115
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call: 6:04 p.m.
Present: Kesarwani, Taplin, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Arreguin
Absent: Bartlett, Droste
Councilmember Droste present at 6:07 p.m.
Ceremonial Matters:
1. Adjourned the meeting in memory of Mimi Jenkins, City Employee
2. Adjourned the meeting in memory of Ruth Armstrong, Co-Founder of Berkeley Path Wanderers City Manager Comments:
The City Manager provided updates on the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, the Chief of Police recruitment, and the Director of Police Accountability recruitment.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Matters: 5 speakers.
Consent Calendar
Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Robinson) to accept the following urgency items pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2), and making the findings that there is an urgent need to take action and that the need to take action came to the attention of the local agency after the agenda was published:
• From Mayor Arreguin: Condemning Hate Speech, Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy
• F rom Councilmember Harrison: Adopt a Resolution in Support of Ukraine, Continued Diplomacy, and Adherence to Constitutional Procedure with Respect to Armed conflict Amidst Ongoing Tensions.
• F rom the City Manager: Resolution Adopting the Resolution of Intention of Amendment to the Miscellaneous CalPERS Contract Pursuant to California Government Code 20516; Adopt First Ordinance Reading authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Berkeley and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.
Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Taplin, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Bartlett.
116
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 3
Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Hahn) to adopt a temporary rule to set the public speaking time at one minute per speaker, except as during the public hearing.
Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Taplin, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Bartlett.
Public Comment on Consent Calendar and Information Items Only: 59 speakers.
Action: M/S/C (Robinson/Hahn) to adopt the Consent Calendar in one motion except as indicated.
Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Taplin, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Bartlett.
Condemning Hate Speech, Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Councilmembers Susan Wengraf and Sophie Hahn Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution condemning incidences of hate speech, anti- semitism and white supremacy.
Financial Implications: None.
Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, (510) 981-7100
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,218–N.S.
Adopt a Resolution in Support of Ukraine, Continued Diplomacy, and Adherence to Constitutional Procedure with Respect to Armed Conflict Amidst Ongoing Tensions
From: Councilmember Harrison
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution in support of Ukraine, continued diplomacy, and adherence to constitutional procedure with respect to potential armed conflict amidst ongoing military tensions. Send copies of the resolution and letters to Senators Feinstein and Padilla, and Congresswoman Lee.
Contact: Kate Harrison, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,219–N.S.
1. Minutes for Approval
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Approve the minutes for the Council meetings of January 10 (special), January 18 (regular), January 20 (closed and special), January 25 (closed and regular), and January 27 (special).
Financial Implications: None
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900
Action: Approved the minutes as submitted.
117
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 4
2. Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on February 22, 2022
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Approve the request for proposals or invitation for bids (attached to staff report) that will be, or are planned to be, issued upon final approval by the requesting department or division. All contracts over the City Manager’s threshold will be returned to Council for final approval.
Financial Implications: $234,000
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300
Action: Approved the recommendation.
3. Expenditure Contract: Berkeley Youth Alternatives for Proposition 64 Grant- Proposed Work and Services
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute an expenditure contract and any amendments or extensions with Berkeley Youth Alternatives (BYA) in an amount not to exceed $625,000 for the period March 1, 2022 through April 30, 2024.
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,220–N.S.
4. Contract No. 32000240 Amendment: Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) for Mental Health MHSA-Funded Programs
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000240 with Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) to provide Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funded programs in local schools through June 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $992,778. This amendment will add $355,000 in funding to the contract.
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,221–N.S.
5. Revenue Contract: Department of Health Care Services for $1,000,000 for Crisis Care Mobile Units
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee to accept an award of funding provided by the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) through the Crisis Care Mobile Units (CCMU) Program and execute any resultant revenue agreements and amendments to augment the City’s investment in piloting and evaluating a Specialized Care Unit (SCU) in an amount up to $1,000,000 through Fiscal Year 2025.
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,222–N.S.
118
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 5
6. Meals on Wheels of Alameda County Agency Donations for the Berkeley Meals on Wheels Program
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution accepting a $25,200 donation for the Berkeley Meals on Wheels Program from the Meals on Wheels of Alameda County (MOWAC) agency.
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,223–N.S.
7. Amending Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 4.38, Supplementary Retirement and Income Plan II, to Permit Participation of Berkeley Fire Fighters Association Local 1227 I.A.F.F.
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance to amend the Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter (BMC) 4.38, Supplementary Retirement and Income Plan II (SRIP II), to permit participation of Berkeley Fire Fighters Associations Local 1227 I.A.F.F (BFFA).
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Donald E. Ellison, Human Resources, (510) 981-6800 Action: Adopt first reading of Ordinance No.7,800–N.S. Second reading scheduled for March 8, 2022.
8. Grant Application: Clean California Local Grant Program – Civic Center Plaza Turtle Garden Beautification Project
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee to submit a grant application to the state’s Clean California Local Grant Program (CCLGP) for up to $600,000 for the Civic Center Park Turtle Garden Beautification Project, and to accept grant funds, execute resulting grant agreements and amendments, and authorize the implementation of the project and appropriation of funding for related expenses, subject to securing the grant.
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,224–N.S.
9. Donation: Memorial Bench at Cesar Chavez Park in memory of Susan P.
Kwong
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution accepting a cash donation in the amount of $3,400 for a memorial bench to be placed at Cesar Chavez Park in memory of Susan P. Kwong.
Financial Implications: $3,400 in revenue
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,225–N.S.
119
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 6
10. Donation: Memorial Bench at the Berkeley Rose Garden in memory of Asia Blau Feese
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution accepting a cash donation in the amount of $3,400 for a memorial bench to be placed at the Berkeley Rose Garden in memory of Asia Blau Feese.
Financial Implications: $3,400 in revenue
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,226–N.S.
11. Donation: Memorial Bench at Cesar Chavez Park in memory of Anne Rogin Blau
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution accepting a cash donation in the amount of $3,400 for a memorial bench to be placed at Cesar Chavez Park in memory of Anne Rogin Blau.
Financial Implications: $3,400 in revenue
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,227–N.S.
12. Donation from the Rorick Family Trust for Strawberry Creek From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution accepting a cash donation in the amount of $16,720 for tree planting and picnic tables at Strawberry Creek Park from the Rorick Family Trust.
Financial Implications: $16,720 in revenue
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,228–N.S.
13. Donation: Memorial Bench at Shorebird Park in memory of Key Slay From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution accepting a cash donation in the amount of $3,400 for a memorial bench to be placed at Shorebird Park in memory of Key Slay.
Financial Implications: $3,400 in revenue
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,229–N.S.
120
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 7
14. Contracts for Plan Checking Services
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt three Resolutions authorizing the City Manager to execute contracts and any amendments for plan checking services for three-year terms, starting March 1, 2022, with the following firms:
1. Telesis Engineers for an amount not to exceed $1,500,000
2. West Coast Code Consultants for an amount not to exceed $1,500,000
3. TRB and Associates for an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,230–N.S. for Telesis Engineers; Adopted Resolution No. 70,231–N.S. for West Coast Code Consultants; Adopted Resolution No. 70,232–N.S. for TRB and Associates
15. Contract: Cratus Inc., for Storm Drain Improvements Project: Marin Ave, Virginia Street, Grizzly Peak Blvd. & High Court
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving plans and specifications for Storm Drain Improvements Project, Marin Avenue, Virginia Street, Grizzly Peak Boulevard& High Court, Specification No. 22-11482-C; accepting the bid of Cratus Inc., as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions, or other change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications in an amount not to exceed $1,260,000, which includes a 15% contingency of $171,525.
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Liam Garland, Public Works, (510) 981-6300
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,233–N.S.
16. Contract: Cratus, Inc. for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation at Various Locations From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving plans and specifications for the Sanitary Sewer Project, located on Tremont Street, Eton Avenue, Alcatraz Avenue, Mystic Street, Hazel Road, Domingo Road, El Camino Real, El Camino Real Backline, Alvarado Road, Vicente Road, Alvarado Road Backline, Tunnel Road, Roble Court, and Roble Road; accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Cratus, Inc.; and authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions, or other change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, in an amount not to exceed $2,590,468, which includes a 10% contingency of $235,497.
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Liam Garland, Public Works, (510) 981-6300
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,234–N.S.
121
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 8
17. Contract: Cratus, Inc. for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation at Various Locations on Shattuck Avenue
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving plans and specifications for the Sanitary Sewer Project, located on Shattuck Avenue from Derby Street to Allston Way and Shattuck Avenue from University Avenue to Vine Street; accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Cratus, Inc.; and authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions, or other change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, in an amount not to exceed $3,873,843, which includes a 10% contingency of $352,167.
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Liam Garland, Public Works, (510) 981-6300
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,235–N.S.
18. Contract: Koios Engineering, Inc. for Urgent Sewer Repair FY2022 Project From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving plans and specifications for the Urgent Sewer Repair FY2022 Project, located throughout the City of Berkeley; accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Koios Engineering, Inc.; and authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions, or other change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, in an amount not to exceed $391,872, which includes a 10% contingency of $35,624.
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Liam Garland, Public Works, (510) 981-6300
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,236–N.S.
19. Contract No. 108090-1 Amendment: IPS Group, Inc. for Parking Meter From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 108090-1 with IPS Group, Inc. to provide parking meters, replacement parts, and support services, increasing the contract amount by an additional $1,891,415 for a total contract amount not to exceed $8,924,872 through June 30, 2024.
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Liam Garland, Public Works, (510) 981-6300
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,237–N.S.
122
Council Consent Items
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 9
20. Supporting the Agricultural Labor Relations Voting Choice Act From: Mayor Arreguin (Author), Councilmember Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Harrison (Co-Sponsor)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution in support of the Agricultural Labor Relations Voting Choice Act. Send a copy of the Resolution to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.
Financial Implications: None
Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, (510) 981-7100
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,238–N.S.
21. Budget Referral: Channing Street Bike Boulevard Improvements From: Councilmember Taplin (Author)
Recommendation: That the City Council refers to the FY2023 budget process the funding of the following bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Channing Street:
1. Approx. $200,000 for four (4) Traffic Circles at Seventh Street, Ninth Street, Browning Street, and Bonar Street
2. Approx. $50,000 for one (1) Traffic Diverter at Tenth Street
3. Approx. $500,000 for two (2) Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB) at San Pablo Avenue and Sacramento Street
4. Approx. $70,000 for Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and a median refuge island at Sixth and Channing Way
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, (510) 981-7120 Action: Approved recommendation.
22. Streamlining Toxic Remediation in Manufacturing Districts (Reviewed by the Land Use, Housing & Economic Development Policy Committee) From: Councilmember Taplin (Author), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor) Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Mayor Arreguin (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager the development of a streamlined process that would allow for one application process, rather than separate application processes for the City’s Planning Department and the Toxics Division; and refer to the Planning Commission several amendments to the zoning code in order to facilitate toxic remediation in manufacturing districts; in addition, refer to expedite consideration of Councilmembers Wozniak and Moore’s 2012 referral to the Planning Commission referenced in Background section, and request it be moved forward as quickly as possible; in addition, refer to the City Manager to consider any and all means to streamline and/or improve the city’s processing of remediation of toxic sites.
Policy Committee Recommendation: On January 20, 2022, the Land Use, Housing & Economic Development Policy Committee took the following action: M/S/C (Hahn/Robinson) Positive recommendation to refer the item to Council as amended to expand the scope of the referral and specifically request expedited Planning Commission review of the previous 2012 referral.
Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, (510) 981-7120
123
Council Consent Items
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 10
Action: Approved the recommendation of the Land Use, Housing & Economic Development Committee.
23. Adopt a Resolution in Support of the California State Legislature Introducing and Passing a California Resident-Designated Support Person Act From: Councilmember Harrison (Author)
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution in support of the California State Legislature introducing and passing a Resident-Designated Support Person Act. Send copies of the resolution and letters to State Senator Skinner, Assemblymembers Wicks and Bonta.
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Kate Harrison, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 70,239–N.S. as revised in Supplemental Reports and Communications Packet #2 from Councilmember Harrison.
24. Budget Referral: South Sailing Basin Dredging
From: Councilmember Robinson (Author), Councilmember Taplin (Author), Councilmember Kesarwani (Author), Mayor Arreguin (Author) Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager to dredge the Berkeley Marina’s South Sailing Basin (SSB), including 1) pursuing and proposing potential funding opportunities for both planning and implementation, and 2) performing the necessary bathymetric, hydrography, technical, permitting, and mitigation studies required to move forward as quickly as possible.
Furthermore, refer $350,000 to the June 2022 budget process for the purposes of South Sailing Basin Dredging planning & evaluation.
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Rigel Robinson, Councilmember, District 7, (510) 981-7170 Action: Approved recommendation.
25. Support for AB 1602: Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund Act From: Councilmember Robinson (Author), Councilmember Wengraf (Co- Sponsor), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Harrison (Co-Sponsor)
Recommendation: Send a letter to Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks in support of AB 1602, the California Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund Act of 2022.
Financial Implications: None
Contact: Rigel Robinson, Councilmember, District 7, (510) 981-7170 Action: Approved recommendation.
124
Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 11
26. ZAB Appeal: 1527 Sacramento Street, Administrative Use Permit #ZP2020-0034 From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing, and, upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution affirming the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) decision to approve Administrative Use Permit #ZP2020-0034 to: 1) add a 520 square-foot two-story addition with an average height of 21 feet 9 inches at the rear of the existing building; 2) add a major residential addition of more than 15 percent of the lot area, including 44 square feet at the first floor; 3) legalize the enclosure of the front porch in the non- conforming front setback; and 4) add an unenclosed hot tub, on a 2,783 square-foot lot that contains a one-story 824-square-foot single-family dwelling, and dismiss the appeal.
Financial Implications: None
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400
Public Testimony: The Mayor opened the public hearing. 10 speakers.
M/S/C (Hahn/Arreguin) to close the public hearing.
Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Taplin, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Bartlett.
Action: M/S/C (Kesarwani/Harrison) to adopt Resolution No. 70,240-N.S. affirming the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) decision to approve Administrative Use Permit #ZP2020-0034 to: 1) add a 520 square-foot two-story addition with an average height of 21 feet 9 inches at the rear of the existing building; 2) add a major residential addition of more than 15 percent of the lot area, including 44 square feet at the first floor; 3) legalize the enclosure of the front porch in the non- conforming front setback; and 4) add an unenclosed hot tub, on a 2,783 square- foot lot that contains a one-story 824-square-foot single-family dwelling, and dismiss the appeal.
Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Taplin, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Bartlett.
125
Action Calendar – New Business
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 12
27. Southside Complete Streets Project Conceptual Designs From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the conceptual designs for the Southside Complete Streets Project on Dana Street from Dwight Way to Bancroft Way; Bancroft Way from Milvia Street to Piedmont Avenue; Fulton Street from Dwight Way to Bancroft Way; and Telegraph Avenue from Dwight Way to Bancroft Way, and directing the City Manager to direct staff to proceed with the detailed engineering design of the project.
Financial Implications: None
Contact: Liam Garland, Public Works, (510) 981-6300
Action: Moved to Consent Calendar. Adopted Resolution No. 70,241–N.S. as revised in Supplemental Reports and Communications Packet #2 by the City Manager; to adopt the City Manager referral as submitted in Supplemental Reports and Communications Packet #1 from Councilmember Robinson; and to refer the comments from the DBA and the TBID to the City Manager.
Resolution Adopting the Resolution of Intention of Amendment to the Miscellaneous CalPERS Contract Pursuant to California Government Code 20516; Adopt First Ordinance Reading authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Berkeley and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System From: City Manager
Recommendation:
1. Adopt the Resolution of Intention in order to approve the amendment of the contract between the Board of Administration, California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City Council for the City of Berkeley pursuant to California Government Code 20516 to effectuate changes to the cost sharing agreement between the City and PEPRA members of Service Employee International Union, Local 1021 Maintenance and Clerical (SEIU MC), Public Employees Union Local 1 (Local 1), Community Services & Part-Time Recreation Leaders Associations Local 1021 (SEIU CSU/PTRLA), and the Unrepresented Employees Group.
2. Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending the City’s contract with CalPERS to effectuate changes to the cost sharing agreement between the City and PEPRA members of Service Employee International Union, Local 1021 Maintenance and Clerical (SEIU MC), Public Employees Union Local 1 (Local 1), Community Services & Part-Time Recreation Leaders Associations Local 1021 (SEIU CSU/PTRLA), and the Unrepresented Employees Group.
Financial Implications: See report.
Contact: Donald E. Ellison, Interim Director of Human Resources, 981-6807 Action: 2 speakers. M/S/C (Arreguin/Wengraf) to adopt Resolution No. 70,242– N.S. and to adopt first reading of Ordinance No. 7,801-N.S. Second reading scheduled for March 8, 2022.
Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Taplin, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Bartlett, Droste.
126
Action Calendar – New Business
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 13
28. Resolution Adopting the Resolution of Intention of Amendment to the Miscellaneous CalPERS Contract Pursuant to California Government Code 20516
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution of Intention in order to approve the amendment of the contract between the Board of Administration, California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City Council for the City of Berkeley pursuant to California Government Code 20516 to effectuate changes to the cost sharing agreement between the City and PEPRA members of Service Employee International Union, Local 1021 Maintenance and Clerical (SEIU MC), Public Employees Union Local 1 (Local 1), Community Services & Part-Time Recreation Leaders Associations Local 1021 (SEIU CSU/PTRLA), and the Unrepresented Employees Group.
Council adopted Resolution #70,156-N.S. at its December 14, 2021 meeting authorizing an amendment to the City’s CalPERS Miscellaneous contract. Council must now pass a Resolution of Intention in order to approve the amendment to the contract between the City and the Board Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System
Financial Implications: See Report.
Contact: Don Ellison, Human Resources, (510) 981-6807
Action: Item removed from the agenda by City Manager.
Information Reports
29. City Council Short Term Referral Process – Quarterly Update From: City Manager
Contact: Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900
Action: Received and filed.
30. Age-Friendly Berkeley Update
From: City Manager
Contact: Lisa Warhuus, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400 Action: Received and filed.
31. LPO NOD: 1325 Arch Street – Application LMSAP2021-0003 From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400 Action: Received and filed.
32. Update on the Implementation of Fair and Impartial Policing Task Force Recommendations
From: City Manager
Contact: Jennifer Louis, Police, (510) 981-5900
Action: Moved to Action Calendar. M/S/C (Arreguin/Harrison) to schedule Item 32 for the March 8, 2022 meeting.
127
Information Reports
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 14
Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Taplin, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Bartlett.
33. 2021 Year End Crime and Collision Data
From: City Manager
Contact: Jennifer Louis, Police, (510) 981-5900
Action: Scheduled for March 8, 2022.
Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda – 2 speakers.
Adjournment
Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Hahn) to adjourn the meeting.
Vote: Ayes – Kesarwani, Taplin, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Bartlett, Droste.
Adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct record of the regular session meeting held on February 22, 2022.
________________________
Mark Numainville
City Clerk
Communications
Council rules limit action on Communications to referral to the City Manager and/or Boards and Commissions for investigation and/or recommendations. All communications submitted to Council are public record.
Item #25: Support for AB 1602: Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund Act
1. Grayson Peters
2. Riya Master
3. Tomas Castro
4. Sammy Raucher
5. Stephanie Wong
6. Marisol Medina
7. Cerys Rotondo
8. Jalen Gooch
9. Kendalyn Smith
10. Samuel Groven
11. Jerry Xu
128
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 15
12. Avram Gur Arye
Item #27: Southside Complete Streets Project Conceptual Designs
13. Marc Hedlund
14. Carol Denney
City Management Not Being Truthful
15. Nathan Dahl
Plastic Bag Ordinance
16. Heather Phipps
Milvia Bike Infrastructure
17. Kendra Levine
18. Erika Shore (2)
4-Hour Parking Limits Near Gilman Street
19. Ryan Thomas on behalf of Bolt Lighting Rentals
Graffiti
20. David Lerman
Tenants Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA)
21. Elania Nanopoulos
22. Diana Bohn
23. Alan Thomsen
24. Donna Carter
Wood Burning
25. David Lerman
Keep Our Patrol Officers
26. Robin Kibby
Public Commenters
27. Barbara Gilbert
Housing Scarcity
28. Charles Clarke
Confederated Villages of Lisjan Tribe
29. Corrina Gould, Tribal Chair
Planning to Attend Meeting
30. Kirk
129
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 16
Tibetan Uprising Day
31. Tenzin Lungrig, on behalf of the Tibetan Association
Peace Teacher: Thich Nhat Hanh
32. Chimey Lee
Splitting South Berkeley
33. Diana Bohn
Accessing Infrastructure Funds
34. Dan Smuts
Heaters for the Unhoused
35. Summer Brenner
Affordable Healthcare Now
36. Senator Nancy Skinner
East Bay Community Energy
37. EBCE (2)
URL’s Only
38. Vivian Warkentin
Honoring Labor Contract Rights – SEIU 1021
39. Alberto Flores
40. Jacob Kahn
Supplemental Communications and Reports 1
Item #24: Budget Referral: South Sailing Basin Dredging
41. Robert Ofsevit
42. Nick Goyhenetche
Item #26: ZAB Appeal: 1527 Sacramento Street, Administrative Use Permit #ZP2020- 0034
43. Joyce Lewis (2)
44. Vivian Pisano
Item #27: Southside Complete Streets Project Conceptual Designs
45. Supplemental material, submitted by Councilmember Robinson Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Item #21: Budget Referral: Channing Street Bike Boulevard Improvements
46. Tom Lent
130
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 17
Item #23: Adopt a Resolution in Support of the California State Legislature Passing AB-2546, the California Resident-Designated Support Persons Act
47. Revised material, submitted by Councilmember Harrison Item #26: ZAB Appeal: 1527 Sacramento Street, Administrative Use Permit #ZP2020- 0034
48. Norman and Gina Gold
49. Anna Talamo (2)
50. Richard and Marla Faszholz
51. Kay Schwartz
52. Hillary Brooks
Item #27: Southside Complete Streets Project Conceptual Designs
53. Revised material, submitted by Public Works
54. John Caner, on behalf of the Downtown Berkeley Association
55. Alex Knox, on behalf of the Telegraph Business Improvement District
56. Charles Siegel
57. Daryl Ross
58. Julie Saxe-Taller
59. Bhima Sheridan
60. Wesley Tam
61. Telegraph for People
62. Greg Magofna, on behalf of East Bay for Everyone
63. Emily Mullin
64. Tom Lent
65. Jesse Greenspan
Supplemental Communications and Reports 3
Item #24: Budget Referral: South Sailing Basin Dredging
66. Camille Antinori
67. Nicholas Waton
Action Calendar – New Business
Item #27: Southside Complete Streets Project Conceptual Designs
68. Jordan Burns
69. Dave Campbell, on behalf of Bike East Bay
70. Daryl Ross, on behalf of Caffe Strada
71. Ben Paulos
72. Michelle and Alex Bergtraun
73. Ryan Lau, on behalf of AC Transit
Information Reports
Item #33: 2021 Year End Crime and Collision Data
74. Charles Clarke
131
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 MINUTES Page 18
Urgency Items
Condemning Hate Speech, Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy
75. Urgent item, submitted by Mayor Arreguin
76. Eric Friedman
Adopt a Resolution in Support of Ukraine, Continued Diplomacy, and Adherence of Constitutional Procedure with Respect to Amend Conflict Amidst Ongoing Tensions
77. Urgent item, submitted by Councilmember Harrison
Resolution Adopting the Resolution of Intention of Amendment to the Miscellaneous CalPERS Contract Pursuant to California Government Code 20516; Adopt First Ordinance Reading authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Berkeley and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System
78. Urgent item, submitted by Human Resources
132
Thursday, February 24, 2022 MINUTES Page 1
B E R K E L E Y C I T Y C O U N C I L
S P E C I A L M E E T I N G M I N U T E S
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2022
5:00 P.M.
JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:
DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – RIGEL ROBINSON
DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON DISTRICT 8 – LORI DROSTE
PUBLIC ADVISORY: THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH
VIDEOCONFERENCE AND TELECONFERENCE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and the state declared emergency, this meeting of the City Council will be conducted exclusively through teleconference and Zoom videoconference. The COVID- 19 state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person and presents imminent risks to the health of attendees. Therefore, no physical meeting location will be available.
To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81503774444. If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop down menu and click on "rename" to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen.
To join by phone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (Toll Free); enter Meeting ID: 815 0377 4444.
If you wish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.
Please be mindful that the teleconference will be recorded as any Council meeting is recorded, and all other rules of procedure and decorum will apply for Council meetings conducted by teleconference or videoconference.
To submit a written communication for the City Council’s consideration and inclusion in the public record, email [email protected].
133
Thursday, February 24, 2022 MINUTES Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call: 5:04 p.m.
Present: Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin
Absent: Kesarwani, Taplin, Bartlett
Public Comment - Limited to items on this agenda only – 0 speakers CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council will convene in closed session to meet concerning the following:
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property address: 1461 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94702 Agency Negotiators: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager; Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager
Negotiating parties: City of Berkeley and Shree Jalasai Lodging, LP dba Rodeway Inn, Berkeley
Property owner: City of Berkeley
Under negotiation: Price and terms
Action: No reportable action taken.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS; GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6
Negotiators: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager, Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager, LaTanya Bellow, Deputy City Manager, Don Ellison, Interim Human Resources Director, Abe Roman, Fire Chief.
Employee Organizations: Berkeley Fire Fighters Association Local 1227, Berkeley Fire Fighters Association, Local 1227 I.A.F.F. / Berkeley Chief Fire Officers Association.
Action: No reportable action taken.
OPEN SESSION:
No reportable action taken.
Adjournment
Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Robinson) to adjourn the meeting.
Vote: Ayes – Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Kesarwani, Taplin, Bartlett, Harrison.
Adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
134
Thursday, February 24, 2022 MINUTES Page 3
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct record of the closed session meeting held on February 24, 2022.
________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
135
136
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development Manager Subject: Amendment to the Berkeley Revolving Loan Fund Administrative Plan to allow management of the COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program (RLP) by Working Solutions, a certified Community Development Financial Institution; Authorize a $60,000 contract with Working Solutions to provide technical assistance and small business support to Berkeley’s RLP participants
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt two Resolutions:
1. Approving changes to the Administrative Plan of the Berkeley Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) to allow for third party administration of the COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program (RLP).
2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a sole source contract and any amendments with Working Solutions, a certified Community Development Financial Institution, not to exceed $60,000 of ARPA funds to provide additional small business support and technical assistance to Berkeley’s RLP participants for the period beginning March 31, 2022 through the five-year term of the RLP loan repayments (anticipated ending date December 31, 2027).
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There is no immediate fiscal impact in approving the revised RLF Administrative Plan.
Over time, staff anticipates that the modification of the RLF Administrative Plan will result in the origination of significantly more loans from the RLP program and an increased economic benefit to the City as a whole due to the potential creation of new Berkeley businesses and business licenses. The RLP program was established in July 2020 with funds from the federal CARES Act Recovery Assistance Grant. The $60,000 contract for small business support and technical assistance to RLP participants will be underwritten in full by funds from the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).1 1 A portion of Berkeley’s ARPA funds were identified for small business support and approved by the Berkeley City Council with the FY22 Budget, June 29, 2021.
137
Revisions to the Berkeley Revolving Loan Fund Administrative Plan CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In July of 2020, the City of Berkeley was granted $814,000 of Economic Development Administration (EDA) Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act recovery assistance funding to administer and provide small business loans to coronavirus-impacted businesses in Berkeley. Berkeley’s existing Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Administrative Plan and program were modified to accept the EDA CARES Act grant, and to establish a second loan fund, the COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program (RLP).2
The COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program’s (RLP) goal is to provide low interest rate loans to Berkeley businesses negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, 11 RLP loans (totaling $520,000) have been granted and disbursed to Berkeley businesses in need of support. This task was accomplished with extensive staff time from the Office of Economic Development (OED); and the loan underwriting support services from the Bay Area based non-profit, Working Solutions. Working Solutions is a certified Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) that specializes in financial services, technical support, lending, and loan servicing for small businesses.
In order to comply with the terms of the EDA CARES Act grant, the City is obligated to disburse the remaining RLP loan fund balance by July 2022, as well as service the existing 11 RLP loans. The executed RLP loans are slated to begin repaying in May of 2022; and staff has identified a critical need to increase loan servicing and lending capacity rapidly. As Working Solutions specifically provided the city (including the Loan Administration Board) with the capacity to complete the RLP loan application reviews and underwriting services for the 11 existing RLP loans, and has proven expertise administering revolving loan funds for other Bay Area cities including San Francisco and Oakland, staff recommends that the remaining balance of the RLP award be transferred to Working Solutions through a sub-grantee award agreement certified by the EDA.
By executing a sub-grantee award agreement, a qualified third party may review, approve, and service the existing and future loans in the RLP program in partnership with the City of Berkeley. The sub-grantee award agreement will not impact costs to Berkeley borrowers (RLP program participants), and additional funding will be provided in a separate contract for Working Solutions to provide enhanced technical assistance for RLP loan recipients. Together these actions will provide for a vastly improved experience for loan applicants, program participants, Loan Administration Board (LAB) advisors, and program staff.
In order to facilitate this process, the RLF Administrative Plan must be amended to allow for a third-party administrator of the RLP loan fund to be approved by the LAB 2 Addendum to the Berkeley Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Administrative Plan to augment the RLF with a COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program, Item 4, Berkeley City Council Meeting, October 17, 2020.
138
Revisions to the Berkeley Revolving Loan Fund Administrative Plan CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022
(achieved January 27, 2022), ratified by the City Council, and accepted by the U.S.
EDA, the federal governing body for all Revolving Loan Fund programs.
Loan Administration Board (LAB) Action
On January 27, 2022, the LAB reviewed and approved the proposed amendments to the RLF Administrative Plan to allow a third-party administrator to govern the origination and servicing of the RLP loans.3 The full text of the revised RLF Administrative Plan is provided (Exhibit A) and the changes to the document are noted on pages 7 and 23-25.
The modifications to the RLP lending criteria, borrower description, and loan terms, include removing the cap on number of employees (previously 50) and striking the business tenure requirement (previously 2 years). In addition, the RLP application fee has been adjusted down to $50 to align with the RLF “legacy” loan program, and the RLP interest rates have been set to be between 1-7% to align with the current interest rate set for legacy RLF loans which is set at the prime interest rate4 plus 2 points (currently 5.25%).
Next Steps
The EDA requires that the City of Berkeley, in addition to the Loan Administration Board, adopt the attached resolution presenting the revised RLF Administrative Plan which allows for a third party, Working Solutions, a qualified CDFI lender, to govern the origination and servicing of the COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program (RLP) loans.
In addition, to enhance the Berkeley borrowers lending experience, and to help provide for a successful program transfer, a new separate contract with Working Solutions must be established through the term of the existing RLP loans (5 years). The attached resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute a sole source contract and any amendments with Working Solutions, a certified Community Development Financial Institution, not to exceed $60,000 of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to provide additional small business support and technical assistance to Berkeley’s RLP participants for the period beginning March 31, 2022 through December 31, 2027.
BACKGROUND
In 1980, the City of Berkeley received a $500,000 grant from the EDA, a federal agency operating underneath the auspices of the Department of Commerce. The grant was issued to administer a commercial revolving loan fund to all eligible small businesses in the fund’s Target Area, which at the time of the award was a small geographic area of approximately 35 blocks in South Berkeley. Since then, the program has expanded twice geographically, including the 2010 expansion to the City’s borders, making the loan program available to all business (including non-profits) located in the City of Berkeley.
3 Loan Administration Board, Meeting Minutes (1/27/22), motion by Board Member Illgen (M), Seconded by Board Member Shoaf (S). Vote: 7- Ayes -0 Nays -0 Abstentions. 4 View current prime rate here: https://www.bankrate.com/rates/interest-rates/prime-rate.aspx.
139
Revisions to the Berkeley Revolving Loan Fund Administrative Plan CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022
The City of Berkeley RLF program offers loans to businesses with interest rates and terms that are below market. Loans are available for use in funding business expansion, fixed assets, equipment, working capital, and real estate. As loan recipients make payments on an issued loan, these funds are used to provide additional loans to new loan recipients; in that way, the fund ‘revolves’ over time. The principal goals of the RLF are to support the creation and retention of permanent full-time jobs, facilitate investment and commercial growth, and direct economic development efforts at revitalizing commercial corridors and businesses throughout the City of Berkeley.
The LAB, a City of Berkeley Commission appointed by the Mayor and City Council, provides oversight for the RLF program. Office of Economic Development (OED) staff serves as the secretary to the LAB commission, and the LAB meetings are open to the public and subject to the Brown Act. There are special criteria for the LAB members; of the nine seated commissioners, two must have demonstrated business expertise, three must have credit and banking experience, and one must be a lawyer. The LAB outlines policy, guidelines and lending criteria articulated in the Berkeley RLF Administrative Plan based on EDA’s Terms and Conditions. Final approval for all loans, including determination of the loan amount, rests with the LAB, informed by recommendations issued from a contracted third-party underwriter. The maximum allowable size of any one loan can only be 25% of the RLF’s capital base at the time of the loan.
The loan fund is designed as a tool for equitable economic development; ideal borrowers are businesses that provide services or jobs for people in low-income communities, and women- and minority-owned businesses. The fund is primarily intended to provide financing for businesses that are unable to secure traditional private financing. In 2019, the City Council approved an addendum to the RLF Administrative Plan to make the RLF more accessible to worker owned cooperatives seeking to obtain financing.5 With the outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 many Berkeley businesses faced revenue shortfalls that compromised their ability to cover operating expenses like payroll, rent, loan payments, and utilities. To respond, the City of Berkeley applied for a federal EDA CARES Act Recovery Assistance Grant to further capitalize the City’s existing RLF program.
On July 29, 2020 the City of Berkeley was granted $814,000 of EDA CARES Act funding to further capitalize and administer the RLF to provide small business loans to coronavirus-impacted businesses in Berkeley. Subsequently, the RLF Administrative Plan was amended and approved first by the LAB and then by the City Council and on October 17, 2020 a new program, the RLP, was established.6 The RLP’s goal is to provide low interest rate loans to Berkeley businesses negatively impacted by the 5 Referral Response: Supporting Worker Cooperatives, Item 22, Berkeley City Council Meeting, February 19, 2019
6 Addendum to the Berkeley Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Administrative Plan to augment the RLF with a COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program, Item 4, Berkeley City Council Meeting, October 17, 2020.
140
Revisions to the Berkeley Revolving Loan Fund Administrative Plan CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022
COVID-19 pandemic. To date, 11 RLP loans (totaling $520,000) have been granted and disbursed to Berkeley businesses in need of support.
Under the RLF’s Administrative Plan, up to 50% of interest payments on outstanding loans can be used to pay for program marketing or administrative costs including retaining the services of a professional underwriter. Since 2018, Working Solutions has been under contract to serve in this role. The City of Berkeley performs the loan servicing in house for the RLF loans (in collaboration with the departments of Health Housing and Community Services, Finance, and the Office of Economic Development) using software licensed from Grants Management System (GMS). The RLF Program is subject to the single audit review of the City’s federally funded programs performed by outside auditors.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
In the absence of a servicing provider and assistance through a third party, the City of Berkeley would possibly have to return the full balance of the undeployed RLP funds to the EDA grantor due to lack of capacity.
CONTACT PERSON
Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development Manager, 510-981-7536 Kieron Slaughter, Chief Strategist, Economic Innovation, 510-981-2490 Attachments:
1. Resolution
Exhibit A: Berkeley RLF Administrative Plan with revised COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program Addendum, approved by the Loan
Administration Board, January 2022.
2. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Working Solutions using ARPA funds to provide additional small business support and technical assistance to Berkeley’s COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program (RLP) participants.
141
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
APPROVING AN AMMENDMENT TO THE BERKELEY REVOLVING LOAN FUND (RLF) ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE THIRD-PARTY
ADMINISTRATION OF THE COVID-19 RESILIENCY LOAN PROGRAM (RLP) WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley received a $500,000 grant from the federal Economic Development Administration (EDA) in 1980 to administer a commercial Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) for eligible businesses in the South Berkeley Target Area; and WHEREAS, the City approved revisions to the RLF Administrative Plan in 2005 and 2010, which included two expansions of the original target lending area to the entire City; and WHEREAS, in the year 2020, the City of Berkeley received an additional $814,000 grant from the federal Economic Development Administration (EDA) funded by the CARES Act to swiftly provide low interest rate loans to Berkeley businesses negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley approved a revision to the RLF Administrative Plan in 2020, which permitted the City to create and administer the COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program (RLP) to disburse such funds; and
WHEREAS, in order to comply with the terms of the EDA CARES Act grant which funded the RLP, the City is obligated to disburse the remaining RLP loan fund balance by July of 2022, as well as service the existing 11 RLP loans which are slated to begin repaying in May of 2022; and
WHEREAS, there is critical need to increase loan servicing and lending capacity rapidly, and Working Solutions, a CDFI lender, has proven expertise administering revolving loan and grant funds for other Bay Area cities including San Francisco and Oakland, and has provided underwriting services for the 11 executed RLP loans; and WHEREAS, the remaining balance of the RLP award can be transferred to a third-party administrator through a sub-grantee award agreement certified by the EDA; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2022, the Loan Administration Board approved the recommended amendments to the RLF Administrative Plan to permit third party review, approval and servicing of the COVID-19 resiliency loan program (RLP).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley hereby approves the revised Administrative Plan for the Berkeley Revolving Loan Fund as required by the Economic Development Administration (EDA). A copy of said Plan shall be placed on file with the City Clerk.
142
Exhibits
A: Berkeley RLF Administrative Plan with revised COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program (RLP) Addendum, approved by the Loan Administration Board, January 2022
143
City of Berkeley
Revolving Loan Fund
Administrative Plan
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF BERKELEY, CA
1 1/27/2022
144
2 CITY OF BERKELEY REVOLVING LOAN FUND
ADMINSTRATIVE PLAN
EDA #07-39-02523
Approved by the Loan Administration Board,
Adopted by Berkeley City Council Resolution No. – N.S., Approved by the Economic Development Administration
145
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1: REVOLVING LOAN FUND STRATEGY Page 4
A. TARGET AREA OVERVIEW Page 4
B. THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Page 6
C. FINANCING POLICIES Page 7
D. PORTFOLIO STANDARDS AND TARGETS Page 10
E. LOAN SELECTION CRITERIA Page 10
F. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS Page 10
PART 2: REVOLVING LOAN FUND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES Page 11
A. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Page 11
B. LOAN PROCESSING PROCEDURES Page 12
1. Standard Loan Application Requirements Page 12
2. Credit Reports Page 13
3. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Lien Search Page 13
4. Appraisal Reports Page 13
5. Environmental Reviews Page 14
6. Standard Collateral Requirements Page 14
7. Standard Equity Requirements Page 15
8. Loan Write-up/ Credit Memos Page 15
9. Procedure for Loan Approvals Page 16
10. Loan Decline – Appeals Process Page 17
C. LOAN CLOSING AND DISBURSEMENT PROCEDURES Page 17
1. General Closing Requirements Page 17
2. Loan Closing Documentation Requirements Page 17
3. Loan Disbursement Requirements Page 18
D. LOAN SERVICING PROCEDURES Page 18
1. Loan Payments and Collection Procedures Page 18
2. Loan Monitoring Procedures Page 19
3. Late Payment Follow-up Procedures Page 19
4. Collection Procedures Page 19
5. Write-off Policies and Procedures Page 20
E. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES Page 20
1. Procedures for Loan Files and Record Retention Page 20
2. Procedures for Complying with EDA
• Reporting Requirements Page 21
3. Grantee Control Procedures Page 22
4. Plan Amendment Procedures Page 22
PART 3: COVID-19 RESILIENCY LOAN PROGRAM (RLP) ADDENDUM
1. Program Borrower Description Page 23
2. Program Guidelines Page 23
3. Program Criteria Page 23
4. Program Terms Page 24
List of Exhibits: Page 25
146
4 PART 1: THE REVOLVING LOAN FUND (RLF) STRATEGY
The RLF is designed to address areas of economic distress in the City of Berkeley and help implement the City’s economic development strategy for the Target Area as summarized below.
Small businesses and start-ups often are unable to access private capital for financing business expansion and improvements. Those who can meet private capital procurement requirements may do so at higher prices. In order to lessen this burden to local businesses, the RLF is designed to supplement private financing for tenant improvements and fixed assets such as equipment for businesses. Use of RLF funds in tandem with private financing can reduce the cost of private financing, thereby increasing the availability of private capital to businesses that are located in Berkeley.
A. TARGET AREA OVERVIEW
1. The Changing Economic Climate in Berkeley
At the inception of the RLF in 1980, the Target (lending) Area was exclusively in South Berkeley, where many of the City’s lowest income and minority residents were clustered.
Though South Berkeley continues to be one of the economically depressed areas in the City, poverty and unemployment are somewhat less geographically concentrated in South Berkeley than they were in the 80s, 90s, and the aughts (00s).
Expansion of the Target Area in 2011 to the full City of Berkeley did not mean that the RLF ceased lending in South Berkeley, or ceased lending to retail businesses. In fact, the opposite occurred. Once the program had a larger target area, it netted more applicants to the loan program, and increased visibility of this viable business assistance resource. In order to promote small business growth and add jobs to the Berkeley employment base, the RLF continues to need the flexibility to consider loan requests from businesses throughout all of Berkeley that have the potential to create more and better-quality jobs.
This RLF Administrative Plan update stems from a regional strategy document, Building on Our Assets1 that has been reviewed by the Economic Development Administration (EDA) and certified as a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS).2
There are also several area plans that dictate the direction of economic development activity in the City of Berkeley. Within the boundaries of the Target Area there are specific area plans in place, including:
o Adeline Corridor Plan (2020)
o Southside Plan (2011)
o Berkeley General Plan (2003)
o South Shattuck Strategic Plan (1997)
o University Avenue Strategic Plan (1996)
o West Berkeley Plan (1993)
o Downtown Plan (1990)
o South Berkeley Area Plan (1990)
o Waterfront Master Plan (1986)
1East Bay Economic Development Alliance, Building on Our Assets, Economic Development & Job Creation in the East Bay, A regional economic assessment, October 2011. See: http://www.eastbayeda.org/ebeda- assets/reports/2013/Econ%20Report_Building_on_Our_Assets_Report_2011.pdf 2 For more on the region-wide CEDS update, see: http://abag.ca.gov/planning/economic.html, 2017.
147
5 All other areas that do not fall within the area plans specified fall within the jurisdiction of the City of Berkeley’s General Plan’s Economic Development and Employment Element.
2. Target Area Resources and Assets
The commercial areas within the Target Area are primarily developed with a mix of residential and business clusters/corridors. The South Berkeley area can be characterized as neighborhood commercial districts on arterial streets: Adeline Avenue, Shattuck Avenue, Sacramento Street/San Pablo Avenue have a mix of smaller retail and service- sector businesses. Additionally, some light industrial and food processing establishments also exist along San Pablo Avenue. Research and Development (R&D) firms are highly concentrated in, but not limited to, the West Berkeley area. In the past decade, West Berkeley has experienced continued growth in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, environmental services and food processing. While there was a vested effort to attract growth in the previous (pre-2011) Target Area (South Berkeley), there was very little success in doing so. The 2011 Target Area Expansion provided an opportunity to assist these growing sectors in their development, while continuing to assist traditional retail businesses along the south Berkeley commercial corridors.
The expansion of the Target Area continues to possess a number of resources and potential opportunities for synergistic economic development and growth, including:
• Availability of commercial zoned vacant or underutilized parcels along major traffic corridors,
• Numerous commercial districts with unique tenant mixes; • Organized merchant associations in many districts of the city; • Recent and planned public improvements along major corridors and BART stations; • A high degree of community involvement and support for economic development and revitalization efforts;
• Commitment of a significant amount of City and federal resources, including the recent development projects and public improvements around the Downtown Berkeley and Ashby BART stations, transportation enhancements along San Pablo Avenue and University Avenue; and
• Availability of high quality educational and job-training resources through the neighboring University of California, the Berkeley Community College (Peralta District), and the City’s First Source employment program and other local employment training programs.
• Unique to the City of Berkeley, the neighboring University of California, Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories are major draws for high tech businesses, many of which have ongoing business relationships with both the City and the University.
3. Implementation Programs and Activities
The City is implementing the following supportive programs in the Target Area:
a) Business retention and attraction programs specific to unique commercial districts the Target Area
148
6 b) Proactively engaging with financial institutions to access private capital for business expansion and attraction
c) Encouraging participating businesses to utilize the RLF in tandem with private financing
d) Providing a list of additional resources to assist borrowers in applying for financing e) Distributing information on local employment and business assistance programs f) Informing business owners on upcoming development of key properties, relevant capital improvement programs specific to the commercial area.
B. THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
1. Objectives of the Business Development Strategy
The RLF is designed to assist in achieving the following economic development objectives and benefits for the Target Area:
• Provide financing mechanisms through which public investment will stimulate simultaneous private investment in the revitalization of commercial districts within the Target Area that otherwise would not have occurred;
• Provide a programmatic framework for the effective rehabilitation and conservation of commercial or industrial facilities;
• Provide incentives for the retention, expansion, and location of firms that will promote increased employment opportunities for residents, present a stronger non-residential tax base, and provide more opportunity for local participation in economic activities; • Increase minority enterprise development;
• Increase women-owned business development;
• Link RLF borrowers with the City's First Source Employment program to increase local hires;
• Increase the growth potential of local businesses;
• Establish linkages with the surrounding commercial area's existing economy to ensure the RLF Funds are not used as a substitute but instead as a supplement for private investment;
• Generate additional tax revenues (from increased sales etc.) for the City of Berkeley; • Assist firms in meeting local environmental standards; and • Encourage the development of vacant land and the rehabilitation of dilapidated or vacant buildings for commercial purposes.
2. Targeted Sectors
The City has targeted the following industry clusters in the Target Area for business assistance:
• Healthcare, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, biotechnology and healthcare services;
• Environmental, including environmental technology and environmental services; • Business services, including locally serving professional services, business related services, technical services, finance, and real estate services; • Light manufacturing, including food processing; and
• Retail Trade.
149
7 3. Types of Business Assistance
The Office of Economic Development (OED) assists businesses in the Target Area with a full range of local economic development activities, including:
• Attracting new businesses to the City of Berkeley in the targeted sectors by identifying and marketing vacant sites and buildings in close collaboration with the commercial real estate community.
• Assisting new businesses in obtaining permits and financing. Assistance is provided to existing businesses to expand, including assistance with financing through the RLF and other available financing.
• Referral of new and existing businesses interested in business planning to community business counseling resources such as SCORE Easy Bay andthe Alameda County Small Business Development Center (SBDC). • Providing assistance in obtaining qualified employees that are also local residents through the City’s First Source Employment Program.
• Providing technical assistance to businesses interested in the worker cooperative model as a succession plan.
C. FINANCING POLICIES
RLF loans may be made to qualifying businesses for tenant improvements, fixed assets such as equipment and machinery, working capital, and real estate transactions. Loan funds may also be used to finance the conversion of a qualifying business to worker ownership if the applicant can demonstrate that (1) the business would close, downsize, or be significantly harmed if the business does not convert to a cooperative, and (2) jobs would be retained or gained through the conversion.
1. Loan Size – The standard loan size is $35,000. The LAB may approve loan amounts larger than the standard maximum on an exception basis. The maximum individual loan size, per Economic Development Administration (EDA) program-wide policy, is to be no more than 25% of the RLF program’s capital base at the time of the loan application.
2. Interest Rates - Interest rates on loans will be fixed. The standard RLF interest rate on RLF loans will be equivalent to the prime interest rate quoted in the Wall Street Journal plus 2% at the time of loan approval by the LAB. The RLF operator will follow the state’s usury law, which determines the maximum legal interest rate. The minimum or floor interest rate for RLF loans is five percent (5 %) or seventy-five (75%) of the prime interest rate listed in the Wall Street Journal. According to 13 CFR 307.15, the only exception for the above policy is if the prime interest rate listed in the Wall Street Journal exceeds fourteen (14%) percent, the minimum RLF interest rate is not required to be raised above ten (10%) if doing so compromises the ability of the RLF program to implement the financing policy.
3. Application Fee - There will be a $250 fee for each loan application. The application fee will be credited towards the loan underwriting fee.
4. Payment Terms - Payments will generally be made monthly; however, customized payment structures may be extended to borrowers depending upon their individual cash flow needs. In the case of multiple disbursement loans for equipment or tenant improvements, there may be an interest-only period until the loan is fully disbursed, generally not more than 180 days. Temporarily reduced or deferred payments may be considered as options in structuring a workout plan.
150
8 5. Loan Terms - The standard loan terms will be 5-10 years fully amortized, depending on loan amount. In general, loan terms will not exceed the average useful life of the assets being financed. The loan term will be the lesser of the average useful life of the asset being financed or the term based upon the borrower’s ability to pay. Smaller loans will generally have shorter terms.
6. Private Leveraging/Participation - RLF recipients are highly encouraged to participate in other financing institutions’ loans and/or lines of credit. To provide context for this goal, there is an Economic Development Administration (EDA) portfolio-wide requirement in which the full RLF (all participants collectively) will leverage a minimum of two private dollars for each RLF dollar loaned. That is, the leveraging requirement applies to the portfolio as a whole rather than to the individual loan. Private “leveraging/participation” is defined as capital invested to the business by the borrower, others (partners) or financing from private entities such as banks or crowd-sourced funding.
7. Equity/Borrower Injection General Requirement - The RLF will require all borrowers to inject owner equity as a percentage of the requested loan amount; this may be in form of owner equity and/or private financing. The borrower’s equity injection should be as follows:
at least 10% of requested loan amount for existing businesses and at least 20% of requested loan amount for startup businesses. In the case of a worker cooperative, the RLF will allow a group of principals to produce 10% of the equity for an existing cooperative or a business converting to a cooperative, or 20% for a startup cooperative. Additionally, startup business will be required to demonstrate significant industry experience or the equivalent. They will also be required to provide a secondary source of repayment and a complete business plan.
Exceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis depending upon the particular project.
In general, existing equity or existing cash injection into the business indicates a reasonable level of commitment to the business; therefore, consideration will be given to existing equity in determining new equity required as a result of the project being financed.
8. Collateral- Collateral pledged and personal guarantees for each loan will depend upon the loan amount, the overall risk of the credit, and the availability of personal and business assets to be pledged as collateral. Loans will be secured by collateral to the maximum extent possible to ensure an adequate secondary source of repayment. Generally, collateral pledged through UCC-1 filings for RLF loans shall not be pledged to other lenders or for other obligations of a business.
9. Credit Memorandums - Each application will be reviewed for standard underwriting criteria. A credit memorandum summarizing the applicant’s satisfaction of the criteria will be presented to the Loan Administration Board (LAB) prior to board consideration of loan approval. Generally, the credit memo will address the following qualities: location in the Target Area, management ability, market feasibility, primary source of repayment, secondary source of repayment, leverage, environmental issues, job creation, worker ownership opportunities, credit history, and the project or applicant's overall economic impact. Credit memorandums will also address other program requirements, such as the ratio of funds loaned to jobs created. Such memorandums may be prepared by consultants under contract to the City and supervised by the OED.
151
9 10. Financing Restrictions – RLF Capital may not be used to:
a) Acquire an equity position in a private business;
b) Subsidize interest payments on an existing loan;
c) Provide the equity contribution required of borrowers under other Federal loan programs;
d) Enable a borrower to acquire an interest in a business, either through the purchase of stock or through the acquisition of assets, unless the need for RLF financing is sufficiently justified and documented in the loan write-up/credit memo. Acceptable justification could include acquiring a business to substantially save it from imminent foreclosure, or acquiring it to facilitate a significant expansion or increased investment, or acquiring it by the workers to convert the business to a worker cooperative;
e) Provide loans to a borrower for the purpose of investing in interest bearing accounts, certificates of deposit or other investment not related to the objectives of the RLF;
f) Refinance debt unless:
1. The loan application is determined “exempt” by EDA.
2. It is sufficiently documented in the attendant credit memo that the RLF loan is not replacing private capital solely for the purpose of reducing the risk of loss to an existing lender(s), or
3. An RLF loan is used to purchase the rights of a prior lien holder during an in- process foreclosure action in order to preclude a significant loss on an RLF loan. This action may be undertaken only if there is a high probability of receiving compensation within 18 months from the sale of assets sufficient to cover the RLF’s expenses plus a reasonable portion of the outstanding loan obligation
g) Finance any activity that serves to relocate jobs from one commuting area to another. (A commuting area is that area defined by the distance people travel to work to and from the Berkeley area) unless:
1. The applicant has moved or will move into the Target Area for reasons unrelated to RLF assistance;
2. The applicant has relocated to the Target Area prior to the date of the applicant’s request for RLF assistance;
3. The applicant will expand employment in the Target Area substantially beyond employment in the area where the business was originally located;
4. The applicant is relocating from technologically obsolete facilities to remain competitive;
5. The applicant is expanding into the new area by adding a branch affiliate of subsidiary while maintaining employment levels in the old area(s);
Additionally, all businesses that receive an RLF loan will sign First Source hiring agreements with the City as part of the standard loan contract procedure. The hiring agreement with ensure that businesses utilize the City of Berkeley’s First Source Program for the recruitment, referral, and consideration of Berkeley applicants for new and replacement employment.
152
10 D. PORTFOLIO STANDARDS AND TARGETS
1. Lending Targets
The goal of the RLF is to target industry clusters to produce the following ranges for allocation of the portfolio:
• Healthcare, environmental services, business services: 50-65% • Light industry: 10-35%
• Retail: 15-25%
An additional goal of the RLF is to allocate a minimum of 10% of the portfolio to worker cooperatives or businesses converting to democratic worker ownership.
A maximum of 25% of the portfolio shall be loaned to start-up businesses. Exceptions made to exceed this target shall be made only in situations where repayment is guaranteed through a very strong collateral position. Worker cooperatives shall not be considered start-ups for purposes of this section.
2. Private Investment Leveraging Ratio
As specified in the EDA Terms and Conditions, the portfolio shall maintain a private leverage ratio of 2:1, or $2 of private dollars or funds to every $1 in EDA funding.
3. Cost per Job
a. Every project shall have a new job creation or jobs saved component. b. The portfolio shall target a cost per job ratio of $20,000 or less. c. The maximum cost per job for any single loan will generally not exceed $30,000.
E. LOAN SELECTION CRITERIA
Priority in processing loan applications will be given to applications that further the targeting of RLF funds as outlined above. Loan applications will be considered for processing, if:
1. Staff can demonstrate credit worthiness based upon the financing policies of this plan;
2. The project is consistent with the business development strategy;
3. The loan will meet program goals to facilitate in the creation of higher paying, higher skilled, private sector jobs, diversify and strengthen the economy, and stimulate private investment. Priority will be given to those projects that provide the highest economic benefit, which may be evidenced by creation of worker-owned jobs; and
4. The loan is consistent with the goal of maintaining a diversified portfolio.
F. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The portfolio goals will be monitored at the time of the semi-annual report to EDA. If targets are out of line or a trend is noticed in this direction, these trends will be analyzed to determine if any modifications to the Plan and/or portfolio are required. This will be accomplished by utilizing the current database software that is utilized to generate the EDA report.
The EDA Administrative Plan will be reviewed annually as part of the annual certification.
Changes will be made to the plan as deemed appropriate to ensure the plan is consistent with the area’s current economic development strategy and that the RLF is being operated in accordance with policies and procedures contained in the approved plan. (13 CFR 308.14).
153
11 PART 2: REVOLVING LOAN FUND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND
OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
A. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
1. Overview
The City’s Office of Economic Development Department (OED) is responsible for the implementation of the program and administration of the RLF. An RLF Program Manager, under the general direction of the Economic Development Manager, is responsible for responsible for developing, completing, coordinating, and servicing the loans generated by the RLF. OED staff works closely with private lenders to secure financing for businesses in coordination with City financing mechanisms. The City of Berkeley will provide referral assistance to RLF clients for services, including loan packaging and business counseling, and to coordinate technical assistance resources including assistance from banks, colleges, minority business development assistance centers, business development organizations and trade associations. The OED is responsible for receiving payments of all RLF loans using standard loan servicing software. The Program Manager provides monthly reports, upon request, on the status of all outstanding loans to OED Manager and the EDA for monitoring purposes.
2. Loan Administration Board (LAB)
The Loan Administration Board will generally schedule meetings “as needed”, and will agree to review transactions requiring quick action on an “as needed” basis.
Organizational and operational matters, including loan decisions, will be made by a majority vote of the appointed members of the Board. A quorum will exist whenever at least half of appointed members are in attendance. However, at least one LAB member with financing experience (similar to the type of loans to be made) must be present for each loan decision. No loan will be committed, no major loan modification or waiver agreed to, no loan foreclosure action initiated without formal prior review and comment (in the form of LAB minutes) of the Loan Board. Staff will recommend on interest rates, terms and conditions for all loans. The LAB will make the final determination on the pricing and other terms of all loans from the RLF.
3. Conflict of Interest
No officer, employee, or member of the City Council, LAB or other City board or commission that advises, approves, recommends or otherwise participates in decisions concerning loans or the use of RLF funds, or person related to the officer, another employee, or any member of the City Council, LAB or other City board or commission by immediate family, law, or business arrangement, may receive any benefits resulting from the use of RLF loan or grant funds.
In addition, the City may not lend RLF funds to an employee of the City or any member of the City Council, or the LAB. Former board members and members of his or her immediate family shall not receive a loan from the RLF for a period of two (2) years from the date that board member last served on the board. Immediate family is defined as domestic partner or significant other, parents, grandparents, siblings, children and
154
12 grandchildren, but does not include more distant relatives, including cousins, unless they live in the same household.
Exception: A benefit or loan may be conferred if the officer, employee, LAB member, City Council member or other board or commission member affected first discloses to the City on the public record the proposed or potential benefit and receives the City Attorney’s written determination that the benefit involved is not so substantial as to reflect adversely upon or affect the integrity of the RLF’s decision process or of the services of the officer, employee, or member of the City Council, LAB or other City board or commission. LAB members are responsible for disclosing any possible conflict of interest that may exist with respect to a particular action of the LAB, and recusing themselves from all relevant votes on said loan as appropriate.
An officer, employee, or member of the City Council, LAB or other board or commission shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment or any other thing of monetary value, for him or herself or for another person, from any person or organization seeking to obtain a loan or any portion of the RLF funds. Former LAB members and/or officers are ineligible to apply for or receive loan or grant funds for a period of one year from the date of termination of his/her services.
Loan board members that have other professional relationships (i.e., a banker with loan to borrower) with a prospective borrower cannot be present for deliberations, but may respond to questions from other members of the LAB, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. All LAB members will be required to comply with local and state conflict of interest policies and filing requirements (see: 13 CFR 300.3).
B. LOAN PROCESSING PROCEDURES
1. Standard Application Requirements
Each potential borrower will be required to initially complete the City’s standard loan application. Staff will review the application to determine if it meets the general intent and purpose of the RLF. In evaluation of applicants, staff will consider whether the project/loan:
• Meets the targeting criteria and is in one of the targeted clusters • Demonstrates a reasonable assurance of repayment
• Is consistent with the portfolio job/cost ratio established for the RLF Potential borrowers are required to submit the following documents (as applicable) with their loan application:
Financial Statement – Prior 3 years and current within 90 days, including:
• Balance Sheets
• Income/Expense Statement
• Articles of Incorporation/By Laws or Partnership Agreement (If Applicable) • Resume(s) of Principal(s) (normally those with 20% ownership or more; worker cooperatives with no 20% or more owner shall submit resumes for all members) • Certificate of Good Standing (corporations only)
Pro Forma Financial Projections - including:
• 1- year Income/Cash Flow Statement (Month to Month)
• Additional 2 years Cash Flow Projections
155
13 • Explanation of the underlying assumption supporting the cashflow projections
Aging of Accounts Receivable and Payable- including:
• Accounts aging within 90 days and list of vendors and addresses and account numbers for any accounts over 30 days.
Schedule of Business Debts- including:
• original amount of debt,
• current balance outstanding,
• payment amount(s),
• interest rate,
• collateral,
• status (current/delinquent)
Individual Federal Income Tax Return – (if proprietorship or partnership) Business Federal Income Tax Return – Prior year.
IRS Form 4506 (Request for Copy of Tax Return)
Verification of business space- including:
• (i.e. Deed of Trust, Lease/Rental Agreement, Purchase Agreement as applicable)
Agreement of Landlord (for tenant improvement loans)
Proof of Hazard and Liability Insurance
Appraisals or independent evaluations on assets offered as collateral Evidence of Private Lender Commitment or Denial of funds letter(s) Proof of Berkeley Business License
Borrowers shall be approved based upon a reasonable assurance and determination of repayment ability and potential economic benefits to the community, i.e., number and quality of jobs they will create, worker ownership opportunities created, amount of taxes generated, extent to which they expand a targeted industry cluster and relation to other businesses and services.
2. Credit Reports
Standard commercial and personal credit reports on all principals owning 20% or more of a business under consideration for a loan and the business will be ordered and reviewed by the contracted underwriting party. In the case of a worker cooperative with no members owning more than 20%, a credit report on multiple designated members, whose interests together equal 50% or more, shall be ordered and reviewed. Adverse credit deficiencies that would cause the underwriter to question the ability and or willingness of the potential borrower to repay the loan will be deemed a valid reason for declining the request. A summary review of the results of the credit reports shall be a part of the loan write-up.
3. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Lien Search and/or Title Report A UCC search may be completed to determine any existing liens, where personal property is being taken as security (i.e. equipment, or business assets). A real estate title report may be required in those instances where real property is being taken as collateral.
156
14 4. Appraisal Reports
Appraisal reports or other valuation determinations may be obtained, where existing fixed assets and/or real properties are being used as primary collateral. If completed appraisals will utilize qualified appraisers having expertise appropriate to the assets being pledged.
5. Environmental Reviews
The RLF Administrator with the assistance of appropriate staff, shall assess the significance of all environmental impacts of activities to be financed in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other Federal environmental mandates, as per the Assurances (SF 424D as revised) executed with the Economic Development Administration (EDA). No activity shall be financed which would result in a significant adverse environmental impact unless the impact is to be mitigated to the point of insignificance. When necessary to ensure compliance, any required mitigation shall be made part of the loan conditions.
No project shall be approved which would result in the alteration of or have an adverse impact on any wetland without prior consultation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and, if applicable, obtaining a section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Consistent with E.O. 11988, no project shall be approved which would result in new above ground development in a 100-year flood plain. This determination will be made by reviewing the proposed development against FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
The State Historic Preservation Officer, (SHPO) shall be notified of each loan proposal that involves significant new construction or expansion and asked to submit comments on the effect of the proposed activity on historic and archaeological resources. The RLF Administrator shall work with the SHPO and EDA in cases where the SHPO has recommended actions or has been determined an adverse impact.
All loan applicants shall be requested to provide information indicating whether or not there was hazardous materials such as EPA listed (see 40 CFR 300), hazard substances, leaking underground storage tanks, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), or other hazardous materials on site that have been improperly handled and have the potential of endangering public health. If deemed necessary, loan applicants may be required to perform or provide evidence of a Phase I site assessment to identify possible sources of contamination, a Phase II site assessment to test soil and/or groundwater samples, and a Phase III site remediation involving mitigation of applicable contaminants. In cases where there are unresolved site contamination issues, the RLF Administrator shall work with the loan applicant and the appropriate state environmental agency office to resolve these outstanding issues.
6. Standard Collateral Requirements
Loans will be secured to the fullest extent possible to protect the interests of the RLF as a secondary source of repayment. Loans may be secured with the following types of assets:
157
15 • Real property
• Machinery & equipment
• Inventory
• Accounts Receivable
• Stock pledges
• Patents and other intellectual properties
• Securities
• Intangibles
• Personal and/or corporate guarantees
A personal guarantee will be required of any principal having a 20% or more ownership in the company being considered; it shall also be required of the principal(s) trust(s) deemed to be controlled by him or her. In the case of worker cooperatives in which no single member has a 20% or more ownership interest, the cooperative shall designate multiple members, whose interests together equal 50% or more, to provide a limited (several) personal guarantee. This ownership panel shall be submitted to the LAB as an Exhibit.
The panel may be amended over time, allowing for release of liability if a member leaves the cooperative, so long as the cooperative substitutes the personal guarantee of another member. The cooperative shall update the LAB on any amendment to the ownership panel, but no amendment to the Loan Agreement will be required. Personal guarantees may be collateralized with liens or property. Appropriate hazard and liability insurance shall be required, and key man life insurance shall be considered depending on the size and nature of the transaction and the health and ages of the principals. The City of Berkeley shall be named as a Loss Payee on the appropriate insurance policies. Trust deeds may be obtained and supported by lenders title policies in those cases where real property is pledged as collateral. Liens on all personal property will be perfected by UCC-1 filings.
UCC searches will be conducted to determine encumbrances and to ensure the RLF obtains desired lien position. All RLF program funding is subject to the Davis-Bacon Act and Related Acts, which establishes a requirement for paying the local prevailing wages on public works projects for laborers, unless the EDA determines that loan amounts are so de minimis that property cannot be purchased or renovated with the loan.
7. Standard Equity Requirements
Existing businesses may be required to inject at least 20% of the requested loan amount; start-up businesses are required to inject at least 20% of the requested loan amount.
Assets (e.g. equipment), which are added to a project from outside sources, may be considered part of the equity investment, provided they are lien free.
8. Loan Write-Up/Credit Memos
Written loan presentations (“credit memos”) to the Loan Administration Board will contain at a minimum the following information:
1. Evidence that the Borrower is in the Target Area approved by EDA.
2. Recommendation: Support funding recommendation based on analysis of the business' industry, its place in that industry, financial analysis, and ability to repay.
3. Findings: Indicate if borrower is eligible, under criteria established in the RLF Plan and EDA Grant Agreement.
4. Description of Business
158
16 5. Background and History of Business Operation: Describe the history and background of the business, including a brief industry analysis.
6. Detailed description of the borrower; i.e., is it a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, list owners and their percentage of the business.
7. List of names and relationships of the guarantors to the owners of the business as appropriate.
8. Provide loan details:
(a) Loan Request: State the amount of the request and state the recommended monthly amortization and term.
(b) Interest: Indicate the rate, specifying a fixed rate. (c) Use of Funds by category.
(d)
9. Purpose: Describe in detail the purpose of the loan by category, i.e., fixed asset financing, tenant improvements, etc. Be specific about sources and uses of proceeds to complete the project. Any proposed exceptions to loan policies need to be explained.
10. Credit Report: Indicate the results of the credit reports obtained on the principals, guarantors, and company.
11. Financial Analysis: Indicate the source of information for the analysis. Describe the company's financial performance as reflected by its financial statements, with special emphasis on revenues and operating income, leverage, cash flow, and debt capacity. Projection should be consistent with historical performance unless there is an extraordinary event such as a new contract. Any significant changes in financial positions or performance of the company must be explained.
12. Personal Financial Analysis: Write an analysis of the principal's and guarantor(s) personal financial statements. Any significant changes in financial position or performance must be explained.
13. Collateral: Describe the collateral pledged for this loan, and indicate the secured position of the RLF. If property is being pledged, show the present market value and the net equity available for all properties pledged. Date of appraisal, name of appraiser and loan to value must also be included.
14. Job/Cost Ratio: Divide the total loan amount by the number of jobs saved and/or created as a result of this loan. Recall, that the RLF program is subject to the Davis- Bacon Act and Related Acts, applying to contractors and subcontractors performing on federally funded or assisted contracts in excess of $2,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair (including painting and decorating) of public buildings or public work.
15. Public Benefit: Describe the benefit of this loan in terms of jobs retained and/or created. Indicate the value of this borrower to the community. Specify whether this loan would create or preserve worker-owned jobs. Jobs saved are defined as jobs that would be imminently lost without RLF assistance.
16. Environmental Problems: Discuss any environmental review in connection with the loan, including, any City environmental review and the results of any required Phase I or Phase II environmental study. Attach an environmental checklist or other review that is relevant to consideration of the loan. Indicate what actions the borrower must take to comply with any environmental findings or requirements.
159
17 9. Procedure for Loan Approvals
When a loan is approved, staff will draft a memo stipulating the terms of approval and obtain the signature of the chairperson of the Loan Administration Board. The minutes of the LAB meeting shall reflect this approval and be circulated to all members of the Loan Board. RLF staff shall be directed to prepare and send a commitment letter with a time expiration date signed by the Manager of Economic Development to the prospective borrower, stating the terms and conditions of the committed loan consistent with the written credit memo to the LAB, and any provisions or changes recommended by the LAB.
It shall also state "this commitment is based on the fact that there have been no material adverse changes in the credit condition of the borrower since statements and information has been submitted to the RLF. If any such material adverse changes have taken place, this commitment is void and not in effect."
10. Loan Decline – Appeal Process
The LAB will act upon recommendations for loan approval with the knowledge that the due diligence and underwriting on each loan has been completed, and upon reliance that the financial exhibits provided in the application are correct. Where a loan is denied by the LAB, an applicant may request further review by the LAB if the applicant can provide additional information that addresses the concerns of the LAB about the proposed loan.
However, LAB decisions on loans are final and binding and cannot be appealed to the City Council.
C. LOAN CLOSING AND DISBURSEMENT PROCEDURES
1. General Closing Requirements
a. Proof of equity, such as current bank account statements showing the needed funds on deposit, will be required for all loans requiring an equity injection; b. If existing debt is being converted to equity, or subordinated, evidence such as a subordination agreement, the original note, the conversion agreement, corporate resolutions and copies of shares issued will be required.
Where another lender is involved in the financing of a business an inter-creditor agreement setting forth the respective rights of the parties shall be required where appropriate for the protection for the RLF.
2. Loan Closing Documentation Requirements
a. All loans will require a promissory note and a loan agreement. b. All loan documents will be reviewed and approved by the Office of the City Attorney prior to loan closing.
c. Sole proprietorships using a “doing business as/dba” will be required to provide copies of fictitious name filings.
d. Partnerships will be required to provide copies of the partnership agreements and buyout agreements if applicable.
e. Corporations will normally be required to provide copies of the Articles of Incorporation, By Laws, certificates of good standing, and corporate resolution to borrow.
f. All loans will require a security agreement where personal property secures a loan.
160
18 g. Perfection of collateral will require UCC-1 filings on equipment and fixtures, inventory and receivables, recording deeds of trust on real property, and certificates of title or stock registration, as appropriate. h. UCC searches will be performed before loan board review to determine position.
UCC searches may also be performed after loan closing and UCC filings to confirm that the desired lien position was actually obtained. i. Borrower will be advised if Lenders Title insurance will be required for all financed real property.
j. Borrower will be advised if vehicle titles will be required to show the City of Berkeley as lien holder. If a third party owns the collateral, hypothecation and assignment agreements shall be required.
k. All principals with 20% or more ownership (or multiple worker cooperative members who together own 50% or more) will normally be required to provide continuing guarantees, and subordination agreements, as appropriate.
l. Inter-creditor Agreement, if necessary, to preclude prior lien holder from increasing debt, and/or to delineate collateral and responsibilities of lenders. m. Prior to closing, the borrower will present the required hazard and liability insurance policies, and any other insurance coverage such as key life insurance, as required
n. Lease assignments will be taken as appropriate.
The Loan Agreement shall contain covenants that shall require the borrower to comply with Federal statutory and regulatory requirements that apply to activities carried out with RLF loans. The Loan Agreement shall contain a provision to protect and hold the Federal government harmless from and against all liabilities that the Government may incur as a result of providing an award to assist (directly or indirectly) in site preparation or construction as well as the renovation or repair of any facility or site. This applies to the extent that such liabilities are incurred because of ground water, surface, soil or other conditions caused by operations of the RLF Recipient or any of its predecessors on the property. The Loan Agreement shall also include a list of the Federal requirements that apply to RLF Borrowers as provided in the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration Revolving Loan Fund Standard Terms and Conditions.
3. Loan Disbursement Requirements
a. The borrower will certify in the loan agreement that the funds are to be used for the purposes intended as specified in the loan application. A positive covenant shall be included in the loan agreement stating the purpose of the loan. A breach of this covenant shall be deemed an event of default and the loan may be called. b. In instances where construction is in progress, a building control account may be established as necessary to avoid mechanics liens.
D. LOAN SERVICING PROCEDURES
1. Loan Payment and Collection Procedures
The Office of Economic Development (OED) staff, including the RLF program manager, will provide borrowers with payment coupons annually and upon request, receive and deposit loan and interest payments into an interest bearing RLF bank account, and, upon
161
19 request, advise OED Department Manager when funds are received. Additionally, upon request, the RLF Program Manager will provide monthly reports of disbursements, receipts of interest and principal and any past due accounts. Timely notification of any payment due and not paid will be provided to borrowers.
Late fees (which will be incorporated in the body of the Promissory note) shall be 5% of the payment outstanding and begin accruing on the next calendar day after the payment is due. If the loan is past due more than 15 business days, late fees shall commence.
2. Loan Monitoring Procedures
a. Annual financial statements (defined to include a balance sheet and profit and loss statement, compiled by an independent accountant or certified by the chief financial officer and president) may be required on all loans. RLF staff shall monitor these and other dated requirements such as insurance renewals, and UCC renewals. If documents are not received on a timely basis as stipulated by the Loan Agreement, designated staff will be responsible for correcting the deficiency. Provisions will be made in the Loan Agreement that audited statements may be required. b. OED staff may visit each borrower on an as needed basis to determine whether the business is in line with its stated business plan. Each visit will be documented by memorandum, and will contain a summary of the progress the business is making (or not making) from a marketing and financial perspective, as well as an assessment of the business' future. This report shall be provided to the LAB. c. As part of the required semi-annual reports, jobs saved/created data will be compiled by OED staff and supplied to the EDA. All jobs will be reported in full time equivalents. d. All other required loan documentation and special provisions will be monitored by OED staff.
3. Late Payment Follow-up Procedures
a. Upon being advised that a payment due was not made, RLF staff will contact the borrower promptly to determine the problem, if any exists. b. The loan servicer will send a written notice of delinquent payment 5 working days after due date with notification of late penalty, and will notify the RLF staff in writing. c. RLF staff will send a second written notice 30 days after the due date. d. RLF staff will send a third written notice 60 days after the due date. e. RLF staff will send a fourth written notice 90 days after the due date. f. During the first 30 days of delinquency, written and oral communication, as well as site visits by RLF staff will be utilized to resolve the delinquency. g. If, after 90 days a delinquency still exists and the loan has not been renegotiated or brought current, the loan will generally be determined to be in default and recovery of the security will commence.
h. Any renegotiation of loan terms to remedy a default must be approved the LAB. i. If at any time during this 90-day period, the Economic Development Manager believes that the borrower cannot or will not bring the loan current, with Loan Administrative Board approval, RLF staff can declare the loan in default and begin recovery against collateral, if deemed appropriate.
4. Collection Procedures
162
20 The RLF staff will work to exercise all rights and privileges of a lender in order to collect the proceeds on delinquent loans. To ensure that the delinquent loan is collected in an appropriate, efficient, and timely manner, staff will:
a. Prepare a plan of action with guidance by the Loan Administrative Board for collecting the loan and taking action against the collateral.
b. Make sure all required loan documentation is in order. c. Consult with the City Attorney on all default notices and collection efforts and to insure that no laws or regulations will be violated by the collection effort and that all legally required actions are taken.
d. Contact all other co-lenders as appropriate.
e. List defaulted or chronically delinquent loans with credit bureaus. f. Notify the guarantors of the default and put them on notice that they are expected to make payment, in full, upon demand.
g. Begin collection procedures and/or asset liquidation process.
5. Write-off Policy and Procedures
Loans with an outstanding balance that have been placed in default and remain outstanding after 180 days will generally be written off. However, collection efforts will continue until determined not to be cost effective or prospects for recovery no longer exist.
A reasonable loss through defaults will be considered without establishing a loan loss reserve. All write-offs must be directed to the City’s Finance Department for approval by the City Council.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
1. Procedures for Loan Files and Record Retention
All original primary loan documents will be maintained in the Loan/Collateral file, which will be stored in a secure location by the City Clerk. This file will contain the original note(s), loan agreement, collateral perfection documents (UCC-1 filings, deeds of trust, etc.), and all other original legal documents. All files will be filed and recorded as specified by the EDA Terms and Conditions. Each individual borrower will have a loan file consisting of two items: i) a credit file and ii) an application file.
The Credit File will contain copies of the appropriate legal documents needed to monitor the loan, as well as the original credit memo to the LAB, financial statements and tax returns, credit reports, personal financial statements, a copy of the commitment letter, copies of proof of insurance, site visit memorandum, job reports, and any other correspondence relating to the relationship between the borrower and the RLF. A chronological record shall be maintained recording all significant events by date with a brief description.
The Application File shall be established to contain the original application, business plan, financials, business plan evaluation, and any other documentation provided to evaluate the application. Every effort will be made to maintain confidentiality of applicant records/applications. There will be a public file which will can be reviewed by the public with all personal information (eg. Social Security numbers, loan and credit card numbers redacted. A private file that will include all documentation including, but not limited to, application, credit memorandum, third party evaluations and non- confidential reports and
163
21 UCC-1 filings.
Record Retention Loan files and related documents and records must be retained for the life of the loan and for a seven-year period from the date of final disposition of the loan. The City will maintain four different kinds of file records: 1) an application file, 2) a loan file, 3) a decline file and 4) a closed loan file. This will ensure that we have records of all decisions made by the LAB for public review. The date of final disposition of the loan is defined as the date of: (a) Full payment of the principal, interest, fees, penalties, and other costs associated with the loan; or (b) Final settlement or write- off of any unpaid amounts associated with the loan
Administrative records The OED staff or loan servicer must maintain adequate accounting records and source documentation to substantiate the amount and percent of RLF income expended for eligible RLF administrative costs and retain records of administrative costs incurred for activities and equipment relating to the operation of the RLF for five years from the date the costs were claimed.
The loan servicers must also make any retained records, even those retained for longer than the period described, available for inspection. The record retention periods, described above, are minimum periods and such prescription is not intended to limit any other record retention requirement of law or agreement.
2. Procedures for Complying with EDA Reporting Requirements The RLF program will follow the EDA guidelines articulated in the Revolving Loan Funds Capital Utilization Standard Program. During the ‘revolving phase’, the City of Berkeley must manage their repayment and lending schedules to provide that at all times at least seventy- five (75%) percent of their RLF capital is loaned or committed.
When the percentage of loaned RLF capital falls below the application capital utilization percentage, the dollar amount of the RLF funds equivalent to the difference between the actual percentage of RLF capital loaned and the applicable capital utilization percentage is referred to as “excess funds.”
Sequestration of excess funds If the City of Berkeley fails to satisfy the applicable utilization percentage requirements for two (2) consecutive reporting periods, EDA may require the City to deposit excess funds in an interest- bearing account. The portion of interest earned on the account holding excess funds attributable to the Federal Share of the RLF Grant shall be remitted to the U.S. Treasury. The City must obtain EDA’s written authorization to withdraw any sequestered funds.
Persistent non-compliance The City, as a long standing RLF program administrator, will generally be allowed a reasonable period of time (as determined by EDA) to lend excess funds and achieve the applicable capital utilization percentage. However, if the City fails to achieve the applicable capital utilization percentage after a reasonable period of time, as determined by EDA, it may be subject to sanctions such as suspension or termination.
Loan Default Rates The EDA shall monitor the City’s loan default rate to ensure proper
164
22 protection of the Federal Share of the RLF property, and request information from the City as necessary to determine whether it is collecting loan repayments and complying with the financial obligations under the RLF Grant.
Such information may include:
• A written analysis of the City’s portfolio, which shall consider the Recipient’s business plan, loan and collateral policies, loan services and collection policies and procedures, the rate of growth of the RLF Capital Base, and detailed information on any loan in default; and
• A corrective action plan subject to EDA’s approval, which shall include specific actions the RLF recipient must take to reduce the loan default rate; and • A quarterly status report indicating the City’s progress on achieving the milestones outlined in the corrective action plan.
Failure to provide the information requested and to take steps to protect the Federal Share may subject the City to enforcement action under §307.21 and the terms and conditions of this grant. A collection account has been established and maintained in coordination with the City Attorney and the City’s Finance Department in accordance with City regulations governing collections.
3. Grantee Control Procedures
RLF staff shall, periodically review the loan files to determine if they are consistent, complete and correct. All accounts, books, records and loan files shall be reviewed and audited in accordance with City Auditor standards, and Federal Administrative and Audit Standards.
4. Plan Amendment Procedures
Any changes to this Administrative Plan must be approved by the LAB and City Council and shall be submitted to the EDA in writing for approval consistent with requirements of the EDA.
165
23 PART 3: COVID-19 RESILIENCY LOAN PROGRAM (RLP) ADDENDUM TO CURRENT
ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN
COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program Borrower Description:
Small businesses, non-profits, cooperatives, and other business firms located in Berkeley, CA that are suffering substantial economic injury as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic are now eligible for low-interest “COVID-19 Resiliency Loans” for working capital. Berkeley business, including current RLF borrowers that have been financially impacted as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic may qualify for a COVID-19 Resiliency Loan to help meet financial obligations and operating expenses which could have otherwise been met by the enterprise had the disaster not occurred.
The COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program will supplement the existing RLF Program subject to the following guidelines, criteria, and terms:
COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program Guidelines:
• Allocated $814,000 of available EDA funds to the COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program which will be part of the City of Berkeley’s existing RLF program. • The maximum loan amount from COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program seed funds will be set at 25% of the RLP capital base.
• The remaining funding for this loan program shall be transferred to a third-party organization selected by the City Manager and/or his/her designee for the purpose of making loans to qualified businesses and organizations in Berkeley. • Loans shall be reviewed and approved by a third-party organization selected by the City Manager and/or his/her designee.
• Loans shall be serviced by a third-party organization selected by the City Manager and/or his/her designee.
• The City Manager and/or his/her designee is empowered to administratively approve loans of $25,000 and below (i.e. A loan of this size or under would not require a full Loan Administration Board (LAB) approval).
• The requirement for loan applicants to leverage additional capital is removed for loans funded with COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program dollars. (Currently, loans in the traditional RLF portfolio are required to leverage a minimum of two private dollars for every RLF dollar loaned).
COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program Criteria:
• Loan Applicants are to demonstrate that the applying entity (business or nonprofit) is has been in operation inin good standing in the City of Berkeley., in good standing for at least two years.
• Loan Applicants are to have 50 or fewer full time employees (or full-time equivalents). • Loan Applicants are to provide a completed CaliforniaA 2019 Tax Return and/or Certified Public Accountant prepared financials and/or an IRS Form 990 showing positive earnings (Profit).
• Loan Applicants are to demonstrate that receipt of a City of Berkeley COVID-19 Resiliency Loan has the potential to create or save existing jobs.
166
24 • For City of Berkeley COVID-19 Resiliency Loan applicants, the existing RLF requirement to demonstrate a declination from a traditional lender is waived.
COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program Terms:
• Payments and interest accruals are deferred for six (6) months from the date the loan is issued.
• Payments shall be made to a third-party organization selected by the City Manager and/or his/her designee.
167
25 • The loan interest rate for COVID-19 Resiliency Loans shall be between 0 and 1% and 7% depending on loan amount and risk level as determined by a third party loan reviewer (the current rate for “standard” RLF loans is the prime interest rate + 2 points).
Existing standard RLF loan recipients may submit a request to the Loan Administration Board for review and approval of a rate reduction or a pause in payments.
• Five (5) Year Repayment Period.
• Additional deferrals and payment term modifications may be granted by approval on a loan by loan basis, subject to the approval of the LAB third-party organization selected by the City Manager and/or his/her designee..
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Organizational Chart Page 31
Exhibit B: Loan Application Page 32
Exhibit C: Credit Authorization Page 42
Exhibit D: Application Checklist Page 44
Exhibit E: Sample Loan Administration Board (LAB)
Resolution
Exhibit F: Sample Commitment Letter Page 46
Exhibit G: Sample Closing Checklist Page 51
Exhibit H: Sample Loan File Checklist Page 54
Exhibit I: Sample Servicing Report Page 56
Exhibit J: Sample Default Notification Page 58
Exhibit K: Map of target Area Page 59
168
26 Exhibit A
Organizational Chart
City Council
City Manager
Manager of Economic
Development
Sustainable
Business Programs
& Real Estate
Business Assistance
& Financing
Civic Arts
Program
Buy Local Berkeley
& Bay Area Green
Business Program
Real Estate,
Planning and
Assistance
Environmental
Policy Liaison
Revolving Loan Business Data
Fund Assistance
Analysis
Business
Improvement
District
Civic Arts Public Art
Grants Program Program
169
27 Exhibit B
City of Berkeley Revolving Loan Fund
Loan Application
I. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Applicant’s Name:
Title: Date:
Name of Business:
Ownership (Check one):
Proprietorship Partnership Corporation Non-Profit
Business Address:
Phone: SS#
Co-applicant: Phone:
Address:
[ ] Business New to Berkeley
OR
[ ] Existing Berkeley Business - Date Established
Business License # Federal Tax I.D. #
Landlord: Phone:
Landlord Address:
Terms of Lease:
II. PROJECT FINANCING:
CITY OF BERKELEY REVOLVING LOAN FUND (RLF)
1. RLF LOAN APPLICATION
Amount of City RLF loan request:
170
28 A. Amount of City Loan Request: $
B. Applicant Equity Contribution*: $
Purpose of Loan:
Source of Loan Repayment:
*Equity contribution: Value of money and other assets the Applicant invested in the business during the past 12 months or will invest in the business. Please submit evidence of all private funds (bank statements, letter of commitment, etc).
III. USE OF FUNDS:
Amount of City
Loan Request
(listed on line A
above)
(Plus)
Applicant’s Equity
Contribution
(listed on line “B”
above)*
(Equals)
TOTAL
PROJECT
COST
Inventory $ + $ = $
Equipment &
Machinery
$
+
$ = $
Leasehold
Improvements
$
+
$ = $
Other $
+
$ = $
TOTAL $ $ = $
*Plus any additional Funds to be used for this project- including additional loans/ private funds.
IV. BUSINESS INFORMATION:
Briefly describe your business, the distinct function of your product / service, your intended customers, your marketing strategy, and how the RLF loan will assist your business development. Please submit a prepared business plan with this application. If no business plan available, please provide explanation
171
29 V. COLLATERAL OFFERED:
Collateral
Name(s) of Owner(s)
Present Market Value
Real Estate $
Equipment &
Machinery
$
Inventory $
Other Assets $
TOTAL $
Other Collateral (Please Explain):
VI. BUSINESS DEBT SCHEDULE: This list should contain all long term loans for contracts and notes payable for the business, including credit cards. Please list EVERYTHING the business owes. If you need more room, please attach a separate sheet.
CREDITOR
Account Number Original
Amount ($)
Maturity
Date
Collateral
Held
Date of
Loan
Interest
Rate %
Current
Balance ($)
Monthly
Payment ($)
1. $
% $ $
2. $
% $ $
172
30 3. $
% $ $
4. $
% $ $
5. $
% $ $
6. $
% $ $
7. $
% $ $
8. $
% $ $
VII. PUBLIC BENEFIT: As a result of the loan, will your business:
a. Create jobs? [ ] YES [ ] NO
Estimate how many jobs the business will create in the next two years:
b. Retain existing jobs? [ ] YES [ ] NO
c. Create worker ownership opportunities? [ ] YES [ ] NO
d. Expand a manufacturing enterprise? [ ] YES [ ] NO
e. Have a positive environmental impact? [ ] YES [ ] NO
f. Strengthen a key commercial corridor or
Re-use a long vacant property? [ ] YES [ ] NO
g. Provide goods/ services presently not available? [ ] YES [ ] NO
173
31 h. Substantially increase tax revenues? [ ] YES [ ] NO Please describe the public benefits and quantify, where possible.
VIII. EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL WHITE BLACK ASAN HISPANIC AM. IND OTHER
M F M F M F M F M F M F M F
Current
Employees
Management
Professional
Office/Clerical
Skilled Workers
Service /
Maintenance
Other
New Job Creation :
Job Title and brief description Full - Time Part -
Time
$ / Hour Proj. Hire
Date
How did you hear about the City’s Revolving Loan program?
Are you familiar with the City’s First Source Employment Program? [ ] YES [ ] NO
After this application is reviewed by City staff and determined to meet all appropriate lending criteria, additional supplemental material and a credit check may be requested.
174
32 We appreciate your interest in the economic revitalization of Berkeley.
I hereby certify that the information provided, contained herein and attached hereto is accurate and correct to the best of my knowledge.
APPLICANT Date CO-APPLICANT Date
(Print Name) (Print Name)
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL CHECKLIST (please complete)
Please submit the following information with your application:
A detailed list of exactly what the requested RLF loan would be used for. Most recent year-end financial statement, including income and expenses and balance sheet along with this pre-application form.
Sources of funds need to be documented, including denial of bank for additional funds.
Financial statement- prior 3 years and current within 90 days. a. Balance sheets
b. Income/expense statement
c. Articles of incorporation/ by-law or partnership agreement (if applicable) d. Resume(s) of principal(s) (normally those with 20% ownership or more; worker cooperatives should submit resumes of all members)
e. Certificate of good standing (corporations only)
Pro forma financial statements/ projections (including notes and schedules). a. One (1) year income/cash flow statement (month to month) b. Additional 2 years cash flow projections
c. Explanation of the underlying assumptions supporting cash flow assumptions Individual Federal Income Tax Return – (if proprietorship or partnership) - prior 3 years.
Business Federal Income Tax Return – prior 3 years.
Plans, cost estimates/bids for construction or equipment. Appraisals or independent evaluations on assets offered as collateral. Aging of accounts receivable and payable within 90s days and list of vendors and addresses and account numbers for any accounts over 30 days. Schedule of Business Debts (including the following: original amount of debt, current balance outstanding, payment amount(s), payment amount, interest rate, collateral, status (current/delinquent).
Private lender commitment or denial of funds letter(s). Verification of business space (i.e. deed of trust, lease/rental agreement,
175
33 purchase agreement as applicable).
Agreement of Landlord (for tenant improvement loans). Copy of business license.
Copy of Hazard and Liability Insurance.
Business Plan for expansion or start-up loans.
Loan Fee:
If approved, the following will be required:
Application fee for RLF loan in the amount of $250.00 made payable to the City of Berkeley or to a third-party organization selected by the City Manager and/or his/her designee..
The loan fee will be credited towards the 1% loan fee and will be refunded, if not approved.
Please send the above information to the following address:
Revolving Loan Fund Program – Application
City of Berkeley c/o Office of Economic Development
2180 Milvia Street, Fifth Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
176
34 Exhibit C
Credit Authorization
The following information is required to complete a credit investigation with respect to your loan fund application. This form is to be completed by every applicant, and each partner or shareholder holding a 20% or more interest in the business concern. In the case of a worker cooperative where no member holds a 20% or more interest, two or more members whose interests total at least 50% should each complete this form.
Legal Name:
Social Security #:
Birth Date:
Home Address:
Occupation:
“With my signature below, I hereby authorize the City of Berkeley’s contracted loan underwriters to contact and obtain credit reports from credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Dun and Bradstreet, etc.) And creditors with regard to the status of any past, outstanding or current indebtedness for the life of the loan.”
By:
Signature
Printed Name
Date:
CREDIT AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY OF BERKELEY
REVOLVING LOAN FUND
177
35 CITY OF BERKELEY REVOLVING LOAN FUND APPLICATION
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Exhibit D
Applicant Checklist
Applicant should submit the following items as applicable.
[ ] Financial Statement – Prior 3 years and current within 90 days a. Balance Sheets
b. Income/Expense Statement
c. Articles of Incorporation/By Laws or Partnership Agreement (If Applicable)
d. Resume(s) of Principal(s) (normally those with 20% ownership or more)
e. Certificate of Good Standing (corporations only)
[ ] Pro Forma Financial Projections (Including Notes & Schedules) a. 1 year Income/Cash Flow Statement (Month to Month)
b. Additional 2 years Cash Flow Projections
c. Explanation of the underlying assumption supporting the cash flow projections
[ ] Individual Federal Income Tax Return – (if proprietorship or partnership) – Prior 3 years.
[ ] Business Federal Income Tax Return – Prior 3 years. [ ] IRS Form 4506, Request for Copy of Tax Return
[ ] Verification of business space (i.e. Deed of Trust, Lease/Rental Agreement, Purchase Agreement as applicable)
[ ] Agreement of Landlord (for tenant improvement loans) [ ] Proof of Hazard and Liability Insurance
[ ] Plans, Cost Estimates/Bids for Construction or Equipment [ ] Appraisals or independent evaluations on assets offered as collateral. [ ] Aging of Accounts Receivable and Payable within 90 days and list of vendors and addresses and account numbers for any accounts over 30 days. [ ] Schedule of Business Debts (Include the following: original amount of debt, current balance outstanding, payment amount(s), payment amount, interest rate, collateral, status (current/delinquent)
[ ] Private Lender Commitment or Denial of funds letter(s). [ ] Copy of Business License
[ ] Environmental Checklist (if required for project)
The City of Berkeley and/or the RLF program underwriters will be conducting a credit check of your business and personal payment record, if applicable.
178
36 Exhibit E
Sample Loan Administration Board (LAB)
Resolution
LOAN ADMINISTRATION BOARD
of the
CITY OF BERKELEY
The Loan Administration Board (LAB) administering the City of Berkeley's Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) met on , 20xx to discuss the RLF loan to and passed the following motion:
Moved by to approve loan with the requirements recommended in the underwriter’s credit memo, and with the following additional requirements; 1) specific UCC-1 filing on ; 2) blanket UCC-1 filing on all business assets; 3) direct disbursement of loan proceeds to vendors for equipment and to contractor for improvements; 4) 1st position on collateral; 5) signed tax returns; 6) audited financial statements for 200_; 7) other conditions:.
The staff recommendation on loan terms is as
follows: Principal Amount: $
Loan Term: Due in months, amortized over months
Interest Rate: %
Monthly Payment: $ per month
Seconded by .
The Board vote with respect to this Motion was Ayes, Noes, Abstentions.
Board Members Absent:
Chairperson
Loan Administration Board
179
37 Exhibit F
Sample Commitment Letter
Loan Administration Board
Date:
Name of Borrower:
Re: Loan Approval/Intent to Lend
Dear Borrower:
This commitment letter will confirm that on behalf of the Berkeley Revolving Loan Fund, the Loan Administration Board of the RLF approved a commitment to make funds available to you substantially upon certain terms and conditions. This approval was made on .
1. Amount and Nature of Loan. Loan Amount ($000,000.00) associated with the business located at:
2. Purpose. The loan funds will be used solely for the acquisition of the commercial equipment, , and related soft costs.
3. Maturity and Payment of Loan. The amortization of loan will be months , with a - month call, and will be payable as follows: Principal and Interest payments, with interest commencing from date of note, with interest accruing at % fixed. The estimated payment amount is $ per month, with first payment due the first day of the month following the original note date.
4. Interest. The stated interest rate on the loan will be percent ( %). Following any default, the interest rate shall increase to the maximum rate allowed by State of California Law after any default. Interest will be calculated based upon a 365-day year.
In the event any payment is more than fifteen (15) days past due, you will be assessed a late charge of five percent (5%) of the amount of such payment for each thirty (30) day period for which the payment is overdue.
Evidence of Obligation. The loan will be evidenced by a Loan Agreement and Promissory Note executed by you, together with the documents necessary to create
180
38 and perfect security interests described herein.
5. Fees and Expenses. You shall pay all out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the RLF in connection with this transaction, including legal fees and disbursements of counsel and including by way of illustration, but not limited to appraisal costs, title insurance premiums and other related title company costs, escrow fees, UCC search fees and all recording fees, even in the event the transaction is not consummated.
6. Security Arrangements. The loan will be secured by a second position deed of trust on the commercial real property located at ; a first security filing on equipment of , guarantees of ,
, and ; deed of trust on
personal residence at ; and deed of
trust on personal residence at .
7. Conditions of Lending. The loan will be conditioned upon satisfaction of all required elements, for example, the following:
a. Execution by you of all documents required by the RLF to evidence the loan or any of the security interests described herein.
b. Approval by the RLF of the results of a title report and lien searches on equipment and fixtures.
c. The absence of any adverse change in your business or financial condition.
d. The City is satisfied that no hazardous waste or substances, toxic, waste, substances or pollutants are or have been used, generated, stored or removed on or from the real property to be covered by the deeds of trust described herein in violation of any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation. You will be required to indemnify the City against any such violations.
e. Your obtaining irrevocable written commitments from other lenders and providing such additional funds as are reasonably necessary in the discretion of the City to permit you to complete the acquisition and purchase of the property located at:
.
f. Your provision of evidence that is organized and qualified to do business in this state.
g. A copy of your current business license from the City of Berkeley.
h. Payment of a loan fee in an amount equal to percent ( %) of the loan at closing.
8. Covenants. In connection with the loan, you will be required to comply with all of the following:
181
39 1. Within time periods specified in the Loan Agreement you will be required to provide annual, CPA compiled financial statements to the RLF.
2. You will be required to provide evidence of adequate liability and property damage insurance in an amount and with a company satisfactory to the RLF as stipulated in the Loan Agreement.
9. Default: The Loan Agreement and other loan documents will contain provisions making any breach of any term or condition thereof a default.
10. Miscellaneous:
Funds used by the RLF to make the loan are be provided by the Economic Development Administration, (EDA), and as a consequence will be subject to certain restrictions and requirements, all of which will be described in the Loan Agreement.
You will not have any right to assign the loan or any of your interest therein. Time is of the essence in the performance of all of your obligations hereunder. This letter and the loan shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of California.
ORAL AGREEMENTS, PROMISES, OR COMMITMENTS TO LOAN MONEY, EXTEND
CREDIT, MODIFY OR AMEND ANY TERMS OF THE LOAN, RELEASE ANY
GUARANTOR, FORBEAR FROM ENFORCING REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN OR
EXERCISING ANY REMEDY UNDER THE LOAN DOCUMENTS, OR MAKE ANY
OTHER FINANCIAL ACCOMMODATION PERTAINING TO THE LOAN ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.
This commitment is conditioned upon the preparation, execution and delivery of legal documentation in form and substance satisfactory to the RRLF and to its counsel, which documentation in addition to incorporating substantially the terms set forth above will include such other terms as are customary for transactions of this type. This commitment is further conditioned upon the strict compliance by the Borrower with all requirements of this commitment letter before the expiration date hereof.
Please evidence your approval of the foregoing to signing and returning the lender the enclosed copy (accompanied by the commitment fee referred to above) on or before . If such executed copy (and fee) is not received by the RLF by such date, then this commitment shall automatically expire and be of no further force or effect.
182
40 Sincerely yours,
Economic Development Manager
Accepted this day of , 200x.
BORROWER:
By:
Its:
183
41 Exhibit G
Sample Closing Checklist
ITEM REQUIRED
Required Received/Complete
Yes No Yes No
A. DOCUMENTS RECEIVED
ATTORNEY ENGAGEMENT LETTER
1. Commitment letter completed
1a. Commitment letter returned
2. Loan Agreement
3. Note
3.a. Amended Note
4. Deed of Trust
4a. Title Policy
1. Assignment of Rents
2. Assignment of (Commercial) Lease
5. Guaranty (s)
5.a. Acknowledgment and Consent
6. Security Agreement
6a. List of equipment for UCC.
7. UCC-1 and/or UCC-2
7a. UCC 11R
8. Estoppel Certificate (8a/parties to Estoppel)
9. Assignment of Cash Value/Life Insurance
9a. Copy of Insurance Policy
9b. Personal residence
CLOSING CHECKLIST
Applicant Name:
Approved:
184
42 ITEM REQUIRED
Required Received/Complete
Yes No Yes No
B. FINAL CLOSING PROCESSS AND CROSS CHECK
LIST
1. Escrow/Disbursement Instructions
2. Copy of lender(s) approval/commitment/decline letter
3. Tenant and owner lease agreements received
4. Title Commitment
4. (a) Title Policy #
Contact Name:
5. Organizational documents and borrowing resolutions
6. Liability and fire protection insurance binders
7. Copy of purchase agreement/and amendments
8. Bills/invoices to be paid from escrow
9. Copies of architect, engineer, and construction contracts
10. Receipt of performance bond, as required
11. Copies of all construction lien releases
12. Copies of all reports, certificates, or other documents furnished by construction lender
13. Real estate appraisal and all addendum and/or
amendments
14. A certified survey with a legal description conforming to the title policy and the deed of trust
15. Evidence that required equity has been provided
16. Other (list below)
16a. Order check for closing
16b. Final review of documents
16c. All insurance binders received
16d. Prepare data entry sheet
CLOSING CHECKLIST
Account Name:
Approved:
185
43 ITEM REQUIRED
Required Received/Complete
Yes No Yes No
C. DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED AND/OR
MODIFIED
1. Promissory Note
2. Security Agreement
3. Loan Agreement
3.a. UCC Filings
4. Participation Agreement
5. Continuing Guaranty
6. Other documents
7. Warrant Agreement
8. Copies of Subordinated Debt
9. Copies of Other Notes/Warrants
10. Inter-creditor Agreement
CLOSING CHECKLIST
Account Name:
Approved:
186
44 Exhibit H
Loan File Checklist
CHECK ONLY THOSE REQUIRED FOR APPLICATION:
( ) Application ( ) Business Plan ( ) Balance Sheet &
Income Statement
(projected)
( ) Tax Returns
( ) Interim
Statements
( ) Aging of A/R,
A/P & Taxes
( ) Projected
Cash Flow (12)
months
( ) Personal Financial Statement
( ) Personal Tax return ( ) Business Tax return ( ) Personal credit report
( ) Business credit report ( ) Purchase & sale agreement ( ) Construction schedule
( ) Bid or cost estimates ( ) Appraisal or valuation ( ) List of other collateral
( ) Legal or Parcel Numbers ( ) Organizational documents ( ) List of existing loans, commitments,
or equity investment
( ) Copies of tenant leases ( ) Copies of building leases ( ) Environmental Questionnaire
( ) NEPA/CEQA or other
environmental reporting
requirements.
( ) Completed loan write-up ( ) Other
COMMENTS:
LOAN FILE CHECKLIST
Applicant:
APPLICANT:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CONTACT ADDRESS:
PHONE:( ) FAX:( )
PROJECT ADDRESS:
187
45 Completed By:
Date:
Does reviewer recommend this application for consideration & approval? Yes No
Reviewed By: Date:
188
46 Exhibit I
Sample Servicing Report
START-UP LIST OF EXISTING AND PROJECTED JOBS:
JOBS REPORTS DUE:
JOB CREATION OBJECTIVE: ( ) MET: (Date)
JOB RETENTION OBJECTIVE: ( ) MET: (Date)
Job Creation/Retention Reports Received:
Date: Employee Status:
Date: Employee Status:
Date: Employee Status:
Date: Employee Status:
Date: Employee Status:
Insurance Certificate with the RLF listed as Loss Payee Required on:
( ) FF&E ( ) Vehicles ( ) Real Estate ( ) Inventory
( ) Personal Residence ( ) Key Man Life Insurance
Other ( ) General Liability
Company Name:
Collateral Covered:
Agent Name: Agent Phone:
Expires:
Company Name:
Collateral Covered:
Agent Name: Agent Phone:
Expires:
Comments on Expirations/Change of Coverage:
LOAN SERVICING REPORT
Insurance, Jobs Report and Site Visits
189
47 LOAN MONITORING and SITE VISIT REPORT
BORROWER:
CONTACT NAME:
PHONE NUMBER: REPORT
DATE
REVIEWER NAME:
NAME OF
STAFF
INTERVIEWED:
PROJECT SITE VISIT: Yes No FILE REVIEW
ONLY?
Yes No
ORIGINAL LOAN PURPOSE
(Use of Proceeds):
Days Delinquent
STATUS OF
LOAN:
Current
Delinquent
G. LOAN AGREEMENT IN
COMPLIANCE
Yes No
Comments
JOB CREATION and/or
RETENTION
Full-time # Part-time # Minority/Ethnic Group
Hours worked per week: Asian Pacific Islander
FOLLOW-UP and/or REQUESTS TO
BORROWER:
DATE OF NEXT REVIEW:
190
48 Exhibit J
Sample Default Notification Letter
LOAN DEFAULT NOTIFICATION LETTER
Date:
Borrower Name
Address
City, State, Zip
Loan #:
RE Account:
Amount Past Due:
Late Charges:
Dear (Borrower):
You are hereby notified that due to your failure to make the monthly payments due for (time-span, year), for the total amount indicated above, pursuant to the terms of that certain Promissory Note dated in the original principal amount of $ (the Note) given to you by the Berkeley Revolving Loan Fund (RLF), you are in default under the terms of the Note.
Pursuant to the terms of the Note, the City hereby demands that you pay all payments now due, together with accrued interest, late charges, and any costs or fees incurred by the Authority in connection with the default as provided in the Note.
The current principal balance of the Note is $ as of , with interest accruing on the principal balance from , the date of your default, at the rate of ( %) per annum. In addition, you are required to pay a late charge equal to five percent (5%) of the amount of the monthly payment due for each thirty day period after fifteen days from the due date of such payment. Late charges accrued are indicated above.
All payments must be made to the City of Berkeley RLF at …………………………….
You are being given 30 days from the date of this letter to bring these payments current.
Failure to do so will result in legal action against the corporation, and youpersonally.
Sincerely yours,
Economic Development Manager
191
59 Exhibit K
Map of Target Area
192
193
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT
AND ANY AMENDMENTS WITH WORKING SOLUTIONS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO BERKELEY’S COVID-19 RESILIENCY LOAN PROGRAM (RLP) PARTICIPANTS
WHEREAS, Working Solutions (a CDFI lender) has proven to be an effective partner implementing the underwriting services for the City of Berkeley’s Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) since 2018; and
WHEREAS, Working Solutions has been a tremendous partner in providing underwriting services the COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program (RLP) since its establishment 2020; and WHEREAS, Working Solutions has worked steadily for more than two decades to develop and implement programs that address a wide range of important supports for small businesses and is a certified CDFI lender and is a successful well-regarded revolving loan and grant fund administrator in the Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, the Revolving Loan Fund’s Administrative Plan, which governs both the RLF and the RLP loan programs, has been amended to incorporate the ability of a third-party administrator of the RLP program; and
WHEREAS, Working Solutions, a qualified CDFI lender, will now perform this role and will govern the origination and servicing of the COVID-19 Resiliency Loan Program (RLP) loans; and
WHEREAS, the efforts of Working Solutions will enhance the Berkeley RLP borrowers lending experience, and provide supplemental support and technical assistance to RLP program participants; and
WHEREAS, the anticipated term of the RLP loans is a period of five years, this engagement for supplemental technical assistance and support for RLP program participants shall correspond in length; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has been granted American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to provide additional support to small businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, assures a source of revenue for the service.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Working Solutions not to exceed $60,000 of ARPA funds to support the RLP loan recipients for the period March 31, 2022 to December 31, 2027. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments are to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.
194
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance
Subject: Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on March 22, 2022
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request for proposals or invitation for bids (attached to staff report) that will be, or are planned to be, issued upon final approval by the requesting department or division. All contracts over the City Manager’s threshold will be returned to Council for final approval.
Total estimated cost of items included in this report is $12,952,000.
PROJECT Fund Source Amount
Micro-segmentation Solutions 011 General Fund $360,000
FY 2022 Sidewalk Repair
Project
511
501
Measure t1
Capital Improvements $1835,000
Stormwater Master Plan (FY 23-
24) 616 Clean Storm Water $1,257,000
FY 2022 Streetlight
Maintenance Project 142 Street Lighting $500,000
On-Call Civil Engineering
Services
501
511
Capital Improvements
Measure T1 $5,000,000
On-Call Transportation Planning
Services 306
307
134
135
Capital Grants – State
Capital Grants – Local
Measure bb – Local
Streets and RD
Measure BB – Bike
and Pedestrian
$4,000,000
Total: $12,952,000
195
Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals CONSENT CALENDAR Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council March 22, 2022 Approval on March 22, 2022
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On May, 6, 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,035-N.S. effective June 6, 2008, which increased the City Manager’s purchasing authority for services to $50,000. As a result, this required report submitted by the City Manager to Council is now for those purchases in excess of $100,000 for goods; and $200,000 for playgrounds and construction; and $50,000 for services. If Council does not object to these items being sent out for bid or proposal within one week of them appearing on the agenda, and upon final notice to proceed from the requesting department, the IFB (Invitation for Bid) or RFP (Request for Proposal) may be released to the public and notices sent to the potential bidder/respondent list.
BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,035-N.S., amending the City Manager’s purchasing authority for services.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Finance Department reviews all formal bid and proposal solicitations to ensure that they include provisions for compliance with the City’s environmental policies. For each contract that is subject to City Council authorization, staff will address environmental sustainability considerations in the associated staff report to City Council.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Need for the services.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
CONTACT PERSON
Darryl Sweet, General Services Manager, Finance, 510-981-7329 Attachments:
1: Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled For Possible Issuance After Council Approval on March 22, 2022
1) Micro-segmentation Solutions
2) FY 2022 Sidewalk Repair Project
3) Stormwater Master Plan (FY 23-24)
4) FY 2022 Streetlight Maintenance Project
196
Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals CONSENT CALENDAR Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council March 22, 2022 Approval on March 22, 2022
Note: Original of this attachment with live signature of authorizing personnel is on file in General Services.
5) On-Call Civil Engineering Services
6) On-Call Transportation Planning Services
197
NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: March 22, 2022
Attachment 1
1 of 4
SPECIFICATI
ON NO.
DESCRIPTION
OF GOODS /
SERVICES
BEING
PURCHASED
APPROX.
RELEASE
DATE
APPROX.
BID
OPENING
DATE
INTENDED USE ESTIMATED COST BUDGET CODE TO BE
CHARGED
DEPT. /
DIVISION
CONTACT
NAME &
PHONE
22-11501-C Micro-
segmentation
Solutions
3/23/2022 4/14/2022 Micro-segmentation will
enable the City of Berkeley
(COB) visibility, alerting,
policy creation, and policy
enforcement from the
network level to the
individual process level.
Implementing Micro-
segmentation will reduce
attack surface, introduce
adaptive context-based
access, limit lateral
movement, offer more
granular visibility, and
control, rapid time-to-
policy, and policy
enforcement (global and
selective).
$360,000 011-35-363-382-0000-000-
472-612990-
Information
Technology (IT)
Thomas Ray
981-6542
Dept TOTAL $360,000
22-11504-C FY 2022
Sidewalk Repair
Project
3/23/2022 4/21/2022 Repair sidewalk from the
50-50 Sidewalk Program
backlog
$1,835,000 511-54-623-674-0000-000-
431-665110-
PWT1SW2201 (1,750,000)
501-54-623-674-0000-000-
431-665110-PWT1SW2201
(85,000)
Public Works -
Engineering
Joe Enke
981-6411
Terrence
Salonga
981-6447
198
NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: March 22, 2022
Attachment 1
2 of 4
22-11505-C Stormwater
Master Plan
(FY 23-24)
3/23/2022 4/15/2022 Prepare master plan
document to plan, estimate
costs for and prioritize
future repairs,
rehabilitation, and
improvements to storm
drainage within the City of
Berkeley by using methods
and inputs from the
Watershed Master Plan
(WMP), the Green
Infrastructure Plan (GI
Plan), and stormwater
NPDES Permit. Other
related Plans may also be
utilized to support this
Master Plan.
$1,257,000
Not to exceed:
$1,257,000
($628,500 from FY 2023;
$628,500 from FY 2024)
616-54-623-675-0000-000-
472-612310
PW/
Eng
Samantha
Kinstrey,
981-6337
Ricardo Salcedo,
981-6407
Joe Enke,
981-6411
22-11506-C FY 2022
Streetlight
Maintenance
Project
3/22/2022 4/15/2022 Purchase and installation
of streetlight poles
throughout Berkeley.
$500,000 142-54-623-674-0000-000-
426-664110- PWENEL2201
PW Eng Reeve Battle
981-6336
22-11507-C On-Call Civil
Engineering
Services
3/23/2022 4/14/2022 On-call civil engineering
design and construction
management services for
various infrastructure
programs/projects
including pavement
rehabilitation, storm drain
and green infrastructure
$5 million over 3 years Funding is project based and
subject to available funding.
Initial funding will be from:
501-54-623-673-0000-000-
431-612310: $50,000
511-54-623-673-0000-000-
431-612310: $50,000
Public Works /
Engineering
Joe Enke
981-6411
SPECIFICATI
ON NO.
DESCRIPTION
OF GOODS /
SERVICES
BEING
PURCHASED
APPROX.
RELEASE
DATE
APPROX.
BID
OPENING
DATE
INTENDED USE ESTIMATED COST BUDGET CODE TO BE
CHARGED
DEPT. /
DIVISION
CONTACT
NAME &
PHONE
199
NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: March 22, 2022
Attachment 1
3 of 4
22-11508-C On-Call
Transportation
Planning
Services
3/23/2022 4/22/2022 Under direct supervision of
City transportation planning
staff, consultant will
provide on-call
transportation planning and
conceptual project design
services to the City. The
RFQ will be used to
procure four to five firms,
with each contract having a
not-to-exceed amount of
$800,000 to $1 million.
FY23-FY26
Total of four (4) years
$4,000,000
Funds anticipated to be
charged in the first year
include:
306 State Capital Grants: 30%
306-54-622-662-0000-000-
431-612990-*
307 Local Capital Grants: 25%
307-54-622-662-0000-000-
431-612990- *
134 Measure BB Local Streets
& Roads: 20%
134-54-622-662-0000-000-
431-612990-
135 Measure BB Bicycle &
Pedestrian Program: 25%
135-54-622-662-0000-000-
431-612990-
*accounts for these grants will
need to set up in the Planning
division or will be budgeted to
subdiv 668 instead
Public Works/
Transportation
Beth Thomas
981-7068
Dept TOTAL $12,592,000
DEPT.
TOTAL
$12,952,000
SPECIFICATI
ON NO.
DESCRIPTION
OF GOODS /
SERVICES
BEING
PURCHASED
APPROX.
RELEASE
DATE
APPROX.
BID
OPENING
DATE
INTENDED USE ESTIMATED COST BUDGET CODE TO BE
CHARGED
DEPT. /
DIVISION
CONTACT
NAME &
PHONE
200
201
202
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Abraham Roman, Fire Chief
Subject: Donation of Fire Apparatus and Equipment
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution donating a surplus fire truck, Auto 910 and equipment, to the Livermore Pleasanton Department.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Donation of fire apparatus will result in loss of funds from auctioning of the equipment.
Estimated maximum value of auctioned equipment is $5,000 or less and the surplus fire equipment has little or no operational value due to its age.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department in Northern California, has contacted the Berkeley Fire Department about the possibility of a donation of surplus apparatus and equipment.
The Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department provides fire protection, rescue and emergency medical services for the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton in Alameda County. They require a used aerial ladder truck to provide training for their firefighters who drive and operate front line aerial apparatus for their department.
The donation of this fire truck will assist one of our mutual aid partners to conduct in service training for its members and also strengthens the already strong relationship between the two fire departments.
BACKGROUND
The Berkeley Fire Department has made donations of fire apparatus and equipment in the past. Usable equipment has been either maintained for use during major emergencies or disasters; when apparatus or equipment are no longer needed or become too expensive to maintain, they are sent to auction. The specialized nature of fire equipment means the demand for such equipment at auctions is usually low.
Donation of equipment has provided more benefit in good will and help to communities in need than the small amount of revenue that may be achieved through auction.
203
Donation of Fire Equipment CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
The City has made donations of fire and police equipment in the past, including:
Date Beneficiary Type of Surplus Equipment
September, 2020 Bomberos Nayarit, Mexico Two Fire Engines September 20, 2015 Berkeley School District Ambulance
March 9, 2010 El Bolson Fire Department, Argentina Fire Engine March 9, 2010 The Cities of: Izalco and Delgado, El
Salvador
Two Fire Engines
March 9, 2010 Jocotenango Sacatepequez Fire
Department, Guatemala
Ambulance
July 14, 2009 Berkeley Boosters Association Passenger Vans and Trailers September 23, 2008 El Bolson Fire Department, Argentina Ambulance September 23, 2008 East Cape Community/Social Service
Foundation
Two Ambulances
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the action requested in this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The apparatus and equipment can be sent to auction, however due to the specialized nature of the equipment and its current condition (purchased in 1997) doing so would result in little interest except for parts. Donation of equipment has provided more benefit in good will and help to communities in need than the small amount of revenue that may be achieved through auction.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The equipment can be sent to auction. However, the high-mileage, current condition, and specialized nature of the apparatus has typically resulted in little interest and low revenue.
CONTACT PERSON
Abe Roman, Fire Chief, (510) 981-3473
Attachments:
1: Resolution
204
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
DONATION OF FIRE APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, City regulations require that surplus equipment and vehicles be disposed of through an auction procedure; and
WHEREAS, from time to time groups and organizations request donations of surplus equipment and/or vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department has requested donation of one surplus fire truck to assist them in delivery of training for its members; and WHEREAS, the surplus vehicle will result in little value at auction; and WHEREAS, donation of the equipment and vehicles will generate good will and no additional costs to the City.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the surplus fire truck, Auto 910 be donated to the Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department.
205
206
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Abraham Roman, Fire Chief
Subject: Contract: Pinnacle for Occupational Physicals
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Pinnacle Training Systems, LLC (Contractor) for occupational health and pre-employment medical examinations including cancer and cardiac screening for firefighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, police officers and other designated staff through March 22, 2026 in an amount not to exceed $325,000 per fiscal year with an option to extend for three additional two-year terms, for a total ten- year potential contract not to exceed $3,250,000.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The base term of this contract runs for four (4) years from March 23, 2022 through March 22, 2026 not to exceed $325,000 per year. There is an option to extend for three additional two-year terms for a total term of ten years with cost increases in year three (2.5%), five (3.0%), seven (3.0%) and nine (3.0%). Funding for the annual physical program is already budgeted annually in the Fire Department budget: 147-72-742-835- 0000-000-422-612410.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
There is an existing contractor in place that is supposed to be delivering services. This existing contractor has demonstrated an inability to provide services meeting contact and city of Berkeley requirements. This includes frequently being unresponsive to staff communications via phone and email, conducting incomplete physical examinations that do not adhere to the City’s specifications, and providing inaccurate or incomplete medical results to City employees. The current contractor also does not specialize in providing public safety physical examinations.
207
Contract: Pinnacle for Occupational Physicals CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022
The City conducted a competitive bid process and Pinnacle Training Systems, LLC successfully met the bid requirements and ranked highest for annual physicals and cancer prevention among all bidders. The pricing is deemed to be fair and reasonable.
The proposed Contractor is a woman-owned, California small business and has a long history of providing occupational physicals for first responders in California. Current agencies utilizing this contractor include; Clovis, Union City, Citrus Heights, Menifee, Placer County, Roseville, Alhambra, Fresno, Cosumnes, Novato, Healdsburg, Sanger, San Gabriel, Hanford, Selma, Stinson Beach, and Woodland. The Contractor also specializes in providing screening and early detection of acute and chronic health conditions that are common in first responders that lead to lost time and workers compensation cases. Services meet the standards articulated in The Fire Service Joint Labor Management Wellness-Fitness Initiative, Fourth Edition and NFPA 1582:
Standard on Occupational Medical Programs for Fire Departments.
BACKGROUND
First responders have a higher rate of chronic medical and psychological injury and illness that has been directly correlated to shift work, traumatic experiences and stress, and exposure to carcinogens (Daniels, 2013)
(Sritharan, 2017). Until recently there has
been a stigma associated with coming forward with admission of psychological or medical conditions related to the work, thereby the data has been grossly under reported. Along with more funding dedicated to scientific research over the past several decades on these topics, it is now widely accepted that there are direct correlations from these disease processes to the work. Establishing and maintaining a complete annual physical and wellness program is critical in reducing lost time, mental illness, substance abuse and preventing or early detection of long-term chronic health conditions including cancer and heart disease within the first responder population.
Impacts of Shift Work
First responders routinely work shifts that cause disruption of the normal sleep/wake cycle. Nocturnal melatonin suppression and circadian rhythm disruption caused by night shift work function as carcinogens that increase the incidents of malignant tumors (Daniels, 2013) (Tsai, 2016). In addition to cancer, shift work has been associated with higher rates of Type II diabetes, heart disease, stroke, metabolic disorders, sleep disorders, increased risk for reproductive issues, such as irregular menstrual cycles, miscarriage, and preterm birth, chronic stress and depression (Smith, Cardiovascular Strain of Firefighting and the Risk of, 2016). Circadian disruption can harm biologic systems that help prevent cancer. For example, in addition to promoting sleep, melatonin can also inhibit tumor growth and protect against the spread of cancer cells.
Increase Risk of Cancer & Prevention
Research spanning decades, continents, and more than 80,000 firefighters validates the connection between firefighting and occupational cancer. Cancer is the most dangerous threat to firefighter health and safety today.
208
Contract: Pinnacle for Occupational Physicals CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022
Cancer caused 66 percent of the career firefighter line-of-duty deaths from 2002 to 2019, according to data from the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). Heart disease caused 18 percent of career LODDs for the same period. Cancer caused 70 percent of the line-of-duty deaths for career firefighters in 2016 (Smith, Cardiovascular Strain of Firefighting and the Risk of, 2016). Firefighters have a 9 percent higher risk of being diagnosed with cancer and a 14 percent higher risk of dying from cancer than the general U.S. population, according to research by the CDC/National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH).
Firefighters’ risks are significantly higher for some types of cancer than the general population, these include:
testicular cancer – 2.02 times the risk (100% = double = 2 times); mesothelioma – 2.0 times greater risk;
multiple myeloma -1.53 times greater risk;
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma – 1.51 times greater risk;
skin cancer – 1.39 times greater risk;
malignant melanoma – 1.31 times greater risk;
brain cancer -1.31 times greater risk;
prostate cancer – 1.28 times greater risk;
colon cancer -1.21 times great risk; and
leukemia – 1.14 times greater risk (Daniels, 2013).
Continual and early screening is key. Screening is done when employees have no signs or symptoms. These tests help detect cancer at an early stage, before symptoms appear. When abnormal tissue or cancer is found early, it is often easier to treat or cure.
By the time signs and symptoms appear, the cancer may have grown and spread making it more difficult, costly, or impossible to treat or cure.
Mental Health
First responders are more likely to die by suicide than in the line of duty. In 2017, there were at least 103 firefighter suicides and 140 police officer suicides in the US. In contrast, 93 firefighters and 129 police officers died in the line of duty. Suicide is a result of mental illness, including depression and PTSD, which stems from constant exposure to death and destruction.
There are a number of factors contributing to mental health issues among first responders and what leads to their elevated rate of suicide. One study found that on
209
Contract: Pinnacle for Occupational Physicals CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022
average, police officers witness 188 ‘critical incidents’ during their careers. This exposure to trauma can lead to several forms of mental illness. For example, PTSD and depression rates among firefighters and police officers have been found to be as much as 5 times higher than the rates within the civilian population, which causes these first responders to commit suicide at a considerably higher rate (firefighters: 18/100,000; police officers: 17/100,000; general population 13/100,000). Even when suicide does not occur, untreated mental illness can lead to poor physical health and impaired decision-making.
In addition, the Firefighter Behavioral Health Alliance (FBHA) estimates that approximately 40% of firefighter suicides are reported. If these estimates are accurate, the actual number of 2017 suicides would be approximately 257, which is more than twice the number of firefighters who died in the line of duty.
Entry level and comprehensive annual physicals are known to reduce healthcare costs, reduce absenteeism and reduce workers compensation costs associated with injuries and illness (Pinnacle, 2018) (Lynn Hancock, 2017). Additionally, responders that are healthy are more resilient, make better decisions and are more likely to be at work. The Contractor will provide entry level and annual physicals inclusive of screening for common acute and chronic health conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Contractor will also be providing all services within the City of Berkeley, whereas previous contracts required employees to travel outside the City to participate in physicals and follow up examinations.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City conducted a competitive bid process and Pinnacle Training Systems, LLC successfully met the bid requirements and ranked highest for annual physicals and cancer prevention among all bidders. The pricing is deemed to be fair and reasonable.
The contract with Pinnacle Training Systems, LLC will benefit the City by affording a long-term continuity of excellent medical surveillance services to identify and/or prevent acute and chronic conditions that may otherwise go unidentified by vendors that have less specialized experience. Pinnacle provides occupational health services to a wide variety of emergency services providers within California.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff considered remaining with the current vendor, but this is not a viable solution if the City wishes to meet a commitment to providing the initial and on-going annual screening that will detect chronic disease development early. Additionally, the current vendor has consistently demonstrated poor customer service including frequently being unresponsive to staff communications, conducting incomplete employee physicals,
210
Contract: Pinnacle for Occupational Physicals CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022
providing inaccurate or incomplete medical results and providing employee’s medical information to the wrong employees.
CONTACT PERSON
Abraham Roman, Interim Fire Chief, (510) 981-3473
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Daniels, a. a. (2013). Mortality and cancer incidence in a pooled cohort of US firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia (1950− 2009).
Occupational & Environmental Medicine.
3. Lynn Hancock, M. (2017). Law Enforcement Fitness Policies in Relation to Job.
Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies.
4. Nord, e. a. (2011). Accuracy of peak VO2 assessments in career. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology.
5. Pinnacle. (2018). Evidence that Wellness Programs Reduce Worker’s Compensation Costs for Police Departments.
6. Poplin, e. a. (2013). The Association of Aerobic Fitness With Injuries in the Fire Service. American Journal of Epidemiology.
7. Smith, e. a. (2011). Firefighter Fitness: Improving Performance. Current Sports Medicine Reports.
8. Smith, e. a. (2016). Cardiovascular Strain of Firefighting and the Risk of.
Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews.
9. Sritharan, e. a. (2017). Prostate cancer in firefighting and police. Environmental Health.
10.Tsai, e. a. (2016). Risk of Cancer Among Firefighters in California, 1988–2007.
Am J Ind Med.
211
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
Contract: Pinnacle Training Systems, LLC for occupational health annual and pre- employment medical examinations;
WHEREAS, first responders have a higher rate of chronic medical and psychological injury and illness that has been directly correlated to shift work, traumatic experiences and stress, and exposure to carcinogens, and
WHEREAS, cancer caused 66 percent of the career firefighter line-of-duty deaths from 2002 to 2019, according to data from the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), and
WHEREAS, firefighters have a 9 percent higher risk of being diagnosed with cancer and a 14 percent higher risk of dying from cancer than the general U.S. population, and WHEREAS, PTSD and depression rates among firefighters and police officers have been found to be as much as 5 times higher than the rates within the civilian population, which causes these first responders to commit suicide at a considerably higher rate (firefighters: 18/100,000; police officers: 17/100,000; general population 13/100,000), and
WHEREAS, routine annual physicals have been proven to reduce healthcare and workers compensation costs associated with injuries and illness, and WHEREAS, first responders that are healthy (medically and psychiatrically) are more resilient, make better decisions and are more likely to be at work.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Pinnacle Training Systems, LLC (Contractor) to provide occupational health annual and pre- employment medical examinations including cancer screening for the first responders from March 23, 2022 through March 22, 2026 in an amount not to exceed $325,000 per fiscal year with an option to extend for three additional two-year terms, for a total ten- year potential contract amount not to exceed $3,250,000.
212
Downloaded from oem.bmj.com on October 15, 2013 - Published by group.bmj.com Mortality and cancer incidence in a pooled
cohort of US firefighters from San
Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia (1950−
2009)
Robert D Daniels, Travis L Kubale, James H Yiin, et al.
Occup Environ Med published online October 14, 2013
doi: 10.1136/oemed-2013-101662
Updated information and services can be found at:
http://oem.bmj.com/content/early/2013/10/14/oemed-2013-101662.full.html These include:
Data Supplement
http://oem.bmj.com/content/suppl/2013/10/14/oemed-2013-101662.DC1.html "Supplementary Data"
References
http://oem.bmj.com/content/early/2013/10/14/oemed-2013-101662.full.html#ref-list-1 This article cites 42 articles, 5 of which can be accessed free at:
P<P Published online October 14, 2013 in advance of the print journal. service
Email alerting
the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in Topic Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections Collections
� Asbestos (56 articles)
� Other exposures (681 articles)
Advance online articles have been peer reviewed, accepted for publication, edited and typeset, but have not not yet appeared in the paper journal. Advance online articles are citable and establish publication priority; they are indexed by PubMed from initial publication. Citations to Advance online articles must include the digital object identifier (DOIs) and date of initial publication.
To request permissions go to:
http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to:
http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To subscribe to BMJ go to:
http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
213
Downloaded from oem.bmj.com on October 15, 2013 - Published by group.bmj.com Notes
Advance online articles have been peer reviewed, accepted for publication, edited and typeset, but have not not yet appeared in the paper journal. Advance online articles are citable and establish publication priority; they are indexed by PubMed from initial publication. Citations to Advance online articles must include the digital object identifier (DOIs) and date of initial publication.
To request permissions go to:
http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to:
http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To subscribe to BMJ go to:
http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
214
group.bmj.comon October 15, 2013 - Published byoem.bmj.comDownloaded from group.bmj.comon October 15, 2013 - Published byoem.bmj.comDownloaded from group.bmj.comon October 15, 2013 - Published byoem.bmj.comDownloaded from group.bmj.comon October 15, 2013 - Published byoem.bmj.comDownloaded from group.bmj.comDownloaded fromDownloaded fromDownloaded fromDownloaded fromDownloaded fromDownloaded from on October 15, 2013 - Published byoem.bmj.com group.bmj.comon October 15, 2013 - Published byoem.bmj.com group.bmj.comon October 15, 2013 - Published byoem.bmj.com group.bmj.comon October 15, 2013 - Published byoem.bmj.com group.bmj.comon October 15, 2013 - Published byoem.bmj.com group.bmj.comon October 15, 2013 - Published byoem.bmj.com Workplace
OEM Online First, published on October 14, 2013 as 10.1136/oemed-2013-101662
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Mortality and cancer incidence in a pooled cohort
of US firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago
and Philadelphia (1950–2009)
Robert D Daniels,1 Travis L Kubale,1 James H Yiin,1 Matthew M Dahm,1 Thomas R Hales,1 Dalsu Baris,2 Shelia H Zahm,2 James J Beaumont,3 ▸ Additional material is
published online only. To view
please visit the journal online
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/
oemed-2013-101662).
1Division of Surveillance,
Hazard Evaluations, and Field
Studies, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and
Health, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
2Division of Cancer
Epidemiology and Genetics,
National Cancer Institute,
Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA
3UC Davis Department of
Public Health Sciences, Davis,
Sacramento, California, USA
Correspondence to
Dr Robert D Daniels, Division
of Surveillance, Hazard
Evaluations, and Field Studies,
National Institute for
Occupational Safety and
Health, 4676 Columbia
Parkway, Mailstop R-13,
Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA;
[email protected]
Received 12 June 2013
Revised 10 September 2013
Accepted 23 September 2013
▸ http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/
oemed-2013-101803
To cite: Daniels RD,
Kubale TL, Yiin JH, et al.
Occup Environ Med
Published Online First:
[please include Day Month
Year] doi:10.1136/oemed
2013-101662
Kathleen M Waters,1 Lynne E Pinkerton1
ABSTRACT
Objectives To examine mortality patterns and cancer
incidence in a pooled cohort of 29 993 US career
firefighters employed since 1950 and followed through
2009.
Methods Mortality and cancer incidence were
evaluated by life table methods with the US population
referent. Standardised mortality (SMR) and incidence
(SIR) ratios were determined for 92 causes of death and 41 cancer incidence groupings. Analyses focused on 15
outcomes of a priori interest. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the potential for significant bias.
Results Person-years at risk totalled 858 938 and
403 152 for mortality and incidence analyses,
respectively. All-cause mortality was at expectation
(SMR=0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, n=12 028). There
was excess cancer mortality (SMR=1.14, 95% CI 1.10
to 1.18, n=3285) and incidence (SIR=1.09, 95% CI
1.06 to 1.12, n=4461) comprised mainly of digestive
(SMR=1.26, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.34, n=928; SIR=1.17,
95% CI 1.10 to 1.25, n=930) and respiratory
(SMR=1.10, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.17, n=1096; SIR=1.16,
95% CI 1.08 to 1.24, n=813) cancers. Consistent with
previous reports, modest elevations were observed in
several solid cancers; however, evidence of excess
lymphatic or haematopoietic cancers was lacking. This
study is the first to report excess malignant
mesothelioma (SMR=2.00, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.49, n=12;
SIR=2.29, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.19, n=35) among US
firefighters. Results appeared robust under differing
assumptions and analytic techniques.
Conclusions Our results provide evidence of a relation
between firefighting and cancer. The new finding of
excess malignant mesothelioma is noteworthy, given that asbestos exposure is a known hazard of firefighting.
INTRODUCTION
There are approximately 1.1 million volunteer and
career firefighters in the US.1 During firefighting
activities, these workers may be exposed to many
known carcinogens (eg, polycyclic aromatic hydro
carbons (PAHs), formaldehyde, benzene,
1,3-butadiene, asbestos and arsenic) in volatilised
combustion and pyrolysis products or debris.2
These exposures have raised concerns of increased
cancer among firefighters and have prompted a
number of exposure assessment and epidemiologic
investigations. Some studies have found excess
What this paper adds
▸ From previous studies, there is limited
epidemiological evidence of increased risk of
cancer from firefighting.
▸ We examined cancer in 30 000 career
firefighters by pooling information from urban
fire departments in three large US cities. The
large sample size and long follow-up period
improved risk estimates compared with
previous studies.
▸ We report that firefighting may be associated
with increased risk of solid cancers.
Furthermore, we report a new finding of excess
malignant mesothelioma among firefighters,
suggesting the presence of an occupational
disease from asbestos hazards in the
workplace.
cancers of the brain,3– 8 digestive tract,457 – 10
genitourinary tract571 1 1 2 and lymphohematopoie
tic organs.68 1 3 In a recent meta-analysis of 32
studies, significant excess risk was reported for
brain, stomach, colon, rectum, prostate, testes, mul
tiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma
(NHL).14 Similarly , the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed 42 studies
and reported significant summary risks for prostatic
and testicular cancers and NHL.2 Given limited evi
dence, however, IARC concluded that firefighter
exposures were only possibly carcinogenic to
humans (Group 2B).
Most studies have examined mortality , but not
cancer incidence, among relatively few firefighters
recruited from one fire department. The current
study examines mortality and cancer incidence in a
pooled cohort of firefighters employed in three
major US cities. Malignancies of the brain,
stomach, oesophagus, intestines, rectum, kidney ,
bladder, prostate, testes, leukaemia, multiple
myeloma and NHL were of a priori interest in the
current study , based on possible sites identified in
previous reviews.21 4 Lung cancer and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were also of
interest because inhalation is a major pathway for
firefighter exposures, and there is evidence of
Daniels RD, et al. Occup Environ Med 2013;0:1– 10. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101662Copyright Article author (or their employer) 2013. Produced by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd under licence. 1
215
Workplace
chronic and acute inflammatory respiratory effects in firefigh ters, which may be linked to cancer.2 Breast cancer was included as a result of interests shared in researcher discussions with firefighters.
METHODS
Data collection methods
This research was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Personnel records and previous study data were used to assemble the study roster, which comprised male and female career firefighters of all races employed for at least 1 day in fire departments serving San Francisco, Chicago, or Philadelphia, from 1 January 1950, through 31 December 2009. Fire departments were selected based on size, location, work experience, records availability and the willingness of labour and city management to partici pate. ‘Career firefighter’ status was determined from job titles categorised by researchers and vetted by each fire department.
Selected job titles included general classifications of firefighters, firefighter paramedics, and fire department arson investigators.
Persons of known race were mostly Caucasian (81%) and those missing race (2.5%) were hired in earlier periods of lower minority hiring (median year at hire=1955). Therefore, persons missing race were assumed Caucasian and retained in main ana lyses to maximise study size. Analyses were also conducted excluding persons of unknown race.
Vital status was ascertained from the National Death
Index-Plus (NDI-Plus), the Social Security Administration Death Master File (SSA-DMF), personnel and pension board records, and records from the previous studies.91 0 Firefighters not found to be deceased were confirmed alive by matches to
employment records, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) records, and data accessible through LexisNexis (a private vendor of resi dential information).
Causes of death were obtained from previous studies,91 0 NDI-Plus, and death certificates collected from state vital records and retirement boards. Deaths of Philadelphia firefigh ters through 1986 were previously determined by Baris et al,9 who retrieved and coded death certificates to the ninth revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9).
San Francisco firefighter deaths were determined through 1982 by Beaumont et al.10 In that and the current study , causes of death were coded to the ICD revision in effect at the time of death. The underlying cause of death determined by a trained nosologist was used for all mortality analyses.
Incident cases were defined as all primary invasive cancers, and in situ bladder cancers among firefighters matched to state cancer registries on name, gender, race, date of birth and Social Security number. The last known residence and the state of death were used to narrow inclusion of registries for case ascer tainment to 11 states (ie, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey , Oregon, Pennsylvania and W ashington) where nearly 95% of all deaths in known states occurred (see online supplementary table S1). The site and histology of each tumour were used to classify cancers in one of 41 diagnostic groups using the International
Classification of Diseases for Oncology , 3rd Edition
(ICD-O-3).15 The conversion from ICD-O-3 to ICD-10 used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program
(SEER) recodes (dated 27 January 2003) following slight modi fication to align with mortality groupings and to account for recent classification changes. Diagnosis dates were assigned as of 1 July of the year of diagnosis if only the diagnosis year was known, and on the 15th of the month of diagnosis if only the diagnosis month and year were known. The death date was used when death preceded the estimated date.
Statistical methods
The NIOSH Life T able Analysis System (L T AS.NET) was used to examine mortality and cancer incidence.16 Main analyses used the US population as referent. In all analyses, person-years at risk (PYAR) were stratified by gender, race (Caucasian, other races), age (age 15– 85+ years in 5-year categories), and calendar year (in 5-year categories). Confidence limits for risk measures were estimated based on a Poisson distribution for the observed outcome, with exact limits for outcomes with 10 or fewer occurrences.
For mortality analyses, PYAR began on the latest of 1 January 1950 or the date of cohort inclusion, and ended the earliest of the date of death (DOD), the date last observed (DLO), or 31 December 2009. US mortality rates (1950– 2009) were used to estimate the expected numbers of deaths for all causes, all cancers and 92 categories of underlying cause of death.17 Additional mortality rates were developed to separately report on cancers of the small intestine, large intestine and testes to coincide with incidence rates; however, these rates were limited to time periods after 1959. In both cases, the subsites of interest (ie, colon and testes) account for the largest proportion of the deaths in the respective aggregate site (ie, intestine or male genital organs excluding prostate); therefore, the aggregate site reasonably approximates the subsite. The standardised mortality ratio (SMR) was calculated as the ratio of the observed to the total number of expected deaths.
T wo approaches were used to examine cancer incidence. The main analyses included first and later primary cancers
(ie, multiple-cancer approach) occurring within the risk period.
PYAR accrued from the date of statewide ascertainment by the respective fire department’s state cancer registry (eg, 1 January 1988 for San Francisco firefighters (see online supplementary table S1)) or cohort inclusion, whichever was latest, and ended at the earliest of the DOD, DLO, or 31 December 2009.
Secondary analyses were restricted to the first occurrence of invasive cancer (ie, first-cancer approach). In these analyses, PYAR for cases ended on the date of first diagnosis. In both approaches, the standardised incidence ratio (SIR) was calcu lated as the ratio of observed malignancies to the expected number of cases estimated using US incidence rates (1985– 2009) calculated from SEER data.18 Additional steps required for first-cancer analyses were: selecting the most common cancer when diagnoses included multiple primary tumours on the same day (n=21), excluding firefighters known to have a cancer diagnosis prior to the start of the risk date (n=55), and adjusting US rates for cancer prevalence using methods
described by Merrill et al.19
Heterogeneity in fire department-specific SMRs and SIRs was examined using Poisson regression modelling. T o control for gender, age, calendar year and race, an offset term was set to the expected number of deaths or cases in each stratum of the classification table. T o address differences between fire depart ments, a mixed model was used that specified a random inter cept term. Thus, the model intercept is the log of the pooled SMR, adjusted for heterogeneity among the fire departments.
The significance of heterogeneity was assessed by likelihood ratio test (significance level of 0.05).
Several sensitivity analyses were conducted. First, we exam ined the effects of including prevalent hires (workers employed before 1950) and short– term workers (those employed <1 year) Daniels RD, et al. Occup Environ Med 2013;0:1– 10. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101662 2
216
Workplace
in mortality analyses. Prevalent hires must be employed long enough to be recruited into the study; thus, these workers may have a survival advantage compared with persons hired during the follow-up period (ie, incident hires).20 Short-term workers include temporary hires and probationary firefighters whose health and lifestyle patterns may differ from those employed one or more years. Short-term workers may also have had sub stantial occupational histories other than as firefighters, possibly in jobs with hazardous exposures. Second, we examined age effects on risk estimates in two age-at-risk categories (17– 64, 65+ years). T esting of an effect across all 5-year age groups was accomplished using mixed models adjusted for age-at-risk groups. Third, we conducted SMR analyses restricting observa tion to age 84 years or less. Including PYAR for ages 85+ years could bias results from: rates used in analyses that are open- ended, more uncertainty in underlying cause of death at later ages, and subjects who are incorrectly traced as alive having a disproportionate effect in the open-ended age group.21 Fourth, we calculated SMRs using California, Illinois and Pennsylvania State populations as referent for firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia, respectively . Last, SMRs and standar dised rate ratios (SRRs) were calculated for categories of employment duration (<10, 10– <20, 20– <30, 30+ years).
T rend slopes with W ald-based two-sided p values (significance level of 0.05) were calculated for the change in SRRs with increasing duration.
RESULTS
There were 29 993 firefighters available for study , contributing 858 938 PYAR (table 1). The cohort was largely male (97%), with mean age at first employment and total years employed of 29 and 21 years, respectively . Fewer than 5% of firefighters were short-term workers and approximately 30% were first employed prior to 1950. A higher percentage of women (9.4%) were short-term workers compared with men (4.3%) (see online supplementary table S2). Prevalent hires, on average, tended to be employed longer (+7.9 years, t test p<0.001) and had a greater attained age (+17.0 years, t test p<0.001) than incident hires. Persons eligible for incidence analyses using the multiple- cancer approach (n=24 453) contributed 403 152 PYAR. The first-cancer approach included 24 398 persons contributing 383 577 PYAR. There were 4461 malignant tumours distributed among 3903 firefighters with cancer. Among these, 488
reported cancers at multiple primary sites. Mortality and cancer incidence results are summarised in table 2 and in online supple mentary tables S3– S5. T o aid in comparisons with previous studies, table 2 also shows summary risk estimates (SREs) reported by LeMasters et al14, whose meta-analysis included studies published through 2003.
Mortality
With the US population referent, all-cause mortality was at expectation (SMR=0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, n=12 028).
Ischaemic heart disease was the leading cause of death
(SMR=1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04, n=3619). There was signifi cantly decreased mortality in other outcomes that may be related to healthy worker selection and survivor effects (HWE), such as non-malignant respiratory diseases (SMR=0.80, 95% CI
0.74 to 0.86, n=796), cerebrovascular disease (SMR=0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98, n=636), diabetes mellitus (SMR=0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83, n=175), nervous system disorders
(SMR=0.80, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93, n=187), and alcoholism
(SMR=0.61, 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.86, n=31). In particular, there was a strong decrease in COPD mortality (SMR=0.72, 95% CI Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the cohort by fire department and combined (1950–2009) Description All fire departments San Francisco Chicago Philadelphia Study cohort:
Eligible for mortality analysis 29 993 5313 15 185 9495 PYAR 858 938 154 317 419 414 285 207
Years of follow-up; avg. (SD) 29 (16) 29 (16) 28 (16) 30 (16) Race (%):
White 24 244 (80.8) 4254 (80.1) 11 736 (77.3) 8254 (86.9) Other 5008 (16.7) 986 (18.6) 2808 (18.5) 1214 (12.8)
Unknown 741 (2.5) 73 (1.4) 641 (4.2) 27 (<1.0)
Gender (%):
Male 29 002 (96.7) 5009 (94.3) 14 694 (96.8) 9299 (97.9) Female 991 (3.3) 304 (5.7) 491 (3.2) 196 (2.1)
Vital status:
Alive (%) 17 965 (59.9) 3239 (61.0) 9241 (60.9) 5485 (57.8) Deceased (%) 12 028 (40.1) 2074 (39.0) 5944 (39.1) 4010 (42.2) Unknown cause of death 144 9 91 44
Attained age*; avg. (SD) 60 (16) 62 (16) 59 (16) 61 (16) LTFU 175 1 32 142
PYAR potentially LTFU (%) 8809 (1.0) 59 (<1.0) 1483 (<1.0) 7267 (2.5) Employment:
Avg. hire year 1968 1967 1970 1965
Age at hire; avg. (SD) 29 (5) 29 (5) 29 (5) 27 (5)
Employment years; avg. (SD) 21 (11) 22 (11) 21 (11) 21 (11) Hired before 1950 (%) 8085 (27) 1682 (32) 3294 (22) 3109 (33) Employed <1 year (%) 1328 (4.4) 194 (3.7) 891 (5.9) 243 (2.6) *Age attained at earliest of the date of death, date LTFU or 31 December 2009.
Avg., average; LTFU, lost to follow-up; PYAR, person-years at risk.
Daniels RD, et al. Occup Environ Med 2013;0:1– 10. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101662 3
217
Daniels RD, et al. Occup Environ Med 2013;0:1– 10. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101662 Table
2 Standardised
mortality
and
incidence
ratios
in firefighters
for
select
outcomes
compared
to results
from
a recent
meta-analysis
Current
study
results
(US
population
referent)
Meta-analysis
of
LeMasters
et
al14*
Mortality
(1950–2009)† Cancer
incidence
(1985–2009)
All
cancers
First
cancer
Underlying
cause
(ICD-10
codes)
Obs
SMR
(95%
CI)
Obs
SIR
(95%
CI)
Obs
SIR
(95%
CI)
Studies
SRE
(95%
CI),
Likelihood
rating
All
cancers
(C00-C97)
3285
1.14 (1.10
to 1.18)
4461
1.09 (1.06
to 1.12)
3890
1.09 (1.06
to 1.12)
25 1.05
(1.00
to 1.09),
3 MN
oesophagus
(C15)
113
1.39 (1.14
to 1.67)
90 1.62
(1.31
to 2.00)
80 1.71
(1.36
to 2.13)
8 1.16
(0.86
to 1.57),
3 MN
stomach
(C16)
110
1.10 (0.91
to 1.33)
93 1.15
(0.93
to 1.40)
72 1.02
(0.80
to 1.28)
13 1.22
(1.04
to 1.44),
2 MN
intestine
(C17-C18)
326
1.30 (1.16
to 1.44)
398
1.21 (1.09
to 1.33)
351
1.29 (1.16
to 1.43)
NA
NA
MN
large
intestine
(C18)
264
1.31 (1.16
to 1.48)
381
1.21 (1.09
to 1.34)
335
1.28 (1.15
to 1.43)
25 1.21
(1.03
to 1.54),
2 MN
small
intestine
(C17)
8 1.66
(0.72
to 3.27)
17 1.15
(0.67
to 1.85)
16 1.43
(0.82
to 2.33)
NA
NA
MN
rectum
(C19-C21)
89 1.45
(1.16
to 1.78)
166
1.11 (0.95
to 1.30)
140
1.09 (0.91
to 1.28)
13 1.29
(1.10
to 1.51),
2 MN
lung
(C33-C34)
1046
1.10 (1.04
to 1.17)
716
1.12 (1.04
to 1.21)
602
1.13 (1.04
to 1.22)
19 1.03
(0.97
to 1.08),
3 MN
breast
(C50)
8 1.39
(0.60
to 2.73)
26 1.26
(0.82
to 1.85)
24 1.32
(0.84
to 1.96)
NA
NA
MN
prostate
(C61)
282
1.09 (0.96
to 1.22)
1261
1.03 (0.98
to 1.09)
1176
1.03 (0.97
to 1.09)
13 1.28
(1.15
to 1.43),
1 MN
other
male
genital
(C60,
C62-C63)
<5
0.47 (0.13
to 1.20)
17 0.62
(0.36
to 0.99)
17 0.67
(0.39
to 1.07)
NA
NA
MN
testes
(C62)
<5
0.73 (0.15
to 2.14)
15 0.75
(0.42
to 1.24)
15 0.79
(0.44
to 1.30)
4 2.02
(1.30
to 3.13),
2 MN
kidney
(C64-C66)
94 1.29
(1.05
to 1.58)
166
1.27 (1.09
to 1.48)
129
1.24 (1.04
to 1.48)
12 1.07
(0.78
to 1.46),
3 MN
bladder
(C67-C68)‡ 84
0.99 (0.79
to 1.22)
316
1.12 (1.00
to 1.25)
272
1.18 (1.05
to 1.33)
11 1.20
(0.97
to 1.48),
3 MN
brain
(C47,
C70-C72)
73 1.01
(0.79
to 1.27)
51 1.02
(0.76
to 1.34)
48 1.06
(0.78
to 1.41)
19 1.32
(1.12
to 1.54),
2 NHL
(C46.3,
C82-C85,
C88.0,
C88.3,
C91.4,
C96)§
123
1.17 (0.97
to 1.40)
170
0.99 (0.85
to 1.15)
145
0.99 (0.83
to 1.16)
8 1.51
(1.31
to 1.73),
1 Leukaemia
(C91.0-C91.3,
C91.5-C91.9,
C92-C95)
122
1.10 (0.91
to 1.31)
100
0.94 (0.77
to 1.15)
85 0.93
(0.74
to 1.15)
8 1.14
(0.98
to 1.31),
2 Multiple
myeloma
(C88.7,
C88.9,
C90)
42 0.89
(0.64
to 1.20)
36 0.72
(0.50
to 0.99)
33 0.75
(0.52
to 1.06)
10 1.53
(1.21
to 1.94),
1 Other
cancers:¶
Mesothelioma
(C45)
12 2.00
(1.03
to 3.49)
35 2.29
(1.60
to 3.19)
26 2.00
(1.31
to 2.93)
NA
NA
MN
buccal
and
pharynx
(C00-C14)
94 1.40
(1.13
to 1.72)
174
1.39 (1.19
to 1.62)
148
1.41 (1.20
to 1.66)
9 1.23
(0.96
to 1.55),
2 *Results
from
Table
5 of LeMasters
et al14; likelihood
of cancer
risk
by
meta-analysis
criteria:
1=probable,
2=possible,
3=unlikely.
†SMRs
restricted
to 1960–2009
for
MN
large
intestine,
MN
small
intestine,
and
MN
testes
and
2000–2009
for
mesothelioma.
‡Urinary
bladder
incidence
included
in situ
(D09.0)
and
invasive
cases
as
per
SEER
protocol.
§NHL
incidence
data
exclude
Kaposi
sarcoma
(C46.3).
¶Sites
not
listed
among
cancers
of a priori
interest
but
reporting
statistically
significant
excess
mortality
and
cancer
incidence.
ICD-10,
International
Classification
of Diseases,
10th
Revision;
MN,
malignancy;
NA,
not
applicable;
NHL,
non-Hodgkin
lymphoma;
Obs,
observed;
SEER,
Surveillance,
Epidemiology
and
End
Results;
SIR,
standardised
incidence
ratio;
SMR,
standardised
mortality
ratio;
SRE,
summary
risk
estimate.
Workplace
4
218
Workplace
0.65 to 0.80, n=367). Few non-malignant outcomes were ele vated, although statistically significant excess mortality was observed for cirrhosis and other chronic liver disease
(SMR=1.26, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.41, n=299) and acute glomer ulonephritis with renal failure (SMR=1.56, 95% CI 1.07 to
2.20, n=32). Deaths from falls (SMR=1.31, 95% CI 1.08
to 1.58, n=113) and other accidents (SMR=1.17, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.34, n=197) were also elevated.
By contrast with non-malignant outcomes, we observed
excess overall cancer mortality (SMR=1.14, 95% CI 1.10 to
1.18, n=3285) table 2). The elevation was largely attributable to excess cancers of the lung (SMR=1.10, 95% CI 1.04 to
1.17, n=1046), oesophagus (SMR=1.39, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.67, n=113), intestine (SMR=1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.44, n=326) rectum (SMR=1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.78, n=89) and kidney (SMR=1.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.58, n=94). There was little evi dence of excess mortality from the remaining cancers of a priori interest; however, statistically significant SMRs were apparent for buccal and pharynx cancers (SMR=1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to
1.72, n=94), malignancies of the liver, gall bladder and biliary tract (SMR=1.30, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.57, n=107), and malig nant mesothelioma (SMR=2.00, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.49, n=12).
Women and non-Caucasians
All-cause mortality among women was near expectation
(SMR=0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.33, n=26). Accidental death was the leading cause (SMR=2.79, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.50, n=8) resulting in 31% of the total deaths among women. While there was little evidence of excess overall cancer mortality among women (SMR=0.74, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.61, n=6), most cancer deaths were from breast cancer (SMR=1.46, 95% CI 0.30 to
4.26, n<5). Bladder cancer mortality was statistically significant (SMR=33.51, 95% CI 4.06 to 121.05, n<5) based on few
cases. Non-Caucasian males were characterised by decreased all- cause mortality (SMR=0.68, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.74, n=453) and all-cancers (SMR=0.80, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97, n=104). They had few observed deaths in any a priori outcome, and lung cancer mortality was below expectation (SMR=0.67, 95% CI
0.44 to 0.97, n=27). Only prostate cancer mortality showed an excess approaching statistical significance (SMR=1.64, 95% CI
0.95 to 2.63, n=17) among non-Caucasian males (table 3).
Cancer incidence
There was little difference in SIRs when comparing analysis approaches; therefore, reporting focused on results from the multiple-cancer approach (table 2). All-cancer incidence was slightly above expectation (SIR=1.09, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.12, n=4461). Observed elevations in cancers of a priori interest were generally consistent with mortality data as evidenced by significant excess cancers of the oesophagus (SIR=1.62, 95% CI
1.31 to 2.00, n=90); large intestine (SIR=1.21, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.34, n=381); kidney (SIR=1.27, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.48, n=166) and lung (SIR=1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21, n=716). As in mortality analyses, there were excess buccal and pharynx cancers (SIR=1.39, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.62, n=174) and malig nant mesothelioma (SIR=2.29, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.19, n=35).
Of those diagnosed with mesothelioma, 31 (88.6%) were
pleural. Excess laryngeal cancer incidence was also observed (SIR=1.50, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.85, n=84). The incidence of most remaining cancer sites was near expectation; however, multiple myeloma was significantly decreased (SIR=0.72, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99, n=36).
Women and non-Caucasians
Overall cancer incidence among women was elevated, but not significantly (SIR=1.24, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.69, n=40).
Consistent with mortality , female bladder cancer incidence was statistically significant but based on few cases (SIR=12.53, 95% CI 3.41 to 32.08, n<5). Nearly half of all cases were breast cancer (SIR=1.45, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.29, n=18). Nearly all breast cancers were diagnosed prior to the attained age of 55 years, with the highest SIR between the ages of 50 and 54 years (SIR=2.66, 95% CI 0.86 to 6.21, n=5). Left-sided disease appeared more frequent (61%, n=11). Overall cancer incidence among non-Caucasian male firefighters was near
expectation (SIR=0.92, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.05, n=240). There was excess prostate cancer (SIR=1.26, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.54, n=94) but decreased lung cancer (SIR=0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to
1.00, n=24) (tables 3 and 4).
Sensitivity analyses
Except for COPD and cancers of the lung, prostate and brain, there was little evidence of heterogeneity in SMRs (see online supplementary table S6) or SIRs (see online supplementary table S7) across fire departments for outcomes of a priori interest. For mortality , the between-department variance was largely attribut able to outlying decreased lung cancer (SMR=0.76, 95% CI
0.64 to 0.89, n=142) and COPD (SMR=0.53, 95% CI 0.40 to
0.69, n=57) in San Francisco firefighters, and excess cancers of the prostate (SMR=1.28, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.50, n=152) and lung (SMR=1.23, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.34, n=566) in Chicago
firefighters. The between-department variance in mortality per sisted when using state populations as referent (see online sup plementary table S8). Similarly , heterogeneous lung cancer incidence stemmed from decreased cases among San Francisco firefighters (SIR=0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87, n=81); however, there was outlying excess prostate cancer incidence among San Francisco firefighters (SIR=1.22, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37, n=276). Brain cancer SIRs varied widely across fire depart ments; excess cancer was observed in San Francisco firefighters (SIR=1.95, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12, n=17), while decreased
cancer was reported for Chicago (SIR=0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to
0.91, n=13).
Restricting analyses to firefighters with one or more years of employment had negligible effects (see online supplementary table S9). Slight increases in SMRs were observed for most a priori outcomes when restricting the cohort to incident hires, although these differences were not statistically significant.
Age-at-risk differences in mortality also lacked statistical signifi cance, but SMRs generally appeared greater at older ages. SMRs for cancers of the breast (SMR=1.42, 95% CI 0.46 to 3.32, n=5), oesophagus (SMR=1.41, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.86, n=51), and kidney (SMR=1.47, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.95, n=48) were
highest among workers less than 65 years of age (see online sup plementary table S10). Significant age-at-risk differences in SIRs were evident for prostate ( p<0.001) and bladder ( p=0.002) cancers (see online supplementary table S11). The heterogeneity was largely attributable to significant increases in prostate (SIR=1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.33, n=426) and bladder
(SIR=1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.62, n=97) cancer risks among firefighter aged 64 years or less. Excess prostate cancer was limited to ages 45– 59 years (SIR=1.45, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.64, n=249), while the age pattern of excess bladder cancer inci dence was unclear. The effects of restricting PYAR to age-at-risk <85 were inconsequential (see online supplementary table S12).
Excluding firefighters without race information also had little Daniels RD, et al. Occup Environ Med 2013;0:1– 10. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101662 5
219
Daniels RD, et al. Occup Environ Med 2013;0:1– 10. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101662 Table
3 Standardised
mortality
and
incidence
ratios
among
men
compared
with
the
US
population
for
causes
of a priori
interest
Mortality
(1950–2009)
Cancer
incidence
(1985–2009)*
Caucasian
Other
Caucasian
Other
Underlying
cause
(ICD-10
codes)
Obs
SMR
(95%
CI)
Obs
SMR
(95%
CI)
Obs
SIR
(95%
CI)
Obs
SIR
(95%
CI)
All
causes
11 549
1.01 (0.99
to 1.03)
453
0.68 (0.62
to 0.74)
NA
NA
NA
NA
All
cancers
(C00-C97)
3175
1.16 (1.12
to 1.20)
104
0.80 (0.65
to 0.97)
4181
1.10 (1.07
to 1.13)
240
0.92 (0.81
to 1.05)
MN
oesophagus
(C15)
110
1.46 (1.20
to 1.75)
<5
0.51 (0.11
to 1.49)
87 1.70
(1.36
to 2.09)
<5
0.73 (0.15
to 2.15)
MN
stomach
(C16)
105
1.12 (0.92
to 1.36)
5 0.81
(0.26
to 1.89)
87 1.19
(0.96
to 1.47)
6 0.76
(0.28
to 1.66)
MN
intestine
(C17-C18)
319
1.32 (1.18
to 1.48)
7 0.68
(0.27
to 1.40)
379
1.23 (1.11
to 1.36)
18 0.90
(0.53
to 1.42)
MN
rectum
(C19-C21)
86 1.46
(1.17
to 1.81)
<5
1.21 (0.25
to 3.53)
159
1.16 (0.99
to 1.36)
7 0.62
(0.25
to 1.28)
MN
lung
(C33-C34)
1019
1.12 (1.05
to 1.19)
27 0.67
(0.44
to 0.97)
689
1.15 (1.07
to 1.24)
24 0.67
(0.43
to 1.00)
MN
breast
(C50)
5 1.43
(0.46
to 3.34)
0 NC
6 0.79
(0.29
to 1.72)
<5
3.32 (0.40
to 12.00)
MN
prostate
(C61)
265
1.06 (0.94
to 1.20)
17 1.64
(0.95
to 2.63)
1167
1.02 (0.96
to 1.08)
94 1.26
(1.02
to 1.54)
MN
other
male
genital
(C60,
C62-C63)
<5
0.49 (0.13
to 1.26)
0 NC
16 0.64
(0.37
to 1.04)
<5
0.38 (0.01
to 2.13)
MN
kidney
(C64-C66)
91 1.31
(1.05
to 1.60)
<5
1.05 (0.22
to 3.07)
151
1.26 (1.06
to 1.47)
14 1.46
(0.80
to 2.45)
MN
bladder
(C67-C68)† 80
0.96 (0.76
to 1.19)
<5
1.19 (0.14
to 4.30)
305
1.11 (0.99
to 1.24)
7 0.92
(0.37
to 1.91)
MN
brain
(C47,
C70-C72)
72 1.03
(0.81
to 1.30)
<5
0.44 (0.01
to 2.47)
49 1.05
(0.78
to 1.39)
<5
0.67 (0.08
to 2.42)
NHL
(C46.3,
C82-C85,
C88.0,
C88.3,
C91.4,
C96)‡ 119
1.18 (0.98
to 1.41)
<5
1.01 (0.28
to 2.60)
161
1.02 (0.87
to 1.19)
7 0.56
(0.23
to 1.16)
Leukaemia
(C91.0-C91.3,
C91.5-C91.9,
C92-C95)
117
1.10 (0.91
to 1.32)
5 1.28
(0.41
to 2.98)
88 0.88
(0.71
to 1.09)
11 1.90
(0.95
to 3.40)
Multiple
myeloma
(C88.7,
C88.9,
C90)
41 0.92
(0.66
to 1.25)
<5
0.35 (0.01
to 1.97)
35 0.76
(0.53
to 1.06)
<5
0.24 (0.01
to 1.32)
COPD
( J40-J44)
362
0.73 (0.65
to 0.81)
5 0.50
(0.16
to 1.16)
NA
NA
NA
NA
*Incidence
results
based
on
analysis
of all
invasive
primary
cancers
(ie,
multiple-cancer
approach).
†Urinary
bladder
incidence
included
in situ
(D09.0)
and
invasive
cases
as
per
SEER
protocol.
‡NHL
incidence
data
exclude
Kaposi
sarcoma
(C46.3).
COPD,
chronic
obstructive
pulmonary
disease;
ICD-10,
International
Classification
of Diseases,
10th
Revision;
MN,
malignancy;
NA,
not
applicable;
NC,
not
calculated;
NHL,
non-Hodgkin
lymphoma;
Obs,
observed;
SIR,
standardised
incidence
ratio;
SEER,
Surveillance,
Epidemiology,
and
End
Results;
SMR,
standardised
mortality
ratio.
Workplace
6
220
Daniels RD, et al. Occup Environ Med 2013;0:1– 10. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101662 Table
4 Standardised
mortality
ratios
(US
population
referent)
and
rate
ratios
for
select
outcomes*
by
employment
duration
(lagged
10 years)
Employment
duration
(years)
0–<10
10–<20
20–<30
30+
Obs
SMR
(95%
CI)
Obs
SMR
(95%
CI)
Obs
SMR
(95%
CI)
Obs
SMR
(95%
CI)
Underlying
cause
(ICD-10
codes)
SRR
(95%
CI)
SRR
(95%
CI)
SRR
(95%
CI)
SRR
(95%
CI)
Trend
slope†, p Value
MN
oesophagus
(C15)
13 1.17
(0.62
to 2.00)
(Reference)
28 1.72
(1.14
to 2.48)
2.43 (1.07
to 5.50)
53 1.40
(1.05
to 1.83)
1.17 (0.56
to 2.41)
19 1.18
(0.71
to 1.84)
0.60 (0.27
to 1.35)
−2.14×10−6, 0.141
MN
stomach
(C16)
12 0.80
(0.41
to 1.40)
(Reference)
18 0.92
(0.54
to 1.45)
0.33 (0.08
to 1.43)
47 1.07
(0.79
to 1.43)
0.39 (0.10
to 1.55)
33 1.53
(1.06
to 2.15)
0.40 (0.10
to 1.58)
3.06×10−7, 0.822
MN
intestine
(C17-C18)
27 0.86
(0.57
to 1.26)
(Reference)
52 1.27
(0.95
to 1.67)
1.16 (0.38
to 3.54)
171
1.42 (1.22
to 1.65)
0.62 (0.27
to 1.44)
76 1.28
(1.01
to 1.60)
0.40 (0.17
to 0.94)
−7.54×10−6, <0.001
MN
rectum
(C19-C21)
13 1.48
(0.79
to 2.54)
(Reference)
19 1.58
(0.95
to 2.46)
0.99 (0.33
to 2.97)
37 1.35
(0.95
to 1.86)
0.61 (0.24
to 1.52)
20 1.52
(0.93
to 2.34)
0.43 (0.16
to 1.14)
−1.61×10−6, 0.001
MN
lung
(C33-C34)
123
1.02 (0.85
to 1.22)
(Reference)
184
1.03 (0.88
to 1.19)
1.32 (0.97
to 1.80)
523
1.14 (1.05
to 1.24)
1.24 (0.91
to 1.68)
216
1.12 (0.98
to 1.28)
0.80 (0.59
to 1.08)
−8.83×10−6, 0.216
MN
prostate
(C61)
24 1.39
(0.89
to 2.07)
(Reference)
23 1.08
(0.68
to 1.62)
0.66 (0.31
to 1.41)
148
1.10 (0.93
to 1.29)
0.84 (0.47
to 1.50)
87 1.01
(0.81
to 1.25)
0.69 (0.39
to 1.22)
−2.03×10−6, 0.192
MN
kidney
(C64-C66)
12 1.10
(0.57
to 1.92)
(Reference)
18 1.24
(0.73
to 1.95)
0.61 (0.26
to 1.48)
47 1.43
(1.05
to 1.90)
1.25 (0.58
to 2.69)
17 1.19
(0.69
to 1.91)
0.70 (0.29
to 1.67)
−1.05×10−7, 0.924
MN
bladder
and
other
urinary
(C67-C68)
8 1.05
(0.45
to 2.08)
(Reference)
7 0.65
(0.26
to 1.34)
0.25 (0.08
to 0.79)
46 1.08
(0.79
to 1.45)
1.15 (0.49
to 2.70)
23 0.94
(0.60
to 1.41)
1.03 (0.38
to 2.83)
2.58×10−6, 0.258
MN
brain
and
other
nervous
(C47,
C70-C72)
12 0.65
(0.34
to 1.13)
(Reference)
15 0.88
(0.49
to 1.46)
0.80 (0.30
to 2.19)
32 1.17
(0.80
to 1.65)
1.48 (0.60
to 3.68)
14 1.47
(0.80
to 2.46)
1.52 (0.53
to 4.34)
1.01×10−6, 0.118
NHL
(C46.3,
C82-C85,
C88.0,
C88.3,
C91.4,
C96)
18 0.98
(0.58
to 1.55)
(Reference)
9 0.51
(0.23
to 0.96)
1.18 (0.41
to 3.45)
63 1.35
(1.04
to 1.73)
1.15 (0.60
to 2.22)
33 1.47
(1.01
to 2.06)
1.04 (0.51
to 2.15)
−7.39×10−8, 0.849
Leukaemia
(C91.0-C91.3,
C91.5-C91.9,
C92-C95)
18 0.91
(0.54
to 1.44)
(Reference)
23 1.36
(0.86
to 2.05)
2.24 (0.92
to 5.50)
54 1.11
(0.83
to 1.45)
1.36 (0.65
to 2.87)
27 1.06
(0.70
to 1.54)
1.13 (0.48
to 2.67)
−5.10×10−9, 0.997
Multiple
myeloma
(C88.7,
C88.9,
C90)
5 0.84
(0.27
to 1.96)
(Reference)
<5
0.52 (0.14
to 1.34)
0.56 (0.11
to 2.82)
22 0.97
(0.61
to 1.47)
1.59 (0.47
to 5.41)
11 0.99
(0.49
to 1.77)
1.25 (0.33
to 4.75)
5.27×10−7, 0.407
COPD
( J40-J44)
33 0.78
(0.54
to 1.10)
(Reference)
38 0.69
(0.49
to 0.94)
1.07 (0.60
to 1.91)
185
0.70 (0.60
to 0.81)
1.03 (0.67
to 1.60)
111
0.75 (0.62
to 0.91)
0.83 (0.53
to 1.31)
−2.80×10−6, 0.005
*Excluding
a priori
causes
with
total
observations
<20.
†Cause-specific
deaths
per
year
of employment-person-year.
COPD,
chronic
obstructive
pulmonary
disease;
ICD-10,
International
Classification
of Diseases,
10th
Revision;
MN,
malignancy;
NHL,
non-Hodgkin
lymphoma;
Obs,
observed;
SMR,
standardised
mortality
ratio;
SRR,
standardised
rate
ratio.
Workplace
7
221
Workplace
effect on a priori outcomes (results not shown). Finally , there was no apparent trend in increasing risk with employment dur ation; however, negative trends in COPD and colorectal cancer SRRs were evident (table 4). Subsequent sensitivity analyses revealed that SRRs were largely dependent on selection of cut- points and lag periods (results not shown).
DISCUSSION
This study is among the largest examining cancer risk in career firefighters. The pooled approach and long follow-up period improved risk estimates relative to previous studies. With few exceptions, there was little evidence of significant cancer risk heterogeneity across fire departments or age groups.
Furthermore, sensitivity analyses did not suggest the potential for significant bias from including short-term workers, prevalent hires, or person-time in the open-ended age-group (85+ years).
Despite notable differences in the analytical approaches, we observed remarkable similarities between mortality and inci dence analyses. Additionally , the results of incidence analyses were not significantly affected by the choice of including mul tiple primaries or only the first cancer diagnosis. The lack of sig nificant differences in results between fire departments, end-points, and analytic techniques suggest that the pooled study findings are robust and generalisable to similar firefighter populations.
W e observed decreases in many non-malignant diseases that suggest improved health in these firefighters compared with the general population. This finding is not surprising given health requirements for entering and remaining in the fire service.
Nevertheless, there was a modest excess in overall cancer mor tality and incidence brought about by excess solid cancers at several sites of a priori interest. With few exceptions, our results are consistent with those previously reported and similar to SREs presented in the meta-analysis by LeMasters et al.14 Nevertheless, we found little evidence of excess cancers of the testes, brain and lymphohematopoietic systems, which is con trary to the synthesis by LeMasters et al14 and subsequently published studies.81 1
W e observed about a twofold increase in malignant mesotheli oma mortality and incidence compared with the US population.
Malignant mesothelioma is largely attributable to asbestos exposure, with sparse evidence of other causes.22 Excess malig nant mesothelioma in US firefighters was not previously
described; however, excess incidence was recently observed in Nordic firefighters aged 70+ years,23 and increased risk of asbestos-induced pulmonary and pleural fibrosis was reported in a study of New Y ork City firefighters.24 Although firefighter exposures to asbestos are known, the absence of previous reports of malignant mesothelioma is not surprising given the rarity and extremely long latency (20– 40 years) of the disease.
The average time between the date first employed and the date of diagnosis in the current study was 45 years; therefore, fire- fighting exposure-induced disease may be discernible only after lengthy follow-up. Also, previous studies have been hindered by the lack of specific codes for mesothelioma deaths before ICD-10.
W e observed excess digestive cancers, mainly of oesophageal and colorectal sites. Information on occupational causes is sparse, although there is limited evidence suggesting asbestos and diesel exhaust exposures may be weakly associated with 25 26gastrointestinal cancers. Still, the relation between these hazardous exposures and digestive cancers appears small com pared to the effects of other factors such as diet, obesity , phys ical activity , tobacco use and alcohol consumption.22 27 W e also found increased risk of oral, pharyngeal and laryngeal cancers, compared with the US population. Similar to digestive cancers, important risk factors for these sites are tobacco and alcohol consumption, with lesser evidence that exposures to wood dusts, smoke, asbestos, PAHs and acid mists may also increase risk.22 28 29
Some insight into the degree of a potential bias from the lack of controlling for lifestyle factors can be gained from previous surveillance of firefighter behaviours. For example, the preva lence of smoking among current firefighters appears less than the general population, and is decreasing, 30– 33 a trend that is consistent with observed decreases in non-malignant smoking– related diseases (eg, COPD, stroke) but contradictory to excess digestive, oral and respiratory cancers. As another example, pre vious studies suggest there is increased obesity among firefigh ters compared with the general population. 34– 36 Obesity , or a dietary intake that is high in meat, fat, or overall caloric intake could contribute increased gastric or colorectal cancer risk, although concomitant elevations in health outcomes that are more strongly related to these factors (eg, ischaemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and stroke) were not found. Last, information on alcohol consumption within the fire service is sparse and inconsistent.37– 40 Some studies suggest that firefighter behaviours may differ from the general population, although it is not clear that any perceived behavioural difference is sufficient to explain disparities in alcohol-related health out comes. In the current study , the information on non-malignant and potentially alcohol-related mortality was at conflict; there was excess mortality from cirrhosis and other chronic liver disease, but fewer than expected alcoholism deaths. Alternate explanations for increased cirrhosis mortality may be exposures to chemical toxins or infectious disease, 41– 43 which may also account for excess acute renal dysfunction, a disease that is more common among those with chronic liver disease.
Fewer than 4% of firefighters in our study were women.
There was evidence of excess female bladder and breast cancers; however, only bladder cancer mortality and incidence reached statistical significance. Modest excess bladder cancer has been observed in some occupations involving known or suspected bladder carcinogens (eg, PAHs, and diesel exhaust), yet contrary to our findings, risk patterns by occupation tend not to differ by gender.22 There is little evidence linking female breast cancer to workplace exposures; however, prolonged shift work may be a risk factor (and to a lesser extent a risk factor for prostate, colon and endometrial cancers).2 Moreover, similar findings had not been reported previously , although increased risk of Hodgkin lymphoma and cancers of the cervix and thyroid
among women firefighters (n=2017) was recently described.11 Given the small sample and the lack of confirmatory results, our findings on female outcomes merit cautious interpretation.
Excess bladder and prostate cancer incidence was found
among firefighters less than 65 years of age. Interestingly , the prostate cancer excess was limited to ages between 45years and 59 years, which was consistent with recent observations in Nordic firefighters.23 Similar mortality patterns were not observed. These cancers have relatively high survival; therefore, the underlying cause of death may be an inferior risk measure compared to cancer diagnoses. The early onset of these cancers suggests an association with firefighting. Prostate and bladder cancer diagnoses can occur following routine screening.44 45 As an alternative explanation, differences in medical screening (eg, prostate-specific antigen tests) among firefighters compared to the general population could have contributed to the observed excess. Data on cancer screening practices are lacking; however, Daniels RD, et al. Occup Environ Med 2013;0:1– 10. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101662 8
222
Workplace
it is plausible that screening may be more frequent among fire fighters with improved healthcare availability and heightened cancer awareness.
There was little evidence of increasing cancer risk with increasing employment; however, there were notable analytical shortcomings that merit discussion. First, rather than specifying cut-points and an exposure lag period specific to each outcome, we applied cut-points (10, 20 and 30 years) used in earlier studies594 6 and a common exposure lag period (10 years) to all outcomes; these choices were found to be influential in subse quent sensitivity analyses. Second, our methods have limited capability to account for HWE or other sources of bias that may have masked a dose response. Last, employment duration may poorly represent exposure potential given that some jobs are prone to lower exposures compared with others. For these reasons, a detailed exposure assessment is underway to support multivariable regression modelling for improved dose-response analyses.
Death certificates and registry data used in the current study are imperfect measures of cancer risk. In the absence of a national cancer registry , coverage is limited geographically; therefore, cases occurring outside catchment areas would be missed. Cases occurring before the registries attained compre hensive coverage have also been missed. Mortality analyses have the advantage of broader temporal and spatial coverage, but may poorly characterise cancers with relatively high survival (eg, cancers of the breast, bladder, testes and larynx). Finally , there may have been errors in tracing which can also bias study results. Although errors in ascertainment cannot be ruled out, our use of multiple information sources and end points, and the low numbers of participants lost to follow-up or moving out of catchment areas, act to minimise these errors.
CONCLUSION
In this first phase of examining health effects in career firefigh ters, we report on mortality and cancer incidence among nearly 30 000 career firefighters followed from 1950 through 2009.
Compared with the US population, we found small to moderate increases in risk for several cancer sites and for all cancers com bined, stemming mostly from excess malignancies of the respira tory , digestive and urinary systems in otherwise healthy individuals. Our findings are consistent with previous studies and strengthen evidence of a relation between firefighters’ occu pational exposure and cancer. W e found a previously unre ported twofold excess of malignant mesothelioma among
firefighters. Given that asbestos is the only known causal agent for malignant mesothelioma, and firefighter exposures are prob able, the excess is likely to be a causal association.
This report provides the foundation for subsequent analyses of firefighter risks, some of which are ongoing. In upcoming research, detailed employment histories (eg, number and types of fire runs) and institutional knowledge (eg, use of respiratory protection and source capture ventilation of diesel exhaust) will be used to derive exposure metrics to more accurately examine dose response. Future regression modelling will also enable examination of temporal effects that are poorly suited to life- table analyses, such as time since first exposure. Expansion and continued follow-up of this cohort would enhance future ana lyses, particularly among women and non-Caucasian firefighters.
Acknowledgements This study was made possible through the continued cooperation of the men and women serving the Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco fire departments. We especially wish to acknowledge those who provided key assistance: Chicago ( José Santiago, Tom Ryan, John McNalis, Mark Edingburg, Hugh Russell and Richard Edgeworth); Philadelphia (Lloyd Ayers, Henry Costo, William Gault and Thomas Garrity); San Francisco ( Joanne Hayes-White, Ginny Franklin, Tom O’Connor, Rhab Boughn and Tony Stefani); and within the US Fire Administration (William Troup and Glenn Gains). We acknowledge NIOSH staff and their contractors for contributing to the collection, coding and management of study data. We also wish to thank Grace LeMasters and Paul Demers for their valued counsel during manuscript development.
Contributors RDD participated in design, data collection, analysis and manuscript development. TLK conceived the study and participated in design and data collection. JHY participated in design, data collection and analysis. MMD, TRH, DB, SHZ, JJB and KMW participated in design and data collection. LEP participated in design and critical appraisal. All authors participated in the interpretation and presentation of results and have read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding Research funding was provided by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) by intramural award under the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA), and by the US Fire Administration (USFA). This research was also supported, in part, by the intramural research programme of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI).
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This research was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Approvals for cancer registry access were granted by 11 states (ie, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington). Approvals were also granted by vital records centres for death certificates maintained in 25 states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin). The state public health entities provided vital status information in accordance with state policies, and disclaim responsibility for any analyses, interpretations, or conclusions herein.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement Data were supplied by the Illinois Department of Public Health and the Bureau of Health Statistics and Research, Pennsylvania Department of Health. These public health entities specifically disclaim responsibility for any analyses, interpretations, or conclusions. The Florida cancer incidence data used in this report were collected by the Florida Cancer Data System (FCDS) under contract with the Florida Department of Health (FDOH). The views expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the FCDS or FDOH. The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was also supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting programme mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program under contract N01-PC-35136 awarded to the Northern California Cancer Center, contract N01-PC-35139 awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract N02-PC-15105 awarded to the Public Health Institute; and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement #U55/CCR921930-02 awarded to the Public Health Institute. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and endorsement by the State of California, Department of Public Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention or their contractors and subcontractors is neither intended nor to be inferred.
REFERENCES
1 Karter MJ, Stein GP. U.S. Fire Department Profile Through 2011 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research Division, Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 2012:1– 36.
2 International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC working group on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Painting, firefighting, and shiftwork.
IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 2010;98:9– 764.
3 Aronson KJ, Tomlinson GA, Smith L. Mortality among fire fighters in metropolitan Toronto. Am J Ind Med 1994;26:89– 101.
4 Tornling G, Gustavsson P, Hogstedt C. Mortality and cancer incidence in Stockholm fire fighters. Am J Ind Med 1994;25:219– 28.
5 Vena JE, Fiedler RC. Mortality of a municipal-worker cohort: IV. Fire fighters. Am J Ind Med 1987;11:671– 84.
6 Demers PA, Heyer NJ, Rosenstock L. Mortality among firefighters from three northwestern United States cities. Br J Ind Med 1992;49:664– 70. 7 Bates MN. Registry-based case-control study of cancer in California firefighters. Am J Ind Med 2007;50:339– 44.
8 Kang D, Davis LK, Hunt P, et al. Cancer incidence among male Massachusetts firefighters, 1987– 2003. Am J Ind Med 2008;51:329– 35.
9 Baris D, Garrity TJ, Telles JL, et al. Cohort mortality study of Philadelphia firefighters. Am J Ind Med 2001;39:463– 76.
10 Beaumont JJ, Chu GS, Jones JR, et al. An epidemiologic study of cancer and other causes of mortality in San Francisco firefighters. Am J Ind Med 1991;19:357– 72.
Daniels RD, et al. Occup Environ Med 2013;0:1– 10. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101662 9
223
Workplace
11 Ma F, Fleming LE, Lee DJ, et al. Cancer incidence in Florida professional firefighters, 29 Paget-Bailly S, Cyr D, Luce D. Occupational exposures and cancer of the 1981 to 1999. J Occup Environ Med 2006;48:883– 8. larynx-systematic review and meta-analysis. J Occup Environ Med 2012; 12 Ma F, Fleming LE, Lee DJ, et al. Mortality in Florida professional firefighters, 1972 54:71– 84. to 1999. Am J Ind Med 2005;47:509– 17. 30 Haddock CK, Jitnarin N, Poston WS, et al. Tobacco use among firefighters in the 13 Heyer N, Weiss NS, Demers P, et al. Cohort mortality study of Seattle fire fighters: central United States. Am J Ind Med 2011;54:697– 706. 1945– 1983. Am J Ind Med 1990;17:493– 504. 31 Lee DJ, LeBlanc W, Fleming LE, et al. Trends in US smoking rates in occupational 14 LeMasters GK, Genaidy AM, Succop P, et al. Cancer risk among firefighters: A groups: the National Health Interview Survey 1987– 1994. J Occup Environ Med review and meta-analysis of 32 studies. J Occup Environ Med 2006;48:1189– 202. 2004;46:538– 48. 15 Fritz A, Percy C, Jack A, et al. eds. International classification of diseases for 32 Poston WS, Haddock CK, Jitnarin N, et al. A national qualitative study of tobacco oncology. 3rd edn. (ICD-O-3). Geneva: World Health Organization, 2000. use among career firefighters and department health personnel. Nicotine Tob Res 16 Schubauer-Berigan MK, Hein MJ, Raudabaugh WM, et al. Update of the NIOSH life 2012;14:734– 41. table analysis system: a person-years analysis program for the windows computing 33 Lee DJ, Fleming LE, Arheart KL, et al. Smoking rate trends in U.S. occupational environment. Am J Ind Med 2011;54:915– 24. groups: the 1987 to 2004 National Health Interview Survey. J Occup Environ Med 17 Robinson CF, Schnorr TM, Cassinelli RT II, et al. Tenth revision U.S. mortality rates 2007;49:75– 81. for use with the NIOSH Life Table Analysis System. J Occup Environ Med 34 Munir F, Clemes S, Houdmont J, et al. Overweight and obesity in UK firefighters. 2006;48:662– 7. Occup Med (Lond) 2012;62:362– 5.
18 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) 35 Poston WS, Jitnarin N, Haddock CK, et al. Obesity and injury-related absenteeism in SEER*Stat Database: Incidence – all available reqistries (1985 to 2009), National a population-based firefighter cohort. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2011; Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems 19:2076– 81.
Branch, released April 2012, based on the November 2011 submission. 36 Tsismenakis AJ, Christophi CA, Burress JW, et al. The obesity epidemic and future 19 Merrill RM, Sloan A, Novilla LB. Understanding population-based site-specific emergency responders. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2009;17:1648– 50. cancer incidence rates in the USA. J Cancer Educ 2012;27:263– 8. 37 Haddock CK, Jahnke SA, Poston WS, et al. Alcohol use among firefighters in the 20 Applebaum KM, Malloy EJ, Eisen EA. Reducing healthy worker survivor bias by Central United States. Occup Med (Lond) 2012;62:661– 4. restricting date of hire in a cohort study of Vermont granite workers. Occup Environ 38 Carey MG, Al-Zaiti SS, Dean GE, et al. Sleep problems, depression, substance use, Med 2007;64:681– 7. social bonding, and quality of life in professional firefighters. J Occup Environ Med 21 Sorahan T. Bladder cancer risks in workers manufacturing chemicals for the rubber 2011;53:928– 33. industry. Occup Med (Lond) 2008;58:496– 501. 39 Parker DA, Harford TC. The epidemiology of alcohol consumption and dependence 22 Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF. eds. Cancer epidemiology and prevention. 3rd edn. across occupations in the United States. Alcohol Health Res World Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006. 1992;16:97– 105. 23 Demers PA, Martinsen JI, Kjaerheim K, et al. Cancer incidence among Nordic 40 Boxer PA, Wild D. Psychological distress and alcohol use among fire fighters. Scand firefighters [abstract]. Am J Epidemiol 2011;173:S191. J Work Environ Health 1993;19:121– 5. 24 Markowitz SB, Garibaldi K, Lilis R, et al. Asbestos and fire fighting. Ann N Y Acad 41 Leiss JK, Ratcliffe JM, Lyden JT, et al. Blood exposure among paramedics: incidence Sci 1991;643:573– 81. rates from the national study to prevent blood exposure in paramedics. Ann 25 Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Baan RA, Grosse Y, et al. Carcinogenicity of diesel-engine and Epidemiol 2006;16:720– 5. gasoline-engine exhausts and some nitroarenes. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:663– 4. 42 Rischitelli G, Harris J, McCauley L, et al. The risk of acquiring hepatitis B or C 26 International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Working Group on the among public safety workers: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Arsenic, metals, fibres, and dusts. 2001;20:299– 306.
Volume 100C. A review of human carcinogens. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks 43 Boal WL, Hales T, Ross CS. Blood-borne pathogens among firefighters and Hum 2012;100:11– 465. emergency medical technicians. Prehosp Emerg Care 2005;9:236– 47. 27 International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Working Group on the 44 Potosky AL, Miller BA, Albertsen PC, et al. The role of increasing detection in the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Personal habits and indoor rising incidence of prostate-cancer. JAMA 1995;273:548– 52 combustions. Volume 100 E. A review of human carcinogens. IARC Monogr Eval 45 Moyer VA. Screening for bladder cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Carcinog Risks Hum 2012;100:1– 538. recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:246– 51. 28 Paget-Bailly S, Cyr D, Luce D. Occupational exposures to asbestos, polycyclic 46 Demers PA, Checkoway H, Vaughan TL, et al. Cancer incidence among firefighters aromatic hydrocarbons and solvents, and cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx: in Seattle and Tacoma, Washington (United States). Cancer Causes Control a quantitative literature review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2012;85:341– 51. 1994;5:129– 35.
Daniels RD, et al. Occup Environ Med 2013;0:1– 10. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101662 10
224
Walden University
ScholarWorks
Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection
2017
Law Enforcement Fitness Policies in Relation to Job
Injuries and Absenteeism
Marlana Lynn Hancock
Walden University
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations Part of the Criminology Commons, Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, and the Public Policy Commons
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].
225
Walden University
College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by
Marlana Hancock
has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.
Review Committee
Dr. Mark Stallo, Committee Chairperson,
Public Policy and Administration Faculty
Dr. Richard Worch, Committee Member,
Public Policy and Administration Faculty
Dr. James Mosko, University Reviewer,
Public Policy and Administration Faculty
Chief Academic Officer
Eric Riedel, Ph.D.
Walden University
2017
226
Abstract
Law Enforcement Fitness Policies in Relation to Job Injuries and Absenteeism by
Marlana L. Hancock
MA, Sam Houston State University, 1997
BA, University of Northern Iowa, 1994
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Public Policy and Administration
Walden University
August 2017
227
Abstract
After employment, job-related fitness requirements vary for law enforcement agencies within North Carolina. Police academies mandate specific job-related fitness requirements for recruits as a condition of graduation. Once employed, little is known about why some law enforcement agencies in North Carolina have physical fitness policies and others do not, particularly when injury rates and healthcare costs continue to rise. To better understand this inconsistency, the current study used a mixed methods approach to examine 6 midsized law enforcement agencies in North Carolina with varying fitness policies. The policy of each agency, along with OSHA work-related injuries and absenteeism reports, were examined quantitatively to determine if a relationship existed between policy and injuries and absenteeism. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc tests found a greater statistical significance between policy levels and injury rates than between policy level and absenteeism rates. An interview with agency personnel qualitatively identified common themed responses to determine whether the utility function of rational choice theory explained fitness policy implementation. It was difficult to determine whether the utilitarian component was the reason behind policy decisions, but data-driven results seemed to serve as an agent of fitness policy decision making. The results contributed to the limited academic literature on this topic although further research recommendations were made. The findings advocate for better officer health and fitness standards to reduce the risk of on-the-job injuries and absenteeism, and reduce health care costs to all involved.
228
Law Enforcement Fitness Policies in Relation to Job Injuries and Absenteeism by
Marlana L. Hancock
MA, Sam Houston State University, 1997
BA, University of Northern Iowa, 1994
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Public Policy and Administration
Walden University
August 2017
229
Dedication
This study is dedicated to the men and women in blue who put their lives on the line every time they put on the uniform. My prayer is that you stay healthy and steadfast to serve your community with integrity and honor. And to my beloved Ken, I will love you always…
230
Acknowledgments
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths (Prov. 3: 5-6, KJV).
Much has been done, but there is also much to do. A sincere thank you is not enough for those who have encouraged and helped me along this path, my mom and my dad, sisters Cindy, Debbie, Pam, and Mandy. Manders, you are my inspiration. Dr. Nancy McCurry, you gave me the courage to continue my education and in your retirement, you will be deeply missed. My co-worker and boss, Neil Weatherly, thank you for your understanding and flexibility in allowing me to occasionally use work time for school obligations. And Pastor Shook, thank you for being a blessing in my life.
Dr. Stallo, I have enjoyed our journey and appreciate the support, guidance, and encouragement when times got a bit stressful. Your leadership has helped me gain confidence to move on in the academic world. Dr. Worch, your time, feedback, and genuine interest is more than I could ask for in completing this process. Dr. Mosko, I enjoyed attending many of your writing seminar sessions and participating in the topic discussions. Your input has been enlightening and I appreciate your constructive feedback and input. Carey, your editing and suggestions were most welcomed and helpful, thank you so much for your time and writing expertise.
Last, but certainly not least, thank you so much to the law enforcement agencies who agreed to participate in my study. The time and resources that were asked of you will be remembered and is much appreciated. I hope your worthy contributions have been demonstrated in this research.
231
i
Table of Contents
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1 Background of the Study ...............................................................................................1 Problem Statement .........................................................................................................4 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................5 Research Questions and Hypotheses .............................................................................6 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................7 Definitions of Terms ......................................................................................................7 Nature of Study ..............................................................................................................8 Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations ....................................................................10 Significance of Study ...................................................................................................12 Social Change ..............................................................................................................13 Summary ......................................................................................................................14 Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................15 Introduction ..................................................................................................................15 Searching the Literature ...............................................................................................17 Physical Demands of Law Enforcement ......................................................................18 Work-Related Injuries ..................................................................................................21 Physical Fitness Policies in Law Enforcement ............................................................22 The Legalities of Fitness Standards .............................................................................23
232
ii
Physical Fitness Testing ...............................................................................................25 Police Officer Physical Abilities Test (POPAT) .........................................................29 The Impact of Fitness for Duty ....................................................................................33 Fitness Resources for the Workplace ...........................................................................38 Leadership in Law Enforcement ..................................................................................39 Rational Choice Theory ...............................................................................................42 Summary ......................................................................................................................44 Chapter 3: Research Method ..............................................................................................45 Introduction ..................................................................................................................45 Research Design...........................................................................................................45 Case Study ............................................................................................................ 46 Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................47 Research Population and Sample .................................................................................49 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................51 Ethical Procedures and Considerations ........................................................................52 Protection of Human Participants ......................................................................... 52 Informed Consent.................................................................................................. 52 Right to Privacy .................................................................................................... 53 Honesty ................................................................................................................. 53 Institutional Review Board (IRB) ......................................................................... 53 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 54 Dissemination of Study Findings .................................................................................54
233
iii
Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................55 Summary ......................................................................................................................55 Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................57 Introduction ..................................................................................................................57 The Researcher.............................................................................................................58 Setting and Recruitment Process .................................................................................60 Instruments ...................................................................................................................61 Quantitative ........................................................................................................... 61 Qualitative ............................................................................................................. 62 Demographics ..............................................................................................................63 Agency 1 ............................................................................................................... 63 Agency 2 ............................................................................................................... 64 Agency 3 ............................................................................................................... 64 Agency 4 ............................................................................................................... 64 Agency 5 ............................................................................................................... 65 Agency 6 ............................................................................................................... 65 Data Collection ............................................................................................................65 Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................66 Research Question 1 ............................................................................................. 68 ANOVA ................................................................................................................ 70 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................. 73 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................. 78
234
iv
Threats to Internal Validity-Instrumentation ...............................................................80 Trustworthiness ............................................................................................................81 Summary ......................................................................................................................83 Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations ............................................85 Introduction ..................................................................................................................85 Interpretation of the Findings.......................................................................................85 Research Question 1 ............................................................................................. 86 Theoretical Concepts ...................................................................................................87 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................. 88 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................. 89 Existing Policies and Potential Approaches ................................................................89 Limitations ...................................................................................................................90 Implications for Positive Social Change ......................................................................92 Recommendations for Action ......................................................................................93 Recommendations for Further Study ...........................................................................94 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................95 References ..........................................................................................................................97 Appendix A: North Carolina Regions..............................................................................112 Appendix B: Piedmont Triad Region Law Enforcement Agencies .................................113 Appendix C: Population of Midsize Law ........................................................................114 Appendix D: Sample Agency Fitness Policy ...................................................................115 Appendix E: OSHA 300A Summary Form .....................................................................116
235
v
Appendix F: Participating Agencies OSHA Data ............................................................117 Appendix G: Agency Questionnaire ................................................................................118
236
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Agency Demographics of Sample .......................................................................68 Table 2. 95% Confidence Intervals of Pairwise Differences in Mean Changes of Injury Rates ............................................................................................................72 Table 3. Agency Responses to Policy Rationale ...............................................................76
237
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Concurrent/triangulation design .........................................................................47
238
1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
A police officer is faced with daily unknowns on the job, which can be both physically and psychologically demanding (Guffey, Larson, & Lasley, 2014). It seems fitting that a law enforcement agency would require officers to maintain a certain standard of fitness or wellness to secure their safety and well-being as well as to benefit the agency, as a healthier lifestyle encourages fewer missed days of work and lower health care costs. However, this does not seem to be common practice among law enforcement agencies in North Carolina. Though fitness requirements for police academy cadets are mandated by state training and standard boards, not all agencies mandate fitness as a condition of continued employment. This creates a misunderstanding as to why consistency does not exist beyond academy training and what factors contribute to specific fitness policy decision-making at the agency level.
This research examines (a) why state-mandated physical fitness standards for police academy cadets are used at some law enforcement agencies but not others as a condition of employment and (b) whether more stringent fitness policies contribute to reduced job- related injuries and absenteeism rates. If there is a significant relationship between certain fitness policies and work-related injury rates and absenteeism, then future research might address this issue and support efforts to improve officer health and lower agency costs due to officer injuries and absenteeism.
Background of the Study
There is little debate that the job demands of first responders (including law enforcement) place stress on and affect a body’s efficiency. Physical and psychological stress go hand in hand and the effects can include lower back pain and heart disease
239
2 (Armstrong, Clare, & Plecas, 2014; Heneweer, Picavet, Staes, Kiers, & Vanhees, 2012).
These job demands stress the importance of officers maintaining optimal cardiovascular endurance in order to reduce the risk of injury on the job. Given that officers must physically deal with individuals and equipment while on the job, it is not shocking that they maintain a higher heart rate compared to the general public (Armstrong et al., 2014).
Over a career, exposure to these demands along with shiftwork can affect an officer’s fitness for duty, especially for officers who have 20 or more years of experience (Wirtz & Nachreiner, 2012). Thus, although physical activity is known to benefit general health and promote prevention of injuries, many law enforcement agencies do not require certain fitness standards as a condition of employment. This is the case even though the North Carolina training and standards board continues to research and update task analysis standards for its police academies.
In 2015, the North Carolina Department of Justice concluded a study to update its Police Officer Physical Abilities Test (POPAT) from years past. The completion of the POPAT within a certain time limit is required of all North Carolina police academy cadets. The test is made up of various physical tasks that are designed to mirror real situations that patrol officers might encounter on the job. Its purpose is to differentiate between those who can and cannot perform the physical functions of a police officer’s job at an adequate level of proficiency (North Carolina Justice Academy [NCJA], n.d.).
Ensuring that people are physically fit for work by matching capabilities with physical job requirements is an important step toward reducing injury and absence rates (Rayson, 2000). A cadet’s successful completion of POPAT means passing the basic law enforcement training academy. Unsuccessful completion means failing the entire
240
3 academy. Nevertheless, the question is this: If the state deems certain physical tasks necessary to perform the job in the police academy setting, why are many law enforcement agencies not requiring similar standards for officers working in the field? Plat, Frings-Dresen, and Sluiter (2011) recommended using early intervention to promote a healthy lifestyle, which can reduce the risk of future injuries. In their study, emergency medical services (EMS), fire, and military personnel were examined; however, similar effects would be expected among police officers. Even though prevention would seem beneficial no matter the occupation, this needs to be explored further.
Guffey et al. (2014) did not find a direct correlation between officer fitness and injuries specifically but did find a correlation between officer weight and injuries after efforts were made by several departments to improve officer wellness. This cannot be discounted because weight can be a contributing factor to overall wellness and fitness.
Perhaps weight needs to be considered in hypothesizing that more stringent fitness policies lower work-related injury and absenteeism rates.
One way to promote work injury prevention is to educate personnel and use resources already in place. For example, North Carolina legislation provides for a full public health mandate, which includes injury prevention. This responsibility lies within the North Carolina Health and Human Services Department. To promote health and fitness, funding could be available for injury prevention programs (Stier, Thombley, Kohn, & Jesada, 2012) within a number of occupations. This is an important issue that should be addressed within law enforcement management to determine, first, if agencies are aware of these resources, and second, if there is interest in using these state resources
241
4 to assist with fitness policy implementation. If supported by decision makers, available funding might justify routine health screening as a prevention tool. Making agencies aware of these available resources could enhance a positive management system that strengthens an agency’s commitment (Dick, 2011) to fitness. In this study, management support of fitness policies (or lack thereof) was examined to determine commitment to officer fitness. Theoretical application determined whether agency incentives for fitness improvement came from leadership, and if so, whether this influence was present in policy. Leadership management is an important component to consider when examining the policies of an agency (Schulhofer, Tyler, & Huq, 2011).
Problem Statement
Law enforcement personnel have an increased risk for cardiovascular disease and other health issues due to the common shiftwork involved and the unknown demands of the job (Armstrong et al., 2014; Wright, Barbosa-Leiker, & Hoekstra, 2011). This type of work environment can lead to an increased risk of injuries if officers are not appropriately prepared to the best of their abilities. Injuries can be reduced through such prevention approaches as improved physical activity (Heneweer et al., 2012). The importance of a healthy lifestyle has been emphasized in a plethora of research (Means, Lowry, & Hoffman, 2011b). It is also known that officers are at a higher risk for injury than the average person simply because of their profession. These factors justify the action of an agency to require officers to maintain an optimal health level, especially given that medical expenses and lost productivity in the workplace total more than $400 billion in the United States each year (Stier et al., 2012). Law enforcement is one of the industries included in those figures.
242
5 Law enforcement agencies in North Carolina define and determine their own standard operating procedures (SOPs), including fitness requirements. An agency can elect to set standards as a condition of employment as long as each standard is justified by the job requirements (Department of Labor, n.d.). Unfortunately, little is known about why some law enforcement agencies in North Carolina do and some do not have fitness standards, given the support that fitness has in research. It is not known whether having a physical fitness policy in place directly relates to job injuries and absenteeism rates.
Using a sample of law enforcement agencies, the current research examined which factors contributed to implemented agency policy and determined whether the use of a fitness policy directly related to injury and absenteeism rates within an agency.
Additionally, I sought to determine the following: If there was a relationship, did lost productivity, in part or whole, contribute to unfit officers getting injured? Purpose of the Study
This mixed methods study was conducted for the purpose of testing the utility function component of rational choice theory to determine if it explained fitness policy implementation and determined whether policy affected reported work-related injuries and absenteeism among North Carolina law enforcement agencies. The quantitative portion of the study examined the independent variable policy (defined as the presence or absence of an agency’s fitness policy) over a 5-year period. The dependent variables injuries and absences consisted of the total number of work-related injuries and absences reported each year at an agency. The control variable, progressive policy, was defined according to an agency’s increased fitness requirements over a 5-year period.
243
6 Research Questions and Hypotheses
Three questions guided this research:
RQ1. What relationship, if any, exists between a North Carolina law enforcement agency’s fitness policy and work-related injuries and absenteeism?
H0: No significant relationship exists between the stringency of fitness policy and job-related injuries and absenteeism.
H1: The more stringent a fitness policy is, the lower the job-related injuries and absenteeism.
RQ2. When research emphasizes the benefits of maintaining a certain fitness level, particularly for first responders, does the utility function within rational choice theory explain why some North Carolina law enforcement agencies mandate physical fitness requirements for officers and others do not? H0: Based on the utility function, rational choice theory does not explain why an agency has the current fitness policy in place.
H1: Rational choice theory presumes that policy decision-making is representative of a utility function and does explain why agencies have any or more stringent fitness policies in place.
RQ3. Are data-driven results of injury or absenteeism an agent or constraint as they pertain to the present fitness policy?
H0: Injuries and/or absenteeism rates are neither an agent nor a constraint of the current fitness policy.
244
7 H1: Injuries and/or absenteeism rates are either an agent or a constraint of the current fitness policy.
Theoretical Framework
As applied to public policy, rational choice theory contends that individuals interact through a social process and these interactions ultimately achieve organizational decision-making. Therefore, individual actions can affect the outcomes of policymaking (Green, 2002; Jones, Boushey, & Workman, 2006). As rational choice theory is specifically applied to this study, it would be expected that fitness policy implementation is influenced by the decision-making process. To test this, managers and administrators from the sample of law enforcement agencies were questioned about their fitness policies over the last 5 years and were asked about the rationale for the policy, such as whether any incentives or consequences were tied to policies. The issue of what affects agency fitness policy was explored, including circumstances such as politics, budget, data-driven results, and personal decisions. Rational choice theory is explored further in Chapter 2. The results found will be shared with all involved organizations and may influence or impact agency policy concerning officer fitness standards, either presently or in the future (Lunenburg, 2011; Royle & Hall, 2012).
Definitions of Terms
For this study, the following terms are used or referenced:
Basic Law Enforcement Training (BLET): A North Carolina state-mandated 616- hour (minimum) training course composed of 36 separate blocks of instruction and practical exercises, concluding with a comprehensive written exam and skills testing. It prepares individuals with entry-level skills needed to become certified law enforcement
245
8 officers in the state (North Carolina Department of Justice, 2015). It is also referred to as the “police academy.”
Law enforcement: Individuals and agencies responsible for enforcing state and local laws in the course of maintaining public order and safety (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016).
Physical fitness: “The ability to meet life’s daily demands, without undue fatigue, while maintaining sufficient energy or leisure time pursuits and to overcome emergency situations that may arise personally and professionally” (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies [CALEA], 2010).
Police administration: Police officers whose role is to manage and supervise police agencies.
Police officer: Uniformed, sworn officers assigned to the patrol function of policing.
Police Officer Physical Abilities Test (POPAT): Scientifically-tested series of tasks designed to assess important physical abilities necessary for effective job performance as a police officer, developed to mirror real-life situations that officers might encounter on the job (North Carolina Department of Justice, 2015).
Nature of Study
A purposive sample consisting of six North Carolina midsized law enforcement agencies in the Piedmont Triad region (see Appendices A and B) was chosen to participate in the study. Two agencies from each of the following categories were sought: (a) those with no mandated/voluntary fitness policy over the last 5 years, (b) those with a progressive or changed fitness policy over the last 5 years, and (c) those with
246
9 a continued mandated fitness policy over the last 5 years. The search for agencies that fit these criteria began by using U.S. Census Bureau data to identify midsized populations in the North Carolina Piedmont Triad region. Using a quasi-experimental design, the sample of six was placed into nonrandomly assigned groups (independent, nominal variables). The number of work days missed in each of the years 2011-2015 due to work-related injuries served as the dependent, ratio-level variable.
Upon written agency permission and a guarantee of anonymity, agency administrators were asked to participate in a brief interview to answer a short, open- ended questionnaire inquiring about fitness policy implementation as it pertained to decision-making within the agency. The intent was to help determine what influences and affects these policy decisions within the agency. Descriptive statistics were used for each variable, and ANOVA and post-hoc tests were used to identify any significant relationships between the independent and dependent variables. Progressive policy was used as a control variable in an attempt to lessen the cause and effect order. An advisory committee was used to both construct questionnaire content and review the research process and purpose.
Permission was also secured to examine each agency’s fitness policy and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 300A summary reports of work- related injuries and absences from the years 2011-2015. It was assumed that both fitness policies and injury reports were internally valid and therefore measured what they were supposed to. To ensure external validity prior to analysis, a collaborative effort between the researcher and agency administrator was used to review these documents to verify
247
10 that what was reported represented an accurate portrayal of information. This included a review of fitness policies, OSHA documents, and completed questionnaires.
Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations
It was assumed for this study that the participating agencies would answer interview questions honestly and provide current, accurate policy and OSHA data. In order to support this premise, questionnaires were provided in advance and question responses as well as OSHA forms were reviewed with each agency for accuracy. Any research presents potential validity and reliability issues; this study was not an exception.
The stringency level of an agency’s fitness policy served as a control variable; the stringency level was used to determine whether the absence or the presence of a mandate was a reliable measure of work absenteeism. It is important in research that any instrument used measures what is intended; therefore, instruments in this study were analyzed for validity to determine if the content being measured was accurate (Frankfort- Nachmias & Nachmias, 2008).
To maintain internal validity, all distributed questionnaires consisted of the same questions pertaining to fitness policy standards and absenteeism rates over the same 5- year period. For consistency purposes, an average standardized absentee rate was calculated per agency to allow cross comparisons. To establish questionnaire tool validity and reliability, a criminal justice advisory board (made up of local agency representatives) was presented with preliminary questions and solicited for feedback prior to questionnaire distribution.
Research integrity was promoted and any misconduct was avoided, as such actions reflect an organization or institution (Creswell, 2013). Data collection and
248
11 participant anonymity, privacy, and confidentiality all needed to be protected, as this helped to ensure my trustworthiness as a researcher. Data analyses and discussion were presented in neutral language and at the appropriate level for audience understanding (Creswell, 2013). The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) code of ethics guided the conduct of this research. Although the steps I took did not eliminate researcher bias, they helped to reduce it. Applying reflexivity within qualitative research implies that a researcher is upfront regarding his or her background, and that any interpretation and gains that might come from the study will be fully acknowledged (Creswell, 2013). To help eliminate additional bias, a written transcription of all responses was provided to each interviewee for review of accuracy. This step was pertinent because researchers have an obligation to monitor and report as fully and truthfully as possible all procedures that were used in a study (Patton, 2002).
Also important to researchers is awareness of potential ecological and individual fallacies in a study (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 2008). It should be emphasized that an agency’s lack of enforcement of a fitness standard does not imply that officers cannot or do not take individual responsibility for their own duty fitness. It also cannot be inferred that the presence of high absentee or injury rates reflects poor officer or agency performance.
A final limitation of this study was that a sample of six agencies was used. Using such a small sample limited the detection of large differences and did not allow for the generalization of results found, either within or outside the state. However, findings help to address the research questions presented and contribute to what little is known about the relationship between fitness policies and work-related injuries and absenteeism within
249
12 law enforcement in North Carolina. The results add to the knowledge of how policies are derived.
Significance of Study
A thorough search of the literature on officer fitness and injuries found very limited studies specifically comparing physical fitness policies to job injuries nationwide or in North Carolina. Every industry is required by OSHA to document and report work- related injuries. Therefore, the results of this study add to the literature by addressing whether mandated fitness requirements are related to agency-documented OSHA injury rates within the law enforcement profession. This study also contributes to the gap in field research because, although fitness is encouraged, little is being done to improve officer health as work-related-injury costs continue to rise. More specifically, research at the state level is lacking on whether fitness policies even influence the number of injuries reported among North Carolina law enforcement agencies, and what the rationale is for current policies. By addressing these issues, the study contributes to law enforcement field knowledge and any significance between fitness policies and work-related injuries and absenteeism. The significance between policy and injury rates found within the study demonstrates the need for widespread participation in wellness initiatives. This could not only improve individual officer health, but also better equip officers to perform their duties with a reduced likelihood of getting hurt. Simply put, being more fit could increase the chance of officers going home injury free at the end of each shift.
Ensuring that officers are safely and physically able to fulfill their required duties should be not only a personal officer responsibility but also a concern for each agency.
Current policies may be sufficient, and there may be no relationship between work
250
13 injuries or absences, but this is understudied in North Carolina. However, because one may affect the other, and wellness, along with increased job performance and cost savings prevails, everyone involved wins. Rejecting the null hypothesis of the current statistical analyses can provide a base for positive fitness policy changes within law enforcement, thereby sustaining the importance of fitness for officers beyond academy training. Results provide an opportunity for agencies to promote fitness and wellness as a means to improve officer health and reduce injuries and absenteeism. This could benefit officers, lower agency health costs, and lower overall health insurance provider costs.
Social Change
A police officer’s job is not routine; it is never the same from day to day. It is difficult to predict what officers will need to do to protect themselves and the public.
Therefore, officers should train and be prepared to respond to the unpredictable. This can be done through the use of combined physical and psychological exercises as provided in police academy training. Training includes intense encounters, development of survival instincts, and exercises to build strength and power endurance. These tactics should be included in regularly scheduled in-service events (Zagaria, 2007) because many officers do not continue fitness training beyond the academy, and physical training often trails off if an agency does not either promote or mandate fitness-level standards. Examining agencies that both do and do not institute fitness policies in North Carolina, I sought to bring attention to policy discrepancies at a state level. This study represented an opportunity to raise awareness of possible fitness–injury correlations and informs agencies of available resources they might not be aware of, such as health and injury prevention programs and potential funding for these programs.
251
14 Ultimately, a significant relationship between policy and injury and absenteeism rates provides a springboard to advocate for better health and fitness among officers in the state. Sharing results could also increase awareness of officer health and safety benefits as they pertain to the law enforcement job, meaning providing the necessary tools to promote officer wellness (Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2015) and decrease injury risks. In turn, better wellness increases both officer health/wellness and public service efficiency.
Summary
This research was conducted to examine fitness policies and OSHA injury reports among six North Carolina law enforcement agencies over a 5-year period. Using a quantitative analysis, I sought to determine whether a significant relationship existed between these variables. Analyses rejected the null hypothesis, and a certain category of policies related to fewer injuries and absences; thus, findings supported the promotion of physical fitness policies for police officers beyond the police academy.
Additional analysis through qualitative examination of questionnaire responses from police administrators determined whether rational choice theory supports policy decision-making, focusing on the utility function. Responses helped in determining which factors contributed to policy decision-making and whether decisions were based on personal preferences, political influence, or other circumstances, or whether decisions were based on a representation of larger objectives. Chapter 2 explores the variety of studies I found that were related to this topic.
252
15 Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
A generally sedentary population is at a greater risk of coronary disease than those who are more active. The same stands true for those who have more physically demanding jobs; their risk for heart attack and absenteeism is lower (Donoghue, 1977).
Police work can be physically demanding as well as stressful and dangerous (Zimmerman, 2012). As patrol officers answer calls for service, they never know what will happen next, or what abilities or skills might be required of them at any given time.
Therefore, suffering injury or worse is always a possibility. Law enforcement has one of the highest rates of injuries and illnesses among occupations (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2014) and has greater mortality and morbidity rates than the general public (FitForce, Inc., 2010; Quigley, 2008; Smith & Tooker, 2011; Wright et al., 2011).
Research has shown that improved endurance performance makes the body less susceptible to fatigue and a person less likely to commit errors (Donoghue, 1977).
Various factors work into this equation, but one specifically, officer fitness, is the focus of this discussion. Though the police academy helps cadets prepare for entry into the law enforcement workplace, the rest of the preparation and experience depends on the officer and the hiring agency. The agency sets the tone for what is deemed acceptable and important. Sometimes certain health and fitness levels are required, or at least encouraged throughout an officer’s career, but among North Carolina law enforcement agencies, this general policy seems to be more the exception than the rule, which in part was what this research set out to discover.
253
16 Health and fitness among those in law enforcement is declining. Health is considered “a state of complete physical, mental, and emotional well-being” (Smith & Tooker, 2011, p. 3). The consequences of not being healthy include vulnerability to on- duty illness and injury, and increased exposure to liability (FitForce, Inc., 2010; Pronk, 2015). However, does being in better health or better shape necessarily contribute to fewer work-related injuries for police officers? Interventions offered to improve physical job performance have shown diverse results (Plat et al., 2011). Therefore, the literature was explored further to address whether better officer fitness is related to fewer job injuries or less absenteeism.
Having physically fit police officers has benefits. Fit officers tend to use less time off because of injury or illness and tend to be less stressed (Bissett, Bissett, & Snell, 2012; Quigley, 2008). Physical fitness, as defined by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA, 2010), is “the ability to meet life’s daily demands, without undue fatigue, while maintaining sufficient energy or leisure time pursuits and to overcome emergency situations that may arise personally and professionally” (Smith & Tooker, 2011, p. 2). Yet who decides which fitness standards to implement and why is unclear. Whether the decision is personal, administrative, or political is known only by the agency. Other factors such as personnel, resources, and funding might contribute to policy decision-making. As funding for public safety decreases (Bueermann, 2012), it is important that agencies be able to do more with less.
Doing more includes informing decision makers about using the best strategies with the most desirable outcomes.
254
17 Police academies instill physical fitness training and testing as a condition of graduation. Adequately preparing cadets at the police academy adds value to their future performance (Caro, 2011), as both strength training and cardiovascular exercise have rewards and can improve individuals’ quality of life in many ways (Williams, 2002).
However, most departmental policies do not require that officers maintain that fitness and then leaders wonder why officers have high stress levels and suffer from various health conditions at a higher rate than the general public (Williams, 2002). Physical activity is an integral part of healthy living (Pronk, 2009), as it helps to prevent heart disease and assists with weight control, thus protecting the body from injury (Quigley, 2008).
Physical tasks required of police officers are similar worldwide. Some studies have found that certain physical agility tests are not strongly related to actual job requirements (Bissett et al., 2012; Bonneau & Brown, 1995). It seems evident that policing requires strength and endurance, in that officers are engaged in physical challenges regularly (Guffey et al., 2014). Because policing is a profession whose members experience a high level of job-related stress (Hartley, Burchfiel, Fekedulegn, Andrew, & Violanti, 2011), it seems that police officers who maintain their fitness are better able to cope with job stress and are better prepared for critical incidents than their peers who do not (Ebling, 2002).
Thus, given all the benefits a fit lifestyle can bring, one might wonder why many officers are still unfit for the job (Williams, 2002).
Searching the Literature
A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted using several databases and search engines. Sources were obtained from Walden University’s library using ProQuest Criminal Justice, EBSCO, and other databases. Google Scholar was also used
255
18 to search and obtain peer-reviewed and topic-pertinent information. Key words were used in three main categorical searches for peer-reviewed articles. First, police, law enforcement, and cops were used interchangeably as ‘OR’ Boolean factors. Then fitness, wellness, and health were used as ‘OR’ Boolean factors. Finally, policies, injuries, and absenteeism were included. Rational choice theory was also searched in the various databases. These key words resulted in multiple returns, which were then examined for relevancy according to the topic at hand. The main focus was on recent literature within the last 5 years; however, other later sources were also used if it was determined that the content had relevance to this study. Electronic sources such as the BLS, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were used to find the most up-to-date information on health and work- related injuries.
From the literature obtained and reviewed, the following themes for discussion emerged: (a) the physical demands of law enforcement, (b) work-related injuries, (c) physical fitness policies in law enforcement, (d) the legalities of fitness standards, (e) physical fitness testing, (f) the POPAT, (g) the impact of fitness for duty, (h) fitness resources for the workplace, (i) leadership in law enforcement, and (j) rational choice theory.
Physical Demands of Law Enforcement
Emergency service professionals are exposed to hazards that are inherent in the job (Plat et al., 2011). The physical demands placed on law enforcement officers specifically have been documented to include such activities as apprehending suspects, foot pursuit, and even firing a weapon (Anderson, Plecas, & Segger, 2001; Brown,