeping a pet. This program may also be used to help seniors on limited incomes to keep animals in their lives when they may have had to give up their furry companion due to lack of money for basic daily needs or medical concerns. (7) Discounted Adoption Program: Sometimes, we are critically full of pets waiting for new homes. Rather than euthanize healthy adoptable or treatable animals, CCCAS discounts the adoption of pets to give people even more of an incentive to adopt. CCCAS also participates in national adoption events, promoting the placement of shelter animals. We are only able to offer reduced-fee adoptions when we have donated funding available. V. OTHER PROPOSALS COVERED IN THE UPDATED RESOLUTION. In addition to approving the formation of the new programs described above, the Resolution would delegate the CCCAS Director with the power to accept any gift, bequest, or devise made for the benefit of animals in the shelter through programs such as a car donation and planned giving programs pursuant to Government Code Section 25355. In keeping with this code section, the Director will file a report with the Board every quarter that describes the source and value of each gift. An annual report will also be provided that shares the impact of the Animal Benefit fund on our community animals and families. As is required by statute, any gifted funds or assets will be used for those purposes as are prescribed in the terms of the gift, bequest, or devise. The monies in these funds are not intended to replace General Funds, rather they are to supplement and enhance our care for animals and support of the public.  CCCAS is also requesting that the Director be authorized to solicit monetary contributions through methods such as request forms included in dog license mailing, website information, and adopters and owners surrendering pets being given the opportunity to assist other shelter animals by contributing at the time of their transaction. Donations will be tax-deductible and acknowledged in writing to the donor. Gifts by donors may be designated directly to a specific gift fund or program. Gifts received with no instruction as to the use for a specific area or program or funds donated for “general animal welfare” will be considered as part of the general Animal Benefit Fund. Monies raised through in-house donations, and/or general fund raising activities shall be considered undesignated gift funds. The Director will utilize these funds in a manner that is consistent with the specific purpose for 35 which they were donated. It is also important to recognize that these are donated funds and as such the use of the funds to pay businesses, organizations and fund voucher programs for various services to support the CCCASD programs would not be considered “gifts of County funds”. Each year, the Director will recommend expenditures from the Animal Benefit Fund through the budgetary process. Grants and designated funds shall be expended according to the grant or designated gift. Designated balances of $50 or less will be rolled back into the undesignated gift funds. Should the CCCAS wish to expend more than $25,000 per purchase order, CCCAS must submit a request in writing for approval by the Board of Supervisors. The CCCAS anticipates that approximately $150,000 will be received annually in donations. This estimate is based on the amount of donations received by the animal shelter over the last 3 years. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): ACCEPT report from the Animal Services Director on the Animal Benefit Fund;1. CONSIDER recommendations of the Animal Services Director and PROVIDE direction to staff regarding next steps: 2. authorize the CCCAS Director to accept any monetary donation, gift, bequest, or devise made to or in favor of the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department as allowed under Government Code section 25355 (NOTE: County policy requires Department Heads to notify the CAO regarding donations exceeding $1,000 and obtain Board of Supervisors approval for donations exceeding $10,000), approve the continued use of the Animal Benefit Fund, establish new programs that receive assistance under that Fund, authorize the CCCASD Director to solicit donations for the benefit of shelter animals, and require the CCCAS Director to provide an annual report to the I/O Committee. Fiscal Impact (if any): No impact to the General Fund. The Animal Benefit Fund is the repository for community donations that help to fund unmet needs of animals impounded at County shelters. Attachments Archived 9-14-15 Report to IOC on Animal Benefit Fund 36 ARCHIVED IOC REPORT37 ARCHIVED IOC REPORT38 ARCHIVED IOC REPORT39 ARCHIVED IOC REPORT40 ARCHIVED IOC REPORT41 ARCHIVED IOC REPORT42 ARCHIVED IOC REPORT43 ARCHIVED IOC REPORT44 ARCHIVED IOC REPORT45 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:03/28/2016   Subject:TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF BOARD ADVISORY BODIES - PHASE I UPDATE Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: IOC 16/7   Referral Name: Advisory Body Triennial Review  Presenter: Terry Speiker, Chief Assistant CAO Contact: Theresa Speiker (925) 335-1096 Referral History: The Board of Supervisors has asked a number of county residents, members of businesses located in the county and/or county staff to serve on appointed bodies that provide advice to the Board on matters of county or other governmental business. Periodically, the Board evaluates and examines the advisory bodies to determine if any changes are needed in the structure, composition, Board charge, enabling mandate, assignments or the inner workings of the bodies. Some of these reviews have led to changes in bylaws, membership requirements, structure, enabling charges, assignments/duties or sun-setting of the body.  Each body has an enabling charge and bylaws, which spell out structure, work processes and the expectations of members. Although bodies do not have the authority to hire employees, most bodies have been assigned county or contracted staff to assist the Chair, Vice Chair and the members with conducting the business of each body and providing regular reports, recommendations and advice to the BOS or other units of government. The business of each body is public and governed by all the applicable state and local laws about transparency and availability of the body’s records to the members of the public. Some bodies are required to adopt a conflict of interest code, although the Fair Political Practices Commission asked us in 2014 that we review all bodies with these code requirements to see if they are legally necessary, according to State law. Bodies are expected to file an annual work plan with the BOS and a list of goals and priorities that will guide their work for that year. They also are asked to submit an annual report that summarizes their accomplishments and activities.  The first phase report of the current Triennial Review cycle was considered by the IO Committee on April 13, 2015. Several of the bodies were asked to return to the IOC in 2016 with updates or further information, including: Airport Land Use Commission review of the Aviation Advisory Committee;1. Economic Opportunity Council;2. Contra Costa County Advisory Council on Aging;3. Agricultural Task Force;4. 46 Agricultural Task Force;4. Commission for Women;5. Emergency Medical Care Committee;6. Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board and Hazardous Materials Commission; and 7. Library Commission.8. Referral Update: This memo summarizes responses to questions or directions from the IOC concerning these advisory bodies. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Review of the Aviation Advisory Committee (AAC): The Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) and the ALUC has provided the following response to the IOC question of whether or not the ALUC and the AAC should remain as separate entities or if their duties and responsibilities can be combined. According to DCD, the ALUC is a state mandated body that is charged with reviewing proposed land use applications that are within the area of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; no other duties are assigned to it. There is very little overlap between the duties of the AAC and the ALUC. The AAC is a discretionary advisory body that provides input and advice to the Director of Airports, the BOS, and the Board’s Airport Committee on a wide range of airport issues. In the estimation of DCD, the AAC provides a vital interface and link to pilot organizations, airport staff, individual pilots and the communities surrounding the airport. Also according to the Department, most general aviation airports in California (like Contra Costa County’s airports), have an AAC. The DCD Director believes that encouraging and supporting an active and engaged AAC is an airport management “best practice”. For all the reasons cited, the DCD and the ALUC recommend to the IOC and BOS that the ALUC and the AAC be maintained as separate entities.  Economic Opportunity Council (EOC): The Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) has provided follow-up information on questions raised during 2015 IOC meetings about the proper use of Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funding. At that time, some EOC members had raised concerns about whether CSBG money was being allocated correctly; members questioned if too much was being allocated towards staff and administrative costs and not enough towards programming.  Since the 2015 IOC meetings, the EHSD Department Head and Community Services Bureau (CSB) Bureau Chief have met with the State and the EOC Board on a number of occasions to review the use and allocation of CSBG funds and the role of the EOC in fund oversight. (See Attachment 2.) The State has determined that there was no inappropriate use or allocation of CSBG funds and gave this information to the EOC Board. Subsequently, the State approved the 2016 budget for the current CSBG contract with Contra Costa County.  On March 5, 2016, the State met with the EOC Board to answer program or funding concerns of the members. Also at that time, State experts from the Community Services and Development Department provided a comprehensive orientation to the EOC Board, explaining the oversight role of the EOC in relation to CSBG funds. It is planned that dialogue of this type with the EOC Board will continue. Currently the Department is working with the State, County Counsel and the CAO to review and update, if needed, the Joint Powers Authority that is required to receive CSBG funds. Any proposed changes will be brought to the BOS for consideration. Contra Costa County Advisory Council on Aging (ACOA): When this matter was discussed at the IOC in 2015, neither the Bureau Chief for Aging and Adult Services nor the Chair of the Advisory Council on Aging had been able to complete the Triennial Review because of a lack of stable Council membership and departmental staff support.  Since that time, a new Bureau Chief has been hired and has begun working with County Counsel and the 47 Chair of the Advisory Council to rewrite the ACOA Bylaws. Two significant changes proposed to the Bylaws will be to revamp the membership structure of the body and reduce the number of appointees so that a quorum can regularly be achieved and representation across all areas of the county and stakeholder groups will be assured. Any changes to the Bylaws will be brought to the BOS for review and approval before taking effect. In addition to rewriting the Bylaws, the new Bureau Chief and the Chair of the Council have been reviewing the ACOA mission statement and mandated responsibilities under the Older Americans Act, the functions of the Council, and the current work group structure. They have also developed and filed their 2015 Triennial Report with the Clerk of the Board’s Office (COB). (See Attachment 3.) They have reviewed past work products and have discussed a plan for recruiting and using a newly structured Council. Key to the success of a revamped ACOA will be regular staff assistance for the Council; the Bureau Chief and EHSD Department Head are currently considering their options for addressing this need. EHSD’s goal is to support the Advisory Council in recruiting members, helping them get their work plan accomplished, and being compliant with Brown Act and Better Government requirements for holding open meetings and soliciting public input.  Agricultural (Ag) Task Force: When this matter was initially before the IOC in 2015, the Ag Task Force had not met regularly and the Triennial Review Report on the Task Force had not been submitted by either the Department Head or the Task Force Chair. Because a new Department Head had recently been named, the IOC determined that this matter should return to the committee in 2016, after the new Department Head had time to review the situation and develop recommendations for how best to seek advisory input from residents and county-located agri-businesses.  Since that time, the Department Head has reviewed the background, history and work of the Task Force and has prepared a draft proposal designed to re-energize and modernize the body’s efforts. The draft includes a revised mission statement and work program, delineation of powers, duties, membership, meeting plan and staffing. A copy of this draft is attached for Committee review and direction (Attachment 1); the Department Head will be present for the IOC meeting. Commission for Women: When this matter was reviewed by the IOC in 2015, the primary issues to be resolved concerned the size of the membership and whether or not there would be additional staff support provided. A determination was made not to approve additional staff support for the body. On the matter of membership, the determination was made to reduce the number of members to a total of 20 seats (one from each supervisorial district, 15 At-Large appointees and one alternate). The Bylaws have been rewritten to reflect this change; review is currently underway in the CAO and County Counsel offices. As soon as this review is complete, the Bylaws will be submitted to the BOS for consideration. Emergency Medical Care Committee (EMCC) : The IOC asked the CAO to work with the EMCC and staff from the Health Services Department to review the EMCC's charge, work plans and Bylaws to ensure that they were not venturing beyond their advisory level duties and authority. That work has been done and the following has taken place: The Bylaws were modernized and rewritten, with County Counsel assistance, approved by the EMCC in December, 2015 and approved by the BOS on January 5, 2016, to become effective March 2016; The number of members was decreased by removing alternates for seats; The number of officers was downsized to be more consistent with the structure of other county advisory committees; Duties and the charge were more clearly delineated, to make sure that the body operates in an advisory fashion. 48 Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board and the Hazardous Materials Commission: When this matter was before the IOC in 2015, the Supervisors asked the Health Services Department to consider whether or not there was enough overlap in mission, charge, duties and work plan to merge the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board and the Hazardous Materials Commission. After review, the Health Services Department found that the Hazardous Materials Commission has an active and vigorous membership and a full range of duties that would not fit in well with the work of the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board; they recommended no merger of the two bodies. On the other hand, the Department believes that the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Body would benefit from restructuring. They have been considering how best to modernize this committee, but do not yet have a draft proposal for the IOC to consider. They are requesting an additional 60 days to complete their review and to prepare a response to the IOC. Library Commission: When this matter was reviewed by the IOC in 2015, the County Librarian was very newly appointed and not able to provide much information about the work of the Commission. The previous Librarian had not completed the 2015 Triennial Review documents nor had the Library Commission submitted review materials to the Clerk of the Board’s (CoB) office. The Supervisors directed the newly appointed County Librarian, who is also staff to the Commission, to complete the Triennial Review documents and prepare a status report on the Commission and its work for the IOC. The review (Attachment 4) was submitted to the CoB’s Office in January 2016 and is on public file there. The Library Commission was created by resolutions from the BOS and the Mayor’s Conference in March, 1991. It has been reauthorized periodically since that time; it will automatically sunset on June 30, 2016 unless it is reauthorized.  The Commission consists of 29 members and 29 alternates. Each BOS office and each of the 19 cities in the county appoints one member and one alternate. In addition there are “special representative” members who are appointed by the Superintendent of Schools, the Contra Costa Central Labor Council, the Contra Costa Council, the Friends’ Council or the Contra Costa Community College District. The charge to the body is to provide advice to the BOS and the County Librarian. According to the report from the County Librarian, their primary work and outputs during the time she has worked with them has been to advocate for State funding (with BOS approval), share reports and information with other Commission members that are specific to their local communities on library activities, and provide a sounding board to county library staff. The County Librarian is recommending that the body be allowed to automatically sunset on June 30, 2016 or rewrite the Commission bylaws to reduce the size of the membership and/or the frequency of the meetings and restructure their charge/duties. The reasons for the recommendations include the following:  The large size of the membership and alternates has made it extremely difficult to recruit and keep seats filled; Also due to the large size of the membership, it has been very difficult for the Commission to develop a work plan and complete work projects; and Many of the current members serve on their local Friends groups in addition to being an appointed member of the Commission, so their advocacy and volunteer efforts have other established avenues to positively affect literacy efforts and library programs throughout the county.  The County Librarian has shared these recommendations with the Library Commission and the City Managers. The City Managers have not taken a formal position on the recommendations and have scheduled the County Librarian to make a presentation to the April Public Manager’s Meeting to discuss the review. 49 The County Librarian and members of the Commission will be present at the IOC meeting.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Accept follow-up report on questions and information previously requested by the IOC.1. Maintain the Airport Land Use Commission and Aviation Advisory Committee as separate bodies. 2. Approve for Board of Supervisors consideration the revised mission statement and work program, delineation of powers, duties, membership, meeting plan and staffing for the Agricultural Task Force. 3. Maintain the Hazardous Materials Commission and the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board (PEHAB) as separate bodies and direct the Health Services Department to report back to the IOC in 60 days with recommendations for revitalizing the PEHAB. 4. Allow the Library Commission to sunset, as scheduled, on June 30, 2016, or rewrite the Commission bylaws to reduce the size of the membership and/or the frequency of the meetings and restructure their charge/duties. 5. Fiscal Impact (if any): None. This is an information report. Attachments Attachment 1: Agricultural Task Force Follow-up Report Attachment 2: Economic Opportunity Council Follow-up Report Attachment 3: Advisory Council on Aging Follow-up Report Attachment 4: Library Commission Triennial Review Survey 50 51 52 53 54 1 40 Douglas Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 • (925) 313-1500 • Fax (925) 313-1575 • www.ehsd.org To: The Internal Operations Committee of the Board Date: March 21, 2016 CC: Julie Enea, County Administrator’s Office From: Kathy Gallagher, EHSD Director Subject: March 2016 Update to IOC Report Regarding the Economic Opportunity Council At the October 12th IOC meeting, I reported that conversations with the State regarding CSBG funding would occur. Those conversations have occurred and were centered on the question of which programs of the Community Action Agency (CAA) are taken into account when calculating the 12% administrative costs. As stated in the contractual language, due to the intent of CSBG funding, the total budget of all programs could be taken into account when calculating these costs. The Community Services Bureau had been using this understanding when reporting its total operational budget and computing the administrative expenses which are not to exceed twelve percent (12%). Although the contractual language was taken directly from Government Code Section 12781(c), further guidance was included in the 2016 contract stating, “Community action program(s) includes only those programs over which the Contractor’s tripartite board or advisory board, in the case of governmental entities, has operational jurisdiction and oversight or advisory responsibility.” Staff worked diligently with the EOC in December 2015 to take a zero-based budgeting approach in creating the 2016 CSBG budget. In this effort, administrative costs were scaled back, resulting in administrative costs that do not exceed 12% of the CSBG budget and leave .18 FTEs in administrative support. In addition, the amount of funding subcontracted to the community increased from $200,000 in 2015 to $362,382 in 2016. The Community Services Bureau submitted a budget for the 2016 program year that aligns with this new understanding and computes the administrative expenses based on only the CSBG funding. In the IOC’s recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on 12/8/15, it is noted that the primary issue at hand was “reports that most of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) received by the EOC was being expended on County staff costs instead of on programs.” While the State confirmed that CSB’s allocations were in line with the intent of the funding and the law prior to the contract change in 2016, we acknowledged EOC member concerns. While CSB has made every effort to address the concerns of M E M O R A N D U M Kathy Gallagher, Director 55 2 the EOC regarding their oversight of the CSB funding, which has resulted in these notable changes, there continues to be unrest with a few of the members as to what can be classified as administrative costs vs. program costs. Despite several conversations with the State and an abundance of clarifying materials presented to the EOC fiscal sub-committee, questions persisted and continued to hinder the important work of ameliorating poverty in the County. On Saturday, March 5, Board training was held to address these concerns and to provide a comprehensive board orientation. We were honored to the have the Executive Director of CalCAPA, John Heath, and the Deputy Director of the California Department of Community Services and Development (CSD), Sylmia Britt as our esteemed trainers. The training validated the various methodologies and rationales used in developing the CSBG budget and both trainers indicated that the CSB budget has been and remains sound. The trainers emphasized the advisory role of the EOC and presented a slide that read, “As you function in your Public Community Action Advisory Board role, remember that your role requires you to master the gentle push. You recommend, you suggest and you advise. Although you do not have the same extent of responsibility as your Private counterparts, your role is just as important and you can be a great voice for those fighting their way out of poverty”. While our work was praised and validated as a whole, there was reference to a core governance document that is required in order for a public agency to receive CSBG funds: A Joint Power Authority or JPA; which delineates the role of the board vs. the role of the EOC. CSB has conducted a thorough search of its archives and has asked the state to do the same. The state (CSD) only retains records for 7 years and also lost many historical documents when a server migration failed. CSB has been working with County Counsel, the CAOs office, and the Clerk of the Board to try to find this document and they are still searching. It should be noted that the 2016 budget was approved by the state and formed the basis of the current CSBG contract for 2016. We continue to be proud of the work we do in the community and are committed to working collaboratively with the EOC as the CSBG advisory body moving forward. 56 1 40 Douglas Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 • (925) 313-1500 • Fax (925) 313-1575 • www.ehsd.org To: Internal Operations Committee Date: March 21, 2016 From: Kathy Gallagher, EHSD Director Victoria Tolbert, AAS Director Subject: Report on Area Agency on Aging Advisory Council At the request of the IOC, please see the attached reports from the Aging and Adult Services Bureau. The first document is a report on the statutory structure of the Area Agency on Aging Advisory Council with the current status of their responsibilities. The second document is the Annual Report of the Council activities and accomplishments for the 2015 year. The Advisory Council is in the process of re-evaluating their By-Laws in regard to membership and attendance. They are working with County Counsel to effect some changes that will enable the Council to better meet their quorum requirements. Any changes to the By-Laws will be brought to the Board of Supervisors for approval. M E M O R A N D U M Kathy Gallagher, Director 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 2015 Triennial Sunset Review of Appointed Boards, Committees & Commissions 73 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 1 INTRODUCTION Contra Costa County is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors elected by the citizens of our County. The work of the Board of Supervisors is augmented by various advisory boards, committees, or commissions, comprised of citizens who are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. These appointed bodies are formed to provide support and citizen input by making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on various issues (such as service delivery problems or community needs). County committees are created as a result of State and Federal legislation, contractual agreements with other public agencies, or in response to specific community needs. These citizens' advisory bodies serve as direct links between the Board of Supervisors and our community, expand forums for communication between the public and County government, and enhance the quality of life for our residents. SUMMARY OF THE TRIENNIAL SUNSET REVIEW PROCESS The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2012/261 on June 26, 2012 establishing a "triennial sunset review process" for most County boards, committees and commissions whose members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Each year the Clerk of the Board will schedule one-third of these committees for review by the County Administrator's Office and the Internal Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors. The purpose of the triennial sunset review is to provide the Board of Supervisors with a method to periodically evaluate the ongoing purpose, performance and effectiveness of the advisory committees. For additional information about the review procedure, please refer to Resolution 2012/261 of June 26, 2012, and to the Advisory Body Handbook. SUBMISSION OF THE TRIENNIAL SUNSET REVIEW REPORT The triennial sunset review report (to be completed using this questionnaire) must be signed by the advisory body chairperson and by the County staff person currently serving as liaison to the committee. The completed and signed questionnaire should be submitted, along with the additional materials listed below, to: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Attn: Advisory Body Sunset Review 651 Pine Street, Rm. 106 Martinez, CA 94553 74 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 2 List of materials to include with Triennial Sunset Review report: 1. Copies of the advisory body meeting agendas and minutes from the last 12 meetings. 2. A copy of the advisory body bylaws that are currently in effect. 3. A copy of the most recent Annual Report that was submitted to the Board of Supervisors. 4. A brief, informal statement of the advisory committee's overall priorities, recent efforts, and current focus; and, 5. A recommendation, from the Department Head that oversees the committee, whether to continue or discontinue the committee, as well as recommendations, from the County staff or Department Head, concerning any changes to the committee that might increase its effectiveness or impact. 75 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 3 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Advisory Body Triennial Sunset Review I. Advisory Body Contact Information Contra Costa County Library Commission a. Name of Advisory Body (i.e. Committee, Commission or Board) Rodger Lum b. Name of Advisory Body Chairperson Jessica Hudson c. Name of Advisory Body Staff 1750 Oak Park Blvd, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 d. Staff Business Address 925-646-6423 e. Staff Telephone Number JHudson@ccclib.org f. Staff E-mail Address http://guides.ccclib.org/Commission g. Advisory Body Website Address, if applicable, if not, write “N/A”. II. Advisory Body History and Meeting Events Please provide the following information: a. Number of advisory body members appointed in the last 36 months. 30 b. Number of advisory body members who resigned in the last 36 months. 30 c. Number of advisory body meetings scheduled in the last 36 months. 18 76 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 4 d. Number of advisory body meetings cancelled for lack of quorum in the last 36 months. 0 e. Number of advisory body meetings cancelled for reason other than lack of quorum in the last 36 months. 0 f. Number of advisory body meetings held in the last 36 months. 18 III. Advisory Body Mission, Objectives, and Major Events a. State the original purpose and responsibility of the advisory body. The Contra Costa County Library Commission was original established in March 1991 for a two year period and has been reauthorized by both the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s Conference for continuance. The original purpose and responsibility of the Commission is five part: 1) To serve in an advisory capacity to the Board of Supervisors and the County Librarian; 2) To provide a community linkage to the County Library; 3) To establish a forum for the community to express its views regarding the goals and operations of the County Library; 4) To assist the Board of Supervisors and County Librarian to provide library services based on assessed public need; and 5) To develop and recommend proposals to the Board of Supervisors and County Librarian for the betterment of the County Library including, but not limited to, such efforts as insuring a stable and adequate funding level for the libraries in the County. b. Please describe any major changes to advisory body responsibility which have occurred over time, e.g. change in legal mandates or in the major activities that it has undertaken. There have been no major changes to the responsibilities of the Library Commission over time. The Library Commission is not legally mandated. c. Identify the target population or communities served by the advisory body. The Library Commission serves as an advisory body to the County Board of Supervisors and the County Librarian. In that capacity, their target population is all current and regular library users, which encompasses the whole of the County excepting the City of Richmond which has its own municipal library. 77 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 5 d. List regular and ongoing activities, services, and/or programs the advisory body provides to achieve its current mission. If applicable, also list one-time or special projects offered to achieve the mission. The Library Commission achieves its mission through having six meetings per year, all of which are open to the public. The Library Commission receives presentations from Library staff on various projects and operations, so that Commissioners are aware of and able to ask questions regarding those projects and operations. The Library Commission meetings offer a public comment section to allow for open feedback and communication. Library Commissioners also frequently serve on community-specific Friends of the Library or Library Foundation groups, which helps strengthen the linkage between the communities and the County Library. In the past 36 months, the Library Commission has also hosted/participated in various Town Hall meetings to encourage community feedback on the Library’s strategic planning process. 78 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 6 IV. Advisory Body Organization and Structure a. Please describe any staffing issues/challenges, i.e., vacancy rates, efforts to fill seats, member turnover, recruitment and retention efforts. 1) The Library Commission has one Library staff person that acts as liaison, secretary, etc for the Commission. The responsibilities for that position currently lie with a vacant position, and the Department Head has been the main staff person for the Commission for the past thirteen months. 2) With 29 seats and 24 appointing agencies (5 seats are through the Board of Supervisors and the remaining 24 are dividing between the 19 cities and the 5 special districts), there are often gaps in filled seats for different jurisdictions. Over the last 36 months, 30 Commissioners have either resigned during their term or have elected not to ask for another term. Over the last 36 months, 30 new Commissioners have been appointed, with 8 leaving during that same period of time. It can be difficult to keep up with vacancies and member turn over. For perspective, 16 Commissioners were Commissioners at the start of the period 36 months ago and still sit on the Commission. b. Please describe any changes or potential changes you could suggest in the committee's organization, structure, number of seats, qualifications, meeting schedule, or any other area that you believe might improve the Committee's performance. The Library Commission is a large organization, with 29 Library Commissioner seats and 29 Alternate Commissioner seats. Although the Commission is not usually full, there are regularly 35-40 members present at meetings. The structure of the organization was set up to be provide 1:1 representation from the different Cities, Board jurisdictions and special organizations in the County but that may also give more seats to the “cities” than to the “county”. The Library Commission meets every other month; some months there are multiple presentations to the Commission and some months less depending on topics of interest to the Commission. A concern for the Commission is its purpose; although the Commissioners complete their task well and with passion for libraries, there is not always much accomplished through the process that would not have already been accomplished at the local (Friends, Foundation) level. It would be Library staff’s recommendation to look at either a sunset for the Commission or a reduction in the number of meetings held per year plus a reduction in the amount of seats on the Commission. c. What information is regularly presented to the advisory body members to keep them informed of the body’s performance? The Library Commission has several regular agenda items; approval of minutes, sharing of books, State Library Funding as well as “Items of Interest to the Commission”. This last item allows the various Commissioners to speak about what is going on in their jurisdiction and to share successes that might be replicated in other locations. Yearly, the Commission also includes agenda items regarding their 79 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 7 annual report to the Board of Supervisors and their work plan for the coming calendar year. d. Are the advisory body current bylaws reflective of the body’s current mission and purpose? Yes but meeting topics/agenda could be matched up more concisely with the mission. e. Do you recommend changes to the advisory body bylaws (e.g., adjustment to term length, required qualifications, number of meetings, or primary focus)? If yes, please state why? No, Library staff does not recommend changes to the bylaws. The bylaws are an accurate representations of what the Board Order requires the Commission to complete. f. Does the advisory body have a sufficient number of members to achieve its mission? Do you recommend an adjustment to the number of advisory body seats (an increase or decrease)? The Advisory Board has a sufficient membership. Library staff would recommend a decrease in the advisory board seats to create a more flexible Commission. g. If you recommend making an adjustment to the number of advisory body seats, please indicate which seats and why? Library staff’s first recommendation would be to sunset the Commission as their parts of their objective are being completed at the local level and other parts can be completed via the library sites themselves (ie, public input through the Library Administration email, the chat service, the 1-800 line, or the Ask email instead of just through the Library Commission email). Library staff’s second recommendation would be to reduce seats assigned to the special districts, moving total seat count from 29 to 24. Staff see difficulty in reducing seats assigned to either the cities or the County, as each currently has one representative per jurisdiction (5 seats for the County, one per Board seat). Library staff would recommend removing the seat for the City of Richmond, as the County Library does not serve the City of Richmond. Another option is to look at removing alternate seats, as many meeting see both the Library Commissioner and the Alternate Library Commissioner attending. h. If special requirements or prerequisites exist for members to serve on the advisory body, do you believe the requirements are important and necessary, or do they limit the recruitment of potential candidates? There are no special requirements to serve on the Library Commission. 80 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 8 Advisory Body Public Information Policies a. How does the advisory body engage stakeholders and the general public about issues and programs within the body’s area of responsibility? The Library Commission posts its agenda and supplemental materials on the Commission’s website, at all library locations and copies of the agenda are sent to all city partners, the Clerk of the Board’s Office and various other locations for public consumption. Library Commission meetings are open the public, with a public comment period at the beginning of the meeting. Library Commissioners tend to also be Friends of the Library or Library Foundation members, outside of their Commission responsibilities. b. How is stakeholder and public input incorporated into the advisory body’s mission and objectives? Please also describe any outreach efforts to encourage public participation in advisory body meetings and sponsored activities The Library Commission’s mission and objectives are set out in their bylaws. Bylaws have been reviewed and amended in 1992, 1999, and 2012. The Commission’s mission and purpose is based on the Board Order that created the Commission. c. How far in advance of the meeting date does the advisory body post its meeting notice? Notices are required to be posted 96 hours in advance but tend to be posted one week in advance of the meeting. Full packet information is also posted on the Library Commission website one week in advance of the meeting. d. Where are meeting notices posted (please note all locations)? Official posting locations are at the Pleasant Hill Library, Library Administration, the Walnut Creek Library and the Clerk of the Board’s Office. Agenda are also sent to each Board of Supervisor’s office, the County Administrator’s Office, all Community Libraries, the City of Richmond Library, and City offices. The meeting notice and agenda packet are also uploaded onto the Commission website. V. Advisory Body Budget (if applicable) a. Please provide the advisory body’s source of revenue (if any) for the past 36 months. Rounded figures can be used. (Add additional sheets or documents if needed.) Sources of Revenue Source Amount 81 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 9 Total $0 b. Provide a summary of the committee's actual or estimated expenditures for the past 36 months. Types of Expenditures Category Amount Total $0 *The Library Commission does not have a revenue source or expenditures. The Library Department, on behalf of the Commission, pays for staff time and printing/mailing costs for agendas and agenda packets. VI. Advisory Body Current Issues (if applicable) Are there any additional issues or problems that the Committee wishes to bring to the attention of CAO and/or the Board of Supervisors, or that the Committee has been unable to resolve? Provide a brief description of the issue: Include enough information to give context for the issue. Helpful information includes: i. What is the specific problem or concern? The only concerns are those noted above; the size of the Commission and what can be accomplished by the Commission that is not already accomplished through other means. ii. Whom does this issue affect? Click here to enter text. iii. What is the advisory body’s current role related to the issue? Click here to enter text. iv. What policy or program changes, or other recommendations, has the committee considered in response? Click here to enter text. VII. Advisory Body Comments and Suggestions 82 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 10 a. Describe the effect the advisory body has made on the target population. The Library Commission has been able to assist the County Librarian through its comments and feedback on presentations provided throughout the 36 month review period. It assisted with Town Hall meetings in support of the Library’s Strategic Plan and provides community-level support and advocacy for library services. b. Describe the specific impact the work of the advisory body has made in achieving its mission. The Library Commission has made specific impact in advocacy. A regular agenda item is State Library Funding. The Library Commission regularly reviews upcoming concerns regarding State and Federal Library funding, creates letters to be approved/signed by the Board of Supervisor Chair, and advocates with their local politicians to support stable or increased State and Federal funding. c. Additional Comments Please use the following space to share additional comments about the work of the advisory body, its effectiveness, the services it provides, or any other related subject. The Library Commission will be meeting on November 19th, 2015 and will include this as a topic for discussion. It is planned for an ad hoc group to be formed at that meeting to discuss the Commission’s continuance, purpose, structure, etc. Preliminary recommendations from that ad hoc committee are expected back to the Commission at the January meeting, with final review and approval at the March 2016 meeting. This information will be shared back with the County Administrator’s Office at that time for inclusion in this final review. 83 Contra Costa County 2013 Advisory Body Triennial Review Page 11 Thank you for your cooperation. (1) Chairperson of your advisory committee or commission: x__________________________________________________ (please print name):___________________________________ (2) County Staff or Liaison who coordinated survey: x__________________________________________________ (please print name):___________________________________ Required signatures: 84