Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 03142016 - Legislation Cte Agenda Pkt            LEGISLATION COMMITTEE March 14, 2016 10:30 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Chair Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, 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. REVIEW and APPROVE the Record of Action from the February 8, 2016 meeting.   4. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of support on the Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability Act, as recommended by Dr. William Walker.   5. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Oppose" on AB 1707 (Linder), as introduced: Public Records: Response to Request, as recommended by the Clerk of the Board Jami Napier.   6. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Oppose" on SB 885 (Wolk), as introduced: Construction contracts: Indemnity, as recommended by Fire Chief Jeff Carman.   7. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors an amendment to the County's adopted Federal Platform to include support for funding the development of an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) as the County's top priority for federal funding needs, as recommended by the County's Federal Lobbyist.   8. CONSIDER the matter of federal earmark repurposing for transportation projects, and provide direction to staff as needed.   9. ACCEPT the FY 2014/15 AB 109 Annual Report for Contra Costa County and provide direction to staff, as needed.   10.The next meeting is currently scheduled for April 11, 2016. Page 1 of 137   11.Adjourn   The Legislation Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Legislation 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 Legislation Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. 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: Lara DeLaney, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1097, Fax (925) 646-1353 lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us Page 2 of 137 LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:03/14/2016   Subject:Record of Action Submitted For: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: 2016-08   Referral Name: Record of Action  Presenter: L. DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 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. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record. Referral Update: Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Record of Action for its Feb. 8, 2016 meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): APPROVE the Record of Action from the Feb. 8, 2016 meeting with any necessary corrections. Attachments Record of Action: Feb. 8, 2016 Page 3 of 137 LEGISLATION COMMITTEE RECORD OF ACTION February 8, 2016 10:30 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez   Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Chair Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee   Present: Federal D. Glover, Chair      Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair    Staff Present:Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator  John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development  John Kopchik, Department of Conservation and Development  Susan Jeong, Employment and Human Services  Rebecca Hooley, Deputy County Counsel  Deidra Dingman, Department of Conservation and Development  Julie Bueren, Public Works  Attendees: Ross Chittenden                   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).    The Committee accepted public comment.    AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff  Passed  3.CONSIDER the issue of the Governor’s Revised Managed Care Organization (MCO) Fix Proposal and its Impact, and urge our legislative delegation to adopt the MCO Fix as soon as possible, as recommended by Dr. William Walker.       The Committee voted unanimously to forward this item to the full Board of Supervisors for discussion, if there was time to agendize the matter before the anticipated vote by the Legislature.    AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff  Passed  4.CONSIDER recommending a position on Assembly Bill 1665 (Bonilla): Transactions    Page 4 of 137 4.CONSIDER recommending a position on Assembly Bill 1665 (Bonilla): Transactions and Use taxes: County of Alameda, County of Contra Costa, and Contra Costa Transportation Authority, or provide direction to staff on the pursuit of bill amendments.       The Committee voted unanimously to recommend adopting a position of Support to the Board of Supervisors.    AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff  Passed  5.CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Oppose Unless Amended" on AB 45 (Mullins): Household Hazardous Waste, as recommended by CSAC and Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager for Contra Costa County.       The Committee voted unanimously to recommend adopting a position of "Oppose Unless Amended" to the Board of Supervisors.    AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff  Passed  6.CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Support" on AB 1642 (Obernolte): State Responsibility Areas: Fire Prevention Fees.       The Committee voted unanimously to recommend adopting a position of Support to the Board of Supervisors.    AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff  Passed  7.CONSIDER the statewide issues of importance to counties and provide direction to staff.       The Committee directed staff to consult with the County's law and justice system partners with regard to the Governor's proposed initiative. The Committee directed staff to inform the Urban Counties of California (UCC) of its desire to pursue the $250 million for jail facilities construction proposed in the Governor's Budget. The Committee noted its concerns about the draft legislative proposal related to "by right housing" and housing elements, proposed by the American Planning Association.   8.CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Support" on S. 2123, the federal Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act.       The Committee directed staff to consult with the County's law and justice system partners on the "Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act."   9.The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 14, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. Page 5 of 137   10.Adjourn   The Legislation Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Legislation 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 Legislation Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. 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:  Lara DeLaney, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1097, Fax (925) 646-1353 lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us Page 6 of 137 LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:03/14/2016   Subject:Endorsement Request - Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability Act  Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: 2016-07   Referral Name: Endorsement Request - Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability Act  Presenter: Dr. William Walker Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 Referral History: Dr. William Walker has recommended that the Committee consider the Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability Act and recommend a position of support on it to the Board of Supervisors. Referral Update: In the fall of 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 239 (Hernandez), which was passed by the state Legislature without a single “No” vote. The legislation established an initial three-year Medi-Cal hospital fee program to ensure that California can unlock billions annually in federal matching funds for supplemental Medi-Cal payments to hospitals. The Act makes the fee program and the protections permanent to create more certainty and to deliver approximately $10 billion in matching funds during the first three years. The Act also ensures that these funds cannot be diverted for other purposes. Without ongoing protections for the hospital fee program, hospitals that care for children, seniors and low-income residents will be vulnerable to payment cuts or other budget politics. Funding protected by the Act will help prevent closures or cutbacks in local hospitals and will help preserve access for millions of men, women and children. California is home to more than 12 million Medi-Cal beneficiaries, more than half of which are children. The Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability Act (branded as ‘Keep A Good Idea Working’) is endorsed by a diverse coalition of sectors in California, including approximately 800 hospitals and health systems, health care advocacy groups, medical and dental groups, community benefit organizations, senior and children’s organizations and the business community. On Dec. 3, 2015, the Board of Directors of the California Association of Counties (CSAC) voted 51-0 to support the Act. The Coalition Website also provides additional information. Attached is the Fact Sheet, current Master Coalition List, and Endorsement Form.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Page 7 of 137 Attachments Endorsement Form Fact Sheet Coalition List Hospital Council Letter Page 8 of 137 Page 9 of 137 KeepAGoodIdeaWorking.org Page 10 of 137 Paid for by Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. Major funding by California Health Foundation and Trust and Sutter Health. 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 Coalition List Health Care Associations  California Hospital Association  California Children’s Hospital Association  Hospital Association of San Diego & Imperial Counties  Hospital Association of Southern California  Hospital Council of Northern & Central California  Alliance of Catholic Health Care  American Academy of Pediatrics - California  American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX (California)*  Association of California Healthcare Districts  Association of California Nurse Leaders  California Academy of Physician Assistants*  California Alliance of Child and Family Services*  California Ambulance Association*  California Ambulatory Surgery Association*  California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, Inc. (CAADPE) *  California Association of Health Facilities  California Association of Health Plans  California Association of Health Underwriters*  California Association of Medical Product Suppliers*  California Association for Nurse Practitioners**  California Association of Neurological Surgeons*  California Association of Nurse Anesthetists  California Association of Physician Groups  California Black Health Network*  California Chapter of the American College of Cardiology*  California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies (CCCMHA)*  California Dental Association  California Medical Association*  California Orthopaedic Association*  California Pharmacists Association  California Primary Care Association*  California Psychological Association*  California Radiological Society*  California Society for Clinical Social Work*  California Society of Addiction Medicine (CSAM)*  California Society of Health-System Pharmacists  California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery*  California Society of Pathologists  Children’s Specialty Care Coalition  District Hospital Leadership Forum*  Infectious Disease Association of California*  Medical Oncology Association of Southern California, Inc. (MOASC)*  Mental Health America in California*  Mental Health Association of Orange County*  Network of Ethnic Physician Organizations*  Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons of California  PEACH, Inc. (Private Essential Access Community Hospitals)  Southern California Public Health Association* Children’s Hospitals  Children’s Hospital Los Angeles  Children’s Hospital Orange County  CHOC Children’s at Mission Hospital  HealthBridge Children’s Hospital*  Loma Linda University Children’s Hospital  Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital  Miller Children’s Hospital Long Beach  Rady Children’s Hospital – San Diego  Valley Children’s Healthcare Page 11 of 137 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 2 of 13 Hospitals + Healthcare Districts  Adventist Medical Center – Hanford  Adventist Medical Center - Reedley  Alhambra Hospital Medical Center  Alta Bates Summit Medical Center  Alvarado Hospital  Alvarado Parkway Institute  Anaheim Regional Medical Center  Antelope Valley Hospital  Arroyo Grande Community Hospital  Bakersfield Memorial Hospital  Ballard Rehabilitation Hospital  Banner Lassen Medical Center  Barlow Respiratory Hospital  Barstow Community Hospital*  Barton Health  Bear Valley Community Healthcare District  Beverly Hospital*  BHC Alhambra Hospital  California Hospital Medical Center  California Pacific Medical Center  Canyon Ridge Hospital*  Casa Colina Centers for Rehabilitation  Catalina Island Medical Center  Cedars-Sinai Medical Center  Centinela Hospital Medical Center  Central Valley General Hospital  Chinese Hospital  Chino Valley Medical Center*  Citrus Valley Medical Center – Inter Community Campus*  Citrus Valley Medical Center – Queen of the Valley Campus*  City of Hope  Clovis Community Medical Center  Coalinga Regional Medical Center  Coast Plaza Hospital*  College Hospital Cerritos  College Hospital Costa Mesa*  College Medical Center  Colusa Regional Medical Center  Community Behavioral Health Center  Community Hospital of Huntington Park*  Community Hospital Long Beach  Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula  Community Hospital of San Bernardino  Community Memorial Hospital  Community Regional Medical Center  Corona Regional Medical Center  Dameron Hospital Association  Del Amo Hospital*  Delano Regional Medical Center  Desert Regional Medical Center*  Desert Valley Hospital*  Doctors Hospital of Manteca*  Doctors Medical Center of Modesto*  Dominican Hospital  East Los Angeles Doctors Hospital*  Eastern Plumas Health Care  Eden Medical Center  El Camino Hospital  Emanuel Medical Center  Encino Hospital Medical Center  Enloe Medical Center  Fairchild Medical Center  Fallbrook Hospital*  Feather River Hospital*  Foothill Presbyterian Hospital*  Fountain Valley Regional Hospital*  Frank R. Howard Memorial Hospital*  Fremont Hospital  French Hospital Medical Center  Fresno Heart & Surgical Hospital  Garden Grove Hospital and Medical Center  Gardens Regional Hospital and Medical Center*  Glendale Adventist Medical Center  Glendale Memorial Hospital and Health Center  Glendora Community Hospital*  Glenn Medical Center*  Goleta Valley College Hospital  Good Samaritan Hospital – Bakersfield  Good Samaritan Hospital – Los Angeles Page 12 of 137 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 3 of 13  Good Samaritan Hospital – San Jose  Greater El Monte Community Hospital  Grossmont Healthcare District*  Hazel Hawkins Memorial Hospital  Healdsburg District Hospital  Hemet Valley Medical Center  Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital*  Heritage Oaks Hospital  Hi-Desert Medical Center*  Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center  Huntington Beach Hospital  Inland Valley Medical Center*  Jewish Home  John C. Fremont Healthcare District  John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital*  John Muir Behavioral Health  John Muir Medical Center – Concord Campus  John Muir Medical Center – Walnut Creek Campus  Kaiser Permanente Antioch Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Baldwin Park Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Downey Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Fontana Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Fremont Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Fresno Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Modesto/Manteca Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Oakland/Richmond Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Ontario Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Orange County Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Panorama City Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Redwood City Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Sacramento Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente San Leandro Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente San Rafael Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Santa Rosa Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente South Bay Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente South Sacramento Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente South San Francisco Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Vacaville Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Vallejo Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Walnut Creek Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente West Los Angeles Medical Center  Kaiser Permanente Woodland Hills Medical Center  Kaweah Delta Healthcare District  Kern Valley Healthcare District  Kindred Hospital San Diego  La Palma Intercommunity Hospital  Lakewood Regional Medical Center*  Lodi Health  Loma Linda University Behavioral Medicine Center  Loma Linda University Medical Center  Loma Linda University Medical Center – Murrieta  Lompoc Valley Medical Center  Long Beach Memorial Medical Center  Los Alamitos Medical Center*  Los Angeles Jewish Home  Los Robles Hospital and Medical Center  Madera Community Hospital  Mammoth Hospital  Marian Regional Medical Center  Marian Regional Medical Center - West  Marina Del Rey Hospital*  Marin General Hospital Page 13 of 137 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 4 of 13  Mark Twain St. Joseph’s Hospital  Marshall Medical Center  Mayers Memorial Hospital District  Mee Memorial Hospital  Memorial Hospital of Gardena*  Memorial Hospital, Los Banos  Memorial Medical Center  Menifee Valley Medical Center*  Menlo Park Surgical Hospital  Mercy General Hospital  Mercy Hospital  Mercy Hospital of Folsom  Mercy Medical Center Merced  Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta  Mercy Medical Center Redding  Mercy San Juan Medical Center  Mercy Southwest Hospital  Methodist Hospital of Sacramento  Methodist Hospital of Southern California  Mills-Peninsula Health Services  Mission Community Hospital  Mission Hospital  Modoc Medical Center  Monterey Park Hospital  Montclair Hospital Medical Center*  Natividad Medical Center  NorthBay Medical Center*  NorthBay VacaValley Hospital*  Northridge Hospital Medical Center  Novato Community Hospital  O’Connor Hospital  Oak Valley Hospital District  Ojai Valley Community Hospital  Olympia Medical Center  Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center  Orchard Hospital  PIH Health – Downey  PIH Health – Whittier  Pacific Alliance Medical Center  Pacific Grove Hospital*  Palmdale Regional Medical Center*  Palo Verde Hospital*  Palomar Medical Center*  Paradise Valley Hospital  Parkview Community Hospital Medical Center  Petaluma Valley Hospital  Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District  Placentia-Linda Hospital*  Plumas District Hospital  Pomerado Hospital*  Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center  Providence Holy Cross Medical Center  Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Center San Pedro  Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Center Torrance  Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center  Providence Tarzana Medical Center  Queen of the Valley Medical Center  Rancho Springs Medical Center*  Redlands Community Hospital  Redwood Memorial Hospital  Regional Medical Center of San Jose  Ridgecrest Regional Hospital  Riverside Community Hospital  Saddleback Memorial Medical Center  Saint Agnes Medical Center*  Saint Francis Memorial Hospital  Saint John’s Health Center  Saint Louise Regional Hospital  San Antonio Regional Hospital  San Bernardino Mountains Community Hospital District  San Dimas Community Hospital*  San Gabriel Valley Medical Center  San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital  San Joaquin Community Hospital  San Joaquin Valley Rehabilitation Hospital  San Ramon Regional Medical Center*  Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital  Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital  Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital  Scripps Green Hospital*  Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas*  Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla*  Scripps Mercy Hospital Chula Vista*  Scripps Mercy Hospital San Diego*  Seneca Healthcare District Page 14 of 137 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 5 of 13  Sequoia Hospital  Seton Coastside  Seton Medical Center  Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center  Sharp Coronado Hospital and Healthcare Center  Sharp Grossmont Hospital  Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns  Sharp Mesa Vista  Sharp Memorial Hospital  Shasta Regional Medical Center*  Sherman Oaks Hospital*  Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital  Sierra View Medical Center*  Sierra Vista Hospital  Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center*  Simi Valley Hospital  Sonoma Valley HealthCare District  Sonora Regional Medical Center  St. Bernadine Medical Center  St. Elizabeth Community Hospital  St. Francis Medical Center (Lynwood)*  St. Helena Hospital – Clear Lake  St. Helena Hospital – Napa Valley  St. Helena Hospital Center for Behavioral Health  St. John’s Pleasant Valley Hospital  St. John’s Regional Medical Center  St. Joseph’s Behavioral Health Center  St. Joseph Hospital (Eureka)  St. Joseph Hospital (Orange)  St. Joseph’s Medical Center  St. Jude Medical Center*  St. Louise Regional Hospital  St. Mary Medical Center (Apple Valley)  St. Mary Medical Center (Long Beach)  St. Mary’s Medical Center (San Francisco)  St. Rose Hospital  St. Vincent Medical Center  Stanford Health Care  Stanford Health Care – ValleyCare  Surprise Valley Health Care District  Sutter Amador Hospital  Sutter Auburn Faith Hospital  Sutter Coast Hospital  Sutter Davis Hospital  Sutter Delta Medical Center  Sutter Lakeside Hospital and Center for Health  Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center of Santa Cruz  Sutter Medical Center, Sacramento  Sutter Roseville Medical Center  Sutter Santa Rosa Regional Hospital  Sutter Solano Medical Center  Sutter Tracy Community Hospital  Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District  Temecula Valley Hospital  Totally Kids Rehabilitation Hospital  Twin Cities Community Hospital*  USC – Norris Cancer Center*  USC – Verdugo Hills Hospital*  Ukiah Valley Medical Center  ValleyCare Health System*  Valley Presbyterian Hospital  Vibra Hospital Northern California  Victor Valley Global Medical Center  Watsonville Community Hospital*  West Anaheim Medical Center*  West Hills Hospital and Medical Center*  White Memorial Medical Center  Woodland Healthcare Clinics  Alliance for Rural Community Health (ARCH)*  Anderson Family Health & Dental Center*  Antelope Valley Community Clinic*  Big Sur Health Center*  Burre Dental Center*  California Association of Rural Health Clinics*  Cleaver Family Wellness Clinic*  Clinica de Salud del Valle de Salinas  Clinica Monsenor Oscar A. Romero* Page 15 of 137 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 6 of 13  Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County (CCALAC)*  Community Clinic Consortium of Contra Costa and Solano Counties*  Community Health Partnership (10 Clinics)*  Council of Community Clinics (serving San Diego, Riverside & Imperial Counties)  Del Norte Community Health Center*  Eisner Pediatric & Family Medical Center**  Eureka Community Health Center*  Ferndale Community Health Center*  Forestville Teen Clinic*  Forestville Wellness Center*  Fortuna Community Health Center*  Golden Valley Health Centers*  Gravenstein Community Health Center*  Happy Valley Family Health Center*  Harbor Community Clinic*  Humboldt Open Door Clinic*  Imperial Beach Community Clinic*  Kids Come First Health Center*  L.A. Mission College Student Health Center*  Maclay Health Center for Children*  McKinley Community Health*  Mendocino Coast Clinics*  Mission Neighborhood Health Center*  Mobile Health Services*  Mountain Health and Community Services, Inc.(5 Clinics)*  Neighborhood Healthcare (10 Clinics)*  NEVHC Canoga Park Health Center*  NEVHC Health Center for the Homeless, North Hollywood*  NEVHC Mobile Medical Unit*  NEVHC Pacoima Health Center*  NEVHC Pediatric Health & WIC Center*  NEVHC Rainbow Dental Center*  NEVHC San Fernando Health Center*  NEVHC Santa Clarita Health Center*  NEVHC Sun Valley Health Center*  NEVHC Valencia Health Center*  North East Medical Services (10 Clinics)*  Northcountry Clinic*  Northcountry Prenatal Services*  Northeast Valley Health Corporation*  Occidental Area Health Center*  Open Door Community Health Centers (8 Clinics)*  PDI Surgery Center*  Peach Tree Health*  Petaluma Health Center*  Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California*  Primary Care Neuropsychiatry (PCN)*  QueensCare Health Centers (5 Clinics)*  Redwood Community Health Coalition (18 Clinics)*  Russian River Health Center*  Russian River Dental Clinic*  SAC Health System*  Saban Community Clinic*  Sacramento Community Clinic*  San Fernando Teen Health Center*  San Ysidro Health Center*  Santa Rosa Community Health Centers (8 Clinics)*  Sebastopol Community Health Center*  Shasta Community Health Center*  Shasta Community Health Dental Center*  Shasta Lake Family Health and Dental Center*  Sierra Family Medical Clinic*  Sonoma County Indian Health Project, Inc.*  South Bay Family Health Care*  South Central Family Health Center (4 Clinics)*  Southside Coalition of Community Health Care Centers*  St. John’s Well Child & Family Center (10 Clinics)*  Tarzana Treatment Centers, Inc.*  Van Nuys Adult Health Center*  WCHC Mental Health Services*  West County Health Centers*  Westside Family Health Center*  Willow Creek Community Health Center* Page 16 of 137 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 7 of 13 Health Systems  Adventist Health  Alameda Health System  Avanti Hospitals*  Citrus Valley Health Partners  College Health Enterprises*  Community Health Systems*  Community Medical Centers  Community Memorial Health System  Cottage Health System  Daughters of Charity Health System*  Dignity Health  Hospital Corporation of America (HCA)*  John Muir Health  Kaiser Permanente Northern California Region  Kaiser Permanente Southern California Region  Keck Medicine of USC*  Kindred Healthcare*  NorthBay Healthcare  PIH Health  Palomar Health  Physicians for Healthy Hospitals, Inc.*  Prime Healthcare Services*  Prime Healthcare Services Foundation*  Providence Health & Systems, Southern California  Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System  Scripps Health*  Sharp HealthCare  Southwest Healthcare System*  St. Joseph Health  Sutter Health  Tenet Healthcare*  Universal Health Services* Community Organizations  A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing)*  Age Well Senior Services*  Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association (APAPA)  Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council*  CORA – Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse*  California Senior Advocates League*  California Youth Connection*  Community Health Improvement Partners*  Congress of California Seniors**  Curry Senior Center*  Family Voices of California  Health Education Council*  Helping Others Pursue Excellence (HOPE)*  Meals on Wheels and Senior Outreach Services*  National Association of Hispanic Elderly*  On Lok Senior Health Services*  Orange County LULAC Foundation*  Sacramento Steps Forward*  San Clemente Collaborative  Solano Coalition for Better Health*  The Children’s Initiative  The Wall-Las Memorias Project*  United Advocates for Children and Families*  Women’s Empowerment* Labor Organizations  State Building and Construction Trades Council of California*  California State Association of Electrical Workers*  Building and Construction Trades of Stanislaus, Merced, Tuolumne & Mariposa Counties*  Cement Masons, Local 500** Page 17 of 137 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 8 of 13  District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity*  District Council 16 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades*  District Council 36 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades*  Fresno, Madera, Kings & Tulare Counties Building and Construction Trades Council*  Boilermakers Local 92*  IBEW Ninth District*  IBEW 6*  IBEW 11*  IBEW 18*  IBEW 40**  IBEW 45**  IBEW 47*  IBEW 100*  IBEW 180**  IBEW 234*  IBEW 302**  IBEW 332**  IBEW 340*  IBEW 413**  IBEW 428*  IBEW 440**  IBEW 441*  IBEW 465**  IBEW 477*  IBEW 551*  IBEW 569*  IBEW 595*  IBEW 617**  IBEW 639**  IBEW 684**  IBEW 952*  IBEW 1245*  IBEW 1710**  IBEW 2139**  IBEW 2295**  International Brotherhood of Boilermakers*  International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local 1988*  Iron Workers 433*  Kern, Inyo and Mono Counties Building and Construction Trades Council*  Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council*  Monterey/Santa Cruz County Building and Construction Trades Council*  Pipe Trades DC #36*  Plumbers, Pipe & Refrigeration Fitters United Association Local 246*  Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 447*  Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 582*  San Bernardino/Riverside BTC*  Sonoma, Mendocino & Lake Counties Building and Construction Trades Council*  Southern California Pipe Trades District 16*  Tri Counties Building and Construction Trades Council*  U.A. Local 78*  U.A. Local 114*  U.A. Local 159*  U.A. Local 230*  U.A. Local 250*  U.A. Local 345*  U.A. Local 364*  U.A. Local 398*  U.A. Local 403*  U.A. Local 460*  U.A. Local 484*  U.A. Local 582*  U.A. Local 709*  U.A. Local 761* Medical + Dental Societies  Berkeley Dental Society*  Central Coast Dental Society*  Fresno Madera Medical Society*  Hispanic Dental Association of San Diego - Bi-national Chapter*  Los Angeles Dental Society*  Mid-Peninsula Dental Society*  Placer Nevada County Medical Society*  Riverside County Medical Association*  San Bernardino County Medical Society* Page 18 of 137 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 9 of 13  San Diego County Dental Society*  San Diego County Medical Society*  San Francisco Dental Society*  San Francisco Medical Society*  San Gabriel Valley Dental Society*  San Mateo County Dental Society*  San Mateo County Medical Society*  Santa Clara County Dental Society*  Santa Cruz County Medical Society*  Tri-County Dental Society*  Tulare County Medical Society*  Tuolumne County Medical Society*  Yuba Sutter Colusa Medical Society* Local Government + Elected Officials  California State Association of Counties (CSAC)*  Urban Counties of California*  Kern County**  Napa County*  Santa Cruz County*  Senate Republican Leader Jean Fuller  Senator Joel Anderson  Senator Patricia Bates  Senator Tom Berryhill  Senator Anthony Cannella  Senator Ted Gaines  Senator Isadore Hall  Senator Bob Huff  Senator John Moorlach  Senator Mike Morrell  Senator Jim Nielsen  Senator Richard Pan  Senator Sharon Runner  Senator Jeff Stone  Senator Andy Vidak  Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes  Assembly Member Katcho Achadjian  Assembly Member Travis Allen  Assembly Member Catharine Baker  Assembly Member Frank Bigelow  Assembly Member Susan Bonilla  Assembly Member Rob Bonta  Assembly Member Cheryl Brown  Assembly Member Ling Ling Chang  Assembly Member Rocky Chávez  Assembly Member Jim Cooper  Assembly Member Brian Dahle  Assembly Member Tom Daly  Assembly Member Beth Gaines  Assembly Member James Gallagher  Assembly Member Mike Gatto  Assembly Member Mike Gipson  Assembly Member Adam Gray  Assembly Member Shannon Grove  Assembly Member David Hadley  Assembly Member Chris Holden  Assembly Member Brian Jones  Assembly Member Reginald Jones-Sawyer  Assembly Member Young Kim  Assembly Member Tom Lackey  Assembly Member Eric Linder  Assembly Member Brian Maienschein  Assembly Member Devon Mathis  Assembly Member Melissa Melendez  Assembly Member Kristin Olsen  Assembly Member Jim Patterson  Assembly Member Marc Steinorth  Assembly Member Don Wagner  Assembly Member Marie Waldron  Assembly Member Scott Wilk  Assembly Member Jim Wood  California Latino Elected Officials Coalition  Mayor Kevin L. Faulconer, City of San Diego  Mayor Kevin Johnson, City of Sacramento**  Walter Allen III, Council Member, City of Covina*  Jim B. Clarke, Council Member, Culver City*  Fiona Ma, Member, California State Board of Equalization* Page 19 of 137 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 10 of 13 Business Organizations  California Business Roundtable  California Chamber of Commerce  California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce  Alhambra Chamber of Commerce*  Arcadia Chamber of Commerce*  Azusa Chamber of Commerce*  Beaumont Chamber of Commerce*  Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce*  BizFed – The Los Angeles County Business Federation*  Brea Chamber of Commerce  Burbank Chamber of Commerce*  Central City Association of Los Angeles*  Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce*  Chamber of Commerce Mountain View*  The Chamber of the Santa Barbara Region*  Duarte Chamber of Commerce*  East Bay Leadership Council*  El Dorado County Joint Chambers of Commerce*  El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce*  El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce*  Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce*  Folsom Chamber of Commerce*  Fountain Valley Chamber of Commerce*  Fremont Chamber of Commerce*  Fresno Chamber of Commerce  Fullerton Chamber of Commerce  Gateway Chambers Alliance*  Greater Grass Valley Chamber of Commerce*  Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce*  Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce*  Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce*  Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce*  Hayward Chamber of Commerce*  Hollywood Chamber of Commerce*  Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce*  Industry Manufacturers Council*  Inland Empire Economic Partnership  La Canada Flintridge Chamber of Commerce*  Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce*  Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce*  Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce*  Menifee Valley Chamber of Commerce*  Modesto Chamber of Commerce*  Montebello Chamber of Commerce*  Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce*  Mount Shasta Chamber of Commerce*  Murrieta Chamber of Commerce*  North Orange County Legislative Alliance  North San Diego Business Chamber*  Northridge Chamber of Commerce*  Norwalk Chamber of Commerce*  Oceanside Chamber of Commerce*  Pasadena Chamber of Commerce*  Perris Valley Chamber of Commerce*  Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce*  Regional Chamber Alliance*  Rocklin Area Chamber of Commerce*  Roseville Chamber of Commerce*  Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce*  San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce*  San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce  San Francisco Chamber of Commerce*  San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership*  San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce  Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce and Convention-Visitor’s Bureau*  Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce*  Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce*  Santa Paula Chamber of Commerce*  Shingle Springs Cameron Park Chamber of Commerce*  Silicon Valley Chamber Coalition*  Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce*  Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce  Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce*  United Chambers of Commerce of the San Fernando Valley*  Valley Industry and Commerce Association* Page 20 of 137 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 11 of 13  Victor Valley Chamber of Commerce*  Walnut Creek Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau*  West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce*  Westside Council of Chambers of Commerce*  Whittier Area Chamber of Commerce*  Wildomar Chamber of Commerce*  Yorba Linda Chamber of Commerce* Political Organizations  California Republican Party*  Action Democrats of the San Fernando Valley*  Alameda County Democratic Party*  Burbank Democratic Club*  Democratic Alliance for Action*  Democratic Headquarters of the Desert*  Democratic Party of Contra Costa County*  Democratic Party of Orange County*  Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley*  Democrats for Israel – Los Angeles*  Fresno County Democratic Party*  Helen L. Doherty Democratic Club*  Laguna Woods Democratic Club*  Los Angeles County Democratic Party*  New Frontier Democratic Club*  NorthEast Democrats Club*  Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains*  Riverside County Democratic Party*  Sacramento County Democratic Party*  San Bernardino County Democratic Party*  San Diego County Democratic Party*  San Mateo County Democratic Party*  Santa Clara County Democratic Party*  Stonewall Democratic Club*  Torrance Democratic Club*  West End Democratic Club*  Yuba County Democratic Party* Personal Endorsements - Title and/or organization name used for identification purposes only  Mike Genest, Former Director, California Department of Finance**  Tom Scott, State Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)*  Whitney Ayers, Regional Vice President, Hospital Association of Southern California*  Judy Baker, Board Member, Fairchild Medical Center*  Meyer Bendavid (Woodland Hills)*  John Comiskey (San Jose)*  Donna Cozzalio, Board Member, Fairchild Medical Center*  Arnold Daitch (Northridge)*  Louis DeRouchey, MD, Board Member, Fairchild Medical Center*  Josan Feathers, Retired Civil Engineer (La Mesa)*  Sheryl A. Garvey (Santee)*  Charles H. Harrison, Chief Executive Officer, San Bernardino Mountains Community Hospital District*  Carol Hayden, Board Member, Fairchild Medical Center*  Erin Jacobs, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Mount Saint Mary’s University*  Dwayne Jones, Secretary/Treasurer Board Vice-Chairman, Fairchild Medical Center*  Vicki Kirschenbaum (Burbank)*  Douglas Langford, DDS, Board Member, Fairchild Medical Center*  Carole Lutness (Valencia)*  Judy McEntire (Santee)*  Constance Menzies (Los Angeles)* Page 21 of 137 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 12 of 13  Darrin Mercier, Board Vice-Chairman, Fairchild Medical Center*  Lawrence Mulloy, Chairman of the Board, Fairchild Medical Center*  Steven Neal, Civic Engagement Advocate, Molina Healthcare*  John P. Perez (Montebello)*  James Quisenberry, Board Member, Fairchild Medical Center*  Charlotte P. Reed (Lakeside)*  Sharon Rogers (Los Angeles)*  Diana Shaw (Santa Clarita)*  Nick Shestople, Retired Engineer (Temecula)*  Stephen David Simon, Director, Los Angeles City Department on Disability*  Vina Swenson, MD, Pediatrician, Fairchild Medical Center*  Shawn Terris, Financial Director, Palmer Drug and Alcohol Program*  Igor Tregub (Berkeley)*  Rebecca Unger (Joshua tree)*  Vivian Yoshioka (Pomona)* Political Endorsements - Title and/or organization name used for identification purposes only  John Burton, Chairman, California Democratic Party*  Jeffrey Adair, Chair, San Mateo County Democratic Party*  Jovan Ajee, Northern California Political Director, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus*  Kerri Asbury, Chair, Democratic Party of Sacramento*  Caro Avanessian, President, Glendale Democratic Club  Bobbie Jean Anderson, Vice Chair, Los Angeles County Democratic Party*  Jamie Beutler, Chair, California Democratic Party - Rural Caucus*  Rachel Binah, Chair Emerita, California Democratic Party Environmental Caucus**  Bernice Bonillas, President, Kern County Chapter, California Alliance for Retired Americans*  Debra Broner, Region 10 Director, California Democratic Party*  Austina Cho, President, Hubert Humphrey Democratic Club*  Art Copelston, Treasurer/Controller, Democratic Headquarters of the Desert*  Hilary Crosby, Controller, California Democratic Party*  Stephan Early, President, NorthEast Democrats Club*  Kimberly Ellis, Recording Secretary, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus*  Michael Evans, Chair, Fresno County Democratic Party*  Carolyn Fowler, Corresponding Secretary, Los Angeles County Democratic Party*  Mark Gonzalez, Vice-Chair, Los Angeles County Democratic Party*  Jimmy Gow, President, Torrance Democratic Club*  Elvira Harris, Southern California Political Director, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus*  Wanda Harris, Recording Secretary, California Democratic Party Women’s Caucus*  Bob Handy, Founder, California Democratic Party Veteran’s Caucus*  Heather Hutt, Treasurer, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus*  Shanna Ingalsbee, President, Burbank Democratic Club*  Kristin Ingram-Worthman, Region 1 Vice Chair, Los Angeles County Democratic Party*  Judy Jacobs, Chair, California Democratic Party - Children’s Caucus*  Howard Katz, Chairman, Riverside County Democratic Party* Page 22 of 137 Paid for By Californians United for Medi-Cal Funding and Accountability, Sponsored by California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Major Funding By California Health Foundation and Trust and Dignity Health 1215 K Street, Suite 800 ● Sacramento, CA 95814 *New Endorsements (2015-2016) Updated March 7, 2016 - Page 13 of 13  Leslie Katz, Former San Francisco Supervisor and Former San Francisco Democratic Party Chair*  Doug Kessler, California Democratic Party, Region 8*  Jeannie Klever, California Democratic Party, Regional Director*  Jeff Koertzen, Chair, Democratic Party of Contra Costa*  Daraka Larimore-Hall, Secretary, California Democratic Party*  Clark Lee, Chair, Asian Pacific Islander Caucus, California Democratic Party*  Carole Levers, Chapter Leader, Progressive Democrats of America*  Elizabeth “Nikki” Linnerman, Co-Chair, California Democratic Party Legislation Committee*  Bonny Lundberg, Member, San Diego County Democratic Central Committee*  Molly A. Muro Assembly District 55, DSCC Representative*  Darren Parker, Chairman, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus*  Maria Patterson, Vice-Chair, San Joaquin County Democratic Party*  Thomas Patrick O’Shaughnessy, Chair, Irish American Caucus*  Christine Pelosi, Chair, California Democratic Party Women’s Caucus*  Denise Penn, Co-Chair, California Democratic Party – LGBT Caucus*  Mister Phillips, Regional Director, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus*  Robbin Proutt, Vice Chair, California Democratic Party - African American Caucus*  Alexandra Rooker – Vice Chair, California Democratic Party*  Cara Robin, President, West Los Angeles Democratic Club*  Mary Strobridge, California Democratic Party Executive Board Representative from Assembly District 35*  Patricia “Patti” Sulpizio, 38th Assembly District Delegation Chair, Los Angeles County Democratic Party*  Cheryl Tierce, President, Democratic Women of Kern*  Suzan Wilkinson, Region 19 Director, California Democratic Party*  Monica Wilson, Policy Chair, California Democratic Party Women’s Caucus*  Chris W. “Doz” Wood, Chairperson/Voter Registration, East County Democratic Club* Page 23 of 137 Page 24 of 137 Page 25 of 137 LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:03/14/2016   Subject:AB 1707 (Linder) Public Records Act Request Responses Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: 2016-09   Referral Name: AB 1707 (Linder) Public Records Act Request Responses  Presenter: Lara DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 Referral History: This bill was referred to the Legislation Committee by Clerk of the Board Jami Napier. The California Association of Clerks and Election Officials' (CACEO) Clerk of the Board Legislative Committee recently voted to OPPOSE AB 1707. The members were not concerned about adding the requirement that an agency respond in writing to even an oral CPRA request when a record or portion of a record is withheld, since the bill appears to reflect current practice in many or most member counties. However, the members were very concerned that the bill would impose an unreasonable burden upon clerks and county counsels who would have to create a "privilege log" when responding in writing to a request in which records and portions of records are withheld. As one member of the Committee pointed out, the bill also would be precedent-setting in the CPRA in that it would require agencies to create a new record that does not currently exist. This view seems consistent with some county counsels' reading of the bill. This legislation could also increase the difficulty in responding to record requests and could increase exposure to litigation (with potential for attorney fee awards). Even more important, there is a belief by some that it would not assist the public requesting records (except to aid in their litigation) or otherwise make privileged documents disclosable.  Referral Update: Assembly Bill (AB) 1707 (Attachment A) would require a response to a written request for public records be in writing regardless of whether the request was in writing. The bill would require that written response additionally to include a list that contains the title or other identification of each record requested but withheld due to an exemption and the specific exemption that applies to that record. Because local agencies would be required to comply with this new requirement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Attachment B is the letter from the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) to the author, opposing the bill. Status: 02/25/2016 To ASSEMBLY Committee on JUDICIARY. Page 26 of 137 Background : The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make public records available for inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. The act requires a response to a written request for public records that includes a denial of the request, in whole or in part, to be in writing. This bill instead would require that response to be in writing regardless of whether the request was in writing. The bill would require that written response additionally to include a list that contains the title or other identification of each record requested but withheld due to an exemption and the specific exemption that applies to that record. Because local agencies would be required to comply with this new requirement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 6255 of the Government Code is amended to read: 6255. (a) The agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. (b) A response to a written any request for inspection or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing. That written response also shall include a list that contains both of the following: (1) The title or other identification of each record requested but withheld due to an exemption. (2) The specific exemption that applies to that record. SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which amends Section 6255 of the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings: Because the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, requiring local agencies to provide a written response to any request for public records that is denied and to include in that response a list of each record being withheld due to an exemption from disclosure and the specific exemption that applies furthers the purposes of Section 3 of Article 1. SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district under this act would result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Oppose" on AB 1707 Page 27 of 137 CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Oppose" on AB 1707 (Linder), as introduced: Public Records: Response to Request, as recommended by the Clerk of the Board Jami Napier.  Attachments Attachment A - AB 1707 bill text Attachment B: CSAC Oppose Page 28 of 137 california legislature—2015–16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1707 Introduced by Assembly Member Linder January 25, 2016 An act to amend Section 6255 of the Government Code, relating to public records. legislative counsel’s digest AB 1707, as introduced, Linder. Public records: response to request. The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make public records available for inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. The act requires a response to a written request for public records that includes a denial of the request, in whole or in part, to be in writing. This bill instead would require that response to be in writing regardless of whether the request was in writing. The bill would require that written response additionally to include a list that contains the title or other identification of each record requested but withheld due to an exemption and the specific exemption that applies to that record. Because local agencies would be required to comply with this new requirement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 99 Page 29 of 137 The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 6255 of the Government Code is amended line 2 to read: line 3 6255. (a)  The agency shall justify withholding any record by line 4 demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express line 5 provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case line 6 the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly line 7 outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. line 8 (b)  A response to a written any request for inspection or copies line 9 of public records that includes a determination that the request is line 10 denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing. That written line 11 response also shall include a list that contains both of the line 12 following: line 13 (1)  The title or other identification of each record requested but line 14 withheld due to an exemption. line 15 (2)  The specific exemption that applies to that record. line 16 SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of line 17 this act, which amends Section 6255 of the Government Code, line 18 furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) line 19 of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes line 20 of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public line 21 access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of line 22 local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) line 23 of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California line 24 Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings: line 25 Because the people have the right of access to information line 26 concerning the conduct of the people’s business, requiring local line 27 agencies to provide a written response to any request for public line 28 records that is denied and to include in that response a list of each line 29 record being withheld due to an exemption from disclosure and 99 — 2 —AB 1707 Page 30 of 137 line 1 the specific exemption that applies furthers the purposes of Section line 2 3 of Article 1. line 3 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 4 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because line 5 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school line 6 district under this act would result from a legislative mandate that line 7 is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section line 8 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. O 99 AB 1707— 3 — Page 31 of 137 CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CLERKS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS 1100 K Street, Suite 101 1127 11th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 916/327-7500 916/444-2542 March 8, 2016 The Honorable Eric Linder Member, California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 2016 Sacramento, California 95814 Re: AB 1707 (Linder) – Public records: response to request As Introduced on January 25, 2016 – OPPOSE Dear Assembly Member Linder: The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials (CACEO), regret that we must oppose your Assembly Bill 1707, which would require that local agencies subject to the California Public Records Act (PRA) include in their responses to requests for public records the name of documents withheld, and the exemption that applies to each document. The bill would additionally require these agencies to respond to all requests via written response, regardless of how the request is made. Would Require Public Agencies to Maintain Privilege Logs for PRA Requests While the intent behind AB 1707 may be purported to result in further transparency in the realm of access to public records, the costs and administrative burden it would place on public agencies would be crippling. The provisions of AB 1707 would essentially require public agencies to, in response to a PRA request, maintain a version of a “privilege log” – a document describing those documents or other items withheld from production in a civil lawsuit due to the claim that the documents are privileged from disclosure because of the attorney-client privilege or some other privilege. If a privilege claim is made, the party claiming privilege has the burden of showing that the privilege applies, usually by providing sufficient information on the privilege log so that the opposing party can assess its validity. Requiring public agencies to maintain a document-by-document log of records not provided in response to PRA requests will not only increase the complexity and cost of responding, it will additionally invite substantial ancillary litigation regarding whether an agency has complied with the procedural aspects of PRA and will not further benefit the requesting party. In fact, in Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061, the Court opined, “Requiring a public agency to provide a list of all records in its possession that may be responsive to a CPRA request has the potential for imposing significant costs on the agency. A single request may involve thousands of pages of materials…To require each public agency to catalog the responsive documents for each of the requests it receives − even when the agency could legitimately claim that all responsive documents are exempt from disclosure − would be burdensome and of scant public benefit.” Currently, public agencies cannot simply state that a record does not exist; they must state that there is something that cannot be disclosed and must justify withholding any record by demonstrating that, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record (California Government Code §6255). It should Attachment B Page 32 of 137 additionally be noted that many PRA requests are incredibly voluminous and include potentially large numbers of communications (calls, emails, etc.); the requirement to list each record withheld and the exemption claimed would be extremely burdensome and would provide no added meaningful information than is currently provided. Privacy Concerns AB 1707 would require that the written responses include the title or any other identification of the document being withheld, and the exemption that applies to each record exempted. Requiring a list of specific documents would, in many cases, create a potential conflict with statutory confidentiality provisions, including, among many others:  Revenue and Taxation Code §408 (includes property appraisal documents, change of ownership documents and others).  Welfare and Institutions Code §827 (confidential juvenile court records may only be viewed by certain parties) and other WIC codes involving adult protective services and welfare benefits records.  Penal Code §832.7 (confidentiality of peace officer personnel information). Further, protecting the confidentiality of exempt records relating to the deliberative process and records that are subject to attorney-client privilege may be compromised, in whole or in part, just by revealing the name or content of a privileged document. This consequence would involve far more than issues of cost and increased workload. For instance, the revelation of such information may compromise investigations in which confidentiality is essential to the effectiveness of the investigation. Unnecessary Expansion of Required Written Responses Government Code currently requires that, “A response to a written request (emphasis added) for inspection or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing.” AB 1707 removes the written response requirement in GC§6255(b) and applies it to denials (including redactions of records as well as total withholdings) of oral requests as well as written requests; it additionally contains no provision that would nullify the obligation to provide a written response in the instance where the requester is willing to forego the written response. It is not unusual for a member of the public to call or simply make an in-person request at a county department for a single record. This expansion of the written response requirement to all denied or redacted PRA requests would be astoundingly burdensome on county staff and departments and reduce our ability to provide important services to our residents. To date, CSAC has been provided with no specific incidents that would justify the need for this expansion. Imposes a Costly, Non-Reimbursable Mandate Proposition 42 (2014) amended the California Constitution to require local government agencies to comply with the PRA and to eliminate the requirement that the state reimburse local government agencies for compliance with the Act. Accordingly, the costs unnecessarily imposed by AB 1707 will take funds directly out of services we provide to our 38 million residents, including public safety, human services, and health benefits. In conclusion, AB 1707 is an unjustified expansion of the California Public Records Act that would place an undue fiscal and administrative burden on counties and subject them and their residents to confidentiality breaches and litigation. Our Association struggles to determine the necessity of such legislation and any significant problem it attempts to correct or the members of the public it seeks to help. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose AB 1707. Should you have further questions, please contact Faith Conley, CSAC Legislative Representative at 916.650.8117. Cc: The Honorable Mark Stone, Chair, Assembly Judiciary Committee Members, Assembly Judiciary Committee Tom Clark, Consultant, Assembly Judiciary Committee Consultant, Assembly Republican Caucus Attachment B Page 33 of 137 LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:03/14/2016   Subject:Oppose position on SB 885 (Wolk) Construction Contracts: Indemnity Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: 2016-10   Referral Name: Oppose position on SB 885 (Wolk) Construction Contracts: Indemnity  Presenter: Lara DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 Referral History: This bill was referred to the Legislation Committee by Fire Chief Jeff Carman. Referral Update: Senate Bill (SB) 885 would specify, for construction contracts, that a design professional only the has the duty to defend claims that arise out of, or pertain or relate to, negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional. The bill provides that a design professional would not have a duty to defend claims against any other person or entity arising from a construction project, except that person or entity's reasonable defense costs arising out of the design professional's degree of fault. Status: 01/28/2016 To SENATE Committee on JUDICIARY. This bill would greatly limit special districts’ freedom to contract and place undue burden on all local agencies who contract with design professionals for public works projects. Specifically, SB 885 would eliminate the right of a public agency to contract with architects and engineers for up-front legal defense against claims related to these design professionals’ work. Instead, public agencies could only ask for reimbursement from the design professionals if the claim is fully litigated and a decision is rendered by a court. As a result: SB 885 favors litigation over negotiation – SB 885 actually encourages new litigation and manufactures unnecessary conflict in public works projects. SB 885 forces taxpayers and ratepayers to front the costs to defend the private sector even for claims that allege the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct on the part of a private business. Every dollar spent on litigation spawned by SB 885 will be one less dollar to support vital public services and infrastructure (water, fire protection, police, parks, libraries, etc.). Infrastructure funding that employs hard-working Californians will go toward high-paid attorneys. SB 885 circumvents market conditions and the freedom to contract, and simply forcesPage 34 of 137 SB 885 circumvents market conditions and the freedom to contract, and simply forces taxpayers to insure the defense of private entities, even when they are 100 percent liable to the claim. In summary, SB 885 would shift responsibility and risk from design professionals to the public and result in taxpayer dollars funding new unnecessary litigation. The bill text can be found in Attachment A Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Oppose" on SB 885 (Wolk), as introduced: Construction contracts: Indemnity, as recommended by Fire Chief Jeff Carman. Fiscal Impact (if any): Attachments Attachment A - SB 885 bill text Page 35 of 137 SENATE BILL No. 885 Introduced by Senator Wolk January 19, 2016 An act to amend Section 2782 of the Civil Code, relating to contracts. legislative counsel’s digest SB 885, as introduced, Wolk. Construction contracts: indemnity. Existing law makes specified provisions in construction contracts void and unenforceable, including provisions that purport to indemnify the promisee against liability for damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, or any other loss arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the promisee or the promisee’s agents who are directly responsible to the promisee, or for defects in design furnished by those persons. This bill would specify, for construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2017, that a design professional, as defined, only has the duty to defend claims that arise out of, or pertain or relate to, negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional. Under the bill, a design professional would not have a duty to defend claims against any other person or entity arising from a construction project, except that person or entity’s reasonable defense costs arising out of the design professional’s degree of fault, as specified. The bill would prohibit waiver of these provisions and would provide that any clause in a contract that requires a design professional to defend claims against other persons or entities is void and unenforceable. The bill would provide Legislative findings and declarations in support of these provisions. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. 99 Page 36 of 137 The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 2 following: line 3 (a)  Errors and omissions insurance for design professionals does line 4 not provide coverage for the defense of claims against other persons line 5 and other entities involved in construction projects. line 6 (b)  Requiring design professionals to defend claims against line 7 other persons or other entities involved in construction projects line 8 when insurance coverage is not available is unfair and contrary to line 9 sound public policy. line 10 (c)  It is sound public policy for all persons and entities in line 11 projects to defend themselves against claims of negligence or error. line 12 (d)  It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to line 13 prohibit indemnity agreements that require design professionals line 14 to defend claims made against other persons or other entities line 15 involved in construction projects. line 16 SEC. 2. Section 2782 of the Civil Code is amended to read: line 17 2782. (a)  Except as provided in Sections 2782.1, 2782.2, line 18 2782.5, and 2782.6, provisions, clauses, covenants, or agreements line 19 contained in, collateral to, or affecting any construction contract line 20 and that purport to indemnify the promisee against liability for line 21 damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, line 22 or any other loss, damage or expense arising from the sole line 23 negligence or willful misconduct of the promisee or the promisee’s line 24 agents, servants, or independent contractors who are directly line 25 responsible to the promisee, or for defects in design furnished by line 26 those persons, are against public policy and are void and line 27 unenforceable; provided, however, that this section shall not affect line 28 the validity of any insurance contract, workers’ compensation, or line 29 agreement issued by an admitted insurer as defined by the line 30 Insurance Code. line 31 (b)  (1)  Except as provided in Sections 2782.1, 2782.2, and line 32 2782.5, provisions, clauses, covenants, or agreements contained line 33 in, collateral to, or affecting any construction contract with a public line 34 agency entered into before January 1, 2013, that purport to impose line 35 on the contractor, or relieve the public agency from, liability for line 36 the active negligence of the public agency are void and line 37 unenforceable. 99 — 2 —SB 885 Page 37 of 137 line 1 (2)  Except as provided in Sections 2782.1, 2782.2, and 2782.5, line 2 provisions, clauses, covenants, or agreements contained in, line 3 collateral to, or affecting any construction contract with a public line 4 agency entered into on or after January 1, 2013, that purport to line 5 impose on any contractor, subcontractor, or supplier of goods or line 6 services, or relieve the public agency from, liability for the active line 7 negligence of the public agency are void and unenforceable. line 8 (c)  (1)  Except as provided in subdivision (d) and Sections line 9 2782.1, 2782.2, and 2782.5, provisions, clauses, covenants, or line 10 agreements contained in, collateral to, or affecting any construction line 11 contract entered into on or after January 1, 2013, with the owner line 12 of privately owned real property to be improved and as to which line 13 the owner is not acting as a contractor or supplier of materials or line 14 equipment to the work, that purport to impose on any contractor, line 15 subcontractor, or supplier of goods or services, or relieve the owner line 16 from, liability are unenforceable to the extent of the active line 17 negligence of the owner, including that of its employees. line 18 (2)  For purposes of this subdivision, an owner of privately line 19 owned real property to be improved includes the owner of any line 20 interest therein, other than a mortgage or other interest that is held line 21 solely as security for performance of an obligation. line 22 (3)  This subdivision shall not apply to a homeowner performing line 23 a home improvement project on his or her own single family line 24 dwelling. line 25 (d)  For all construction contracts, and amendments thereto, line 26 entered into after January 1, 2009, for residential construction, as line 27 used in Title 7 (commencing with Section 895) of Part 2 of line 28 Division 2, all provisions, clauses, covenants, and agreements line 29 contained in, collateral to, or affecting any construction contract, line 30 and amendments thereto, that purport to insure or indemnify, line 31 including the cost to defend, the builder, as defined in Section 911, line 32 or the general contractor or contractor not affiliated with the line 33 builder, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 911, by a line 34 subcontractor against liability for claims of construction defects line 35 are unenforceable to the extent the claims arise out of, pertain to, line 36 or relate to the negligence of the builder or contractor or the line 37 builder’s or contractor’s other agents, other servants, or other line 38 independent contractors who are directly responsible to the builder, line 39 or for defects in design furnished by those persons, or to the extent line 40 the claims do not arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the scope of 99 SB 885— 3 — Page 38 of 137 line 1 work in the written agreement between the parties. This section line 2 shall not be waived or modified by contractual agreement, act, or line 3 omission of the parties. Contractual provisions, clauses, covenants, line 4 or agreements not expressly prohibited herein are reserved to the line 5 agreement of the parties. Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent line 6 any party from exercising its rights under subdivision (a) of Section line 7 910. This subdivision shall not affect the obligations of an line 8 insurance carrier under the holding of Presley Homes, Inc. v. line 9 American States Insurance Company (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 571. line 10 Nor shall this subdivision affect the obligations of a builder or line 11 subcontractor pursuant to Title 7 (commencing with Section 895) line 12 of Part 2 of Division 2. line 13 (e)  Subdivision (d) does not prohibit a subcontractor and builder line 14 or general contractor from mutually agreeing to the timing or line 15 immediacy of the defense and provisions for reimbursement of line 16 defense fees and costs, so long as that agreement does not waive line 17 or modify the provisions of subdivision (d) subject, however, to line 18 paragraphs (1) and (2). A subcontractor shall owe no defense or line 19 indemnity obligation to a builder or general contractor for a line 20 construction defect claim unless and until the builder or general line 21 contractor provides a written tender of the claim, or portion thereof, line 22 to the subcontractor which includes all of the information provided line 23 to the builder or general contractor by the claimant or claimants, line 24 including, but not limited to, information provided pursuant to line 25 subdivision (a) of Section 910, relating to claims caused by that line 26 subcontractor’s scope of work. This written tender shall have the line 27 same force and effect as a notice of commencement of a legal line 28 proceeding. If a builder or general contractor tenders a claim for line 29 construction defects, or a portion thereof, to a subcontractor in the line 30 manner specified by this provision, the subcontractor shall elect line 31 to perform either of the following, the performance of which shall line 32 be deemed to satisfy the subcontractor’s defense obligation to the line 33 builder or general contractor: line 34 (1)  Defend the claim with counsel of its choice, and the line 35 subcontractor shall maintain control of the defense for any claim line 36 or portion of claim to which the defense obligation applies. If a line 37 subcontractor elects to defend under this paragraph, the line 38 subcontractor shall provide written notice of the election to the line 39 builder or general contractor within a reasonable time period line 40 following receipt of the written tender, and in no event later than 99 — 4 —SB 885 Page 39 of 137 line 1 90 days following that receipt. Consistent with subdivision (d), line 2 the defense by the subcontractor shall be a complete defense of line 3 the builder or general contractor of all claims or portions thereof line 4 to the extent alleged to be caused by the subcontractor, including line 5 any vicarious liability claims against the builder or general line 6 contractor resulting from the subcontractor’s scope of work, but line 7 not including claims resulting from the scope of work, actions, or line 8 omissions of the builder, general contractor, or any other party. line 9 Any vicarious liability imposed upon a builder or general contractor line 10 for claims caused by the subcontractor electing to defend under line 11 this paragraph shall be directly enforceable against the line 12 subcontractor by the builder, general contractor, or claimant. line 13 (2)  Pay, within 30 days of receipt of an invoice from the builder line 14 or general contractor, no more than a reasonable allocated share line 15 of the builder’s or general contractor’s defense fees and costs, on line 16 an ongoing basis during the pendency of the claim, subject to line 17 reallocation consistent with subdivision (d), and including any line 18 amounts reallocated upon final resolution of the claim, either by line 19 settlement or judgment. The builder or general contractor shall line 20 allocate a share to itself to the extent a claim or claims are alleged line 21 to be caused by its work, actions, or omissions, and a share to each line 22 subcontractor to the extent a claim or claims are alleged to be line 23 caused by the subcontractor’s work, actions, or omissions, line 24 regardless of whether the builder or general contractor actually line 25 tenders the claim to any particular subcontractor, and regardless line 26 of whether that subcontractor is participating in the defense. Any line 27 amounts not collected from any particular subcontractor may not line 28 be collected from any other subcontractor. line 29 (f)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a line 30 subcontractor fails to timely and adequately perform its obligations line 31 under paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), the builder or general line 32 contractor shall have the right to pursue a claim against the line 33 subcontractor for any resulting compensatory damages, line 34 consequential damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees. If a line 35 subcontractor fails to timely perform its obligations under line 36 paragraph (2) of subdivision (e), the builder or general contractor line 37 shall have the right to pursue a claim against the subcontractor for line 38 any resulting compensatory and consequential damages, as well line 39 as for interest on defense and indemnity costs, from the date line 40 incurred, at the rate set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 3260, 99 SB 885— 5 — Page 40 of 137 line 1 and for the builder’s or general contractor’s reasonable attorney’s line 2 fees incurred to recover these amounts. The builder or general line 3 contractor shall bear the burden of proof to establish both the line 4 subcontractor’s failure to perform under either paragraph (1) or line 5 (2) of subdivision (e) and any resulting damages. If, upon request line 6 by a subcontractor, a builder or general contractor does not line 7 reallocate defense fees to subcontractors within 30 days following line 8 final resolution of the claim as described above, the subcontractor line 9 shall have the right to pursue a claim against the builder or general line 10 contractor for any resulting compensatory and consequential line 11 damages, as well as for interest on the fees, from the date of final line 12 resolution of the claim, at the rate set forth in subdivision (g) of line 13 Section 3260, and the subcontractor’s reasonable attorney’s fees line 14 incurred in connection therewith. The subcontractor shall bear the line 15 burden of proof to establish both the failure to reallocate the fees line 16 and any resulting damages. Nothing in this section shall prohibit line 17 the parties from mutually agreeing to reasonable contractual line 18 provisions for damages if any party fails to elect for or perform line 19 its obligations as stated in this section. line 20 (g)  A builder, general contractor, or subcontractor shall have line 21 the right to seek equitable indemnity for any claim governed by line 22 this section. line 23 (h)  Nothing in this section limits, restricts, or prohibits the right line 24 of a builder, general contractor, or subcontractor to seek equitable line 25 indemnity against any supplier, design professional, or product line 26 manufacturer. line 27 (i)  As used in this section, “construction defect” means a line 28 violation of the standards set forth in Sections 896 and 897. line 29 (j)  (1)  Commencing with contracts entered into on or after line 30 January 1, 2017, a design professional, as defined in paragraph line 31 (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2782.8, shall only have the duty line 32 to defend claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, the line 33 negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design line 34 professional. A design professional shall have no duty to defend line 35 claims against other persons or entities. A design professional line 36 shall be obligated to reimburse reasonable defense costs incurred line 37 by other persons or entities, limited to the design professional’s line 38 degree of fault, as determined by a court or arbitration. line 39 (2)  The provisions of this subdivision shall not be waived or line 40 modified by contract. Contract provisions in violation of this 99 — 6 —SB 885 Page 41 of 137 line 1 subdivision are void and unenforceable. The duty of a design line 2 professional to defend is limited as provided in this subdivision. O 99 SB 885— 7 — Page 42 of 137 LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:03/14/2016   Subject:Funding the development of an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: 2016-08   Referral Name: Funding the development of an Emergency Operations Center (EOC)  Presenter: Paul Schlesinger, Federal Lobbyist Contact: Referral History: Our Senators are in the process of soliciting input on appropriations requests for the federal FY 2017 Budget. They cannot accommodate any requests that would be considered a “congressionally directed spending item” (earmark) as defined by Senate Rule 44. However, they would like to know what the County's priorities are in terms of federal appropriations. The County's adopted 2016 Federal Platform includes "Federal Funding Needs" as well as "Appropriations and Grants--Support Positions."  In consideration of the County's need for a new Emergency Operations Center (EOC), the County's Federal Lobbyist Paul Schlesinger has recommended that the Committee consider including support for the federal "Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG)," which could provide funding for an EOC, in the County's Federal Platform as a top priority. This would require an amendment to the adopted 2016 Federal Platform by the Board of Supervisors. Referral Update: Programmatic Funding Request Appropriations Bill: Homeland Security Specific agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Appropriations account: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Appropriations line item: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Amount requested for FY 2017 Appropriations: $350 million Amount requested in the President’s Budget: $350 million Amount provided by the FY 2016 enacted bill: $350 million Explanation justifying the request, describing how funding will be used, and relevance to California:  The EMPG program funds state and local efforts to sustain and enhance the effectiveness of Page 43 of 137 The EMPG program funds state and local efforts to sustain and enhance the effectiveness of their emergency management programs for all hazards preparedness. In FY 2015, California received more than $27.8 million, the highest funded-state in the country, of which more than $15.5 million was sub-allocated to approximately the 58 county Operational Areas (OAs) for critical hazard preparation activities. Last year California’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), in accordance with program guidelines, prioritized the building, sustainment, and delivery of all-hazards emergency management capabilities in the following areas: Planning, organization, equipment acquisitions, training, exercises, Emergency Operations Center (EOC) construction and renovation, and maintenance and sustainment. Of particular interest to Contra Costa is the allowance for funds to be expended for EOC construction and renovation, as the County is seeking funding for the development of an EOC. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECOMMEND to the Board of Supervisors an amendment to the County's adopted Federal Platform to include support for funding the development of an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) as the County's top priority for federal funding needs. Attachments Attachment A - Adopted Federal Platform, redlined revision Page 44 of 137 2 2016 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Each year, the Board of Supervisors adopts a Federal Legislative Platform that establishes priorities and policy positions with regard to potential federal legislation and regulation. The 2016 Federal Legislative Platform identifies 10 funding needs for FFY 2017 and 5 requests for the federal transportation act. FEDERAL FUNDING NEEDS The following list is a preliminary ranking in priority order. Adjustments to the priority order may be appropriate once the President releases his budget. The current priority ranking gives preference to those projects that we know will not be included in the President’s budget, with lower priority to Army Corps of Engineers projects which may be in the budget. Also, Army Corps project requests will be adjusted to be consistent with Corps capability. 1. Emergency Operations Center (EOC) - $350,000,000 for state and local efforts to sustain and enhance the effectiveness of their emergency management programs for all hazards preparedness. In FY 2015, California received more than $27.8 million, the highest funded-state in the country, of which more than $15.5 million was sub-allocated to approximately the 58 county Operational Areas (OAs) for critical hazard preparation activities. Last year California’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), in accordance with program guidelines, prioritized the building, sustainment, and delivery of all-hazards emergency management capabilities in the following areas: Planning, organization, equipment acquisitions, training, exercises, Emergency Operations Center (EOC) construction and renovation, and maintenance and sustainment. Of particular interest to Contra Costa County is the allowance for funds to be expended for EOC construction and renovation, as the County is seeking funding for the development of an EOC. 12. Delta LTMS-Pinole Shoal Management, CA – $4,500,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to continue a Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for levee rehabilitation, dredging and sediment reuse in the Delta, similar to the effort completed in the Bay area. Levee work, reuse of dredged sediments, dredging and other activities have been difficult to accomplish due to permitting problems and a divergence of priorities related to water quality. Significant levee rehabilitation is critical to the long term stability of these levees and to water quality and supply for the 23 million Californians who depend upon this water. Stakeholders from the Department of Water Resources, Ports, Army Corps, levee reclamation districts, local governments and other interested parties are participating in the LTMS. A Sediment or Dredged Material Management Office will be established, and in the longer term, preparation of a Sediment Management Plan will consider beneficial reuse of dredged materials as one potential source of sediment for levees. (Note: $500,000 appropriated for FFY 2005; $225,000 for FFY 2006; $500,000 for FFY 2007; $462,000 for FFY 2008; $235,000 for FFY 2009; $100,000 for FFY 2010; $0 FFY 2011-2013; $930,000 FFY 2014.) 23. Safe and Bright Futures for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence – $400,000 to implement the federally funded plan to diminish the damaging effects of domestic violence on children and adolescents and to stop the cycle of intentional injury and abuse. A three year assessment and planning process resulted in a program plan that is working to align and create a Page 45 of 137 2016 Federal Legislative Platform Contra Costa County 3 system responsive to the needs of children exposed to domestic violence through identification, early intervention; raising awareness; training professionals; utilizing and disseminating data; establishing consultation teams to support providers in intervening and using best practices; and developing targeted services. Exposure to domestic violence reshapes the human brain and is the primary cause of trauma in children’s lives. It influences personality, shapes personal skills and behaviors, impacts academic performance, and substantially contributes to the high cost of law enforcement, civil/criminal justice and social services. Exposure to domestic violence is associated with greater rates of substance abuse, mental illness, and adverse health outcomes in adulthood, and substantially contributes to the high cost of law enforcement, civil/criminal justice and social services. (Note: $428,000 appropriated for FFY 2009; $550,000 for FFY 2010.) 34. Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine Clean-up – $483,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the Technical Planning Process for the clean-up project at the source and downstream area of the Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine. The project will clean up the mine in a cost effective, environmentally-sound manner with minimal liability exposure for the County and involving all stakeholders through an open community-based process. The Corps initiated a Technical Planning Process in June 2008 to develop a preliminary remediation plan, identify applicable permit and environmental data requirements and complete a data collection and documentation program for the clean-up of the area impacted by the Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine. Several phases of the planning process have been completed, and this appropriation will allow the Corps to continue the planning process, which will include looking at watershed issues downstream of the mercury mine. The mine site is located on private property on the northeast slope of Mt. Diablo at the upper end of the Marsh Creek watershed. (Note: $517,000 appropriated in FFY 2008.) 45. Bay-Delta Area Studies, Surveys and Technical Analysis – $2,500,000 for the Delta Counties Coalition to carry out technical analysis and planning associated with participation in the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) or implementation of any projects resulting from the Plan. The technical analysis and planning will focus on issues related to the planning of water delivery projects and conservation plans that are included in the BDCP. 56. CALFED Bay Delta Reauthorization Act Levee Stability Improvement Program (LSIP) – $8,000,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers for levee rehabilitation planning and project implementation. The CALFED Reauthorization Act, passed in January 2004, authorized $90 million, which may be appropriated for levee rehabilitation work. The Corps has prepared a “180-Day Report” which identifies projects and determines how these funds would be spent. Since that time, the breakdown of CALFED, coupled with the Army Corps’ attempts to define an appropriate and streamlined process, has delayed funding and resultant levee work. (Note: $500,000 appropriated for FFY 2006; $400,000 for FFY 2007; $4.92M for FFY 2008; $4.844M for FFY 2010.) 67. Suisun Bay Channel/New York Slough Maintenance Dredging – $8,700,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers for maintenance dredging of this channel to the authorized depth of minus 35 feet. Continued maintenance is essential for safe transport of crude oil and other bulk materials through the San Francisco Bay, along the Carquinez Straits and into the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. Dredging for this channel section is particularly costly due to requirements on placement of dredged materials in upland environments. An oil tanker ran aground in early 2001 due to severe shoaling in a section of this channel, which creates a greater Page 46 of 137 4 potential for oil spills (Note: $4.559 M appropriated for FFY 2005; $4.619M for FFY 2006; $2.82M for FFY 2007; $2.856M for FFY 2008; $2.768M for FFY 2009; $3.819M for FFY 2010; $2.715M for FFY 2012; $2.495M for FFY 2013; $2.026M for FFY 2014.) 78. San Pablo/Mare Island Strait/Pinole Shoal Channel Maintenance Dredging – $8,400,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers for maintenance dredging of the channel to the authorized depth of minus 35 feet. The Pinole Shoal channel is a major arterial for vessel transport through the San Francisco Bay region, serving oil refineries and bulk cargo which is transported as far east as Sacramento and Stockton. (Note: $1M appropriated for FFY 2005; $2.988M for FFY 2006; $896,000 for FFY 2007; $1.696M for FFY 2008; $1.058M for FFY 2009; $2.518M for FFY 2010; $3.402M for FFY 2012; $499,000 for FFY 2013; $780,000 for FFY 2014.) 89. San Francisco to Stockton (J. F. Baldwin and Stockton Channels) Ship Channel Deepening – $2,700,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to continue the Deepening Project. Deepening and minor realignment of this channel will allow for operational efficiencies for many different industries, an increase in waterborne goods movement, reduced congestion on roadways, and air quality benefits. This work focused on establishing economic benefit to the nation and initial salinity modeling in the channel sections. The following steps include detailed channel design, environmental documentation, cost analysis, additional modeling, and dredged material disposal options. This project continues to have enormous implications for oil refineries, ports, and other industries that depend on safe ship transport through the channel. (Note: $500,000 appropriated for FFY 2005; $200,000 for FFY 2006; $200,000 for FFY 2007; $403,000 for FFY 2008; $1.34M for FFY 2009; $0 for FFY 2010; $0 for FFY 2011; $800,000 for FFY 2012; $1,546,900 for FFY 2013; $800,000 for FFY 2014.) 910. State Route 4 / Old River Bridge Study – $1,000,000 to work with San Joaquin County and the State of California on a study of improving or replacing the Old River Bridge along State Route 4 on the Contra Costa / San Joaquin County line. The study would determine a preferred alternative for expanding or replacing the existing bridge, which is part of State Route 4. The existing bridge is narrow, barely allowing two vehicles to pass each other, and is aligned on a difficult angle relative to the highway on either side, requiring motorists to make sharp turns onto and off of the bridge. The project would improve safety and traffic flow over the bridge. (Note: no appropriations for this project as yet.) 1011. Knightsen/Byron Area Transportation Study - $300,000 to re-evaluate the Circulation Element of the County General Plan (GP) to improve its consistency with the Urban Limit Line (ULL) and related policies that ensure preservation of non-urban, agricultural, open space and other areas identified outside the ULL. Policies will be evaluated to provide a more efficient and affordable circulation system for the study area, serve all transportation user-groups, support the local agricultural economy and accommodate the commuter traffic destined for employment centers outside the study area. Zoning and development regulations would be updated to implement the study recommendations. Page 47 of 137 LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 8. Meeting Date:03/14/2016   Subject:Federal Earmark Repurposing Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: 2016-09   Referral Name: Federal Earmark Repurposing  Presenter: L. DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 Referral History: The County's federal advocate, Paul Schlesinger, of Alcalde & Fay, brought this matter to staff's attention on Mar. 10, 2016.  On Mar. 8, 2016 the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released materials implementing a provision from the FY ’16 Appropriations bill aimed at “repurposing” old, unspent federal earmark funding. Our federal advocate notes that this could be a great opportunity for us. Attached is the FHWA guidance memos and the charts of old earmarks in California. Note that there is still some money available for projects related to Route 4, I-680, Vasco Road, Oakley, and something in the City of Richmond. Referral Update: The biggest legitimate argument against earmarks was that, in some cases, money was being dedicated exclusively to projects that were not going anywhere, thus making that money unavailable to help meet the very great needs facing our country. The Transportation Appropriations bill for FY 2016 authorizes states to "repurpose" earmarks designated before September 30, 2005, administered by the Federal Highway Administration, and 1) less than 10% obligated, or 2) – essentially – completed. The repurposed funds must be used on a new or existing project within 50 miles of the original designation, and must be eligible under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (the most flexible of the federal transportation programs; almost anything imaginable would be eligible). All requests for repurposing funds must be made by September 12, 2016 and obligated by  September 30, 2019. Page 48 of 137 The non-federal share is the same as was associated with the original earmark. Charts released yesterday by FHWA indicating earmarks in the State the funding of which are eligible for repurposing within 50 miles, and the amounts available, are attached. (Attachment B) Also attached is the Guidance Memorandum and Frequently Asked Questions that FHWA released yesterday. (Attachment A) Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Our federal advocate and staff could be directed to work with CalTrans, telling them that we would like to obligate the funding we had worked for and that we do not want to see those earmarks for Contra Costa County projects repurposed to other areas. The County should start working with CalTrans, and perhaps the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, as soon as possible to ascertain how they intend to work this process. Fiscal Impact (if any): Unknown at this time. Repurposing of federal earmarks could bring additional resources to Contra Costa County for transportation projects. Attachments Attachment A: FHWA Guidance Memo Attachment B: CA Chart Page 49 of 137 Attachment A Page 50 of 137 Attachment A Page 51 of 137 Attachment A Page 52 of 137 Attachment A Page 53 of 137 Attachment A Page 54 of 137 Attachment A Page 55 of 137 Attachment A Page 56 of 137 Attachment A Page 57 of 137 Attachment A Page 58 of 137 Attachment A Page 59 of 137 Attachment A Page 60 of 137 Attachment A Page 61 of 137 Attachment A Page 62 of 137 Attachment A Page 63 of 137 Attachment A Page 64 of 137 Attachment A Page 65 of 137 Attachment BPage 66 of 137 Attachment BPage 67 of 137 Attachment BPage 68 of 137 Attachment BPage 69 of 137 Attachment BPage 70 of 137 Attachment BPage 71 of 137 Attachment BPage 72 of 137 Attachment BPage 73 of 137 Attachment BPage 74 of 137 Attachment BPage 75 of 137 Attachment BPage 76 of 137 Attachment BPage 77 of 137 Attachment BPage 78 of 137 Attachment BPage 79 of 137 Attachment BPage 80 of 137 Attachment BPage 81 of 137 Attachment BPage 82 of 137 Attachment BPage 83 of 137 Attachment BPage 84 of 137 Attachment BPage 85 of 137 Attachment BPage 86 of 137 Attachment BPage 87 of 137 Attachment BPage 88 of 137 Attachment BPage 89 of 137 Attachment BPage 90 of 137 Attachment BPage 91 of 137 Attachment BPage 92 of 137 Attachment BPage 93 of 137 Attachment BPage 94 of 137 Attachment BPage 95 of 137 Attachment BPage 96 of 137 Attachment BPage 97 of 137 Attachment BPage 98 of 137 LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 9. Meeting Date:03/14/2016   Subject: FY 2014/15 AB 109 Annual Report Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: 2016-11   Referral Name:  FY 2014/15 AB 109 Annual Report  Presenter: Lara DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 Referral History: "Community Corrections Partnership Annual Report" for Contra Costa County was referred to the Legislation Committee for review by Chief Probation Officer Philip Kader. Referral Update: The FY 2014/15 AB 109 Annual Report was assembled by Resource Development Associates (RDA), on behalf of the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) for Contra Costa County.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): ACCEPT the FY 2014/15 AB 109 Annual Report for Contra Costa County and provide direction to staff, as needed. Attachments Attachment A - FY 2014/15 AB 109 Annual Report Page 99 of 137 Public Safety Realignment in Contra Costa County AB 109 Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2014/15 Page 100 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 1 The following AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Annual Report was prepared by Resource Development Associates (RDA), with oversight from the Community Corrections Partnership of Contra Costa County. Community Corrections Partnership of Contra Costa County Staff Assigned to CCP Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator Timothy M. Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator Donte Blue, County Reentry Coordinator Philip Kader, Chief Probation Officer, Chair Stephen Baiter, Workforce Development Director David Livingston, Sheriff of Contra Costa County Roosevelt Terry, Community Based Organizations Representative Brian Addington, Pittsburg Police Chief Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services Director Mark Peterson, District Attorney Cynthia Belon, Behavioral Health Director Mimi Lyster-Zemmelman, Superior Court designee David Twa, County Administrator Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Fatima Matal Sol, Alcohol and Other Drugs Director Devorah Levine, Victim's Representative Karen Sakata, County Superintendent of Schools Page 101 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 2 Table of Contents Introduction to the Report ............................................................................................................................ 5 Realignment in Contra Costa County ............................................................................................................ 6 County Department Impacts......................................................................................................................... 9 Behavioral Health Services............................................................................................................... 9 Detention Health Services ............................................................................................................. 13 District Attorney’s Office ............................................................................................................... 15 Office of the Public Defender ........................................................................................................ 17 Pretrial Services ............................................................................................................................. 20 Probation Department ................................................................................................................... 23 Sheriff’s Office ................................................................................................................................ 25 Workforce Development Board ..................................................................................................... 29 Community Based Service Providers .......................................................................................................... 30 AB 109 Population Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 34 Looking Ahead ............................................................................................................................................. 37 Page 102 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 3 Table of Figures Figure 1: Outpatient Treatment Services ...................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Residential Detoxification Services .............................................................................................. 10 Figure 3: Residential Treatment Services ................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4: AB 109 individuals provided Homeless Services .......................................................................... 11 Figure 5: Total bed-nights utilized by AB 109 population ........................................................................... 11 Figure 6: Clients referred to, screened for, and received Forensic Mental Health services ...................... 12 Figure 7: Medi-Cal intakes and approvals ................................................................................................... 12 Figure 8: DHS needs assessments and intake screenings ........................................................................... 13 Figure 9: Types of DHS sick calls ................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 10: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, .................................... 15 Figure 11: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, all FY 14/15 ................ 15 Figure 12: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentences, by FY 14/15 quarter .................. 16 Figure 13: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentence, all FY 14/151 ............................... 16 Figure 14: Types of AB 109 supervision revocations .................................................................................. 16 Figure 15: Types of supervision revocations as a percentage of all AB 109 revocations, all ...................... 16 Figure 16: Clients referred to, assessed by, and referred to service providers by Social Worker .............. 17 Figure 17: Number and percentage of clients released on own recognizance .......................................... 18 Figure 18: Number and percentage of ACER dispositions .......................................................................... 18 Figure 19: Clean Slate petitions filed, granted, or denied .......................................................................... 19 Figure 20: PTS clients assessed for pretrial risk, FY 14/15 .......................................................................... 20 Figure 21: Assessed pretrial risk levels, FY 14/15 ....................................................................................... 20 Figure 22: Percentage of assessed clients starting pretrial supervision, by risk level ................................ 21 Figure 23: Pretrial supervision case closures, by type ................................................................................ 21 Page 103 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 4 Figure 24: Unsuccessful pretrial supervision case closures, by type .......................................................... 22 Figure 25: Newly processed AB 109 supervisees, by classification ............................................................ 23 Figure 26: Total AB 109 individuals under supervision during FY 14/15 (n=1,194) .................................... 23 Figure 27: Average AB 109 population under County supervision, by classification ................................. 23 Figure 28: Initial CAIS risk levels, FY 14/15 (n=525) .................................................................................... 24 Figure 29: AB 109 supervision population CAIS-assessed needs, FY 14/15 (n=309) .................................. 24 Figure 30: AB 109 bookings, by type – Martinez Detention Facility ........................................................... 25 Figure 31: AB 109 bookings, by type – West County Detention Facility ..................................................... 25 Figure 32: AB 109 bookings, by type – Marsh Creek Detention Facility ..................................................... 26 Figure 33. Average daily jail population, AB 109 vs. Non-AB 109 ............................................................... 26 Figure 34: Average daily AB 109 population – Martinez Detention Facility ............................................... 27 Figure 35: Average daily AB 109 population – West County Detention Facility ......................................... 27 Figure 36: Average daily AB 109 population – Marsh Creek Detention Facility ......................................... 27 Figure 37: Average custodial time served by AB 109 clients, by population type ...................................... 28 Figure 38: PRCS flash incarcerations ........................................................................................................... 34 Figure 39. Percentage of 1170(h) clients revoked in FY 14/15 ................................................................... 35 Figure 40: Percentage of PRCS clients revoked in FY 14/15 ....................................................................... 35 Figure 41. AB 109 clients with new charges and/or new criminal convictions .......................................... 36 Page 104 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 5 Introduction to the Report This report provides an overview of AB 109-related activities undertaken in Contra Costa County during the 2014-2015 Fiscal Year (FY 14/15), with a focus on understanding the impact of AB 109 County Departments and contracted service providers. Toward this end, this report describes the volume and type of services provided by all of the County’s AB 109 partners over the course of the year followed by a brief overview As context for these activities, the report begins with an overview of the legislative impact of AB 109 on California counties and a discussion of Contra Costa County’s response to Public Safety Realignment. This is followed by an in-depth look at the AB 109-related supervision and services provided by each of Contra Costa County’s AB 109-funded departments, as well as the cross-departmental Pretrial Services program. The departments included in this report, listed in alphabetical order, are:  Behavioral Health Services  Detention Health Services  District Attorney’s Office  Office of the Public Defender  Pretrial Services  Probation Department  Sheriff’s Office  Workforce Development Board After summarizing the implementation and impact of AB 109 across County departments this report describes services each of the AB 109-contracted community based organizations provides, highlighting the referrals they received from Probation, as well as the total number of enrollments and successful completions of program services over the course of the year. Finally this report concludes with an overview of AB 109 population outcomes and a discussion of the County’s AB 109 priorities moving forward into FY 15/16 and beyond. A Note on Data The RDA team worked with each County Department, as well as seven community-based organizations (CBOs) contracted to provide AB 109 services, in order to obtain the data necessary for the following report. Because data was collected across a variety of departments who track AB 109 client measures differently, we caution against making direct comparisons from figures across department sections. Moreover, because each department has a separate data system and track AB 109 client data disparately, some measures such as the percentage of the AB 109 population under supervision with new criminal charges and/or convictions during FY 14/15 could not be calculated without tracking individuals across departments. Page 105 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 6 Realignment in Contra Costa County Legislative Impacts of AB 109 Largely a response to prison overcrowding in California, the Public Safety Realignment Act (Assembly Bill (AB) 109) was signed into law in 2011, taking effect on October 1, 2011. AB 109 transferred the responsibility of supervising specific lower-level incarcerated individuals and parolees from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to counties, realigning three major areas of the criminal justice system. Specifically, AB 109:  Transferred the location of incarceration for individuals incarcerated for lower-level offenses (specified non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders) from state prison to local county jail and provided for an expanded role for post-release supervision for these offenders;  Transferred the responsibility for post-release supervision of individuals incarcerated for lower- level offenses (those released from prison after having served a sentence for a non-violent, non- serious, and non-sex offense) from the state to the county level by creating a new category of supervision called Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS);  Shifted the responsibility for processing certain parole revocations from the state Parole Board to the local court system; and  Shifted the responsibility for housing revoked supervision clients affected by the above changes from CDCR to county detention facilities. There are three new populations for which the County is now responsible for housing and supervising, all classified under AB 109. These populations include:  Post-Release Community Supervisees: County probation departments now supervise a specified population of incarcerated individuals discharging from prison whose commitment offense was non-violent and non-serious.  Parolees: Parolees – excluding those serving life terms – who violate the terms of their parole serve any detention sanction in the local jail rather than state prison. In addition, as of July 1, 2013 local courts are now responsible for parole revocation hearings for parolees who violate the terms of their parole, rather than the state Parole Board.  1170(h) Sentenced defendants: Individuals convicted of non-violent or non-serious felonies serve their sentence under the jurisdiction of the county instead of state prison. Sentences are now Page 106 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 7 served either in county jail, on felony probation or on a split sentence (where part of the term is served in jail and part under supervision by the county probation department). In addition to transferring the responsibility of housing and supervising these populations from the state to the County, AB 109 also required that the County use AB 109 funding towards building partnerships with local health and social service agencies and community based services to provide supportive services designed to facilitate the successful reentry and reintegration of AB 109 individuals into the community and reduce the likelihood that they would recidivate. Contra Costa County’s Approach to Public Safety Realignment After the enactment of AB 109, the Executive Committee of Contra Costa County’s Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) developed an AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Implementation Plan approved by the County’s Board of Supervisors. During the first two years of Public Safety Realignment the County focused on absorbing the impacts of AB 109 across County Departments, using data to inform decision making around how best to prepare for housing and supervising the AB 109 population. During this time Contra Costa County also established an AB 109 Operational Plan and worked towards developing a coordinated reentry infrastructure, emphasizing the use of evidence based practices (EBPs) for serving the AB 109 reentry population. Contra Costa County’s overarching approach to AB 109 implementation has largely centered on developing formalized partnerships between different law enforcement agencies, as well as partnerships between law enforcement agencies and health or social service agencies, such as Behavioral Health Services (BHS) and AB 109-contracted community-based organizations (CBOs). For instance the Sheriff’s Department and Probation have increased coordination with each other so that Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) have greater access to County jails than they did prior to AB 109. Probation has also increased communication and collaboration with BHS and AB 109-contracted CBOs resulting in a greater number of referrals to reentry support services that are in place to help returning citizens successfully reintegrate into the community. With Public Safety Realignment no longer new to the County by FY 13/14, Contra Costa County shifted its focus from adapting to AB 109 to further developing County capacity to serve the AB 109 population. During FY 13/14 the County launched the Pretrial Services Program, a collaborative endeavor with the Office of the Public Defender, Probation, the Sheriff’s Department, and the District Attorney’s Office aimed at reducing the pretrial custody population; Contra Costa County also hired Resource Development Associates (RDA) to support their AB 109 operations through a series of evaluation and data collection activities including an assessment of the County’s data capacity and infrastructure as well as an evaluation of AB 109 implementation. FY 14/15 was devoted to the further development of the County’s reentry system, as collaborative partnerships between law enforcement partners and community based service providers continued to develop and evolve. In particular, FY 14/15 saw the opening of the Network Reentry System of Services Page 107 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 8 for Returning Citizens in East and Central County. In addition, significant progress was made toward establishing the Reentry Success Center in West County, which opened in October 2015. The County continued to invest in evaluative efforts as well during FY 14/15; Contra Costa County invested in an evaluation of AB 109-contracted community-based service providers and an analysis of the impact of the County’s AB 109 programs and services on client recidivism in order to better inform their understanding of the effectiveness of the County’s reentry system in helping the AB 109 reentry population successfully reintegrate into the community. Page 108 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 9 County Department Impacts (FY 14-15) Public Safety Realignment shifted the responsibility of housing and supervising certain individuals incarcerated for lower-level offenses from the state to the County, and also required that the County use AB 109 funding towards building partnerships between County departments to provide coordinated and evidence-based supervision of, and services for, the AB 109 reentry population. The sections below summarize how AB 109 has impacted County Departments by highlighting the volume and types of supervision and services provided to the AB 109 population across the County. Behavioral Health Services The BHS Division combines Alcohol and Other Drugs Services (AODS), the Homeless Program, Forensic Mental Health Services, and Public Benefits into an integrated system of care. BHS partners with clients, families, and community-based organizations to provide services to the AB 109 population. While BHS provided services for the reentry population prior to the start of AB 109, Realignment resulted in an increased focus on and funding for serving these clients. The sections below demonstrate the number of AB 109 individuals receiving services from each department over the course of the 14/15 fiscal year. Alcohol and Other Drugs Division The AODS division of BHS operates a community-based continuum of substance abuse treatment services to meet the level of care needs for each AB 109 client referred. As shown in Figure 1, AODS provided outpatient services to an increasing number of AB 109 clients throughout FY 14/15. During that timeframe, a total of 37 clients were admitted to outpatient treatment and six successfully completed outpatient treatment services. Figure 1: Outpatient Treatment Services 3 13 19 22 3 12 13 90 2 1 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsTotal Receiving Services New Admissions Successful Completions Page 109 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 10 For AB 109 clients in need of acute withdrawal services, AODS provides residential detoxification treatment. During FY 14/15 AODS providers admitted 21 AB 109 clients to residential detox. As shown in Figure 2, 18 clients successfully completed residential detox during that year. Figure 2: Residential Detoxification Services AODS also provides residential substance abuse treatment to clients on AB 109 supervision. As shown in Figure 3, AODS provided residential treatment services to an increasing number of AB 109 clients as the year progressed. During FY 14/15 the County admitted 87 AB 109 clients to residential treatment, and 32 clients successfully completed residential services. Additionally, the number of clients completing services increased throughout the year. Figure 3: Residential Treatment Services Homeless Program In FY 14/15, the County’s Homeless Program served 33 AB 109 individuals in the first quarter, 30 in the second, 19 in the third, and 15 in the fourth, as shown in Figure 4. 0 7 5 9 0 7 5 9064 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsTotal Receiving Services New Admissions Successful Completions 14 35 37 44 15 28 24 200510 17 0 10 20 30 40 50 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsTotal Receiving Services New Admissions Successful Completions Page 110 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 11 Figure 4: AB 109 individuals provided Homeless Services The total number of bed-nights utilized by the AB 109 population are provided in Figure 5 below, which shows that total bed-nights utilized by the AB 109 population at shelters in and out of the County declined during the fiscal year. Figure 5: Total bed-nights utilized by AB 109 population Mental Health Division Forensics Mental Health collaborates with Probation to support successful community reintegration of individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance related disorders. Services include assessment, groups and community case management. As indicated in Figure 6, Probation referred over 150 AB 109 clients to Fornesic Mental Health services, of whom 100 received mental health screenings, and from which 31 opened services. 33 30 19 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Clients1332 1338 903 588 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsOutside County West Central East Page 111 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 12 Figure 6: Clients referred to, screened for, and received Forensic Mental Health services Public Benefits BHS also assists AB 109 clients with applying for public benefits, including Medi-Cal, General Assistance, CalFresh, and Social Security Disability Income/Supplemental Security Income (SSDI/SSI). Figure 7 displays the number of AB 109 clients assisted with applications for Medi-Cal in FY 14/15, and the number of applications approved by the State. Figure 7: Medi-Cal intakes and approvals In contrast, almost no AB 109 clients are assessed for or enrolled in other benefits, such as General Assistance, CalFresh, and SSDI/SSI benefit applications than Medi-Cal applications. Table 1 displays the number of AB 109 client intakes and approvals for public benefits. Table 1: AB 109 client GA, CalFresh, and SSDI/SSI intakes and approvals Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Intakes Approvals Intakes Approvals Intakes Approvals Intakes Approvals GA 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 CalFresh 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 SSDI/SSI 2 0 2 0 5 0 1 0 41 35 41 3633 12 28 27 7 5 7 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsService Referrals Screenings Services Opened 13 11 18 131211 18 13 0 5 10 15 20 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsIntakes Approvals Page 112 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 13 Detention Health Services Contra Costa County’s Detention Health Services Department (DHS) provides health care to all incarcerated individuals – including AB 109 individuals – housed within the County. DHS provides in- custody access to nurses, doctors, dentists, mental health clinicians, and psychiatrists who provide medical and mental health care for all AB 109 individuals in custody. The County’s detention facilities provide basic health screenings to all new individuals in custody, including AB 109 individuals. Figure 8 displays the number of AB 109 individuals who were provided intakes health screening across each quarter of FY 14/15. Figure 8: DHS needs assessments and intake screenings In addition to these screenings, DHS provides an array of health-related services to all individuals incarcerated in the County’s detention facilities, including physical, behavioral, and dental care. Figure 9 displays the distribution of sick calls (i.e., in person appointments) provided for AB 109 individuals in FY 14/15. 666 516 600 524 0 250 500 750 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsIntake Screenings Page 113 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 14 Figure 9: Types of DHS sick calls 82 63 66 76 153 129 122 158 98 72 92 87 111 106 96 109 199 183 148 240 293 234 231 251 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 Inmate Sick CallsMental Health RN Mental Health Clinician Psychiatrist Dental MD Nursing Page 114 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 15 District Attorney’s Office The District Attorney’s Office (DA) functions to protect the community by prosecuting crimes and recommending sentences intended to increase public safety. Certain felony charges, if convicted, result in AB 109 sentences. As shown in both Figure 10 and Figure 11 below, slightly over 10% of all convicted felonies in the County in FY 14/15 resulted in AB 109 sentences. Figure 10: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, by FY 14/15 quarter Figure 11: Number of AB 109 sentences as a percentage of all felony sentences, all FY 14/15 The Court may sentence a convicted AB 109 individual to either local custody or a split sentence, which entails local incarceration followed by Probation supervision. Increasing evidence shows that split sentences lead to better outcomes, and the County’s District Attorney has been a statewide leading advocate for split sentences. As shown in both Figure 12 and Figure 13, the vast majority of AB 109 sentences in the County were a combination of custody and supervision. Sentences labeled “Supervision” are instances where individuals were sentenced to custody and supervision as well; in these instances individuals were released upon sentencing after receiving credit for time served prior to their sentence. 15%12%11%10% 132 70 74 96 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of Sentences% Other % AB 109 # AB 109 AB 109 sentences 372 12%Other felony sentences 2,702 88% Page 115 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 16 Figure 12: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentences, by FY 14/15 quarter1 Figure 13: Types of sentences as a percentage of all AB 109 sentence, all FY 14/151 Additionally, the DA can initiate supervision revocations for probation and parole violations. Figure 14 and Figure 15 illustrate the number of AB 109 supervision revocations in FY 14/15, by AB 109 classification types. Figure 14: Types of AB 109 supervision revocations Figure 15: Types of supervision revocations as a percentage of all AB 109 revocations, all FY 14/15 1 Only includes new 1170(h) sentences 97%100%96% 84% 132 70 74 96 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of Sentences% Super vision % Split % Jail Only # AB 109 Split Sentences, 364, 92% Jail Only, 28, 7% Supervision Only, 5, 1% 127 129 107 92 51 43 34 43 84 52 42 49 0 50 100 150 200 250 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of SentencesParole PRCS 1170(h) 1170(h), 455, 53% PRCS, 171, 20% Parole, 227, 27% Page 116 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 17 Office of the Public Defender The main role of the Public Defender within AB 109 implementation is to provide legal representation, assistance, and services for indigent persons accused of crimes in the County. Before the adjudication process begins, the County’s AB 109 funds enable the Office of the Public Defender to provide paralegal and attorney staffing for the Arraignment Court Early Representation (ACER) and Pre-trial Services (PTS) programs. Both the ACER and PTS programs are designed to reduce the County’s custodial populations; by ensuring the presence of attorneys at defendants’ initial court appearances, ACER is intended to increase the likelihood that appropriate defendants will be released on their own recognizance (OR) for the duration of the court process and allow for the expedited resolution of cases. PTS supports reduced pretrial detention by providing judges with greater information with which to make bail and pretrial detention decisions, and by providing pretrial supervision of individuals who are deemed appropriate for release. County AB 109 funds also support a social worker who provides social service assessments and referrals for clients needing additional supports and prepares social history reports for court negotiations. The Office also provides a suite of post-conviction Clean Slate services including advocacy for expungement and record sealing, obtainment of certificates of rehabilitation, motion for early termination, and petitions for factual innocence. During FY 14/15, the social worker in the Office of the Public Defender assessed 117 defendants for social service needs and referred 82 of these individuals to community-based services intended to help address identified needs. Figure 16: Clients referred to, assessed by, and referred to service providers by Social Worker The ACER collaboration between the Office of the Public Defender and the District Attorney’s Office has resulted in thousands of defendants receiving representation at arraignment and does appear to facilitate both pretrial releases and early case resolution. As Figure 17 shows, more than 5,500 defendants were represented at arraignment though the ACER program; of these between approximately 19% and 35% were released on recognizance. 26 37 26 28 20 21 20 21 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of ClientsFY 14/15 Referred to Social Worker Referred to community services Page 117 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 18 Figure 17: Number and percentage of clients released on own recognizance A smaller but still sizeable percentage of criminal cases were also disposed though ACER. Across the year, 683 cases were disposed at arraignment, comprising between 8% and 20% of all cases that went through the ACER process. Figure 18: Number and percentage of ACER dispositions In addition to these services, the Office of the Public Defender dedicated significant effort to Clean State services. As Figure 19 shows, the Office of the Public Defender filed 570 Clean Slate petitions. Over the same period of time, 326 Clean Slate petitions were granted and 29 were denied. (Due to time lags between the filing of petitions and the review thereof, the number of petitions ruled on does not align with the number filed.) 1,500 2,016 1,015 1,086 487 388 358 381 32.5% 19.2% 35.3%35.1% 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of CasesFY 14/15 Defendents represented at arraignment ACER defendents released on OR % ACER OR releases 186 167 204 117 12% 8% 20% 11% 0 50 100 150 200 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of CasesFY 14/15 ACER dispositions % of cases disposed through ACER Page 118 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 19 Figure 19: Clean Slate petitions filed, granted, or denied 171 150 111 138 118 90 69 49 14 10 1 4 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4FY 14/15Number of petitionsPetitions filed Petitions granted Petitions denied Page 119 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 20 Pretrial Services PTS is a collaboration between the Office of the Public Defender, the District Attorney, Probation, and the Court that is aimed at reducing the pretrial custody population. Paralegals screen all eligible individuals scheduled for arraignment, and qualifying clients are then assessed for risk utilizing a validated assessment tool. The numbers of PTS clients assessed for risk, and then released pretrial following the assessment are shown below in Figure 20. Figure 20: PTS clients assessed for pretrial risk, FY 14/15 There are five categories of risk: low, below average, average, above average, and high, although some clients are screened for pretrial assessment but do not receive a score. Figure 21 displays the distribution of risk levels in FY 14/15, showing that the majority of clients scored above average or high risk during this period. As expected, clients who are assessed to be above average or high risk are much less likely to be released onto pretrial supervision than are clients who are average risk and below. Figure 21: Assessed pretrial risk levels, FY 14/15 Figure 22 demonstrates that in the early part of FY 14/15, the Court did release a higher proportion of low and below average risk clients, but in the later part of the fiscal year, the Court released a greater proportion of above-average risk clients as well as a lower proportion of low risk clients. 278 260 249 258 88 72 70 98 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of ClientsClients receiving pretrial risk assessment Clients released following assessment 26 90 200 368 319 4219 52 100 137 22 1 0 100 200 300 400 Low Below average Average Above average High n/aNumber of ClientsClients assessed in risk category Clients starting pretrial supervision Page 120 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 21 Figure 22: Percentage of assessed clients starting pretrial supervision, by risk level As Figure 23 shows, among all individuals under pretrial supervision whose case closed during FY 14/15, the majority successfully closed their cases, meaning that cilents successfully appeared at their court dates and were not charged with any new offense while going through the court process. Because going through the court process can take months or years, the number of individuals whose pretrial supervision cases closed is smaller than the nubmer of inidividuals who started pretrial supervision over the year. Figure 23: Pretrial supervision case closures, by type Despite overall success of PTS clients a sizaeble minorty of clients do not successfully complete the program. As Figure 24 shows, this is usually due to a client’s failure to appear at his/her court date, although this is sometimes due to a client being charged with a new criminal offense or being returned to custody for a technical violation of the terms of pretrial supervision. 100% 60% 80% 57% 78% 40%43% 69% 54% 48% 35% 64% 32% 40% 31% 47% 7%5%8%8%5% 0%0%0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Percentage of ClientsFY 14/15 Low Risk Below Average Risk Average Risk Above Average Risk High Risk n/a 58 38 28 46 23 27 26 24 0 20 40 60 80 100 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of case closuresUnsuccessful Successful Page 121 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 22 Figure 24: Unsuccessful pretrial supervision case closures, by type 17 20 8 16 6 6 11 1 1 7 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of case closuresTechnical violation New offense Failure to appear Page 122 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 23 Probation Department The Probation Department’s primary role in AB 109 is to supervise and support the reentry of AB 109 clients, including PRCS and (1170(h)) individuals with mandatory supervision as part of their sentences, upon their return from custody to the community. As part of this process, AB 109 DPOs assess their clients for both criminogenic risk factors and for general reentry needs, and then refer interested clients to a range of supportive services. A total of 571 individuals were released onto AB 109 Supervision during FY 14/15. Between new supervision clients and continuing supervision clients, 1,194 AB 109 clients were supervised by the County Probation Department during the same time period. As Figure 25 and Figure 26 show, PRCS clients continue to be a substantial proportion of both new supervises and the overall AB 109 probation supervision population, in contrast to early State projections that estimated a reduction in new PRCS clients overtime. Figure 25: Newly processed AB 109 supervisees, by classification Figure 26: Total AB 109 individuals under supervision during FY 14/15 (n=1,194) PRCS clients also continue to make up a substantial proportion of the average daily number of AB 109 clients under County supervision, as demonstrated in Figure 27. Figure 27: Average AB 109 population under County supervision, by classification 72 79 81 8387 65 58 46 0 20 40 60 80 100 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of AB 109 ClientsPRCS 1170(h) PRCS 647 54% 1170(h) 547 46% 325 322 300 271295297298 294 0 100 200 300 400 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average DailyPopulation1170(h) PRCS Page 123 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 24 A DPO conducts an interview and uses the Correctional Assessment and Intervention System (CAIS) risk assessment tool, an evidence based risk assessment tool used to determine each client’s risk for recidivism and associated risk-factors, to determine each AB 109 client’s appropriate level of supervision intensity upon entering County supervision. Figure 28 indicates the distribution of recidivism risk for all AB 109 clients given an initial CAIS risk assessment during FY 14/15. Figure 28: Initial CAIS risk levels, FY 14/15 (n=525) The majority of AB 109 Probation clients were assessed to have a variety of overlapping needs that are associated with a risk for future involvement in criminal activities. As shown in Figure 29, the most common risk factor among AB 109 Probation clients is alcohol and/or drug use, followed closely by criminal orientation. Figure 29: AB 109 supervision population CAIS-assessed needs, FY 14/15 (n=309) High 311 59% Moderate 169 32% Low 45 9% 79% 77% 67% 59% 54% 51% 18% 10% 9% 6% 5% 2% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% Alcohol and/or Drug Abuse Criminal Orientation Emotional Factors Interpersonal Manipulation Vocational Skills Family History Social Inadequacy Relationships Isolated Situational Basic Needs Abuse/Neglect and Trauma Physical Safety Page 124 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 25 Sheriff’s Office The Sheriff’s Office primary role in AB 109 implementation is to provide safe and secure housing for all incarcerated individuals, including AB 109 individuals. The Sheriff’s Office operates the County’s three detention facilities—Marsh Creek Detention Facility (MCDF), West County Detention Facility (WCDF), and Martinez Detention Facility (MDF). Over the course of FY 14/15, there were 1266 AB 109-related bookings or commitments into the County’s three detention facilities. Figure 30 - Figure 32 show the number of AB 109 bookings into each County detention facility during each quarter of the year, with a breakdown of AB 109 population types. As these figures demonstrate, Parolees make up the vast majority of AB 109 bookings across the County’s detention facilities. Figure 30: AB 109 bookings, by type – Martinez Detention Facility Figure 31: AB 109 bookings, by type – West County Detention Facility 8 4 6 5 33 29 25 2733 19 18 24 74 75 77 72 12 11 7 14 0 25 50 75 100 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bookingsPRCS Flash Incarcerations PRCS Revocations Parole Commitments Parole Holds 1170(h) Commitments 6 3 7 4 41 22 27 25322724 27 115 67 95 75 13 15 11 9 0 25 50 75 100 125 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bookingsPRCS Flash Incarcerations PRCS Revocations Parole Commitments Parole Holds 1170(h) Commitments Page 125 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 26 Figure 32: AB 109 bookings, by type – Marsh Creek Detention Facility Despite the relative high total number of AB 109 bookings and commitments that occurred over the year, AB 109 individuals in custody still make up a very small percentage of the County’s average daily incarceration population. As demonstrated in Figure 33, over the course of the year, AB 109 individuals comprised 6.5% of the County’s average daily custodial population. Figure 33. Average daily jail population, AB 109 vs. Non-AB 109 Figure 34 - Figure 36 show the average percentage of AB 109 individuals in each of the County’s detention facilities, as well as the number of AB 109 individuals in custody who are serving new 1170(h) sentences versus parole holds or commitment. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 10 4 2 4 6 3 1 3 4 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of bookingsPRCS Flash Incarcerations PRCS Revocations Parole Commitments Parole Holds 1170(h) commitments Non-AB 109 93.5% AB 109 6.5% Page 126 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 27 Figure 34: Average daily AB 109 population – Martinez Detention Facility Figure 35: Average daily AB 109 population – West County Detention Facility Figure 36: Average daily AB 109 population – Marsh Creek Detention Facility While parolees make up a larger percentage of the AB 109 incarcerated population, on average 1170(h) individuals spend much longer time in custody than the parole population (who can be committed to County jail for up to six months for a parole violation). Notably, despite the fact that AB 109 allows for 35 27 22 27 13 15 13 11 7%7% 5% 6% 0 10 20 30 40 50 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily populationFY 14/15 1170(h) commitments Parole holds & commitments AB 109 % of total population 39 28 20 25 23 14 13 16 7% 6%6%6% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily populationFY 14/15 1170(h) commitments Parole holds & commitments AB 109 % of total population 4 3 2 2 5 4 4 5 10%11%11% 9% 0 2 4 6 8 10 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Average daily populationFY 14/15 1170(h) commitments Parole holds & commitments AB 109 % of total population Page 127 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 28 much longer sentences in local custody than was previously possible, AB 109 individuals serve, on average, much less than a year in jail. Figure 37: Average custodial time served by AB 109 clients, by population type2 2 Quarterly averages are based on first day of custodial sentence. In FY 14/15 Q3 two of 22 individuals served/are serving sentences over 1,000 days, inflating that quarter’s average. Additionally, several individuals on 3056 holds have other charges preventing parole or the courts from dropping their hold. This makes each quarter’s average time served for 3056 holds/dropped appear larger than is typical. 164 151 255 134 67 65 64 60 11 12 12 12 0 50 100 150 200 250 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Number of daysFY 14/15 1170(h) Parole (sentenced) Parole (holds/ dropped) Page 128 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 29 Workforce Development Board The role of the Workforce Development Board (WDB) in Contra Costa County is to strengthen local workforce development efforts by bringing together leaders from public, private, and non-profit sectors to align a variety of resources and organizations to help meet the needs of businesses and job seekers. To date, the WDB’s primary role in AB 109 implementation has been to broker opportunities for the AB 109 reentry population and to coordinate with AB 109 partners to ensure they are aware of and are able to effectively access services and resources available for the AB 109 reentry population. To that end the WDB has identified 133 employer partnerships that are appropriate for the AB 109 population; they have also conducted a number of on-site recruitments and career fairs that the AB 109 reentry clients, as well as other reentry individuals, can attend. Unfortunately the WDB does not currently track the number of AB 109 clients who have utilized their services. Page 129 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 30 Community Based Service Providers Shared values/approach (EBPs, TIC approach, etc.) Contra Costa County’s reentry approach is centered on developing an integrated and supportive service network comprised of AB 109-contracted community-based organizations, government and public agencies and the broader community for the AB 109 reentry population to utilize. The network works together to help create a pathway for the successful reentry and reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals back into the community. AB 109-contracted CBOs play a large role in the reentry infrastructure, providing a range of services from housing assistance and employment services to mentorship and family reunification. When working successfully, the County’s reentry services are part of a continuum that begins at the point an individual enters the justice system and continues through successful reintegration. In the County’s 2011 Reentry Plan, County and community stakeholders agreed to the following set of principles:  The County seeks to provide increased awareness about the value of formerly incarcerated individuals and their loved ones to their communities.  Individuals are more likely to experience success when they are part of a supportive, integrated system. Reentry and reintegration begin while the individual is incarcerated.  While leaving room for innovation, evidence-based practices are utilized when developing programs and policies.  Collaboration, coordination, information, and communication are critical to the success and sustainability of Contra Costa County’s reentry infrastructure.  The good of the community comes before one's self and/or organizational interests While these principles have not been explicitly tied to AB 109, they are nonetheless founding principles upon which much of the County’s AB 109 work has been built. Overview of AB 109 community partnerships During FY 14/15, Contra Costa County launched the Network Reentry System of Services for Returning Citizens in East and Central County to help connect AB 109 clients to a diverse array of AB 109-contracted reentry support providers listed in Table 2 below, among other service provides. In addition the County made significant progress toward establishing the Reentry Success Center in West County, a “one-stop” Page 130 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 31 reentry center which opened in October 2015 and helps link reentry clients to both County and community-based services. Table 2 describes the number of referrals each AB 109-contracted CBO received from Probation during FY 14/15, as well as the total number of enrollments and successful service completions. It is worth nothing that Reach Fellowship, which provides in custody services, worked with both AB 109 and non-AB 109 incarcerated individuals. During FY 14/15, other the other CBOs were only contracted to provide services to AB 109 clients. This changed in FY 15/16, and AB 109-funded CBOs can now provide services to any reentry clients in need of those services. Table 2: Community-based service referrals, enrollments, and completions Organization Total Referrals Total Enrollments Total Completions AB 109 Other AB 109 Other AB 109 Other Bay Area Legal Aid 62 * 52 * 58 * Center for Human Development 12 * 12 * 3 * Goodwill Industries 138 * 76 * 28 * Men and Women of Purpose 23 * 16 * 6 * Reach Fellowship 29 4 95 212 46 137 Rubicon 168 * 113 * 34 * Shelter Inc. 255 * 112 * 64 * Below are brief descriptions of the services that each of the AB 109-contracted CBO service providers offer the County’s AB 109 population. Bay Area Legal Aid Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal) provides legal services for AB 109 clients and educates them about their rights and responsibilities. The legal services BayLegal provides include: obtaining or retaining housing, public benefits, and health care, financial and debt assistance, family law, and obtaining driver’s licenses. The program provides post-release legal check-ups for each client to identify legal barriers that are able to be remediated, educates clients about early termination of probation, and assists with fines, and attorneys are also able to meet individually with clients in both jail and prison prior to their release. Center for Human Development The Center for Human Development (CHD) operates the Community and Family Reunification Program (CFRP) for Contra Costa County’s AB 109 Community Programs’ Mentoring Program, providing reunification services to returning citizens, their families, and friends, in addition to providing community support throughout Contra Costa County. Services include large and small group pre-release presentations and workshops at West County Detention Facility and Marsh Creek Detention Facility. CHD also provides post-release large and small group presentations and workshops to returning citizens at partner agencies and other locations throughout the County. Page 131 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 32 Goodwill Industries The Bridges to Work program of Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay (Goodwill) facilitates the County’s Employment Support and Placement Services to provide employment support and placement services in Central County. Participants can engage in up to 90 days of transitional, paid employment at local Goodwill stores or other partner agencies, in addition to receiving job search assistance for competitive employment opportunities. Goodwill also serves as a service hub for other providers. Men and Women of Purpose Men and Women of Purpose (MWP) provides employment and education liaison services for the County jail facilities, for which the program facilitates employment and education workshops every month at the County’s jails and works with Mentor/Navigators to assist the workshop participants with the documentation required to apply for employment, education, and other post-release activities. MWP also provides pre- and post-release mentoring services for West County using the organization’s evidence- based program Jail to Community model. The program provides one-on-one mentoring, as well as weekly mentoring groups that focus on employment and recovery. Reach Fellowship Centering their program services on women, Reach Fellowship International (Reach) provides weekly workshops in West County Detention Facility (WCDF), in addition to pre- and post-release one-on-one case management. Reach provides employment and education liaison services to female returning citizens in fulfillment of the County’s Reentry into the Community Program and also acts as a lead information specialist for County jail facilities for the AB 109 program. Finally, Reach also conducts workshops to introduce employment and educational opportunities to participants, to work with Mentor/Navigators to assist incarcerated and returning citizens with obtaining the paperwork required for those opportunities, and to screen participants for employment and educational preparedness. Rubicon Rubicon provides employment support and placement services, integrated with other supports, to AB 109 participants in East County and West County. Rubicon’s program includes pre-release engagement, job readiness workshops, educational and vocational training, transitional employment, individualized career coaching, legal services, financial stability services, and domestic violence prevention and anger management. In order to provide a continuum of services, Rubicon partners with a number of other organizations through formal subcontracts, including vocational training partners, AB 109 providers, and other community-based organizations. Shelter Inc. Shelter, Inc. operates the County’s AB 109 Short and Long-term Housing Access Program. This program assists incarcerated and formerly incarcerated persons who are referred to them under the AB 109 Page 132 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 33 Community Programs to secure and maintain stabilized residential accommodations. Shelter, Inc. provides a two-phased approach to clients seeking housing assistance. Before the program refers clients to the Housing Services section, the staff conducts social service assessments/intake procedures to ensure that clients will have success. The program places the majority of their clients into transitional housing situations (such as room or apartment shares) to allow them time to develop the resources for stable housing. Page 133 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 34 AB 109 Population Outcomes Over the course of FY 14/15 there were a total of 1,119 AB 109 clients under supervision at some point in time. Of these 1,194 AB 109 clients, 95 individuals successfully completed the terms of their Probation during the fiscal year. The following sections demonstrate the number of AB 109 clients who violated the terms of their supervision and served flash incarcerations and/or had their probation revoked, as well as the number of clients with new criminal charges filed against them and/or new criminal convictions during the fiscal year. Violations Probation officers use graduated sanctions with AB 109 clients. For instance when clients have dirty drug tests they are typically referred to inpatient or outpatient treatment rather than having their supervision term revoked, and returned to custody. This allows them to receive treatment without further justice involvement. AB 109 Probation Officers may also use flash incarcerations of up to ten days in county jail for PRCS clients. This serves as an intermediate sanction where individuals must serve a short period of time in county jail, but do not have further criminal charges filed against them. Figure 38 shows that the number of flash incarcerations imposed on PRCS clients ranged from 8 to 23 flash incarcerations per quarter. Figure 38: PRCS flash incarcerations Of the 1,194 Probation clients under supervision over the course of FY 14/15, approximately 31% of AB 109 clients (366) had their probation revoked. Among the PRCS population the percentage was lower, as 19% of the PRCS population had their probation revoked compared to approximately 44% of the 1170(h) population. 21 8 23 14 0 5 10 15 20 25 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Flash IncarcerationsFY 14/15 Page 134 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 35 Figure 40: Percentage of PRCS clients revoked in FY 14/15 In addition to 366 AB 109 probation clients who had their probation revoked, a total of 175 AB 109 parolees were revoked during FY 14/15. New Charges and Convictions Figure 41 below shows the number of AB 109 individuals with new charges filed against them during FY 14/15, as well as the number of AB 109 individuals who were convicted of a new criminal offense during FY 14/15. Because the court does not have a record of individuals currently under AB 109 supervision, Figure 41 includes all individuals who have ever been supervised or sentenced under AB 109, including those not currently under County supervision, who had new charges filed and/or new criminal convictions during FY 14/15. The fact that there are a greater number of 1170(h) and Parolees who received new criminal convictions than new charges during FY 14/15 is a function of the time lag between having new charges filed and ultimately being sentenced for the charges. In other words, many of the individuals who were convicted of crimes in FY 14/15 were charged with those offenses in prior years, but the court process did not conclude until FY 14/15. Similarly, many of the individuals who were charged with new offenses in FY 14/15 have not yet completed the court process. The percentage of the AB 109 population with new charges or criminal convictions during FY 14/15 is not calculated because the court does not have a record of all individual under AB 109 supervision. As a result, there is no way to calculate this percentage without tracking individuals across data systems. Not Revoked 524 81% Revoked 123 19% PRCS Not Revoked 304 56% Revoked 243 44%% 1170(h) Figure 39. Percentage of 1170(h) clients revoked in FY 14/15 Page 135 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 36 Figure 41. AB 109 clients with new charges and/or new criminal convictions during FY 14/15, by AB 109 classification type 123 300 193 172 208 228 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 New Charges New ConvictionsIndividulas PC 1170(h) PRCS Parole Page 136 of 137 Contra Costa County Public Safety Realignment Annual Report: FY 14/15 February 2016 | 37 Looking Ahead Contra Costa County has responded to Public Safety Realignment in a manner that has allowed the County to successfully house and supervise the AB 109 population, while providing a collaborative reentry infrastructure to support the AB 109 reentry population’s successful reintegration back into the community. During FY 15/16, Contra Costa County launched the West County Reentry Success Center, a one-stop center where the reentry population can connect with a diverse array of reentry support providers. In addition to launching the Reentry Success Center, the County looks forward to continuing the development of the Network Reentry System in FY 15/16 by further integrating Network Coordinators who help to connect the AB 109 reentry population, especially in East and Central County, with County Department services and AB 109-contracted CBOs who provide reentry supports. Contra Costa County looks forward to learning about how the development of the Network Reentry System and the West County Reentry Success Center contributes to the reentry infrastructure and helps support the AB 109 reentry population with successfully reintegrating into the community. Contra Costa County will continue to assess their AB 109 operations during FY 15/16 by conducting a department performance review of all County Departments who receive AB 109 funding as well. Moreover, the County will begin planning efforts to effectively implement recommendations born from evaluations over previous years while considering whether it is appropriate to update its operational plan to account for systems changes and department roles that have evolved since the enactment of AB 109. Page 137 of 137