HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 02122018 - Legislation Cte Agenda Pkt
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
February 12, 2018
10:30 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Supervisor Diane Burgis, 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. APPROVE the Record of Action for the December 11, 2017
meeting of the Legislation Committee, with any necessary
corrections.
4. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position
of "Support" on AB 1795 (Gipson): Emergency Medical Services:
Community Care Facilities, as recommended by Patricia Frost,
Director of Contra Costa County Emergency Medical Services.
5. PROVIDE direction to Committee staff on the procurement
process for federal and state advocacy services for 2019 and
beyond.
6. Provide direction to staff on the nature and timing of desired
meetings in Washington D.C. with the County's legislative
delegation and representatives of federal agencies for the purposes
of advocating for the County's interests.
7. ACCEPT the report on the State Budget and Legislation of
Interest, and provide direction to staff.
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 12, 2018 at 10:30
1 of 107
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 12, 2018 at 10:30
a.m. The schedule for the Legislation Committee has been
established as the second month of each month at 10:30 a.m., in
Room 101 of 651 Pine Street, Martinez.
9.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
2 of 107
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:02/12/2018
Subject:Record of Action for Legislation Committee
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2018-01
Referral Name: Record of Action
Presenter: L. DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
County Ordinance (Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205, [d])
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 material or testimony distributed at the
meeting will be attached to the meeting record.
Referral Update:
Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Draft Record of Action for
its December 11, 2017 meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE the Record of Action, with any necessary corrections.
Attachments
Draft Record of Action
3 of 107
D R A F T
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
December 11, 2017
10:30 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Diane Burgis, 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: Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Diane Burgis, Chair
Staff Present:Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Susan Jeong, Policy & Planning Division, EHSD
Devorah Levine, Policy & Planning Division, EHSD
Robert Campbell, Auditor-Controller
Lia Bristol, District III Staff
Mark Goodwin, Chief of Staff, District III
John Cunningham, Department of Conservation & Development
Attendees: Mariana Moore
Fran Biderman
Carly Finkle
Ben Palmer
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).
No public comment was received.
AYE: Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff, Chair Diane Burgis
Passed
3.APPROVE the Record of Action, with any necessary corrections.
The Committee voted unanimously to approve as presented.
4 of 107
AYE: Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff, Chair Diane Burgis
Passed
4.ACCEPT the End of Session Report from the state's advocates, Nielsen
Merksamer, and provide direction to staff, as needed.
Ben Palmer provided the report, which was accepted by the
Committee with no further direction to staff.
AYE: Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff, Chair Diane Burgis
Passed
5.REVIEW the Draft 2018 State Legislative Platform, provide direction
to staff on any recommended changes, and RECOMMEND action to
the Board of Supervisors.
Auditor-Controller Bob Campbell informed the Committee that the
bill related to the West Contra Costa Health Care District could have
an effect on the County's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) in terms of reporting the financial impact.
Mariana Moore spoke in support of the Health Policies but
expressed concerns about policy #249. She also expressed an interest
in extending the community conversation to make the Platform
development process more inclusive. She also expressed an interest
in having the County have a conversation about the prioritization of
our resources.
Vice Chair Mitchoff expressed concerns about including some
federal policy related matters in the draft State Platform and asked
staff to follow-up on those items to determine if they were more
appropriately included in the Federal Platform. She also expressed
an interest in having consistent language used throughout the
Platforms with regard to the proposed policies in terms of supporting
or opposing "efforts" or "legislation and administrative actions." A
request was also made of staff to include policies related to
wireless/small cell infrastructure.
The Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of
Supervisors adopt the 2018 State Platform, with the recommended
5 of 107
changes.
AYE: Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff, Chair Diane Burgis
Passed
6.REVIEW the Draft 2018 Federal Legislative Platform, provide
direction to staff on any recommended changes, and RECOMMEND
action to the Board of Supervisors.
The Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of
Supervisors adopt the 2018 Federal Platform as drafted.
AYE: Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff, Chair Diane Burgis
Passed
7.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
6 of 107
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:02/12/2018
Subject:Support for AB 1795 (Gipson): Emergency Medical
Services: Community Care Facilities
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2018-02
Referral Name: Support for AB 1795
Presenter: L. DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
AB 1795 is currently supported by the Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Agency State Administrators, California Hospital Association and the
California Ambulance Association (CAA). The bill is opposed by the
California Nurses Association (CNA) and the American College of Emergency
Physicians (ACEP) at present.
The bill has been referred to the Legislation Committee for consideration of
support by Pat Frost, the County's Director of Emergency Medical Services.
Referral Update:
Title:Emergency Medical Services: Community Care Facilities
Fiscal
Committee:
yes
Urgency
Clause:
no
Introduced:01/09/2018
Disposition:Pending
Location:Assembly Health Committee
Summary:Authorizes a local emergency medical services agency to submit,
7 of 107
Summary:Authorizes a local emergency medical services agency to submit,
as part of its emergency services plan, a plan to transport specified
patients to a community care facility in lieu of transportation to a
general acute care hospital.
Status:01/22/2018 To ASSEMBLY Committee on HEALTH.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1795, as introduced, Gipson. Emergency medical services: community care
facilities.
Existing law, the Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital
Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, establishes the Emergency Medical
Services Authority, which is responsible for the coordination and integration of
all state agencies concerning emergency medical services. Among other duties,
the authority is required to develop planning and implementation guidelines for
emergency medical services systems, provide technical assistance to existing
agencies, counties, and cities for the purpose of developing the components of
emergency medical services systems, and receive plans for the implementation
of emergency medical services and trauma care systems from local EMS
agencies.
The act also authorizes each county to develop an emergency medical services
program and requires local EMS agencies to plan, implement, and evaluate an
emergency medical services system. Existing law requires local EMS agencies
to be responsible for the implementation of advanced life support systems,
limited advanced life support systems, and for the monitoring of specified
training programs for emergency personnel. Existing law defines advanced life
support as special services designed to provide definitive prehospital
emergency medical care, as specified, at the scene of an emergency, during
transport to an acute care hospital, during interfacility transfer, and while in the
emergency department of an acute care hospital until responsibility is assumed
by that hospital.
This bill would authorize a local emergency medical services agency to submit, as part of its emergency services
plan, a plan to transport specified patients to a community care facility, as defined, in lieu of transportation to a
general acute care hospital. The bill would make conforming changes to the definition of advanced life support to
include prehospital emergency care provided before and during, transport to a community care facility, as specified.
The bill would also direct the Emergency Medical Services Authority to authorize a local EMS agency to add to its
scope of practice for specified emergency personnel those activities necessary for the assessment, treatment, and
transport of a patient to a community care facility.
8 of 107
Attachment A: Support, if amended letter from CAA
Attachment B: LA County BOS Support letter
Attachment C: California ACEP, Oppose Unless Amended letter
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECOMMEND support to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
9 of 107
The Honorable Mike A. Gipson, Assembly Member February 5, 2018
Capitol Office, Room 3173
Sacramento, CA 94249
AB 1795 (Gipson) – SUPPORT, IF AMENDED
Dear Assembly Member Gipson:
The California Ambulance Association (CAA) represents providers of emergency and non -emergency medically necessary
transportation services throughout the State of California. Since its founding in 1948, the objectives of the CAA have been
to promote better patient care, develop the highest level of ambulance services, cooperate with organizations providing
medical care to the citizens of California, seek to improve standards for personnel and equipment, and encourage the
highest standards of ethics and conduct. It is with these values in mind that we support AB 1795, if amended. Several of
our members’ companies are directly involved in the delivery of community paramedic services though the pilot projects.
The concept of transporting a patient by ambulance to a psychiatric facility or sobering center that is best capable of
meeting his/her medical needs, the first time, instead of always transporting to an acute care hospital emergency
department is an important principle. Under strict and appropriate protocols, with destination decisions made by highly
trained and skilled paramedics, in a program overseen with proper medical control by the local EMS medical director, the
concept proposed by AB 1795 is worthy and sound. Medical care can be improved and simultaneously provided at less
cost with the implementation of this bill, as confirmed by OSHPD’s studies. However, the concept and implementation is
not viable nor sustainable unless the bill addresses and specifically authorizes reimbursement for the paramedic and
ambulance services being provided.
The CAA supports the programs to be authorized by this proposed law, but we can only support this bill if it is amended to
include provisions for reimbursement of the services. Under existing law and regulations, ambulances must transport
patients to acute care hospitals to qualify for payment for ambulance service. Transports to alternate destinations such as
psychiatric facilities or sobering centers are typically not eligible for reimbursem ent. These transports being conducted as
part of the pilot programs are generally conducted for free. This is not sustainable.
Therefore, the CAA supports AB 1795 contingent upon its amendment to address compensation for the services provided.
In order to make the concept of alternate destinations viable and sustainable for the long -term, it must be made clear in
this bill that ambulance transports to psychiatric facilities or sobering centers will be paid by State programs (i.e. Medi -Cal,
workers compensation, prison contracts, etc.) and all insurance plans and managed care plans at the same rate paid for
ambulance transport to an acute care hospital.
Sincerely,
Ross Elliott,
Executive Director
cc: Chris Micheli, Aprea & Micheli
Attachment A
10 of 107
COUNTYOFLOSANGELES‘BOARDOFSUPERVISORSkE\\E1lIIIIt‘LLOP\DI1\1SIRXttO\MARKRIDLETHOMASSODDO[SI1EDIPLESTREETIOS\\GELESC\UfORI090fl12SHEILAKUEHLJANICEHAHNKATHRYNBARGERJanuary18,2018TheHonorableEdmundG.Brown,Jr.Governor,StateofCaliforniaStateCapitolSacramento,CA95814DearGovernorBrown:WearewritingtorespectfullyurgeyoutosupportAB1795byAssemblyMemberMikeGipson,which wouldallowlocalEmergencyMedicalServicesagenciestosubmitaplantotheCaliforniaEmergencyMedicalServicesAuthoritytoallowforthetransportofpatientstoacommunitycarefacilitybasedonadeterminationthatthereisnoneedforemergencymedicaltreatment.ThisimportantbillissponsoredbyLosAngelesCountyandco-sponsoredbytheCaliforniaHospitalAssociation.Currentlawrequiresparamedicsrespondingtoemergency911callstotransportallpatientswhoshowsignsofanon-emergentmentalhealthconditionand/orinebriationtoanacutecareemergencydepartment(ED),eventhoughtheremightbemoteappropriatelevelsofcare.Whilementalhealthurgentcareandsoberingcenterscanacceptwalk-insandreferralsmadefrom lawenforcement,hospitals,andotherhealthcareproviders,paramedicambulancesarenotallowedtotransportpatientstothesealternativecommunitycarefacilities.ThismeasurewouldhelpreducethetransportofpatientswhocouldbebetterservedinacommunitycarefacilitytoEDs,whichoftenresultsinovercrowdingandstrainsonmedicalstaffandfinancialresources,andmaypreventEDsfromtreatingpatientsincriticalneedinatimelymannerorattheappropriatelevelofcare.Mentalhealthurgentcareandsoberingcenterscanofferinebriatedpatientsorthoseexperiencinganonemergentmentalhealthconditionwithmoretimelyaccesstospecializedcare, andtoconnectthemwithsupportiveservices.Attachment B11 of 107
TheHonorableEdmundG.Brown,Jr.January18,2018Page2WerespectfullyurgeyoutosignAB1795measurewhenitreachesyourdesk.Thankyouforyourconsiderationofthisimportantmatter.Sincerely,SHEILAKUEHLChairoftheBoardSupervisor,ThirdDistrict7EALEOLSupervisor,FirstDistrictMARKRIDLEY-7”F)OMASSupervisor,SecIdDistrictSupervisor,FifthDistrictSupervisor,FourthDistrictCOLEGISLATIVEAFFAIRS_01181BAttachment B12 of 107
January 24, 2018
The Honorable Mike Gipson
California State Assembly
State Capitol Building, Room 3173
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1795 (Gipson) – Oppose Unless Amended – Introduced January 9, 2018
Dear Assembly Member Gipson:
The California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians
(California ACEP), representing emergency physicians treating California’s
patients in more than 14.5 million emergency department visits annually, must
respectfully oppose your AB 1795, unless it is amended.
The Health Workforce Pilot Projects Program was enacted by the Legislature to
test, demonstrate, and evaluate new or expanded roles for healthcare
professionals, or new healthcare delivery alternatives, before changes in licensing
laws are made by the Legislature. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section
128125 states, “The Legislature also finds that large sums of public and private
funds are being spent to finance health workforce innovation projects, and that
the activities of some of these projects exceed the limitations of state law. These
projects may jeopardize the public safety and the careers of persons who are
trained in them. It is the intent of the Legislature to establish the accountability of
health workforce innovation projects to the requirements of the public health,
safety, and welfare, and the career viability of persons trained in these
programs.”
In 2014 EMSA submitted Health Workforce Pilot Project Application #173 to the
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSPHD) in order to test
expansion of scope of practice for EMTs in a variety of settings. The application,
which sought to test 13 different pilots, was approved and programs began
implementation in late 2015. AB 1795 seeks to permanently expand EMT scope of
practice to authorize the transport of patients directly to a mental health urgent
care center or to a sobering center, rather than to an emergency department (ED)
as currently required by law. As currently drafted, we must oppose the bill unless
it is amended to protect patient safety.
Scope Expansion Authorization Must Replicate Pilots Shown to be Safe for
Patients
We have significant concern about EMTs’ ability to safely triage patients in the
field and appropriately determine their medical condition. A 2013 study in JAMA
found a nearly 90% overlap between symptoms of emergencies and non-
emergencies.1 As reported in Annals of Emergency Medicine in 20142 “Nearly all
1 Raven MC, Lowe RA, Maselli J, Hsia RY. Comparison of presenting complaint vs discharge diagnosis for identifying “nonemergency” emergency
department visits. JAMA 2013 309(11):1145-53.
2 Morganti KG, Alpert A, Margolis G, Wasserman J, Kellermann AL. Should payment policy be changed to allow a wider range of EMS transport
options? Annals of Emergency Medicine 2014 May; 63(5):615-626.e5.
Attachment C
13 of 107
the studies published to date have found significant rates of under triage by EMS
Personnel…” These investigators identified 13 research studies examining the
ability of paramedics and EMTs to determine the need for transport to an ED.
Included among these studies was one describing a cohort of under triaged
patients, whom EMS professionals felt did not require transport to EDs for care,
who subsequently required admission to the hospital (18%), including a subset
requiring admission to the Intensive Care Unit (6%). The safety-net for this high
level of severe under-triage is the ED.
This under-triage concern is exacerbated in patients with mental illness. Patients
with mental illness have a higher rate of other chronic conditions than the rest of
the population.
• Patients treated for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder were 3x more likely
to have 3 or more chronic medical conditions than the rest of the
population 3
• More than half of Medicaid enrollees with mental health conditions also
had diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or pulmonary disease.4
• According to Medicare and Medicaid data, 75% of patients with mental
health conditions also had a heart condition, 42% had a musculoskeletal
disorder, and 36% had diabetes.4 (CMS)
A recent pilot in Stanislaus County indicates the potential for safe transport of
patients to an Acute Psychiatric Hospital rather than an ED. That pilot appears to
protect patient safety because of the 140 hours of additional training required of
the Community Paramedics, the protocols as revised during study, the
agreements entered into with law enforcement, the agreements entered into
with the destination, and a variety of other components. None of these
components are required by AB 1795. Instead, AB 1795 allows each LEMSA to
establish their own protocols, training, processes, and destinations. This bill
authorizes 58 different, untested, permanent pilot programs.
In contrast, the concept of diverting patients away from the ED to a sobering
center has only been added to Health Workforce Pilot Project #173 in February
2017. There has been little data collected to date, yet a preliminary review of the
data indicates they are not collecting the number of people turned away by the
center and sent to the ED – an important data point for determining the ability of
EMTs to safely screen patients in the field.
Destinations must be Defined and Licensed
A critical component of ensuring a patient can safely be transported to an
alternate destination, is to ensure that the destination itself is safe. However,
there is no definition in California law for a sobering center. There are no staffing
standards, no facility regulations, and no licensing or inspection requirements.
Patient safety cannot be assured without standards. A recent series of articles in
the OC Register has exposed high death rates at regulated, non-medical (no
3 Druss, B. G., & Reisinger Walker, E. (2011). Mental disorders and medical comorbidity. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
4 (2014). Physical and Mental Health Condition Prevalence and Comorbidity Among Fee-for-Service Medicare-Medicaid Enrollees. Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Attachment C
14 of 107
physician) rehab facilities: https://www.ocregister.com/2017/12/17/detox-can-
end-in-death-at-some-non-medical-southern-california-rehabs/,
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/05/21/how-some-southern-california-drug-
rehab-centers-exploit-addiction/. AB 1795 must contain licensing and regulatory
standards for sobering centers.
Patients with mental illness who participated in Health Workforce Pilot Project
#173 were transported to an Acute Psychiatric Hospital, as defined in Health and
Safety Code Section 1250(b). AB 1795 instead allows EMTs to transport patients
to a mental health urgent care center. Again, there is no definition of “mental
health urgent care center” in law. AB 1795 should not allow transport of patients
to a destination which is unregulated and unlicensed. Similarly, there is no data to
indicate whether patients can safely be transported by EMTs to “mental health
urgent care centers.” The Health Workforce Pilot Projects Program was enacted
by the Legislature to test the safety of scope expansion before it was embarked
upon statewide, yet the concept in AB 1795 has not been tested. This bill should
be amended to specify that patients will only be transported to Acute Psychiatric
Hospitals, as tested in the Stanislaus County Pilot.
EMTALA Non-Discrimination Protections Must be Included
As required by Health and Safety Code Section 1317, EDs may not discriminate
against patients in the provision of care: “In no event shall the provision of
emergency services and care be based upon, or affected by, the person’s
ethnicity, citizenship, age, preexisting medical condition, insurance status,
economic status, ability to pay for medical services, or any other characteristic
listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51 of the Civil Code, except to
the extent that a circumstance such as age, sex, preexisting medical condition, or
physical or mental disability is medically significant to the provision of appropriate
medical care to the patient.”
A similar protection must be included in AB 1795 to ensure that the decision of
who to transport to an alternate destination is not based on discriminatory
reasons. The decision to transport a patient to a sobering center or psychiatric
hospital should be based exclusively on the patient’s medical condition, not on
race, insurance status, economic status, or any other protected class.
Bill Should Require Data Collection and Contain A Two-Year Sunset
While it is critical that whatever is authorized by AB 1795 replicate the
components piloted in Stanislaus County, no other program can be exactly the
same. The individuals, both patients and paramedics, distances to facilities,
availability of bed space, etc., will all vary by jurisdiction. LEMSAs should be
required to collect and report the data to evaluate safety of all programs.
For example, the project must assess the following for those patients transported
to an alternate destination:
1. How many patients could be seen in a timely fashion at an alternate
destination?
2. How many patients were referred to an ED or other specialty from the
alternate destination?
3. How many patients were referred emergently by 911 ambulances?
Attachment C
15 of 107
4. How many patients deteriorated and required further health care 3 days,
7 days, and 30 days post intervention?
5. Was the overall care provided, including all follow-up and complications,
non-inferior (in terms of safety and patient outcomes) compared to
standard care that begins with EMS transport to EDs?
Additionally, the implementing LEMSAs should assess the impact on other
patients currently being treated by EMS that are not in the intervention group.
Because it may take more time per call for the patients in the intervention group,
the paramedics and ambulances may have less availability to respond to
emergencies. The proposal has no evaluation mechanism to assess unintended,
adverse consequences on patients requiring EMS services whose care is delayed
due to increased duties and additional time per call required of community
paramedics.
This data should be reported to the Legislature and AB 1795 should sunset in two
years to allow for evaluation of these reports.
For these reasons, California ACEP must oppose AB 1795 unless it is amended to
address our concerns. If you have any questions, please contact our office at (916)
325-5455.
Respectfully,
ELENA LOPEZ-GUSMAN
Executive Director
Attachment C
16 of 107
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:02/12/2018
Subject:State and Federal Advocacy Contracts: Procurement Process
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2018-03
Referral Name: State and Federal Advocacy Contracts
Presenter: L. DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
The County currently has two contracts in effect for federal and state legislative advocacy:
1. Federal Advocacy : Alcalde & Fay, with primary representation by Paul Schlesinger with additional related support from Perrin Badini. This contract is
managed by the CAO’s office.
2. State Advocacy: Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross and Leoni (“Nielsen Merksamer”) with primary representation by Cathy Christian, health care-related
representation by James Gross, and additional advocacy services provided by Ben Palmer. This contract is also managed by the CAO’s office.
The following is a summary of the contracting history with our current federal and state advocates and the status of their current contracts.
=========================================================================================================
Federal Advocacy Services : Alcalde & Fay
On contract since: December 1, 2001
Contract Term (current): January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.
Contract Amount: $108,500/year: $8458/monthly retainer; $3,000 for expenses
History of contract:
April 24, 2001 the Board of Supervisors directs the CAO to issue an RFP for federal advocacy services. (Supervisor Uilkema prepared the Board Order.)
The RFP was disseminated broadly, including a posting in Rollcall.
24 proposals were received. Top 4 firms were interviewed by CAO and Assistant CAO in D.C. during October 2001. Firms included: Alcalde & Fay,
Honberger & Walters, Patten Boggs, and Waterman.
In the fall of 2012, an RFP process was conducted to solicit vendors for new federal and state legislative advocacy contracts. The RFP stipulated the contracts
would be two-year contracts with three (3) one-year renewal options, effective January 1, 2013. Alcalde & Fay and Nielsen Merksamer were the successful
bidders for the federal and state contracts, respectively. The authorization for the contracts expires December 31, 2017.
Alcalde & Fay is a minority-controlled/employee-owned firm that supports the County’s MBE contracting goals.
Services provided include: assisting the County in developing and implementing an effective federal advocacy strategy and annual legislative program to
influence federal laws and policies and increase funding for County priorities and operations; research, monitoring and providing information to the County;
representing County interests in meetings with members of Congress and/or their staff and with federal agencies, boards, commissions, committees and other
bodies as appropriate; participating in appropriate coalitions and working groups on behalf of the County; arrange for meetings involving County officials in
Washington, D.C.; preparing and delivering briefings and activity reports as needed; and performing other related duties, as mutually agreed upon.
In 2012, the County conducted a RFP process to award a two-year contract with three (3) single year options to renew to procure the services of a federal
advocate. Alcalde & Fay was the successful bidder.
In October 2017, the Board of Supervisors authorized a contract extension with Alcalde & Fay for a one-year period.
State Advocacy Services : Nielsen Merksamer
On contract since: January 1, 2004
Contract Term (current): January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018
Contract Amount: $180,000/year: $15,000/monthly retainer
History of Contract:
Prior to retaining Nielsen Merksamer, the County contracted with L. Scott Sphann and Associates, who received an annual retainer of $111,946, for state
advocacy and annual legislative program services. A $25,000 annual subcontract with Nielsen Merksamer was entered into in January 2003 ($2,083 monthly
retainer) for services related specifically to state budget issues.
The shift in state representation placed an increased emphasis on the state budget and the state-local relationships. Nielsen Merksamer is recognized for its
expertise in the broad area of state and county relations, particularly fiscal relationships.
Nielsen Merksamer is a law firm specializing in government and political law and related litigation. They represent approximately 70 clients in the legislative
and regulatory arenas in Sacramento, including approximately 10 local government entities, Fortune 500 companies, labor organizations, health care interests
and various associations.
First contract executed for the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2005 in the amount of $120,000 annually.
In 2012, the County conducted a RFP process to award a two-year contract with three (3) single year options to renew to procure the services of a federal
advocate. Nielsen Merksamer was the successful bidder.
On October 24, 2017, the Board of Supervisors authorized a contract extension with Nielsen Merksamer for a one-year period, with no change in the amount
of monthly retainer.
17 of 107
Referral Update:
In 2012 the CAO staff (serving as Legislation Committee staff) conducted the last Request for Proposals (RFP) process for the state and federal advocacy
services contracts. To initiate the RFP development process, CAO staff surveyed the urban counties on their utilization of state and federal lobbying firms. The
survey included name of the firm, the amount of the contract, length of contract term, whether an RFP process had been conducted, and satisfaction with the
services. This information was provided to the Legislation Committee to inform their direction to staff on the RFP.
The RFP was issued on September 28, 2018; responses were due on October 31, 2012. (Attachment A is the RFP for Federal Advocacy Services; Attachment B is
the RFP for State Advocacy Services. The standard contracting terms attachment to each RFP was deleted .) The County received three responses to its RFP for
State advocacy services and two responses to its RFP for federal advocacy services.
The responses received for the State advocacy services included (in alphabetic order):
1. Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP
2. Smith, Watts & Martinez, LLC
3. Townsend Public Affairs
The responses received for the Federal advocacy services included (in alphabetic order):
1. Alcalde & Fay
2. Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc.
In accordance with the RFP, staff assembled a County Selection Committee to evaluate the proposals. The Committee consisted of the following members:
• Supervisor Karen Mitchoff
• County Administrator David Twa (for the State services)
• Chief Assistant County Administrator Terry Speiker (for the Federal services)
• Patricia Tanquary, Chief Executive Officer, Contra Costa Health Plan
• Arielle Bourgart, Director of Government and Community Relations for CCTA
• Steven Goetz, Deputy Director of Department of Conservation & Development
CAO staff facilitated the evaluation and interview process but was not included on the County Selection Committee. The interviews with the State advocacy firms
were held on November 14, 2012. The interviews with the Federal advocacy firms were conducted via Skype on November 19, 2012.
Upon conclusion of the interviews and review of the RFP responses, the County Selection Committee made the following recommendations which are
transmitted to the Legislation Committee for its consideration and action:
1. For the State advocacy services: Retain Nielsen Merksamer.
2. For the Federal advocacy services: Retain Alcalde & Fay.
The recommendations were made largely on the firms’ superior knowledge of Contra Costa County and its issues, their proposed scope of services, and the
assurance that there would be no conflicts of interest with other clients.
The bid forms submitted by Nielsen Merksamer and Alcalde & Fay request no increase in price over their current contracts.
At its December 3, 2012 meeting, the Legislation Committee considered the recommendation of the County Selection Committee and concurred with their
recommendations. The recommendations were sent to the Board of Supervisors for contract authorization.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff is seeking direction from the Legislation Committee on the following aspects of the procurement process:
1. The conduct of a survey of urban counties' lobbying contracts
2. The conduct of a survey of Board of Supervisors' members and their staffs, the CAO, Department Heads and other key staff of their primary advocacy
interests, issues of particular concern, and satisfaction with services/request for additional services
3. Timeline for Procurement Process
4. Length of contract period
5. Amount of contract
6. Review Panel membership
7. Request for Proposals/Qualifications (RFP/Q) development
Attachments
Attachment A: 2012 Federal Advocacy RFP
Attachment B: 2012 State Advocacy RFP
18 of 107
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL No. 1209-003
SPECIFICATIONS, TERMS & CONDITIONS
For
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
For complete information regarding this project see RFP posted at http://www.bidsync.com
or contact the person listed below. Thank you for your interest!
Contact Person: Lara DeLaney, Senior Management Analyst
E-mail Address: lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us
RESPONSE DUE
by
5:00 p.m.
on
October 31, 2012
at
Contra Costa County, County Administrator’s Office
651 Pine Street, 10th floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Attachment A
19 of 107
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL No. 1209-003
SPECIFICATIONS, TERMS & CONDITIONS
For
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 1 of 2
Page
I. ACRONYM AND TERM GLOSSARY ....................................................................................... 4
II. STATEMENT OF WORK
A. Intent ...................................................................................................................................... 5
B. Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 5
C. Background ........................................................................................................................... 7
D. Consultants Minimum Qualifications.................................................................................... 8
E. Specific Requirements .......................................................................................................... 9
F. Debarment / Suspension ...................................................................................................... 10
G. Deliverables/Reports ............................................................................................................ 10
III. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
H. County Contacts ................................................................................................................... 11
I. Calendar of Events ............................................................................................................... 11
J. Submittal of Bids ................................................................................................................. 11
K. Response Format .................................................................................................................. 13
L. Evaluation Criteria/Selection Committee ............................................................................ 13
M. Contract Evaluation and Assessment .................................................................................. 15
N. Notice of Intent to Award .................................................................................................... 15
O. Disputes Relating to Proposal Process and Award ............................................................. 16
IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
P. Term / Termination / Renewal ............................................................................................. 17
Q. Pricing .................................................................................................................................. 17
R. Award ................................................................................................................................... 18
S. Method of Ordering ............................................................................................................. 18
T. Invoicing .............................................................................................................................. 19
U. Account Manager/Support Staff .......................................................................................... 19
V. General Requirements ......................................................................................................... 20
Attachment A
20 of 107
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL No. 1209-003
SPECIFICATIONS, TERMS & CONDITIONS
for
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A – Bid Form
Exhibit B – Response Content and Submittals Completeness Checklist
Exhibit C – Debarment and Suspension Certification
Exhibit D – Standard Contract
Attachment A
21 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 4 of 20
I. ACRONYM AND TERM GLOSSARY
Unless otherwise noted, the terms below may be upper or lower case. Acronyms will always be
uppercase.
AIDS Refer to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
Bid Shall mean the bidders’/contractors’ response to this Request
Bidder Shall mean the specific person or entity responding to this RFP
Board Shall refer to the County of Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
CAO Shall refer to the County Administrator’s Office
CDBG Refers to Community Development Block Grant
CSC Shall refer to County Selection Committee
Contractor When capitalized, shall refer to selected bidder that is awarded a
contract
County When capitalized, shall refer to the County of Contra Costa
Federal Refers to United States Federal Government, its departments and/or
agencies
FY Shall mean Fiscal Year
HOME Program Refers to the largest Federal block grant to State and local
governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for
low-income households
HOPWA Refers to Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
HUD Refers to Housing and Urban Development
Labor Code Refers to California Labor Code
McKinney-Vento Refers to Federal legislation dealing with the education of children
youth experiencing homelessness in US Public Sector
Proposal Shall mean bidder/contractor response to this RFP
Request for Proposal Shall mean this document, which is the County of Contra Costa’s
request for contractors’/bidders’ proposal to provide the services being
solicited herein; also referred herein as RFP
Response Shall refer to bidder’s proposal or quotation submitted in reply to RFP
RFP Request for Proposal
SCAAP State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
SCHIP State Child Health Insurance Program
State Refers to State of California, its departments and/or agencies
Title IV-E Refers to Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program. This
program provides federal reimbursement to states for the costs of
children placed in foster homes or other types of out-of-home care
under a court order or voluntary placement agreement
Attachment A
22 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 5 of 20
II. STATEMENT OF WORK
A. INTENT
The intent of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to describe professional federal
legislative advocacy and related services required by Contra Costa County.
The County intends to award a two-year contract with three (3) single year options to
renew to the bidder selected as the most responsible bidder whose response conforms to
the RFP and meets the County’s requirements
B. SCOPE
Contra Costa County is seeking a full-service federal legislative advocate. The individual
or firm will work in a proactive manner to protect and advance the County’s interests on
a federal level. The legislative advocate will work with the Board of Supervisors, the
Legislation Committee, the County Administrator, department heads and/or designated
departmental staff on a proactive legislative agenda to advance and protect the County’s
interest.
1. Contra Costa County has a multi-faceted, proactive legislative program comprised
of the following components:
a. Adoption of an Annual Legislative Platform by the Board of Supervisors.
b. Review of legislation by the County’s Legislation Committee and staff.
c. Employment of professional State and Federal legislative advocates to
pursue advocacy and enactment.
d. Tracking of legislation at the County Administrator’s Office (CAO) and
agency / department levels.
2. The CAO coordinates the County’s Legislative activities, as summarized below.
a. Annual Legislative Program
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopts an annual Federal
Legislative Platform. Prior to developing this Platform, the CAO invites
input from all County departments and the Board of Supervisors. From this
input, the Federal Legislative Platform is developed.
The County’s Federal Legislative Platform includes legislative proposals
submitted by County departments and community based organizations. For
Attachment A
23 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 6 of 20
example, the 2012 Federal Legislative Platform includes 13 requests for
FFY 2013 appropriations or grants; 4 requests for the reauthorization of the
federal transportation act; and 5 requests for the reauthorization of the
Water Resources Development Act. The Federal Platform also includes the
County’s position on various policies, along with requests for amendments
to existing legislation, and suggestions for proposed new legislation. The
Platform is developed in cooperation with the County’s legislative
advocates, members of the Board of Supervisors, County
agencies/departments and other interested parties. The Platform is
submitted to the Board of Supervisors through the County’s Legislation
Committee.
The Legislation Committee typically approves the draft Legislative
Platform in December each year. Subsequently, at a meeting in January,
the Board of Supervisors is asked to adopt the Legislative Platform. It
should be noted that this Platform is amended continually throughout the
year as new legislative issues arise.
b. Legislation Committee
In 2007, the County established the Legislation Committee as a means of
coordinating legislative issues and policies throughout the County. This
Committee meets regularly to review the impacts of State and Federal
legislation on the County. The Committee receives regular updates from
the County’s State and Federal legislative advocates and advises the Board
of Supervisors on legislative matters affecting the County.
c. Issues of Particular Concern to the County
(1) Medical Insurance for the Uninsured and Underinsured
(2) Healthcare reform implementation
(3) Surface Transportation & Infrastructure funding
(4) Increased funding for Medicaid and Medicare
(5) Increased funding for Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
programs, including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and McKinney-Vento
(6) Homeless Assistance, Housing Opportunities for Personals with
AIDS (HOPWA) and HOME programs
Attachment A
24 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 7 of 20
(7) Increased funding for health and human service programs
(8) Increased funding flexibility for various Federal programs including
Title IV-E
(9) Increased funding for navigation, flood control, and habitat
restoration projects
(10) Funding for Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine clean-up
(11) Full funding for various programs including Social Services Block
Grant and Elder Justice
(12) Bioterrorism and Disaster Preparedness
(13) State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)
(14) State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
(15) Increased funding for California (e.g., farm bill, agriculture, water
resources, flood control, clean water, natural resources services, etc.)
(16) Advocacy related to the County’s Water Platform, specifically the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
(17) Federal grant funding
Please note, this list is not all-inclusive and the consultant would be
expected to work with the County to identify other issues of concern.
C. BACKGROUND
Contra Costa County was incorporated in 1850 as one of the original 27 counties of
California. A five-member Board of Supervisors, each elected to four-year terms, serves
as the legislative body of the County, which has a general law form of government. Also
elected are the County Assessor, Auditor-Controller (the ‘County Auditor-Controller’),
Clerk-Recorder, District Attorney-Public Administrator, Sheriff-Coroner and Treasurer-
Tax Collector (the ‘County Treasurer’). The County Administrator, David Twa, is
appointed by the Board and is responsible for running the day-to-day business of the
County. The County Administrator is also responsible for presenting the Board with a
Recommended Budget for consideration of adoption as the Final (Adopted) Budget,
which will serve as the foundation of the County’s financial planning and control.
Attachment A
25 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 8 of 20
Contra Costa is one of nine counties in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area and the
ninth most populous county in California with an estimated population of 1,056,064 as of
January 1, 2011. The County covers about 733 square miles and extends from the
northeastern shore of the San Francisco Bay easterly about 50 miles to San Joaquin
County. The County is bordered on the south and west by Alameda County and on the
north by the Suisun and San Pablo Bays. The western and northern shorelines are highly
industrialized, while the interior sections are suburban/residential, commercial and light
industrial. The County contains 19 cities, including Richmond in the west; Antioch in the
northeast; and Concord in the middle. Population growth in the County during the past
five years has been strongest in unincorporated areas as well as in the cities of Antioch,
Brentwood, Hercules, Oakley, Pittsburg and San Ramon.
The County agencies/departments include: Agriculture, Animal Services, Assessor,
Auditor-Controller, Child Support Services, Clerk-Recorder, Conservation &
Development, County Administrator, County Counsel, District Attorney, Employment
and Human Services, Contra Costa Consolidated Fire, Health Services, Human
Resources, Information Technology, Library, Probation, Public Defender, Public Works
(which now includes the former General Services), Risk Manager, Sheriff-Coroner,
Treasurer-Tax Collector, and Veterans Services.
The County maintains a $2.4 Billion budget (all funds). The recommended FY 12-13
General Fund budget of $1.222 billion is supported by local, federal, and State resources.
Almost half of our revenue, $551.7 million (45.1%) is dependent on State and Federal
allocations. Our general purpose revenue available from sources such as property tax and
interest income is $314.8 million. The remaining ‘Other Local’ revenue is generated
primarily by fees, fines, and licenses.
With respect to its Federal advocacy services, the County currently contracts with
Alcalde & Fay. They have been under contract with the County since 2001 and receive a
monthly retainer of $8,458. The contract expires on December 31, 2012.
D. CONSULTANTS’ MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
1. Consultants shall be regularly and have been continuously engaged in the business
of providing Federal legislative advocacy to local governments, preferably urban
county governments, for at least the past five (5) years.
2. Consultants had a successful legislative service contracts with at least one (1)
public agency for at least five (5) years. Consultant will be required to provide
work samples.
3. Consultants shall possess the proven ability to initiate, develop and carry out
effective strategies to influence legislative and administrative activities and
effectively lobby on behalf of the County.
Attachment A
26 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 9 of 20
4. Consultants shall possess all permits, licenses and professional credentials
necessary to perform the required legislative advocacy services.
5. Consultants’ other clients should not pose conflict of interest issues for the
County, nor should their interest be in direct conflict with the County’s mission.
E. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
The consultant will act as the Washington D. C. representative of the County and will
provide, at a minimum, the following services:
1. Assist the County in developing strong relationships with the East Bay
congressional delegation, congressional leaders and the Administration. This
includes developing a target list of key influencers from both parties in the
Congress and proactively developing relationships between these member and
County leaders.
2. Serve as the County’s liaison to Federal agencies.
3. Provide logistical support to arrange appointments and meetings with members of
Congress and Federal agencies, as needed. This includes preparing talking points
and/or briefing materials, as needed.
4. Lead the County in developing and implementing an effective Federal advocacy
strategy and legislative program to:
a. Influence Federal laws and policies as they relate to County priorities,
programs and operations, including developing legislation and amendments
to legislation which accomplish specific County goals; and
b. Identify and develop opportunities to increase funding for County priorities,
programs and operations.
5. Research and provide information to the County on such matters as:
a. Federal budget, bills and laws.
b. Funding opportunities and availability.
c. Congressional hearings, reports and testimony.
d. Federal regulations, guidelines, directives and other administrative policies,
both proposed and adopted; and
Attachment A
27 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 10 of 20
e. Technical memoranda and reports impacting County operations.
6. Represent County interests in meetings with members of Congress and/or their
staff, and with representatives of Federal agencies, boards, commissions,
committees and other bodies as appropriate.
7. Participate in appropriate coalitions and working groups on behalf of the County.
8. Report on and advise the County on relevant Federal legislation, proposed and
adopted, and administrative actions that affect County programs. Reporting will
include an annual summary on major activities and accomplishments, linked to the
Board’s adopted Legislative Platform; as needed visits to the County for meetings
with Board members and staff and County administrative staff; and participation
in the Board of Supervisor’s Legislation Committee meetings (participation is
typically by conference call).
9. Perform other related duties as mutually agreed upon.
F. DEBARMENT / SUSPENSION POLICY
In order to prohibit the procurement of any goods or services ultimately funded by
Federal awards from debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded parties, each bidder will
be screened at the time of RFP response to ensure bidder, its principal and their named
subcontractors are not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded by the United States
Government in compliance with the requirements of 7 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 3016.35, 28 CFR 66.35, 29 CFR 97.35, 34 CFR 80.35, 45 CFR 92.35 and
Executive Order 12549.
The County will verify bidder, its principal and their named subcontractors are not
on the Federal debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded list of vendors located
at www.epls.gov; and
Bidders are to complete a Debarment and Suspension Certification form, Exhibit
N attached, certifying bidder, its principal and their named subcontractors are not
debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded by the United States Government.
G. DELIVERABLES/REPORTS
1. Creation of an annual summary of major activities and accomplishments, which is
linked to the Board’s adopted Legislative Platform
2. Regular e-mails regarding budget and/or legislative updates.
Attachment A
28 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 11 of 20
III. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
H. COUNTY CONTACTS
As of the issuance of this RFP, Vendors are specifically directed not to contact Count y
personnel for meetings, conferences or technical discussions related to this RFP. Failure
to adhere to this policy may result in disqualification of the Vendor.
All questions regarding the proposal will be accepted through the BidSync site only. The
deadline for submitting questions for this RFP is on or before 12:00 noon on October 24,
2012. All questions will be answered and disseminated to those registered on the BidSync
website. Contra Costa County uses BidSync as the primary tool for posting bids and other
business opportunities. BidSync is a web-based government bidding system.
I. CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Event Date/Location
Request Issued September 28, 2012
Written Questions Due by 12:00 Noon on October 24, 2012
Response Due October 31, 2012 by 5:00 p.m.
Vendor Interviews Week of November 19, 2012
Board Letter Issued December 6, 2012
Board Award Date December 11, 2012
Contract Start Date January 1, 2013
Note: Award and start dates are approximate.
It is the responsibility of each bidder to be familiar with all of the specifications, terms and
conditions. By the submission of a Bid, the Bidder certifies that if awarded a contract they
will make no claim against the County based upon ignorance of conditions or
misunderstanding of the specifications.
J. SUBMITTAL OF BIDS
1. All bids must be SEALED and must be received at the County Administrator’s
Office of Contra Costa County by 5:00 p.m. on the due date specified in the
Calendar of Events.
NOTE: LATE AND/OR UNSEALED BIDS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IF
HAND DELIVERING BIDS, PLEASE ALLOW TIME FOR METERED
STREET PARKING OR PARKING IN AREA PUBLIC PARKING LOTS.
Bids will be received only at the address shown below, and by the time indicated
in the Calendar of Events. Any bid received after said time and/or date or at a
Attachment A
29 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 12 of 20
place other than the stated address cannot be considered and will be returned to the
bidder unopened.
All bids, whether delivered by an employee of Bidder, U.S. Postal Service, courier
or package delivery service, must be received and time stamped at the stated
address prior to the time designated. The CAO’s timestamp shall be considered
the official timepiece for the purpose of establishing the actual receipt of bids.
2. Bids are to be addressed and delivered as follows:
Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
RFP No. 1209-003
Contra Costa County, County Administrator’s Office
651 Pine Street, 10th floor
Martinez, CA 94553
3. Bidders are to submit one (1) original hard copy bid, with original ink signatures,
plus five (5) copies of their proposal. Original proposal is to be clearly marked,
printed on plain white paper, and must be either loose leaf or in a 3-ring binder
(NOT bound). It is preferred that all proposals submitted shall be printed double-
sided and on minimum 30% post-consumer recycled content paper. Inability to
comply with this recommendation will have no impact on the evaluation and
scoring of the proposal. Bidders must also submit an electronic copy of their
proposal. The electronic copy must be a single file, scanned image of the original
hard copy with all appropriate signatures, and must be on disk or USB flash drive
and enclosed with the sealed hardcopy of the bid.
4. Bidder's name and return address must also appear on the mailing package.
5. No telegraphic, email (electronic) or facsimile bids will be considered.
6. Bidder agrees and acknowledges all RFP specifications, terms and conditions and
indicates ability to perform by submission of its bid.
7. Submitted bids shall be valid for a minimum period of 180 days.
8. All costs required for the preparation and submission of a bid shall be borne by
Bidder.
9. Only one bid response will be accepted from any one person, partnership,
corporation, or other entity; however, several alternatives may be included in one
response. For purposes of this requirement, “partnership” shall mean, and is
limited to, a legal partnership formed under one or more of the provisions of the
California or other state’s Corporations Code or an equivalent statute.
Attachment A
30 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 13 of 20
10. Proprietary or Confidential Information: No part of any bid response is to be
marked as confidential or proprietary. County may refuse to consider any bid
response or part thereof so marked. Bid responses submitted in response to this
RFP may be subject to public disclosure. County shall not be liable in any way for
disclosure of any such records. Additionally, all bid responses shall become the
property of County. County reserves the right to make use of any information or
ideas contained in submitted bid responses. This provision is not intended to
require the disclosure of records that are exempt from disclosure under the
California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250, et seq.) or of
“trade secrets” protected by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civil Code Section
3426, et seq.).
11. All other information regarding the bid responses will be held as confidential until
such time as the County Selection Committee has completed their evaluation, an
intended award has been made by the County Selection Committee, and the
contract has been fully negotiated with the intended awardee named in the intent
to award/non-award notifications. The submitted proposals shall be made
available upon request no later than five (5) business days before approval of the
award and contract is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors. All
parties submitting proposals, either qualified or unqualified, will receive mailed
intent to award/non-award notifications, which will include the name of the bidder
to be recommended for award of this project. In addition, award information will
be posted on the County’s “Contracting Opportunities” website, mentioned above .
12. Each bid received, with the name of the bidder, shall be entered on a record, and
each record with the successful bid indicated thereon shall, after the award of the
order or contract, be open to public inspection.
K. RESPONSE FORMAT
1. Bid responses are to be straightforward, clear, concise and specific to the
information requested.
2. In order for bids to be considered complete, Bidder must provide all information
requested. See Exhibit B, Response Content and Submittals Completeness
Checklist.
L. EVALUATION CRITERIA/SELECTION COMMITTEE
All proposals will be evaluated by a County Selection Committee (CSC). The County
Selection Committee may be composed of County staff and other parties that may have
expertise or experience in Federal legislative advocacy services. The CSC will select a
Attachment A
31 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 14 of 20
contractor in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in this RFP. The evaluation
of the proposals shall be within the sole judgment and discretion of the CSC.
All contact during the evaluation phase shall be through the County Administrator’s
Office Department only. Bidders shall neither contact nor lobby evaluators during the
evaluation process. Attempts by Bidder to contact and/or influence members of the CSC
may result in disqualification of Bidder.
The CSC will evaluate each proposal meeting the qualification requirements set forth in
this RFP. Bidders should bear in mind that any proposal that is unrealistic in terms of the
technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically high or low in cost, will be deemed
reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of a failure to
comprehend the complexity and risk of the County’s requirements as set forth in this
RFP.
Bidders are advised that in the evaluation of cost it will be assumed that the unit price
quoted is correct in the case of a discrepancy between the unit price and an extension.
As a result of this RFP, the County intends to award a contract to the responsible bidder
whose response conforms to the RFP and whose bid presents the greatest value to the
County, all evaluation criteria considered. The combined weight of the evaluation
criteria is greater in importance than cost in determining the greatest value to the County.
The goal is to award a contract to the bidder that proposes the County the best quality as
determined by the combined weight of the evaluation criteria. The County may award a
contract of higher qualitative competence over the lowest priced response.
The basic information that each section should contain is specified below, these
specifications should be considered as minimum requirements. Much of the material
needed to present a comprehensive proposal can be placed into one of the sections listed.
However, other criteria may be added to further support the evaluation process whenever
such additional criteria are deemed appropriate in considering the nature of the services
being solicited.
The evaluation process may include a two-stage approach including an initial evaluation
of the written proposal and preliminary scoring to develop a short list of bidders that will
continue to the final stage of oral presentation and interview and reference checks.
If the two stage approach is used, the three (3) bidders receiving the highest preliminary
scores will be invited to an oral presentation and interview. Only the bidders meeting the
short list criteria will proceed to the next stage. All other bidders will be deemed
eliminated from the process. All bidders will be notified of the short list participants;
however, the preliminary scores at that time will not be communicated to bidders.
Attachment A
32 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 15 of 20
Evaluation Criteria
• Completeness of Response
• Cost
• Implementation Plan and Schedule and Evaluation of Scope
• Relevant Experience
• References
• Understanding of the Project and Scope of Work
• Presentation and Interview if required
M. CONTRACT EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT
During the initial sixty (60) day period of any contract, which may be awarded to
Contractor, the CSC and/or other persons designated by the County will meet with the
Contractor to evaluate the service and to identify any issues or potential problems.
The County reserves the right to determine, at its sole discretion, (a) whether Contractor
has complied with all terms of this RFP and (b) whether any problems or potential
problems with the proposed service were evidenced which make it unlikely (even with
possible modifications) that such proposed service will have met the County
requirements. If, as a result of such determination the County concludes that it is not
satisfied with Contractor, Contractor’s performance under any awarded contract and/or
Contractor’s services as contracted for therein, the Contractor will be notified of contract
termination effective forty-five (45) days following notice. The County will have the
right to invite the next highest ranked bidder to enter into a contract. The County also
reserves the right to re-bid this project if it is determined to be in its best interest to do so.
N. NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD
1. At the conclusion of the RFP response evaluation process (“Evaluation Process”),
all bidders will be notified in writing by e-mail or fax of the contract award
recommendation, if any, by the CAO. The document providing this notification is
the Notice of Intent to Award.
The Notice of Intent to Award will provide the following information:
The name of the bidder being recommended for contract award; and
The names of all other parties that submitted proposals.
2. At the conclusion of the RFP process, debriefings for unsuccessful bidders will be
scheduled and provided upon written request and will be restricted to discussion of
the unsuccessful offeror’s bid.
Attachment A
33 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 16 of 20
a. Under no circumstances will any discussion be conducted with regard to
contract negotiations with the successful bidder.
b. Debriefing may include review of successful bidder’s proposal with
redactions as appropriate.
3. The submitted proposals shall be made available upon request no later than five
(5) business days before approval of the award and contract is scheduled to be
heard by the Board of Supervisors.
O. DISPUTES RELATING TO PROPOSAL PROCESS AND AWARD
In the event a dispute arises concerning the proposal process prior to the award of the
contract, the party wishing resolution of the dispute shall submit a request in writing to
the Purchasing Agent/Director of Public Works. Vendor may appeal the recommended
award or denial of award, provided the following stipulations are met:
1. Appeal must be in writing.
2. Must be submitted within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the letter of
notification of recommended award or denial of award.
3. An appeal of a denial of award can only be brought on the following
grounds:
a. Failure of the County to follow the selection procedures and
adhere to requirements specified in the RFP or any addenda or
amendments.
b. There has been a violation of conflict of interest as provided by
California Government Code Section 87100 et seq.
c. A violation of State or Federal law.
Appeals will not be accepted for any other reasons than those stated above. All appeals
must be sent to:
David Gould, Purchasing Manager
Contra Costa County
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez CA, 94553
dgoul@pw.cccounty.us
The County Purchasing Agent shall make a decision concerning the appeal and notify the
Vendor making the appeal within a reasonable timeframe prior to the tentatively
scheduled date for awarding the contract. The decision of the County Purchasing Agent
shall be deemed final.
Attachment A
34 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 17 of 20
IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
P. TERM / TERMINATION / RENEWAL
1. The term of the contract, which may be awarded pursuant to this RFP, will be two
(2) years.
2. By mutual agreement, any contract which may be awarded pursuant to this RFP,
may be extended for three (3) additional one-year terms at agreed prices with all
other terms and conditions remaining the same.
Q. PRICING
1. All pricing as quoted will remain firm for the term of any contract that may be
awarded as a result of this RFP.
2. Unless otherwise stated, Bidder agrees that, in the event of a price decline, the
benefit of such lower price shall be extended to the County.
3. Any price increases or decreases for subsequent contract terms may be negotiated
between Contractor and County only after completion of the initial term.
4. All prices quoted shall be in United States dollars and "whole cent," no cent
fractions shall be used. There are no exceptions.
5. Price quotes shall include any and all payment incentives available to the County.
6. Bidders are advised that in the evaluation of cost, if applicable, it will be assumed
that the unit price quoted is correct in the case of a discrepancy between the unit
price and an extension.
7. Federal and State minimum wage laws apply. The County has no requirements for
living wages. The County is not imposing any additional requirements regarding
wages.
8. Prevailing Wages: Pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., Contractor shall
pay to persons performing labor in and about Work provided for in Contract not
less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar
character in the locality in which the Work is performed, and not less than the
general prevailing rate of per diem wages for legal holiday and overtime work in
said locality, which per diem wages shall not be less than the stipulated rates
contained in a schedule thereof which has been ascertained and determined by the
Director of the State Department of Industrial Relations to be the general
Attachment A
35 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 18 of 20
prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft or type of workman or mechanic
needed to execute this contract.
R. AWARD
1. Proposals will be evaluated by a committee and will be ranked in accordance with
the RFP section entitled “Evaluation Criteria/Selection Committee.”
2. The committee will recommend award to the bidder who, in its opinion, has
submitted the proposal that best serves the overall interests of the County and attains
the highest overall point score. Award may not necessarily be made to the bidder
with the lowest price.
3. The County reserves the right to reject any or all responses that materially differ
from any terms contained in this RFP or from any Exhibits attached hereto, to waive
informalities and minor irregularities in responses received, and to provide an
opportunity for bidders to correct minor and immaterial errors contained in their
submissions. The decision as to what constitutes a minor irregularity shall be made
solely at the discretion of the County.
4. The County reserves the right to award to a single contractor.
5. The County has the right to decline to award this contract or any part thereof for
any reason.
6. Board approval to award a contract is required.
7. A contract must be negotiated, finalized, and signed by the intended awardee prior to
Board approval.
8. Final Standard Contract terms and conditions will be negotiated with the selected
bidder.
S. METHOD OF ORDERING
1. A signed Standard Contract will be issued upon Board approval.
2. Standard Contracts will be faxed, transmitted electronically or mailed and shall be
the only authorization for the Contractor to place an order.
3. Contracts and payments for services will be issued only in the name of Contractor.
4. Contractor shall adapt to changes to the method of ordering procedures as required
by the County during the term of the contract.
Attachment A
36 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 19 of 20
5. Change orders shall be agreed upon by Contractor and County and issued as
needed in writing by County.
T. INVOICING
1. Contractor shall invoice the CAO’s office, unless otherwise advised, upon
satisfactory performance of services.
2. Payment will be made within thirty (30) days following receipt of invoice and
upon complete satisfactory performance of services.
3. County shall notify Contractor of any adjustments required to invoice.
4. Invoices shall contain County contract number, invoice number, remit to address and
itemized services description and price as quoted.
5. Contractor shall utilize standardized invoice upon request.
6. Invoices shall only be issued by the Contractor who is awarded a contract.
7. Payments will be issued to and invoices must be received from the same Contractor
whose name is specified on the contract.
U. ACCOUNT MANAGER/SUPPORT STAFF
1. Contractor shall provide a dedicated competent account manager who shall be
responsible for the County account/contract. The account manager shall receive all
orders from the County and shall be the primary contact for all issues regarding
Bidder’s response to this RFP and any contract which may arise pursuant to this
RFP.
2. Contractor shall also provide adequate, competent support staff that shall be able to
service the County during normal working hours, Monday through Friday. Such
representative(s) shall be knowledgeable about the contract, products offered and
able to identify and resolve quickly any issues including but not limited to order and
invoicing problems.
3. Contractor account manager shall be familiar with County requirements and
standards and work with the County Administrators Office (CAO) staff to ensure
that established standards are adhered to.
Attachment A
37 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 20 of 20
V. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Proper conduct is expected of Contractor’s personnel when on County premises.
This includes adhering to no-smoking ordinances, the drug-free work place policy,
not using alcoholic beverages and treating employees courteously.
2. County has the right to request removal of any Contractor employee or subcontractor
who does not properly conduct himself/herself/itself or perform quality work.
Attachment A
38 of 107
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
RFP No. 1209-003
for
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
BID FORM
Cost shall be submitted on Exhibit A as is. No alterations or changes of any kind are permitted. Bid
responses that do not comply will be subject to rejection in total. The cost quoted below shall include all
taxes and all other charges and is the cost the County will pay for the two year term of any contract that is
a result of this bid.
Proposal prices shall include everything necessary for the completion of and fulfillment of the contract
including but not limited to furnishing all materials, equipment, tools, facilities and all management,
superintendence, labor, services, taxes, licenses, permits and an estimated cost for two (2) trips to Contra
Costa County per year required to complete the work in accordance with the contract documents, except
as may be provided otherwise in the contract documents.
Please provide a separate price for travel expenses. Travel expenses will be calculated into your final bid
price as the total cost for services.
1st year 2nd Year Total for
Two (2) Year DESCRIPTION Unit of
Measure
No.
units
Charge
per unit Extension Charge
per unit Extension
(A) (B) (C) (D) = (B)*(C) (E) (F) = (B)*(E) (G) =(D+F)
Monthly service charge
for legislative advocate
program excluding
travel to Contra Costa
County
Per
month 12 $ $ $ $ $
TOTAL COST FOR SERVICES $
Bidder agrees that the prices quoted are the maximum they will charge during the term of any contract
awarded.
FIRM: _________________________SIGNATURE:______________________DATE:___________
PRINTED NAME: __________________________________TITLE:__________________________
Attachment A
39 of 107
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT B
RFP No. 1209-003
for
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
RESPONSE CONTENT AND SUBMITTALS
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST
1. Bid responses must be signed in ink and include evidence that the person or persons
signing the proposal is/are authorized to execute the proposal on behalf of the bidder.
2. Bidders shall provide all of the below noted Bid documentation and exhibits. Any
material deviation from these requirements may be cause for rejection of the proposal, as
determined in the County’s sole discretion. The content and sequence for each required
Bid document/exhibit shall be as follows:
CHECK LIST
A. Title Page: Show RFP number and title, your company name and address, name of
the contact person (for all matters regarding the RFP response), telephone number
and proposal date.
B. Table of Contents: Bid responses shall include a table of contents listing the
individual sections of the proposal and their corresponding page numbers. Tabs
should separate each of the individual sections.
C. Cover Letter: Bid responses shall include a cover letter describing Bidder and
include all of the following:
1) The official name of Bidder;
2) Bidder’s organizational structure (e.g. corporation, partnership, limited
liability company, etc.);
3) The jurisdiction in which Bidder is organized and the date of such
organization;
4) The address of Bidder’s headquarters, any local office involved in the Bid
Proposal; and the address/location where the actual services will be
performed;
5) Bidder’s Federal Tax Identification Number;
6) The name, address, telephone, fax numbers and e-mail address of the
person(s) who will serve as the contact(s) to the County, with regards to the
Attachment A
40 of 107
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 4
RFP response, with authorization to make representations on behalf of and to
bind Bidder;
7) A representation that Bidder is in good standing in the State of California
and will have all necessary licenses, permits, certifications, approvals and
authorizations necessary in order to perform all of its obligations in
connection with this RFP. This requirement includes the necessity for some
out of state companies to be registered with the State of California by the
effective date of the agreement. Information regarding this requirement can
be located at the Secretary of State website, http://www.sos.ca.gov/.; and
8) An acceptance of all conditions and requirements contained in this RFP.
9) Cover letter must be signed in ink by a person or persons authorized to
execute the proposal on behalf of the bidder.
D. Letter of Transmittal: Bid responses shall include a description of Bidder’s
approach in providing its services to the County in one or two pages stating its
understanding of the work to be done and a positive commitment to perform the
work as specified.
E. Executive Summary: A brief synopsis of the highlights of the Proposal and overall
benefits of the Proposal to the County. This synopsis should not exceed three (3)
pages in length and should be easily understood.
F. Bidder’s Qualifications and Experience:
Provide a description of Bidder’s capabilities pertaining to this RFP. This
description should not exceed five (5) pages and should include a detailed summary
of Bidder’s experience relative to RFP requirements described herein, including
references.
G. Key Personnel - Qualifications and Experience:
Bid responses shall include a complete list of and resumes for all key personnel
associated with the RFP. This list must include all key personnel who will provide
services/training to County staff and all key personnel who will provide support
services. For each person on the list, the following information shall be included:
(1) the person’s relationship with Bidder, including job title and years of
employment with Bidder; (2) the role that the person will play in connection with
the RFP (3) address, telephone, fax numbers, and e-mail address; (4) the person’s
educational background; (5) the person’s relevant experience; and (6) relevant
awards, certificates or other achievements. This section of the bid response should
include no more than two pages of information for each listed person.
Attachment A
41 of 107
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 4
H. Description of the Proposed Services:
Bid response shall include a description of the terms and conditions of services to
be provided during the contract term including response times. The description
shall contain a basis of estimate for services including its scheduled start and
completion dates, the number of Bidder’s and County personnel involved, and the
number of hours scheduled for such personnel.
The description must: (1) specify how the services in the bid response will meet or
exceed the requirements of the County; (2) explain any special resources,
procedures or approaches that make the services of Bidder particularly
advantageous to the County; and (3) identify any limitations or restrictions of
Bidder in providing the services that the County should be aware of in evaluating its
Response to this RFP.
I. Implementation Plan and Schedule and Evaluation of Scope
The bid response shall include an implementation plan and schedule. The plan for
implementing the proposed services shall include a detailed schedule indicating
how bidder will ensure adherence to their timetables set forth for the final services.
J. References:
1) Bidders are to provide a list of five (5) current and five (5) former clients.
References must be satisfactory as deemed solely by County. References
should have similar scope, volume and requirements to those outlined in these
specifications, terms and conditions.
2) Reference information is to include:
Company/Agency name
Contact person (name and title), contact person is to be someone directly
involved with the services
Complete street address
Telephone number
Type of business
Dates of service
3) The County may contact some or all of the references provided in order to
determine Bidder’s performance record on work similar to that described in
this request. The County reserves the right to contact references other than
those provided in the Response and to use the information gained from them
in the evaluation process.
K. Bid Form, Exhibit A:
Prices shall include the cost of everything necessary for fulfillment of the contract
requirements.
Attachment A
42 of 107
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 4
L. Evidence of Insurance
Consultant may not commence work until it has furnished evidence of the insurance
required in the Standard Contract to the CAO, and the CAO has approved it, and
may not continue to perform any work under the contract if the insurance required
therein is no longer in effect.
M. Other required Submittals/Exhibits not included above that the required in the
bid response:
Exhibit C, Debarment and Suspension Certification.
Attachment A
43 of 107
Exhibit C
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT C
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
RFP No. 1209-003
for
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION
The bidder, under penalty of perjury, certifies that, except as noted below, bidder, its Principal, and
any named and unnamed subcontractor:
Is not currently under suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion, or determination of
ineligibility by any federal agency;
Has not been suspended, debarred, voluntarily excluded or determined ineligible by any
federal agency within the past three years;
Does not have a proposed debarment pending; and
Has not been indicted, convicted, or had a civil judgment rendered against it by a court of
competent jurisdiction in any matter involving fraud or official misconduct within the past
three years.
If there are any exceptions to this certification, insert the exceptions in the following space.
Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of award, but will be considered in determining
bidder responsibility. For any exception noted above, indicate below to whom it applies, initiating
agency, and dates of action.
Notes: Providing false information may result in criminal prosecution or administrative sanctions.
The above certification is part of the Proposal. Signing this Proposal on the signature
portion thereof shall also constitute signature of this Certification.
BIDDER: _________________________________________________________________
PRINCIPAL: _______________________________ TITLE: ________________________
SIGNATURE: ______________________________ DATE: ________________________
Attachment A
44 of 107
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL No. 1209-002
SPECIFICATIONS, TERMS & CONDITIONS
For
STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
For information regarding this project, see RFP posted at http://www.bidsync.com
or contact the person listed below. Thank you for your interest!
Contact Person: Lara DeLaney, Senior Management Analyst
E-mail Address: lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us
RESPONSE DUE
by
5:00 p.m.
on
October 31, 2012
at
Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office
651 Pine Street, 10th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Attachment B
45 of 107
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL No. 1209-002
SPECIFICATIONS, TERMS & CONDITIONS
for
STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 1 of 2
Page
I. ACRONYM AND TERM GLOSSARY ....................................................................................... 4
II. STATEMENT OF WORK
A. Intent ...................................................................................................................................... 4
B. Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 4
C. Background ........................................................................................................................... 6
D. Consultants’ Minimum Qualifications .................................................................................. 7
E. Specific Requirements .......................................................................................................... 7
F. Deliverables/Reports .............................................................................................................. 8
III. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
G. Correspondence...................................................................................................................... 9
H. Calendar of Events ................................................................................................................. 9
I. Submittal of Bids ................................................................................................................... 9
J. Response Format .................................................................................................................. 11
K. Evaluation Criteria/Selection Committee ............................................................................ 11
L. Contract Evaluation and Assessment .................................................................................. 13
M. Notice of Intent to Award .................................................................................................... 13
N. Disputes Relating to Proposal Process and Award ............................................................. 14
IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
O. Term / Termination / Renewal ............................................................................................. 15
P. Pricing .................................................................................................................................. 15
Q. Award ................................................................................................................................... 16
R. Method of Ordering ............................................................................................................. 16
S. Invoicing .............................................................................................................................. 17
T. Account Manager/Support Staff .......................................................................................... 17
U. General Requirements ......................................................................................................... 18
Attachment B
46 of 107
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL No. 1209-002
SPECIFICATIONS, TERMS & CONDITIONS
for
STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A – Bid Form
Exhibit B – Response Content and Submittals Completeness Checklist
Exhibit C – Standard Contract
Attachment B
47 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 4 of 18
I. ACRONYM AND TERM GLOSSARY
Unless otherwise noted, the terms below may be upper or lower case. Acronyms will always be
uppercase.
Bid Shall mean the bidders’/contractors’ response to this Request
Bidder Shall mean the specific person or entity responding to this RFP
Board Shall refer to the County of Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
CAO Shall refer to the County Administrator’s Office
CSC Shall refer to County Selection Committee
Contractor When capitalized, shall refer to selected bidder that is awarded a
contract
County When capitalized, shall refer to the County of Contra Costa
Federal Refers to United States Federal Government, its departments and/or
agencies
FY Shall mean Fiscal Year
Labor Code Refers to California Labor Code
Proposal Shall mean bidder/contractor response to this RFP
Request for Proposal Shall mean this document, which is the County of Contra Costa’s
request for contractors’/bidders’ proposal to provide the services being
solicited herein; also referred herein as RFP
Response Shall refer to bidder’s proposal or quotation submitted in reply to RFP
RFP Request for Proposal
State Refers to State of California, its departments and/or agencies
II. STATEMENT OF WORK
A. INTENT
The intent of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to describe professional state legislative
advocacy and related services required by the County of Contra Costa.
The County intends to award a two-year contract with three (3) single year options to
renew to the bidder selected as the most responsible bidder whose response conforms to
the RFP and meets the County’s requirements.
B. SCOPE
Contra Costa County is seeking a full-service State legislative advocate. The individual
or firm will work in a proactive manner to protect and advance the County’s interests in
Sacramento. This includes lobbying the State Legislature and Administration to
ameliorate budget proposals that negatively affect the County’s interests and aggressively
seek opportunities to enhance the County’s budget. The legislative advocate will also
work with the Board of Supervisors, the Legislation Committee, the County
Attachment B
48 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 5 of 18
Administrator, department heads and/or assigned departmental staff on a proactive
legislative agenda to advance the County’s interest. This includes tracking and
suggesting opportunities to change State policy in ways that will benefit residents of
Contra Costa County.
In this difficult budget environment, Contra Costa County is particularly interested in
timely budget defense, realignment proposals that benefit the County, and opportunities
to increase collaboration between various County agencies and local government entities.
The CAO coordinates the County’s Legislative activities, as summarized below.
1. Annual Legislative Program
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopts an annual State Legislative
Platform. Prior to developing this Platform, the CAO’s office invites input from
all County departments and the Board of Supervisors. From this input, the State
Legislative Platform is developed. The County’s State Legislative Platform
includes legislative proposals and priorities submitted by County departments or
the Board of Supervisors. The 2012 Platform includes the County’s position on
various bills along with requests for proposed new legislation. The program is
developed in cooperation with the County’s legislative advocates, County
agencies/departments, members of the Board of Supervisors, and other interested
parties. The Platform is submitted to the Board of Supervisors through the
County’s Legislation Committee.
The Legislation Committee typically approves the draft legislative Platform in
December each year. Subsequently, at a meeting in January, the Board of
Supervisors is asked to adopt the Legislative Platform. The Platform is amended
continually throughout the year as new legislative issues arise.
2. Legislation Committee
In 2007, the County established the Legislation Committee as a means of
coordinating legislative issues throughout the County. This Committee meets
regularly to review the impact of State and Federal legislation on the County. The
Committee receives regular updates from the County’s State and Federal
legislative advocates, and advises the Board of Supervisors and County
Administrator on legislative matters affecting the County.
3. Issues of Particular Concern to the County
The County’s Legislative Platform outlines issues of interest, as well as includes
the legislative policies which serve as a guide for the development of the County’s
legislative strategies. Of particular concern is the impact of the State Budget on
Attachment B
49 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 6 of 18
the County, including the realignment of State programs to the County level. It is
expected that the State legislative advocate will provide guidance to the County on
these matters and strategies to mitigate potential negative impacts.
C. BACKGROUND
Contra Costa County was incorporated in 1850 as one of the original 27 counties of
California. A five-member Board of Supervisors, each elected to four-year terms, serves
as the legislative body of the County, which has a general law form of government. Also
elected are the County Assessor, Auditor-Controller (the ‘County Auditor-Controller’),
Clerk-Recorder, District Attorney-Public Administrator, Sheriff-Coroner and Treasurer-
Tax Collector (the ‘County Treasurer’). The County Administrator, David Twa, is
appointed by the Board and is responsible for running the day-to-day business of the
County. The County Administrator is also responsible for presenting the Board with a
Recommended Budget for consideration of adoption as the Final (Adopted) Budget,
which will serve as the foundation of the County’s financial planning and control.
Contra Costa is one of nine counties in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area and the
ninth most populous county in California with an estimated population of 1,056,064 as of
January 1, 2011. The County covers about 733 square miles and extends from the
northeastern shore of the San Francisco Bay easterly about 50 miles to San Joaquin
County. The County is bordered on the south and west by Alameda County and on the
north by the Suisun and San Pablo Bays. The western and northern shorelines are highly
industrialized, while the interior sections are suburban/residential, commercial and light
industrial. The County contains 19 cities, including Richmond in the west; Antioch in the
northeast; and Concord in the middle. Population growth in the County during the past
five years has been strongest in unincorporated areas as well as in the cities of Antioch,
Brentwood, Hercules, Oakley, Pittsburg and San Ramon.
The County agencies/departments include: Agriculture, Animal Services, Assessor,
Auditor-Controller, Child Support Services, Clerk-Recorder, Conservation &
Development, County Administrator, County Counsel, District Attorney, Employment
and Human Services, Contra Costa Consolidated Fire, Health Services, Human
Resources, Information Technology, Library, Probation, Public Defender, Public Works
(which now includes the former General Services), Risk Manager, Sheriff-Coroner,
Treasurer-Tax Collector, and Veterans Services.
The County maintains a $2.4 Billion budget (all funds). The recommended FY 12-13
General Fund budget of $1.222 billion is supported by local, federal, and State resources.
Almost half of our revenue, $551.7 million (45.1%) is dependent on State and Federal
allocations. Our general purpose revenue available from sources such as property tax and
interest income is $314.8 million. The remaining ‘Other Local’ revenue is generated
primarily by fees, fines, and licenses.
Attachment B
50 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 7 of 18
With respect to its State advocacy services, the County currently contracts with Nielsen
Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP. They have been under contract with the
County since 2004 and receive a monthly retainer of $15,000. The contract is set to
expire on December 31, 2012.
D. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
1. Consultants shall be regularly and have been continuously engaged in the business
of providing State legislative advocacy to local governments for at least five (5)
years, preferably to urban county governments.
2. Consultants shall possess the proven ability to initiate, develop, and carry out
effective strategies to influence legislative and administrative activities and to
effectively lobby on behalf of the County.
3. Consultants will have had successful legislative service contracts with at least one
(1) public agency, for at least five (5) years. Consultants will be required to
provide work samples.
4. Consultant shall possess all permits, licenses and professional credentials
necessary to perform the required legislative advocacy services.
5. Consultants’ other clients should not pose conflict of interest issues for the
County, nor should their interest be in direct conflict with the County’s mission.
E. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Under the direction of the County Administrator, the State legislative advocate will
provide, at a minimum, the following services:
1. Assist the County in developing strong relations with the East Bay legislative
delegation, legislative leaders and the Administration. This includes developing a
target list of key influencers from both parties in the Legislature and proactively
developing relationships between these members and County leaders.
2. Serve as the County’s liaison to State agencies.
3. Provide logistical support to arrange appointments and meetings with members of
the Legislature, Administration, and State agencies, as needed. This includes
preparing talking points and/or briefing materials as needed.
4. Serve as the Sacramento liaison to the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC), Urban Counties Caucus (UCC), and, as requested, to other state
professional organizations
Attachment B
51 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 8 of 18
5. Lead the County in developing and implementing an effective State advocacy
strategy and annual legislative program to:
a. Influence State laws and policies as they relate to County priorities,
programs and operations, including enacting legislation which accomplish
specific County goals; and
b. Identify opportunities to increase funding for County priorities, programs
and operations. The advocate will be proactive in opposing legislation or
statutes that may have a negative impact on funding.
6. Research and provide information to the County on such matters as:
a. State Budget: Prepare written reports of analysis of State Budget actions
and their impact on the County.
b. State bills and laws: Monitor legislation affecting County programs and
alert the County Administrator’s Office and appropriate departmental staff.
c. Funding opportunities and availability.
d. Legislative hearings, reports and testimony.
e. State regulations, guidelines, directives and other administrative policies,
both proposed and adopted.
f. Technical memoranda and reports impacting County operations; and
g. Perform other related duties as mutually agreed upon.
F. DELIVERABLES/REPORTS
1. Report on and advise the County on relevant State legislation, proposed and
adopted, and administrative actions that affect County programs. Reporting will
include, at a minimum, a yearly summary on major activities and
accomplishments; participation in monthly conference calls with the Legislation
Committee to provide updates on legislative activities, pending legislation, and all
budget related matters; and at least two (2) visits per year to the County which will
include meetings with Board members/staff, County administrative and
departmental staff.
2. Regular e-mails regarding budget and/or legislative updates.
Attachment B
52 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 9 of 18
3. Report of County sponsored, supported and opposed bills, to be included in the
annual Legislative Platform.
III. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
G. CORRESPONDENCE
As of the issuance of this RFP, Vendors are specifically directed not to contact County
personnel for meetings, conferences or technical discussions related to this RFP. Failure to
adhere to this policy may result in disqualification of the Vendor.
All questions regarding the proposal will be accepted through the BidSync site only. The
deadline for submitting questions for this RFP is on or before 12:00 noon on October 24, 2012.
All questions will be answered and disseminated to those registered on the BidSync website.
Contra Costa County uses BidSync as the primary tool for posting bids and other business
opportunities. BidSync is a web-based government bidding system.
H. CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Event Date/Location
Request Issued September 28, 2012
Written Questions Due by 12:00 Noon on October 24, 2012
Response Due October 31, 2012 by 5:00 p.m.
Vendor Interviews Week of November 12, 2012
Legislation Committee
Recommendation
December 6, 2012
Board Award Date December 11, 2012
Contract Start Date January 1, 2013
Note: Award and start dates are approximate.
It is the responsibility of each bidder to be familiar with all of the specifications, terms and
conditions. By the submission of a Bid, the Bidder certifies that if awarded a contract they
will make no claim against the County based upon ignorance of conditions or
misunderstanding of the specifications.
I. SUBMITTAL OF BIDS
1. All bids must be SEALED and must be received at the County Administrator’s
Office by 5:00 p.m. on the due date specified in the Calendar of Events.
NOTE: LATE AND/OR UNSEALED BIDS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IF
HAND DELIVERING BIDS, PLEASE ALLOW TIME FOR METERED
STREET PARKING OR PARKING IN AREA PUBLIC PARKING LOTS.
Attachment B
53 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 10 of 18
Bids will be received only at the address shown below, and by the time indicated
in the Calendar of Events. Any bid received after said time and/or date or at a
place other than the stated address cannot be considered and will be returned to the
bidder unopened.
All bids, whether delivered by an employee of Bidder, U.S. Postal Service, courier
or package delivery service, must be received and time stamped at the stated
address prior to the time designated. The County Administrator’s Office
timestamp shall be considered the official timepiece for the purpose of
establishing the actual receipt of bids.
2. Bids are to be addressed and delivered as follows:
State Legislative Advocacy Services
RFP No. 1209-002
Contra Costa County, County Administrator’s Office
651 Pine Street, 10th floor
Martinez, CA 94553
3. Bidders are to submit one (1) original hard copy bid, with original ink signatures,
plus five (5) copies of their proposal. Original proposal is to be clearly marked,
printed on plain white paper, and must be either loose leaf or in a 3-ring binder
(NOT bound). It is preferred that all proposals submitted shall be printed double-
sided and on minimum 30% post-consumer recycled content paper. Bidders must
also submit an electronic copy of their proposal. The electronic copy must be a
single file, scanned image of the original hard copy with all appropriate signatures,
and must be on disk or USB flash drive and enclosed with the sealed hardcopy of
the bid.
4. Bidder's name and return address must also appear on the mailing package.
5. No telegraphic, email (electronic) or facsimile bids will be considered.
6. Bidder agrees and acknowledges all RFP specifications, terms and conditions and
indicates ability to perform by submission of its bid.
7. Submitted bids shall be valid for a minimum period of 180 days.
8. All costs required for the preparation and submission of a bid shall be borne by
Bidder.
9. Only one bid response will be accepted from any one person, partnership,
corporation, or other entity; however, several alternatives may be included in one
Attachment B
54 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 11 of 18
response. For purposes of this requirement, “partnership” shall mean, and is
limited to, a legal partnership formed under one or more of the provisions of the
California or other state’s Corporations Code or an equivalent statute.
10. Proprietary or Confidential Information: No part of any bid response is to be
marked as confidential or proprietary. County may refuse to consider any bid
response or part thereof so marked. Bid responses submitted in response to this
RFP may be subject to public disclosure. County shall not be liable in any way for
disclosure of any such records. Additionally, all bid responses shall become the
property of County. County reserves the right to make use of any information or
ideas contained in submitted bid responses. This provision is not intended to
require the disclosure of records that are exempt from disclosure under the
California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250, et seq.) or of
“trade secrets” protected by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civil Code Section
3426, et seq.).
11. All other information regarding the bid responses will be held as confidential until
such time as the County Selection Committee has completed their evaluation, an
intended award has been made by the County Selection Committee, and the
contract has been fully negotiated with the intended awardee named in the intent
to award/non-award notifications. The submitted proposals shall be made
available upon request no later than five (5) business days before approval of the
award and contract is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors. All
parties submitting proposals, either qualified or unqualified, will receive mailed
intent to award/non-award notifications, which will include the name of the bidder
to be recommended for award of this project.
12. Each bid received, with the name of the bidder, shall be entered on a record, and
each record with the successful bid indicated thereon shall, after the award of the
order or contract, be open to public inspection.
J. RESPONSE FORMAT
1. Bid responses are to be straightforward, clear, concise and specific to the
information requested.
2. In order for bids to be considered complete, Bidder must provide all information
requested. See Exhibit B, Response Content and Submittals Completeness
Checklist.
K. EVALUATION CRITERIA/SELECTION COMMITTEE
All proposals will be evaluated by a County Selection Committee (CSC). The County
Selection Committee may be composed of County staff and other parties that may have
Attachment B
55 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 12 of 18
expertise or experience in State legislative advocacy services. The CSC will select a
contractor in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in this RFP. The evaluation
of the proposals shall be within the sole judgment and discretion of the CSC.
All contact during the evaluation phase shall be through the County Administrator’s
Office only. Bidders shall neither contact nor lobby evaluators during the evaluation
process. Attempts by Bidder to contact and/or influence members of the CSC may result
in disqualification of Bidder.
The CSC will evaluate each proposal meeting the qualification requirements set forth in
this RFP. Bidders should bear in mind that any proposal that is unrealistic in terms of the
technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically high or low in cost, will be deemed
reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of a failure to
comprehend the complexity and risk of the County’s requirements as set forth in this
RFP.
Bidders are advised that in the evaluation of cost, it will be assumed that the unit price
quoted is correct in the case of a discrepancy between the unit price and an extension.
As a result of this RFP, the County intends to award a contract to the responsible bidder
whose response conforms to the RFP and whose bid presents the greatest value to the
County, all evaluation criteria considered. The combined weight of the evaluation
criteria is greater in importance than cost in determining the greatest value to the County.
The goal is to award a contract to the bidder that proposes the County the best quality as
determined by the combined weight of the evaluation criteria. The County may award a
contract of higher qualitative competence over the lowest priced response.
The basic information that each section should contain is specified below; these
specifications should be considered as minimum requirements. Much of the material
needed to present a comprehensive proposal can be placed into one of the sections listed.
However, other criteria may be added to further support the evaluation process whenever
such additional criteria are deemed appropriate in considering the nature of the services
being solicited.
The evaluation process may include a two-stage approach including an initial evaluation
of the written proposal and preliminary scoring to develop a short list of bidders that will
continue to the final stage of oral presentation and interview and reference checks. If the
two stage approach is used, the three (3) bidders receiving the highest preliminary scores
will be invited to an oral presentation and interview. Only the bidders meeting the short
list criteria will proceed to the next stage. All other bidders will be deemed eliminated
from the process. All bidders will be notified of the short list participants; however, the
preliminary scores at that time will not be communicated to bidders.
Attachment B
56 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 13 of 18
Evaluation Criteria
• Completeness of Response
• Cost
• Implementation Plan and Schedule and Evaluation of Scope
• Relevant Experience
• References
• Understanding of the Project and Scope of Work
• Presentation and Interview if required
L. CONTRACT EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT
During the initial sixty (60) day period of any contract, which may be awarded to
Contractor, the CSC and/or other persons designated by the County, will meet with the
Contractor to evaluate the service and to identify any issues or potential problems.
The County reserves the right to determine, at its sole discretion, (a) whether Contractor
has complied with all terms of this RFP and (b) whether any problems or potential
problems with the proposed service were evidenced which make it unlikely (even with
possible modifications) that such proposed service will have met the County
requirements. If, as a result of such determination the County concludes that it is not
satisfied with Contractor, Contractor’s performance under any awarded contract and/or
Contractor’s services as contracted for therein, the Contractor will be notified of contract
termination effective forty-five (45) days following notice. The County will have the
right to invite the next highest ranked bidder to enter into a contract. The County also
reserves the right to re-bid this project if it is determined to be in its best interest to do so.
M. NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD
1. At the conclusion of the RFP response evaluation process (“Evaluation Process”)
all bidders will be notified in writing by e-mail or fax, and certified mail, by the
CAO’s office of the contract award recommendation, if any. The document
providing this notification is the “Notice of Intent to Award.”
The Notice of Intent to Award will provide the following information:
The name of the bidder being recommended for contract award; and
The names of all other parties that submitted proposals.
2. At the conclusion of the RFP process, debriefings for unsuccessful bidders will be
scheduled and provided upon written request and will be restricted to discussion of
the unsuccessful offeror’s bid.
Attachment B
57 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 14 of 18
a. Under no circumstances will any discussion be conducted with regard to
contract negotiations with the successful bidder.
b. Debriefing may include review of successful bidder’s proposal with
redactions as appropriate.
3. The submitted proposals shall be made available upon request no later than five
(5) business days before approval of the award and contract is scheduled to be
heard by the Board of Supervisors.
N. DISPUTES RELATING TO PROPOSAL PROCESS AND AWARD
In the event a dispute arises concerning the proposal process prior to the award of the
contract, the party wishing resolution of the dispute shall submit a request in writing to
the Purchasing Agent/Director of Public Works. Vendor may appeal the recommended
award or denial of award, provided the following stipulations are met:
1. Appeal must be in writing.
2. Must be submitted within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the letter of
notification of recommended award or denial of award.
3. An appeal of a denial of award can only be brought on the following
grounds:
a. Failure of the County to follow the selection procedures and
adhere to requirements specified in the RFP or any addenda or
amendments.
b. There has been a violation of conflict of interest as provided by
California Government Code Section 87100 et seq.
c. A violation of State or Federal law.
Appeals will not be accepted for any other reasons than those stated above. All appeals
must be sent to:
David Gould, Purchasing Manager
Contra Costa County
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez CA, 94553
dgoul@pw.cccounty.us
The County Purchasing Agent shall make a decision concerning the appeal and notify the
Vendor making the appeal within a reasonable timeframe prior to the tentatively
scheduled date for awarding the contract. The decision of the County Purchasing Agent
shall be deemed final.
Attachment B
58 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 15 of 18
IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
O. TERM / TERMINATION / RENEWAL
1. The term of the contract, which may be awarded pursuant to this RFP, will be two
(2) years.
2. By mutual agreement, any contract which may be awarded pursuant to this RFP may
be extended for three (3) additional one year terms at agreed prices with all other
terms and conditions remaining the same.
P. PRICING
1. All pricing as quoted will remain firm for the term of any contract that may be
awarded as a result of this RFP.
2. Unless otherwise stated, Bidder agrees that, in the event of a price decline, the
benefit of such lower price shall be extended to the County.
3. Any price increases or decreases for subsequent contract terms may be negotiated
between Contractor and County only after completion of the initial term.
4. All prices quoted shall be in United States dollars and "whole cent," no cent
fractions shall be used. There are no exceptions.
5. Price quotes shall include any and all payment incentives available to the County.
6. Bidders are advised that in the evaluation of cost, if applicable, it will be assumed
that the unit price quoted is correct in the case of a discrepancy between the unit
price and an extension.
7. Federal and State minimum wage laws apply. The County has no requirements for
living wages. The County is not imposing any additional requirements regarding
wages.
8. Prevailing Wages: Pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., Contractor shall
pay to persons performing labor in and about Work provided for in Contract not
less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar
character in the locality in which the Work is performed, and not less than the
general prevailing rate of per diem wages for legal holiday and overtime work in
said locality, which per diem wages shall not be less than the stipulated rates
contained in a schedule thereof which has been ascertained and determined by the
Director of the State Department of Industrial Relations to be the general
Attachment B
59 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 16 of 18
prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft or type of workman or mechanic
needed to execute this contract.
Q. AWARD
1. Proposals will be evaluated by a committee and will be ranked in accordance with
the RFP section entitled “Evaluation Criteria/Selection Committee.”
2. The committee will recommend award to the bidder who, in its opinion, has
submitted the proposal that best serves the overall interests of the County and attains
the highest overall point score. Award may not necessarily be made to the bidder
with the lowest price.
3. The County reserves the right to reject any or all responses that materially differ
from any terms contained in this RFP or from any Exhibits attached hereto, to waive
informalities and minor irregularities in responses received, and to provide an
opportunity for bidders to correct minor and immaterial errors contained in their
submissions. The decision as to what constitutes a minor irregularity shall be made
solely at the discretion of the County.
4. The County reserves the right to award to a single contractor.
5. The County has the right to decline to award this contract or any part thereof for
any reason.
6. Board approval to award a contract is required.
7. A contract must be negotiated, finalized, and signed by the intended awardee prior to
Board approval.
8. Final Standard Contract terms and conditions will be negotiated with the selected
bidder.
R. METHOD OF ORDERING
1. A signed Standard Contract will be issued upon Board approval.
2. Standard Contracts will be faxed, transmitted electronically or mailed and shall be
the only authorization for the Contractor to place an order.
3. Payments for services will be issued only in the name of Contractor.
Attachment B
60 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 17 of 18
4. Contractor shall adapt to changes to the method of ordering procedures as required
by the County during the term of the contract.
5. Change orders shall be agreed upon by Contractor and County and issued as
needed in writing by County.
S. INVOICING
1. Contractor shall invoice the requesting department, unless otherwise advised, upon
satisfactory performance of services.
2. Payment will be made within thirty (30) days following receipt of invoice and
upon complete satisfactory performance of services.
3. County shall notify Contractor of any adjustments required to invoice.
4. Invoices shall contain County contract number, invoice number, remit to address and
itemized services description and price as quoted.
5. Contractor shall utilize standardized invoice upon request.
6. Invoices shall only be issued by the Contractor who is awarded a contract.
7. Payments will be issued to and invoices must be received from the same Contractor
whose name is specified on the contract.
T. ACCOUNT MANAGER/SUPPORT STAFF
1. Contractor shall provide a dedicated competent account manager who shall be
responsible for the County account/contract. The account manager shall receive all
contracts from the County and shall be the primary contact for all issues regarding
Bidder’s response to this RFP and any contract which may arise pursuant to this
RFP.
2. Contractor shall also provide adequate, competent support staff that shall be able to
service the County during normal working hours, Monday through Friday. Such
representative(s) shall be knowledgeable about the contract, products offered and
able to identify and resolve quickly any issues including but not limited to order and
invoicing problems.
3. Contractor account manager shall be familiar with County requirements and
standards and work with the CAO staff to ensure that established standards are
adhered to.
Attachment B
61 of 107
Specifications, Terms & Conditions for State Legislative Advocacy Services
Page 18 of 18
U. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Proper conduct is expected of Contractor’s personnel when on County premises.
This includes adhering to no-smoking ordinances, the drug-free work place policy,
not using alcoholic beverages and treating employees courteously.
2. County has the right to request removal of any Contractor employee or subcontractor
who does not properly conduct himself/herself/itself or perform quality work.
Attachment B
62 of 107
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
No. RFP 1209-002
for
STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
BID FORM
Cost shall be submitted on Exhibit A as is. No alterations or changes of any kind are permitted. Bid
responses that do not comply will be subject to rejection in total. The cost quoted below shall include all
taxes and all other charges and is the cost the County will pay for the two year term of any contract that is
a result of this bid.
Proposal prices shall include everything necessary for the completion of and fulfillment of the contract
including but not limited to furnishing all materials, equipment, tools, facilities and all management,
superintendence, labor, services, taxes, licenses, permits and an estimated cost for two (2) trips to Contra
Costa County per year required to complete the work in accordance with the contract documents, except
as may be provided otherwise in the contract documents.
1st year 2nd Year Total for
Two (2) Year DESCRIPTION Unit of
Measure
No.
units
Charge
per unit Extension Charge
per unit Extension
(A) (B) (C) (D) = (B)*(C) (E) (F) = (B)*(E) (G) =(D+F)
Monthly service charge
for state legislative
advocate program
excluding travel to
Contra Costa County
Per
month 12 $ $ $ $ $
TOTAL COST FOR SERVICES $
Bidder agrees that the prices quoted are the maximum they will charge during the term of any contract
awarded.
FIRM: _________________________SIGNATURE:______________________DATE:___________
PRINTED NAME: __________________________________TITLE:__________________________
Attachment B
63 of 107
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT B
No. RFP 1209-002
for
STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
RESPONSE CONTENT AND SUBMITTALS
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST
1. Bid responses must be signed in ink and include evidence that the person or persons
signing the proposal is/are authorized to execute the proposal on behalf of the bidder.
2. Bidders shall provide all of the below noted Bid documentation and exhibits. Any
material deviation from these requirements may be cause for rejection of the
proposal, as determined in the County’s sole discretion. The content and sequence
for each required Bid document/exhibit shall be as follows:
CHECK LIST
A. Title Page: Show RFP number and title, your company name and address,
name of the contact person (for all matters regarding the RFP response),
telephone number and proposal date.
B. Table of Contents: Bid responses shall include a table of contents listing the
individual sections of the proposal and their corresponding page numbers.
Tabs should separate each of the individual sections.
C. Cover Letter: Bid responses shall include a cover letter describing Bidder
and include all of the following:
1) The official name of Bidder;
2) Bidder’s organizational structure (e.g. corporation, partnership, limited
liability company, etc.);
3) The jurisdiction in which Bidder is organized and the date of such
organization;
4) The address of Bidder’s headquarters, any local office involved in the
Bid Proposal; and the address/location where the actual services will be
performed;
5) Bidder’s Federal Tax Identification Number;
Attachment B
64 of 107
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 4
6) The name, address, telephone, fax numbers and e-mail address of the
person(s) who will serve as the contact(s) to the County, with regards to
the RFP response, with authorization to make representations on behalf
of and to bind Bidder;
7) A representation that Bidder is in good standing in the State of
California and will have all necessary licenses, permits, certifications,
approvals and authorizations necessary in order to perform all of its
obligations in connection with this RFP. This requirement includes the
necessity for some out of state companies to be registered with the
State of California by the effective date of the agreement. Information
regarding this requirement can be located at the Secretary of State
website, http://www.sos.ca.gov/.; and
8) An acceptance of all conditions and requirements contained in this
RFP.
9) Cover letter must be signed in ink by a person or persons authorized to
execute the proposal on behalf of the bidder.
D. Letter of Transmittal: Bid responses shall include a description of Bidder’s
approach in providing its services to the County in one or two pages stating its
understanding of the work to be done and a positive commitment to perform
the work as specified.
E. Executive Summary: A brief synopsis of the highlights of the Proposal and
overall benefits of the Proposal to the County. This synopsis should not
exceed three (3) pages in length and should be easily understood.
F. Bidder’s Qualifications and Experience:
Provide a description of Bidder’s capabilities pertaining to this RFP. This
description should not exceed five (5) pages and should include a detailed
summary of Bidder’s experience relative to RFP requirements described
herein, including references.
G. Key Personnel - Qualifications and Experience:
Bid responses shall include a complete list of and resumes for all key
personnel associated with the RFP. This list must include all key personnel
who will provide services/training to County staff and all key personnel who
will provide maintenance and support services. For each person on the list,
the following information shall be included: (1) the person’s relationship with
Bidder, including job title and years of employment with Bidder; (2) the role
that the person will play in connection with the RFP (3) address, telephone,
fax numbers, and e-mail address; (4) the person’s educational background; (5)
Attachment B
65 of 107
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 4
the person’s relevant experience; and (6) relevant awards, certificates or other
achievements. This section of the bid response should include no more than
two pages of information for each listed person.
H. Description of the Proposed Services:
Bid response shall include a description of the terms and conditions of
services to be provided during the contract term including response times.
The description shall contain a basis of estimate for services including its
scheduled start and completion dates, the number of Bidder’s and County
personnel involved, and the number of hours scheduled for such personnel.
The description must: (1) specify how the services in the bid response will
meet or exceed the requirements of the County; (2) explain any special
resources, procedures or approaches that make the services of Bidder
particularly advantageous to the County; and (3) identify any limitations or
restrictions of Bidder in providing the services that the County should be
aware of in evaluating its Response to this RFP.
I. Implementation Plan and Schedule and Evaluation of Scope:
The bid response shall include an implementation plan and schedule. The
plan for implementing the proposed services shall include a detailed schedule
indicating how bidder will ensure adherence to their timetables set forth for
the final services.
J. References:
1) Bidders are to provide a list of five (5) current and five (5) former clients.
References must be satisfactory as deemed solely by County. References
should have similar scope, volume and requirements to those outlined in
these specifications, terms and conditions.
2) Reference information is to include:
Company/Agency name
Contact person (name and title), contact person is to be someone
directly involved with the services
Complete street address
Telephone number
Type of business
Dates of service
3) The County may contact some or all of the references provided in order
to determine Bidder’s performance record on work similar to that
described in this request. The County reserves the right to contact
Attachment B
66 of 107
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 4
references other than those provided in the Response and to use the
information gained from them in the evaluation process.
K. Bid Form, Exhibit A:
Prices shall include the cost of everything necessary for fulfillment of the
contract requirements.
L. Evidence of Insurance
Consultant may not commence work until it has furnished evidence of the
insurance required in the Standard Contract to the CAO, and the CAO has
approved it, and may not continue to perform any work under the contract if
the insurance required therein is no longer in effect.
Attachment B
67 of 107
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:02/12/2018
Subject:Federal Advocacy Trips in 2018
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2018-04
Referral Name: Federal Advocacy Trips
Presenter: L. DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
Members of the Board of Supervisors often make trips to Washington D.C. to
advocate on behalf of County issues and projects of interest, which are
expressed in the County's adopted Federal Platform. These trips may coincide
with the National Association of Counties' (NACo) annual Legislative
Conference, which is scheduled this year from Mar. 3-7, 2018, or occur in
collaboration with the Delta Counties Coalition (DCC) for advocacy related to
the Delta.
The County's federal advocate, Paul Schlesinger, has assisted with the
development of these trips by scheduling meetings with the County's legislative
delegation and appropriate administration/agency personnel. In order to
facilitate the planning of any advocacy trip, the federal advocate requests input
from the Supervisors on the specific meetings they would like to attend.
Referral Update:
The Delta Counties Coalition (DCC), of which Contra Costa County is a vital
member, is in the preliminary planning stages for an advocacy trip to
Washington D.C. trip in the March/April timeframe. If the DCC goes to
Washington D.C. the week of March 14, San Joaquin is available and
Sacramento is not. Contra Costa, Solano and Yolo counties can decide to
attend. If DCC goes to Washington D.C. around April 14-20 (near Cap-to-Cap
68 of 107
& One Voice), San Joaquin and Yolo counties will have Supervisorial
representation there.
Key Issues for Potential DCC Trip to Washington:
BoR Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS – Revisions to the
Coordinated Long-Term CVP & SWP Operations
Background: On December 29, 2017, the Bureau of Reclamation announced its
intent to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) for
analyzing potential modifications to the continued long-term operation of the
federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP).
According to Reclamation, the Agency will analyze potential changes to
CVP/SWP operations to achieve, among other things, maximization of water
supply deliveries, including considering new and/or modified storage and
export facilities. As part of this action, Reclamation will review and consider
modifications to regulatory requirements, including existing Reasonable and
Prudent Alternative actions identified in the Biological Opinions issued by the
USFWS and NMFS in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
DCC Discussion Points: The DCC will discuss with both federal regulators and
lawmakers the potential detrimental impacts to the Delta (including the
ecosystem at large, as well as the region’s agriculture) that would result from
actions designed to increase CVP/SWP exports. The DCC will emphasize that
any proposed alternative action(s) that emerge from Reclamation’s
environmental review must do no damage to the Delta and should be consistent
with the co-equal goals of the Delta Reform Act, as well as conform to the
State’s goal of reduced reliance on the Delta.
HR 23 – Gaining Responsibility on Water Act (Rep. Valadao)
Background: HR 23, which passed the House last July on a near-party line
vote, remains active in the current session of Congress. Bill sponsors are
pushing the Senate to take action, though Senators Feinstein and Harris have
thus far resisted efforts to advance the legislation. Among other things, HR 23
would mandate that operation of the CVP and SWP conform to the water
quality and operational constraints of the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord, regardless of
the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, or any other environmental
law.
DCC Discussion Points: Coalition comments would be similar to the DCC’s
69 of 107
approach to Reclamation’s review of CVP/SWP operations, with a finer point
on the damage that HR 23 would do to the Delta.
Infrastructure Package
Background: Infrastructure is expected to receive significant attention on
Capitol Hill early this year. Lending credence to the notion that lawmakers will
tackle a major public works package in 2018, Trump administration officials in
December signaled that further details of the president’s infrastructure plan
will be made available in January, though we are now hearing that
mid-February is more likely. While the source of funding remains an open
question – as well as a likely point of contention between lawmakers and the
administration – there appears to be positive momentum for approving
resources for various public works projects, including water infrastructure. On
a related matter, Congress will look to reauthorize the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) in 2018. Hearings are planned for the early part of
the session, with potential draft legislation emerging from the committees of
jurisdiction in the coming months.
DCC Discussion Points: The DCC will advocate for robust federal investment
in water infrastructure within the context of the aforementioned broader public
works bill and WRDA 2018. The DCC will continue to promote the need for
innovative, federally backed, low-interest, long-term loan programs (such as
EPA’s Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program),
and will promote the establishment of a similar program under the purview of
the Bureau of Reclamation. The DCC also will request that Congress authorize
the Corps to participate in the development and implementation of a variety of
critically important water resource-related projects within the Delta.
Additionally, the DCC will continue to advocate for provisions that would bar
federally-backed financing from being used to support construction of the twin
tunnels project.
NFIP Reauthorization
Background: The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has been operating
under a series of short-term extensions since the last multi-year authorization of
the program expired on September 30 of last year. The latest NFIP extension is
slated to expire on January 19. While there is a general consensus that
Congress must act to provide long-term programmatic certainty, passage of a
new, comprehensive NFIP bill has been thwarted by disagreements among
70 of 107
members regarding how to renew the program without causing premiums to
skyrocket for consumers in coastal areas.
DCC Discussion Points: The DCC supports a long-term NFIP reauthorization
that improves the affordability, transparency, and financial stability of the
program. In addition, the DCC supports efforts designed to ensure that accurate
flood maps are made available, and that a transparent process is used in
updating flood maps nationwide.
Westlands Drainage Settlement
Background: Legislation that would ratify a 2015 settlement agreement
between the United States and Westlands Water District is pending in
Congress. The bill (HR 1769), sponsored by Representative Valadao, would
eliminate the statutory requirement for the federal government to provide
drainage services for farmland irrigated within Westlands’ boundaries in
exchange for removing the district’s CVP repayment obligation. The
legislation also would provide Westlands with a permanent water contract, and
reduce its contract amount by 25 percent. Congress and the president have until
January 15, 2018 to approve legislation implementing the settlement
agreement. While that deadline is likely to pass without resolution to the issue,
the federal judge who has approved prior extensions warned in approving the
last one-year extension, “The buck is being passed from Congress to Congress,
and the Court will not continue to enable this pattern of delay. There will be no
further extensions past January 15, 2018.”
DCC Discussion Points: The DCC has serious concerns regarding the
Westlands settlement agreement and the implementing legislation. Among
other things, the Delta Counties are concerned that the agreement will result in
increased water exports from the Delta and does not include a comprehensive
drainage solution, including performance measures and enforcement tools as
required by Congress and upheld by the Courts when the San Luis Unit of the
CVP was authorized and constructed. The agreement and implementing
legislation also fall short of previous responsible calls for land retirement,
requiring only 100,000 acres of retirement rather than the 300,000 acres
originally recommended by the Department of the Interior.
Targeted Meetings:
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
71 of 107
Primary Issue: Reclamation’s Programmatic EIS (CVP & SWP Operations)
Council on Environmental Quality
Primary Issues: Reclamation’s Programmatic EIS (CVP & SWP Operations);
Infrastructure Package/WRDA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Primary Issues: Reclamation’s Programmatic EIS (CVP & SWP Operations);
Infrastructure Package (support for the SRFs and WIFIA)
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Primary Issues: Reclamation’s Programmatic EIS (CVP & SWP Operations);
HR 23; Infrastructure Package/WRDA; and, HR 1769
Senator Kamala Harris
Primary Issues: Reclamation’s Programmatic EIS (CVP & SWP Operations);
HR 23; Infrastructure Package/WRDA; and, HR 1769
Joint Congressional Meeting (Reps. Thompson, Garamendi, McNerney,
Matsui, DeSaulnier, Bera, and Eshoo)
Primary Issues: Reclamation’s Programmatic EIS (CVP & SWP Operations);
Infrastructure Package/WRDA; and, HR 1769
Representative Jared Huffman (Ranking Member of the Water, Power,
and Oceans Subcommittee)
Primary Issues: Reclamation’s Programmatic EIS (CVP & SWP Operations);
Infrastructure Package/WRDA; and, HR 1769
NOTE: Representative Huffman has been a leading opponent of HR 1769
Representative Tom McClintock
Primary Issues: Reclamation’s Programmatic EIS (CVP & SWP Operations);
Infrastructure Package/WRDA; and, HR 1769
Representative Doug LaMalfa
Primary Issues: Reclamation’s Programmatic EIS (CVP & SWP Operations);
Infrastructure Package/WRDA; and, HR 1769
72 of 107
Infrastructure Package/WRDA; and, HR 1769
Representative Jeff Denham
Primary Issues: Reclamation’s Programmatic EIS (CVP & SWP Operations);
Infrastructure Package/WRDA; and, HR 1769
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Primary Issues: Infrastructure Package/WRDA
Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
Infrastructure Package/WRDA
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Primary Issues: Reclamation’s Programmatic EIS (CVP & SWP Operations);
Infrastructure Package/WRDA
Note: The Corps also has been asked to be a Cooperating Agency for purposes
of the EIS
White House/OMB
Primary Issues: Infrastructure Package/WRDA; NFIP Reauthorization
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Provide direction to staff on the nature and time of desired meetings with the
County's legislative delegation and/or the administration for purposes of
planning for advocacy trip(s) to Washington D.C. for 2018.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
73 of 107
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:02/12/2018
Subject:State Budget and Legislation of Interest
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2018-05
Referral Name: State Budget and Legislation of Interest
Presenter: L. DeLaney & C.
Christian
Contact: L. DeLaney,
925-335-1097
Referral History:
The Legislation Committee regularly receives information from staff related to
the State Budget and legislation of interest to Contra Costa County.
Referral Update:
On January 10, 2018, Governor Brown released his FY 2018-19 State Budget proposal.
The Governor’s Budget proposes a total budget of $190.3 billion and a projected surplus of $6 billion. The
Governor proposes spending much of the surplus to augment the Rainy Day Fund.
Key proposals of interest to counties include:
Additional funding to the Rainy Day Fund to prepare for recession.
$27.5 million in additional funding for IHSS county administration.
$117.3 million for Incompetent to Stand Trial changes and investments. This includes $2.5 million from the
Mental Health Services Act to help counties develop innovative plans to address the IST population.
Implementation and funding for transportation projects through SB 1.
Additional funding to HCD to implement SB 2.
$134 million to counties for elections systems upgrades.
Attachment A is the Budget Action Bulletin provided by the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC).
State Budget Hearings Set
The Assembly and Senate have set most of the budget hearings for 2018. Here are some key dates and issues of
concern for the urban counties:
74 of 107
IHSS - March 8 and March 14, 2018
Cap and Trade - March 21 and March 22, 2018
Child Support - April 12 and April 18, 2018
Medi-Cal - March 5 and March 22, 2018
Fact Sheets on the Cap and Trade Budget Priority and the Child Support
Budget Priority are attachments B and C.
Legislation of Interest
AB 626 (Garcia) - California retail food code: microenterprise home kitchen
This bill would allow home kitchen operations that have no more than one full-time employee and no more than
$50,000 gross annual sales to operate as a food facility. This bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee
last week with some amendments.
Status: Passed the Assembly Floor on January 29, 2018. Currently pending in the Senate for assignment.
Urban Counties of California (UCC) and CCC Position: Oppose.
AB 1964 (Maienschein) - Organized camps
This bill would make changes to the definitions of organized day camps, require day camps to follow certain
procedures, and require county public health officers to inspect these facilities.
Status: Introduced on January, 30, 2018.
UCC Position: Pending.
AB 1999 (Chu) - Local government: broadband services
This bill would provide that a local agency engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall not
impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a
nonharmful device. In addition, a local agency engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall
not engage in paid prioritization, or unreasonably interfere with, or unreasonably disadvantage, an end user's ability
to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or
devices of the end user's choice.
Status: Introduced on February 1, 2018.
UCC Position: Pending.
AB 1886 (Carillo) - Payment of expenses
This bill would require the state to pay all expenses necessary to prepare for and conduct special election vacancies
that were incurred on or after January 1, 2017.
Status: Introduced on 1/18/18.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
75 of 107
ACCEPT the report and provide direction to staff, as needed.
Attachments
Attachment A: CSAC Budget Action Bulletin
Attachment B: Cap and Trade Budget Request
Attachment C: Child Support Budget Request
76 of 107
GOVERNOR’S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2018-19
JANUARY 10, 2018
January 10, 2018
TO: CSAC Board of Directors
County Administrative Officers
FROM: Matt Cate, CSAC Executive Director
Darby Kernan, CSAC Acting Deputy Executive Director of Legislative Services
RE: Governor’s January Budget Proposal for 2018-19
As with prior budgets by the Brown Administration, the Governor’s January Budget proposal
continues the pattern and philosophy of saving for a rainy day, paying down debt, and limiting
ongoing spending commitments in light of the impending economic slowdown. The $190 billion
dollar January budget proposal maintains fiscal prudence and focuses on funding the
implementation of major initiatives and reforms that counties are responsible for
implementing. In Home Supportive Services (IHSS), Continuum of Care Reform for foster care
youth, and addressing the growing mental health crisis in jails and communities all remain a
priority.
The Governor’s proposed budget announcement was largely positive news as General Fund
revenues continue to beat estimates by approximately $6.1 billion as part of what Governor
Brown noted was the longest economy recovery since World War II. These additional revenues
will be primarily dedicated to fully funding the Rainy Day Fund, allocating a supplemental $3.5
billion in the proposed January Budget in addition to the constitutionally required amount
under Proposition 2. Rather than commit to ongoing programs, the Governor was adamant
that this action will help the next Administration and the State weather the storm of the
inevitable downturn that could result in an annual $20 billion revenue decline over several
years.
An additional $2.3 billion is dedicated to operational reserves and $300 million is allocated to a
variety of one-time infrastructure and support programs for prisons, courts, and health and
humans services, amongst others. The Governor also recognized the $4.6 billion for SB 1
transportation infrastructure, noting that if SB 1 is repealed it could have a devastating impact
to California’s economy.
Attachment A
77 of 107
2
P a g e
The Governor’s January Budget does not address the many unknowns resulting from federal
policy changes or assumptions coming from the recently passed “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”
signed by President Trump last month. Department of Finance Director Michael Cohen stated
those impacts will not be known until tax filers complete their 2018 returns in calendar year
2019. Other precautionary steps related to cannabis, off-shore oil drilling and healthcare were
deemed premature giving the volatility in the currently seated Congress and possible changes
that could result from the 2018 mid-term election.
Of importance to counties, a significant portion of the operational reserves in the proposed
2018-19 budget is dedicated to disaster recovery following the October 2017 fires that
devastated communities throughout California. The Governor’s proposed budget anticipates
additional needs for CalFIRE and state departments as recovery efforts are ongoing. The
Administration has also been working with CSAC and the 13 counties impacted by the recent
wild fires to provide direct disaster recovery assistance, including a preliminary $24 million
commitment for property tax revenue loss backfill for the northern California counties. The
Administration will continue to work with CSAC and impacted counties to determine accurate
number for both 2017-18 and 2018-19.
Other highlights of the Governor’s proposal include:
• $134 million for county elections system funding
• $117.3 million for increasing state-county partnerships to address the increasing need
for Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST) placement options
$27.8 million General Fund increase for county IHSS administrative costs
The following pages provide statewide revenue and expenditure summary charts and specific
budget proposals by policy area. For more detail on these and other items of importance, see
the following policy sections below or contact CSAC legislative staff.
If you would like to receive the Budget Action Bulletin electronically, please e-mail Karen
Schmelzer, CSAC Legislative Assistant at kschmelzer@counties.org.
Attachment A
78 of 107
3
2018-19 Governor’s Budget
General Fund Budget Summary
($ in millions)
2017-18 2018-19
Prior Year Balance $4,611 $5,351
Revenues and Transfers $127,252 $129,792
Total Resources Available $131,863 $135,143
Non-Proposition 98 Expenditures $73,771 $77,126
Proposition 98 Expenditures $52,741 $54,564
Total Expenditures $126,512 $131,690
Fund Balance $5,351 $3,453
Reserve For Liquidation of Encumbrances $1,165 $1,165
Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties $4,186 $2,288
Budget Stabilization Account/Rainy Day Fund $8,411 $13,461
General Fund Revenue Sources
($ in millions)
2017-18 2018-19 $ Change % Change
Personal Income Tax $89,403 $93,593 $4,190 4.7%
Sales and Use Tax 25,165 26,151 986 3.9%
Corporation Tax 10,656 11,224 568 5.3%
Insurance Tax 2,438 2,508 70 2.9%
Alcoholic Beverage Taxes and Fees 376 382 6 1.6%
Cigarette Tax 65 63 -2 -3.1%
Motor Vehicle Fees 27 27 0 0.0%
Other 820 894 74 9.0%
Subtotal $128,950 $134,842 $5,892 4.6%
Transfer to the Budget Stabilization /
Rainy Day Fund -1,698 -5,050 -3,352 197.4%
Total $127,252 $129,792 $2,540 2.0%
Attachment A
79 of 107
4
P a g e
Long-Term Revenue Forecast – Three Largest Sources
(General fund Revenue - $ in billions)
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Average Yearly
Growth
Personal Income Tax $82.9 $89.4 $93.6 $96.3 $98.5 $101.3 4.9%
Sales and Use Tax $24.9 $25.2 $26.2 $27.2 $28.0 $28.7 2.4%
Corporation Tax $10.1 $10.7 $11.2 $11.7 $12.2 $12.8 3.4%
Total $117.8 $125.2 $131.0 $135.2 $138.6 $142.8 4.2%
Growth 5.7% 6.3% 4.6% 3.2% 2.5% 3.0%
General Fund Expenditures by Agency
($ in millions)
2017-18 2018-19 $ Change % Change
Legislative, Judicial, Executive $3,221 $3,651 $430 13.3%
Business, Consumer Services & Housing 404 432 28 6.9%
Transportation 239 213 -26 -10.9%
Natural Resources 3,564 3,029 -535 -15.0%
Environmental Protection 115 82 -33 -28.7%
Health and Human Services 35,394 37,383 1,989 5.6%
Corrections and Rehabilitation 11,678 11,815 137 1.2%
K-12 Education 53,489 55,167 1,678 3.1%
Higher Education 14,968 15,450 482 3.2%
Labor and Workforce Development 147 122 -25 -17.0%
Government Operations 1,128 1,181 53 4.7%
General Government:
Non-Agency Departments 775 766 -9 -1.2%
Tax Relief/Local Government 428 457 29 6.8%
Statewide Expenditures 962 1,942 980 101.9%
Total $126,512 $131,690 $5,178 4.1%
Attachment A
80 of 107
5
Administration of Justice
2011 Realignment
The Governor’s January budget proposal updates revenue assumptions for 2011 Realignment
programs. For the Community Corrections Subaccount (AB 109) the 2017-18 statewide base
remains $1.241 billion, with growth funding estimated at $84.3 million. The 2011 Realignment
estimates will be revisited and revised in the Governor’s May Revision, then finalized in the fall.
Counties should also note that the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount should
achieve its guaranteed funding level of $489.9 million with VLF alone, with growth available in
2017-18 (an estimated $201.4 million) and 2018-19 (an estimated $209.7 million). This provides
funds for a variety of local assistance programs including Citizens’ Option for Public Safety, the
Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act, and the rural and small county sheriffs program among
others. Please see the “Additional Resources” section at the end of this publication for the 2011
Realignment accounts.
In addition, CSAC will provide individual county projections in the coming weeks.
Judicial Branch
The Governor’s January budget proposal provides $4.2 billion for the judicial branch that
includes $150 million in new funding to support efforts by the Judicial Council to improve and
modernize trial court operations. This amount also includes $3.4 million for the Judicial Council
to implement a five-court pilot to begin moving toward a civil model for adjudication of minor
traffic violations. The proposal would authorize an online adjudication system for certain traffic
violations in the pilot courts.
In addition, the Governor’s January budget proposal makes a significant investment in court
facilities. In 2008, the state made an effort to invest in the construction, renovation, and
operation of court facilities. However, revenues did not materialize in the amounts needed to
renew and restore the state’s court facilities. In fact, in 2012 and again in 2017, the Judicial
Council was forced to pause court planning and construction projects. In a reversal, the
Governor’s January budget proposal invests $32.2 million from the Immediate and Critical
Needs Account to complete the design of three courthouse projects in Riverside/Mid-County,
Sonoma, and Stanislaus. The Governor’s January budget proposal also commits to completing
construction for the next ten courthouse projects ready to proceed to construction from lease
revenue bonds in the next two years, specifically projects in Imperial, Riverside/Indio, Shasta,
Siskiyou, and Tuolumne in 2018-19 and projects in Glenn, Riverside/Mid-County, Sacramento,
Sonoma, and Stanislaus in 2018-19.
Attachment A
81 of 107
6
P a g e
Proposition 47
Passed by voters in November 2014, Proposition 47 requires misdemeanor rather than felony
sentencing for certain property and drug crimes and permitted inmates previously sentenced
for these reclassified crimes to petition for resentencing. Based on fall projections, the
Department of Finance (DOF) currently estimates a net savings of $64.4 million when
comparing 2017-18 to 2013-14, an increase of $18.8 million over the estimated 2016-17
savings. These funds will be allocated according to the formula outlined in the initiative.
Community Corrections Planning (CCP) Grants
The Governor’s January budget proposal continues with a round of Community Corrections
Planning (CCP) grants totaling $7.9 million for Community Corrections Partnerships (CCPs) to
support work associated with ongoing AB 109 implementation efforts. Counties will recall that
the CCP grants are disbursed in fixed amounts, depending on the coun ty’s size. As in past years,
it is expected that receipt of the CCP grants will be based upon the reporting of AB 109
implementation plans to the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC).
SB 678 Funding
The Governor’s January budget proposal assumes sustained SB 678 (Chapter 608, Statutes of
2009) funding reflecting counties’ ongoing success under the 2009 performance -based
probation funding program. Based on the revised formula established in 2015-16, the
Governor’s January budget proposal includes $106.4 million to continue the Community
Corrections Performance Incentive Grant Program. The budget recognizes the significance of
this funding stream in supporting probation’s important evidence -based prevention and
intervention efforts.
Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS)
The Governor’s January budget proposal includes $29 million for county probation departments
to supervise the temporary increase in the average daily population of offenders on Post
Release Community Supervision (PRCS) as a result of the implementation of court-ordered
measures and Proposition 57.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
The Governor’s January budget proposal funds the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) at approximately $12 billion which is 9 percent of the total state budget.
This is one percent higher than the revised budget for the current fiscal year. The Governor’s
January budget proposal continues to invest in public safety, rehabilitation, and reentry. The
increase to CDCR’s budget is attributed mostly to roof replacements or water damage repairs,
offender population adjustments both in-state and out-of-state, mental health bed
management, offender access to health care, employee benefits or post-retirement benefit
adjustments, and medical receivership costs.
Attachment A
82 of 107
7
Juvenile Justice Reforms
The Governor’s January budget proposal makes several reforms to the state’s juvenile justice
system. In 2012, California changed the age of jurisdiction from 25 to 23 for youths sent to the
Division of Juvenile Justice. New research on brain development and juvenile case law around
diminished culpability of juvenile offenders has prompted the Administration to relook at this
policy and change the age of jurisdiction back to 25 years.
Transition from State Custody to Local Systems
The Governor’s January budget proposal recognizes the increasing need to improve the
transition of inmates from state custody to local supervision. The Administration plans to
strengthen local partnerships to enhance the process for release and work with local partners
over this coming year to improve this process.
Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources
Wildfire Response and Recovery
The Governor’s January budget proposal recognizes the devastating wildfires and resulting
disasters that occurred last year and that continue to impact communities in both northern and
southern California. The Governor declared emergencies for the October wildfires in northern
California and the December wildfires in southern California, and was successful in securing a
Presidential Major Disaster Declaration for the northern California fires. Work continues on
securing a similar Presidential Declaration for the events in southern California. As of December
2017, the state accessed $43.4 million in resources available from the State Fund for Economic
Uncertainties for a number of departments for their costs related to unexpected equipment,
personnel and other disaster-related costs. In addition, the Governor issued a number of
Executive Orders to waive a variety of fees and regulations and help facilitate the recovery
process in affected communities. CAL Fire response costs will require a 2017-18 budget
augmentation of $469.3 million, which will be provided through the state’s Emergency Fund.
The Governor’s January budget proposal includes additional enhancements to CAL Fire’s budget
for personnel, equipment and training in recognition of our extreme weather and a fire season
that has become essentially year-round.
Estimates for the total costs across the state will be in the billions of dollars, and the full impact
of these events has yet to be determined. In addition to funding from the state budget,
California is currently advocating for a federal supplemental disaster-related appropriations bill
totaling $4.4 billion to support disaster recovery efforts.
Attachment A
83 of 107
8
P a g e
Finally, the Governor’s January budget proposal provides direct fiscal assistance to counties
through the backfill of property tax dollars and proposes an enhanced public safety
communications system to modernize the state’s 9-1-1 system.
Property Tax Backfill
The Governor’s January budget proposal provides $23.7 million in backfill to counties and ot her
local jurisdictions for lost property taxes in 2017-18 and 2018-19 resulting from the October
2017 fires. This is a preliminary number that will be updated to capture full losses in counties in
both northern and southern California in the May Revision. Counties are strongly encouraged to
report their estimates of property tax losses to CSAC in order to provide an accurate number as
CSAC continues to work with the Administration on recovery efforts.
Public Safety Communications
The historic wildfires in California demonstrated the need for an enhanced and upgraded 9-1-1
system. The Governor’s January budget proposes $11.5 million in State Emergency Telephone
Number Account (SETNA) funds to modernize the state’s system and improve public safety
during emergency events. It includes a revised SETNA fee structure to reflect the use of data
compared to voice communications, proposing a per-subscription flat rate on all voice and data
plans.
Department of Water Resources (DWR) — Enhancing Safety of Dams
In 2017, record rainfall and storm events caused significant damage in a number of counties
across the state and also resulted in the evacuation of 188,000 people living near the Oroville
Dam after the main spillway was damaged by heavy flows. The Governor’s January budget
proposal includes an update on the progress of Oroville Dam repair efforts, noting that
construction will continue into 2018 on repairing and reconstructing the main flood control
spillway of the Oroville Dam. In addition, actions are underway at DWR to help assist state-
regulated dams comply with new requirements for emergency action plans and update
inundation maps. More spillways will be evaluated in 2018, enhancing California’s emergency
preparedness.
Department of Fish and Wildlife
An update from the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Strategic Vision stakeholder group was
released in October 2017 and highlighted the need for sustainable funding for California’s Fish
and Wildlife programs. The Governor’s January budget proposal takes these recommendations
into consideration and proposes $50.6 million in ongoing funding to address the structural
imbalance of the Fish and Game preservation fund. The proposal includes several elements
aimed at expanding conservation efforts, improving hunting and fishing participation;
connecting more Californians to the outdoors; and, increasing stability for critical programs.
Most importantly to counties, the proposal includes a budget augmentation of $31 million to
Attachment A
84 of 107
9
expand a number of program activities, including supporting voluntary conservation programs
for local governments, private landowners and conservation organizations.
Water and Parks Bond (SB 5): California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection
and Outdoor Access for All
In 2017, the Legislature was successful in securing the passage of a water and parks bond
measure, SB 5 (Chapter No. 852, Statutes of 2017) – California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate,
Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access for All. SB 5 will place a $4 billion bond on the June
2018 ballot. If approved by the voters, the measure will provide significant funding for parks,
water and wildlife conservation efforts. The Governor’s January budget proposes $1.02 billion
for the first year of SB 5 implementation, should the measure be successful. This allocation
includes funding in a number of areas of significant importance to counties, including flood
management, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) implementation, safe
drinking water and parks.
Groundwater Sustainability
The Governor’s January budget proposal includes $61.8 million in SB 5 funding for the
Department of Water Resources to support SGMA Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSAs)
activities. This funding will provide technical assistance to aid in the development of
groundwater sustainability plans, supplement existing planning grants for GSAs, and provide
grants to directly support groundwater projects. In addition, the budget proposes $84 million to
the State Water Board to support regional groundwater treatment and remediation activities,
including $10 million in technical assistance for drought and groundwater investments.
Flood Management
The Governor’s January budget proposes to allocate $95.5 million from SB 5 for flood control
projects that achieve public safety and fish and wildlife improvements, as well as funding for a
new Floodplain Management Awareness Program.
Safe and Affordable Drinking Water
The Governor’s January budget proposal allocates $63 million from SB 5 to the State Water
Board to provide grants to public water systems in disadvantaged communities for
infrastructure improvements to meet safe and affordable drinking water standards, including
both drinking water and wastewater treatment projects. The proposed budget also establishes
a new special fund at the State Water Board to assist disadvantaged communities in paying for
the short and long-term costs of obtaining access to safe and affordable drinking water. The
proposed budget includes statutory language that is consistent with the policy framework of SB
623 (Monning), introduced in the 2017-18 legislative session, to establish a program that
Attachment A
85 of 107
10
P a g e
provides grants, loans and administrator contracts or services to assist eligible communities
with access to safe drinking water. This proposal would impose the fee structure “consistent
with” SB 623, which would impose a fee on all users of public water systems, and a fee on
fertilizer producers for the purpose of providing funding to struggling public water systems to
deliver safe drinking water. However, this language is not yet available and will be released in a
budget trailer bill available next month.
State and Local Parks
The Governor’s January budget proposal allocates $472 million in funding from SB 5 for various
park programs and projects. This allocation includes four million in grants for deferred
maintenance projects to county fairgrounds and $464 million for improving and increasin g
access to local neighborhood parks. Of the $464 million, The Administration proposes $277
million for creating new parks or rehabilitating older parks and $186 million for per capita
grants for the acquisition and development of parks, recreation lands, or facilities in urban and
rural areas.
The following chart is an outline of the Governor’s January budget proposal for SB 5 funding.
The budget summary notes that projects funded by the bond measure in 2018-19 will be
prioritized to support existing programs, ‘shovel-ready” projects, and a phased-in approach for
newly established programs.
Investment
Category
Department Program Amount
(millions)
State and Local
Park Improvements
Department of
Parks and Recreation
& Natural Resources
Agency
Local and Regional Grant
Programs for Neighborhood
Parks and Greenway Trails
$464
Department of
Parks and Recreation
State Park System
Enhancements $4
Department of
Food and Agriculture
Deferred Maintenance for
Fairgrounds $4
Ecosystem
Restoration & Climate
Resiliency
Multiple
Departments &
Conservancies
River Recreation, Creek,
and Waterway Improvements $58
Natural Resources
Agency Salton Sea Restoration $30
Multiple
Departments &
Conservancies
Climate Adaptation &
Resiliency $110
Attachment A
86 of 107
11
State Coastal
Conservancy & Ocean
Protection Council
Coastal Protection $13
California
Conservation Corps
CCC Restoration and
Rehabilitation Projects &
Grants to Local Community
Conservation Corps
$10
Water Action Plan
State Water Board Safe Drinking Water
Projects $63
Department of
Water Resources &
Natural Resources
Agency
Flood Management $99
Department of
Water Resources &
State Water Board
Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act $146
Department of
Food and Agriculture
State Water Efficiency
and Enhancement Program $18
TOTAL $1,019
Cap and Trade Funding
California continues towards its goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030. In July 2017, Governor Brown signed legislation to extend the cap
and trade program through 2030 by a two-thirds super majority vote. This has provided
certainty in the cap and trade program which has resulted in stabilized auction results and
increased revenues. California will have $1.25 billion in cap and trade funds available for
appropriation in 2018-19. The expenditure plan for these funds will be announced by the
Governor during his final State of the State Address on January 25.
Cannabis: Proposition 64 Implementation
Consistent with Proposition 64: The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), the Governor’s
January budget proposal does not include cannabis tax revenues as funding will not be available
for allocation until the 2019-20 state budget.
Attachment A
87 of 107
12
P a g e
Government Finance and Administration
Property Tax Backfill for Disaster Impacted Counties
The Governor’s January budget proposal provides $23.7 million in backfill to counties and other
local jurisdictions for lost property taxes in 2017-18 and 2018-19 resulting from the October
2017 fires. This is a preliminary number that will be updated to capture full losses in counties in
both northern and southern California in the May Revision. Counties are strongly encouraged to
report their estimates of property tax losses to CSAC in order to provide an accurate estimate.
Please see the Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment (AENR) section of this Budget
Action Bulletin for a full summary of disaster relief funding on page 7. The Governor’s January
budget proposal notes the school share of losses will be backfilled by the General Fund
pursuant to Proposition 98 funding mechanism, which is estimated to total $24.5 million in
2017-18 and 2018-19.
Elections Equipment Funding
Included in the Governor’s January budget proposal is a General Fund commitment of $134.3
million to fund county elections systems, which are nearing the end of their useful shelf life at
the same time that counties are considering implementation of the “SB 450” vote center model
elections. The funding will be made available to all counties with a 50 percent match
requirement for hardware, software and initial licensing costs. The Administration projects this
funding level to be sufficient for counties with more than 50 precincts to adopt the vote center
model and counties with less than 50 to maintain the traditional election day-only polling
precinct model.
Redevelopment Dissolution Continues
The Governor’s January budget proposal restates the priority of the Brown Administration to
continue the winding down of redevelopment agencies (RDA), continuing the work that began
in 2011. Approximately $2.6 billion in unrestricted property tax dollars has been returned to
counties, $2.1 billion to cities and $781 million to special districts from 2011-12 to 2016-17. The
combined current budget year and 2018-19 estimates counties will receive an additional $990
million for their share, cites will receive $926 million and special districts will received $282
million. Average ongoing property tax revenues for all local agencies are estimated at $1.2
billion annually through 2021-22. The Governor’s January budget proposal notes General Fund
savings through the schools share at $1.9 billion through 2021-22.
County Assessors Tax Roll Program Funding
The Governor’s January budget proposal provides $5 million annually for the next three years
for a new initiative to assist county assessors in the maintenance and equalization of property
tax rolls. Details will be forthcoming in proposed statutory framework.
Attachment A
88 of 107
13
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration
The newly formed California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and the Office of Tax
Appeals, established in July 2017, will receive additional funding for their assumed duties
formerly held by the State Board of Equalization (BOE). While this is a n ot a direct appropriation
to counties, it will help the collection and distribution of significant revenues that are funneled
to local agencies, including sales and use tax. Counties may recall the substantial allocation
errors to local agencies by the BOE was part of the grounds for the Governor’s order to create a
new state department to take over many of the BOE’s responsibilities.
Other Issues
2020 Census Funding
The Governor’s January budget proposal includes $40.3 million for statewide outreach and
other activities related to the 2020 Census count. This builds on $7 million in the 2017 Budget
Act for local agencies grants to support the multi-year, multi-lingual effort the provides a
complete and accurate count of California residents to ensure appropriate federal government
representatives and federal funding levels for local communities.
State Pension Funding Debt Pay Down
The Governor’s January budget proposal continues to provide supplemental pension payments
totaling $6 billion established in the 2017 Budget Act on a quarterly basis to the California
Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). While this does not offset the pension liability
of local agencies, it could have a small improvement on the system-wide funded status.
Mandate Debt Not Addressed
The Governor’s January budget proposal makes mention of past efforts to pay down school and
community college district mandate debt, but does not address the backlog of over $1 billion in
unpaid debt to other local agencies, including counties, statewide for services already rendered
on behalf of the State.
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
The Governor’s January budget proposal anticipates continued revenue growth, expected to
outpace 2017 Budget Act projections by $4.7 billion from 2016-17 through 2018-19. In the long
term, the economic forecast in the Governor’s January budget proposal reflects steady growth
at an average year-over-year growth rate of 4.2 percent through 2022.
Regardless of these positive figures, the Governor still emphasized the possibility of a recession,
citing several economic risk factors which include the current housing shortage and other
geopolitical events. It is also important to note that these figures are preliminary in nature and
Attachment A
89 of 107
14
P a g e
do not factor in federal tax changes which could potentially cause projections to shift in
subsequent budget revisions.
Sales and Use Tax Revenue Projections
Compared to the 2017 Budget Act, the Governor’s January budget proposal reflects an
improved outlook for sales and use tax revenues. The Administration modified its figures to
reflect a projected sales tax revenue generation of $24.9 billion in 2016-17, $25.2 billion in
2017-18, and $26.2 billion in 2018-19. In terms of change, these figures represent increases of
$378 million in 2016-17, $695 million in 2017-18, and $426 million in 2018-19.
The Governor’s January budget proposal notes that the improved sales tax outlook is due to
growth in taxable consumption and business investment. However, the increases do not
reverse the long-term trend of deterioration of the sales tax base.
Property Tax Revenue Projections
Even though property taxes are a local revenue source, a property tax forecast is included in the
state budget due to the allocation for K-14 schools offsetting General Fund expenditures.
The Governor’s January budget proposal anticipates property tax re venues to continue showing
positive growth, despite most recent assessments which show a slight decline in the sales of
existing single-family homes. In total, the Governor’s January budget proposal estimates
statewide property tax revenues to increase by almost 6 percent in 2017-18 and 5.6 percent in
2018-19.
Health and Human Services
HUMAN SERVICES
In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)
The Governor’s January budget proposal contains no changes to the structure of the new
county In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) maintenance of effort (MOE) that was negotiated
last year and included in the budget trailer bill SB 90 (Chapter 25, Statutes of 2017). There were
specific provisions in SB 90 to provide revenues for counties to offset the nearly $600 million
that was shifted to counties and incorporated into the new MOE. The increased revenue
projections for anticipated 1991 realignment sales tax growth for 2017-18 that are included in
the Governor’s January budget proposal will help counties better manage the increased costs in
the current year. The increased IHSS costs for the out-years has been the larger concern for
counties and CSAC will analyze the impact of these updated revenue projections on future
years.
Attachment A
90 of 107
15
For 2018-19, the Governor’s January budget proposal includes $11.2 billion for IHSS, of which
$3.6 billion is from the General Fund. This is a 7.7 percent increase in General Fund costs over
the 2017-18 costs. The budget proposal estimates that the average monthly caseload will
increase by 5.4 percent over the prior year projection to a total of 545,000 recipients in 2018-
19. To reflect the minimum wage increase for IHSS expenditures, a total of $260.3 million
($119.4 million General Fund) is included.
IHSS Administration
The Governor’s January budget proposal provides an increase of $27.8 million General Fund for
county IHSS administration costs in 2018-19. The 2017 Budget Act included a provision that
required the Department of Finance to work with counties to develop a new methodology for
calculating IHSS administration costs. This increase results from that new budgeting
methodology and takes into account revised workload and budget assumptions. These
assumptions will be examined again in the development of the 2020-21 budget.
CalWORKs
The CalWORKs program is California’s version of the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program, which provides temporary cash assistance to low-income families
with children to meet basic needs as well as welfare-to-work services to help families become
self-sufficient.
CalWORKS Single Allocation
The Governor’s January budget proposal includes a one-time augmentation of $187 million for
the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program single
allocation, which is what the state provides to counties to administer the CalWORKs program.
The overall funding for the single allocation is $31.8 million lower than in 2017-18. The 2017-18
budget required the Administration to work with the County Welfare Directors Association to
revise the methodology for the single allocation. The revised methodology is needed to insulate
counties and beneficiaries from experiencing huge swings in year-to-year funding levels for the
single allocation. The conversations about the revised methodology are ongoing.
CalWORKs Home Visiting Initiative
The Governor’s January budget proposal provides $26.7 million in funding for a voluntary Home
Visiting pilot program through 2021 for young, first-time parents in the CalWORKs program. A
total of $158.5 million one-time Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds is being
reserved for the pilot’s total costs through calendar year 2021. The pilot will leverage existing
evidence-based program models to help young families reach self-sufficiency by improving
family engagement practices, supporting the healthy development of young children living in
Attachment A
91 of 107
16
P a g e
poverty, and preparing parents for employment. The Department of Social Services will work
with counties to establish outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot.
Medi-Cal County Administration
The Governor’s January budget proposal provides an increase of $54.8 million ($18.5 million
General Fund) for Medi-Cal county administration. This amount is based on an adjustment that
incorporates the increase in the California Consumer Price Index. The Administration consulted
with CSAC and the County Welfare Directors Association related to Medi-Cal county
administration costs.
Continuum of Care Reform
The January budget proposal includes $238.2 million ($179.7 million General Fund) to continue
implementation of Continuum of Care reforms (CCR). The funding reflects ongoing support for
child and family teams, approval of resource families, and family retention, recruitment, and
support.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)/State Supplementary Payment (SSP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a federal program that provides a monthly cash payment
to eligible aged, blind, and disabled persons who meet the income and resources requirements.
California augments SSI with a State Supplementary Payment (SSP) grant. The Governor’s
January budget proposal includes $2.8 billion General Fund for the SSI/SSP Program, which
represents a 1.2 percent decrease ($34.9 million) from the revised 2017-18 budget. The 2018-
19 monthly caseload is projected to be 1.3 million recipients, which is a slight decrease from the
2017-18 projection. Effective January 2018, the maximum SSI/SSP grant levels are $910 per
month for individuals and $1,532 per month for couples. The federal cost of living adjustments
based on the current Consumer Price Index growth factors are 2 percent for 2018 and a
projected 2.6 percent for 2019.
Developmental Center Closures
The state continues the planned closure of the three remaining developmental centers:
Sonoma, Fairview, and the general treatment area of Porterville. The Sonoma facility is
scheduled to close in December 2018 and no longer receive federal funding for its intermediate
care facility units. The Department of Developmental Services’ ongoing compliance with a 2016
settlement with the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will allow the
continued receipt of federal funding for intermediate care facility units at Fairview and the
general treatment area of Porterville. The Governor’s January budget proposal assumes the
federal funding for both Fairview and Porterville will continue.
Regional Center Services
Regional centers provide intake, assessment, eligibility determination, resource development,
and case management services, while also working with businesses and individuals providing
Attachment A
92 of 107
17
developmental services in the community. The Governor’s January budget proposal includes a
regional center budget for 2018-19 of $4.1 billion General Fund. This represents a $319.6
million General Fund year-over-year increase from 2017-18 and $97.6 million General Fund of
this increase is attributable to the increasing state minimum wage.
HEALTH
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) provides federal funding to states to offer full-
scope Medicaid coverage to 32,000 low-income pregnant women and children in California. It
has been subject to significant uncertainty at the federal level, but Congress approved a stop-
gap measure in December to continue CHIP funding to states until early March through the
Continuing Resolution (CR) process.
In California, regardless of Congressional action, CHIP funding will be maintained through
September 30, 2019, as part of the Affordable Care Act Maintenance of Effort. The State has
also been receiving an enhanced federal matching rate of 88 percent for CHIP funding.
However, the state had planned for a reduction in the rate – back to 65 percent – in the current
year budget. Since the December, CR continues to fund the state at the enhanced matching
rate, the Governor anticipates a $150 million savings in the current year budget. Continued
uncertainty over the fate of CHIP will require caution, and CSAC expects the Governor to update
these figures in the May Revision.
Affordable Care Act
The Governor’s January budget proposal includes increased General Fund dollars for the state’s
portion of the optional Medicaid Expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA ). As of January
1, the State’s share of the cost for the 3.9 million Californians in the expansion population rose
from 5 percent to 6 percent, with the federal government providing 94 percent of the cost. The
Governor estimates this will cost the state $1.6 billion General Fund ($22.9 billion total funds) in
2018-19. By 2020, the state’s share will be 10 percent as proscribed by the ACA.
Overall costs for the Medi-Cal program are projected to rise by $543 million in 2018-19 due to
payments to the federal government for drug rebate miscalculations and higher overall Medi-
Cal managed care costs.
AB 85 County Indigent Health Savings
The Governor’s January budget proposal estimates $530.5 million in county indigent health
savings in 2018-19, which will be diverted from the county 1991 Health Subaccount under AB
85 (Chapter 24, Statutes of 2013) to offset state CalWORKs costs. The state also anticipates
Attachment A
93 of 107
18
P a g e
additional funding in 2019-18 from counties as the “true up” of 2015-16 costs continues. These
figures will be updated in the Governor’s May Revision.
Please see the AB 85 2018-19 estimated redirections and 2015-16 reconciliations charts
provided in the “Additional Resources” section at the end of this publication.
Managed Care Organization Tax
The Legislature approved a Managed Care Organization (MCO) tax in 2016 to augment
developmental services, managed care rates for specific populations, and IHSS costs. In 2018-
19, the Governor anticipates $1.4 billion in MCO revenue. The MCO tax expires on June 30,
2019.
Proposition 56 Tobacco Tax
In 2016, voters approved an increase in the tobacco tax, including for e-cigarettes. In 2018-19,
the Governor estimates $1.3 billion in revenue. Of that, $125 million is used to backfill reduced
Proposition 10 revenues, among other items.
More than $850 million is dedicated to offsetting state Medi-Cal costs, including physician
($163 million) and dental ($70 million) supplemental payment increases for specific, frequent
procedures. The Governor’s January budget proposal indicates that the intent of these
supplemental payments is to increase the number of providers willing to offer Med-Cal services
or increase the number of enrollees and access. Should these metrics not be met, the Governor
promises to work with the Legislature to redesign the payments to align with these goals.
The Governor is proposing to use $31.6 in Proposition 56 funds to increase home health
provider rates by 50 percent on July 1, 2018. The Governor’s January budget proposal includes
a total of $64.5 million for this purpose. Home health providers are employed in the fee-for-
service market and are not IHSS providers. They provide medically necessary services in patient
homes through the state’s home and community-based services federal waivers.
Department of Public Health
The Department of Public Health (DPH) is responsible for protecting and promoting the health
and well-being of the people in California. Currently, DPH contracts with the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Health to regulate certain health care entities located in Los Angeles
County.
DPH and Los Angeles County are working to develop a contract for the County to conduct 100
percent of the regulatory work within Los Angeles, beginning in 2019-20, which would include
pay-for-performance metrics and is anticipated to cost more than the current contract. The
current contract only covers a portion of the workload in Los Angeles County. DPH will assess
and apply a supplemental fee to its regulated health care entities located in Los Angeles County
Attachment A
94 of 107
19
beginning in 2018-19 to reflect the higher cost of doing business in Los Angeles County. There is
statutory language proposed in the Governor’s January budget proposal to assess the
supplemental fee, which will be based on the additional cost necessary to administer and
enforce licensing and certification services to health care entities in Los Angeles County.
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
Incompetent to Stand Trial Admissions
The Governor’s January budget proposal includes $114.8 million General Fund over three years
to develop state-county partnerships and placement solutions for those who are found
Incompetent to Stand Trail (IST) by the courts. The new program is intended to increase
diversion of mentally ill offenders and ease the number of IST referrals to the Department of
State Hospitals (DSH) by 30 percent.
The number of IST referrals pending placement by DSH have increased from 600 individuals in
December 2016 to 840 in early December 2017. While DSH has been working with counties to
develop county jail-based placement programs and diversion options, this new funding will be
focused on those with mental illness who have committed felony crimes. The program will
prioritize the 15 counties with the most IST referrals. It will also increase diversion programs up
to 640 placements as well as up to 60 additional community placements in other counties.
The proposal includes $14 million General Fund to partner with Los Angeles County to support
treatment in community settings for up to 150 IST patients. The DSH will also continue efforts
to partner with additional counties on joint use facilities for IST patients.
The Governor’s January budget proposal dedicates $2.5 million in state-level Mental Health
Services Act administration funding to the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability
Commission (MHSOAC) to assist counties in developing IST diversion plans and programs. The
MHSOAC will receive $2.5 million in funding for two year for this purpose.
The Governor also proposes significant continued investments to address the IST placement
issue, with a $53 million 36-bed secure forensic expansion at Metropolitan State Hospital, $16.1
million to continue contracts with counties for up to 159 jail-based competency treatment
beds, and $11.5 million to activate 80 Mentally Disordered Offender beds at Coalinga State
Hospital for transfers from other state hospitals.
Attachment A
95 of 107
20
P a g e
Housing, Land Use and Transportation
Transportation Funding
The Governor’s January budget proposal paints a significantly better picture for transportation
infrastructure than in years past due largely to the passage of SB 1 (Chapter No. 5, Statutes of
2017) – the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. Over the next decade, SB 1 will provide
approximately $5 billion annually in revenue for local streets and roads, state highways and
public transportation through the imposition of new and increased gasoline and diesel taxes
and transportation improvement fees.
The Governor’s January budget proposal estimates that SB 1 will generate $2.8 billion in new
revenue for transportation infrastructure in 2017-18 and $4.6 billion in 2018-19. These
revenues are in addition to revenues from the base- and price-based gasoline excise tax
increments counties, cities, and the State have received in prior years. The following is a
preliminary analysis of revenues counties can anticipate receiving from the base gasoline excise
tax, the price-based gasoline excise tax (which replaced the sales tax on gasoline in 2010), and
from revenue sources generated by SB 1. CSAC staff will follow-up as quickly as possible to
provide transportation revenue estimates on a county-by-county basis.
SB 1 Revenues and Appropriations
The release of the Governor’s January budget proposal includes revised estimates for SB 1
funded programs for 2017-18, as well as new estimates for 2018-19. Counties can anticipate
receiving via direct subventions fifty percent of the $451 million slated for local streets and
roads in 2017-18 and the approximately $1.2 billion in 2018-19 from SB 1. The following chart
outlines 2017-18 and 2018-19 revenue projections from SB 1.
Program 2017-18
Appropriation
2018-19
Appropriation
Local Allocations
Local Streets and Roads $451 $1,193
Transit and Intercity Rail
Capital Program $330 $330
State Transit Assistance $280 $355
Local Partnership Program $200 $200
Active Transportation
Program $100 $100
Commuter Rail and
Intercity Rail $25 $36
Local Planning Grants $25 $25
TOTAL $1,411 $2,239
Attachment A
96 of 107
21
State Allocations
SHOPP/Maintenance $451 $1,210
Bridges and Culverts $400 $400
Commuter Corridors $250 $250
Trade Corridor
Enhancements $153 $306
Department of Parks and
Recreation* $53 $79
Air Resources Board Clean
Freight $50 $0
Freeway Service Patrol $25 $25
Department of Food and
Agriculture* $17 $26
Transportation-related CSU
and UC Research $7 $7
Transportation Workforce
Development Board $5 $5
TOTAL $1,411 $2,308
Administration
Department of Motor
Vehicles $4 $8
TOTAL $4 $8
Revenue
Transportation
Improvement Fee $737 $1,510
Gasoline Excise Tax $1,250 $1,852
Diesel Excise Tax $405 $672
Diesel Sales Tax $200 $286
General Fund Loan
Repayment $235 $235
TOTAL $2,827 $4,555
*Revenue derived from fuel purchases for off-road vehicles
Under SB 1, all outstanding loans from transportation funds are required to be repaid by 2019-
20 in equal installments beginning in 2017-18. The Governor’s January budget proposal
recognizes this statutory commitment and the General Fund will appropriate $235 million in
2017-18 and $235 million in 2018-19 for this purpose. Counties and cities have already been
fully repaid for loans in prior years from the local share of transportation revenues. However,
counties and cities will still be the beneficiaries of $75 million annually over the next three years
Attachment A
97 of 107
22
P a g e
from loan repayments, although the exact date of repayment for 2017-18 and 2018-19 is
unknown.
Base- and Price-Based Gasoline Excise Tax Revenues
As previously mentioned, counties will continue to receive their historic share of the base- and
price-based gasoline excise tax revenues in 2018-19. The price-base excise tax rate will be
adjusted one last time in 2018 to ensure revenue neutrality with what the former sales tax on
gasoline would otherwise have generated. Pursuant to SB 1, this rate will be reset at 17.3 cents
in July 2019 and subsequently adjusted based on inflation. The base gas tax rate will also be
adjusted for inflation pursuant to SB 1 beginning in 2020-21.
Based on fuel consumption, which is projected to decline by 0.6 percent in 2018-19 due to
consumption patterns related to an increase in the price of gasoline, increased fuel efficiency,
and price projections, the Governor’s January Budget proposal anticipates a price-based rate
increase of 4.2 cents effective July 1, 2018. The Board of Equalization must do its own analysis
and take action by March of each year to adopt the new price-based gasoline excise tax rate.
SB 1 Repeal Effort
While CSAC is pleased to report the good news with respect to revenue estimates that will
allow counties for the first time in many years to actually make improvements to the local
street and road system, this section would not be complete without mention of the attempts to
repeal SB 1. The “Give Voters a Voice” campaign to repeal SB 1 is currently raising money for,
and collecting signatures on, an initiative that would require the Legislature to put before the
electorate approval of any gas, diesel, or vehicle related tax or fee increase. Since the initiative
has a retroactive effective date of January 1, 2017, it would repeal SB 1. CSAC will ensure
revenues estimates on a county-by-county basis make clear what revenues counties would lose
in 2018-19 and beyond should a repeal effort be successful.
Affordable Housing
The Governor’s January budget proposal includes a recap of the ongoing multi-year debate on
housing affordability, but the focus is on implementation of last year’s 15-bill package. While
the specific timing of SB 2 (Chapter No. 364, Statutes of 2017) appropriations remains unclear,
the Governor’s January budget proposal projects that $258 million in tax revenues will be
generated via SB 2’s recording fee in 2018-19. Counties will recall that SB 2 funding in 2018 will
be split evenly between grants for local planning activities that promote housing development
and statewide grants for homeless services.
Attachment A
98 of 107
23
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
AB 85 2018-19 Redirection Calculation
CMSP Redirection
Alpine $ 13,150.00
Amador $ 620,264.00
Butte $ 5,950,593.00
Calaveras $ 913,959.00
Colusa $ 799,988.00
Del Norte $ 781,358.00
El Dorado $ 3,535,288.00
Glenn $ 787,933.00
Humboldt $ 6,883,182.00
Imperial $ 6,394,422.00
Inyo $ 1,100,257.00
Kings $ 2,832,833.00
Lake $ 1,022,963.00
Lassen $ 687,113.00
Madera $ 2,882,147.00
Marin $ 7,725,909.00
Mariposa $ 435,062.00
Mendocino $ 1,654,999.00
Modoc $ 469,034.00
Mono $ 369,309.00
Napa $ 3,062,967.00
Nevada $ 1,860,793.00
Plumas $ 905,192.00
San Benito $ 1,086,011.00
Shasta $ 5,361,013.00
Sierra $ 135,888.00
Siskiyou $ 1,372,034.00
Solano $ 6,871,127.00
Sonoma $ 13,183,359.00
Sutter $ 2,996,118.00
Tehama $ 1,912,299.00
Trinity $ 611,497.00
Tuolumne $ 1,455,320.00
Attachment A
99 of 107
24
P a g e
Yuba $ 2,395,580.00
CMSP Board $ 166,202,093.40
SUBTOTAL $ 255,271,054.40
Article 13 60/40 Redirection
Placer $ 3,241,250.65
Sacramento $ 31,765,594.24
Santa Barbara $ 8,102,022.44
Stanislaus $ 10,870,303.74
Yolo $ 3,507,969.00
SUBTOTAL $ 57,487,140.08
Article 13
Formula
Calculated Redirection
Fresno $ 15,584,208
Merced $ 2,628,729
Orange $ 41,381,018
San Diego $ 44,757,429
San Luis Obispo $ 2,871,817
Santa Cruz $ 3,736,002
Tulare $ 6,209,741
SUBTOTAL $ 117,168,944.70
DPH Calculated Redirection
Alameda $ -
Contra Costa $ 7,375,489
Kern $ 11,624,599
Los Angeles $ -
Monterey $ 1,346,650
Riverside $ 34,819,814
San Bernardino $ 29,889,754
San Francisco $ -
San Joaquin $ 15,486,883
San Mateo $ -
Santa Clara $ -
Ventura $ -
SUBTOTAL $ 100,543,187.83
$ 530,470,327.01
Attachment A
100 of 107
25
AB 85 FY 2015-16 Reconciliation Summary
Article 13
Formula
Interim Redirected Reconciliation
(Due from County)
Fresno $ 11,385,984.67 $ 4,198,223.37
Orange $ 41,236,255.15 $ 144,763.19
San Diego $ 44,716,283.05 $ 41,145.81
San Luis Obispo $ 2,846,951.60 $ 24,865.47
Tulare $ 6,182,592.10 $ 7,327.32
SUBTOTAL $ 113,575,423.84 $ 3,651,344.17
DPH Interim Redirected Reconciliation
(Due from County)
Alameda $ 44,966,189.62 $ 731,447.29
Contra Costa $ 19,585,406.23 $ 3,357,326.21
Kern $ 12,955,764.23 $ 2,863,153.62
Los Angeles $ 101,314,163.84 $ 193,401,723.75
Monterey $ 2,834,843.99 $ 3,071,146.18
Riverside $ 37,195,609.05 $ 684,610.91
San Bernardino $ 28,883,328.02 $ 1,006,425.85
San Mateo $ 15,831,331.21 $ 226,424.38
Santa Clara $ 19,451,964.02 $ 21,245,627.21
Ventura $ 14,849,566.18 $ 191,557.52
SUBTOTAL $ 321,561,878.63 $ 204,315,569.99
Grand Total $ 747,825,464.46 $ 207,966,914.15
Due From Counties $ 231,195,768.09
Attachment A
101 of 107
1991 Realignment Estimated Revenues and Expenditures - 2018-19 Governor's Budget
(Dollars in Thousands)
2016-17 State Fiscal Year
CalWORKs Social Mental Family Child
Amount MOE Health Services Health Support Poverty Totals
Base Funding
Sales Tax Account $752,887 $-$1,913,802 $33,967 $443,909 $88,224 $3,232,789
Vehicle License Fee Account 367,664 1,047,929 58,142 94,870 117,097 160,465 1,846,167
Total Base $1,120,551 $1,047,929 $1,971,944 $128,837 $561,006 $248,689 $5,078,956
General Growth Carryover from 2015-161 37,255 37,255
Growth Funding
Sales Tax Growth Account:-54 110,894 69 -16,198 127,215
Caseload Subaccount --(84,626) ---(84,626)
County Medical Services Growth Subaccount --(5,123) ---(5,123)
General Growth Subaccount -(54) (21,145) (69) -(16,198) (37,466)
Vehicle License Fee Growth Account -153 73,747 193 -45,477 119,570
Total Growth $-$207 $184,641 $262 $-$61,675 $246,785
Total Realignment 2016-172 $1,120,551 $1,048,136 $2,156,585 $129,099 $561,006 $347,619 $5,362,996
2017-18 State Fiscal Year
Base Funding
Sales Tax Account $752,887 $-$2,024,696 $34,036 $443,963 $104,422 $3,360,004
Vehicle License Fee Account 367,664 951,998 131,889 95,063 213,181 205,942 1,965,737
Total Base $1,120,551 $951,998 $2,156,585 $129,099 $657,144 $310,364 $5,325,741
Growth Funding
Sales Tax Growth Account:--166,932 ---166,932
Caseload Subaccount --(166,932) ---(166,932)
County Medical Services Growth Subaccount -- -----
General Growth Subaccount -- -----
Vehicle License Fee Growth Account --61,181 --38,830 100,011
Total Growth $-$-$228,113 $-$-$38,830 $266,943
Total Realignment 2017-182 $1,120,551 $951,998 $2,384,698 $129,099 $657,144 $349,194 $5,592,684
2018-19 State Fiscal Year
Base Funding
Sales Tax Account $752,887 $22,204 $2,191,628 $34,036 $421,759 $104,422 $3,526,936
Vehicle License Fee Account 367,664 1,056,468 193,070 95,063 108,711 244,772 2,065,748
Total Base $1,120,551 $1,078,672 $2,384,698 $129,099 $530,470 $349,194 $5,592,684
Growth Funding
Sales Tax Growth Account:--135,348 ---135,348
Caseload Subaccount --(135,348) ---(135,348)
County Medical Services Growth Subaccount -------
General Growth Subaccount -------
Vehicle License Fee Growth Account --53,429 --33,911 87,340
Total Growth $-$-$188,777 $-$-$33,911 $222,688
Total Realignment 2018-192 $1,120,551 $1,078,672 $2,573,475 $129,099 $530,470 $383,105 $5,815,372
2 Excludes $14 million in Vehicle License Collection Account moneys not derived from realignment revenue sources.
1 Reflects general growth carryover to fund the 5-percent increase to CalWORKs Maximum Aid Payment levels effective April 1, 2015, pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 17601.50.
Attachment A
102 of 107
2016-17 2016-17
Growth
2017-18 2017-18
Growth
2018-19 2018-19
Growth
$2,361.2 $2,467.3 $2,579.6
539.7 10.6 550.3 11.2 561.6 10.9
489.9 155.9 489.9 201.4 489.9 209.7
1,161.6 79.4 1,241.1 84.3 1,325.3 81.5
27.9 5.3 33.3 5.6 38.9 5.4
142.1 10.6 152.7 11.2 163.9 10.9
Youthful Offender Block Grant Special Account (134.3) (10.0) (144.3) (10.6) (154.9) (10.3)
Juvenile Reentry Grant Special Account (7.8) (0.6) (8.4) (0.6) (9.0) (0.6)
261.8 313.7 318.4
1,120.6 9.8 1,120.6 10.4 1,120.6 10.1
3,404.9 3,591.7 3,789.9
2,169.5 88.5 2,258.0 93.9 2,351.9 90.9
1,235.4 98.4 1,333.7 104.3 1,438.0 101.0
Women and Children's Residential Treatment
Services (5.1) -(5.1) -(5.1) -
196.7 208.6 202.0
$7,345.2 $7,701.9 $8,010.5
1.0625% Sales Tax 6,699.5 7,010.6 7,310.9
Motor Vehicle License Fee 645.8 691.3 699.6
$7,345.3 $7,701.9 $8,010.5
2 Base Allocation is capped at $489.9 million. Growth does not add to the base.
3 Base Allocation is capped at $1,120.6 million. Growth does not add to the base.
2011 Realignment Estimate1- at 2018-19 Governor's Budget
1 Dollars in millions.
Behavioral Health Subaccount
Growth, Support Services
Account Total and Growth
Revenue
Revenue Total
This chart reflects estimates of the 2011 Realignment subaccount and growth allocations based on current
revenue forecasts and in accordance with the formulas outlined in Chapter 40, Statutes of 2012 (SB 1020).
Protective Services Subaccount
Law Enforcement Services
Trial Court Security Subaccount
Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount2
Community Corrections Subaccount
District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount
Juvenile Justice Subaccount
Growth, Law Enforcement Services
Mental Health3
Support Services
Attachment A
103 of 107
Local Governments Seek to Build on the
Transformative Climate Communities Program
Local governments support the use of cap-and-trade revenues to achieve
California landmark climate change goals, including efforts to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions.
As the closest level of government to Californians, local governments are
uniquely positioned to work with local planners and the public to initiate
integrated, multi-benefit projects that can deliver the greatest GHG reductions
per dollar. This integrated approach facilitates development comprehensive
projects that cut across sectors, engage multiple partners and would otherwise
require multiple grant applications to multiple state agencies. These projects
provide other environmental and economic co-benefits, including better air and
water quality, reduction of natural resources and energy consumption, increased
water supply and greater diversion of waste, as well as local jobs.
Issue: An integrated approach to funding GHG emission reduction projects is
needed to ensure that California meets its climate goals. Investment in reducing
emissions from the transportation, land management, municipal electricity, water
management, and other key sectors is necessary and broadly supported.
Further, achieving long range goals will require new and innovative programs.
Local governments stand at the intersection of these sectors, and are uniquely
positioned to implement the greatest emissions-reducing projects. Therefore,
they should be at the center of a cap-and-trade revenue investment strategy.
Solution: It is important to develop funding strategies that break down existing
silos and allow for more comprehensive solutions. W e urge the Legislature and
the Governor to build upon the success of the existing Transformative Climate
Communities (TCC) program, administered by the Strategic Growth Council
(SGC). We propose the following approach:
Appropriate $200 million in additional funding to the SGC for TCC
Expand the number of planning and implementation grants available for
local agencies in fiscal year 2018-19
Refine program eligibility criteria to include communities across
geographic areas including disadvantaged communities
Eligible entities should include local governments, special districts, joint
powers authorities, nonprofits working in coordination with local
governments, and other appropriate regional entities
A streamlined and incentive-based approach for funding climate adaptation and
resiliency projects. This approach will be particularly useful in disadvantaged
communities that would benefit in many ways from the technical assistance the
TCC can provide to navigate complex and interconnected planning. The program
will help local governments meet the challenges of adopting climate action plans
and integrating strategies to transform communities and create long-term
sustainability.
Attachment B
104 of 107
Child Support Budget issue
General Background
The federal child support program was established in 1975 to provide a means for children to receive
the financial support they need from both parents to help ensure a bright future. Child support
payments, collected from parents not residing with the children, help provide food, shelter, clothing and
other basic living expenses for children. By providing vital income to families, the program helps
promote family self-sufficiency and is a critical component in the fight against poverty.
The program is funded by a combination of federal and State funding and is only one of a few that
provide uncapped federal dollars.
Program Funding Background
Historically, Child Support responsibilities were under each county District Attorney’s office until 2000
when it was changed to a state program and individual county run departments were created. The
State Child Support Reform Act of 1999 in California created a new California Department of Child
Support Services (DCSS) and moved local administration of child support programs from the District
Attorney’s Office to newly created Local Child Support Agencies (LCSAs). At that time the historical
funding allocations were placed into statute and there has not been a major change to the formula since
that time.
California’s base funding for the child support program has not increased since fiscal year (FY) 2002/03.
As a result, local child support agencies (LCSAs) have not received an increase in basic administrative
funding for the past 14 fiscal years, despite the fact that those agencies’ operating costs continued to
rise on an annual basis. In addition, no increase is being proposed for FY 2018/19.
In response to dwindling caseworker resources and the negative impact of flat funding on LCSAs, the
Legislature provided a Revenue Stabilization funding augmentation ($18.7 million--$6.4 million State
General Fund) in 2009/10 indicating that the funding was being provided to “maintain revenue
generating caseworker staffing levels in order to stabilize child support collections.”
Allocation Formula
The current model is based on a County-centric methodology which was developed in the 1990’s while
the LCSAs were under the jurisdiction of County District Attorneys. The methodology considered a
number of factors, including county collections and the extent to which counties were in compliance
with case processing requirements.
After its creation as a stand-alone state agency, the state simply adopted the same funding amount for
each LCSA. Since FY 2000/01, the same funding dollars simply roll over from the prior year. The
continued use of this antiquated and dysfunctional process, two decades later, has resulted in significant
inequities in funding between the counties, which magnifies the problem of inadequate funding for
those LCSAs that are relatively the most-underfunded. Despite ongoing discussions with the State child
support department about the need for an allocation methodology, as well as an increase in program
funding, no changes have been made to the local funding model.
Attachment C
Draft105 of 107
Child Support Program and Services
California's Child Support Services Program works with parents - custodial and noncustodial - and
legally acknowledged guardians to ensure children and families receive court ordered financial and
medical support. Child support services are available to the general public through a network of 51
county and regional child support agencies.
The following services are provided:
Establishing paternity (fatherhood)
Locating absent parents
Requesting child support orders from the court
Requesting medical support orders from the court
Enforcing child support orders
Modifying child support orders
Enforcing spousal support orders in conjunction with child support
Problem
Since the allocation formula is not based on caseload or other performance criteria, several counties are
underfunded when their caseload and workload is compared with other counties with the same criteria.
Specifically, there are fourteen counties that have been identified as the most in need of funding
increases. The consequential factor in the determination of the 14 counties is a proposed allocation per
case of $630.00. Those counties, with less than $630 per case are now referred to as the under-parity
counties. A per case allocation amount is directly related to the ability of all counties to provide
consistent and uniform services for California families, regardless of where they reside within California.
14 counties that are underfunded:
Glenn
Kern
Fresno
Imperial
Kings
Los Angeles
Madera
Merced
Riverside
Sacramento
San Joaquin
San Bernardino
Stanislaus
Tehama
Attachment C
Draft106 of 107
Proposed Solution
Propose an additional state General Fund to be allocated towards those counties that are underfunded
or under parity. This proposal would not make changes to the current formula or impact other counties
allocations.
Attachment C
Draft107 of 107