Berkeley City Council
December 6, 2022

Tuesday, December 6, 2022 AGENDA Page 1

AG E N D A

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, December 6, 2022
6:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702

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 IN A HYBRID MODEL WITH BOTH IN -PERSON

ATTENDANCE AND VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION
For in-person attendees, additional public health protocols will be in place. If you are feeling sick, please do not attend in person.

Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet accessible video stream at http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=1244.

To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this UR L https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84189893148. 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: D ial 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 841 8989 3148 . 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 meeting will be reco rded and all rules of procedure and decorum apply for in-person attendees and those participating by teleconference or videoconference.

To submit a written communication for the City Council’s consideration and inclusion in the public record , email [email protected].

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding this matt er may be addressed to Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981 -6900. The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda. Meetings will adjourn at 11:00 p.m. - any items outstanding at that time will be carried over to a date/time to be specified.

Tuesday, December 6, 2022 AGENDA Page 2

Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Land Acknowledgement Statement: The City of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in was built on the territory of xučyun (Huchiun (Hooch-yoon)), the ancestral and unceded land of the Chochenyo (Cho-chen-yo)-speaking Ohlone (Oh-low-nee) people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County. This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone Tribes and descendants of the Verona Band. As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5,000 -year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shellmound, and the Ohlone people who continue to reside in the East Bay. We recognize that Berkeley’s residents have and continue to benefit from the use and occupation of this unceded stolen land since the City of Berkeley’s incorporation in 1878. As stewards of the laws regulating the City of Berkeley, it is not only vital that we recognize t he history of this land, but also recognize that the Ohlone people are present members of Berkeley and other East Bay communities today. The City of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the Lisjan Tribe and to create meaningful actions that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.

Ceremonial Matters: In addition to those items listed on the agenda, the Mayor may add additional ceremonial matters.

1. Recognition of Lori Droste, Councilmember, District 8 City Manager Comments: The City Manager may make announcements or provide information to the City Council in the form of an oral report. The Council will not take action on such items but may request the City Manager place a report on a future agenda for discussion.

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Matters: Persons will be selected to address matters not on the Council agenda. If five or fewer persons wish to speak, each person selected will be allotted two minutes each. If more than five persons wish to speak, up to ten persons w ill be selected to address matters not on the Council agenda and each person selected will be allotted one minute each. Persons attending the meeting in-person and wishing to address the Council on matters not on the Council agenda during the initial ten-minute period for such comment, must submit a speaker card to the City Clerk in person at the meeting location and prior to commencement of that meeting. The remainder of the speakers wishing to address the Council on non-agenda items will be heard at the end of the agenda.

Consent Calendar
The Council will first determine whether to move items on the agenda for “Action” or “Information” to the “Consent Calendar”, or move “Consent Calendar” items to “Action.” Three members of the City Council must agree to pull an item from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar for it to move to Action.

Items that remain on the “Consent Calendar” are voted on in one motion as a group. “Information” items are not discussed or acted upon at the Council meeting unless they are moved to “Action” or “Consent”.

No additional items can be moved onto the Consent Calendar once public comment has commenced. At any time during, or immediately after, public comment on Information and Consent items, any Councilmember may move any Information or Consent item to “Action.” Following this, the Council will vote on the items remaining on the Consent Calendar in one motion.

For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar.

Tuesday, December 6, 2022 AGENDA Page 3
Public Comment on Consent Calendar and Information Items Only: The Council will take public comment on any items that are either on the amended Consent Calendar or the Information Calendar. Speakers will be entitled to two minutes each to speak in opposition to or support of Consent Calendar and Information Items. A speaker may only speak once during the period for public comment on Consent Calendar and Information items.

Additional information regarding public comment by City of Berkeley employees and interns: Employees and interns of the City of Berkeley, although not required, are encouraged to identify themselves as such, the department in which they work and state whether they are speaking as an individual or in their official capacity when addressing the Council in open session or workshops.

Consent Calendar

1. Urgency Ordinance for Leasing the Real Property at 1720 San Pablo Avenue From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt an Urgency Ordinance to enter into a lease for the real property located at 1720 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, CA for a term of 5 years.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Peter Radu, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

2. Amend Contract No. 32100161 with Dorothy Day House to extend Horizon Village Shelter and Safe RV Parking Program operations
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32100161 with Dorothy Day House (DDH) to add $612,559 to cover costs to extend the Safe RV Parking Program (SPARK) through December 31, 2022 and costs to operate the Horizon Village Shelter (HVS) from October 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 (including the Berkeley Inn from December 7, 2022 through June 30, 2022), for a total contact amount not to exceed $2,270,177.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Peter Radu, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

3. Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on December 6, 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: Various Funds - $2,581,000
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, December 6, 2022 AGENDA Page 4

4. Classification and Salary: ADA Program Coordinator
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution revising the represented classification Disability Services Specialist to ADA Program Coordinator with a monthly salary range of $9,231.73 - $11,162.67.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Aram Kouyoumdjian, Human Resources, (510) 981-6800

5. Donation: Memorial Bench at Cesar Chavez Park in memory of Linda Loh 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 Linda Loh.

Financial Implications: Marina Fund - $3,400 (Donation) Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

Council Consent Items
Tuesday, December 6, 2022 AGENDA Page 5

6. Office of Racial Equity: Re-Entry Employment and Guaranteed Income Programs (Reviewed by the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee)
From: Councilmember Taplin (Author), Councilmember Harrison (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Robinson (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation:

1. Refer to the City Manager to Strengthen Adult Criminal Justice Re-Entry Employment Programs in Berkeley by studying re-entry programs, supports, and systems already available for Berkeley residents, strengthening linkages, and identifying gaps. Report findings back to the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee during 2023.

2. Refer $50,000 to the Budget Process to engage a consultant to recommend a Universal Income Pilot for Berkeley. Recommendation to include evaluation of: - Potential funding sources; -Appropriate and recommended models for Berkeley; - Target population(s) to be supported by Pilot; -Program delivery models; -Evaluation; -Any and all other elements/factors to establish an effective Universal Income Pilot for Berkeley.

Considerations for target populations may include local Equity Indicators measuring racial justice and social equity outcomes such as poverty and financial health, educational disparities, environmental and mental health, housing quality, infrastructure, and public safety.

3. Refer to the City Manager to establish evaluation processes and metrics for all social services programs recommended through the Reimaging Public Safety Process, including but not limited to violence prevention services, adult reentry programs, and mental health crisis response, and report evaluation outcome to the City Council.

Policy Committee Recommendation: To forward the item to Council with a positive recommendation that the City Council approve the item with the Author’s substitute recommendations (as detailed in the report).

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, (510) 981-7120

Action Calendar
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action as the item is taken up. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar.

The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

Action Calendar – Old Business
Tuesday, December 6, 2022 AGENDA Page 6

7. Update on BPD efforts related to the Improving Hate Crimes Reporting and Response Referral (Continued from November 15, 2022)
From: City Manager
Contact: Jennifer Louis, Police, (510) 981-5900

Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Staff shall introduce the public hearing item and present their comments. This is followed by five -minute presentations each by the appellant and applicant. The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to be recognized and to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time.

Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker.

Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one spea ker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Each member of the City Council shall verbally disclose all ex parte contacts concerning the subject of the hearing. Councilmembers shall also submit a report of such contacts in writing prior to the commencement of the hearing. Written reports shall be available for public review in the office of the City Clerk.

8. Renewal of the Elmwood Avenue BID for Calendar Year 2023 From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution confirming the Annual Report and Budget for the Elmwood Business Improvement District (hereafter, “the District”, “the Elmwood BID” or “the BID”) for 2022-23 and, if no majority protest exists, levy annual assessments in the District for calendar year 2023 to finance services and improvements and authorize a fiscal agency contract with Elmwood Business Association for receipt and expenditure of District funds.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Eleanor Hollander, Economic Development, (510) 981-7530

9. Adoption of the 2022 California Fire Code with Local Amendments – Second Reading
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt the second reading of Ordinance No. 7,845-N.S. repealing and reenacting the Berkeley Fire Code, including amendments to the California Fire Code as outlined in the proposed ordinance, plus Appendix Chapters D, E, F, L (as amended by BMC 19.48.020, Amendments to the California Fire Code) and O published by the International Code Council not included in the California Building Standards Code, as Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 19.48.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: David Sprague, Fire, (510) 981-3473

Action Calendar – Old Business
Tuesday, December 6, 2022 AGENDA Page 7

10. Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion:

1. Adopt first reading of an Ordinance to amend the Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23.328, updating the citywide Affordable Housing Requirements (AHR) in the Zoning Ordinance and repealing existing administration and zoning code sections that refer to affordable housing requirements, BMC Section 22.20.065, and Section 23.312.040(A)(6), to become effective on April 1, 2023.

2. Adopt a Resolution establishing regulations for a voucher program and establishing an in-lieu fee pursuant to BMC Section 23.328.020(A)(2) (Attachment 2) upon the effective date of contemporaneously adopted amendments to BMC Section

23.328, and rescind Resolution No. 68,074-N.S. related to fees, exemptions, and administration of inclusionary affordable housing and in-lieu programs upon the effective date of contemporaneously adopted amendments to BMC Section 23.328.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400, Lisa Warhuus, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5400

Information Reports

11. FY 2022 Fourth Quarter Investment Report: Ended June 30, 2022 From: City Manager
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda
Adjournment
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or ap prove (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Archived indexed video streams are available at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas.

Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

Communications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.

Tuesday, December 6, 2022 AGENDA Page 8
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Departme nt located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street as well as posted on the City's website at https://berkeleyca.gov/.

Agendas and agenda reports may be accessed via the Internet at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas and may be read at reference desks at the following locations:

City Clerk Department - 2180 Milvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]

Libraries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street,
Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, South Branch – 1901 Russell

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at (510) 981-6418 (V) or (510) 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.

Attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various scents, whether natural or manufactured, in products and materials. Please help the City respect these needs.

Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B -TV, and on the Internet. In addition, assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available fro m the City Clerk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the agenda for this meeting of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on November 23, 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. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

Homelessness/Encampments

1. Pamela Michaud

2. Mike Kim (3)

Tuesday, December 6, 2022 AGENDA Page 9

3. Justin Shapiro

4. Peter Radu (2)

5. Ron Restani

Property Crime Is On The Rise

6. Jordan Sax

CalPERS Funding for City of Berkeley

7. Geoff Lomax

Harriet Tubman Terrace Apartments

8. Daxinxoso Oyamasela

9. M. Mendonca

People’s Park

10. Susanna Lamaina

11. Wynd Kaufmyn

12. Jacob Picheny

North Berkeley BART Development

13. Sue Martin

14. Virginia Browning

15. Vicki

Staffing Shortage at City of Berkeley

16. David Lerman

EV Scooter Hazards - Being Ridden On Sidewalk

17. Kathleen Krier

E-Bike Rebate

18. Edwin Bish

Berkeley Police Department Culture

19. Diana Bohn

Measure L

20. Krista Denton

21. Robert Reiter

Letter of Commendation for an Ecology Employee

22. Mary McBride

Eviction Moratorium

23. Carol Curtis

Tuesday, December 6, 2022 AGENDA Page 10
Most Future-Ready Cities

24. Vivian Warkentin

Supplemental Communications and Reports
Items received by the deadlines for submission will be compiled and distributed as follows. If no items are received by the deadline, no supplemental packet will be compiled for said deadline.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 1
Available by 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the meeting.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Available by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 3
Available by 5:00 p.m. two days following the meeting.

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
December 6, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Urgency Ordinance for Leasing the Real Property at 1720 San Pablo Avenue

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt an Urgency Ordinance to enter into a lease for the real property located at 1720 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, CA for a term of 5 years.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
For year 1 of the lease, total costs for this lease are not to exceed a total of $883,200.

Each year in the five-year term thereafter, the per-room rental cost and per-room damage fund escalate by 3% year-over-year such that costs in year 2 of the lease total $908,796; in year 3, $935,160; in year 4, $962,315; and in year 5, $990,284. In years 1 and 2, staff propose paying the lease costs in full with Measure P funding previously appropriated (in an amount of $1,011,900 annually) with the adoption of the FY23-24 Biennial Budget for the continuation of the Grayson shelter (the Berkeley Inn program will continue the Grayson shelter when the latter program closes on December 31, 2022).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
To help alleviate the crisis of unsheltered and encampment homelessness in Berkeley, the City partnered with Dorothy Day House in April, 2021 to launch the 50-bed Horizon Transitional Village Program at 742 Grayson St in Southwest Berkeley. Since its opening in July 2021, the program has served 130 residents of the City’s most dangerous and impactful encampments. The owners of the Grayson site are actively working with the City to obtain necessary approvals for the development of the parcel, so the lease and program at Grayson Street were always envisioned as short-term. On September 29, 2022, Council extended the lease through December 31, 2022, so the need to relocate the program is imminent. After an exhaustive search of City facilities, none were found to be suitable, safe, or available for year-round use as a shelter for vulnerable unsheltered residents. This required turning to the private market for potential lease opportunities.

The Berkeley Inn, a 27-room motel located at 1720 San Pablo Avenue, has previously been utilized by City social service programs to temporarily house vulnerable residents.

Urgency Ordinance for Lease of Real Property at 1720 San Pablo Ave CONSENT CALENDAR December 6, 2022

Most recently, in January and February of 2022, Neighborhood Services staff partnered informally with the owners of the Berkeley Inn to implement the City’s annual Winter Shelter contract with Alameda County in the form of 28-day motel vouchers, meaning that staff began developing a working relationship with the owners of the property and a familiarity with the property and location.

Leasing the Berkeley Inn would result in the overall loss of shelter bed capacity in Berkeley. However, City staff have actively collaborated for months with Dorothy Day House to find alternative permanent or interim destinations for everyone currently residing at Horizon, such that even with fewer beds we anticipate returning no one to the streets. With this in mind, recommend Council approve this lease for the following reasons:

1. In staff’s experience, noncongregate shelter rooms, such as those that would be provided at the Berkeley Inn, are more desirable and thus more likely to be accepted by persons experiencing unsheltered homelessness. As the Horizon program has been (and the Berkeley Inn will continue to be) the primary referral destination for the Homeless Response Team, a higher uptake rate means that, when an encampment must be closed for health and safety reasons, it is likely that fewer people will simply relocate from one location on the street to another.

Staff’s recent partnership with the Berkeley Inn corroborate this point: as of November 8, 2022, the Homeless Response Team—which never closes encampments without shelter offers for everyone living there—saw an overall shelter uptake rate of 40% (primarily to Grayson St); when the Berkeley Inn was used as the referral destination to resolve the dangerous encampments along Harrison St in February 2022, the shelter uptake rate increased to 85%.

Therefore, while the Berkeley Inn provides fewer beds overall, those beds are actually more likely to be utilized, all things equal, than a congregate setting.

2. With the adoption of its 2021-2022 budget and release of the third round of Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP 3) funding, the State of California, noting the experience of the successful Project Roomkey COVID-19 response, signaled its intent to move the State away from congregate shelter:
“Any new interim sheltering funded by [HHAP] round 3 funds must be low barrier, comply with Housing First, and prioritize interventions other than congregate shelters.”1 HHAP 3 and future State HHAP funding are the primary sources of new County-administered local homeless funding for Berkeley, meaning a shift towards non-congregate shelter provides the City (which does not receive a direct HHAP allocation) a strategic opportunity to place itself favorably to draw down new homeless funding. This will be especially important as the Measure P transfer tax is set to sunset in 2027.
1 See: https://bcsh.ca.gov/calich/documents/hhap_nofa_rd3.pdf, p. 16 of 23.

Urgency Ordinance for Lease of Real Property at 1720 San Pablo Ave CONSENT CALENDAR December 6, 2022

The proposed lease provides the City with full and exclusive use of the motel and its facilities (parking lot, staff office and kitchen area, and utilities room including washers and dryers) and covers baseline utilities, internet, and trash disposal costs, at a flat per- room per-month cost of $2,450, plus $2,200 per room annually for repairs and maintenance. These costs will escalate year-over-year by 3% for each year of the 5- year term. The City has also agreed to help offset the annual premium costs of the Berkeley Inn’s property and general liability insurance coverage, as a change in use from a tourist hotel to residential shelter program caused their current carrier to drop them from coverage and require a new policy. These insurance related costs are not subject to the annual 3% escalator. Altogether, this generates an all-in year 1 cost of $883,200, escalating to $990,284 by year 5. The first two years of these lease costs are covered by a Measure P appropriation, passed by Council with the adoption of the FY23-24 Biennial Budget, of roughly $1M annually to continue the Grayson shelter through FY24. Thereafter, the City has the ability to terminate the lease if funding should become an issue: after the first 24 months, either party reserves the right to terminate the lease for any reason with 180 days’ notice.

BACKGROUND
On April 27, 2021, the Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 7,759–N.S. to authorize the lease of 742 Grayson St for the purposes of operating interim shelter for persons experiencing homelessness. Also on April 27, 2021, Council adopted Resolution No. 69,808–N.S., which authorized a contract with Dorothy Day House to operate the Horizon Transitional Village Program, a 50-bed interim shelter, at this site. In March, 2022, the lease for the Grayson St property became month-to-month, and it will terminate on September 30, 2022. As the property owners are actively working with the City through the approval process to develop the parcel, there is no possibility for extending the term of this lease. On June 28, 2022, Council adopted the FY23-24 Biennial Budget, including $1,011,900 annually in Measure P funds to continue the Grayson shelter at a new location. On September 29, 2022, Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 7,836–N.S., extending the term of the lease at 742 Grayson St through December 31, 2022.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental impacts associated with this lease. Providing noncongregate interim housing for persons experiencing homelessness in Berkeley will help reduce the overall negative impact of encampments on Berkeley’s environment and waterways, including fire and vector hazards, the accumulation of trash/debris, and unmitigated human and animal waste.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
If adopted, this lease agreement will provide the space for the continuation of 27 of the 50 beds currently operated by Dorothy Day House at 742 Grayson St. That lease will terminate on Dec 31, 2022, leaving no alternatives. While this recommendation does result in the overall loss of bed capacity, it replaces an existing congregate shelter with

Urgency Ordinance for Lease of Real Property at 1720 San Pablo Ave CONSENT CALENDAR December 6, 2022

a non-congregate shelter. Non-congregate shelter has strategic advantages, insofar as it is generally more desirable among unsheltered persons than congregate shelter, thus likely resulting in a higher uptake rate and lower vacancy rate; in addition, staff believe that new noncongregate shelters are more amenable to drawing down State and County homeless funding sources than congregate programs, potentially alleviating fiscal impacts to the City in future years.

Adopting the agreement by Urgency Ordinance is appropriate in light of the current shelter crisis and imminent loss of the 742 Grayson St site. By adopting this agreement through an Urgency Ordinance on November 29, 2022, it will be possible to execute a lease with an effective date of December 7, 2022, thus giving the City and Dorothy Day House a sufficient time to move all the people and materials currently at Grayson during an otherwise very busy time of year.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff explored the feasibility of continuing the Horizon shelter at a City-owned facility, but none were vacant and safe/suitable for year-round sleeping accommodations.

CONTACT PERSON
Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager, 510 981-7045 Attachments:
1: Ordinance
Exhibit A: Lease Agreement

Urgency Ordinance for Lease of Real Property at 1720 San Pablo Ave CONSENT CALENDAR December 6, 2022

ORDINANCE NO. X,XXX N.S.

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HER DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A LEASE

AND ANY NECESSARY AMENDMENTS WITH GANGA HOLDINGS, LLC, FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1720 SAN PABLO AVENUE, BERKELEY, CA.

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. The City Council finds as follows:
a. The City of Berkeley is facing an ongoing crisis of street homelessness: while overall homelessness declined in Berkeley by 5% from 2019 to 2022, unsheltered homelessness stayed roughly the same during this period, declining only 1%. b. To help address this crisis, on April 27, 2021, the City Council authorized the lease of 742 Grayson St and a contract with Dorothy Day House to operate the 50-bed Horizon Transitional Village Program; and
c. Since July 2021, the Horizon Transitional Village Program has served 130 residents of Berkeley’s most impactful and dangerous encampments; and d. On December 31, 2022, the City’s lease for 742 Grayson Street will terminate, necessitating a new location to continue the Horizon program; and e. On June 28, 2022, with the adoption of the FY23-24 Biennial Budget, the City Council authorized $1,011,900 annually through FY24 for the continuation of the Grayson shelter, signaling its intent to continue this program beyond the current location at Grayson; and
f. City staff have previously partnered with the owners of the Berkeley Inn to serve high-needs residents of dangerous Berkeley encampments, demonstrating that the use of this property for non-congregate shelter is viable and feasible; and g. Providing low-barrier, noncongregate interim housing options will be critical to end the unsheltered status of those currently living in dangerous Berkeley encampments; and
h. The property owner, Ganga Holdings, LLC, has offered to lease the entire property (providing guest 27 rooms) at 1720 San Pablo Avenue to the City for purposes of establishing a homeless shelter for five years.

Section 2. The City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to enter into a lease and necessary amendments starting December 7, 2022 with Ganga Holdings, LLC for real property located at 1720 San Pablo Avenue on substantially the same terms as set forth in Exhibit A. The rent will be $2,450 per room per night, including $2,200 per room in damage funds annually, escalating 3% year-over-year for each year of the term. Lease costs will be paid for by Measure P funding previously appropriated for this purpose by the City Council.

Section 3. This Ordinance is adopted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to the Charter of the City of Berkeley, Article XIV, Section 93 and shall be effective immediately. The City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance as an urgency ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety of the residents of the City of Berkeley.

Urgency Ordinance for Lease of Real Property at 1720 San Pablo Ave CONSENT CALENDAR December 6, 2022

Section 4. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building , 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way within fifteen calendar days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Page - 1
39809.1 19138181.1

CITY OF BERKELEY

EMERGENCY OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT

OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT COVERING PREMISES
LOCATED AT:

Berkeley Inn
1720 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, CA
OWNER'S FED. TAX. I.D., NO. OR SOCIAL SECURITY NO.:
94-3257757
File No:

TENANT:

City of Berkeley
THIS OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT (“OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT”), is MADE AND ENTERED INTO THIS 7th DAY OF December, 2022 BY AND BETWEEN GANGA HOLDINGS, LLC, a California limited liability company (hereinafter, the "Owner"), without distinction as to number or gender, and the City of Berkeley (hereinafter called the "City.") This Occupancy Agreement is entered into for the purposes of providing interim housing for persons experiencing homelessness in Berkeley, California.

Owner is the record owner of or authorized party to grant such rights concerning certain real property defined as the Premises herein situated in the County of Alameda, State of California and has the authority to grant the rights to the City contained in this Occupancy Agreement. The Owner and its manager(s), members, agents, successors and assigns are referred to individually as an "Owner Party" and collectively as "Owner Parties." The City and its employees, agents, contractors, invitees, licensees, successors and assigns are referred to as the "City Parties." The "Operator" and the "Program Guests", as defined below, and their respective agents, invitees and licensees of any of them, are also "City Parties" for purposes of this Occupancy Agreement.

WITNESSETH

1. The Owner hereby authorizes the City and the City hereby hires from the Owner those certain premises with appurtenances situated on improved real property at 1720 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, CA (APN __________________) ("Property") in the City of Berkeley, County of Alameda, State of California, and more particularly described as follows:

All twenty-seven (27) guest rooms within the Berkeley Inn hotel ("Hotel") located at (each individually a “Room” and collectively, the “Rooms”), and including all parking spaces contiguous to the Hotel building, and unlimited use of the building's common facilities as shown on Exhibit A (collectively, the “Premises”). The Premises do not include rights of access to or use of the roof.

The Premises are operated as a hotel accommodation. The City has inspected the Premises and deems them appropriate for its intended uses, and acknowledges that Owner will deliver the Premises to the City in their “AS IS, WHERE IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS” condition and also acknowledges that Owner has no obligation to prepare the Premises for occupancy in any manner. Subject to casualty events, condemnation, or emergency conditions stated below, and subject to Owner's needs to access the Premises for repair work or periodic inspection, as described below, Owner grants to the City exclusive access to and use of the Premises on a Preamble
Description

Page - 2
39809.1 19138181.1
continual basis (i.e., twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week) for purposes of providing interim housing for persons experiencing homelessness under a specialized housing program ("Program") administered by the City (each such occupant or invitee through that Program is referred to herein as a “Program Guest”), either directly or through a Program operator under the City's control ("Operator"). The City will not (i) allow any nuisance conditions to exist on the Premises, and (ii) shall use diligent efforts to promptly eliminate any Program Guest from accessing the Premises if such Program Guest has engaged in activity that causes material damages to the Premises.

Owner acknowledges that during the Term, Owner shall not rent or allow occupancy of any Room or facilities in the Premises to any person other than City, and City agrees that it will use the Premises exclusively for the implementation of the Program and the housing of Program Guests (together with any administrative or management function required on site at the Premises for the Program). Under no circumstances shall the City engage in any conduct that would jeopardize (i) Owner's existing permits for the Hotel; or (ii) its ability to surrender the Premises at the end of the Term vacant, and in the condition required by this Occupancy Agreement. Owner shall have no obligation to manage any Program Guest or monitor or control any of the operations on the Premises; all such operations and control shall be the sole responsibility of the City. Owner represents that Owner has not received a notice of violation of any permit condition with respect to the Premises, and, to Owner's knowledge, that the Premises comply with all laws.

The City acknowledges that there is a storage room in which the Owner stores tools, parts and supplies to make repairs to improvements and equipment, and that Owner is reserving its use of such storage room for that purpose in order to more efficiently undertake any repairs required at the Premises. The City shall not permit others to gain access to such storage room which shall remain locked when not in use by Owner or its agents.

2. The term of this Occupancy Agreement shall commence on December 7, 2022 (“Commencement Date”), with the City taking physical occupancy on December 7, 2022. The City acknowledges and accepts that there is pending work on a retaining wall that affects some of the parking on site and accepts the temporary loss of that parking, provided the work is diligently pursued to completion by Owner. The term of this Occupancy Agreement ("Term") and the City's rights to possession of the Premises shall end on the earlier of: (i) five (5) years after the Commencement Date (expected to be December 6, 2027) unless the parties negotiate an extension under the "Option" described below; (ii) on the effective date of termination under any election of a party to terminate the Occupancy Agreement upon an "Event of Default" (defined below); (iii) on the effective date of any termination by the City for convenience (in the City's sole discretion) that is based on a notice of termination given at any time after December 7, 2023, if the City elects to so terminate the Term ("City's Termination Right"); (iv) on the effective date of any termination by Owner for convenience (in the Owner's sole discretion) that is based on a notice of termination that takes effect at any time after December 7, 2024, if Owner elects to so terminate the Term ("Owner's Termination Right"); and (v) on the effective date of termination that takes effect under the exercise of the "Casualty Termination Right" under Section 10, below, or pursuant to the "Special Termination Right", as specified in Exhibit C of this Occupancy Agreement.

Any exercise of City's Termination Right or of Owner's Termination Right referenced in the prior paragraph, sections (iii) and (iv), shall be made by written notice, which shall become effective and end the Term on the day that is One Hundred Eighty (180) days after such termination notice is provided to the counterparty. Thus, an election by the City to terminate the Term under the City's Termination Right that is given 190 days before November 30, 2023 will be effective as of November 30, 2023, but one given 120 days before that date will mean that the Term will end on January 29, 2024. Similarly, an election by the Owner to terminate the Term Term; Early
Termination;
Option

Page - 3
39809.1 19138181.1
under the Owner's Termination Right that is given 190 days before November 30, 2024 will be effective as November 30, 2024, but one given 120 days before that date will mean that the Term will end on January 29, 2025. During any such period through the end of the Term the parties are bound by all of the terms of this Occupancy Agreement.

If mutually agreeable to City and Owner, the parties may extend the Term for an additional five (5) years (“Option”), so long (i) this Occupancy Agreement has not terminated and there is no pending default by the party invoking the Option, (ii) notice of the intention to extend the Term is given by written notice to the counterparty at least four (4) months prior to the then pending expiration date for the Term, and (iii) the terms and conditions of such an extension, including the amount of Monthly Rent, will be negotiated and must be agreed to and reduced to writing and signed by both parties to be effective.

3. Monthly Rent payments ("Monthly Rent") shall be paid by the City in advance and without deduction or offset (except as allowed in Section 6), on the first day of each month during the Term, regardless of whether each Room is occupied for the full month or not, as follows:

TIME PERIOD MONTHLY RENT RATE

PER ROOM
12/7/2022-11/30/2023 $2,450.00*
12/1/2023-11/30/2024 $2,523.50
12/1/2024-11/30/2025 $2,599.21
12/1/2025-11/30/2026 $2,677.18
12/1/2026-12/6/2027 $2,757.50*
*PRORATED FOR THE PARTIAL MONTH
Monthly Rent and all other payment obligations under this Occupancy Agreement are referred to collectively as "Rent." All payments of Rent are due and payable thirty (30) days after Owner has provided a demand for payment. For payments other than Monthly Rent, Owner shall submit an invoice with reasonably sufficient detail to permit the City to reference and confirm the obligation to pay under the Occupancy Agreement. Rent shall be paid to Owner at the address specified in Section 4 or to such other address as the Owner may designate by a notice in writing.

Rent payments shall be paid from any source of legally available funds of the City, and so long as the Premises is available for the City’s use, the City covenants to take such action as may be necessary to include all Rent payments due under this Occupancy Agreement in its budgets and to maintain such items to the extent unpaid for that fiscal year in its budgets, and to make the necessary appropriations and supplemental appropriations to the extent necessary, for all such Rent payments; which covenants of the City shall be deemed to be, and shall be, ministerial duties imposed by law, and it shall be the duty of each and every public official of the City to take such action and do such things as are required by law in the performance of the official duty of such officials to enable the City to carry out and perform the covenants made by the City in this Occupancy Agreement.

Rent and
Invoicing

Page - 4
39809.1 19138181.1

4. All notices and correspondence herein provided to be given, or which may be given by either party to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given when made in writing and when addressed as shown below, and one of the following applies: 1) two business days (i.e. not a Saturday, Sunday or a national or state holiday where the courts are closed) after it is deposited in the United States Mail, with certified first class postage prepaid; 2) on the day it is received if delivered by personal service, or if sent via a reputable commercial overnight delivery service (i.e.

UPS, FedEx or similar) with receiver’s signature required; and (3) on the next business day after it is by email to the address shown below and receipt has been electronically confirmed:

To the Owner: Ganga Holdings, LLC
Attention: Pete Patel
860 Eddy St
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone No.: (415) 902-5718
Email: [email protected]
To the City: City Manager’s Office
City of Berkeley
2180 Milvia St, 5th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Attn: Peter Radu
Phone No. (510) 981-7045
Email: [email protected]
ALL NOTICES AND CORRESPONDENCE MUST REFERENCE PREMISES ADDRESS.

Rent warrants shall be made payable to:

Ganga Holdings, LLC
ATTN: Kiran Patel
and mailed to:
860 Eddy St
San Francisco, CA 94109
The address to which notices and correspondence shall be mailed to either party may be changed on not less than five (5) days prior notice, by giving written notice to the other party as required above.

5. Subject to the provisions of Section 2, parking spaces shown on Exhibit A, are to be available for City’s use and that of its Program Guests during the Term; however, the Owner is not obligated to enforce any parking use. The City's obligations to hold harmless, defend and indemnify the Owner and Owner Parties extends to any use made by it or its Program Guests (or their invitees or licensees) in the Premises or the parking areas. Owner shall ensure that no Owner Party nor any of its agents use these parking spaces unless separately authorized by the City. The on-site parking spaces shall be provided at no additional charge.

Notices
Parking

Page - 5
39809.1 19138181.1

6. Owner, at Owner’s sole cost and expense, shall contract for and facilitate the delivery to the Premises of the following public utilities and public services: electricity and gas for heating, ventilating, air-conditioning as the City needs for its operations at the Hotel, plus sewer, trash disposal (of up to 3 yards per week), and internet services (as it currently operates at the Hotel).

In addition, Owner shall provide and maintain security cameras, and hot and cold water service for the reasonable needs of the Hotel.

The City and Owner shall mutually determine baseline usage for these utilities and services, based on 100% occupancy of the Hotel, and the City shall be responsible for reimbursing the Owner for any usage costs that exceed 110% of the baseline costs for the utilities and services, per billing cycle used by the utility or service provider.

If Owner breaches its obligation to pay for and facilitate the delivery of the foregoing services, utilities or equipment, upon not less than one (1) business days' notice, City may furnish the same and deduct the cost, plus City’s administrative expenses of 10%, of furnishing those services, utilities or equipment from the Rent.

7. During the Term, the Owner shall maintain the Premises substantially in its existing condition as of the Commencement Date and in tenantable condition, subject, however, to Casualty (defined in Section 10) and condemnation. Owner's obligation to pursue repairs is limited to the obligations set out in this Section 7; such obligations arise upon prior notice of disrepair from the City ("Repair Notice"). Upon any Repair Notice, Owner shall immediately respond to a Repair Notice if there is an emergency involving life safety issues; otherwise Owner shall respond with the required maintenance or repair with reasonable diligence, consistent with common property management practices. For Casualty and other events beyond the Owner's control, notice of the damage shall be promptly provided by the City and the obligations to repair and pay for any such repairs shall be governed by this Section 7, Schedule 7 and Section 10, below. (a) Owner warrants and represents the common facilities of the Premises and at least one (1) Room shall be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities in compliance with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and California Title 24 (“Disability Laws”), as amended from time to time and regulations issued pursuant thereto and in effect from time to time. Any and all costs incurred to cause the Premises to comply with the Disability Laws shall be borne by Owner unless caused by alterations to the Premises pursued by the City. See also Schedule 7.
(b) The City shall promptly notify Owner of damage to the Premises, and/or Owner's fixtures, furnishings and equipment ("FF&E") and mattresses ("Mattresses") provided by Owner on the Commencement Date or replaced by Owner. Owner’s actual out-of-pocket costs of repairing or replacing any damage to (i) the Property, (ii) the FF&E, and/or (iii) Mattresses and (iv) any required deep cleaning including pest control and heat treatments for any Room are herein collectively referred to as the ("Repair Costs"). The City's obligation to reimburse the Owner for such Repair Costs in any "Year", as defined below, is limited to the amount of the Yearly Damage Deposit applicable to the Year in which the Repair Costs are incurred, plus any additional Repair Costs in that Year caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of a City Party. In so calculating the applicable Repair Costs for such Year, the parties agree to offset from such Repair Costs any net amount recovered by Owner as insurance proceeds for such loss or damages pursuant to the insurance coverage required by this Occupancy Agreement. The sum of all such Repair Costs, less any applicable net insurance proceeds received, less any available balance of that Year's Yearly Damage Deposit as of the date of such loss or damage is herein referred to as "Excess Costs." The City shall be responsible to Owner for all Excess Costs incurred by Owner and must pay such Excess Costs within sixty (60) days of demand from Owner.

For the avoidance of doubt, Repair Costs are to first be satisfied from the aggregate "Yearly Damage Deposit" (see right column, below), which shall be equal to the "Damage Deposit per Services,
Utilities, and
Supplies
Repair and
Maintenance

Page - 6
39809.1 19138181.1
Room" set forth below for each applicable "Year" (defined below) of the Term multiplied by 27 Rooms (e.g. for the first Year the Yearly Damage Deposit is $2,200 x 27 Rooms = $59,400.00).

City shall pay any Excess Costs within 60 days of City’s receipt of Owner’s reasonable proof of payment for actual costs of good, services and labor.

The Yearly Damage Deposit may be used to address damage or destruction from a "Casualty" (defined in Section 10, below) if it was caused by the negligence, gross negligence, or the willful misconduct of a City Party. In such Casualty events, the cost allocations (including rights to insurance proceeds) shall be governed by Section 10 and Exhibit C.

Each 12-month time period noted below shall be referred to as a “Year.” TIME PERIOD "YEARLY DAMAGE DEPOSIT" PER
ROOM
12/7/2022-11/30/2023 $2,200.00
12/1/2023-11/30/2024 $2,266.00
12/1/2024-11/30/2025 $2,333.98
12/1/2025-11/30/2026 $2,404.00
12/1/2026-12/6/2027 $2,476.12
(c) The City shall pay the first Year's Yearly Damage Deposit to the Owner within fifteen (15) days of the Commencement Date and receipt of demand for payment. If the Yearly Damage Deposit is not exhausted during the course of each such Year, Owner may retain the balance. If the Term continues beyond the first Year, then on the first anniversary of the Commencement Date, and after receipt of demand for payment, the City will remit that Year's Yearly Damage Deposit to the Owner. The City will follow this for each succeeding anniversary of the Commencement Date during the Term to ensure the Yearly Damage Deposit has been paid to Owner at the start of each Year in the Term. If either Owner or City exercises the Option to extend the Term, the parties shall attempt to resolve the amount and disposition of the Yearly Damage Deposit during any such extended Term.
(d) If any Room(s) are made uninhabitable due to the negligence or willful misconduct of an Occupant, the City shall not be entitled to Rent abatement for the affected Room(s) during the duration of rehabilitation.

The City further agrees that the City will ensure that every Program Guest agrees in writing – and as a condition of such person's occupancy - to refrain from engaging in damage to the Property, the FF&E or the Mattresses. See Schedule 7.

8. The City shall have the right to assign this Occupancy Agreement with Owner’s prior written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. No such assignment shall relieve the City of any liability or responsibility under this Occupancy Agreement, unless the assignee agrees in writing to assume all of City’s obligations under this Occupancy Agreement and is equally capable of performing them.

9. Subject to the terms of this Occupancy Agreement, the Owner agrees that the City, while keeping and performing the covenants herein contained, shall at all times during the existence of this Occupancy Agreement, peaceably and quietly have, hold, and enjoy the Premises without suit, trouble, or hindrance from the Owner or any person claiming a superior title under the Owner.

City acknowledges that the Owner may access the Premises on not less than twenty-four (24) hours prior written notice to the City (except in case of an emergency, or where Owner is Assignment
Quiet
Possession

Page - 7
39809.1 19138181.1
undertaking repair of a Casualty event and it is part of a continuum of work days, in which case no notice is required) in order to (i) perform required repairs, (ii) address any failure of the utilities or services required under Section 6, or (iii) inspect the Premises. Owner's inspection of the Premises shall be limited as follows: (i) absent cause, an inspection to determine compliance with the Occupancy Agreement will not be more often than once per month; (ii) to complete an appraisal or due diligence analysis for any financing, sale or other bona fide valuation need; (iii) to show the Premises to a prospective lender or purchaser; (iv) access to a Program Guest's Room shall only occur if damage is being inspected or repaired, or the cause of a Casualty is being assessed, and then only with a person assigned by the City to accompany the Owner or its agent in completing such inspection. Absent an emergency, in which case access shall be provided immediately, any access by Owner shall only occur during regular 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. business hours. The City will reasonably cooperate in coordinating this access.

10. If the Premises are damaged by fire, accident or other casualty (collectively, "Casualty"), and if the cost to repair such damage exceeds more than 20% of the Rent due for the remainder of the Term, or such damage is not fully covered by insurance proceeds made available to Owner, Owner may elect to terminate this Occupancy Agreement ("Casualty Termination Right"). Such election shall be made within twenty (20) days of the date of Casualty. Calculating the "remainder of the Term" shall be based on the shortest available Term if either party exercises an available Termination Right, If the Casualty does not provide Owner with such an election to terminate this Occupancy Agreement, or Owner does not timely elect to terminate, whether under a Casualty Termination Right, or a "Special Termination Right" under the provisions of Exhibit C, then Owner shall diligently pursue the repair and restoration of the Premises in a commercially diligent manner. Pending such repairs, Rent shall abate proportional to the number of Rooms that are untenantable during the repair efforts unless the Casualty was due to the gross negligence or willful misconduct of a City Party.

If a Casualty occurs and the Occupancy is not terminated, Owner shall tell the City the estimated number of days required to repair such Casualty within thirty (30) days of its occurrence (“Owner’s Notice”), as the repair period may be determined in Owner’s reasonable judgment. If the Owner’s Notice specifies that more than fifty percent (50%) of the remainder of the Term, or more than two hundred ten (210) days, will be required to complete the repairs, whichever is less, City may at its option terminate this Occupancy Agreement by written notice to Owner within thirty (30) days of Owner’s Notice (“City’s Notice”). The "remaining Term" shall only include that portion of the Term that is not at the time of the Casualty susceptible to any early termination rights under this Occupancy Agreement. If the Premises are totally destroyed by a Casualty, this Occupancy Agreement shall terminate.

If the Premises are to be repaired after a Casualty, Owner shall diligently prosecute to completion the repair of said Premises, and the parties shall cooperate in obtaining all available insurance coverage to pay for such repairs and make these available to the Owner for such purposes including the recovery of any Rents. Except for circumstances wherein an act of the City or Program Guest(s) unduly delay the completion, if Owner does not complete the repairs within 120% of the time noted in the Owner's Notice, the City shall have the option to terminate this Occupancy Agreement by giving written notice to Owner at any time prior to Owner’s completion of such repairs.

During any period where a Room is untenantable, as a result of Casualty that was not caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of a City Party, then (i) to the extent any Room is not available for City’s use, the rent for any affected Room shall be abated each month by dividing the number of days the Room is unable to be occupied by thirty (30) days, and (ii) if portions of the Premises located outside of the Rooms are damaged or destroyed and not available for City’s use, the rent for each Room shall be abated during the time that those portions of the Premises are not available for City’s use by multiplying the rent for each Room by a fraction, the numerator of which is the square footage of the Premises that has been damaged or destroyed and the Casualty and
Destruction

Page - 8
39809.1 19138181.1
denominator of which is the square footage of the entire Premises. It is understood and agreed that the City or its agent has the right to enter the destroyed or partially destroyed Premises provided any such entry is not prohibited by law or emergency services, and in all events any such entry is at the sole risk of City. At the City's request, the Owner shall immediately identify an appropriate route through the Hotel building to access the Premises. If the Owner cannot identify an appropriate access route, it is agreed that the City may use any and all means of access at its discretion in order to enter the Premises.

11. To the extent authorized by any fire and extended coverage insurance policy issued to Owner or City (or the Operator) related to the Premises or operations on it, each such insured will diligently pursue with its insurer a good faith effort to have such insurer waive its rights of subrogation against the party causing the loss or damage. If a premium is required to obtain such waiver, the party seeking and benefitting from such waiver may elect to pay the premium or other cost to ensure the waiver occurs, but otherwise the insured party is under no obligation to procure the waiver of subrogation. Each party agrees to release its counterparty from liability for any loss or damage to the extent it is covered by said insurance.

12. For those projects defined as "public works" pursuant to Labor Code §1720.2, the following shall apply during the Term:

A. Owner/contractor shall comply with prevailing wage requirements and be subject to restrictions and penalties in accordance with §1770 et seq. of the Labor Code which requires prevailing wages be paid to appropriate work classifications in all bid specifications and subcontracts.

B. The Owner/contractor shall furnish all subcontractors/employees a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations prevailing wage rates which Owner will post at the job site. All prevailing wage rates shall be obtained by the Owner/contractor from:

Department of Industrial Relations
Division of Labor Statistics and Research
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102
Phone:(415) 703-4774
Fax: (415) 703-4771
For further information on prevailing wage: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/statistics_research.html C. Owner/contractor shall comply with the payroll record keeping and availability requirement of §1776 of the Labor Code.

D. Owner/contractor shall make travel and subsistence payments to workers needed for performance of work in accordance with the Labor Code.

E. Prior to commencement of work, Owner/contractor shall contact the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and comply with §1777.5, §1777.6, and §1777.7 of the Labor Code and Applicable Regulations

13. During the Term of this Occupancy Agreement, the Owner shall not deny benefits to any person on the basis of religion, color, ethnic group identification, sex, age, physical or mental disability, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age, or sex. Owner shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination.

Subrogation
Waived
Prevailing
Wage
Provision
Fair
Employment
Practices

Page - 9
39809.1 19138181.1
Owner shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code, Section 12900 et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 11000 et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Government Code, Sections 11135-11139.8), and the regulations or standards adopted by the awarding City to implement such article.

14. In the event the City remains in possession of the Premises with the express written consent of the Owner after the termination or the expiration of the Term, or any extension or renewal thereof, this Occupancy Agreement shall be automatically extended on a month to month basis, subject to a thirty day (30) day notice of termination by the Owner or the City and otherwise on the terms and conditions herein specified, so far as applicable, with Monthly Rent to be at two hundred percent (200%) of the Monthly Rent in effect immediately prior to such holdover period.

If no such consent is provided by Owner, then there shall be no holding over and City will be liable to Owner for any consequential or special damages caused by the unlawful holding over.

15. Upon termination or expiration of this Occupancy Agreement, the City will peacefully surrender to the Owner the Premises entirely vacant and in good order and repair, except for reasonable use and wear thereof and damage by earthquake, fire, public calamity, the elements, acts of God, or circumstances for which Owner is responsible pursuant to this Occupancy Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City’s obligation to restore the Premises shall also be limited in accordance with Section 19.

16. Time is of the essence of this Occupancy Agreement. Without affecting the provisions governing assignment and subleasing, the terms and provisions of this Occupancy Agreement shall extend to and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns to the respective parties hereto.

17. It is mutually understood and agreed that each party shall be deemed a drafter of the provisions of this Occupancy Agreement in equal measure, and that no alterations or variations of the terms of this Occupancy Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and that no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein, shall be binding on any of the parties hereto.

18. City agrees that it will comply with all applicable laws in occupying and using the Premises. This obligation includes complying with all laws existing during the Term pertaining to the presence, use, storage, transportation, and disposal of any "hazardous substance" or "hazardous materials" (as those terms are defined in Exhibit B, attached to this Occupancy Agreement; "Hazardous Materials") in on or about the Premises. City shall promptly advise Owner of the discovery of any such Hazardous Materials in or about the Premises where the presence, use, storage or disposal of the Hazardous Materials constitute an event requiring reporting to any governmental agency charged with protecting the environment or public health, or reflects a violation of the Environmental Laws, as these are defined in Exhibit B. In the event a government order is issued naming the City or the City incurs any liability during or after the Term in connection with Hazardous Materials that were present on the Premises before the Commencement Date, or which was caused by the Owner or its agent during the Term, Owner shall hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the City in connection therewith and shall be solely responsible as between City and Owner for all efforts and expenses arising from such preexisting contamination.

Owner represents and warrants that, to the knowledge of the Owner's manager: (a) the Premises do not contain asbestos; (b) the Premises do not contain any substance that is deemed Hazardous Materials, other than normal quantities of such Hazardous Materials as may typically be found in commercial construction or cleaning products used and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws; (c) there has been no release of Hazardous Materials on the Premises in violation of applicable law; (d) there are no underground storage tanks for petroleum products or Holding Over
Surrender of
Possession
Time of
Essence,
Binding upon
Successors
No Oral
Agreements
Hazardous
Substance

Page - 10
39809.1 19138181.1
Hazardous Materials, active or abandoned, located on or under the Premises; (e) Owner has received no notice of violation, administrative complaint, judicial complaint, or other formal or informal notice alleging any violation of any Environmental Laws or informing Owner that the Premises are subject to investigation, inquiry, or proceeding regarding Hazardous Materials or the potential violation of any Environmental Law; and (f) there are no environmental liens on the Premises.

19. Throughout the Term, the City shall make no improvements or alterations to the Premises if these require permits or that affect any roof membrane, any structural elements or involve more than $2,500 in costs without the express written permission of the Owner, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. City shall pay for the costs of any such works of improvement and ensure that no liens or other charges are imposed on the Premises. Upon termination of the Occupancy Agreement, any equipment installed on the Premises by the City shall remain the City’s property and the City shall remove such property from the Premises and repair any damages caused by such removal before the end of the Term. Upon expiration or termination of the Term, the Premises shall be returned to Owner vacant and in the same condition that existed on the Commencement Date, reasonable wear and tear excepted. On expiration of the Occupancy Agreement, the Premises shall revert to its status as a tourist hotel.

21. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Owner, its members, manager(s), agents, successors and assigns ("Indemnitees") in the event of any third party claim, demand, cause of action, judgments, obligations, liabilities, expenses and costs (including, e.g., court costs and reasonable attorney's fees) and all other reasonable expenses (collectively "Claims") which Owner may suffer as a proximate result of the negligence or other wrongful act or violation of law by a City Party (or by any person or persons acting under the direct control and authority of the City, the Operator, or the agents or employees or either of them), in connection with the City's occupancy of the Premises under and during the Term of this Occupancy Agreement, and agrees to repair or pay for any damage proximately caused by reason of the City’s use of the Premises during the Term of this Occupancy Agreement, in accordance with the terms the City committed to in Sections 7, 10, Schedule 7 and Exhibit C, as well as when due to the City's default or an Event of Default, except (i) to the extent such damages are the result of Owner's negligence or willful misconduct or it is the result of negligence or willful misconduct of any person(s) acting under the direct control and authority of Owner. The City's defense and indemnity obligations under this Section shall not be limited by the policy limits of any policy of insurance.

Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City in the event of any third party Claims that the City may suffer as direct and proximate result of the negligence or other wrongful act or violation of law by the Owner, its employees, or any person or persons acting under the direct control and authority of the Owner and further excluding that portion of the Claim caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of a City Party. Owner’s defense and indemnity obligations under this Section shall not be limited by the policy limits of any policy of insurance.

Without limiting either party’s defense and indemnity obligations under this Section, each party shall be entitled to participate in the defense of any third party claim that is reasonably likely to give rise to an indemnification claim under this Section.

The parties shall maintain in force at all times such policies of insurance as specified in Exhibit C, and shall abide by all of the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, which are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. The provisions of this Section 21 shall continue in full force and effect despite any expiration or termination of the Occupancy Agreement.

Improvements
and
Alterations;
Restoration of
Premises
Indemnification
and Insurance

Page - 11
39809.1 19138181.1

22. Owner is solely responsible for all tax liabilities, including property taxes. However, the City represents and warrants that under no circumstances shall any room occupied by the City or Program Guests be subject to the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax.

23. Owner shall not rent or allow occupancy of any vacant Rooms or facilities in the Hotel during the Term of the City’s occupancy of the Premises.

24. Owner and City understand that they shall not receive rent, fees, or any other form of payments or consideration, or gifts from Program Guests of Rooms in exchange for access to or use of the Premises. Owner and City also understand that neither has entered into any contract with the occupants of the Rooms related to the use of the Premises within the meaning of California Civil Code section 1925. The occupants of the Rooms are not persons who hire any dwelling unit from Owner or City within the meaning of California Civil Code section 1940 and are not subject to the benefits of the California Civil Code or any other state statutes, rules, or regulations or local government rules, regulations or ordinances that confer tenancy rights on the occupants.

25. (a) It is an "Event of Default" – and a breach by the City - under this Occupancy Agreement if the following occurs: (i) Monthly Rent is not timely paid and such failure is not cured within five (5) days of notice from Owner; (ii) Rent other than Monthly Rent is not timely paid and such failure is not cured within fifteen (15) days of notice from Owner; (iii) City is in breach of its obligation to maintain the insurance coverages required of it, or fails to ensure that the Operator maintains its required insurance coverages; (iv) the City fails to perform any other obligation under this Occupancy Agreement (other those enumerated below), and fails to cure such default within thirty (30) days of notice from Owner; (v) the City abandons the Premises; (vi) the City fails to timely surrender the Premises, or (vii) City permits nuisance conditions to exist on the Premises. (b) It is an "Event of Default" – and breach by the Owner- under this Occupancy Agreement if the following occurs: (i) Owner fails to timely pay an obligation to City within thirty (30) days of notice from City of such delinquency; (ii) Owner fails to perform an obligation that is required of Owner under this Occupancy Agreement and it fails to cure such default within thirty (30) days of notice from City of such default; and (iii) the Owner is in breach of its obligation to maintain the insurance coverages required of it.
(c) Except to the extent budget has been authorized by the City for Rents due under this Occupancy Agreement, there shall be no right under any circumstances to accelerate the payment of Rent or otherwise declare any payments of Rent not then in default to be immediately due and payable, Owner reserves and shall have all of the remedies reserved to a landlord for a breach of a lease, including:
(1) Owner may: (i) terminate this Occupancy Agreement upon service of lawful notice, and City shall then surrender the Premises to Owner; or (ii) enter and take possession of the Premises, in accordance with any applicable laws governing such repossession, and remove City, with or without having terminated this Occupancy Agreement. The provisions of this Section 25 (c)(1) shall operate as a notice to quit, any other notice to quit or of Owner's intention to re- enter the Premises being expressly waived. If necessary, Owner may proceed to recover possession of the Premises under applicable laws, or by such other legal proceedings, including re-entry and possession. Owner's exercise of any of its remedies or its receipt of City's keys to the Premises shall not be considered an acceptance or surrender of the Premises by City. A surrender must be agreed to in writing and signed by both parties. City shall pay to Owner all costs, losses or damages howsoever arising or occurring payable at the same time and in the same manner as is provided herein in the case of payment of Rent. Any surplus received by the Owner from re-leasing the Premises shall be the absolute property of Owner and City shall have Taxes
Exclusive Use
Occupancy of
Premises
Remedies

Page - 12
39809.1 19138181.1
no right thereto, nor shall the City be entitled to any credit in the event of a surplus in the rentals received by Owner.
(2) Owner shall have the right to continue the Occupancy Agreement in effect after City's breach and recover Rent as it becomes due, and Owner, in addition to all other rights and remedies, shall have the rights and the remedy described in California Civil Code § 1951.4 (which provides that the Owner may continue the Occupancy Agreement in effect after City's breach and abandonment and recover Rent as it becomes due, if the City has right to sublet or assign, subject only to reasonable limitations). Acts of maintenance or preservation, efforts to relet the Premises, or the appointment of a receiver upon Owner's initiative to protect its interest under this Occupancy Agreement shall not of themselves constitute a termination of City's right to possession. City consents to Owner repossessing the Premises and re leasing it for the account of City, in which event the City’s obligation will accrue from year to year in accordance with this Occupancy Agreement and City will continue to receive the value of the use of the Premises from year to year in the form of credits against its obligation to pay Rent. The obligations of City shall remain the same as prior to such default, to pay Rent whether City re-enters or not. City agrees to and shall remain liable for the payment of all Rent and the performance of all conditions contained herein and shall reimburse Owner for any deficiency arising out of the re leasing of the Premises, or, in the event Owner is unable to re lease the Premises, then for the full amount of all Rent to the end of the Term, but said Rent and/or deficiency shall be payable only at the same time and in the same manner as provided above for the payment of Rent hereunder, notwithstanding such repossession by Owner or any suit, brought by Owner for the purpose of effecting such repossession of the Premises or the exercise of any other remedy by Owner. (d) Unless specifically reserved in this Occupancy Agreement, or the damage is caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of a party or any agent of such party, each party waives any claims for consequential or special damages arising from this Occupancy Agreement or the use of the Premises. Subject to the preceding sentence, if a party breaches any term or provision of this Occupancy Agreement, the counterparty shall have the right to pursue all available remedies at law or equity, including recovery of damages and specific performance of this Occupancy Agreement. The parties hereto agree that monetary damages would not provide adequate compensation for any losses incurred by reason of a breach of any of the provisions of this Occupancy Agreement and hereby further agrees that, in the event of any action for specific performance in respect of such breach, each party shall waive the defense that a remedy at law would be adequate. Except as expressly provided elsewhere in this Occupancy Agreement, each party's rights and remedies under this Occupancy Agreement are cumulative and in addition to, not exclusive of or in substitution for, any rights or remedies otherwise available to that party.

26. By executing this Occupancy Agreement, Owner certifies that it does not know of any fact which constitutes a violation of California Government Code Section 1090, Berkeley City Charter Section 36 and B.M.C. Chapter 3.64, and further agrees promptly to notify the City if it becomes aware of any such fact during the Term of this Occupancy Agreement.

27. If Owner elects to complete a "Market Transaction" (as defined below) during the Term, then the City will have a right to make the first offer ("ROFO") to purchase the Property. Any such ROFO, if it arises can only be exercised by the City during the Term, and then only if there has been no Event of Default. No rights under this Section 27 are assignable, except that if the City otherwise is capable of exercising the ROFO it may assign such rights to a nonprofit with which the City is partnering to provide housing for people experiencing homelessness, if (and only if) all of the following apply to the non-profit and its exercise of the ROFO ("Valid Assignee"): (i) at or before the Offer is made, the City notifies Owner that it has a nonprofit corporation that qualifies for the assignment and it provides reasonable proof of this, (ii) the City's nominated nonprofit makes an Offer and is capable of completing the purchase on the terms of the ROFO set out in Conflict of
Interest
Right of First
Offer

Page - 13
39809.1 19138181.1
the Offer and provides reasonable evidence of this, and (iii) the City expressly assigns all such ROFO rights, and remains bound to perform the balance of its obligations under the Occupancy Agreement through the Closing Date. Any Valid Assignee shall have the same rights and obligations that the City has under the ROFO once it has made a good faith Offer. For the avoidance of doubt, once the non-profit has made an Offer, any remedies shall be solely those of the non-profit, and those shall be subject to any limitations set out in this Occupancy Agreement for the City.

A failure to exercise the ROFO in accordance with these provisions when the ROFO arises, or a breach of the ROFO provisions by City or a Valid Assignee, or the City's or the Valid Assignee's breach of the "Purchase Agreement" (defined below) will terminate any further rights of the City or any such Valid Assignee under this Section 27.

The ROFO only operates if the Owner intends to enter into a "Market Transaction" which shall mean that the Owner intends to sell the Property in an arms'-length market transaction to a third party. It specifically excludes the following transactions: (i) any transfers associated with a loan transaction; (ii) changes in the membership of the Owner; (iii) any gift transaction; (iv) any transfer to facilitate estate planning by any principal of Owner (or transfer to a family member within the third degree of consanguinity or spouse of the same), and (v) any involuntary transfer. If a ROFO arises, and the City or a Valid Assignee duly exercises it, the City must continue to perform all of its obligations under this Occupancy Agreement until the closing on the purchase of the Property under the ROFO. If City or a Valid Assignee under this Section 27 causes an Event of Default under this Occupancy Agreement or is in breach under the Purchase Agreement, Owner may elect to terminate this Occupancy Agreement and the Purchase Agreement and exercise all other remedies it has.

Where the Owner intends to engage in a Market Transaction, Owner must notify the City of such an intent to market the Premises for sale, and the City (or its Valid Assignee) will have a right to make the first offer on the Premises, which shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure set forth in the AIR-CRE form, attached hereto as Exhibit D. If the City exercises such right and elects to purchase the Property, or the Valid Assignee does, the resulting purchase agreement ("Purchase Agreement") shall cause the Occupancy Agreement to terminate as of the closing on the Purchase Agreement ("Closing Date").

If the City or the Valid Assignee fails to exercise the ROFO, or either fails to complete the Purchase Agreement, then the City and the Valid Assignee shall provide Owner with a quitclaim deed to the Property when requested by Owner to show that the Property is free of any claims by the City or the Valid Assignee except for any obligations pending during the remaining term of this Occupancy Agreement.

CITY OF BERKELEY PROVISIONS

28. City Non-Discrimination Ordinance. Owner hereby agrees to comply with the provisions of the Berkeley Municipal Code (“B.M.C.”), including without limitation Chapter 13.26, as amended from time to time. In the performance of its obligations under this Occupancy Agreement, Owner agrees as follows during the Term:
a. Owner shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age (over 40), sex, pregnancy, marital status, disability, sexual orientation or AIDS.

Page - 14
39809.1 19138181.1
b. Owner shall permit City access to records of employment, employment advertisements, application forms, EEO-1 forms, affirmative action plans and any other documents which, in the reasonable opinion of City, are necessary to monitor compliance with this non-discrimination provision. In addition, Owner shall fill out, in a timely fashion, forms supplied by City to monitor this non-discrimination provision.

29. Non-Discrimination Against Persons With Disabilities. a. If Owner provides any aid, service or benefit to others on the City’s behalf, Owner shall, in the provision of such aid, service or benefit, observe and comply with all applicable provisions of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and any amendments thereto. Owner shall further observe and comply with all applicable federal, state, municipal and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities or ensuring that individuals with disabilities are not excluded from participating in or receiving benefits, services or activities of the City, if applicable. b. If Owner is or becomes a “public accommodation” as defined in Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Owner shall observe and comply with all applicable provisions of the Act and any amendments thereto, and all applicable federal, state, municipal and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered by the Owner. All of Owner’s activities must be in accordance with these laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations, and Owner shall be solely responsible for complying therewith.

30. Conflict of Interest Prohibited.
a. In accordance with California Government Code Section 1090, Berkeley City Charter Section 36 and B.M.C. Chapter 3.64, neither Owner nor any employee, officer, director, partner or member of Owner, or immediate family member of any of the preceding, shall have served as an elected officer, an employee, or a committee or commission member of City, who has directly or indirectly influenced the making of this Occupancy Agreement.
b. In accordance with California Government Code Section 1090 and the Political Reform Act, (Government Code Section 87100 et seq.,) no person who is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or consultant of Owner, or immediate family member of any of the preceding, shall make or participate in a decision made by City or any of its boards, commissions or committees, if it is reasonable foreseeable that the decision will have a material effect on any source of income, investment or interest in real property of that person or City, except to the extent permitted by 2 California Code of Regulations, Section 18700(c)(2).

Interpretation of this Section shall be governed by the definitions and provisions use in the Political Reform Act, Government Code section 87100 et seq., its implementing regulations, manuals and codes, Government Code section 1090, Berkeley City Charter section 36 and B.M.C. Chapter 3.64, as amended from time to time.

31. Nuclear Free Berkeley. Owner agrees to comply with B.M.C. Chapter 12.90, the Nuclear Free Berkeley Act, as amended from time to time.

32. Oppressive States.
a. In accordance with Resolution No. 59,853-N.S., Owner certifies that it has no contractual relations with, and agrees during the Term of this Occupancy Agreement to forego contractual relations to provide personal services to, the following entities:
i. The governing regime in any Oppressive State.
ii. Any business or corporation organized under the authority of the governing regime of any Oppressive State.

Page - 15
39809.1 19138181.1
iii. Any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or any other commercial organization, and including parent-entities and wholly-owned subsidiaries (to the extent that their operations are related to the purpose of this Occupancy Agreement) for the express purpose of assisting in business operations or trading with any public or private entity located in any Oppressive State. b. For purposes of this Occupancy Agreement, the Tibet Autonomous Region and the provinces of Ado, Kham, and U-Tsang shall be deemed Oppressive States. c. Owner’s failure to comply with this Section 31 shall constitute a default of this Occupancy Agreement and Owner may terminate this Occupancy Agreement on five days’ written notice to Owner. In the event that City terminates this Occupancy Agreement due to a default under this provision, City may deem Owner a non-responsible bidder for five (5) years from the date this Occupancy Agreement is terminated.

33. Berkeley Sanctuary City Ordinance.

Owner hereby agrees to comply with the provisions of the Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance, B.M.C. Chapter 13.105. In accordance with this Chapter, Owner agrees not to provide the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security with any Data Broker or Extreme Vetting Services as defined herein:
a. “Data Broker” means either of the following: (1) The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies; (2) the aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used. b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services. Extreme Vetting does not include: (1) The City’s computer-network health and performance tools; (2) Cybersecurity capabilities, technologies and systems used by the City of Berkeley Department of Information Technology to predict, monitor for, prevent, and protect technology infrastructure and systems owned and operated by the City of Berkeley from potential cybersecurity events and cyber-forensic based investigations and prosecutions of illegal computer-based activity.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Occupancy Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto as of the dates written below.

16 39809.1 19138181.1

17 39809.1 19138181.1
SCHEDULE 7

REPAIRS, FUNDING, AND RISK MANAGEMENT OBLIGATIONS
The parties intend by these provisions to provide certain standards for reducing (and allocating) risks and costs between them, including the costs of repairs arising from the use of the Premises and the need for repairs or reconstruction of the Premises during the Term.

A. ADA Accessibility And Disability Access Disclosure Under Section 1938 of the California Civil Code. City acknowledges and agrees that it is familiar with the condition of the Premises and all improvements thereon and, except with respect to pending work on a retaining wall that affects some of the parking on site, is leasing the Premises in its “AS-IS” condition, and, except with respect to said retaining wall, Owner shall have no obligation whatsoever to perform any work, supply any materials, incur any expenses or make any installations in order to prepare the Premises for City’s occupancy.

Moreover, Owner has not granted any allowances of any kind for the condition of the Premises. Except as expressly provided in this Occupancy Agreement, Owner makes no representation or warranty of any kind or nature, express, implied or otherwise, regarding the condition or usefulness of the Premises by or for City, its compliance with applicable Legal Requirements, or the suitability of the Premises for any particular use or purpose.

In accordance with Section 1938 of the California Civil Code, Owner has notified City that the Premises has undergone an inspection by a Certified Access Specialist to determine if the Premises meet all applicable construction related accessibility standards pursuant to Section 55.53 of the California Civil Code. Owner makes the following statement in compliance with the requirements of Section 1938(e) of the California Civil Code:
“A Certified Access Specialist (“CASp”) can inspect the subject premises and determine whether the subject premises comply with all of the applicable construction-related accessibility standards under state Laws. Although state law does not require a CASp inspection of the subject premises, the commercial property owner or lessor may not prohibit the lessee or tenant from obtaining a CASp inspection of the subject premises for the occupancy or potential occupancy of the lessee or tenant, if requested by the lessee or tenant. The parties shall mutually agree on the arrangements for the time and manner of the CASp inspection, the payment of the fee for the CASp inspection, and the cost of making any repairs necessary to correct violations of construction-related accessibility standards within the subject premises.”
If City desires to obtain such CASp inspection, the CASp party, the scope of the inspection and date such inspection shall be performed shall be subject to the prior written approval of Owner, which will not be unreasonably withheld. Owner shall have the right to have a representative present during such inspection. The cost of such inspection shall be paid by City without reimbursement or other payment from Owner. Any work with respect to the Premises required to be completed as described in the CASp report shall be performed and paid for by City. Nothing contained in this Schedule 7 (including, without limitation, the notice to City above), shall alter the Parties’ respective obligations under the other express provisions of this Occupancy Agreement.

B. Life Safety Systems. At its cost, Owner shall provide the existing life safety systems on the Premises, together with any upgrades required by applicable law. City agrees that its Program manager will, at least on a weekly basis, (i) test all smoke/CO detectors throughout the Hotel, and (ii) report to Owner on any smoke detectors that fail the test. Separately, the City will promptly notify the Owner of any defects that it becomes aware of in the life safety systems on the Premises.

18 39809.1 19138181.1
C. Yearly Damage Deposit. As provided in Section 7 of the Occupancy Agreement, on the Commencement Date and on each anniversary of the Commencement Date (thus, at the start of each Year of occupancy), the City will provide an annual amount as a "damage deposit" for the ensuing Operating Year to cover anticipated costs of repairing the Premises following a Casualty caused by a City Party.

Any unused portion of the Yearly Damage Deposit will be retained by Owner as Rent; provided, however, if the Owner exercises an Owner Termination Right, a Casualty Termination Right, or a Special Termination Right, or the City exercises a termination due to Owner's Event of Default, then as of the date the Term ends, any unused portion of the Yearly Damage Deposit shall be (i) applied to the need for repairs to the extent that City fails to surrender the Property in the condition required by the Occupancy Agreement; and (ii) the balance is to be paid over to the City within thirty (30) days of such surrender, or the completion of such repairs, whichever is later.

D. Program Management. The City has advised Owner that each Program Guest is bound by an agreement with the City ("Residency Agreement") to use the Premises for residential purposes only and to exercise care in pursuing that occupancy and use.

1. It is a material part of the Occupancy Agreement that the City observe and enforce the following requirements under the Residency Agreement: (i) it will ensure that the Program Guest will test the smoke/CO detector in that person's assigned Room and report on whether it functions (this shall not relieve the City from its own testing obligations); and (ii) the City will ensure that each Residency Agreement will be duly reviewed and signed by the Program Guest, and that it will contain the following warnings and provisions in capital letters and 14 point font (and it shall note that doing these things will be grounds for eviction from the Premises):
[CITY/PROGRAM COMPANY] WANTS TO ENSURE THAT THE HOUSING OFFERED IS KEPT IN A SAFE AND USABLE CONDITION.

YOU AGREE TO HELP ENSURE THAT YOU DO YOUR PART TO REACH THIS GOAL.

IF YOU OR ANY GUEST OF YOURS ENGAGES IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CONDUCT, IT WILL

CONSTITUTE WILLFUL MISCONDUCT AND WILL BE IMMEDIATE GROUNDS FOR TERMINATING YOUR RIGHT TO ENTER THE PROPERTY: (A) ANY INTENTIONAL DAMAGE TO THE ROOM OR ANY PART OF THE BUILDING OR EXTERIOR PREMISES (i.e., PURSUING A COURSE OF ACTION WITH THE LIKELY RESULT THAT IT WILL SO DAMAGE THE PREMISES); (B) SMOKING IN THE ROOM OR ANYWHERE IN THE BUILDING; (C) ANY TAMPERING OR DAMAGE TO THE SMOKE DETECTORS IN THE ROOM OR THE BUILDING; (D) ALLOWING ANYTHING TO ENTER THE

TOILET OR BE FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET OTHER THAN HUMAN WASTE AND REGULAR

TOILET PAPER, (THIS IS WITHOUT EXCEPTION - SO, ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE PROHIBITED: SYRINGES, “WIPES” OF ANY KIND [INCLUDING THOSE THAT CLAIM TO BE "DISPOSABLE"], TAMPONS, PAPER TOWELS, HAIR BALLS, DENTAL FLOSS, STRING, ETC. ARE ALL STRICTLY PROHIBITED); (E) TAMPERING WITH ANY PLUMBING OR ELECTRICAL DEVICES (THAT IS, ANYTHING OTHER THAN TURNING FAUCETS ON OR OFF, OR PLUGGING IN APPLIANCES, ETC.); (F) ALLOWING ANY SINK TO OVERFLOW; (F) THE USE OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: ANY OPEN FLAME, ANY HOT PLATES AND ANY SPACE HEATERS; (G) TAMPERING WITH ANY ELECTRICAL WIRING; (H) BRINGING ANY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ONTO THE

PREMISES UNLESS IT IS A CONSUMER PRODUCT THAT IS KEPT IN ITS AUTHORIZED CONTAINER AND USED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE IT WAS DESIGNED FOR; AND (I) BRINGING

PROPANE, GASOLINE OR ANY OTHER FLAMMABLE PRODUCT ONTO THE PREMISES, EXCEPT FOR FUEL IN A VEHICLE'S FUEL TANK.

19 39809.1 19138181.1

2. IF YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGES TO THE ROOM OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY, DUE TO YOUR NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT, THEN [THE CITY] CAN TERMINATE YOUR USE OF THE ROOM OR THE PREMISES IMMEDIATELY AND YOU

WILL LOSE ALL PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS OF THIS PROGRAM PROVIDED TO YOU BY THE CITY.

3. For all purposes under this Occupancy Agreement, City acknowledges that if any City Party engages in any of the conduct identified as "willful misconduct" in the enumerated actions set out in capital letters of subsection 1., above, it shall be binding on City as an act of "willful misconduct" for all purposes under this Occupancy Agreement.
 Eviction for Misconduct. The City and its Operator shall ensure that Owner is promptly notified of any events or occurrences constituting a violation of the above requirements under the Residency Agreement (regardless of any ostensible "cure" period). All of the above must be grounds for immediate eviction under the Residency Agreement, and where any of the prescribed events occurs, the City will take all reasonable and lawful measures to cause such Program Guest to be evicted from the Premises within TEN (10) days of the occurrence, and ensure that he or she is precluded from reentering the Premises for the balance of the Term. Until such eviction is accomplished, the City will be responsible for any further losses caused by that Program Guest.  Other Evictions/Risk Allocation. Moreover, if the Program Guest has more than one such damage incident, that is the result of mere negligence (i.e., the first such occurrence was not caused by an act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful misconduct, including, as defined in the Residency Agreement), and the aggregate damage inclusive of prior Casualties attributable to such Program Guest is greater than $5,000, then, if the City does not oust the Program Guest, the City will be responsible for any further damages caused by that Program Guest's negligence (after the Yearly Damage Deposit has been exhausted). Where any Program Guest causes a loss of more than $5,000.00 (in a single instance or in the aggregate), regardless of the degree of negligence or misconduct, and the City does not remove such person from the Premises immediately after such a threshold of harm has been reached, then the City shall be responsible for any further Claim, loss or damage caused by such Program Guest's acts or omissions (whether due to simple or gross negligence or due to willful misconduct); provided that, if the City is so obligated to pay for such further losses, the City can apply any balance remaining in the Yearly Damage Deposit for that Year (defined in Section 7, above) to cover the resulting costs.
o Thus, if a Program Guest has caused two instances where repairs were needed and these cost more than $5,000 in losses, and the City does not remove such person from the Premises, and then a further loss of $10,000 occurs due to that person's acts or omissions, the City will pay for such additional $10,000 loss; however, it can use any remaining balance in the Yearly Damage Deposit to pay for those costs. For example, if there are three thousand dollars ($3,000) remaining in the Yearly Damage Deposit account for that Year, then the parties will apply the $3,000 to pay for such repairs, and the City will provide further payment of the $7,000.00 balance to cover the additional costs of repairs.
o See additional provisions in Exhibit C.

D. Laundry FF&E. Only staff supervised by the Operator may have access to the laundry room area. If any damage is caused to the laundry equipment during the Term by any City Party, and such damages ultimately aggregate to more than $2,000.00 (Two Thousand Dollars), Owner may, in its discretion remove the existing laundry equipment and install a coin operated laundry serviced by a vendor.

20 39809.1 19138181.1
E. Insurance. See Exhibit C.

21 39809.1 19138181.1
Exhibit A
Aerial Site Plan
This is an aerial site plan including all parking spaces contiguous to the subject hotel building.

This is a street view showing parking spaces contiguous to the subject hotel building.

22 39809.1 19138181.1

23 39809.1 19138181.1
Exhibit B
Hazardous Substances and Environmental Laws
“Hazardous Substances” means any hazardous or toxic substance, material or waste, or any pollutant or contaminant, or any substance that is or becomes regulated by any local governmental authority, the state in which the Premises are located or the United States Government, including without limitation: (a) those substances included within the definitions of “hazardous substances,” “hazardous materials,” “toxic substances,” or “solid waste” in CERCLA or RCRA; (b) those substances defined as “hazardous wastes” in section 25117 of the California Health & Safety Code, or as “hazardous substances” in section 25316 of the California Health & Safety Code, and in the regulations promulgated pursuant to said laws; (c) those substances listed in the United States Department of Transportation Table (49 C.F.R. 172.101 and amendments thereto) or by the Environmental Protection Agency (or any successor agency) as hazardous substances (40 C.F.R. part 302 and amendments thereto); (d) any material, waste or substance which is (i) petroleum (including crude oil or any fraction thereof, natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel, or any mixture thereof), (ii) petroleum products, (iii) asbestos, (iv) polychlorinated biphenyls, (v) designated as a “hazardous substance” pursuant to section 311 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (33 U.S.C. §1321) or listed or designated as a “hazardous substance” pursuant to section 307 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1317), (vi) flammable explosives, or (vii) radioactive materials, (viii) urea formaldehyde, (ix) radon gas, (x) medical waste, and (xi) chemicals that may cause cancer or reproductive toxicity; (e) defined as a “hazardous waste” pursuant to Section 1004 of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901, et seq. (42 U.S.C. § 6903), (f) defined as a “hazardous substance” pursuant to section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq.); and (g) such other substances, materials, and wastes which are or become classified as hazardous or toxic under any of the Environmental Government Regulations or any other applicable local, state or federal law, or otherwise are or become regulated under any Environmental Law(s).
“Environmental Law(s)” means any federal, state, or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, requirements, orders, directives, guidelines, or permit conditions, in existence as of the Commencement Date or as later enacted, promulgated, issued, modified or adopted, regulating or relating to Hazardous Substances, and all applicable judicial, administrative, and regulatory decrees, judgments, and orders, and common law, including those relating to industrial hygiene, public safety, human health, or protection of the environment, or the reporting, licensing, permitting, use, presence, transfer, treatment, analysis, generation, manufacture, storage, discharge, Release, disposal, transportation, Investigation or Remediation of Hazardous Substances. Environmental Government Regulations include the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. section 9601, et seq.) (“CERCLA”); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. section 6901 et seq.) (“RCRA”); the federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. section 1251 et seq.); the Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended, (15 U.S.C. section 2601 et seq.); the Hazardous Substances Account Act (Chapter 6.8 of the California Health and Safety Code section 25300 et seq.); Chapter 6.5 commencing with section 25200 (Hazardous Waste Control) and Chapter 6.7 commencing with section 25280 (Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances) of the California Health and Safety Code; and the California Water Code, sections 13300 et seq.

24 39809.1 19138181.1

EXHIBIT C
Minimum Insurance Requirements
Unless separately defined below, capitalized terms shall have the meaning given to them in the main body of the Occupancy Agreement. To the extent of any conflict between these provisions and those in the main body of the Occupancy Agreement, these shall prevail. In addition, the City will provide all of the coverages contained in its "Memorandum of Coverages" attached hereto as Schedule 2 to the extent that such coverages are broader than and more protective of Owner (otherwise the broader coverages of this Exhibit C and the provisions of the main body of the Occupancy Agreement will prevail). a. For the Term of this Occupancy Agreement, City shall self-insure or maintain, at its own expense, comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) combined single and aggregate limits for both bodily injury and property damage, personal injury, completed operations and products liability. City shall insure all of the City's personal property located on or in the Premises against all risks. All such liability insurance shall name the Owner and its members and manager and its agents and employees as additional insureds and shall contain a severability of interests clause, specifying that, with respect to the coverage limits, such liability insurance applies to each person named as additional insureds as though a separate policy were issued to each, thus providing primary coverage with respect to the claims arising from the operations on the Premises.

City shall cause its Operator to provide the following insurance coverages: (a) comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) combined single and aggregate limits for both bodily injury and property damage, personal injury, completed operations and products liability; (b) "all risks" form of property insurance for all of the Operator's personal property on the Premises; (c) If any licensed professional performs services as the Operator, a professional liability insurance policy in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 to cover any claims arising out of Operator's performance of services under this Occupancy Agreement; (d) Worker's Compensation Insurance at levels required by statute; and (e) if Operator uses any vehicles in its operations in or about the Property, automobile liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage of not less than $100,000 per person bodily injury per accident and $50,000 in property damage per accident. The Workers' compensation policy shall include Employer Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each accident, and shall provide that the insurance carrier shall not cancel, terminate, or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of said insurance except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to Owner and shall provide for a waiver of any right of subrogation against Owner, to the extent permitted by law
City has provided a Memorandum of Coverage to signify its proposed coverage of these coverage obligations. A copy is attached to this Exhibit C as Schedule 1. The City agrees to maintain these coverages at its cost throughout the Term.

Subject to the provisions of this Exhibit C, Owner shall maintain at all times during the performance of this Occupancy Agreement the insurance coverages (for property damage to the Property and for liability insurance) as identified in the quote relating to property damage and liability insurance attached hereto as Schedule 1. To the extent permitted under Owner's Policies, Owner's liability insurance shall name the City, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees as additional insureds but shall be subordinate to the primary coverage provided by the City.

Owner shall not be in breach of this Occupancy Agreement if it is unable to procure ongoing or replacement coverage(s) for the policies or coverages noted on Schedule 1(whether property damage or liability coverage; individually, an "Owner's Policy", and collectively, "Owner's Policies"), so long as Owner has made commercially reasonable efforts to find replacement coverage for an Owner's Policy

25 39809.1 19138181.1
and is unable to find equivalent coverage, or is unable to find it at a premium cost that does not exceed the prior Year's coverage costs for such insurance by more than 50% and City will not cover the excess premium costs over such 50% maximum (referred to as a "Coverage Failure"). If Owner suffers a Coverage Failure, it may elect to terminate this Occupancy Agreement on thirty (30) days' notice ("Special Termination Right"), and if there is a loss of coverage under the Owner Policies before the City surrenders possession, City shall be responsible for any Claim, loss or damage suffered or incurred by Owner until such surrender occurs. If Owner exercises its Special Termination Right then City shall timely surrender the Premises to Owner as required within such thirty (30) days, unless the next sentence applies. The City shall have an option to extend the surrender date by ninety (90) days (so that the surrender date is one hundred and twenty (120) days after notice of the Special Termination Right ("Extension Election")) if (i) it has not otherwise caused an Event of Default, (ii) the Coverage Failure is only with respect to Owner's property damage coverage, and (iii) the City makes its Extension Election within ten (10) days of Owner's notice of exercising its Special Termination Right. If an Extension Election occurs, the City shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the Owner and the Indemnitees from all Claims arising from the City's continued use of or operations on the Property until the Premises are duly surrendered by the City. Time is of the essence in making such Extension Election.

All insurance policies shall: 1) provide that the insurance carrier shall not cancel, terminate or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of said policies except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City’s Contract Administrator or the Owner, as applicable (unless otherwise noted on Schedule 1); and 2) be evidenced by the original Certificate of Insurance, specifying the required coverage and the insurance carrier’s standard additional insured form endorsement. If any of the stipulated coverages are to change, such change is to be approved as to form and sufficiency by the City’s Contract Administrator and Owner, as applicable, with such approval to be reasonably exercised. A failure by City or Owner to procure and maintain the required coverage(s) is an Event of Default unless the failure is a Coverage Failure. The original insurance certificates and all extensions to the insurance certificates should be sent to the addresses identified below.
b. If the commercial general liability insurance referred to above or shown in Schedule 1 is written on a Claims Made Form then, following termination of this Occupancy Agreement, the applicable party required to provide coverages must purchase and ensure there is coverage that will survive for a period of not less than five years after the end of the Term. Coverage shall also provide for a retroactive date of placement coinciding with the effective date of this Occupancy Agreement. c. If a party to the Occupancy Agreement (including any Operator) employs any person to be in or around the Premises, it shall carry workers’ compensation and employer’s liability insurance and shall provide a certificate of insurance to its counterparty. The workers’ compensation insurance shall: 1) provide that the insurance carrier shall not cancel, terminate or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of said insurance except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City’s Contract Administrator or Owner (as applicable); 2) provide for a waiver of any right of subrogation against the counterparty, to the extent permitted by law; and 3) shall be approved as to form and sufficiency by the Contract Administrator and the Owner, as applicable.

Where there is a Casualty event, and coverage may be available under an Owner's Policy, it is within the Owner's discretion to tender a claim under such policies, except to the extent the City can direct that decision under this subsection (d). If, in any given Year there is a liability claim, or a Casualty event that involves a loss or damage (to Owner or a third party) that is covered under an Owner's Policy (a "Covered Claim"), then Owner shall (i) provide notice to the City of the nature of the Covered Claim and the date of occurrence ("Claim Notice"), and (ii) tender the Covered Claim under the applicable Owner's Policy if (i) the amount of the Covered Claim for an occurrence is more than $150,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars), (ii) if the amount of the Covered Claim is less than $150,000.00, but more

26 39809.1 19138181.1
than one Covered Claim has occurred during the applicable Year and the aggregate of all such Covered Claims in that Year (regardless of whether they were tendered) exceeds $250,000.00, and (iii) the City directs the Owner to pursue submission of the Covered Claim within ten (10) days of the Claim Notice. If Owner submits such Covered Claim and, as a result, there is a Coverage Failure, Owner may elect to terminate this Occupancy Agreement as a Special Termination Right. e. City agrees that it will pay for up to $30,000 per Year towards (i) the premium costs of Owner's Policies and (ii) any deductibles imposed during that Year under those Owner's Policies for a Covered Claim. Such contribution will first be applied towards any premium costs for the applicable Year, with any remainder of the $30,000 to be payable to the extent of any deductibles incurred during such Year for a Covered Claim. Owner shall provide a reasonable accounting of such costs and City will reimburse Owner for these costs within sixty (60) days of such invoice from Owner. f. If there is a Casualty or Claim that exceeds the coverage limits required of Owner under the Occupancy Agreement (e.g., $5 million in property coverage and $1 million in liability coverage), the City agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify the Owner and the Indemnitees from and against any loss or Claims arising from the Casualty or Claim that exceed the required coverage limits. g. Owner shall forward all insurance documents to:

Department Name: City Manager
Department Address: 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 The City shall forward all insurance documents to the Owner at its address for notices.

SCHEDULE 1
[ATTACH QUOTES APPROVED BY CITY]
SCHEDULE 2
[ATTACH MEMORANDUM OF COVERAGES BY CITY]

27 39809.1 19138181.1

EXHIBIT D
AIR/CRE Right of First Offer to Purchase

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
December 6, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Amend Contract No. 32100161 with Dorothy Day House to extend Horizon Village Shelter and Safe RV Parking Program operations

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32100161 with Dorothy Day House (DDH) to add $612,559 to cover costs to extend the Safe RV Parking Program (SPARK) through December 31, 2022 and costs to operate the Horizon Village Shelter (HVS) from October 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 (including the Berkeley Inn from December 7, 2022 through June 30, 2022), for a total contact amount not to exceed $2,270,177.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
If approved, this recommendation will result in a net appropriation of $586,732. The total amount that needs to be added to the Dorothy Day House contract No. 32100161 to extend operations is $612,559; this includes $128,700, which was approved as part of the FY23-24 budget adoption but has not yet been added to the Dorothy Day House contract for Horizon/SPARK. Below is a summary of new funding needed to cover current operations at HVS and SPARK and future HVS operations at the Berkeley Inn through FY23. The funding table also includes costs, incurred by the City, to extend the lease at 742 Grayson through December 31, 2022. The amount needed accounts for overall HVS/SPARK cost savings through September 30, 2022. If approved, contract payments will be paid from Measure P general funds.

Horizon Village
Shelter and Safe RV
Parking Extension
Costs
10/1/22-12/31/22
Berkeley Inn
Costs
Total
Funds
Needed
FY23-24
Budget
Adoption
Delta –
needed
from
Council
Dorothy Day
House
$181,0181 $431,5412 $612,559* $128,700 $483,859
1 The total cost of these extended services is $349,341. The remainder ($168,323) was covered using FY21-23 contract savings.
2 DDH costs from 1/1/23-6/30/23.

Amend contract with Dorothy Day House to Dorothy Day Parking Program operations CONSENT CALENDAR House to extend Horizon Village Shelter and Safe RV December 6, 2022

Berkeley Inn
Lease costs
$883,2003 $883,200 $883,200 $0
City costs to
extend lease
through 12/31/22
$102,873 $102,873 $102,873
TOTALS $283,891 $1,314,741 $1,598,632 $1,011,900 $586,732** * This is the amount that needs to be added to the Dorothy Day House contract. ** This is the net amount that needs to be approved by Council.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
To help alleviate the crisis of unsheltered and encampment homelessness in Berkeley, the City partnered with DDH in April, 2021 to launch the 50-bed HVS Program at 742 Grayson St in Southwest Berkeley. Since its opening in July 2021, the program has served 130 residents of the City’s most dangerous and impactful encampments. The City’s lease was expected to end on September 30, 2022, however, it was extended through December 31, 2022. The City asked DDH to extend its operations at HVS and to reinitiate operations at SPARK, after a brief service suspension, through December 31, 2023. The proposed Urgency Lease Ordinance to support relocation of the program to the Berkeley Inn is also on the Council’s December 6, 2022 agenda. If approved, DDH will begin relocating the HVS to the Berkeley Inn located at 1720 San Pablo Ave in December. The budget includes funding to transition the shelter from 742 Grayson St. to 1720 San Pablo Ave.

The total lease and DDH services contract will cost $1,314,741. This covers six months of DDH program services (January through June 2023) and 12 months of lease costs (December 7, 2022 through December 6, 2023). DDH’s services costs beyond June 30, 2023 will be requested as part of the City’s annual Measure P budget process.

Primary referrals to Horizon come from the Homeless Response Team, assisting people in encampments with numerous health and safety violations into shelter. In the Homeless Response Team’s anecdotal experiencing talking to numerous residents on the streets every day, many who have moved into a bed at Horizon were unwilling to avail themselves of other congregate shelter opportunities. Over the course of the past year, Dorothy Day House has developed relationships with the residents who will be transitioning from Grayson to the Berkeley Inn, should Council approve that lease.

Allowing for the continuation of this provider-client relationship by offering the Berkeley Inn service provision contract to Dorothy Day House provides critical continuity and stability for these vulnerable residents during what is otherwise a difficult period of relocation and change.

BACKGROUND
3 Berkeley Inn lease costs from 12/7/22-12/6/23.

Amend contract with Dorothy Day House to Dorothy Day Parking Program operations CONSENT CALENDAR House to extend Horizon Village Shelter and Safe RV December 6, 2022

On April 27, 2021, the Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 7,759–N.S. to authorize the lease of 742 Grayson St for the purposes of operating interim shelter for persons experiencing homelessness. On April 27, 2021, Council adopted Resolution No. 69,808–N.S., which authorized a contract with Dorothy Day House to operate the HVS a 50-bed interim shelter, at this site. On October 26, 2021, the Council authorized Resolution No, 70,075-N.S. to add $548,096 for a new Safe RV Parking Program at the site. In March, 2022, the lease for the Grayson St property became month-to-month.

The lease was expected to terminate on September 30, 2022 but on September 29, 2022, Council approved a lease extension through December 31, 2022. As the property owners are actively working with the City through the approval process to develop the parcel, there is no possibility for extending the term of this lease. On June 28, 2022, Council adopted the FY23-24 Biennial Budget, including $1,011,900 annually in Measure P funds to continue the Grayson shelter at a new location. After applying the cost savings from Dorothy Day House’s original contract, DDH needs an additional $181,018 to cover service costs for this period. Additionally, the City incurred costs for rent, zero waste, toilet and hygiene, and security services totaling $102,873.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Helping unhoused people currently living in Berkeley’s encampments transition into interim non-congregate housing placement will minimize the detrimental environmental impacts associated with encampment homelessness over the long run, including vector and fire hazards, accumulation of trash and waste, and impacts on sensitive waterways.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Dorothy Day House has been contracting with the City since April 2021 to operate the HVS, successfully serving 130 of the most vulnerable people living in Berkeley’s most dangerous encampments, as identified by the Homeless Response Team.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None. The initial cohort of residents at the Berkeley Inn will transition from 742 Grayson Street when that program ends. Dorothy Day House has been working with these HVS participants for months. Ensuring the continuity of the primary service provider will minimize the impact of a potentially difficult transition for many of the HVS residents; therefore, circulating an RFP for this contract would be disruptive and contrary to the best interest of the people it will serve.

CONTACT PERSON
Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager, 510-981-7045.

Attachments:
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. XX,XXX N.S.

AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH DOROTHY DAY HOUSE TO

EXTEND AND FUND CITY OF BERKELEY SAFE RV PARKING (SPARK) PROGRAM THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2022 AND HORIZON VILLAGE SHELTER (HVS) OPERATIONS THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023.

WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley is experiencing an ongoing crisis of street homelessness, with over 800 people sleeping in parks, on sidewalks, and in other places not meant for habitation on any given night according to the 2022 Federal Point- in-Time Count; and
WHEREAS, to help address this shortage, the City Council in April 2021 authorized a lease and program contract with Dorothy Day House to launch the 50-bed Horizon Transitional Village Program; and
WHEREAS, since July 2021, Dorothy Day House has served over 125 residents of Berkeley’s most dangerous encampments from a health and safety perspective; and WHEREAS, the owners of 742 Grayson are working with the City for parcel development approvals, with the City’s lease for the site will be terminating on December 31, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, with the adoption of the FY23-24 Biennial Budget, approved $1,011,900 in annual Measure P funding for the continuation of the Horizon shelter, signaling its intent to continue the program beyond Sept, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley asked DDH to extend its operations at HVS and to reinitiate operations at SPARK, after a brief service suspension, through December 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley asked DDH to relocate the HVS and continue the program in the form of non-congregate shelter by master leasing the Berkeley Inn, transitioning those currently living at Horizon to the Berkeley Inn starting on December 7, 2022 and continuing services through June 30, 2023; and WHEREAS, Dorothy Day House received $128,700 of the $1,011,900 to continue Horizon shelter operations through June 30, 2023 and the Berkeley Inn will receive $883,200 for expenses between December 7, 2022 and December 6, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley and Dorothy Day House require an additional net appropriation of $586,732 to complete this work.
.

December 6, 2022

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to extend Contract #32100161 with Dorothy Day House through June 30, 2023 to operate a non-congregate interim housing program at the Berkeley Inn.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to amend Contract # 32100161 with Dorothy Day House by adding $612,559 to the contract, for a not-to- exceed total contract amount of $2,270,177. Contract payments will be paid from Measure P general funds.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized to provide an advance payment totaling $396,788 to cover the Safe RV Parking expenses through December 31, 2022 and HVS expenses through March 31, 2023.

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
December 6, 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 December 6, 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.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Total estimated cost of items included in this report is $2,581,000.

PROJECT Fund Source Amount
On-Call Hazardous
Vegetation Reduction
Services
011
138
608
164
General Fund
Parks Tax
Marina Operations
Measure FF
$1,200,000
Wildcat Canyon Road
Slide Repairs & Drainage
Improvements.
134
616
Measure BB –
Local Street and
Road
$1,131,000
Health Assessment,
Innovation, and
Improvement Plan
Consultant
011 General Fund $250,000
Total: $2,581,000

Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals CONSENT CALENDAR Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council December 6, 2022 Approval on December 6
, 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 December 6, 2022
a. On-Call Hazardous Vegetation Reduction Services
b. Wildcat Canyon Road Slide Repairs & Drainage Improvements c. Health Assessment, Innovation, and Improvement Plan Consultant Note: Original of this attachment with live signature of authorizing personnel is on file in General Services.

NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: December 6, 2022
Attachment 1

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
23-11560-C On-Call Hazardous
Vegetation
Reduction Services
12/7/2022 12/15/2022 On-Call Hazardous Vegetation Reduction Services for sites that require annual vegetation
reduction work.
(Possibly two separate contracts.)
$400,000 per year
FY23-FY26
3-year term
Total NTE:
$1,200,000
On-Call contract-
funding will be
available per
fiscal year from
various funding
sources.

General Fund
011-52-542-567-
1001-000-461-
623110
Parks Tax
138-52-542-567-
1001-000-461-
623110
Marina Fund
608-52-544-594-
1001-000-472-
623110
Measure FF
164-52-542-567-
1001-000-461-
612990
PRW/Parks Bruce Pratt
981-6632
DEPT. TOTAL $1,200,000
1 of  3

NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: December 6, 2022
Attachment 1
23-11561-C Wildcat Canyon
Road Slide Repairs
& Drainage
Improvements.
2/15/2023 3/15/2023 Install storm drain lines, catch basins, slope stabilization, and Asphalt Concrete pavement,
adjusting utility covers.
$456,000
$675,000
$1,131,000
134-54-623-673-
0000-000-431-
665110-
(PWENST2302)
616-54-623-675-
0000-000-473-
665120-
(PWENST2302)
PW/ Eng Srinivas Muktevi
981-6402
Joe Enke
981-6411
DEPT. TOTAL $1,131,000

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
2 of  3

NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: December 6, 2022
Attachment 1
23-11562-C Health
Assessment,
Innovation, and
Improvement Plan
Consultant
12/7/2022 1/10/2023 HHCS is looking for a consultant to:

1. Conduct a landscape scan for partnership
opportunities to reduce chronic racial disparities
and improve Berkeley's public health strategy.

These partnerships will foster innovations in
healthcare delivery, improve resiliency, and
integrate health services and systems within a
Health Equity and Innovation District.

2. Conduct a community-wide health
assessment (CHA) involving multiple key
stakeholders including those identified through
the landscape scan,

3. Develop a Community Health Improvement
Plan (CHIP) that describes how the community
will work together to improve health outcomes.

This CHIP will also include the creation of a
place-based Health Equity and Innovation
District where investment and innovative
resources will be prioritized, and

4. Design a Health Innovation and Equity District
pilot program to work towards remedying severe
health inequities identified in the CHA in
Berkeley's neighborhoods that have the worse
health outcomes.
$250,000 HHOGFD2302-

NONPERSONN-

OPERATING-
CONTRACT;
011-51-501-501-
0000-000-451-
612990-

HHCS/ OD-
PHOU
Lisa Hernandez
981-5308
Dept TOTAL $250,000.00
TOTAL $2,581,000.00

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
3 of  3

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.ci.berkeley.ca.us/manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
December 6, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Aram Kouyoumdiian, Director of Human Resources Subject: Classification and Salary: ADA Program Coordinator

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution revising the represented classification Disability Services Specialist to ADA Program Coordinator with a monthly salary range of $9,231.73 - $11,162.67.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The revised classification and new salary range result in an increased salary impact to the General Fund as the position is 100% funded by the General Fund. The Disability Services Specialist classification has a monthly salary range of $8,345.45 - $9,965.28, and the new ADA Program Coordinator position has a monthly salary range of $9,231.73 - $11,162.67.

This results in monthly salary range increase of $886.28 – $1,197.36 and annual projected salary increase of $10,635.42 - $14,368.88. Including benefits the annual impact to the General Fund is projected to be an increase of $18,021.71 - $24,347.73. In FY 2023, the increase in costs will covered by salary savings from the vacancy.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Public Works Department is the largest department in the City with approximately 328 Full Time Employees and is comprised of eight divisions: Office of the Director, Administrative and Fiscal Services, Engineering, Zero Waste, Transportation, Facilities Management, Streets and Utilities, and Equipment Maintenance. The Disability Services Specialist currently reports to the Deputy Director Public Works.

This job description was created in 1992 and last updated in 1999. It has been determined that the classification is outdated with how the position is currently used.

The position is responsible for developing, administering and implementing program elements as well as for maintaining current knowledge of changes to regulations and best practices that may impact the program and ensuring the City’s compliance as required by federal, state, and local laws. The complexity, breadth of the error, and technical expertise required of the position are greater than what is currently provided in the current job description. Due to the nature of the varied assignments, this classification has a specialized knowledge base and duties.

Classification and Salary– ADA Program Coordinator CONSENT CALENDAR December 6, 2022

A classification study was conducted to ensure the City remains competitive in the labor market during the current economic environment. The analysis focused on decision making, scope and complexity, contact with others required by the job, supervision received and exercised, and knowledge, skills and abilities.

Bryce Consulting provided a base salary recommendation based on several factors which included internal equity with similarly situated classifications, Emergency Services Coordinator, Transportation Services Coordinator, and Homeless Services Coordinator, organizational level, budget, analysis, program development and implementation. As a result of the base salary recommendation, staff is recommending a monthly salary range of $9,231.73 - $11,162.67.

BACKGROUND
Bryce Consulting was retained by the City of Berkeley to review one position currently classified as Disability Services Specialist within the Public Works Department for classification purposes. A desk audit was requested by the incumbent as the incumbent believed the title, job description, and compensation for the classification were not consistent with the duties nor industry standards. It should be noted the incumbent has since resigned, however the information gathered from this process will be used as guidance should recruitment commence for this position.

The Personnel Board discussed and voted unanimously to send this classification to the City Council for approval at its September 6, 2022 meeting (Vote: Ayes: Bartlow, Dixon, Lacey, Wenk, Karpinski, Gilbert, Noes: None Abstains: None).

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
It has been the policy of the City to create the necessary classification and salary schedule to accommodate new duties and responsibilities, reflect programmatic changes, maintain competitive salaries and, when applicable, comply with regulatory requirements.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Aram Kouyoumdiian, Human Resources, (510) 981-6807.

Attachments:

1. Resolution
Exhibit A: Classification Specification- ADA Program Coordinator

2. Organizational Chart

RESOLUTION NO.2. -N.S.

CLASSIFICATION: ADA PROGRAM COORDINATOR
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department ma intains the Classificati on and Compensation plan for the City of Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, the Hu man Resources Department has completed a classification review and recommended ADA Program Coordinator.

WHEREAS, the Personnel Board recommended on September 6, 2022 to revise the Disability Services Specialist classification and salary range exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and represented by SEIU, Local 1021, effective December 6, 2022
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Classification for ADA Program Coordinator is established, with a salary range of $9,231.73 - $11,162.67 and classification specification as shown on Exhibit A, effective December 6, 2022.

Exhibit A: ADA Program Coordinator, Classification Specification

ADA PROGRAM COORDINATOR
DEFINITION:

Under general supervision, provides a variety of technical and professional analytical and subject matter expertise in the development and implementation of the City’s ADA program which includes ensuring the City’s compliance with federally mandated requirements, receiving and investigating grievance, reviewing projects plans for accessibility, training city staff, and serving as a resources to City departments, the business community and the public.

CLASS CHARACTERISTICS:

This is a single level class that recognizes positions that have significant responsibility for the development, monitoring and implementation of a substantial program related to City operations.

EXAMPLES OF DUTIES:

The following list of duties is intended only to describe the various types of work that may be performed and the level of technical complexity of the assignment(s) and is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of duties. The omission of a specific duty statement does not exclude it from the position if the work is consistent with the concept of the classification, or is similar or closely related to another duty statement.

1. Recommends and assist s in the implementation of ADA program goals and objectives; establishes schedules and methods for the City’s ADA program; imp lements policies and procedures; Develops and implements a comprehensive ADA program by compiling, evaluating and determining program related activities, methods and approaches that meet the City’s needs and ensures compliance with regulatory requirements;

2. Evaluates operations and activities of assigned responsibilities; recommends improvements and modifications; prepares various reports on operations and activities;

3. Participates in program budget preparation and administration; prepares cost estimates for budget recommendations; submits justifications for program activities; monitors and controls expenditures;

4. Researches, compiles and prepares reports and documentation on program activities; analyzes program and develops corrective action, maintains records of fin dings and corrective actions.

5. Develops and presents informational materials to Council, Commissions, other departments, the community, outside agencies regarding program element and activities;

6. Acts as a liaison to other departments, the public, outside agencies, organizations and companies regarding accessibility related issues and concerns;

7. Initiates and coordinates ADA compliance related training to all City employees and subcontractors;

8. Receives and responds to complaints, concerns and grievances and investigates and prepares reports of findings and action in response;

9. Serves as Secretary to the Commission on Disability; apprises commissioners of laws, policies, and administrative procedures affecting Commission recommendations; provides information to the Commission about fiscal impact proposals, including overall department and city-wide fiscal capacity and priorities; assists in the preparation of meeting agendas, researches and completes staff and commission reports; prepares and coordinates the dissemination of Commiss ion packets, meeting notices, prepares minutes and other communications;

10. Coordinates follow -up reports to staff or council and prepares materials for commission meetings; represents commission recommendations at City Council meetings, with other commissions at City department meetings, as necessary;

11. May plan, prioritize, assign, supervise and review the work of administrative support staff related to program activities;

12. Serves as Access and Function Needs Specialist ensuring appropriate communication to the disabled community as it relates to emergency preparedness and response;

13. Supports and oversees the implementation of the City of Berkeley ADA Transition Plan; compiles information regarding disability compliance measures; information for budgets and project recommendations for removal of barriers; reviews plans for removal of architectural equipment, policy, and procedural barriers to accessibility; works with department managers to determine modifications, revisions and additions needed to provide accessible programs;

14. Coordinates with Building and Safety, Planning and Development, Parks and Waterfront, and Public Works to maximize accessibility opportunities in public and private facilities, including the development and review of City design standards and procedures; monitors City projects progress, as needed, including review and approval of projects affecting the pedestrian walkway building alterations, and new construction; conducts on-site inspections;

15. Provides technical assistance to design professionals, including City engineers and architect developers, and the public about codes and best design practices for accessibility for persons with disabilities;

16. Performs related work as required.

KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES:

Note: The level and scope of the knowledge and skills listed below are related to job duties as defined under Class Characteristics and in the Examples of Duties.

Knowledge of:

1. State and federal laws, rules and regulations pertaining to civil rights, laws and regulations barring discrimination against disabled persons, especially Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans With Disabilities Act and their implementing regulations;

2. Major legal cases and practical, cost -effective compliance measures in the area of 504 and ADA compliance as they apply to city, county, and state govern ments; familiarity with compliance and due process procedures under both 504 and ADA;

3. Architectural and building standards as set forth in the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS), Title 24 of the California Health and Safety Code, and the Americans With Disabilities Act;

4. Disability and disabilities, disability-related issues and resources;

5. Principles and practices of program and policy planning, development, administration and evaluation; research methods, systems, and procedures analysis;

6. Principles and practices of budget monitoring;

7. Technical report wiring procedures;

8. Modern office procedures, methods and computer equipment;

9. Principles of customer service;

10. Principles and practices of education and public speaking, including the planning, preparation and evaluation of educational materials and outreach tools.

Ability to:

1. Plan, coordinate, direct, review and evaluate the City’s ADA compliance practices;

2. Analyze ADA compliance problems, evaluat e alternatives and adopt effective course of action;

3. Deal tactfully and effectively with a wide variety of board and commission members, government officials, civic groups, unions, the public and City staff;

4. Assist in the development and monitoring of an assigned program budget;

5. Develop and recommend policies and procedures related to assigned program activities;

6. Interpret and apply laws, regulations, policies and procedures;

7. Plan, direct and review the work of staff on a project or day-to-day basis;

8. Represent the City in meetings with unions, members of the public and government bodies to promote program goals;

9. Provide clear, focused educational and information presentations;

10. Prepare clear, concise and accurate written studies, proposals and reports;

11. Operate and use modern office equipment including computers and applicable software;

12. Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work;

13. Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:

A TYPICAL WAY OF GAINING THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS OUTLINED ABOVE IS:

Equivalent to graduation from a four-year college with major coursework in business or public administration, psychology, disability studies or social welfare, or a closely related field and three (3) years of professional experience working in programs serving people with a wide range of disabilities, at least two years of which involved civil rights advocacy or compliance.

OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Work is generally performed in an office setting. Work involves occasional fieldwork and public meetings which extend beyond the normal workday. Work includes complex telephone and face- to-face public contact situations and pressure generated by frequent interruptions, deadlines, complaints and peak workloads

Director

Disability Support
Specialist
ADA Program
Coordinator

Deputy
Director

Community
Development
Project
Coordinator

Operations
Manager

Solid Waste &
Recycling
Manager

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
December 6, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Donation: Memorial Bench at Cesar Chavez Park in memory of Linda Loh

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 Linda Loh.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The value of a single bench and memorial plaque is $3,400, which covers the purchasing and installation costs performed by the City. The cash donation will be deposited into Marina Fund donation revenue budget code 608-52-544-591-0000-000- 000-481110 and will be appropriated in FY2023.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The family of Linda Loh wishes to donate a memorial bench in her memory to be placed at Cesar Chavez Park with a cash donation of $3,400. Per the City’s Park Bench Donation Policy, individuals may donate memorial benches to the City’s parks in selected locations, subject to the approval of the Director of the Parks Recreation & Waterfront Department, and pay for all associated costs, subject to Council disclosure and approval of the gift donation. The Director has determined that the proposed donation complies with the City’s Bench Donation Policy as described in Resolution No. 64,148-N.S. and has approved the donation, subject to Council approval.

BACKGROUND
Benches are placed throughout the City in accordance with the City’s Park Bench Donation Policy approved by Council on July 22, 2008 (Resolution No. 64,148-N.S.).

The City’s Open Governance Ordinance (OGO) requires City Council disclosure and approval of any gift to the City in excess of $1,000 (BMC Section 2.06.150, Ord. 7,166- N.S.)

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACT
The City’s vendor for benches, Dumor, Inc., makes its priority to purchase only sustainably-harvested wood derived from stringently-regulated timber source locations,

Donation: Memorial Bench at Cesar Chavez Park – Linda Loh CONSENT CALENDAR December 6, 2022

including California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. This policy reduces solid waste volumes in landfills, helps conserve natural resources and limits the environmental effects resulting from the extraction of virgin materials. The benches therefore comply with the City’s environmentally preferable purchasing policy, specifically section 3.7 Forest Conservation.

CONTACT PERSON
Alexandra Endress, Waterfront Manager, 510-981-6737
Attachments:
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. -N.S.

DONATION: MEMORIAL BENCH AT CESAR CHAVEZ PARK IN MEMORY OF LINDA LOH
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, Council adopted the Park Bench Donation Policy (Resolution No. 64,148-N.S.); and
WHEREAS, the City’s Open Governance Ordinance (OGO) requires City Council disclosure and approval of any gift to the City in excess of $1,000 (BMC Section 2.06.150, Ord. 7,166-N.S.); and
WHEREAS, the family of Linda Loh wishes to donate a memorial bench in her memory to be placed at Cesar Chavez Park with a cash donation of $3,400; and WHEREAS, per the City’s Park Bench Donation Policy, individuals may donate memorial benches to the City’s parks in selected locations, subject to the approval of the Director of the Parks Recreation & Waterfront Department, and pay for all associated costs, subject to Council disclosure and approval of the gift donation; and WHEREAS, the Director has determined that the proposed donation complies with City’s Bench Donation Policy as described in Resolution No. 64,148-N.S. and has approved the proposed donation; and
WHEREAS, the cash donation will be deposited into Marina Fund donation revenue budget code 608-52-544-591-0000-000-000-481110 and will be appropriated in FY2023.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that a cash donation in the amount of $3,400 for a memorial bench to be placed at Cesar Chavez Park at the Berkeley Marina in memory of Linda Loh is hereby accepted.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7120 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
December 6, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin, Councilmember Harrison (co-sponsor), Councilmember Hahn (co-sponsor), Councilmember Robinson (co-sponsor) Subject: Office of Racial Equity: Re-Entry Employment and Guaranteed Income Programs

RECOMMENDATION
(1) Refer to the City Manager to Strengthen Adult Criminal Justice Re-Entry Employment Programs in Berkeley by studying re-entry programs, supports, and systems already available for Berkeley residents, strengthening linkages, and identifying gaps. Report findings back to the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee during 2023.

(2) Refer $50,000 to the Budget Process to engage a consultant to recommend a Universal Income Pilot for Berkeley. Recommendation to include evaluation of:

● Potential funding sources
● Appropriate and recommended models for Berkeley
● Target population(s) to be supported by Pilot
● Program delivery models
● Evaluation
● Any and all other elements/factors to establish an effective Universal Income Pilot for Berkeley.

Considerations for target populations may include local Equity Indicators measuring racial justice and social equity outcomes such as poverty and financial health, educational disparities, environmental and mental health, housing quality, infrastructure, and public safety.

(3) Refer to the City Manager to establish evaluation processes and metrics for all social services programs recommended through the Reimaging Public Safety Process, including but not limited to violence prevention services, adult reentry programs, and mental health crisis response, and report evaluation outcome to the City Council.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On November 14, 2022, the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Bartlett/Kesarwani) to forward the item to Council with a positive recommendation that the City Council approve the item with the Author’s substitute recommendations as follows:

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

(1) Refer to the City Manager to Strengthen Adult Criminal Justice Re-Entry Employment Programs in Berkeley by studying re-entry programs, supports, and systems already available for Berkeley residents, strengthening linkages, and identifying gaps. Report findings back to the Health, Life Committee during 2023. (2) Refer $50,000 to the Budget Process to engage a consultant to recommend a Universal Income Pilot for Berkeley. Recommendation to include evaluation of:
• Potential funding sources
• Appropriate and recommended models for Berkeley
• Target population(s) to be supported by Pilot
• Program delivery models
• Evaluation
• Any and all other elements/factors to establish an effective Universal Income Pilot for Berkeley.

Considerations for target populations in may include local Equity Indicators measuring racial justice and social equity outcomes such as poverty and financial health, educational disparities, environmental and mental health, housing quality, infrastructure, and public safety.
(3) Refer to the City Manager to establish evaluation processes and metrics for all social services programs recommended through the Reimaging Public Safety Process, including but not limited to violence prevention services, adult reentry programs, and mental health crisis response, and report evaluation outcome to the City Council.

Vote: All Ayes.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The City Council’s omnibus budget referral for Reimagining Public Safety passed on May 5, 2022 included $1M for staffing the Office of Racial Equity, and $100,000 for Grant Writing Services. Implementing this recommendation would be contingent on those funds.

Additionally, the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform recommended $1,250,000 in funding one year after council approval, from “5% of County Criminal Justice Realignment funds allocated to community services for Berkeley residents.”

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Studying employment and poverty reduction programs in the Office of Racial Equity is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

Adult Re-entry and Municipal Employment
The population of adults on parole or probation has declined over the past two years in Berkeley, reflecting countywide trends. In the most recently available dataset, the Alameda County Probation Department (ACPD)1 reports 223 adult probationers in 1 https://probation.acgov.org/data.page

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

Berkeley in Q3 2021, down from 312 active adult clients in March 2020.2 In spite of this decline, independent assessments had previously identified needs for further progress.

In 2019, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved an updated Adult Reentry Strategic Plan for the county, which includes performance measures for workforce development & employment.3 This program includes subcontractors with both subsidized and unsubsidized employment. The evidence has shown marginal effectiveness of these programs in reducing recidivism, which warrants consideration of supplemental programs at the municipal level to alleviate poverty and further reduce recidivism.

With the signing of Assembly Bill 109 (the Public Safety Realignment Act) in 2011, responsibility for incarceration and supervision of many low-level inmates and parolees transferred from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to the county level, with the intent of reducing the incarcerated population. According to a 2020 evaluation of Alameda County’s AB 109 implementation by Research Development Associates, “Alameda County’s AB 109-funded services and Behavioral Health Care Service programs reduce the likelihood of recidivism and reduce the rate at which individuals recidivate.” However, the report also warns that “findings about AB 109-funded service receipt should be read with some caution. A relatively small proportion of individuals received AB 109-funded services...it appears service expansion could reduce recidivism rates among Alameda County’s probation population moving forward.”4 [emphasis added]
In June 2020, the City Council passed a budget referral authored by Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani to establish a framework for a new Office of Racial Equity within the Office of the City Manager.5 This is consistent with best practices in neighboring cities, such as Oakland and San Francisco, which have recently established such an office.

The duties of such an office can be manifold, but a primary responsibility should be to support CBOs and programs advancing the Reimagining Public Safety framework, including those that provide cash assistance, workforce development and employment opportunities for the formerly incarcerated to reduce recidivism (either a municipal program similar to Berkeley YouthWorks, or supplementing county services).

On May 5, 2022, the Berkeley City Council passed a budget referral to advance Reimagining Public Safety initiatives, which included $100,000 for grant writing 2 https://www.bscc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Alameda-FY-20-21-CCP-Update.pdf 3 https://probation.acgov.org/probation-
assets/files/Reentryandpublicsafetydocs/AC_Adult%20Reentry%20Strategic%20Plan_Road%20to%20R eentry_2019%20Update.pdf
4 https://probation.acgov.org/probation-
assets/files/Reentryandpublicsafetydocs/RDA_AB109OverviewAndOutcomes_7-20.pdf 5 See Attachment 4.

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

services, and slightly over $1 million for staffing a new Office of Racial Equity.6 These services could assist in researching and soliciting funding for these and other promising programs to improve public safety and advance economic justice.

The National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR)’s Report on Reimagining Public Safety in Berkeley provided recommendations on a Guaranteed Income pilot and workforce development, the latter with a focus on “community beautification” services.7 These recommendations were accepted with modifications by the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force (RPSTF) in their Response and New Recommendations to NICJR’s Report:

Members are very interested in increasing job skills and opportunities. However, programs should be centered on the interests of the target group. The Task Force therefore rejects the idea of a ‘beautification’ program but fully supports programs that focus on professional development, and serve as a pipeline to employment, especially for those who face additional barriers like a criminal record. Any program should have the goal of being transformative.8
While the emphasis in these reports is on a municipal employment program, the Task Force’s focus on professional development is consistent with Chicago’s Green ReEntry program managed by the nonprofits Chicago CRED and the Inner-City Muslim Action Network, which provides vocational training for skilled trades, weekend programs, and housing assistance for formerly incarcerated individuals.9 NICJR’s Report recommended funding workforce development through 5% of County Criminal Justice Realignment funds allocated to community services for Berkeley residents. In contrast to municipal workforce development proposals, Alameda County focuses on public-private partnerships, and the Alameda County Probation Department currently procures employment services with one lead contractor, the nonprofit Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency (BOSS). This contract provides services including:

Employability Assessments, Job Readiness Training, Transitional Work Programs, Subsidized/Unsubsidized Employment, and Job Retention Services.

According to the Community Corrections Partnership Executive Committee (CCPEC)’s Year Seven Status Update on Public Safety Realignment Alameda County, BOSS’s employment program saw an increase in clients enrolled in recent years, but job 6 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-05- 05%20Special%20Item%2001a%20Fulfilling%20the%20Promise%20of%20Berkeley_0.pdf 7 https://berkeley-rps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/BerkeleyReport_032422FNL.pdf 8 RPSTF report final draft is included in appendices: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 05/2022-05-05%20Special%20Item%2001c%20Discussion%20and%20Possible%20Action_0.pdf 9 ABC7 Chicago. (2020). Chicago Re-Entry Program Rebuilds Lives with Hands-On Training. ABC News.

Retrieved from https://abc7chicago.com/iman-inner-city-muslim-action-network-job-training-reentry- program/5988288/

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

retention languished: “During FY 17/18, there was a significant increase in the number of clients, in all the aforementioned benchmarks, from the previous year.

Notwithstanding these increases, the decline in the proportion of clients reaching subsequent benchmarks after being referred, depicts the challenges facing participants to remain stable (in terms of housing, substance use, etc.) in order to proceed through the employment process and reach 180 days of employment.”10 While the NICJR Report recommended a program employing “at least 100” individuals, the Office of Racial Equity may consider a smaller initial scope by focusing on the adult re-entry population to expand opportunities where the need is most acute.

Guaranteed Income
The NICJR report recommended $1,800,000 for a Guaranteed Income Pilot Program, from local, federal, or philanthropic funding sources. The RPSTF accepted the recommendation with conditions:

Members strongly support this type of program and note that other communities have implemented these programs successfully. More information is needed to understand how families would be selected, and the city should consider whether other groups, like the AAPI or Indigenous community, should be included in this program.

The California Guaranteed Income Pilot Program was established in the Governor’s Fiscal Year 21-22 Budget to provide grants for guaranteed income pilot programs through the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). The department states that it “will prioritize funding for pilot programs and projects that serve California residents who age out of the extended foster care program at or after 21 years of age or who are pregnant individuals.”11
While the City of Berkeley would seek to leverage state and county resources as needed, this proposal would direct the Office of Racial Equity to study a municipal public works program for adult reentry (and/or municipal support for county services), in addition to a “guaranteed income” cash transfer pilot program that may indirectly reduce recidivism without being strictly targeted for the adult reentry population. To the extent that services are operated with City funding, the Office of Racial Equity would also be directed to evaluate outcomes, objective performance metrics and fiscal sustainability of programs under its auspices, as well as associated services provided by third-party contracting entities.
10 https://probation.acgov.org/probation-
assets/files/Public%20Safety%20Realignment_Y7%20Status%20Update.pdf 11 https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/guaranteed-basic-income-projects

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

BACKGROUND
Poverty, crime, and racial inequality are deeply interconnected phenomena throughout US history. In particular, educational disparities and the lack of employment opportunities for the formerly incarcerated increases recidivism, fueling a vicious cycle of repeated offenses, high crime and poverty for Black people and other people of color in the criminal justice system.12
Studies have found causal relationships between unemployment13141516 and crime, and there is recent evidence showing that sharp unemployment shocks during the COVID- 19 pandemic may be related to increased gun violence and homicides.17 Empirical evidence and structural models suggest that unemployment can incentivize criminal behavior by lowering “the opportunity cost of choosing illegitimate work over legitimate work.”18 The evidence is also clear that a lack of stable employment contributes to recidivism–when formerly incarcerated individuals commit new offenses that bring them back into the criminal justice system. Research has generally found that high-quality jobs with good wages are most effective at reducing recidivism, particularly for those who have served prison sentences for property crimes.19 In addition to re-entry programs, cash transfer programs can raise the “opportunity cost” of crime by providing reliable liquidity to households so they can settle their balance sheets without resorting to “illegitimate” sources of cash. Experiments from Kenya to California with cash transfers (colloquially dubbed “basic” or “guaranteed income”) have repeatedly been shown to successfully reduce the social and psychological impacts of poverty, and a new guaranteed income pilot program in Alachua County, Florida is specifically aimed at reducing recidivism.20
12 Lockwood, S. K., Nally, J. M., Ho, T., & Knutson, K. (2015). Racial disparities and similarities in post- release recidivism and employment among ex-prisoners with a different level of education. Journal of Prison Education and Reentry, 2(1), 16-31.
13 Bianchi, G., & Chen, Y. (2021). Testing effects of hospitality employment on property crime in the United States. Tourism Economics, 13548166211001180.
14 Raphael, S., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2001). Identifying the effect of unemployment on crime. The journal of law and economics, 44(1), 259-283.
15 Lin, M. J. (2008). Does unemployment increase crime? Evidence from US data 1974–2000. Journal of Human resources, 43(2), 413-436.
16 Nordin, M., & Almén, D. (2017). Long-term unemployment and violent crime. Empirical Economics, 52(1), 1-29.
17 Schleimer, J.P., Pear, V.A., McCort, C.D. et al. Unemployment and Crime in US Cities During the Coronavirus Pandemic. J Urban Health 99, 82–91 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-021-00605-3 18 Melick, M. D. (2003). The relationship between crime and unemployment. The Park Place Economist, 11(1), 30-36.
19 Yu, T. (2018). Employment and Recidivism. Evidence Based Policy Society. Retrieved from https://www.ebpsociety.org/blog/education/297-employment-recidivism 20 McDonough, S. (2022). A bold new experiment out of Florida: Guaranteed income for the formerly incarcerated. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/22911023/ubi-guaranteed-income-prison-florida

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

Cities across the country have seen remarkable success with programs that provide legitimate work and/or cash assistance. The City of Chicago supports capital investment for a Green ReEntry program managed by the nonprofits Chicago CRED and the Inner- City Muslim Action Network, which provides vocational training for skilled trades, weekend programs, and housing assistance for formerly incarcerated individuals.21 In 2019, former Mayor Michael Tubbs launched the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) pilot program. SEED provides $500 per month for two years to 125 randomly selected residents of Stockton in neighborhoods with below median income. In a one-year follow-up study, recipients reported improved mental health, financial stability, and employment opportunities.22
The City of Oakland’s Guaranteed Income pilot23 provides monthly cash payments to a randomly selected pool of low-income residents, and is funded entirely through private philanthropic donations, with collaborative management by the City and nonprofit agencies. Currently in its second phase, the pilot selected 300 applicants by random lottery “in a roughly one square mile area of East Oakland living with incomes below 50% of Area Median Income and at least one child under 18, a target area identified according to the Oakland Equity Index.24
The City of Compton raised an initial $8 million for its Guaranteed Income pilot program, the Compton Pledge, in partnership with the Jain Family Institute, which launched in December 2020. The program launched with 800 low-income Compton households receiving regular payments of varying sizes, with participants able to choose between payment options (e.g. direct deposit, Venmo, prepaid card) on a customized online platform (See Attachment 3). More recently, the City of Long Beach adopted the Long Beach Recovery Act in March 2021, which included funding for the Long Beach Guaranteed Income Pilot, with recommendations later made by a Community Working Group to inform a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a two-year contract (see Attachment 1).

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Terry Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120 21 ABC7 Chicago. (2020). Chicago Re-Entry Program Rebuilds Lives with Hands-On Training. ABC News. Retrieved from https://abc7chicago.com/iman-inner-city-muslim-action-network-job-training- reentry-program/5988288/
22 West, S. et al. (2020). Preliminary Analysis: SEED’s First Year. Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration. Retrieved from
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6039d612b17d055cac14070f/t/603ef1194c474b329f33c329/16147 37690661/SEED_Preliminary+Analysis-SEEDs+First+Year_Final+Report_Individual+Pages+-2.pdf 23 https://oaklandresilientfamilies.org/about
24 http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/cityadministrator/documents/report/oak071073.pdf

Office of Racial Equity CONSENT CALENDAR
Dec 13, 2022

ATTACHMENTS

1. City of Long Beach RFP

2. Guaranteed Income Toolkit - Jain Family Institute

3. Compton Pledge - April 2021 Press Release

4. Annotated Agenda - Berkeley City Council - Tuesday, June 9, 2020

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 1

sign
City of
Long Beach
Request for Proposals Number ED22-023
Long Beach Recovery Act (LBRA) Guaranteed
Income Pilot Program Implementation &
Administrator

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 |
Template v6.9.21 | 1

Overview
Summary
The City of Long Beach (City), Department of
Economic Development , seeks proposals from
qualified vendor(s) to implement and administer t he
Long Beach Guaranteed Income Pilot Program.

The selected vendor shall provide for the full
implementation of the Pilot, including pre-pilot
planning, launch preparation , implementation and
administration, and other services as specified.

Key Dates
Release Date: February 14, 2022

Questions Due to the City: 11:00am February 22, 2022
Proposals Due: 11:00 p.m. March 7, 2022
The City reserves the right to modify these dates at
any time, with appropriate notice to prospective
Contractors.

Proposal Information
Instructions for what to include in your proposal and
how to submit it are detailed in Section 4.

Proposals must be submitted electronically via the
City’s PlanetBids portal, available at
https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/15810/portal-
home.

RFP Official Contact
Tommy Ryan
[email protected]
562-570-5664

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 |
Template v6.9.21 | 2

Contents

1 The Opportunity

1.1 Project Summary

1.2 Background

1.3 Goals

1.4 Award Terms
2 Scope of Work

2.1 Description of Services

2.2 Performance Metrics & Contract Management

2.2.1 Performance Metrics

2.2.2 Contract Management

2.2.3 Contract Payment
3 How We Choose

3.1 Minimum Qualifications

3.2 Evaluation Criteria

3.3 Selection Process & Timelines
4 Proposal Instructions & Content

4.1 Proposal Timelines & Instructions

4.2 Proposal Content

4.3 Narrative Proposal Template
5 Terms & Conditions

5.1 Acronyms/Definitions

5.2 Solicitation Terms & Conditions

5.3 Contract Terms & Conditions

5.4 Additional Requirements

5.5 Protest Procedures

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 3

1 The Opportunity

1.1 Project Summary
The City is seeking proposals from qualified vendors to implement and administer the Long Beach Guaranteed Income Pilot Program (Pilot). The selected vendor will be responsible for making direct payments to participants over the course of the 12-month Pilot. The City anticipates the direct payments to total approximately $1.5 million, though the scope of the Pilot may be expanded pending future funding availability.

1.2 Background
The COVID-19 pandemic has created an economic recession that has further intensified existing economic inequities. The economic impacts of the COVID -19 recession have been unequal and have impacted specific sectors, business owners, workers, property owners, nonprofit organizations, geographic areas, and racial groups differently. The sudden and unanticipated public health emergency necessitated the immediate restrictions (through State and local Health Orders) and, in many cases, closure of specific businesses and customer activities. Following these Health Orders, unemployment rapidly increased from a pre-pandemic low of 4 percent to a high of 21 percent during the peak summer months of 2020, affecting businesses and workers in sectors most impacted by the health restrictions such as retail, hospitality, and services.

Recognizing the inordinate economic impacts that the pandemic has had on Long Beach residents, workers, and business owners, on December 15, 2020, the City Council requested that staff develop an Economic Recovery Strategy to address the economic impacts of COVID19. Staff have initiated five economic equity studies, conducted more than 30 listening sessions with over 350 community leaders and representatives, and received City Council input at numerous steps in the process of drafting this plan.

Incorporating this diverse input and existing City Council -adopted recommendations the Economic Recovery Strategy (Strategy), including proposals for the economic development strategies needed to create equitable economic opportunities for residents, workers, investors, and entrepreneurs in Long Beach for sustained economic recovery.

In March 2021, the City adopted the Long Beach Recovery Act ( LBRA), a plan to fund economic and public health initiatives, including the Strategy, as a response to individuals and businesses critically impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The LBRA has dedicated funding to support the City’s Economic Recovery which includes funding for the Long Beach Guaranteed Income Pilot (Pilot).

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 4

Guaranteed Income
Guaranteed Income (GI) is an innovat ive approach to supporting people in a rapidly changing economy by providing a minimum amount of income to supplement the basic costs of living. GI is a cash transfer program that provides regular, unrestricted and unconditional direct payments to individuals or entire households. These payments help offset basic living expenses so that program participants can pay for housing, food, healthcare, and transportation among other living expenses; so that they can work and care for their families without falling into poverty or losing their jobs.

A common overarching theme of GI programs is to lift working people and their families out of poverty over time and start to reduce economic inequalities that exist in communities where people live and work together bu t some cannot afford the basic cost of living. These supplemental payments can also take the cost burden off of local small business owners, who cannot afford to pay workers more to live in high-cost areas like Long Beach or Southern California. Supplemental GI payments can also provide the added benefit of stimulating the local economy by boosting access to discretionary spending for goods and services in the surrounding community.

Community Working Group
In April 2021, a Community Working Group, composed of eight representatives selected for their extensive background in the Long Beach community was convened to make recommendations for a potential GI program in Long Beach. The Working Group began its review of more than two dozen GI pilot programs from other municipalities that have either launched or are in planning stages for roll out of their own GI programs. Over the course of five bi-weekly meetings, the Working Group members reviewed and discussed in-depth the impact and investment of these program as through detailed analysis of GI program studies, research questions, participant selection criteria, control and treatment groups, outreach and marketing, self -application, and income distribution processes.

After extensive review of Long Beach-specific research, the Working Group identified a number of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to focus the development of recommendations about the GI pilot program. The following provides a summary of the KPI recommended by the Working Group for City Council consideration:
• COVID-19 Impacts: Data provided by HHS showed the highest concentration of COVID-19 cases occurring in the five Zip Codes of 90804, 90805, 90806, 90810, and 90813.
• Median Household Income: Though the Median Family Income in Long Beach exceeds $85,000, all household incomes in the targeted Zip Codes fall well below that with income in 90813 being less than half of the citywide median.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 5

• Impact: More than half of all families residing in Long Beach live within the five zip codes most impacted by COVID-19. The Working Group then turned to looking at the number and percentage of families in poverty.
• Poverty: According to the analysis, 80 percent of all Long Beach households living in poverty reside within the five targeted Zip Codes. The highest concentration of poverty is found within 90813 - as close to one out of every four families fall within the United States Department of Health and Human Services Federal Poverty Level Guidelines.

Long Beach Guaranteed Income Pilot (Pilot)
Based on the recommen dations of the Working Group and other considerations, such as funding availability, the Pilot program will include the following key elements:
• Direct Payments: The initial allocation funded by the Recovery Act will provide up to 250 participants with $500 per month for 12 months.
• Participants: Program participants will be Single Headed Households with incomes below the poverty line.
• Geographic Focus: Direct payments should focus on the highest concentrated area of family poverty within the targeted five Zi p Codes, which is in 90813. This will allow for the greatest potential for community impact and will provide documentable results that can be included within the national experiment and research currently underway throughout the United States.

According to departmental analysis based on available US Census data there are 58,380 residents of the 90813 zip code with 65% identifying as Hispanic or Latino, 11.5% Black or African-American, 12.5% as Asian, 0.4% as Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and 0.2% as American Indian or Alaska Native.

According to the California Hard-to-Count Index 72% of all residents live within a multi-unit structure, 87.8% live in housing units that are renter -occupied, 46.5% have income below 150 percent of the poverty line, and 41.9% of those aged 25 and older are not high school graduates.
• Support Services: In addition to the direct cash assistance program, participants will receive the offer of additional services including digital technology packages, assistance with accessing childcare, job placement and job training access, and other identified support services to expand upon the initial $500 investment. • Reporting: Consistent with other pilot programs, no additional reporting will be required for participants beyond the completion of a monthly survey. In addition to the treatment group there will be a yet -to-be-determined number of participants who will be included in the control group. • Incentives: The control group will also be incentivized to complete a monthly survey but will not receive the direct cash payments.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 6

Note, if additional matching funds are secured, t he Pilot may be expanded to serve additional cohort participants in other high-need Zip Codes.

1.3 Goals
The goal of the Pilot is to increase the monthly income of the City’s most vulnerable residents with the highest unemployment, highest rates of violence and whom have had the greatest continued impact from COVID-19.

In one year or less, the Pilot will distribute $1.5 million in direct cash assistance in the form of guaranteed income to 250 families living at or below the poverty line in the 90813 zip- code. Using data collected as part of the Pilot, the City hopes to contribute to the discourse around local, regional and national guaranteed income policy and its efficacy.

Over the course of the Pilot, the program will have achieved the following:
1) 250 or more households will have participated within the treatment group; a. Program participants will be Single Headed Households with incomes at or below the poverty line in the 90813 zip-code;
2) Each participating household will have received $500 a month for a period of twelve months;
3) Each participating household will have access to multiple payment options; 4) Each household will have access to expert financial benefits counseling to ensure that zero impact will be had on any participant’s local, county, State or federal public benefits;
5) City will have received viable recommendations on ho w to fund, sustain and expand Guaranteed Income within the City.

1.4 Award Terms
This contract will be for a period of two years with the option to renew for three additional one-year periods. The total contract term will not exceed five years.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 7

2 Scope of Work

2.1 Description of Services
This opportunity is for qualified vendors to implement and administer the Pilot. The selected vendor shall provide for the partial implementation and administration of the Pilot including, but not limited to : creating and operating a digital payment solution to pay Pilot participants, creating and maintaining a Pilot website/portal , providing financial counseling services and identifying potential funding for the expansion and/or sustainment of the program.

As a part of the Pilot, the City will also contract with a Pilot Research and Evaluation Partner to design the Pilot, engage the community, identify pilot participants and evaluate the program. The Research and Evaluation Partner will be selected through a separate process. The selected Implementation & Administration vendor will be required to collaborate with the City’s selected Pilot Research and Evaluation vendor throughout the Pilot to conform with the Pilot design and to ensure appropriate data collection and information sharing in support of the overall evaluation of the program.

Specific services for the Pilot shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Creating and operating a customizable digital (electronic) payment solution capable of supporting multiple p ayment distribution types for maximum flexibility of participants;
• Providing for the enrollment of selected Pilot participants, as needed, to facilitate receipt of payments;
• Creating and maintaining an overall Pilot website and/or portal to promote the program and serve as a live public dashboard for performance metrics; o This website should be compatible and connected to the City’s Recovery website, for use by participants, City staff and the City’s Pilot Research and Evaluation vendor;
o Should include both Pilot and City branding;
o Be compatible with mobile communications devices;
o Website content should be made available in English, Spanish, Khmer and Tagalog, in accordance with the City’s Language Access Plan • Providing case management services, including:
o Resolution of any issues related to payment distribution; o Financial benefits counseling to ensure that zero impact will be had on any participant’s local, county, State or federal public benefit; • Providing support for ongoing data collection and information sharing to City staff and the City’s selected Pilot Research and Evaluation Partner; o Assisting the City in identifying additional financial resources, including grants, fundraising opportunities or other strategies to grow the Pilot.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 8

o Providing documentation and audit trail that meets program requirements that will be clearly defined before Pilot launch, including but not limited to the following:
o Providing all information that the City deems necessary, including but not limited to weekly funding obligati on amounts, expenditures, and projections;
o Managing a technology-driven duplication of benefits process that ensures compliance with Federal law;
o Facilitating issuance of 1099 Miscellaneous Tax forms tax process for any payments deemed taxable;
o Transferring data, files, and records to the City to be retained for future audits;
o Having o rganizational capacity to scale the Pilot if additional funding becomes available. This may include (but is not limited to) the following:
o the ability to increase the number of participants;
o the ability to track separate cohorts of participants; o the ability to invoice separately based on the funding source; o the ability to flexibly modify program elements to meet the requirements of new funding, including record keeping, reporting and audit requirements.

2.2 Performance Metrics & Contract Management

2.2.1 Performance Metrics
The table below highlights the targets that will be tracked and reviewed collaboratively with the awarded contractor during the contract. This list is an indica tion of the performance metrics of interest to the City and is not exhaustive or final. As a part of a response to this RFP, Proposers may propose additional or alternative performance metrics to be tracked on a regular basis. The final set of performance metrics and frequency of collection will be negotiated by the successful Proposer and the City prior to the finalization of an agreement between parties and may be adjusted over time as needed.

METRIC DESCRIPTION TARGET DATA SOURCE

1. Number of
participants
enrolled
The total number of
Pilot participants
that receiving the
guaranteed
income
2501 Monthly report

2. Number of
payments issued
on time
The total number of
payments issued
on a monthly basis
100% Monthly report

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 9

3. Percentage of
payment issues
resolved
The percentage of
participant
payments issues
that are resolved
100% of issues
resolved on a
monthly basis
Monthly report

4. Impact on
Public Benefits
Number of
participants whose
public benefits are
decreased as a
result of Pilot funds
Zero participants'
benefits are
impacted
Quarterly report

5. Funding Options Number of viable
funding options
presented to the
City to expand the
program
Minimally, present
funding solutions to
increase the
number of
potential
participant
households to
1,000+
Monthly report

1. 250 is the minimum number of participants expected to be served during the Pilot based on current available funding. This me tric will be reevaluated should the program be expanded to serve additional participants.

2.2.2 Contract Management
The selected vendor will receive consistent support and communication from a City liaison throughout the process. This liaison will be the main contact for providers and will send out reminders to providers before reporting, invoice, and narrative metrics are due to provide clarification about deadlines and answer any questions. These efforts are to ensure that any issues can be openly shared, solved early and any funds that may not be expended may be redirected.

Kick Off Meeting
The selected vendor shall participate in project kickoff meeting to introduce lead project staff, review project scope, review project timelines, review vendor invoicing and reporting requirements, and create regular project meeting and project reporting schedule.

Milestones/Approval from City on Key Program Decisions
The s elected vendor shall submit the following deliverables to City staff by the designated deadline and receive approval before implementing . Final deadlines shall be negotiated and agreed upon during contract negotiations. • Recommendations on program design;
• Website/portal design;
• Participant payment enrollment process;

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 10

• Payment resolution procedure;
• Sample reports for required data, including number of participants, number of payments issued, number of payment issues resolved, and others to be determined;
• Process for creating an escrow account and a schedule of deposits made by the City to said account to process payments to Pilot participants (if applicable).

Communications and Reporting
Vendor and City staff shall meet regularly during the start of the engagement to review project status, address project issues, assess opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency, and actively work toward the launch of the Pilot.

After the Pilot has launched, the vendor and staff shall meet regularly to review project status and performance, address project issues, assess opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency, and review service data and monitor performance.

The vendor shall identify a lead project manager that will be available to speak and answer questions from City staff as needed.

2.2.3 Vendor Invoicing & Payments
The City issues payment based upon services rendered. After a contract is finalized and work is performed, the Contractor s hould invoice the City. The City will remit payment within 30 calendar days of being billed.

To process payments efficiently, the vendor is encouraged to use an invoice template provided by the City but may also use their own and, at minimum, include the following information on their invoices:
• Invoice
o Amount applied to administrative costs
o Amount remitted to participants
o Monthly Payroll Registers and receipts to coincide with admin costs reported
o Monthly listing of participants to whom payment was remitted o Monthly reporting attesting to participants’ eligibility • Invoice number
• Date of invoice
• Purchase Order (PO) number
• Identify name of department, program, and program lead • Summarize title of services performed and service period

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 11

3 How We Choose

3.1 Minimum Qualifications
• Qualification to conduct business in the City
• Not having been debarred by Federal, State or local government • Verifiable e xperience in designing, implementing, and administering a cash transfer program within the last 36 months with a minimum of 50 concurrent participants.
• Financial stability and staff capacity to effectively deliver service within the Pilot’s 12-month timeframe.
• Ability to keep records according to Federal Single Audit standards, respo nd to federal audit requests, and regularly self-report on contract performance.

3.2 Evaluation Criteria
Proposals shall be consistently evaluated based upon the following criteria:

CRITERION
Organizational Capacity & Experience
• Experience serving comparable demographics to those selected for the Pilot. • Organizational capacity to successfully deliver, develop, and implement services.
• Organizational capacity to scale the Pilot if additional funding becomes available. This may include (but is not limited to) the following: 1) the ability to increase the number of participants, 2) the ability to track separate cohorts of participants 3) the ability to invoice separately based on the funding source, 4) the ability to flexibly modify program elements to meet the requirements of new funding, including record keeping, reporting and audit requirements. • Demonstrated experience with recommended payment solution and participant portal.
• Language access capacity.
• Availability, experience, and qualifications of key personnel. • Conformance to the terms of the RFP.

Method of Approach
• Quality, user experience, and capacity of guaranteed income cash payments portal
• Ability to have a fully operational system ready for final review within 3 weeks of award
• Capacity to implement a comprehensive case management, including financial benefits counseling service
• Ability to securely process direct cash payments on behalf of City • Ability to develop and present viable strategies to fund the expansion of the Pilot program

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 12

Communications & Reporting
• Ability to participate in mandatory meetings.
• Ability and experience in data collection and reporting.

Reasonableness of Cost:
• Cost per participant served.

Desired Qualifications
• Prior experience with conducting a program disbursing federal funding • Knowledge of the Final Ruling of American Rescue Plan • Knowledge of OMB Uniform Guidance

3.3 Selection Process & Timelines

EVALUATION STAGE

ESTIMATED

DATE DESCRIPTION
Evaluation of
Narrative & Cost
Proposals
3/8/2022 –
3/11/2022
• An Evaluation Committee will review
Narrative & Cost Proposals to select the
proposal that best meets the needs of the
City.
• Evaluations will be conducted using a
methodology derived from the evaluation
criteria listed in Section 3.2.

Interviews and
Demos
TBD • An interview and demos will be provided
• The City may interview or request demos
from none, one, some or all Proposers.

Negotiation &
Contractor
Selection
March 2022 • Selected Contractor(s) will be notified in writing.
• Any award is contingent upon the
successful negotiation of final contract
terms. If contract negotiations cannot be
concluded successfully, the City reserves
the right to negotiate a contract with
another Contractor or withdraw the RFP.
• Negotiations shall be confidential and not
subject to disclosure to competing
Contractors unless and until an agreement
is reached.

Estimated Contract
Execution
April 2022
Proposer Debrief After
Contractor is
Selected
• Successful and unsuccessful Proposers are
encouraged to request phone call or in
person meeting with the City to discuss the

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 13

strengths and weaknesses of their
proposal. The intent of the debrief is to
provide the Proposer with constructive
feedback to equip them with information
to effectively meet the City’s needs and
be successful in future proposals.

4 Proposal Instructions & Content

4.1 Proposal Timelines & Instructions

MILESTONE

TIME (PACIFIC)
& DATE LOCATION / ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Release date February 14,
2022

Questions due to
the City
11:00 a.m.

February 22,
2022
• Submit all inquiries via email to
[email protected]
Posting of the
Q&A
February 25,
2022
• Responses to the questions will be posted on
the City’s PlanetBids portal, available at
https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/1581
0/portal-home.

Proposals due 11:00 p.m.

March 7, 2022
• Proposals should be submitted electronically
via the City’s PlanetBids portal, available at
https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/1581
0/portal-home.
• Late proposals, or proposals submitted
through other channels will not be accepted.
• Proposers are responsible for submitting their
proposals completely and on time.
o Proposers will receive an e-bid
confirmation number with a time
stamp from PlanetBids indicating that
the proposal was submitted
successfully. The City will only receive
proposals that were transmitted
successfully.
o Technical support is available by
phone at (818) 992-1771
o Support resources including a list of
Frequently Asked Questions are
available on PlanetBids at

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 14

https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/porta
l/15810/help.

4.2 Proposal Content
Complete proposals will include the following. Proposers are encouraged to use this table as a checklist to ensure all components are included in their proposal.

PROPOSAL
☐ Narrative
Proposal
The Narrative Proposal should provide a straightforward, concise delineation of capabilities to satisfy the RFP. Guidance on preparing a Narrative Proposal is detailed below in Section

4.3. ☐ Cost Proposal The Cost Proposal should adhere to the following:
• Provide a proposed budget with estimated costs to
provide personnel and support needed to deliver the
Pilot.
• Provide any additional information that describes your fee structure and that provides a comprehensive
estimate of total program costs f or your organization’s proposal.
• The cost proposal and scope of work shall include and specify the firm’s labor, indirect costs, and any
subconsultant costs. This should include any additional costs related to the potential scaling of the program as described in Section 3.1.
• The fee to be paid to the Consultant will be made at the Consultant’s established billable rates for staff hours and expenses accrued in producing the required services,
up to a maximum fee to be established through
negotiations.
• The Consultant’s billable rates shall not include mark-ups on reimbursable items or mark -ups for overhead and
profit; no additional payment will be made for those
items. The City will neither reimburse the Consultant for mileage, office supplies, overhead expenses, nor for the use of computer equipment.
• All sub-consultant fees and costs shall not include mark- ups and will be reimbursed on an actual-cost basis. The City will not reimburse for a subconsultant’s mileage,
office supplies, overhead expenses, or for the use of
computer equipment.
• Primary Consultants located outside the Los
Angeles/Orange County area shall not assume the City

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 15

will reimburse for travel to the City without prior
approval. Consultants outside of Los Angeles/Orange
County should discuss ho w their remoteness will affect their responsiveness in delivering services.

PROPOSAL APPENDICES
☐ Financial
Stability
Proposers should include one or more of the following
financial statements to provide the City with enough
information to determine financial stability of the Proposer and subcontractor.
• Financial Statement or Annual Report
• Business tax return
• Statement of income and related earnings
• Formal Audit Report conducted by an external CPA firm, if available
• Internal Control Report, if available
☐ Other Addenda
(if applicable)
Colored displays, promotional materials, and other collateral are not necessary or desired. However, if a complete
response cannot be provided without referencing supporting documentation, it may be provided as an addendum clearly cited in the Narrative or Cost Proposal.

MANDATORY ATTACHMENTS | The following are included as Attachments in PlanetBids. They must be signed by the individual legally authorized to bind the Proposer.
☐ A. Authorization & Certification
☐ B. Equal Benefits Ordinance (EBO) Form
☐ C. W-9
NON-MANDATORY ATTACHMENTS | The following are required for awarded Contractors prior to contract execution. If possible, Proposers are encouraged to include this information as part of their proposal to expedite processing. ☐ D. Business License
☐ E. Proof of Registration with Secretary of State
F. Pro Forma – Reference only
☐ G. INSURANCE.

As a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement, Contractor shall procure and maintain at Contractor’s expense for the duration of this Agreement from an insurance company that is admitted to write insurance in the State of California or that has a rating of or equivalent to an A:VIII by A.M.

Best and Company the following insurance:

a. Commercial general liability insurance equivalent in coverage scope to ISO CG 00 01 10 93 naming the City of Long Beach and its officials, employees, and agents as additional insureds on a form equivalent in coverage scope to ISO CG 20 26 11 85 from and against claims,

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 16

demands, causes of action, expenses, costs, or liability for injury to or death of persons, or damage to or loss of property arising out of activities or work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor in an amount not less than One Million Dollars (US $1,000,000) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars (US $2,000,000) in general aggregate.
b. As applicable, workers’ compensation coverage in accordance with the Labor Code of the State of California and Employer’s liability insurance with minimum limits of One Million Dollars (US $1,000,000) per accident or occupational illness. The policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of the insurer’s right of subrogation against the City of Long Beach and its officials, employees, and agents.
c. If use of vehicles is part of the scope of services, commercial automobile liability insurance equivalent in coverage scope to ISO CA 00 01 06 92 in an amount not less than Five Hundred Thousand Dollars (US $500,000) combined single limit (CSL) covering Symbol 1 (any auto). d. Professional Liability (or Errors and Omissions Liability] insurance covering the profession or professions (for example, licensed professions such as accountants or lawyers) provided within the Agreement in the amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim.

Any self-insurance program or self-insurance retention must be approved separately in writing by City and shall protect the City of Long Beach and its officials, employees, and agents in the same manner and to the same extent as they would have been protected had the policy or policies not contained retention provisions. Each insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, or canceled by either party except after thirty (30) days prior written notice to City, and shall be primary and not contributing to any other insurance or self-insurance maintained by City.

Any subcontractors which Contractor may use in the performance of this Agreement shall be required to indemnify the City to the same extent as the Contractor and to maintain insurance in compliance with the provisions of this section.

Contractor shall deliver to City certificates of insurance and original endorsements for approval as to sufficiency and form prior to the start of performance hereunder. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall contain the original signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. “Claims-made” policies are not acceptable unless City Risk Manager determines that “Occurrence” policies are not available in the market for the risk being insured. In a “Claims-made” policy is accepted, it must provide for an extended reporting period of not

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 17

less than three (3) years. Such insurance as required herein shall not be deemed to limit Contractor’s liability relating to performance under this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete certified copies of all said policies at any time. Any modification or waiver of the insurance requirements herein shall be made only with the approval of City Risk Manager. The procuring of insurance shall not be construed as a limitation on liability or as full performance of the indemnification provisions of this Agreement.

☐ PlanetBids | Ensure your organization’s PlanetBids profile is up to date, including an email address, phone number, and for any socioeconomic classifications you may qualify for.

4.3 Narrative Proposal Template
An editable version of the template below has been posted to PlanetBids. Proposers should complete the editable template and submit it as their narrative proposal.

Organizational Capacity & Experience

PROPOSER CONTACT INFORMATION
Organization
Company Name
Company Address
Website
Federal Tax ID Number
Authorized
Representative
Name
Title
Email Address
Phone Number
Other Point of
Contact (if
required)
Name
Title
Email Address
Phone Number

PROPOSER CAPACITY & EXPERIENCE
What type of enterprise is the organization?
☐ Non-Profit
☐ Sole Proprietorship
☐ General Partnership
☐ Corporation
State and Date of incorporation:

_______________________________________

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 18

☐ Limited Liability Company
☐ Other
_________________________________
Where is the organization that would
service the City’s account located?
Does the organization reside in Long
Beach?
Please describe why the organization is
qualified to provide the services described
in this RFP (1-2 paragraphs).

How many employees does the
organization have in total and residing in
Long Beach?

Where are the representative(s) that would
service the City’s account located?
Please provide a plan of overview for how
the project will be staffed, including the
percentage of time each employee will be
allocated to the project, and the names
and titles of principles.

Who are the key staff involved in the
project? For each, please provide a name,
title, and resume either as an attachment
or 1 paragraph description.

Does the proposal include subcontractors? ☐ Yes
☐ No

REFERENCES
Reference 1
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number
Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates

Reference 2
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number
Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates

Reference 3
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 19

Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates

Reference 4
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number
Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates

Reference 5
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number
Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates

SUB-CONTRACTOR CONTACT INFORMATION (if applicable)
Please provide this information for all subcontractors included in this proposal.

Organization Company Name
Company Address
Authorized
Representative
Name
Title
Email Address
Phone Number
Other Point of
Contact (if
required)
Name
Title
Email Address
Phone Number

SUBCONTRACTOR CAPACITY & EXPERIENCE
What type of enterprise is the organization?
☐ Non-Profit
☐ Sole Proprietorship
☐ General Partnership
☐ Corporation
State and Date of incorporation:

_______________________________________

☐ Limited Liability Company

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 20

☐ Other
_________________________________
Which specific requirements of this RFP will
the subcontractor perform?
Is the subcontractor registered with the
California Department of Industrial
Relations? If yes, provide registration
number.

Please describe why the organization is
qualified to provide the services described
in this RFP (1-2 paragraphs).

Please describe the length of time the
organization has been providing the
services described in this RFP (1 -3
sentences).

How many employees does the
organization have nationally, locally, and
residing in Long Beach?

Where are the representative(s) that would
service the City’s account located?

Organizational Capacity & Experience

1. Please provide an overview of past guaranteed income o r comparable cash transfer programs your organization is conducting or has conducted in the past.

In your answer, be sure to share the total cost of the project, the number of participants served, amount of staff or resources involved, and metrics on the accomplishments and impact of the project. (suggest highlighting 2 -4 programs, 1-2 paragraphs per program)

2. Please describe your experience in serving demographics comparable to those selected for the Pilot. (1 paragraph max)

3. Please describe your organizational capacity to scale the Pilot should additional funding become available. This may include (but is not limited to) the following: 1) the ability to increase the number of participants, 2) the ability to track separate cohorts of participants 3) the ability to invoice separately based on the funding source, 4) the ability to flexibly modify program elements to meet the requirements of new funding, including record keeping, reporting and audit requests. (1-2 paragraphs)

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 21

4. Please describe your experience and organizational capacity in data collection and reporting. (1 paragraph max)

5. Please describe your organization’s capacity to provide outreach and education in non -English (Spanish, Khmer, Tagalog) or non-verbal languages. (250 words max)

6. Describe your organization’s ability to keep records according to Federal Single Audit standards, respond to federal audit requests, and regularly self -report on contract performance.

7. (Optional) If there is any other information you have not provided above that will help the City evaluate your qualifications for these efforts, please provide them below. Please refer to Sections 3.1 Minimum Qualifications and 3.2 Evaluation Criterion as needed.

Method & Approach

1. Please describe in detail how your organization intend s to implement and administer the Pilot in partnership with the City and its selected Pilot Research and Evaluation partner. Include proposed timeline s for launching the website/portal, enrolling identified participants to receive payment, and issuing first payments.

2. Please describe in detail your organization’s approach for identifying additional financial resources, including grants, fundraising opportunities or other strategies to grow the Pilot. If your organization has fundraising capabilities that could be leveraged in support of the program, please elaborate on this capability here.

3. Please describe your organization’s approach to providing a customizable digital (electronic) payment solution capable of supporting multiple payment distribution types.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 22

4. Describe the end -user digital portal experience from the perspective of program participants.

5. Summarize steps you would take to immediately resolve any operational issues that may occur with the portal or prevent the issuance of payments to program participants.

6. This opportunity requires that your organization will serve as a Subject Matter Expert to provide technical assistance to City staff and the City’s Pilot Research and Evaluation vendor. Describe how your organization will work with these groups.

7. Summarize your proposed approach to case management and how will you ensure your organization’s solution is able to assist a diverse, multi -lingual population.

8. Outline what you will need from the City to implement the contract successfully.

Communications & Reporting

1. Explain the data and reporting systems that will be used to routinely evaluate program performance, how this data will be used for program management, or how you have used data and reporting systems for program management in the past.

2. Explain how employees responsible for case management will be supervised.

3. Please describe your organizational capacity to participate in mandatory meetings as described in Section 2.2.2 of the RFP.

4. Explain how you will report on performance to the City and coordinate with the City to meet the objectives of the RFP.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 23

5. The City requires that the awarded Contractor provide proof of payment of any subcontractors used for this project. If the proposal includes subcontractors, please describe the plan for how the City will be notified of such payments.

5 Terms & Conditions

5.1 Acronyms/Definitions

1. Awarded Contractor: The organization/individual that is awarded a contract with the City of Long Beach, California for the services identified in this RFP.

2. City: The City of Long Beach and any department or agency identified herein.

3. Contractor / Proposer: Organization/individual submitting a proposal in response to this RFP.

4. Department / Division: City of Long Beach, Department of Economic Development

5. Evaluation Committee: An independent committee comprised solely of representatives of the City established to review proposals submitted in response to the RFP, evaluate the proposals, and select a Contractor.

6. May: Indicates something that is not mandatory but permissible.

7. RFP: Request for Proposals.

8. Shall / Must: Indicates a mandatory requ irement. Failure to meet a mandatory requirement may result in the rejection of a proposal as non-responsive.

9. Should: Indicates something that is recommended but not mandatory. If the Proposer fails to provide recommended information, the City may, at it s sole option, ask the Proposer to provide the information or evaluate the proposal without the information.

10. Subcontractor: Third party not directly employed by the Proposer who will provide services identified in this RFP.

5.2 Solicitation Terms & Conditions

1. The City reserves the right to alter, amend, or modify any provisions of this RFP, or to withdraw this RFP, at any time prior to the award of a contract pursuant hereto, if it is in the best interest of the City to do so.

2. The City reserves the right to r equest clarification of any proposal term from Proposers.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 24

3. The City may contact the references provided; contact any Proposer to clarify any response; contact any current users of a Proposer’s services; solicit information from any available source concerning any aspect of a proposal; and seek and review any other information deemed pertinent to the evaluation process.

4. The level and term of documentation required from the Proposer to satisfy the City will be commensurate with the size and complexity of the c ontract and Proposers should submit accordingly. If the information submitted by the Proposer, or available from other sources, is insufficient to satisfy the City as to the Proposer’s contractual responsibility, the City may request additional information from the Proposer or may deem the proposal non-responsive.

5. The City reserves the right to waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

6. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received prior to contract award.

7. The City’s determination of the Proposer’s responsibility, for the purposes of this RFP, shall be final.

8. Unless otherwise specified, the City prefers to award to a single Contractor but reserves the right to award contracts to multiple contractors.

9. The Cit y shall not be obligated to accept the lowest priced proposal, but will make an award in the best interests of the City of Long Beach after all factors have been evaluated.

10. Any irregularities or lack of clarity in the RFP should be brought to the Purchasin g Division designee’s attention as soon as possible so that corrective addenda may be furnished to Proposers.

11. Proposals must include any and all proposed terms and conditions, including, without limitation, written warranties, maintenance/service agreement s, license agreements, lease purchase agreements and the Proposer’s standard contract language. The omission of these documents may render a proposal non - responsive.

12. Alterations, modifications or variations to a proposal may not be considered unless authorized by the RFP or by addendum or amendment.

13. Proposals which appear unrealistic in the terms of technical commitments, lack of technical competence, or are indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of this contract, may be rejected.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 25

14. Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice received prior to the proposal opening time.

15. The price and amount of this proposal must have been arrived at independently and without consultation, communication, agreement or disclosure with or to any other Contractor or prospective Contractor.

16. No attempt may be made at any time to induce any firm or person to refrain from submitting a proposal or to submit any intentionally high or noncompetitive proposal. All proposals must be made in good faith and without collusion.

17. Prices offered by Proposers in their proposals are an irrevocable offer for the term of the contract and any contract extensions. The awarded Contractor agrees to provide the purchased services at the costs, rates and fees as set forth in their proposal in response to this RFP. No other costs, rates or fees shall be payable to the awarded Contractor for implementation of their proposal.

18. The City is not liable for any costs incurred by Proposers prior to entering into a formal contract. Costs of developing the proposals or any other such expenses incurred by the Proposer in responding to the RFP, are entirely the responsibility of the Proposer, and shall not be reimbursed in any manner by the City.

19. Proposal will become public record after the awa rd of a contract unless the proposal or specific parts of the proposal can be shown to be exempt by law.

Each Proposer may clearly label all or part of a proposal as "CONFIDENTIAL" provided that the Proposer thereby agrees to indemnify and defend the City for honoring such a designation. The failure to so label any information that is released by the City shall constitute a complete waiver of any and all claims for damages caused by any release of the information.

20. A proposal submitted in response to this RFP must identify any subcontractors, and outline the contractual relationship between the Proposer and each subcontractor. An official of each proposed subcontractor must sign, and include as part of the proposal submitted in response to this RFP, a sta tement to the effect that the subcontractor has read and will agree to abide by the Proposer’s obligations.

21. If the Contractor elects to use subcontractors, the City requires that the awarded Contractor provide proof of payment of any subcontractors used for this project.

Proposals shall include a plan by which the City will be notified of such payments.

22. Each Proposer must disclose any existing or potential conflict of interest relative to the performance of the contractual services resulting from this RFP . Any such relationship that might be perceived or represented as a conflict should be

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 26

disclosed. The City reserves the right to disqualify any Proposer on the grounds of actual or apparent conflict of interest.

23. Each Proposer must include in its proposal a complete disclosure of any alleged significant prior or ongoing contract failures, any civil or criminal litigation or investigation pending which involves the Proposer or in which the Proposer has been judged guilty or liable. Failure to comply with the terms of this provision will disqualify any proposal. The City reserves the right to reject any proposal based upon the Proposer’s prior history with the City or with any other party, which documents, without limitation, unsatisfactory performance, adv ersarial or contentious demeanor, significant failure(s) to meet contract milestones or other contractual failures.

24. The City reserves the right to negotiate final contract terms with any Proposers selected. The contract between the parties will consist of the RFP together with any modifications thereto, and the awarded Contractor’s proposal, together with any modifications and clarifications thereto that are submitted at the request of the City during the evaluation and negotiation process. In the event o f any conflict or contradiction between or among these documents, the documents shall control in the following order of precedence: the final executed contract, the RFP, any modifications and clarifications to the awarded Contractor’s proposal, and the aw arded Contractor’s proposal. Specific exceptions to this general rule may be noted in the final executed contract.

25. The City will not be responsible for or bound by any oral communication or any other information or contact that occurs outside the official communication process specified herein, unless confirmed in writing by the City Contact.

26. Any contract resulting from this RFP shall not be effective unless and until approved by the City Council / City Manager, as applicable.

27. The City will not be liable for Federal, State, or Local excise taxes.

28. Execution of Attachment A of this RFP shall constitute an agreement to all terms and conditions specified in the RFP, including, without limitation, the Attachment B contract form and all terms and conditions there in, except such terms and conditions that the Proposer expressly excludes.

29. Proposer understands and acknowledges that the representations above are material and important, and will be relied on by the City in evaluation of the proposal. Any Proposer misre presentation shall be treated as fraudulent concealment from the City of the true facts relating to the proposal.

30. Proposals shall be kept confidential until a contract is awarded.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 27

31. No announcement concerning the award of a contract as a result of this RFP may be made without the prior written approval of the City.

32. Proposers are advised that any contract awarded pursuant to this procurement process that exceeds $100,000 shall be subject to the applicable provisions of Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2.73 et seq, the Equal Benefits Ordinance.

Proposers shall refer to Attachment G for further information regarding the requirements of the ordinance. If Attachment G is not present in the RFP, the Equal Benefits Ordinance does not apply to this procurement.

33. All Proposers shall complete and return, with their bid, the Equal Benefits Ordinance Compliance form contained in Attachment B, if applicable. Unless otherwise specified in the procurement package, Proposers do not need to submit with their bid supporting do cumentation proving compliance. However, supporting documentation verifying that the benefits are provided equally shall be required if the proposer is selected for award of a contract.

5.3 Contract Terms & Conditions

1. The awarded Contractor will be the sole point of contract responsibility. The City will look solely to the awarded Contractor for the performance of all contractual obligations which may result from an award based on this RFP, and the awarded Contractor s hall not be relieved for the non -performance of any or all subcontractors.

2. The awarded Contractor must maintain, for the duration of its contract, insurance coverages as required by the City. Work on the contract shall not begin until after the awarded C ontractor has submitted acceptable evidence of the required insurance coverages.

3. The Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) requires all businesses operating in the City of Long Beach to pay a business license tax. In some cases, the City may require a regulatory permit and/or evidence of a State or Federal license. Prior to issuing a business license, certain business types will require the business license application and/or business location to be reviewed by the Development Services, Fire, Health, and/or Po lice Departments. Additional information is available at www.longbeach.gov/finance/business_license.

4. All work performed in connection with construction shall be performed in compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal, state, county or municipal governments or agencies (including, without limitation, all applicable federal and state labor standards, including the prevailing wage provisions of sections 17 70 et seq. of the California Labor Code), and (b) all directions, rules and regulations of any fire marshal, health officer, building

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 28

inspector, or other officer of every governmental agency now having or hereafter acquiring jurisdiction.

5. Contractor shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless City, its Boards, Commissions, and their officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”), from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damage, loss, obligations, causes of action, proceedings, awards , fines, judgments, penalties, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, court costs, expert and witness fees, and other costs and fees of litigation, arising or alleged to have arisen, in whole or in part, out of or in connection with (1) Contractor’s breach or failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Contract, including any obligations arising from the Project’s Contractor’s compliance with or failure to comply with applicable laws, including all applicable federal and state l abor requirements including, without limitation, the requirements of California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. or (2) negligent or willful acts, errors, omissions or misrepresentations committed by Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, subcontracto rs, or anyone under Contractor’s control, in the performance of work or services under this Contract (collectively “Claims” or individually “Claim”).

6. In addition to Contractor’s duty to indemnify, Contractor shall have a separate and wholly independent dut y to defend Indemnified Parties at Contractor’s expense by legal counsel approved by City, from and against all Claims, and shall continue this defense until the Claims are resolved, whether by settlement, judgment or otherwise. No finding or judgment of negligence, fault, breach, or the like on the part of Contractor shall be required for the duty to defend to arise.

City shall notify Contractor of any Claim, shall tender the defense of the Claim to Contractor, and shall assist Contractor, as may be reas onably requested, in the defense.

7. If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a Claim was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnified Parties, Contractor’s costs of defense and indemnity shall be (1) reimbursed in full if th e court determines sole negligence by the Indemnified Parties, or (2) reduced by the percentage of willful misconduct attributed by the court to the Indemnified Parties.

8. If the Contractor elects to use subcontractors, Contractor agrees to require its subcontractors to indemnify Indemnified Parties and to provide insurance coverage to the same extent as Contractor.

9. If the Contractor elects to use subcontractors, the Contractor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work until all insurance required of subcontractor is obtained.

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 29

10. The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Contract.

5.4 Additional Requirements
The payments made to Pilot participants under the Pilot will be funded with federal funding from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), a part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). When disbursing ARPA Funds to beneficiaries under the Program, the Contractor shall comply with all federal laws and requirements of the SLFRF Statute (Title VI of the Social Security Act Sections 602 and 603, as added by Section 9901 of ARPA); the US Treasury’s Final Rule (31 CFR 35; 87 FR 4338); the terms and conditions of the US Treasury’s award of ARPA Funds to City, and any and all compliance and reporting requirements for the expenditure of SLFRF funds as outlined in the Compliance and Reporting Guidance for State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (issued by the US Treasury on 11/5/21, Version 2.0) (coll ectively, “SLFRF Program requirements”). The Contractor shall adhere to such SLFRF Program requirements whether or not such requirements are specifically described in this RFP; and to the extent any provisions of this RFP conflict with such federal requir ements, the SLFRF Program requirements shall control.

Furthermore, the contract arising from this procurement process may be funded in whole or in part by additional local, state or federal grants in which case the contract may be amended to incorporate ad ditional grant requirements based on the new funding source.

Pursuant to the SLFRF Program requirements, the awarded Contractor will be required to comply with (and to incorporate into its agreements with any sub -consultants) the following provisions in the performance of the contract, as applicable.

1. SAM.gov Requirement: Contractors must register with SAM.gov and maintain eligibility to receive federal funds.

2. Allowable Costs: Contractors must have adequate financial management systems and internal con trols in place to account for the expenditure of federal funds.

3. Period of Performance: Contractors must use SLFRF funds to cover eligible costs during the period outlined the Contractor’s contract with the City, and in no event may Contractor expend SLFRF funds after December 31, 2026.

4. Civil Rights Compliance: Contractors distributing federal financial assistance from the Treasury are required to meet legal requirements relating to nondiscrimination and nondiscriminatory use of Federal funds. Those requirements include ensuring that the Contractor does not deny benefits or services, or otherwise discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin (including limited English proficiency),

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 30

disability, age, or sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), in accordance with the following authorities: Title VI of the Civil Ri ghts Act of 1964 (Title VI) Public Law 88 -352, 42 U.S.C. 2000d -1 et seq., and the Department's implementing regulations, 31 CFR part 22; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), Public Law 93-112, as amended by Public Law 93-516, 29 U.S.C. 794; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and the Department's implementing regulations, 31 CFR part 28; Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Public Law 94 -135, 42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq., and the Department implementing regulations at 31 CFR part 23.

5. Reporting Requirements: Contractors are required to assist the City in the reporting required by the SLFRF Program. In order to facilitate the City’s reporting, Contractors must have a robust system to track programmatic data. Contractors will provide reports to the City that detail expenditures and key performance indicators. In addition to more frequent progress reports as required under the Contractor’s contract with the City, Contractors will be required at a minimum to submit quarterly and annual reports to the City within 1 0 days of the close of the City’s SLFRF reporting period.

5.5 Protest Procedures
Who May Protest
Only a Proposer who has actually submitted a proposal is eligible to protest a contract awarded through a Request for Proposals (RFP). A Proposer may not rely on the protest submitted by another Proposer but must pursue its own protest.

Time for Protest
The City will post a notice of the intent to award a contract at least ten (10) business days before an award is made. The notice will be available to all Proposers who submitted a proposal via the City’s electronic bid notification system at http://www.longbeach.gov/purchasing. A Proposer desir ing to submit a protest for a proposal must do so within five (5) business days of the electronic notification of intent to award. The City Purchasing Agent must receive the protest by the close of business on the fifth (5th) business day following posting of notification of intent to award the contract. Proposers are responsible for registering with the City’s electronic bid notification system and maintaining an updated Contractor profile. The City is not responsible for Proposers’ failure to obtain notification for any reason, including but not limited to failure to maintain updated email addresses, failure to open/read electronic messages and failure of their own computer/technology equipment. The City’s RFP

LBGI Implementation & Administrator | ED22-023 | Template v6.9.21 | 31

justification memo will be available for rev iew by protestors once the notification of intent to award has been posted via the City’s electronic bid notification system.

Form of Protest
The protest must be in writing and signed by the individual who signed the proposal or, if the Proposer is a corporation, by an officer of the corporation, and addressed to the City Purchasing Agent. Protests must be submitted via the email address above. They must include a valid email address and phone number. Protests must set forth a complete and detailed statement of the grounds for the protest and include all relevant information to support the grounds stated, and must refer to specific portions of the RFP and attachments upon which the protest is based. Once the protest is received by the City Purchasing Agent , the City will not accept additional information on the protest unless the City requests it.

City Response to Protest
The City Purchasing Agent or designee will respond with a decision regarding the protest within five (5) business days of receipt of prot est to the email address provided in the protest. This decision shall be final.

Limitation of Remedy
The procedure and time limits set forth herein are mandatory and are the Proposer’s sole and exclusive remedy in the event of a protest. The Proposer’s fai lure to comply with these procedures shall constitute a waiver of any right to further pursue a protest, including filing a Government Code Claim or initiation of legal proceedings.

Guaranteed Income in the U.S.

A toolkit of best practices, resources, and existing
models of planned and ongoing research in the
U.S.

About the Jain Family Institute
The Jain Family Institute (JFI) is a nonpartisan applied research organization in the social sciences that works to bring research and policy from conception in theory to implementation in society. Within JFI’s core policy area of guaranteed income, JFI is the design and implementation partner on The Compton Pledge and has consulted on the Stockton, CA SEED pilot, the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, and related policies in New York City and Chicago, as well as on forthcoming pilots in Newark and Atlanta. JFI is leading an evaluation of a 42,000-person guaranteed income program in Marica, Brazil, a keystone of the movement for a solidarity economy. JFI has also provided expert commentary on a range of cash transfer policies from relief checks to the EITC and CTC.

Founded in 2014 by Robert Jain, JFI focuses on building evidence around the most pressing social problems. The Phenomenal World is JFI’s independent publication of theory and commentary on the social sciences.
jfi@jfiresearch.org
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute. All rights reserved. 568 Broadway, Suite 601, New York, NY, 10012
www.JFIresearch.org

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
What is in this toolkit?
This toolkit is designed to provide a concrete starting point for anyone interested in supporting a guaranteed income for their community, particularly by launching a guaranteed income pilot. It begins by answering some of the key questions that arise in this undertaking, including what guaranteed income is, why it is gaining attention right now, what the open questions are that a pilot might answer, and what is involved in the creation of a local pilot.

For those who are interested in creating a pilot accompanied by a research program, it outlines the current state of guaranteed income research and describes how new research can be designed to make a valuable contribution and avoid repeating findings. It also provides advice on how to design an effective messaging strategy to maximize the impact of your pilot through storytelling, consistent framing, and thoughtful communication of research results.

Finally, it provides an overview of the current state of the guaranteed income movement including ongoing and planned municipal pilots, past examples of guaranteed income in practice, and a description of the network of lawmakers, advocates, and philanthropists pushing the movement forward today.

Who is this toolkit for?
This toolkit is built for a variety of audiences that are interested in the field of guaranteed income and seeking a starting point: policymakers working in local, state, or federal government in the U.S. or abroad; philanthropic leaders interested in effecting change through guaranteed income programs; and practitioners or non-profit leaders focused on economic inclusion, equity, and justice. For all of these audiences, this document provides tools to evaluate whether and how to pilot guaranteed income in a given community, and other ways to both learn from and contribute to the movement around direct cash policy.

Why did JFI create it?
JFI is a leading applied research organization in guaranteed income and cash policy. We have worked with public servants, local governments, foundations, international governments and media in their exploration of guaranteed income policy. This report provides answers to some of the questions we receive most frequently based on our research and insights from working in the field.
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
2

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Acknowledgements
This toolkit was built in collaboration and consultation between JFI's guaranteed income team and partner organizations conducting pilots or researching this policy alongside us. Special thanks to JFI Fellow in PR and Policy Communications, Charles de la Cruz, for his work on this toolkit, as well as Halah Ahmad, Stephen Nuñez, Alexander Jacobs, Molly Dektar, and Sidhya Balakrishnan.

Likewise, we would like to acknowledge the contributions of Leah Hamilton, JFI Senior Fellow in Guaranteed Income and board member at Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN; Malcolm Berry at Basic Income Earth Network; Sarah Berger-Gonzalez at Stanford Basic Income Lab; Rachel Black and Sheida Elmi at the Aspen Institute's Financial Security Program; Stacia Martin of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Guaranteed Income Research, the University of Tennessee Knoxville and co-Principal Investigator of Stockton SEED; Nika Soon-Shiong and the Compton Pledge team; and to our many partners among pilot administrators in the U.S., without whom none of this work would be possible. Likewise, we want to thank the wider community of academics, advocates, policymakers and early implementers of this policy for their immense efforts to further a policy rooted in agency, trust, stability, and relief. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
3

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Contents
The Basics
What is guaranteed income?
Why are many policymakers turning to guaranteed income policy? Key components for efective guaranteed income
What is a guaranteed income pilot?
Anatomy of a guaranteed income pilot
What to know if you are considering a guaranteed income research project for your community What evidence do we already have about guaranteed income’s efects? What are the open questions around guaranteed income?
How can guaranteed income pilots and programs be funded? What kinds of research can accompany pilots?
Impact analysis
Implementation analysis
What are some best practices for pilot design?
Pilot Messaging
Storytelling
Framing
Communicating Research
The Guaranteed Income Movement
Planned and ongoing pilot research in the U.S.

Has guaranteed income ever been tried in the United States? EITC, Child Tax Credit, and similar cash relief
Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend
Eastern Band of Cherokee Basic Income
Which individuals and organizations are working on guaranteed income policy? Cash support advocates in Congress
Academic champions for guaranteed income
Advocates & civil society in support of guaranteed income Philanthropy
Joining the Movement
Further Reading and Global Perspectives
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
4

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
The Basics
What is guaranteed income?
Guaranteed income (GI is a type of cash transfer program that provides regular, unconditional, and unrestricted cash transfers to individuals or households. This differs from typical social safety net policies by providing a steady, predictable stream of cash to recipients to spend however they see fit without requiring that they perform specific activities—like working, going to school, or seeking employment—to remain eligible.

While guaranteed income is always unconditional, it may be targeted toward people below a
certain income threshold. Targeting can take place at the front end through means-testing or at the back end through an income phase-out, meaning that everyone receives the benefit but people with higher incomes pay back some or all of this benefit through taxes. This targeting is distinct from conditionality, which refers to behavioral requirements for benefit recipients.

Guaranteed income can be both unconditional and targeted. Universal basic income (UBI refers to a guaranteed income that is both unconditional and untargeted. While the idea of a UBI has gained much attention in recent years, this toolkit is focused on the broader category of guaranteed income policy and advocacy, particularly through local pilots. In other words, we are focused on unconditional cash transfers generally, whether universal or income-targeted.

Among researchers, advocates, and pilot administrators, there are differences in opinion on the exact definitions of guaranteed income and UBI. For example, researchers at the Stanford Basic Income Lab consider GI to be income-targeted by definition and distinguish it from UBI based on this lack of universality. JFI defines guaranteed income more broadly as any regular, unconditional, and unrestricted cash transfers program whether universal (e.g. UBI or targeted.

This document uses the broader definition of GI.

Notably, most current pilots are front-end targeted for low-income recipients, while the wider vision for a guaranteed income policy is one that is universal, with any targeting occurring through post-hoc clawbacks in taxes or otherwise.

Why are many policymakers turning to guaranteed income
policy?
Over the last several years, guaranteed income has exploded in popularity across the United States. A first round of pilots in 2017, led by Stockton’s SEED program and The Magnolia Mother’s Trust in Mississippi, brought increased attention to the need for guaranteed income as a policy tool to fight poverty, improve social mobility, and reduce economic inequality. These pilots, along 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
5

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
with the creation of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, have fueled the creation of numerous local guaranteed income pilots across the country, including large pilots in Compton, CA; Chelsea, MA, Oakland, CA; and Newark, NJ (see section: “Planned and ongoing pilot research in the U.S.,” for a running list). This is a growing movement driven by the recognition that existing policies have failed to break cycles of poverty or promote widespread prosperity and that new approaches are needed.

In the wake of the COVID19 pandemic, federal, state and local governments as well as non-profit organizations provided effective cash relief to millions of individuals who became unemployed, had to stay home from work due to public health risks, or lost necessary income when they were already living paycheck to paycheck. Yet, even before the COVID19 pandemic, the deficiencies of the U.S. social safety net, with its patchwork of modest, targeted, means-tested, employment-conditioned programs, had become apparent. The limited assistance leaves the US with a financially fragile middle class, the highest post-tax poverty rate in the developed world, and dramatic racial and gender inequality. These issues became more dire during the pandemic and economic downturn of 2020. Safety net targeting means young adults, non-custodial parents, and others considered “undeserving” fall through the cracks; means testing imposes upfront burdens on the eligible and leads to delays and incorrect rejections; and employment conditioning punishes recipients for labor market conditions and can exacerbate economic downturns.

This system could be greatly improved. After all, Canada, the U.K., and other countries with similarly structured welfare regimes have managed to reduce poverty with more generous benefits, less onerous upfront paperwork, and gentler phase outs of means-tested benefits. But decades after the U.S. declared a War on Poverty, the ongoing stalemate has led to calls for a broader rethinking of how we structure our welfare state. And that is what U.S. guaranteed income advocates hope to accomplish.

Key components for efective guaranteed income
An effective guaranteed income is not a complete replacement for the existing network of safety net programs, but it can be designed to correct for many of its shortcomings. Above all, guaranteed income programs should be universal (available to all rather than subject to burdensome front-end means-testing, although they may be universal with targeting through post-hoc taxation), unconditional (not contingent on labor market participation, training, or other activities), and unrestricted (allowing recipients to decide how to spend funds). It is also important that they be designed while keeping in mind their interactions and potential conflicts with other safety net programs.

Universal
Front end targeting (means testing) requires households to prove that they meet eligibility requirements before they can receive aid. This has obstructed the efficient disbursement 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
6

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
of funds and other benefits through existing welfare programs. It overburdens the most vulnerable with circuitous qualification tests and bureaucratic forms that hinder their ability to receive urgently needed support for which they are technically eligible.

In addition to limiting access, means testing can also create a “benefits cliff” in which, for example, a family’s increased income means that they no longer qualify for benefits, but the value of the lost benefits is greater than the increase in income. The result is that an increase in household income can actually leave a family worse off financially.

The federal poverty line used to means-test benefits is a notoriously weak measure of household income precarity. Before the pandemic, 40% of Americans would have struggled to cover an unexpected $400 expense even though only about 10% of families fell below the official poverty line. In some cases, means-tests on asset values contribute to this problem by penalizing benefit recipients for accumulating savings. A universal program would provide cash benefits to every household with few to no upfront hoops to jump through.

Some may object to a system that includes people who need the cash assistance less, or not at all. But a universal guaranteed income can be targeted on the back end such that everyone receives the benefit while wealthier households pay back some or all of it through progressive taxation. In other words, front end targeting that places the bureaucratic burden on needy households applying for aid can be replaced with universal distribution and back end targeting that adds an extra item to the tax forms of high-income households instead. A universal program is both simpler to administer and more likely to ensure that nobody who needs assistance falls through the cracks.

Unconditional
Safety net programs in the U.S. are often accompanied by a set of conditions that must be met to continue receiving support. In some cases, like drug testing requirements, these conditions communicate a lack of respect for or trust in recipients that are often rooted in long standing racial prejudice. More commonly, financial support is conditioned on work requirements: recipients must either be employed, actively seeking employment, or engaged in job training activities. In each case, the burden falls to the already-disadvantaged recipient to navigate regularly the paperwork required to prove their eligibility.

Conditioning aid on employment status often undermines its own purpose. Perversely, it is when the economy is in recession and the need for assistance greatest that a work-conditioned safety net is least effective. When work is scarce, so too is assistance.

For example, the EITC provides benefits only to people who are employed. As a result, 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
7

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
recipients can be punished for forces outside of their control, including the hiring practices of employers.

Unconditional cash transfer programs avoid these issues. They remove the administrative burden of repeatedly demonstrating compliance. And by eliminating work requirements they ensure that people are able to receive support even during economic downturns and in the face of employment discrimination.

Unrestricted
Unlike benefits like food stamps or housing vouchers, a guaranteed income is intended to allow recipients to decide how to use the funds in the ways that best fit their needs.

Unrestricted aid programs place value on recipients’ autonomy and judgment while recognizing their expertise over their own financial lives. Spending restrictions in existing welfare programs are ultimately rooted in a lack of trust in recipients, but research consistently supports the fact that when provided with cash support people use the money responsibly. As a policy principle, unrestricted aid is about recognizing that poverty results from a lack of resources, not a lack of judgment.

Regular, predictable payments over time
Financial security is rooted in stable and predictable income. Though research is inconclusive on the optimal disbursement frequency (monthly versus yearly or otherwise), existing research suggests that a regular, and therefore predictable, pace of cash transfers affords families the financial stability for long-term financial planning.

In tandem with other safety net programs
Guaranteed income policy is not a panacea. While it
may better serve the role of income
support than TANF, SNAP, or EITC if it is implemented with less paternalism and administrative burden, it cannot replace important public insurance programs like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, or Medicaid/Medicare. And it is no substitute for direct government intervention where markets simply don’t work (well) such as in healthcare, child care, and education. Likewise, there can be proposals for guaranteed income to exist alongside other forms of income support; many emerging pilots will provide useful case studies for this, such that marginalized communities have robust economic security and the potential for economic mobility. For a deeper look at ways a guaranteed income could fit into the existing safety net, see JFI’s recent white paper on this topic, “Reweaving the Safety Net.” To explore some of the ways that guaranteed income would interact with benefits from other federal, state, and local programs for a range of household situations, check out this net GI value calculator created by the Atlanta Fed. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
8

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
What is a guaranteed income pilot?
A guaranteed income pilot is a program that provides cash transfers to a limited group of participants for a specific period of time while collecting data that can inform policymakers and researchers as well as contribute to ongoing public discourse around guaranteed income policy.

While this can take the form of a rigorous quantitative study of participant outcomes, there are a range of means by which a pilot can make a valuable contribution. For example, there is much room for experimentation with different methods of administering guaranteed income through partnerships with financial institutions and local organizations, or through varying frequencies and amounts. And in addition to quantitative measures, there is much to be gained from both qualitative research and, separately, storytelling. Qualitative research can give necessary nuance and evidence to explain quantitative outcomes and inform better research foci. Storytelling can shed light on the lived experience of recipients within wider media and break down tropes in public perceptions of social benefits. Quantitative research can provide more generalizable evidence for causation within positive GI outcomes. Many researchers are focused on all three of those, including JFI, GiveDirectly, and the Center for Guaranteed Income, which incorporates mixed methods RCTs with participatory action research PAR.

Local pilots have typically been privately funded through philanthropic donations or institutional grants. That is, in part, because sustainable public financing of a guaranteed income policy is difficult to achieve at the local level. As a result, the long-term goal of the guaranteed income movement is the establishment of a guaranteed income policy at the state or federal level where this kind of large-scale public financing would be feasible. While there is much to be gained from local pilots in terms of research and influence on public opinion, it is important to remember that these pilots are advocacy opportunities that represent small steps toward this larger goal. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
9

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
Anatomy of a guaranteed income pilot
This graphic outlines the key stakeholders that form the core of any guaranteed income pilot, drawing on the Stanford Basic Income in Cities guide, and corroborated by JFI’s work.

Communities are important participants at every stage of the process, from early consultation on pilot design to long-term advocacy and storytelling around the pilot’s vision. Policymakers facilitate the pilot or policy implementation through coordination with existing social service programs and communications that channel public buy-in for sustained advocacy even after the pilot has ended. The Funding Teamsecures financing for the pilot, including funds for distribution to participants and the costs of administration and research evaluation. Recent municipal pilots have most often been funded through philanthropic donations and institutional grants, but in some cases local governments may be able to fund a pilot by drawing on discretionary funds, federal pass-through grants, or even emergency funds.

Researchers are in charge of designing the guaranteed income program in ways that will provide insights into open questions around the impact of GI on the community and the optimal methods of program implementation. The next section will cover these questions of research design in more depth. Finally, the Communications Team plays a key role in using the pilot as an opportunity to build widespread support for guaranteed income. This involves direct engagement to share community members’ stories with the broader public, ensuring that the pilot gains the attention of media and legislators, while developing a consistent messaging strategy that clarifies the pilot’s guiding vision throughout. The team also collaborates with researchers to ensure that research results are communicated effectively. The elements of an effective messaging strategy are discussed below in the “Pilot Messaging” section.

Although there will often be overlap between these different stakeholder groups, it is useful to distinguish them functionally from the very beginning in order to effectively coordinate the key elements of a successful guaranteed income pilot. Further practical notes on pilot planning are on page 18.
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
10

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
What to know if you are considering a guaranteed
income research project for your community
There are several ways to contribute to the movement around guaranteed income. One of those ways is to pilot a guaranteed income program in your community and research its effects. If you are considering doing so it is important to understand what research has already been done, what the open questions about guaranteed income are, and what it takes to collect evidence on GI. In this section we provide an overview of each of these topics to help you think through whether a pilot is right for your community.

What evidence do we already have about guaranteed income’s efects?
Although there has been a surge of recent interest and research on GI, scholars have been studying cash transfer policy for decades. This includes research on guaranteed income-like pilots and policies like the North American Negative Income Tax experiments in the 1970s and the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, which has offered checks annually to residents since 1982. But it also includes research into inheritances, lottery winnings, conditional cash transfer programs, and pensions. Cash is cash, so much of what we know about the effects of additional income in general on household wellbeing and choices applies to guaranteed income.

Extensive social science research on cash transfer programs around the world shows that cash transfers increase expenditure on education and training, improve food security, increase durable good consumption (buying a car, a refrigerator, etc.), and improve measures of well-being. The positive impact of guaranteed income has been studied for decades, with evidence indicating that cash transfers are an effective anti-poverty measure with an array of welfare benefits.Empirical evidence also indicates that people keep their jobs and spend the extra money on groceries, utilities or other basic needs; those who work fewer hours largely invest that time in education, job training, or caring for children. Key findings include:
● There is little evidence that cash transfers decrease the motivation to work. ● Cash transfers do not lead to spending on “temptation goods.” ● Cash transfers reduce inequality, and have had multiple positive impacts on recipients’ welfare, alongside positive spillover effects for non-recipients.

In other words, there is already a robust literature on the employment, poverty/material hardship, and consumption effects of GI. We do not need to demonstrate that GI will not lead to a major 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
11

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
reduction in the labor supply nor increased drug/tobacco/alcohol consumption; researchers have already established this several times across several countries. To the extent that this message has not been absorbed by the public, that is best rectified through further communication efforts rather than additional research.

What are the open questions around guaranteed income?
In light of the above, why pilot guaranteed income at all? It is useful to break that question down into two separate ones:
● Do we need to pilot guaranteed income before moving forward with efforts to enact one on a state or federal level?
● Are there important unanswered questions that further research can address that would be of value to policy makers?
The answer to the first question is, as regards more evidence needed, no. We already know enough about how GI works for GI advocates to push for GI legislation. Still, local piloting efforts can have an impact for short-term poverty alleviation, and serve a key role in building public awareness and support for the policy, as addressed in later sections.

The answer to the second question, however, is definitely yes. There are several important outstanding questions around guaranteed income policy that researchers should address. It is also worth looking into what pilots are currently being developed or are underway to answer some of these open questions. See the section on “planned and ongoing pilots” to check if there are existing initiatives in your area or on the questions you might want to answer.

Some of the urgent questions for researchers include:
● What are the macroeconomic effects of GI (e.g. price, wages, or inflation effects) and how can it be responsibly financed?
● How much money should each individual receive considering the need to fund other important safety net policies?
● How often should the money be disbursed? Yearly? Quarterly? Biweekly? ● How do we build a cash disbursement infrastructure that quickly and efficiently gets money into recipients’ hands?
● What are the long-term effects of GI on education, criminal justice involvement, civic and political engagement, and other lesser studied outcomes? ● What programs should GI be paired with to maximize its benefits? ● What are the broader political effects of GI on public perception of the safety net, the stigma attached to government assistance, etc.?
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
12

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
● What outcome measures are most salient to inform robust benefit-cost analyses for policymakers? How do the economic benefits to individuals and communities compare to the costs of the program?
●
How does a GI generate the observed impacts? For example, what effects on recipient decision-making and future planning might explain better educational or other outcomes? Likewise, how do GI recipients compare their experiences with means-tested programs, particularly with regard to the unconditional and unrestricted nature of GI support? Qualitative research can particularly elucidate these questions. ● What effects do GI recipients’ perceptions and meaning-making have on their outcomes? What meanings do recipients attach to the program design? Where can pilot research usefully contribute/which of these questions can pilots help answer?
There is, as noted above, research still to be done on guaranteed income. Pilots can contribute answers to some but not all open questions—though it is worth emphasizing that the cost of high-quality research, persuasive to academics and policymakers, is substantial. That said, an RCT of significant scale could definitively solidify the shape of an ideal guaranteed income policy.

Pilots can also provide important data on the effects of variation in disbursement amount and frequency or of pairing GI with other services. Still, they are ill-equipped to investigate things like different financing schemes or macroeconomic effects. This is because GI pilots are by necessity limited in size and duration and will not generate the sorts of economy-wide economic effects on prices, wages, and interest rates that scholars are interested in exploring. Such questions have been more usefully investigated through models and sophisticated simulations of local and national economics than real-world pilots.

Pilots can contribute to our understanding of guaranteed income in important ways by focusing on the open questions discussed above. Additionally, as discussed below in the messaging section, pilots can play a valuable role in bringing public attention to the need for and benefits of guaranteed income policy even without a significant research component. If a more ambitious impact analysis is not feasible, making an effort to publicize the stories of recipients and developing a consistent messaging strategy can allow a guaranteed income pilot to have real impact on public opinion. Even small pilots can contribute to research by helping us develop best practices for implementation.

How can guaranteed income pilots and programs be funded? Almost all guaranteed income pilots currently underway in the U.S. have been privately funded with philanthropic dollars and/or institutional grants, with only recent examples of emergency or one-time funds used or proposed in the cases of St. Paul, Mountain View, Los Angeles, and a few others. Typically the majority of the program dollars have come from high-net-worth individuals 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
13

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
but recently, and in response to the pandemic, philanthropic foundations have begun to express interest in funding pilots and associated research.

Guaranteed income pilots with a significant research component generally require initial funding of at least $510 million, with about 20% of funds going to research and administrative costs.

Smaller pilots focused more on messaging and sharing recipient stories can be launched with a smaller budget and less overhead.

A universal guaranteed income policy at the state or federal level can potentially be funded through a wealth tax, an increase in progressive income tax, a VAT tax, a carbon tax, a budget reallocation, or dividend from sources including natural resource royalties, casino revenue, or other social wealth funds. This is an area of substantial interest to the research community though, as noted, this work is typically done through modeling and simulation. In 2021, JFI will release a deep-dive analysis of the implications of financing choice for guaranteed income as part of its whitepaper series, “From Idea to Reality: Getting to Guaranteed Income.” What kinds of research can accompany pilots?
Pilot programs need not include a rigorous research study, but policymakers and researchers are often interested in studying the implementation and impact of the pilot program to draw lessons that can be applied in future policy design. Those interested in exploring a study should be mindful that research can be expensive, operationally complex, and potentially burdensome for participants.

There are two main types of research projects typically attached to a pilot (often together):

Impact analysis and implementation analysis. Impact or outcome analysis is an exploration of the effect that the program had on participants, their households, and/or their communities; implementation analysis explores the development and roll-out of the pilot itself, including what went well and what did not.

Impact analysis
Impact or outcome analyses can be performed using a wide variety of methodologies. This includes qualitative analyses like interviews and focus groups as well as formal statistical analysis of outcomes using administrative and survey data. Formal impact analysis includes attempts to identify and establish a counterfactual: what would have happened in the absence of the program? For example, if a program participant started the program with a $35,000/year salary and ended it with a $45,000/year salary, how much of that change can be attributed to participation in the program? Might this change have occurred anyway? 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
14

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
The techniques researchers use to establish the counterfactual and thus estimate the “impact” of the program are complex and outside the scope of this document. However, generally speaking, researchers either devise an experiment or a “quasi experiment.” Experiments involve random assignment of participants to the program group(s) to create two or more groups that are broadly similar. This allows researchers to rule out differences in individual or household characteristics or circumstances as potential causes in any observed differences in outcome. Quasi-experiments typically use coincidences, arbitrary eligibility thresholds, and other statistical techniques to mimic experimental conditions.

All impact analyses, whether qualitative or quantitative, must be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB, an entity that reviews research proposals to ensure they are ethical and protect participants’ data and privacy. Universities and non-profit research organizations typically have their own IRBs or work with an external board.

While a qualitative research plan can be done relatively cheaply and effectively with 3050 individuals (including some that are not receiving the program benefit), quantitative research requires much larger sample sizes and much more expensive data collection. This is because experiments and quasi-experiments need hundreds or thousands of participants to both to ensure that they have established the counterfactual and to ensure that they can detect the impact within the statistical “noise” and generate a precise estimate. RCTs (experiments) require at least 100 individuals/households (assigned 50/50 between program and control groups) to establish causality and typically 800 or more to generate confidence that program impacts will be reliably captured. Quasi-experimental analysis may instead require 2,000 to 4,000 study participants to do the same.

The size requirements to do formal impact analysis, of course, also generate sizable data collection costs—costs over and above those of the program itself. Some important participant outcomes can be measured using administrative data (though there is time and expenditure involved in gaining access to these records) but many require fielding surveys. This can be costly due to tracking and other logistical costs and the typical need to provide payments to survey respondents to reimburse them for their time. Pilots undergoing formal impact analysis, therefore, typically cost in excess of $1 million.

For those interested in impact analysis but unable to absorb such costs, there are generally two good contingencies. The first is to pool resources with other organizations and/or municipalities to build a sufficient sample. A “multi-site” study where each individual site is small can, through pooling, potentially generate precise impact estimates. The second is to focus on qualitative impact analysis rather than on statistical modeling. Qualitative research fleshes out impact analysis and helps scholars understand the “why” behind observed impacts (some examples include an ongoing study of Baby’s First Years, an unconditional cash program for mothers after childbirth). It is valuable on its own or, when paired with statistical analysis, in a so-called mixed-methods design.
568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
15

Jain Family Institute - JFI
May 2021
It is, by contrast, not advisable to attempt an experiment with a very small sample or to use a non-experimental method to generate impact estimates (e.g. a pre/post design). These approaches will not generate useful data for the field and will thus make demands on pilot participants’ time for minimal gain.

Implementation analysis
Implementation analysis explores the development and roll-out of a program and can be immensely useful in helping policymakers better understand the logistical challenges in serving a population and how to effectively and quickly administer aid. While we understand a great deal about the impacts of cash assistance on individual and household wellbeing, we have considerably less knowledge of how best to get cash into people’s hands. Whether it be government officials investigating the failures in federal aid disbursement during the COVID19 crisis or nonprofits looking to better identify, reach, or reimburse clients, there is great need for analysis of what works and what doesn’t in cash infrastructure design. Therefore government and nonprofit organizations running pilots can contribute meaningfully to the research around GI policy by focusing all or part of their research on these topics. This is typically done through qualitative analysis: interviews and focus groups with study participants and with employees and leaders of the organizations involved in the pilot efforts. It may also include an analysis of record keeping practices, computer systems, and any materials or methods used to interact with (potential) cash recipients.

With these different avenues of research in mind, you can think of your options in terms of three broad categories of pilot, depicted below along with some of the key questions that should inform your decisions about pilot design from the beginning. In general, impact analysis will require the largest budget and sample size, while a pilot that emphasizes storytelling rather than formal research can be executed with the fewest resources. But regardless of type, any pilot can make a valuable contribution to the guaranteed income movement through messaging and advocacy. 568 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY, 10012
Copyright © 2021 Jain Family Institute
All rights reserved
16