Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 7 Richmond Department of Children and Youth (RDCY)
The purpose of the Department is to facilitate the allocation of funds for youth-serving organizations by administering an open and fair application process that is in compliance with the policies adopted by the RFCY Oversight Board. Furthermore, RDCY supports the Oversight Board in the development of a Strategic Investment Plan and conducts a community needs assessment.
RDCY roles and responsibilities include but are not limited to:
• Administrator: Administering the grant program in alignment with Measures E & K and Oversight Board direction
• Advocate: Working to advocate for services and adequate funding for children and youth supported by this Fund
• Collaborator: Collaborating with various governmental, faith- based, community -based organizations, and philanthropy to support work in the community and ensure that children and youth needs are met
• Convener: Holding space for City interdepartmental meetings, as well as cross -entity meetings to discuss service delivery, opportunities for collaboration, etc. • Evaluator: Developing and implementing a process to evaluate and/or support the evaluation of grantees, the grant process, collaborative work with other entities, and the program. RDCY will help collect and analyze meaningful data and us e the evaluation process to document the collective impact of the Fund.
• Funder: Developing and administering the grant program in alignment with the Community Needs Assessment and Strategic Investment Plan • Supporter: Providing support to the Oversight Board (e.g., assist with recruitment, retention, development, training, agenda setting, meeting facilitation, etc.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 8 Community Needs Assessment (CNA) Guiding Principles
RDCY staff initiated a needs assessment and strategic planning process in 2020 that sought to honor community voice, and include a diverse range of youth and adults in order to develop a comprehensive, equitable investment plan that reflects community vision. The City committed to guiding principles for creating both the Community Needs Assessment (CNA) and the Strategic Investment Plan (SIP) as follows:
LEARNING QUESTIONS
The following guiding learning questions were developed to focus the CNA effort:
• What is working? What are the key assets for children, youth, and their families in Richmond and North Richmond?
• How are resources and services that support youth currently dispersed? What are the gaps?
• What are the barriers to accessing current and future services? • What resources do families in Richmond and North Richmond need to thrive? • Which families need these resources the most?
• What are the needs of the most hard-to-reach groups?
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 9 Funding Allocations Available by RFCY 2021-2024 Strategies The following chart provides a summary of projected allocations for all priority areas, based on an estimated $1.5 million in total available grant funding for FY 2021-2022. For more comprehensive strategy summaries and guidelines, please refer to the Priority Areas for FY2021-2024 section of the RFP and the 2021-2024 Strategic Investment Plan, which can be found on RFCY’s website (www.richmondyouth.org).
Estimated % of
Total Funds
Priority Area 1:
Behavioral Health: Mental Health and Wellness
20%
($300,00)
Priority Area 2:
Education Support and Employment/Training Support
20%
($300,000)
Priority Area 3:
Out of School, After-School, Sports and Enrichment
20%
($300,000)
Priority Area 4:
Youth Violence Prevention
20%
($300,000)
Priority Area 5:
Access to Basic Needs
10%
($150,000)
Priority Area 6:
Information, Guidance and Case Management
10%
($150,000)
Total Estimated Funding in FY 2021-2022: $1.5 Million
Once grant award decisions are finalized, the allocation amounts, as shown above, may vary slightly depending upon the type and number of grant applications submitted and grants awarded in each priority area. Also, it is important to note that per the Charter, any change in an approved SIP, which could include the priority areas and allocations, shall be based on the community needs assessment and input from the community.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 10 II. Application Process
Eligibility
Entities eligible to receive funding shall be public agencies and non-profit community-based organizations, including organizations with a non-profit fiscal agent, that serve children, youth and disconnected transitional-aged young adults. For-profit agencies are not eligible for funding. An applicant that is a community-based organization must be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Location: Entities eligible to receive funding include those (1) located outside but in close proximity (West County and surrounding unincorporated areas) to Richmond to the extent that those entities serve children, youth and disconnected transitional-aged young adults who reside in Richmond or unincorporated North Richmond, and (2) located in Richmond or unincorporated North Richmond that serve children, youth and disconnected transitional-aged young adults in Richmond or unincorporated North Richmond, regardless of the residence of the children or youth.
Collaboration: Article 15, Section 5b of the Charter states that the Fund shall not fund the following services or types of expenditures: services provided by the West Contra Costa Unified School District, Richmond libraries, Office of Neighborhood Safety, Richmond Promise College Scholarship Program, Richmond Housing Authority and Youth Works, except for collaborations between the above mentioned entities and community-based organizations and programs that meet the goals and eligible uses of the Fund.
Collaboration Definition:
For the purposes of this RFP, collaboration between the entities listed in Article 15, Section 5b of the Charter (entities)1 and a community-based organization (CBO) is defined as cooperation between the entity and the CBO that includes at least one of the following activities: (1) seeking input from the CBO on how services provided can best respond to community needs (e.g. needs of children, youth, and young adults) OR (2) working together to plan or coordinate services. Collaboration can include, but does not require the joint delivery of services or a formalized agreement. The nature of the collaboration can be described in the entity’s application for funding and does not require a joint application between the entity and the CBO.
Youth Voice: It is expected that eligible organizations that apply for funding will clearly demonstrate how youth voice, perspective, and input is central in the proposed program design, development, outreach, and/or implementation.
1 Entities included in Article 15, Section 5b include West Contra Costa Unified School District, Richmond libraries, Office of Neighborhood Safety, Richmond Promise College Scholarship Program, Richmond Housing Authority and Richmond YouthWORKS.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 11 FISCAL SPONSORS
Organizations (other than public agencies) that do not have 501(c)(3) status must apply using a fiscal sponsor. In this case, the fiscal sponsor is the applicant and, if a grant is awarded, would be the organization that contracts with the City of Richmond and is legally liable for all aspects of the contract including program implementation, fiscal management, and communication with the City regarding subgrantee or fiscal partner activities.
The fiscal sponsor would be expected and authorized to oversee and manage all aspects of the contract including finances and to monitor and ensure implementation of program activities of contracted or collaborating agencies. An eligible public agency must apply on its own behalf and may not use a fiscal sponsor.
USE OF FUNDS
The City shall only use monies from the Fund for services provided to:
• Children (birth to 12) and youth (ages 13 to 17) and their caregivers, • Disconnected transitional-aged young adults (ages 18 to 24 years) who are most impacted by harm, inequity and lack of access to support and services and, when relevant, their caregivers, or
• As part of programs that predominantly serve children, youth and disconnected transitional-aged young adults within those ages and their caregivers.
The populations that are prioritized by the Fund included but are not limited to:
• System-involved young people;
• Young people who have been pushed out of school;
• Young people who themselves or whose families are homeless or threatened by homelessness;
• Young people living in poverty;
• Immigrant and undocumented children, youth and families; • Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) children, youth and families; • Teen parents and families, including single mothers;
• Young people with poor physical, mental, emotional and behavioral health outcomes and disabilities;
• Families with children and youth who are impacted by the criminal justice system and/or who have family members who are incarcerated; and/or • Families with children and youth who are involved in or transitioning from the foster care, juvenile justice, criminal justice or special education systems.
Funds may NOT be used for:
a. Services provided by the Police Department, Sheriff, other law enforcement agencies, Courts, District Attorney, Public Defender, City Attorney or Fire Department; detention or probation services mandated by state or federal law; or public transportation, except to the extent that transportation may be needed to access eligible services supported by the Fund;
b. Services provided by the West Contra Costa Unified School District, Richmond libraries, DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 12 Office of Neighborhood Safety, Richmond Promise College Scholarship Program, Richmond Housing Authority and YouthWORKS , except for collaborations between the above mentioned entities and community-based organizations and programs that meet the goals and eligible uses of the Fund (see Eligibility section for definition of collaboration – entities listed in this section can apply as a collaborative or single entity as long as the definition of collaboration is met);
c. Any service that primarily benefits adults over 24 years; d. Any service for which a fixed or minimum level of expenditure is mandated by state or federal law, to the extent of the fixed or minimum level of expenditure; e. Acquisition of any capital item not for primary and direct use by children or youth; acquisition, other than by lease for a term of ten years or less, of any real property; or maintenance, utilities or any similar operating costs of any facility not used primarily and directly by children or youth, or of any recreation or park facility, library, or hospital;
f. Capital expenditures for housing, or rent subsidies; g. Primary and specialized medical and direct mental health services; however, prevention, education, and other behavioral and mental health support services are eligible for funding;
h. Income supports that supplant state or federal benefits or post-secondary tuition assistance;
i. Political campaigning or lobbying;
j. Subsidization of existing contracts;
k. Repayment of existing debt or pre-existing tax liens or obligations; l. Advancement of certain sectarian, politically partisan, or religious projects (grant funds should be used for specific programs and not to advance the causes of any of the stated group);
m. Legal, loan, or bank fees;
n. A project or program which is clearly intended for commercial gain; o. A project or program that occurs before or after the grant award period; or p. For businesses established for personal benefit or profit.
TYPE OF APPLICANTS
Small and Emerging Applicants
The Small and Emerging designation focuses on smaller organizations and assists grass root organizations to be funded by RFCY. Organizations in this category may have recently received their 501(c)(3) status, after having been fiscally sponsored. If the organization does not have 501(c)(3) status, it must apply using a fiscal sponsor. If the organization has 501(c)(3) status, it may still choose to use a fiscal sponsor.
If the organizational budget is under $250,000 in the current or most recent fiscal/calendar year, not including the RFCY grant request, an organization must identify/apply as a Small and Emerging Applicant. RFCY staff will utilize audited or reviewed financials, 990s and/or 990Ns, and/or income statements to confirm the applicant’s budget for placement in this category. If an organization utilizes a fiscal sponsor, the fiscal sponsor budget will not be used to determine the DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 13 proper designation. However, the City will still enter into the grant agreement with the fiscal sponsor in the event a grant is awarded.
Entities listed in Article 15, Section 5b of the Charter may apply as a single entity in this category as long as they demonstrate that they have met the definition of collaboration as defined in this RFP (see Eligibility section, page 10).
Single Agency Applicant
A Single Agency Applicant is one agency applying for RFCY funding. This applicant is also referred to as the lead agency and will be the agency that contracts with the City of Richmond.
Applicants in this category have an organizational budget over $250,000, not including the RFCY grant request. RFCY staff will utilize financial documents to confirm the applicant’s budget for placement in this category.
Entities listed in Article 15, Section 5b of the Charter may apply as a single entity in this category as long as they demonstrate that they have met the definition of collaboration as defined in this RFP (see Eligibility section, page 10).
Collaborative Applicants
Through this grant program, the City strongly encourages applicants to collaborate with other organizations. Collaboration is a mutually beneficial relationship to meet a common goal.
Collaboration can come in many forms, from information sharing to joint programming. It can help organizations reduce redundancy in service sectors, leverage resources, share strengths, and increase efficiencies. RFCY strongly encourages collaboration between nonprofit and public entities to create and sustain collaborations that maximize the cost-effectiveness and quality of service delivery.
A Collaborative Applicant must consist of two or more agencies, each contributing substantially toward a mutual goal, where at least two of the agencies are proposing to receive RFCY funds.
Substantial participation includes providing direct services, and/or planning and coordinating services, and/or having equal collaboration in decision making around program design and/or implementation. No one agency should receive more than eighty percent (80%) of the funding.
When completing budget documents, please make clear how funding will be allocated between collaborating organizations.
The lead agency of a Collaborative will be the agency that contracts with the City of Richmond.
Under the Collaborative, any one organization that proposes to receive more than 50% of the proposed grant award shall be defined as the lead agency and applicant. Collaboratives must choose a lead agency that has the fiscal and management capacity to support the other collaborating organization by issuing payments in a timely and professional manner. All collaborative organizations of a collaborative must have the capacity to provide services as presented in the proposal.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 14 The Collaborative should examine how the involvement of other collaborating organizations will be best coordinated within the model. RFCY will not consider lead agencies that act simply as a fiscal pass through. All agencies, schools, and/or program sites must be active parts of program implementation.
Entities listed in Article 15, Section 5b of the Charter may apply as part of a Collaborative applicant in this category.
NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS
Understanding that entities are diverse in their program offerings, an entity can submit more than one (1) but no more than three (3) proposals as a lead agency requesting funding, as long as the proposals are requesting funding for programming that is substantially different.
Substantially different programming is defined as having a different priority area OR program design OR staffing OR program location OR target population receiving services.
Applicants may submit separate proposals for their own program and be part of a Collaborative proposal as long as the proposals are substantially different. Applicants may not receive funds as a single agency and as part of a Collaborative for the same program. Applicants may submit substantially different proposals within the same priority area.
Applicants may not submit the same proposal more than one time to different RFCY priority areas.
Select the most appropriate priority area that best aligns to your program, and submit only one request proposal for the proposed program.
Please note that the reviewers will look closely at and/or take into consideration the ratio between your organization’s total requests and your organization’s overall current year budget when determining grant awards. It is STRONGLY recommended that organizations do not submit grant requests that equate to more than 40% of their overall organizational budget.
Public agencies are able to submit separate proposals per department and/or division, as long as the departments and/or divisions are substantially different in the services that they provide to the community and have separate and distinct budgets.
Special Note: If City Richmond Department(s) and/or Division(s) are awarded grants, the proposed program and funding award must meet the requirements as set forth in Article 15 of Section 5(J) and Section 6 of the City of Richmond Charter.
Special Note: Entities listed in Article 15, Section 5b of the Charter may apply as a Collaborative Applicant with a formalized agreement AND may also apply as a single agency in which they demonstrate collaboration between their organization and a community-based organization (no formalized agreement required).
These entities include West Contra Costa Unified School District, Richmond libraries, Office of Neighborhood Safety, Richmond Promise College Scholarship Program, Richmond Housing Authority, Richmond YouthWORKS.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 15 Funding Amounts
FUNDING PARAMETERS
Each grant award amount will depend on the frequency of service, the amount of service, the number of service sites, the number of children and families served, the proposed staffing, and the range and depth of expertise provided. Please use the following funding parameters as a guide to determine how much funding is appropriate and allowed.
Small and Emerging Applicants
• A Small and Emerging applicant may apply for between $30,000 and $100,000. • No more than 20% may be allocated to indirect costs, calculated as a percentage of the total grant request.
• Agencies may submit more than one grant request. However, Small and Emerging Applicants are advised to limit their total and/or combined RFCY requests to no more than 40% of their current year overall organizational budget excluding current RFCY funding request(s).
Single Agency Applicant
• Single agency applicants may apply for between $40,000 and $150,000. • No more than 20% may be allocated to indirect costs, calculated as a percentage of the total grant request.
• Agencies may submit more than one grant request. However, Single Agency Applicants are advised to limit their total and/or combined RFCY request(s) to no more than 40% of their current year overall organizational budget excluding current RFCY funding request(s).
Collaborative Applicant
• Collaboratives may apply for between $50,000 and $200,000. • No more than 20% may be allocated to indirect costs, calculated as a percentage of the total grant request.
• Agencies may submit more than one grant request. However, Collaboratives are advised to limit their total and/or combined RFCY request(s) to no more than 40% of the lead agency’s current year overall organizational budgets excluding current RFCY funding request(s).
Example: A Small and Emerging organization with an annual budget of $200,000 could request one or more grants for a maximum RFCY award of $80,000.
Example: A Single Agency organization with an annual budget of $420,000 or more could request one or more grants for a maximum RFCY award of $168,000.
Example: A lead agency in a Collaborative with an annual budget of $570,000 or more could request one of more grants for a maximum RFCY award of $228,000.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 16 SUMMARY TABLE BY APPLICATION TYPE
Small and Emerging
(Budgets under $250,000)
Single Agency
(Budgets over $250,000) Collaboratives
Minimum
Grant Request $30,000 $40,000 $50,000
Maximum
Grant Request $100,000 $150,000 $200,000
Maximum Award per
Organizational
across all application
areas2
$100,000
$150,000
Maximum
Indirect Rate 20% 20% 20%
Minimum
Match
Requirement
15%
of RFCY grant request
15%
of RFCY grant request
15%
of RFCY grant request
Financial Statements See Information and Requirements Below
Financial Statements
All financial statements (i.e., audited/reviewed financials or 990s/990Ns or income statements) must be from no later than 2017. If an applicant is a public agency, other than the City of Richmond, the applicant must submit proof of the existence of an independent audit. If applying with a fiscal sponsor, the applicant must submit the fiscal sponsor’s financial statements.
If your agency is in the process of obtaining your audited OR reviewed financial statements, but the audit and financial statements will not be complete before the grant deadline, you will be able to submit proof of a contract with a Certified Public Accountant as part of your application submission. In the Agency and Proposal Information section of the proposal, provide a copy of your contract or engagement letter with a CPA as proof that an audit of your agency will be conducted, and include the expected date of completion as part of proof. All audited financial statements must be completed and delivered to RDCY by June 30, 2021 (electronic copy via email to [email protected]
).
2This is a recommended amount and the Review Committee may consider the amount of funding received by organizations across priority areas.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 17 MATCHING FUNDS
1) Matching Funds refers to all program funding above the RFCY award that are necessary to provide the services at the proposed levels. Proposals must demonstrate, and if awarded will be held accountable for, raising and documenting funding that equals at least 15% of the RFCY grant award as a program match. This 15% match of RFCY program funding must be a cash or in-kind match that supports the proposed program.
2) Grantees may NOT use one RFCY grant as a match for another.
FUNDING PERIOD
This RFP represents a three-year grant cycle. The initial contract is for a one year period (July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022) with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods based on available grant funds, satisfactory evaluation, grant monitoring reports, and overall grant performance. The second and third grant period will run from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023; and from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024. Selected applicants will not receive their first disbursement of funds until they submit all required contract documents. After all contract documents are received it takes approximately 6-8 weeks before the contract is executed.
Example: An organization is seeking $100,000 from RFCY to run a youth program. If awarded a $100,000 grant from RFCY, the organization would be held accountable for raising and documenting a minimum of 15% match of the grant award amount, which is $15,000.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 18 Applying for Funding
COMPLETING YOUR PROPOSAL
The RFCY application process is entirely online and must be completed and submitted through the online application system to be considered for funding. The online application will consist of the following elements:
1) Agency and Proposal Information
2) Proposal Narrative
3) Budget
4) Required Documents
5) Proposal Submission and Acknowledgement
The Proposal Instructions section will provide detailed instructions on completing the application, and the additional submission of forms required by the City of Richmond – Richmond Fund for Children and Youth. Be sure to read these instructions carefully.
Contact RDCY staff at [email protected] for all technical issues and questions regarding the online application system.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 19 Pre-Proposal Meetings, Training, & Technical Assistance
PRE-PROPOSAL MEETINGS (BIDDERS CONFERENCES)
To provide general information and guidance to all potential applicants, RFCY will hold two virtual Pre-Proposal Meetings (Bidders’ Conferences). All potential applicants are strongly encouraged to attend one of the two pre-proposal meetings. A video of the pre-proposal meeting will be available on the RFCY grants webpage at www.ci.richmond.ca.us/RFCYGrants. The current dates and times are:
• Tuesday, May 11, 2021: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
• Wednesday, May 12, 2021: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS AND GENERAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BY EMAIL
General Technical Assistance (TA) and/or submission of general questions by e-mail begins May 4, 2021, and concludes May 13, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. E-mail TA and/or general questions to RDCY staff at [email protected]. Staff will answer questions about eligibility, funding parameters, and required information and documents for online submission. The assistance is not intended to provide professional advice on program design, feasibility, or other program development and implementation issues.
This TA is provided by email only. Frequently Asked Questions will be publicly posted to the RFCY webpage by 5:00 p.m. on May 17, 2021. No phone or in-person technical assistance will be provided. RDCY staff will aim to provide a response to the TA Request within two (2) business days.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 20 Important Dates
These dates are tentative and subject to change:
Date
Request for Proposals (RFP) Released May 4, 2021
Pre-Proposal Meetings
Virtual/Video Conferencing
Tuesday, May 11, 2021
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Wednesday, May 12, 2021
2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Questions Due by E-mail May 13, 2021, 5:00 p.m.
Frequently Asked Questions Published May 17, 2021, 5:00 p.m.
Online Proposals Due
Tuesday, June 1, 2021, by 2:00 p.m. An online receipt will be produced in the form
of an email upon submission. Proposals
submitted after the deadline will not be
considered for review.
Oversight Board and City Council Approves
Recommendations for Funding July 2021
Contracting and Negotiations Begins August 2021
Program Year July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
Additional RFCY Resources
The following documents can be found on the RFCY website at www.ci.richmond.ca.us/RFCYGrants
• RFCY 2020 Community Needs Assessment
• RFCY 2021-2024 Strategic Investment Plan
• RFCY Contract Documents
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 21 III. Funding Priority Areas for FY 2021-2024
The Community Needs Assessment (CNA) process provided an overview of current data and findings related to children, youth, and their families in Richmond, and North Richmond, California – specifically as related to the focus of the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth.
Community input was gathered through focus groups and interviews with youth, parents/guardians and providers, surveys, forums, and the review of multiple reports and secondary data resources. The CNA, which guided the development of the Strategic Investment Plan (SIP), identified six priority areas for investment. Priorities were identified by synthesizing these data sources and surfacing issues that were raised across multiple groups and subgroups and within the framework of the legislation informing the Richmond Kids First Initiative.
The six priority areas were then assigned a percentage allocation based on considerations of the urgency of the need and potential for equity impact. The priority areas, not listed in order of importance, are as follows:
PRIORITY AREAS Estimated % of
Total Funds
1. Behavioral Health: Mental Health and Wellness 20% = $300,000
2. Education Support and Employment/Training Support 20% = $300,000
3. Out of School Time, After-School, Sports, and Enrichment 20% = $300,000
4. Youth Violence Prevention 20% = $300,000
5. Access to Basic Needs 10% = $150,000
6. Information, Guidance and Case Management 10% = $150,000 Total Estimated Funding in FY 2021-22 100% = $1.5M
The approved SIP will guide RDCY’s three-year grant cycle between 2021 and 2024. The first round of grant funding for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 (July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022) is estimated to total approximately $1.5 million (based on the City’s Fiscal Year 2020-21 revenue amounts).
Estimated funding is approximate for the priority areas. The available funds for grant awards in years two and three of the SIP will increase based on the funding allocations outlined in the Charter.
Cross-Strategy Approaches
The SIP provides further information related to these priorities and begins to detail options regarding programming, approaches and populations that will benefit from investment. There were also several approaches identified related to programming that could cross several of the six inter-related priority areas identified above. These cross-cutting approaches include but are not limited to:
• Trauma informed programming
• Healing
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 22 • Caring adults participating in the lives of youth
• Trusting relationships with providers
• Meeting children and youth where they are (e.g. school or neighborhood) • “Push in” supports rather than “opt in” supports for those hard to reach (e.g. reaching out to our most marginalized students
• Valuing and recognizing identity while building belonging • Staffing programs with individuals with lived experience or cultural fluency who can effectively engage youth – “Have staff who can not only represent a culture but can be restorative and beneficial to the culture”
• Providing culturally competent programming and services which reflect the diversity of Richmond and North Richmond
• Improving translation and language equity
• Improving access by robustly sharing information out to the community • Equity in place
• Including and valuing youth voice in the design and implementation of programming There are numerous options for programmatic strategies identified under each priority, and it is likely that not all of them will be proposed or funded in this initial year of the Fund. RDCY is committed to using an equity perspective in its grant programs to ensure that the Fund fills gaps in services, provides resources to those populations that have been identified as under- resourced, and strategically contributes to meaningful results for children and youth.
Tip: The six priority areas that will be funded through this RFP process are listed in detail in the following section and additional information can be found in the RFCY Strategic Investment Plan at www.richmondyouth.org.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 23 Mental Health and wellness for Richmond and North Richmond children and youth clearly stood out in the Community Needs Assessment. The community has identified stress and trauma as an issue for children and youth in the community. Given the many health stressors in the community, there are children at risk of mental health and developmental impact given their exposure to “adverse childhood experiences.” At the same time, youth expressed that they have experienced depression. Programs that support mental health and wellness and that address mental health needs will help Richmond and North Richmond children and youth to thrive.
Included in this priority is mental health education which will be targeted toward reducing stigma and increasing understanding of mental health and wellness issues.
The issue of mental health and well-being was a concern across all of the focus groups that were conducted. This is particularly true for Black and Latinx residents who are disproportionately exposed to violence leading to long-term impacts on health and well-being. Trauma-informed programming, as well as behavioral and mental health programs, emerged as a significant need for children, youth, and families along with the need for that programming to consider the rich diversity of residents, many of whom have are experiencing the trauma of the constant threat of family deportation, violence in the community, discrimination and more. Also, the need for culturally fluent approaches is central to filling this gap as many of Richmond and North Richmond’s children, youth, and families come from non-western cultures where there may be barriers and stigma attached to western approaches to mental health and wellness programming.
Options for Supported Programming
• Integrate behavioral health strategies into programming that support mental health and wellness
• Provide a “safe space” and support mental health along with social and emotional well- being for young children and youth
• Provide supportive relationships, including counseling and support for children and youth
• Strengthen school-based and group programming (e.g., anxiety or anger management) • Diversify access (e.g., by opening access to short-term needs and those not being served)
• Address trauma and support healing skills
• Behavioral and mental health education for children, youth, and families; build access and openness to receiving support
Priority 1: Support Behavioral Health: Mental Health and Wellness for Children and Youth
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 24 Priority Populations
• Disconnected youth
• Young people who themselves are homeless, or whose families are homeless or threatened by homelessness
• Young people living in poverty
• Immigrant and undocumented children and youth
• LGBTQ+ children, youth, and families
• Youth who have experienced trauma
• Young people with poor physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes
Desired Results
• Increased access to mental or behavioral health programs and services (Indicator:
number of unique and new participants)
• Decreased stigma about receiving mental health services • Reduced reliance on substances to deal with mental and behavioral health issues • Increased awareness of available mental or behavioral health services DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 25 Richmond and North Richmond youth participating in the Community Needs Assessment consistently expressed the desire to be successful in school and go on to college or employment. In the 2019 Richmond Community Survey, residents were asked what areas the City should prioritize in order to best support young people in Richmond. Education and Job Training received the highest response rate with 82% of respondents (308 responses) selecting this as a priority1.
In the Community Needs Assessment, participants also identified the need for programs that support children and youth along their journey toward educational success, college, career, and employment. These needs emerged across surveys, focus groups, forums, and other sources.
Richmond and North Richmond children and youth want the chance to excel in school and career. There was a strong desire for more tutoring, broader college access programs, and extra support for those who may be struggling with a range of barriers such as transitional age youth (TAY) or new immigrants arriving as unaccompanied minor children. The latter is also an example of a group that needs accelerated or intensive language learning support.
Many older youth participants wanted support in moving toward employment and identified the need to learn more about employment requirements and career options via mentoring, internships, and, in some cases, job skills training as key to their success.
It is also notable that reliable access to resources such as high-speed internet and computer equipment, such as tablets, has become even more important in the current distance learning environment. Participants often pointed to disparities between nearby, wealthier districts outside of Richmond and North Richmond that are better resourced and have programs, tools, and infrastructure that allow for students to excel.
Options for Supported Programming
• Programs that improve educational outcomes for high-need young children • Targeted educational support (e.g. tutoring, language, homework assistance) for children and youth facing multiple challenges in moving forward to post-secondary education and employment (e.g. populations such as unaccompanied minor immigrants, system involved youth, or very low-income students)
• Career and college exposure at earlier ages (e.g. middle school programs) • Internships to provide experience, skill building and exposure for youth
1 National Research Center and ICMA, The National Community Survey, Richmond, CA Technical Appendices, 2019 Priority 2: Provide Education Support and Employment/Training Support so that Youth Can Move to College and Career
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 26 • Outreach and strategies directed to disconnected youth and systems-impacted youth who are not engaged in community programming
• Expand access to West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) career readiness resources to students not in pathways
Priority populations
• Youth of color
• System involved young people and transitional-age youth (TAY) • Disconnected youth
• Young people who themselves are homeless, or whose families are homeless or threatened by homelessness
• Socioeconomically disadvantaged children and young people • Immigrant and undocumented children and youth
• Students with disabilities
• Youth from under-resourced neighborhoods (e.g. North Richmond, Iron Triangle) Desired Results
Education Support
• Increased access to early learning
• Kindergarten readiness
• Improved third grade reading levels
• Improved school attendance
• Improved High School graduation rates
• College entry and success rates
• Reduction in chronic absenteeism
• Black and Latinx college enrollment and persistence
Employment
• Increased numbers of youth with work experience opportunities • Increased numbers of youth accessing career and college • Increased knowledge of programs
• Increase in earnings/income for youth and young adults DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 27 This strategy builds on and expands available out-of-school and afterschool programming.
Participation in afterschool and out-of-school programs is linked to better academic outcomes.
For Richmond and North Richmond’s priority populations, targeted afterschool programming could improve their chances of completion and success in school as well as their connection to caring adults. Programs must be provided in a safe space with safe access for students.
Low-cost or no-cost out-of-school and after-school sports and enrichment programming scored high as both desired and needed for youth to thrive across groups. Sports were a popular suggestion as were outdoor activities such as gardening and hiking. The arts (music, dance, visual arts were all mentioned) were very often mixed in with responses to sports but were also often singled out as highly desirable. This is in addition to culturally relevant arts and other programming to help them to build awareness, strengthen self-esteem, and create a sense of belonging. Some groups stated there were few or no respectful and safe spaces to be with others like them. Existing after-school resources should be leveraged so that funding from the Fund could bring in those not participating and engage students who have barriers to participation.
Options for Supported Programming
● Programming that meets specific needs of children and youth at their age and stage ● Support youth voice to support diverse programming for students in later grades to develop their strengths and interests
● Free or very low-cost programming
● Funding to also engage parents to understand barriers to participation ● Enrichment programming (e.g. music & arts, science & technology, sports & recreation) ● Culturally relevant and fluent programming
● Academic support such as tutoring, homework support, etc. ● Outdoor programming
● Accessible programming for students with disabilities ● Youth development and leadership opportunities for positive youth engagement
Priority Populations
This could include all of the priority populations and programs should be targeted toward including these hard to reach/underserved groups:
● Young people living in poverty
● Immigrant and undocumented children and youth
● Young people with poor physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes Priority 3: Support Out-of-School Time, After-school, Sports and Enrichment
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 28 ● Children with disabilities
● Students experiencing homelessness
● Students who are not engaged in out-of-school extracurricular activities ● Students at schools with high levels of free and reduced lunch ● Students in very high need locations
Desired Results
• Expanded access to out-of-school, after-school, sports, and enrichment programming (Indicator: number and demographics of unique participants ) • Increased learning opportunities year round
• Increased and more diverse offerings of culturally relevant programming • Increase in caring adult relationships
• Increased number of hours of academic support provided • Increased number of no-cost or low-cost/fully subsidized programs • Improved attendance
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 29 Priority 4: Expand Youth Violence Prevention Efforts
Violence in the community came up as a barrier to participation and even as a significant barrier to everyday activity for priority populations. Violence manifests itself in many forms including gun violence, domestic violence, and more. In the focus groups, youth stated they could not go to many places in Richmond and North Richmond out of fear and that they were frequently uncomfortable to go out with groups of friends when one of them did not feel safe in a particular neighborhood. Others participating in the needs assessment spoke of witnessing violence or dangerous spots in their neighborhood. Bullying is also a concern for children. In addition, some participants also reported the fear of gender-based violence as a barrier to movement and participation in the community.
The 2019 Richmond Community Survey asked residents what areas the City should prioritize in order to best support young people in Richmond. Violence prevention and response received the second highest response rate with 73% of respondents (275 responses) selecting this as a priority
2. Other plans and reports including the 2019 Kaiser Community Health Needs Assessment and the North Richmond Quality of Life Plan also identified community safety as a priority.
Options for Supported programming
• Programs supporting healthy development for children
• Mentorship and other programs for youth that feature a caring adult • Programs that support connection to after-school activities and reduce exposure to community risks
• Programs outside of school
• Peer-to-peer groups
• Whole family/parent support
• Anti-bullying programs
• Programs focusing on African American and Latino/Latinx youth • Youth skills programs: non-violent coping and communication skills • Street outreach and community norm changes
• Support for families experiencing domestic violence
• Access to programs that are “close to home” or that provide safety support or community travel support that reduces risk of violence for youth (e.g. transportation vouchers or programs located next to public transportation) Priority populations
• African American youth
• Latino/Latinx youth
2 National Research Center and ICMA, The National Community Survey, Richmond, CA Technical Appendices, 2019 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 30 • System-involved young people
• Young people who have been pushed out-of-school
• Young people living in poverty
• Children and youth who are impacted by the criminal justice system and/or who have family members who are incarcerated
Desired Results
• Reduction in the number of youths involved in criminal activity • Reduction in the numbers of youth homicides for those under 24 years of age • Reduction in the numbers of youth that perpetrate violence • Increase in the number of students who feel safe at school • Reduction in bullying
• Reduction in the number of children and youth that witness violence • Increase in services that support whole-family violence prevention DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 31 Priority 5: Strengthen Access to Basic Needs
The Community Needs Assessment identified that many Richmond and North Richmond children, youth, and their families were struggling and needed support with meeting one or more of their basic needs (e.g., housing, food, medicine, utilities, and transportation) for their families. For homeless participants, housing and wraparound support was identified. For transitional age youth, the need for assistance in supporting their own household after they turned 18 was mentioned. For immigrant children, the need for financial support for families who were often barred from working full-time was mentioned. Justice-involved youth suggested that they needed access to support that they said was often contingent on having been in Juvenile Hall. For some parents and youth who wanted to access particular programs, transportation was identified as a barrier.
Given that this planning work was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, basic needs issues were heightened beyond the norm. It is widely expected that many families will face ongoing economic hardship as the pandemic wanes and the economy moves toward recovery.
Options for Supported Programming
• Childcare support including childcare to provide relief to youth caring for siblings or parenting youth
• Meal and nutrition support
• Rental support
• Navigation of available basic needs resources
• Support for family resource centers
• Support for families with barriers to access
• Expanded homelessness prevention resources to identify and support children and youth at risk of homelessness in Richmond and North Richmond
• Support for children and youth experiencing homelessness including coordination between outreach workers, after-school providers, schools, and shelter/housing resources
Priority Populations
• Young people who themselves are homeless, or whose families are homeless or threatened by homelessness
• Young people living in poverty
• Immigrant and undocumented children and youth
• Teen parents and families, including single mothers
• Families with children and youth who are involved in or transitioning from the foster care, juvenile justice, criminal justice, or special education systems DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 32 Desired Results
• Fewer children, youth and their families will experience homelessness in Richmond and North Richmond
• Increased housing security
• Increased access to childcare
• Increased food security
• Increased access to services by mitigating financial or resource barriers • Improved transportation to service locations
• Increased access to high-speed internet and Wi-Fi
• Decreased rates of poverty in Richmond and North Richmond, particularly for households of color
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 33 For children, youth, and families, there were a number of voices across the spectrum of youth residents that reported on how difficult it is to navigate the Richmond and North Richmond environment of youth services. Almost all community engagement activities during the Community Needs Assessment identified the need for support that would assist community members in understanding what resources were out there and whether they qualified to access them. Many of those surveyed said they did not access services because they did not know about them.
Young people expressed the need for help, including coaching or case management, in navigating the turn toward independence or the journey to college success. Case management, or at the very least, guidance from a caring adult, is needed so that children, youth, and their families can understand and access the services available. Parents and guardians need more support with understanding what was offered and how to make the best use of these programs and services for their children. Information and case management was also mentioned as critical to individuals experiencing homelessness that were in need of successfully regaining housing.
This information needs to be in multiple languages with extra effort to reach marginalized children, youth, and their families.
Options for Supported programming
• Fund the creation and hosting of an inclusive web resource that can provide robust information on children and youth programming in multiple languages • Fund navigation support or case management for children, youth and their families who face complex challenges
• Support mentorship and guidance that helps disadvantaged children and youth with understanding and accessing resources that will move them forward on their path toward college and/or employment
• Social media strategies and outreach
• Provide resources and capacity for guidance and case management in programming for those who most need it
• Make sure that staff providing guidance and case management reflects the diversity of the clients
Priority 6: Strengthen Access to Guidance and Information about Resources Available for Children and Youth
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 34 Priority populations
This priority will support children and youth across Richmond and North Richmond inclusive of all priority populations.
• System-involved young people
• Young people who have been pushed out-of-school
• Young people who themselves are homeless, or whose families are homeless or threatened by homelessness
• Young people living in poverty
• Immigrant and undocumented children, youth, and families • LGBTQ+ children, youth, and families
• Teen parents and families, including single mothers; young people with poor physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes, and children with disabilities • Families with children and youth who are impacted by the criminal justice system and/or who have family members who are incarcerated; and/or are involved in or transitioning from the foster care, juvenile justice, criminal justice, or special education systems.
Desired Results
Information
• Increased access to information: (Indicators: Number of inquiries and posts on one stop shop platform)
• Increased access to information in multiple languages other than English (Indicator:
Increased number of requests for information that are made in other languages) • Increase in the number of children and youth and their families that are aware of programming and know how to access information needed to participate • Increased access to Wi-Fi connectivity
Navigation Support, Guidance, and Case Management
• Increase in number of case management spots available for high need youth or those with complex situations
• Increase in number of mentors available for high-need youth • Increased navigation support for youth who want to access post-secondary education or who are transitional aged youth moving to independence
• Increased numbers of youth that have connection to caring adults • Increased number of programs or collaborations that offer wraparound services/programming targeted at high need youth
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 35 IV. Proposal Instructions
The RFCY application process is entirely online through the RFCY Forms CivicPlus website at www.ci.richmond.ca.us/RFCYGrants. All proposals must be completed and submitted through the online application system to be considered for funding.
To review the Proposal Narrative Template, Demographic Table, Activity and Operations Projections Table, and Budget Template sections of the RFP go to Appendices A, B, C, and D, or to access those documents, please go to www.ci.richmond.ca.us/RFCYGrants. The following outlines the steps necessary to submit a proposal:
• Step 1 – Agency and Proposal Information - Provide information specific to your agency and to the program your organization is requesting funding for, including the RFCY priority area aligned to the proposed program
• Step 2 – Proposal Narrative – Upload your proposal responses completed on the Proposal Narrative Template
o Demographics – Upload your Demographic Table that estimates the individuals projected to be served annually by your program
o Activity and Operations Projections – Upload your Activity and Operations Projection Table that summarizes the proposed programming by projecting the types of activities to be delivered by the program your organization is requesting funding for, and the hours and location of operations
• Step 3 – Budget – Upload a detailed program budget based on the Budget Template showing the RFCY funding requested and total program budget costs • Step 4 – Required Documents Upload
• Step 5 – Proposal Submission and Acknowledgements – Verify that the information is complete, all forms have been submitted, and submit the online proposal.
You may enter your application over multiple sessions. Remember to save often and log out when you have finished a session. Please review the elements of your application including all uploads before submitting. It is recommended that you wait until the entire application is complete before submitting each form. Once you submit, you will not be able to edit any of your work.
More information is provided on each of these steps on the following pages. Be sure to read these instructions carefully.
Questions about the content of the RFP can be directed by email to [email protected] . Questions by phone or in person will not be taken.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 36 Step 1: Agency and Proposal Information
Begin your application by completing the Agency and Proposal Information section.
Organizations may submit more than one (1) but not more than three (3) grant applications. If submitting more than one (1) application, organizations may apply for the same or different priority areas. Each application must be submitted separately. Please review the Application Process section of this RFP for additional information.
To complete the Agency and Proposal Information, provide the requested information via the online portal at www.ci.richmond.ca.us/RFCYGrants:
• Name of Organization or Lead Agency/Organization
• Fiscal Sponsor Information (if Applicable)
• Project Manager Information
• Program/Project Budget
• Type of Applicant
• RFCY Priority Areas
TYPE OF APPLICANT
Select whether the organization is applying as a “Small and Emerging Applicant”, “Single Agency“ or “Collaborative.” For collaborations, list the agency name for all collaborative organizations for the proposed program. For more information on types of applicants, please refer to the Eligibility section of this RFP.
RFCY PRIORITY AREA
Select the appropriate strategy under which the proposal is being submitted for funding consideration. You must select ONE priority area.
When you have finished with the Agency and Proposal Information section, move on to upload the Proposal Narrative, Demographics Table and Activities and Operations Projections Table, and Budget sections of the RFP.
Example: Organization ABC would like to apply as a Single Agency for the Access to Basic Needs priority area and as a Collaborative for the Youth Violence Prevention priority area.
Organization ABC must submit two separate applications for each and list the preferred priority area for each application.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 37 Step 2: Proposal Narrative
The Proposal Narrative must include the following elements, presented in the order listed below.
Reviewers will score the Proposal Narratives based upon the adequacy and thoroughness of the response to the RFP requirements and according to the following point system3:
Narrative Element Points
Program Summary (no points)
Agency History and Capacity 20
Program Design 35
Outcomes and Impact 25
Required Resources and Budget Request 20
TOTAL 100
• Including the responses in Section 1 and Section 2, the Proposal Narrative form shall be limited to ten (10) pages. This page limit is not inclusive of budgets, resumes, descriptions of work experience, or documents requested as part of the application, including Appendices B, C, and D.
• All submitted materials should be typed in a 12 point font size and a serif or sans serif font style (e.g., Times New Roman or Arial). Applications must be easily reproducible on a standard copying machine.
• All costs incurred in the preparation of an application are the applicant’s responsibility.
• Applications must be completed and submitted electronically at www.ci.richmond.ca.us/RFCYGrants by Tuesday, June 1, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.
Applications received after this date and time will not be considered and will not be eligible for review and scoring by the Review Committee.
For more information regarding scoring of the application, see the Evaluation of Proposals section.
3 This point system applies only to the scoring of the narrative section. The scoring committee will use this score along with other criteria, including but not limited to service location, service to priority populations, strategic alignment, past performance, and reasonableness of budget and activities, when making funding recommendations.
Tip: RDCY recommends that organizations first draft their responses to the Proposal Narrative section in the template provided. Be sure to review your submissions for accuracy, formatting, clarity and completeness prior to uploading your Proposal Narrative template.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 38 Proposal Narrative
PROGRAM SUMMARY (NOT SCORED)
Provide a clear and concise summary of your program. The summary should describe the program in terms of who will be served, numbers to be served, types of services, location and frequency of services, and the purpose of your program and outcomes to be achieved. This Program Summary will be used to describe the proposed program throughout the review process (100 word limit).
AGENCY HISTORY AND CAPACITY (20 POINTS)
1) Briefly describe your agency.
2) Describe your agency's experience providing the services proposed in your application.
Include information on years of service in the community being served, experience working with diverse communities and youth, and any collaboration with other organizations or systems of care.
3) Describe the staffing plan for your proposed program. Identify the person who will have primary responsibility for managing the program and discuss their experience managing similar projects and in similar communities. Provide information on how many people will be directly working on the project and their qualifications to work effectively with your target population. Resumes or other relevant work history documents that can substantiate experience can be uploaded online via the portal and will not count toward the page limit.
PROGRAM DESIGN (35 POINTS)
4) Identify the population that will be served in your program. How do you plan to recruit, engage, and retain children, youth, and/or caregivers in your services to reach your program’s goals?
a. In addition to responding to the prompt(s), also complete the Demographics Table found in Appendix B.
5) Describe the program and proposed services. Provide information on the program design, type of services, average length of participation, location of services (include the defined boundaries for each targeted neighborhood/geographical area), and how services will be delivered.
a. In addition to responding to the prompt(s), also complete the Activity and Operations Table found in Appendix C.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 39 6) What role will youth have in program design, implementation and/or evaluation, if any? For example, how will youth inform, consult, or collaborate with staff? 7) Who are the other organizations that will support the program? Identify the roles, responsibilities and functions of each organization. For Section 5b organizations only: How does your proposal demonstrate collaboration as required per the definition listed on page 10 of the RFP? 8) Please discuss how your proposed program that you are requesting funding for through this RFP has been or will be impacted by COVID-19. What have been the implications for the services you provide? How has or will your organization address those issues so that the program can continue to be offered?
OUTCOMES AND IMPACT (25 POINTS)
9) What are the needs that your proposed program is designed to address (provide data)? How will your program’s target population directly benefit from the proposed services? 10) Describe how your program will measure its performance impact and achievement of outcomes. What are the short-term outcomes, and what do you anticipate as the long- term impacts? What are the performance targets that will be met? How will you know that your program is successful?
11) List your program’s annual outcomes and performance for the past one to three years.
Explain any fluctuations in outcome and performance year-to-year.
REQUIRED RESOURCES AND BUDGET REQUEST (20 POINTS)
12) What are the total proposed annual program expenses for the 2021-2022 fiscal year? What were the total program expenses in the most recently completed calendar or fiscal year? What is changing?
13) Describe the proposed program expenses and explain how funds requested are reasonable to support the proposed numbers of participants to be served, hours of service to be provided, and overall program design.
14) Provide information on the other sources of revenue supporting the program. Include the name of the funding entity, amount of funds, duration of funds, and whether the funds have been received, are committed, are pending, or will be requested. State whether your program will collect fees for participation or if it will be free of charge to all participants. If collecting fees, describe your fee structure, estimated annual revenue, and estimated percent of students participating for free compared to students paying a fee. 15) In addition to responding to all the prompt(s), also complete the Budget Template as referenced in Step 3 found in Appendix D.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 40 Step 3: Budget
The program budget is an important component of your proposal that should be clearly linked to support the proposed program, with reasonable and justifiable expenses for staffing and program costs. The budget proposed should be an appropriate and accurate projection of the program expenses for one program year: FY 2021-2022 (July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022).
This section also allows you to show the cost effectiveness of your program and demonstrate how you will leverage other funds for the programs you are proposing. The proposed budget should be reflective of what was written in the Proposal Narrative section and your proposed Activities.
The budget section is organized in two sections:
REVENUES
• Category
o All revenue sources that will fund your proposed program (e.g. grants, program fees, in-kind donations).
• Total RFCY Funding Request
o The total amount of RFCY funding requested in the application. • Total Project/Program Budget
o The total budget that supports the entire program or project proposed for funding.
• Revenue Status
o The status of revenue sources sought by the applicant (e.g., pending and/or approved) including the current organization’s RFCY request.
EXPENDITURES
• Funding Category
o The expenditure allocations for which requested funds are being requested (e.g., salaries and position, benefits, program supplies, insurance, transportation, etc.). • RFCY Funds Requested
o The portion of the total program cost for which you are requesting RFCY funds. • Program Budget
o The total cost of funding a line item to operate the proposed program. • Budget Narrative
o Provide a narrative justification for each line item in the budget and describe what the specific item is and how the amount shown in the budget was calculated.
Reminder: Proposals must demonstrate, and if awarded a grant will be held accountable for, raising and documenting funding that equals at least 15% of the RFCY grant award as a program match.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 41 DIRECT COSTS
PERSONNEL
Please list all direct service staff including line staff, supervisory staff that supervises line staff, and support/clerical staff that work directly on the proposed program. • Create a separate line item for EACH individual staff working directly on the program including Lead Agency Positions.
FRINGE AND BENEFITS
This line item represents benefits (health, dental, retirement, etc.) as well as mandatory employment costs such as FICA, Social Security, SDI, and unemployment taxes. Enter in a numerical total for all fringe benefit costs paid by RFCY and by your match. The total fringe amount is only for those personnel receiving benefits from your agency. In the Budget Narrative provide a clear response of how your agency is calculating the Fringe and Benefits.
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
All other direct costs included in the program budget must directly benefit and support the operation of the proposed program. Examples include but are not limited to:
Equipment/Furniture: Durable goods such as computers and furniture.
Facility Rental: Pro-rated costs of space rental, utilities, building maintenance and other occupancy costs.
Food: Meals, snacks and food for regular programming and special events.
General Office Supplies: Paper, pens, toner, and other reasonable office supply expenses.
Participant Incentives: Monies or other non-cash incentives, such as gift certificates, provided to a program participant as a reward for completing a program or achieving a programmatic milestone. Detail how many participants are projected to receive incentives, amount of incentive, and the reason for receiving the incentive.
Professional Development: Please justify how you intend to use this amount in the narrative text box to support the professional development and training of your direct service staff.
Program Supplies: Art supplies, workbooks, sports equipment, and other reasonable program supply expenses that are required for the proposed program.
Travel/Transportation: This item includes expenses for field trips and access to programs. The basis for the calculation as well as the purpose for all travel should be provided. Travel expenses for staff are allowed when directly benefiting children and youth. Funds cannot be used for travel to trainings or professional development conferences. Local travel estimates should be based on your organization’s current policies, for example, 55.5 cents per mile or for AC Transit or BART. Any non-local travel needs to be carefully itemized and justified.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 42 YOUTH WAGES AND STIPENDS
Youth Wages and Fringe Benefits
This line item is for programs that offer youth an hourly wage for internships or employment experiences. Please enter a separate line item for each unique hourly wage. Do NOT enter a range for wages. Provide a description of what the employment is and how the cost was calculated.
• Enter the total amount of fringe benefits associated with employing youth including any benefits youth may receive and mandatory employment costs such as FICA, SDI, and UI.
Youth Stipends
Stipends are used to support youth participants enrolled in your program in limited duration work experiences and internships (not as employees of your organization). Please enter a separate line item for each unique stipend profile and stipend amount. Do NOT enter a stipend range. Provide a description of what the stipend is and how the cost was calculated.
NOTE: Do NOT include incentives for program participation in this line item. These should be included in the line item Participant Incentives under Other Direct Costs.
ADMINISTRATIVE/INDIRECT COSTS
Eligible administrative/indirect costs by applicant designation are:
• Single Agency: Up to a total of 20% of total grant request may be requested. • Collaborative Applicants: Up to a total of 20% of total grant request may be requested. • Small & Emerging: Up to a total of 20% of total grant request may be requested.
Administrative/indirect costs cannot exceed the limits stated above.
Examples of allowable expenses in the administrative/indirect line item include but are not limited to: audit, bookkeeping, payroll/finance, facilities maintenance, fiscal sponsor costs, insurance, rent, storage, utilities, and allocated personnel costs (Executive Director’s time or any other staff who works minimally on the funded program).
Some of the items listed under Direct Costs might also be applicable to Indirect Costs if those costs do not DIRECTLY benefit the proposed program.
Example: Indirect Costs are calculated as a percentage of the total RFCY Funds requested. A Single Agency applicant can request up to 20% of the total grant as Indirect Costs. If the agency applies for a grant requesting $100,000 from RFCY, the maximum indirect costs that can be requested is $20,000.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 43 Step 4: Required Documents
In the Required Documents section you will upload the following attachments:
Copy of IRS Letter Certifying Tax Exempt Status.
• Applicants must upload an IRS statement certifying their organization’s nonprofit status under section 501(c)(3). To obtain this letter, call IRS at 1-877-829-5500 (Note: in some cases, it can take over two weeks to obtain this form). For Public Agencies, submit a blank document as an attachment.
Financial Statements
• Provide a copy of your agency’s most recent (current) audited financials or Internal Revenue Service Form 990 or 990N or Income Statements (no later than 2017).
Reviewed or compiled annual financial statements are allowable for faith-based organizations
Organizational Budget
• Provide the lead agency’s current year organizational budget for the current fiscal or calendar year (FY 2021-2022). The organizational budget must clearly list sources of income/revenue, and detail personnel, direct, and indirect expenses. • If applying with a fiscal sponsor, the organizational budgets of the lead agency and fiscal sponsor are required.
List of Board of Directors
• Upload the current active board roster indicating officers and affiliations. • If applying with a fiscal sponsor, the lead agency’s list of Board of the Directors indicating officers and affiliations is required.
• If applying as part of a collaborative, the Board of Directors indicating officers and affiliations is required for all collaborative organizations.
Fiscal Sponsorship Letter of Agreement (LOA)
• If applying with a fiscal sponsor, provide a letter of agreement between the fiscal sponsor and the sponsored organization. Among other responsibilities, the LOA must state that the Fiscal Sponsor or grantee is aware of their responsibility both fiscally and programmatically for all grant requirements if funds are awarded. The Fiscal Sponsor will be the applicant and will be the responsible party for the contract if the application is successful.
Collaborative Applicant Letter of Agreement (LOA)
• For Collaborative Applicants:
o LOAs authorizing the collaborative relationship must be provided by all collaborative organizations and accompany your grant application. • For Small & Emerging Applicants or Single Agency Applicants:
o If the successful implementation of your proposed RFCY grant-funded program is dependent on the collaboration with a governmental entity (i.e., state, county, city, school district, etc.) then a communication (e.g. email, letter) indicating the nature of that collaboration should be included in the application.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 44 • Each LOA document can be uploaded in any format (e.g., word, pdf, excel, etc.). See Appendix E for a sample LOA.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 45 Step 5: Proposal Submission & Acknowledgement
The final step to complete your online proposal is to click “Submit”. Please review the elements of your application including all uploads. RDCY recommends that you wait until the entire application is complete before submitting the form. Once you submit, you will not be able to edit any of your work.
After all the forms are uploaded, review and confirm your agreement of the information in the Proposal Submission & Acknowledgement for the final confirmation of submission for your proposal. The form requires the applicant to verify the following:
(1) You are an Officer on the Board of Directors of the organization or have been authorized to submit the grant application,
(2) You have thoroughly read and understand the grant program guidelines and application questions and City of Richmond requirements (business license, insurance, and grant agreement),
(3) All questions contained in the application have been answered and the required documents are included as part of our application,
(4) Your organization will obtain comprehensive background checks and/or fingerprinting of all employees and/or volunteers that work directly with youth or such other vulnerable populations, and
(5) To the best of your knowledge, the information included as part of this application is true and accurate.
Following your agreement and completion of the Electronic Signature Agreement, click “Submit” to submit your application to RDCY. CivicPlus will generate and e-mail a Receipt of Submission to verify proof of submission. Save the e-mail of your receipt as a confirmation of your submission. Please note that all future communication regarding the submitted grant application will be sent to the Project Manager listed on the application.
ONLINE PROPOSAL DUE: TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2021, BY 2:00 P.M. (PST) You must have completed and submitted all forms and uploads by 2:00 p.m., on Tuesday, June 1, 2021. All proposals submitted after 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 1, 2021, will be deemed ineligible. This will be strictly enforced. RDCY strongly encourages organizations NOT TO WAIT until the last minute to submit your proposal to avoid any unforeseen technical issues.
All proposals must be submitted online through the RFCY CivicPlus system. Proposals that are mailed, e-mailed, or faxed will not be accepted.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 46 CITY OF RICHMOND/ RICHMOND DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH RIGHTS
AND RESERVATIONS
By submitting a proposal, an applicant authorizes RDCY to verify any information the proposal contains. At any time before a contract is issued, RDCY may conduct site visits, interviews, and/or undertake other means to verify applicants’ provision of services before making a final determination of grant awards. RDCY has the right to disqualify applicants whose proposals present false, inaccurate, or incorrect information or are incomplete in any fashion.
Once a final award is made, all RFP responses, except financial and proprietary information, become a matter of public record and shall be regarded by the City as public records. To withhold financial and proprietary information, please label each page as "confidential" or "proprietary". Although a document may be labeled "confidential" or "proprietary", information is still subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act and is, at the City's discretion, based on the potential impact of the public’s interests whether or not to disclose "confidential" or "proprietary" information. The City shall not in any way be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any such records or portions thereof if the disclosure is made pursuant to a request under the Public Records Act.
If an inadequate number of proposals is received or the proposals received are deemed nonresponsive, not qualified, or not cost effective, the City may at its sole discretion reissue the RFP.
ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL PREFERENCE POINTS
While not a requirement, applicants may receive preference points from the City of Richmond for having a workforce that include Richmond or North Richmond resident(s) and/or being an organization that is Richmond-based.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8DPage 1118 of 2511 Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 47 V. Funding Recommendations and Contract Negotiation
Rejection of Proposal Elements
The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, whether or not minimum qualifications are met, and to modify, postpone, or cancel the RFP without liability, obligation, or commitment to any party, firm, or organization. In addition, the City reserves the right to request and obtain additional information from any candidate submitting a proposal. A proposal may be rejected for any of the following reasons:
• Proposal received after designated time and date
• Proposal not containing the required elements, exhibits, nor organized in the required format
• Proposal considered not fully responsive to this RFP
• Proposal not in compliance with the City of Richmond with contracting procurement policies, city ordinances, and legal requirements
Proposal Review Process
The City's overall objective is to award grants to highly qualified organizations that provide needed services to young people in Richmond and North Richmond. Within this overall objective, it is also the City’s intent that the selection process is fair and transparent.
All proposals will be evaluated and scored by a RFCY Review Committee (Committee).
Committee members may consist of but are not limited to RFCY Oversight Board members, employees from internal and external organizations, and community members.
The selection process is divided into the following steps:
1. All applications that are received by the submission deadline are reviewed in depth by RFCY staff for responsiveness, completeness, and satisfaction of eligibility requirements.
Based on this review, eligible proposals will proceed to the application evaluation process.
2. All complete and eligible applications are forwarded to the Committee, which will review and score the proposals, based on priority areas, using the criteria listed in the guidelines.
3. Individual Committee members will provide scoring to RFCY staff and the average of reviewer scores will be used to provide a ranking of proposals by priority area.
4. RFCY staff will provide the Committee with the average scores and ranking of proposals within each priority area. Committee members will utilize this information to help make recommendations to the RFCY Oversight Board.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 48 5. The RFCY Oversight Board will review Committee recommendations and will convene to approve funding decisions at their public monthly meeting in Summer of 2021. Award recommendations will align with the strategic objectives as detailed in the 2021-2024 RFCY Strategic Investment Plan.
The RFCY Oversight Board regular meetings are held monthly on the first Monday of the month, and depending on the status of COVID-19, are hosted in Richmond City Hall, located at 440 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 or video conference platform.
6. The RFCY Oversight Board will then present their funding recommendations to Richmond City Council for approval and adoption.
Any party applying for funding through this RFP shall not contact or lobby any City Council member, RFCY Oversight Board member, Review Panel member, City employee (except those specified for contact) or agent regarding the RFP. Any party attempting to influence or circumvent the RFP, application submittal, and/or review process may have their application rejected for violating this provision of the RFP.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 49 The City has allocated approximately eight weeks for review of the proposals. The following specific criteria and the points for each criterion, for a total of 100 points, will be used in evaluating and rating the proposals:
1) AGENCY HISTORY AND CAPACITY ................................................................20 POINTS • Past, recently completed, or on-going projects to substantiate experience. • Demonstration of ability and experience in working with diverse communities and youth. • Agency has achieved success and accomplishments demonstrate capacity for effective delivery of proposed services.
• Professional background and qualifications of team members proposed to deliver direct services and manage the program are included and relevant and show that members are qualified.
• Racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic characteristics and or lived experience of staff reflect communities proposed to be served.
2) PROGRAM DESIGN ............................................................................................35 POINTS
• A clear and specific outline of the proposed services, including frequency of programming, average number of clients to be served daily and over the course of the year, location of services, and extent of proposed services to be delivered. • Outreach and engagement strategies that are effective and culturally relevant. • Clearly demonstrated how youth voice, perspective, and input is included in the program development, design, outreach, and/or implementation.
• Responses show an awareness of the community and target population. • Special resources and capacities the team offers that are relevant to the successful completion of the project, including collaborations and subgrantees. • The organization has a plan on how the program or project will be sustained and thrive in a COVID-19-impacted environment.
3) OUTCOMES AND IMPACT… ................................................................. 25 POINTS • Applicant describes how program will contribute to equity among children, youth and their families in Richmond and North Richmond.
• Applicant clearly describes the intended participants that the program is designed to address and their needs, providing accurate, current, and specific data where possible to demonstrate need.
• Applicant identifies outcomes that have been achieved through the proposed services before and is able to link projected outcomes to intended impacts identified in the priority areas/funding strategies.
• Applicant demonstrate the ability to reasonably account for/track outcomes.
Evaluation of Proposals
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 50 4) REQUIRED RESOURCES AND BUDGET REQUEST ........................................20 POINTS • Program provides a clear budget that describes staffing and associated direct costs required for successful program implementation.
• Expenses are reasonable and commensurate with the scale of services proposed. • Additional resources are identified to support the program, with reasonable plan for securing matching funds.
• Total program budget of RFCY funding and additional matching funding is realistic and reasonable for proposed level of services.
• The ratio between the organization’s total grant requests and their organization’s overall current year budget is appropriate based on program design and other factors.
The Board will base funding recommendations upon the ranking of proposals according to the point system described above for the Proposal Narrative section of the proposal, along with additional considerations and criteria, including but not limit ed to service location, service to priority populations, strategic alignment, past program performance and agency capacity, and reasonableness of budget and scope of services.
Contract Negotiations
During contract negotiation, RFCY staff will work with organizations to develop and/or update scopes of work, program outcomes, timelines, demographics and activity reports, and budgets.
Staff will ensure that contracts meet the goals, objectives and policies of RFCY and the Oversight Board.
With prior notification, during or before a grant agreement is issued, City of Richmond staff may conduct site visits, interviews, and/or undertake other means to better understand applicants’ provision of services.
Should the City and the applicant not be able to reach an agreement as to the contract terms within a reasonable timeframe, the City may terminate the negotiations and begin negotiations with the next most qualified applicant within the priority area, as identified and selected by the Oversight Board and approved by City Council, and proceed down the list of qualified applicants as necessary until an agreement is reached or the list is exhausted.
Once awarded, all grantees must use the CivicPlus online reporting system to report scope of work activities, demographics, budget, program activities, enrollment, attendance, and invoices.
Grantees are also required to submit quarterly progress reports in a timely manner.
All grantees must participate fully in the RFCY independent evaluation process so that meaningful data may be gathered to report to all parties interested in RFCY. Participation may include attending trainings and workshops, collection of participant survey data, gathering adequate data on effort and results at the evaluator’s request, and hosting site visits.
Organizations are also required to attend RFCY grantee convenings and other RFCY informational, technical assistance, training and service coordination meetings.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 51 Contract Award
1) Upon successful completion of the negotiations, staff will transmit the agreement to the City Manager/City Council (as applicable) for review and approval. 2) The contract amount (including reimbursements) shall be a not to exceed amount, to be established based upon a mutually agreeable Scope of Services and fee schedule. 3) After contract execution, an initial advance payment of twenty-five percent (25%) of the total award amount MAY be advanced to all grantees as part of the application award process. Grantees receiving an advance payment may be eligible for an additional advance of twenty-five percent (25%) of the award amount, contingent upon the submission of complete and adequate reporting and invoicing documentation. A final advance of twenty-five percent (25%) of the award amount may be made contingent upon submission of the complete and adequate reporting and invoicing documentation.
Payments will only be made for the eligible items and amounts specified in the approved grant agreement budget and a manner consistent with the payment provisions contained in the executed grant agreement.
4) The City will withhold the final twenty-five percent (25%) of the contract amount pending successful completion of work and final submittal of all required documentation.
5) The selected grantee will be required to enter into a grant services agreement that contains similar terms and conditions as in the City’s standard agreement. Please note that the City Attorney’s Office is typically not inclined to make any modifications to the standard agreement terms and provisions.
6) The selected grantee and their members will be required to maintain auditable records, documents, and papers for inspection by authorized local, state and federal representatives. Therefore, the grantee and their members may be required to undergo an evaluation to demonstrate that the grantee uses recognized accounting and financial procedures.
7) Reports will be required and must provide detailed information about the services provided. Grantees that do not submit the required reports run the risk of forfeiting their funding. A final report at the conclusion of the project or program is also required. 8) Invoicing or Funding Requests for reimbursement must include the necessary documents to substantiate the disbursement (e.g., receipts, time cards, payroll records, etc.).
Grantees that do not adhere to the invoicing requirements run the risk of forfeiting their funding.
9) Published program materials shall include the City seal or logo and shall state, “Made possible in part by the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth.” The material must be appropriate, relevant, and aligned with the approved project and should be reviewed and approved by City staff before release.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 52 CONTRACT AND COMPLIANCE
Please review Appendix F: Compliance with City Council Policies and Applicable Laws for details on the City policies that are required of funded agencies.
1. Grantees must provide the services projected in the proposal and Scope of Work, subject to contract negotiations. Failure to provide these services may result in reduced payments or suspension of payment.
2. Grantees must provide evidence of in-kind and cash matches at the end of the third quarter, (e.g., through letters, copies of checks, grants, or records of volunteer or donated services.)
3. After a contract is awarded, RDCY and the City reserve the right to amend it as needed throughout the term of the grant agreement to best meet the needs of all parties.
4. RDCY staff and/or other appropriate City staff or affiliates shall have the right to audit the grant agreement and all books, documents and records relating thereto.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 53 Appendix A: Proposal Template
SECTION 1 – AGENCY AND PROPOSAL INFORMATION
Including the responses in Section 1 and Section 2, this Proposal Narrative form shall be limited to ten (10) pages.
Community-Based Organization Information (Applicant Information):
Name of Organization or Lead Agency/Organization:
Click here to enter text.
Organization Address:
Click here to enter text.
Executive Director Name:
Click here to enter text.
Project Manager Name (primary contact for the grant):
Click here to enter text.
Project Manager Phone Number:
Click here to enter text.
Project Manager Email Address:
Click here to enter text.
Program Summary:
Click here to enter text.
Fiscal Sponsor Information (Organization with 501(c)(3) tax status):
Name of Organization:
Click here to enter text.
Executive Director Name:
Click here to enter text.
Organization Address:
Click here to enter text.
Project Manager Name (primary contact for the grant):
Click here to enter text.
Project Manager Phone Number:
Click here to enter text.
Project Manager Email Address:
Click here to enter text.
Program/Project Budget:
Program/Project Budget:
$ Click here to enter text.
Amount of Grant Funds Requested:
$ Click here to enter text.
Annual Organizational Budget:
$ Click here to enter text.
Fiscal-Sponsor Budget (if applicable):
$ Click here to enter text.
Type of Applicant:
Choose whether the organization is applying as a Small and Emerging, Single Agency, or Collaborative Applicant and enter than information in the field below.
Click here to enter text.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 54 For Collaborative Applicants and organizations listed in Article 15, Section 5b, list the information below for all collaborating organizations for the proposed program.
Agency Name Contact Name Major Responsibilities
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
RFCY Priority Area:
Choose one (1) appropriate strategy under which the proposal is being submitted for funding consideration and enter that information below:
Priority Area 1: Behavioral Health: Mental Health & Wellness Priority Area 2: Education Support and Employment/Training Support Priority Area 3: Out-of-School Time, After-School, Sports, and Enrichment Priority Area 4: Youth violence Prevention
Priority Area 5: Access to Basic Needs
Priority Area 6: Information, Guidance and Case Management
SECTION 2 –PROPOSAL NARRATIVE
Including the responses in Section 1 (above) and Section 2, this Proposal Narrative shall be limited to ten (10) pages.
PROGRAM SUMMARY (NOT SCORED)
Provide a clear and concise summary of your program. The summary should describe the program in terms of who will be served, numbers to be served, types of services, location and frequency of services, and the purpose of your program and outcomes to be achieved. This Program Summary will be used to describe the proposed program throughout the review process. There is a 100 word limit to this response.
Click here to enter text.
AGENCY HISTORY AND CAPACITY (20 POINTS)
1) Briefly describe your agency.
2) Describe your agency's experience providing the services proposed in your application.
Include information on years of service in the community being served, experience working with diverse communities and youth, and any collaboration with other organizations or systems of care.
Click here to enter text.
3) Describe the staffing plan for your proposed program. Identify the person who will have primary responsibility for managing the program and discuss their experience managing DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 55 similar projects and in similar communities. Provide information on how many people will be directly working on the project and their qualifications to work effectively with your target population. Resumes or other relevant work history documents that can substantiate experience can be uploaded online via the grant application and will not count toward the page limit.
Click here to enter text.
Staff Name Roles and Responsibilities
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
PROGRAM DESIGN (35 POINTS)
4) Identify the population that will be served in your program. How do you plan to recruit, engage, and retain children, youth, and/or caregivers in your services to reach your program’s goals?
a. In addition to responding to the prompt(s), also complete the Demographics Table found on www.ci.richmond.ca.us/RFCYGrants.
Click here to enter text.
5) Describe the program and proposed services. Provide information on the program design, type of services, average length of participation, location of services (include the defined boundaries for each targeted neighborhood/geographical area), and how services will be delivered.
a. In addition to responding to the prompt(s), also complete the Activity and Operations Table found on www.ci.richmond.ca.us/RFCYGrants.
Click here to enter text.
6) What role will youth have in program design, implementation and/or evaluation, if any? For example, how will they inform, consult, or collaborate with staff? Click here to enter text.
7) Who are the other organizations that will support the program? Identify the roles, responsibilities and functions of each organization. For Section 5b organizations only:
How does your proposal demonstrate collaboration as required per the definition listed on page 10 of the RFP?
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 56 Click here to enter text.
Collaborating
Organization
Roles and Responsibilities
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
8) Please discuss how your proposed program that you are requesting funding for through this RFP has been impacted by COVID-19. What have been the implications for the services you provide? How has or will your organization address those issues so that the program can continue to be offered?
Click here to enter text.
OUTCOMES AND IMPACT (25 POINTS)
9) What are the needs that your program is designed to address (provide data)? How will your program’s target population directly benefit from the proposed services? Click here to enter text.
10) Describe how your program will measure its performance impact and achievement of outcomes. What are the short-term outcomes, and what do you anticipate as the long-term impacts? What are the performance targets that will be met? How will you know that your program is successful?
Click here to enter text.
11) List your program’s annual outcomes and performances for the past one to three years.
Explain any fluctuations in outcome and performance year-to-year.
Click here to enter text.
REQUIRED RESOURCES AND BUDGET REQUEST (20 POINTS)
12) What are the total proposed annual program expenses for the 2021-2022 fiscal year? What were the total program expenses in the most recently completed calendar or fiscal year? What is changing?
Click here to enter text.
13) Describe the proposed program expenses and explain how funds requested are reasonable to support the proposed numbers of participants to be served, hours of service to be provided, and overall program design.
Click here to enter text.
14) Provide information on the other sources of revenue supporting the program. Include the name of the funding entity, amount of funds, duration of funds, and whether the funds have DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 57 been received, are committed, are pending, or will be planned to be requested. State whether your program will collect fees for participation or if it will be free of charge to all participants. If collecting fees, describe your fee structure, estimated annual revenue, and estimated percent of students participating for free compared to students paying a fee.
Click here to enter text.
15) In addition to responding to all the prompts(s), also complete the Budget Table as referenced in Step 3 and found on www.ci.richmond.ca.us/RFCYGrants.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 58 Appendix B: Demographic Projections Table(s)
Please estimate the total number of unique clients your program projects to enroll and serve during the period July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022, if funded by RFCY. Do not include in your projections participants that only receive ancillary services such as sitting through a one-time workshop. Do not include projected number of participants reached in outreach efforts. Space is included in the fillable template to provide a narrative response.
NOTE: If awarded RFCY funding, organizations will provide First Name, Last Name, Date of Birth, Gender Identity, Race/Ethnicity, and residential Zip Code for all participants (unless otherwise legally prohibited). Enrolled clients (and their parent, guardian, or other legally authorized representative if a minor) are required to provide a Release of Information Form giving consent to being entered and their participation tracked and agreeing to participate in an annual evaluation of the funded program by the RFCY and/or its evaluation consultant. Youth participants (birth – 24) must be Richmond or unincorporated North Richmond residents.
OVERALL TOTAL NUMBER OF UNDUPLICATED PARTICIPANTS:
Ages
Race/Ethnicity Birth-5 6-12 13-17 18-24 TOTALS
Asian
Black/African American
Latinx
Native American/Indigenous
White
Pacific Islander
Mixed Race
Prefer not to state
Other
TOTALS
Gender Number of Participants TOTALS
Male
Female
Non-Binary
Other Gender Not Listed
TOTALS
Residential Zip Codes Number of Participants TOTALS
94801
94803
94804
94805
94806
TOTALS
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 59 Appendix C: Activity and Operations Projection Table(s) Provide an overview of the total expected activities to be supported during the first year of funding support. Provide an estimate on the overall activities in this section that correspond to the detailed activities you will provide throughout the year. Do not provide a detailed list of each and every expected activity that would constitute a completed Scope of Work. If selected for funding, applicants will be required to translate their Activity Projections into a detailed Scope of Work and set of specific activities prior to entering into contract with the City of Richmond.
ACTIVITY PROJECTIONS TABLE
The activity types that are available are dependent upon the RFCY priority area selected. There are four activity types that are available:
• Individual Activities
• Group Activities
• Consultation Hours
• Internships and Employment
Select the appropriate type of activity based on your services. For each activity category, you will be able to enter one or more activities.
For Individual and Group Activities, you will be required to provide the following information:
• Activity Name
• Activity Category
o Select the most appropriate activity category from the drop-down list • # of Sessions by Quarter
o Enter the number of sessions that this activity is projected to occur by quarter o The quarters follow the City of Richmond’s fiscal year July 1st – June 30th • Average # of Participants per Session
o Project the number of youth expected to be present per session on average • Average Length of Session (hours)
o Project the average length of each activity session. Make sure to project out in hours, not minutes. For example, a 30-minute session should be entered as 0.5 • Service Description
o Provide a short summary of the activity to provide information on the type of activity proposed
Example: A program proposes to provide summer camp for four weeks for 100 students. Each day the program provides youth with three hours of arts and enrichment, and three hours of academic programming. Select “Group Activities” and complete one activity to capture the arts and enrichment programming, and a second activity to capture the academic programming.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 60 PROGRAM ACTIVITIES CATEGORY
Select the most appropriate category for each of your Individual and Group activities. Examples include:
• Academics – includes literacy, math, STEM and STEAM programming • Arts, Dance, Music and Culture
• College and Career Readiness
• Community Building
• Early Learning
• Family Engagement and Parent Education
• Field Trips
• Health Education and Wellness – includes gardening, cooking and nutrition • Internships and Employment
• Leadership and Civic Engagement – includes community service • Sports and Recreation
• Supportive Services – includes mental health services, case management, mentoring, resource referrals, legal services, housing support, restorative justice • Other
PROGRAM OPERATIONS TABLE
Provide information on the months that the program will be active, projected number of weeks the program will be active over the course of one year, and the projected days and hours of operation.
LOCATIONS OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Provide information on the service site location. If your program is operating at multiple locations, provide information for each program site location. Do not include service site locations where only brief activities will take place, such as field trips or showcase event locations.
For each Service Location, provide the following information:
• Location Name: Provide a clear name for the site (do not use acronyms). • Address: Including Street Address, City, and Zip Code. o Note: RFCY uses this information to inform the Oversight Board and Richmond City Council of potential program locations and it is helpful during the review process to determine geographic diversity of programs. Please be sure to include accurate information in this section to be able to map potential service locations. • Location Type: Select from the drop-down list the most appropriate category for the proposed service site location.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 61 ACTIVITY PROJECTIONS TABLE:
Name of
Program
Activities
Category
No.
Sessions
per
Quarter
Avg. No.
Participants
Avg.
Length
per
Session
(hours)
Activity
Description
Select Category
hours
Select Category
hours
Select Category
hours
Select Category
hours
Select Category
hours
Select Category
hours
Select Category
hours
Select Category
hours
Select Category
hours
Select Category
hours
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 62 PROGRAM OPERATIONS TABLE:
Number of Weeks
Operating
Days of Week
Operating
Grant Program Hours of
Operation
June 0
July 0
August 0
September 0
October 0
November 0
December 0
January 0
February 0
March 0
April 0
May 0
TOTAL Weeks Days Hours
Location(s) of Program Activities:
Location Name Address Location Type
Choose an item.
Choose an item.
Choose an item.
Choose an item.
Choose an item.
Choose an item.
Choose an item.
Choose an item.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 63 Appendix D: Budget Template
a. Total organization budget (based on prior year’s 990, audited/reviewed financials, or income statement):$
b. Complete the budget template below for your proposed program. If needed, add rows and provide as much detail as possible in the revenue and expenditure sections. • Revenue section: List all of the revenue sources that will fund your proposed program (e.g. grants, program fees, in-kind donations) and state whether those sources are pending and/or approved. Include, the Total Project Budget as well as your organization’s RFCY request.
• Expenditures: List, with as much detail as possible, the expenditure categories (e.g. salaries, benefits, program supplies)
• The revenue total and the expenditure total in the “RFCY Request” column should match. The same is true for the “Project Budget” column.
For example, if your organization is r equesting a total of $50,000 from the RFCY grant program, that amount should be listed in the “Revenue” section of the budget table. You would then need to complete the “Expenditure” section of the budget table, making sure that the total amount of the expenditures is also equal to $50,000 (the total amount of the revenue requested).
• Use the “Budget Narrative” section to justify and explain the expenditures outlined in your program budget table.
Program Budget Table
REVENUE
Category
(List Funding Sources)
RFCY Request
(FY 21-22)
Total Project
Budget
Revenue Status
(Approved/Pending)
Revenue Total $ $
EXPENDITURES
Funding Category RFCY Request
(FY 21-22)
Total Project
Budget
Budget Narrative
(if applicable)
Expenditure Total $ $
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 64 Appendix E: Letter of Agreement (LOA) Sample
This template is provided as a general guideline. If your organization has its own template, feel free to use it as long as it contains the key features of the LOA template. The LOA must include:
• Description of the nature, history and extent of the collaboration including past successes and accomplishments of the collaboration.
• Responsibilities of each party detailing administrative and operational duties including staffing, service delivery specifics, facility space, data management, evaluation, etc. • Any funds being exchanged.
• Signature of director level person or someone who has the organizational authority to enter their respective organizations into an agreement.
Letter of Agreement (LOA) for Richmond Fund for Children and Youth
This Letter of Agreement establishes the intention of [ORGANIZATION 1] and [ORGANIZATION 2] to work together if RFCY funds are awarded for [Program Name]. [Give a brief description of program and any past collaboration history and successes]. [ORGANIZATION 1] will fulfill the following responsibilities:
List out responsibilities detailing administrative and operational duties including staffing, facility space, targeted numbers of priority populations to be served, type of services, frequency of services, average length of participation, location of services, and how services will be delivered.
Provide information on data management and evaluation practices. [ORGANIZATION 2] will fulfill the following responsibilities:
List out responsibilities detailing administrative and operational duties including staffing, facility space, targeted numbers of priority populations to be served, type of services, frequency of services, average length of participation, location of services, and how services will be delivered.
Provide information on data management and evaluation practices.
JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES
List out any joint responsibilities including regular meetings to align, coordinate and review services and collaboration.
COMPENSATION AND TERM
Detail any funds being exchanged. Specify the length of time for the agreement.
NOTE: It is RFCY’s expectation that all collaborating organizations written into the proposal and budget will remain in the collaboration for the duration of the 2021 -2024 grant cycle period because your grant was reviewed and awarded based on these collaborations. If there needs to be any potential changes in scope of work and budget, these need to be brought to RFCY’s attention for approval of modification in scope of work prior to implementation.
[ORGANIZATION 1] Date
[ORGANIZATION 2] Date
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Richmond Fund for Children and Youth – RFP for Direct Services for FYs 2021-2024 65 Appendix F: Compliance with City Council Policies and Applicable Laws
1. The successful applicants selected shall obtain or provide proof of having a current City of Richmond Business Tax Certificate.
2. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids.
3. Federal, State and Local Laws: The selected applicants will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, including the City of Richmond’s Nondiscrimination Ordinance (Chapter 2.28), Business Opportunity Ordinance (Chapter
2.50), Local Employment Program Ordinance (Chapter 2.56), and Living Wage Ordinance (Chapter 2.60), if applicable. Please contact the City or RDCY staff for further information regarding the above requirements.
4. The successful applicants must complete and submit a W-9 and Supplemental Vendor forms.
5. The successful applicants must meet the applicable City of Richmond insurance requirements.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
cc27July2021
ud/prc
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, July 27, 2021
The Richmond City Council/Richmond Housing Authority
Evening Open Session was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Mayor Thomas K. Butt via teleconference.
Due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Contra
Costa County and Governor Gavin Newsom issued multiple orders requiring sheltering in place, social distancing, and reduction of person-to-person contact. Accordingly, Governor Gavin Newsom issued executive orders that allowed cities to hold public meetings via teleconferencing (Executive Order N-29-20).
DUE TO THE SHELTER IN PLACE ORDERS, attendance
at the City of Richmond City Council meeting was limited to councilmembers, essential City of Richmond staff, and members of the news media. Public comment was confined to items appearing on the agenda and was limited to the methods provided below.
Consistent with Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting utilized teleconferencing only. The following provides information on how the public participated in the meeting.
The public was able to view the meeting from home on KCRT Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 99 and livestream online at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3178/KCRT-Live and http://www.youtube.com/user/KCRTTV.
The methods to submit public comment were via mail,
email to [email protected], teleconference, and telephone during the meeting. Written comments received by 1:00 p.m. on July 27, 2021, were put into the record and considered before council action. Written comments received after 1:00 p.m. and up until the public comment period on the relevant agenda item closed, were also put into the record. Attached herewith all written public comments received.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Nathaniel Bates, Claudia
Jimenez, Eduardo Martinez, Gayle McLaughlin, Melvin Willis, Vice Mayor Demnlus Johnson III, and Mayor Thomas K. Butt.
Absent: None.
CITY COUNCIL
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING
LITIGATION (paragraph (1) of Subdivision [d] of Government Code Section 54956.9):
Richmond Shoreline Alliance, SPRAWLDEF, Citizens for
East Shore Parks, Sunflower Alliance, and GreenAction for Health and Environmental Justice
v. City of Richmond
Luis Padilla, et al. v. City of Richmond
LIABILITY CLAIMS - (Government Code Section
54956.9):
Wade Taylor
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
cc27July2021
ud/prc
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Government Code Section 54957.6):
Agency Representatives: Jack Hughes
Employee organizations:
1. SEIU Local 1021 Full Time Unit
2. SEIU Local 1021 Part Time Unit
3. IFPTE Local 21 Mid-Level Management Unit
4. IFPTE Local 21 Executive Management Unit
5. Richmond Police Officers Association RPOA
6. Richmond Police Management Association RPMA
7. IAFF Local 188
8. Richmond Fire Management Association RFMA
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY
NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54956.8):
Property: Terminal One
Agency negotiators: Laura Snideman, Shasa Curl
and Lina Velasco
Negotiating parties: Terminal One Development
LLC
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
RICHMOND HOUSING AUTHORITY
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY
NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54956.8):
Property: Marina Way South, Virginia, Maine, So. 13th,
So. 15th, and So. 16th , Richmond, CA (Nystrom)
Agency negotiator: Shasa Curl and Nannette Beacham
Negotiating parties: McCormack Baron Salazar (MBS) and
Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services (RNHS)
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION
Yen Do gave comments regarding labor negotiations via
teleconference.
The Open Session adjourned to Closed Session at 2:03 p.m.
Closed Session adjourned at 5:46 p.m.
The Regular Meeting of the Richmond City Council was
called to order at 6:37 p.m. by Mayor Butt via teleconference.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, Vice Mayor Johnson III, and Mayor Butt. Absent:
Councilmember Bates.
STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
City Attorney, Teresa Stricker stated conflict of interest on Item I-23. Ms. Stricker was a partner at Renne Public Law Group until October 2020.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
cc27July2021
ud/prc
AGENDA REVIEW
Items I-16, I-17, I-18, and I-19 were removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion at the end of the agenda. Items I- 20 and L-6 were continued to the September 14, 2021, City Council meeting. A motion by Councilmember McLaughlin, seconded by Councilmember Willis, moved Item 1-19 for discussion after Item J-1, by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, and Vice Mayor Johnson III. Noes:
Mayor Butt. Absent: Councilmember Bates. Abstain: None. Items L-1 and I-19 were moved for discussion immediately following approval of the Consent Calendar.
PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, AND
COMMENDATIONS
Items D-1 through D-3 were moved to the Consent Calendar portion of the agenda.
D-1. Proclamation declaring September 2021 as Betty Reid Soskin Month in the City of Richmond.
D-2. Proclamation recognizing former Richmond resident and blues legend Mr. Jimmy McCracklin's Centennial Birthday (posthumously) and declare August 13, 2021, as Richmond Ambassador Blues Legend Jimmy McCracklin Day.
D-3. Announce recent resignation from City of Richmond boards, commissions, and committees; and announce vacancies as of July 21, 2021, and ask that interested individuals send applications to the City Clerk.
REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON FINAL
DECISIONS MADE DURING CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Teresa Stricker stated there were no final actions to report.
REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER
City Manager Laura Snideman urged everyone to get the
COVID-19 vaccine.
CRIME REPORT FROM POLICE CHIEF
Chief Bisa French provided a report, which highlighted the following: 1 homicide in the city since the last report; twelve homicides to date this year; 5 shootings over the past 3 weeks; investigated twelve robberies and 9 domestic assaults; a home invasion robbery in the Northern district; human trafficking investigation on 23rd Street; and DUI Checkpoint. Chief French also reported that missing person, Antoine Whitley’s body was recovered from the San Pablo Bay.
OPEN FORUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
The following individuals gave comments via
teleconference:
Jeanne Kortz gave comments regarding Mayor Butt’s
conduct toward staff at the last City Council meeting.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
cc27July2021
ud/prc
Deborah DeJeana Burkes and Melinda McCrary invited
everyone to Jimmy McCracklin’s 100th Birthday celebration on Friday, August 13, 2021, at CoBiz and on August 14, 2021, at Civic Center Plaza.
Mark Wassberg gave comments regarding illegal
immigration.
Yenny Garcia invited everyone to a virtual ceremony for the Women’s Health and Leadership Program on Friday, July 30, 2021, from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Leisa Johnson gave comments regarding ways to deal with fireworks and sideshows in the city.
Randy Joseph invited everyone to the Stop the Violence
Caravan and Put the Guns Down Rally beginning at Civic Center Plaza on Saturday, August 7, 2021, at 11:30 p.m.
Jan Mignone stated speakers should be given a time limit to raise their hand to speak and should not be able to request to speak at any time during the discussion and public comment portion of an agenda item.
Oscar Garcia gave comments regarding the dangers of
sideshows and that the city should not condone a designated area to conduct sideshows.
Pam Stello stated that Mayor Butt should be punished for disclosing confidential Closed Session discussions, cancelling City Council meetings, and obstructing city business.
Councilmember Jimenez apologized to City Attorney
Teresa Stricker for not speaking out against inappropriate comments directed at her by Mayor Butt at the last council meeting.
Vice Mayor Johnson III encouraged everyone to attend the birthday celebrations held in honor of Jimmy McCracklin.
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Councilmember Willis, seconded by
Vice Mayor Johnson III, the items marked with an (*) were approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, Vice Mayor Johnson III, and Mayor Butt. Noes: None. Absent: Councilmember Bates. Abstain:
None.
*I-1. Approved a contract with Net Electric, Inc.in an amount not to exceed $74,867; and authorized the city manager to execute the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Funding Agreement Amendment No. 2 to complete Project 19EV021
related tasks; and appropriated grant funds in the Fiscal Year 2021- 22 Transportation budget.
*I-2. Approved the minutes of the June 29, 2021, special meeting of the City Council.
*I-3. Approved appointments to the Commission on
Aging: appointed Regina Whitney, new appointment, seat #8, term DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
cc27July2021
ud/prc
expiration date May 19, 2025; and Cate Burkhart, re-appointment, seat #11, term expiration date May 19, 2025.
*I-4. Approved a three-year contract with Verizon
Connect (formerly Networkfleet) for monthly GPS tracking and management in an amount not exceed $150,000.
*I-5. Approved the purchase of a HD Tilt Back Tire
Changer from Snap-On in an amount not to exceed $13,500.
*I-6. Approved a contract for transmission repairs to a Fire Department apparatus (Unit #514; VIN 4S7AT2F997C057106) with AG Transmission Repair, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $15,000.
*I-7. Adopted Resolution No. 96-21, appropriating funds from the 2019A Wastewater Bond proceeds and approved Veolia Water to manage and award contracts for the BAAQMD
permitting for the Grit Removal, Aeration Process Upgrade Project to Yorke Engineering, LLC ("Yorke") and to be managed by Veolia Water in an amount not to exceed $19,139 [project cost of $16,428 plus a 16.5 percent mark-up of $2,711].
*I-8. Adopted Resolution No. 97-21, approving a contract for Veolia Water to manage a subcontract with Myers & Sons Construction in an amount not to exceed $6,429,791 [Project cost of $4,839,888, plus 16.5 percent Veolia mark-up $798,582, plus 15 percent project contingency $725,983, plus a (9 percent Veolia mark-up of $65,338)].
*I-9. Adopted Resolution No. 98-21, to accept the
Cutting-Carlson-Hoffman Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Capacity Improvement Project in the Richmond Municipal Sewer District and Amended the Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget in the amount of $329,550.
*I-10. Approved a contract with the Local Government
Commission in the amount of $57,000, for two AmeriCorps CivicSpark fellows to support citywide greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and climate action efforts from September 2021 to August 2022.
*I-11. Adopted Resolution No. 99-21, approving the final recommendation from the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY) Oversight Board to award 20 RFCY grants to youth- serving public and nonprofit organizations in a total amount not to exceed $1,620,000 from July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022; authorized the city manager or her designee to negotiate and execute Grant Service Agreements with approved grantees; and appropriated an additional $120,000 to align the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 RDCY budget with the approved FY 2021-22 one percent General Fund allocation.
*I-12. Approved a recommendation from the Environment
& Community Investment Agreement (ECIA) Grant Review
Committee to award a Fiscal Year 2021-2022 grant to Mindful Life Project in an amount not to exceed $12,500 and authorized the city manager to negotiate and execute Grant Service Agreements with the approved grantee.
*I-13. Adopted Resolution No. 100-21, to accept and
appropriate the Sexual Assault Law Enforcement Specialized Units DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
cc27July2021
ud/prc
Program grant from the Cal OES funds in the amount of $204,500 and approved the continuation of a contract with Community Violence Solutions, funded by the Cal OES grant for on-site advocates to assist victims of sexual assault in the amount not to exceed $94,611.
*I-14. Adopted Resolution No. 101-21, to accept and
appropriate $68,840 in funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program awarded to the Richmond Police Department for the purchase of police safety equipment.
*I-15. Adopted Resolution No. 102-21, to accept and
appropriate $66,080 in funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program awarded to the Richmond Police Department for the purchase of police safety equipment.
I-16. Continued to the special August 24, 2021, City
Council meeting, the matter to approve a $90,000 amendment to the legal services agreement with the law firm of Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP for services rendered from April 1, 2021, through June 30, 2023, for the Hacienda Project and other RHA projects. This item was continued from the cancelled July 20, 2021, meeting.
I-17. Continued to the special August 24, 2021, City
Council meeting, the matter to approve an amendment to the legal services agreement with the law firm of Burke, Williams &Sorensen, LLP for services rendered from July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2023, for general municipal and personnel matters. This item was continued from the cancelled July 20, 2021, meeting.
I-18. Continued to the special August 24, 2021, City
Council meeting, the matter to approve the legal services agreement with the law firm of Best, Best & Krieger for services rendered from April 1, 2021, through June 30, 2023, for general municipal matters. This item was continued from the cancelled July 20, 2021, meeting.
I-19. The matter to approve a sole-source contract with Rebuilding Together East Bay-North, in an amount not to exceed $983,975, for a term ending on June 30, 2022, for SOS! Richmond to provide outreach and support services to unsheltered people who reside in encampments and safe parking sites in the City of Richmond was presented Councilmember McLaughlin. Mayor
Butt expressed concern that this item did not appear to follow proper procurement procedures and was that the contract was not prepared in collaboration with staff. Discussion ensued. This item was continued from the cancelled July 20, 2021, meeting. The following individuals gave comments via teleconference: Mark Wassberg, Leisa Johnson, Deborah, and Tarnel Abbott. A motion was made by Councilmember McLaughlin, seconded by
Councilmember Willis, to approve the contract, passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, Vice Mayor Johnson III, and Mayor Butt.
Noes: None. Absent: Councilmember Bates. Abstain: None.
I-20. Continued to the September 14, 2021, City Council meeting, the matter to approve a legal services agreement in the amount of $80,000 with Oppenheimer Investigations Group LLP to conduct personnel investigations and a first amendment in an amount of $40,000 to an existing legal services agreement with the law firm of Bertrand, Fox, Elliot, Osman & Wenzel for a total DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
cc27July2021
ud/prc
contract amount of $50,000 to provide ongoing labor and employment legal advice to the Human Resources Department.
This item was continued from the cancelled July 20, 2021, meeting.
*I-21. Adopted Ordinance No. 12-21 N.S. setting the tax rate for the Tax Override Pension Fund for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 at 0.14 percent.
*I-22. Approved for the Community Services Department-
Recreation Division and Parks and Landscaping Division to superimpose six Pickle Ball Courts onto the Booker T. Anderson Tennis Courts to make it a multi-sport use sport facility.
*I-23. Approved a contract with Renne Public Law Group to provide professional services to develop a city-wide Community Benefits Policy with the term ending October 31, 2021; and appropriated funds in the amount of $100,000 for the contract expenditure from the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget.
BUDGET SESSION
J-1. The matter to receive a presentation on options to achieve long-term fiscal sustainability was presented by City Manager, Laura Snideman, Interim Library and Community
Services Director, LaShonda Wilson, and Steve Toler of
Management Partners, who presented a Powerpoint, which
highlighted the following: Richmond’s General Fund – Revenues and Expenditures; Five Year Fund Balance Forecast; Ten Year Fund Balance Forecast; Budget Strategies to Resolve Fiscal Gap by FY 2026 and by 2031; Impacts and Overview of the American Rescue Plan Act; Budget Strategies; Fiscal Sustainability Planning; Budget Strategy Opportunities; Revenue Enhancements;
Maintaining Service Levels; Expenditure Controls/Cost Shifts; Service Level reductions; Factors for Evaluating Budget Strategies; and Budget Strategy Evaluation Tool. Discussion ensued. The following individuals gave comments via
teleconference: Tarnel Abbott, Mark Wassberg, Leisa Johnson, Jan Mignone, Jane Courant, Jim Hanson, Angela Cox, Elsa Stevens, Ahmad Anderson, and Patricia Gallo. The City Council requested an audit of Chevron’s energy usage; a job and performance evaluation and audit of city staff; hiring a subject matter expert to hire an independent auditor to do two or three department audits per year; and to develop a strategy to prioritize services at the libraries.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
K-1. The matter to hold a public hearing and adopt a
resolution approving a report of sewer service charges for Fiscal Year 2021-22 allowing for the sanitary and stormwater fees to be collected on the annual 2021-22 tax rolls was presented by Project Manager, Water Resource Recovery Division, Mary Phelps.
Mayor Butt opened the public hearing. There were no public speakers. Mayor Butt closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Councilmember Willis, seconded by Vice Mayor Johnson III, adopted Resolution No. 103-21, by the following vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, Vice Mayor Johnson III, and Mayor Butt. Noes: None. Absent:
Councilmember Bates. Abstain: None.
STUDY AND ACTION SESSION
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
cc27July2021
ud/prc
L-1. The matter to direct staff (city attorney) to review University of California Berkeley's research, the City Charter and other relevant legal authority to determine if the City Council has the authority to extend voting rights to undocumented Richmond residents to participate in local elections and, upon completion, direct staff to present their findings to Council and, if authority exists, agendize an item for Council to consider such voting rights extension was presented by Councilmembers Jimenez, Martinez, and Vice Mayor Johnson III. This item was continued from the July 6, 2021, and cancelled July 20, 2021, meeting. Mayor Butt stated several guest speakers would not be allowed to make presentations. A motion was made by Councilmember Jimenez, seconded by Councilmember Willis, to allow five minutes for speakers to make a presentation, passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, and Vice Mayor Johnson III. Noes: Mayor Butt. Absent:
Councilmember Bates. Abstain: None. Stephen Menendian, from the Othering and Bettering Institute, gave a presentation, which highlighted the following: How to Promote Civic Engagement; Extending Voting Privileges; and Approach of Implementation.
The following individuals gave comments via teleconference: Ali Saidi, Yenny Garcia, Ahmad Anderson, Mark Wassberg, Elsa Stevens, Oscar Garcia, Deborah Bayer, Don Gosney, Garland Ellis, Tania Pulido, Alexa, Anne Janks, Vlara, Annie P, Edith Pastrano, Sadie Egan, Tomasa Espinoza, Keri Contreras, Lety, Randy Joseph, Floy Andrews, Deborah, Emily Ross, David
Sharples, Denny Khamphanthong, Leisa Johnson, Yeri, Chandra Davies, Evelyn Perez, Marisol Cantu, Ozmar Huerta, Patricia Aguiar, Andres Soto, Diana Diaz- Noriega, Ceci, Alexa, Maria Franco, Tarnel Abbott, and Jocelyn Khansouvong. Further discussion ensued. A motion was made by Councilmember Willis, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, to approve the item.
Mayor Butt made a friendly amendment and requested the cost and process of implementation. The friendly amendment was accepted, and the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, Vice Mayor Johnson III, and Mayor Butt. Noes: None. Absent:
Councilmember Bates. Abstain: None.
(10:55 p.m. – A motion was made by Councilmember
McLaughlin, seconded by Councilmember Jimenez, to extend the meeting and suspend the rules, to discuss Items I-19, K-1, and L-5, passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, and Vice Mayor Johnson III. Noes:
Mayor Butt. Absent: Councilmember Bates. Abstain: None.
L-2. Continued to the August 24, 2021, City Council
meeting, the matter to consider forming an Inter-Agency Liaison Committee between the City of Richmond and AC Transit to discuss transit related matters on a quarterly schedule and direct staff to send a letter of interest to AC Transit. This item was continued from the cancelled July 20, 2021, meeting.
L-3. Continued to the August 24, 2021, City Council
meeting, the matter to receive a report from the Richmond- Shimada Friendship Commission.
L-4. Continued to the August 24, 2021, City Council
meeting, the matter to receive an annual report from the Richmond Youth Council.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
cc27July2021
ud/prc
L-5. The matter to adopt a resolution amending the City of Richmond City Council Rules of Procedure and Order (initially adopted by Resolution No. 27-06 and amended in subsequent years) to modify the last sentence of Section II A. (1) of this policy to eliminate the authority of the mayor to unilaterally cancel any future regular or special meeting of the City Council, so as to concur with the City of Richmond's democratic process of governance was presented by Councilmembers McLaughlin and Jimenez. The proposed modification to the last sentence of Section II A was as follows: Any future regular or special meeting may be canceled by a vote of a majority of the members of the City Council during a regular or special meeting.
Discussion ensued. A motion was made by Councilmember
McLaughlin, seconded by Councilmember Martinez to end debate.
The following individuals gave comments via teleconference: Elsa Stevens, Tarnel Abbott, Jeanne Kortz, Evan Sirchuk, Sally Tobin, Mark Wassberg, Don Gosney, Deborah, Marisol Cantu, Jacqueline Thalberg, Randy Joseph, and Floridalma Bac. Further discussion ensued. Assistant City Attorney Heather McLaughlin stated that there was a portion of the city’s harassment policy that protects city employees from harassment and discrimination. A motion was made by Councilmember McLaughlin, seconded by
Councilmember Willis, adopted Resolution No. 104-21, by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, and Vice Mayor Johnson III. Noes: Mayor Butt. Absent: Councilmember Bates. Abstain: None.
L-6. Continued to the September 14, 2021, City Council meeting, to receive a presentation focused on the Richmond Bike Share Program and a discussion regarding transportation priority project implementation strategies.
L-7. Continued to the September 14, City Council
meeting, the matter to discuss and provide direction to staff to implement a street sweeping pilot program that engages
stakeholders, characteristic of the diversity of communities within the City and conforms to the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS: REFERRALS TO STAFF, AND
GENERAL REPORTS (INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS)
None.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
cc27July2021
ud/prc
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Councilmember Willis, seconded by
Councilmember McLaughlin, to schedule a special meeting on Tuesday, August 24, 2021, to complete all unfinished items from tonight’s agenda, passed by the following vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Jimenez, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, and Vice Mayor Johnson III. Noes: Mayor Butt. Absent: Councilmember Bates. Abstain: None.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:33 a.m., in memory of Ella Mae Suel, Lottie Russell, and Antoine Whittley, to meet again on Tuesday, August 24, 2021, at 6:30 p.m.
Clerk of the City of Richmond
(SEAL)
Approved:
Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Gopal K Acharya <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 12:00 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Regarding meeting regarding L5_Public Comment
Hello,
Yes, off course we need to stand up with Mrs Gayle McLaughlin and expect to assure that democracy prevails in our city council produces rather than allowing one persons the sole authority to cancel meetings. So, we need to go with Mrs Layle.
Because of my business, I am not able to attend the Virtual meeting. I am so interested to attend and see.
Thanks
Gopal K Acharya
Richmond, CA
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Cordell Hindler <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 4:09 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments- Open Forum
good evening Mayor Butt, council Members and City Staff, I have a couple of comments for the record:
1. for the September Meeting, the council should consider Inviting the folks from EBMUD to make a presentation on the sewer rates
2. also the council should reinstate the Agenda & rules committee
Sincerely
Cordell
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Cordell Hindler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 11:59 AM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments L-5 Study And Action Session
good Evening Mayor Butt, council members and City Staff, I have some comments for the Record:
1. I think that it is Unacceptable that the Mayor has had to cancel regular Meetings because of Personal matters.
2. Other cities in West County has not once cancelled their meetings,
In conclusion I am asking that the Mayor DOES not canceled the meetings because there is Business to take care of?
Sincerely
Cordell
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Cordell Hindler <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 4:19 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments L-4 Study & action Session
good evening Mayor Butt, Council Members and city staff, in my opinion I think that the youth council has done a wonderful job with the annual report on their activities
Sincerely
Cordell
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Cordell Hindler <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 4:01 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments D-3 Presentations, Proclamations and Commendations good evening Mayor Butt, council members and city staff, I have some wonderful news
I had spoken with the youth council at their regular meeting this Past Thursday and I have informed them about the remaining vacancies and so the Chair and Myself are going to have a follow up meeting next month
Sincerely
Cordell
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Nicole Sasaki <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 12:59 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item #L7
July 27, 2021
Transmitted Via Electronic Mail
City of Richmond City Council
Attn: City Clerk
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, California 94804
Email: [email protected]
RE: July 27, 2021 City Council Meeting Item No. L7
Dear Council Members and Mayor Butt:
I write on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) in support of agenda item no. L7, regarding the City of Richmond’s street sweeping pilot program. Baykeeper submits these comments on behalf of its approximately 5,000 members and supporters who live and/or recreate in and around the San Francisco Bay Area. Baykeeper’s mission is to defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats and hold polluters and government agencies accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive. Our team of scientists and lawyers investigate pollution via aerial and on-the-water patrols, strengthen regulations through policy advocacy, and enforce environmental laws on behalf of the public.
Baykeeper supports Councilmember McLauglin’s proposal to pilot a community self-management program to educate Richmond’s residents about street sweeping schedules in lieu of street sweeping signage and ticketing.
This proposal does not, and should not, eliminate street sweeping. Trash is a serious problem for many Bay Area cities, including Richmond, creating pollution and unsafe conditions in our streets, creeks, and San Francisco Bay.
Rather, the proposal stops the inequitable financial penalization of Richmond’s residents who fail to move their cars to facilitate street sweeping. Neighborhoods with sixteen out of forty-six street sweeping routes already employ a community self-management approach, and there is no evidence that ticketing improves compliance.
However, unpaid parking tickets can lead to personal hardships, including additional late fees and possible ramifications with the Department of Motor Vehicles, such as refusal to register or renew a car’s registration or a resident’s license.
While the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No.
CAS612008 (“Municipal Stormwater Permit”) lists street sweeping as a best management practice to remove trash and other pollutants from city streets to protect stormwater quality, the Municipal Stormwater Permit does not require street sweeping signs, nor does it require strict parking enforcement and ticketing. Protecting San Francisco Bay from municipal trash pollution can be accomplished in an equitable, humane, and non-penalizing manner.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
2 Baykeeper supports Richmond’s proposal to remove the penal component from its street sweeping program and implement a community managed system rooted in equity. I can be reached to discuss these comments via electronic mail at [email protected].
Very truly yours,
Nicole Sasaki
To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
San Francisco Baykeeper
Keeping an eye on the Bay since 1989
Nicole C. Sasaki, Staff Attorney (she/her)
San Francisco Baykeeper 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800 | Oakland, CA 94612 Office: 510-735-9700 x110
baykeeper.org
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: This communication is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you received this message in error, any review, use, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately of the error and delete this communication and any attached documents from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Joe Toth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 9:44 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Daran Moghadam
Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item #L-5 Favor
Please make sure this corrupt Mayor is stopped. Refer him to the Federal authorities ASAP.
Respectfully,
Joseph Toth
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: David Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 2:23 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item #L-7, Study and Action Session, 7-27-21 City Council Members,
Regarding the proposed street sweeping pilot program:
Instead of installing permanent street sweeping signs in neighborhoods, I suggest that the City provide two portable signs for each side of a block, which could be deployed by volunteer block captains, who could assign themselves and others to set out the signs the evening before the street sweeping day, and remove them after the sweeping schedule. In this way, the streets can be cleared of parked cars for sweeping, and make the placement of permanent signs not necessary in neighborhoods which prefer not to have the permanent signs.
Thank you.
Dave Harris
Richmond resident,
Member, Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Tom Sumner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 11:46 AM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENTS -- OPEN FORUM
Maybe others have in mind some of my concerns as well. Since brevity will preclude me saying all I need to, at any city council meeting, I'm hoping to find others who may have thought about these issues, as this place is getting more and more untenable.
** Lot's of elderly folks are more than likely suffering from the noise from a variety of sources, not allowed by law, but they may be even less inclined than myself these days to call the police, and so remain a group not represented or maybe lightly considered; and this group could include pets and wild animals. Do the councilmembers supporting selfish, rude noise and behavior consider this group?
** All people have an inherent right to "quiet enjoyment of their property". Any attempt by a city or county to interfere with that right by starting to allow illegal noise and behavior, to please an infant‐minded populace which seeks to pollute and violate for simple selfish fun, would violate basic constitutional rights of people to not have govt. institute "allowed sideshows" within any city limit, and if the city were to persist with this, a lawsuit against the city again rears it's head.
** Owner accountability: since police are in short supply, I suggest a simple system of letters to both the owner and / or tenant, . Send a warning letter first, as the law requires, and then cite the owner.
I am faced with owners who are LLCs with offices in Palo Alto. They ignore my letters asking them to correct the behavior of their tenants. The police could solve a huge variety of non‐emergency complaints easily this way, as many owners will hastily comply, probably sending an immediate notice to the tenant to avoid fines.
This is an old idea floated, since it actually is something police easily can do, but for some reason there is a refusal on their part to engage this cost saving approach.
The landlords tell me to call the police. In fact, it's been my whole experience here that all these selfish teen to fifty year old babies readily defy anyone saying to them they are breaking the law. They just plain tell me "go ahead, call the police", because they know nothing will come of it, so the owners must have to be held accountable for the actions of their tenants, as the law requires landlords to have their tenants obey the law.
Why not use the landlords to control people, rather than relying upon a short police supply?
** Allow citizens like me to actually have a venue to bring video which passes "reasonable muster" that will generate a letter to the owner and / or tenant . Follow through on the citation. Don't discourage our complaints and videos. The police have no granted right to give noisemakers permission to make more.
It's bad enough we have "noise on the hoof", the vehicles going by all day, everyday, bass booming and revving illegally modified exhaust, but to have the police join forces with them by allowing stationary noise, is again not tenable. The police need to use their time citing and doing, not coming to my house every time I try to have a noise complaint resolved. They can act on their own at the site of the noise problem, and yet they insist on squandering time "interviewing me", I think trying to find a way to get me out of Richmond or into jail, all because I hate loud circus music noise and all other rude, selfish behaviors being foisted upon me.
Does the city mean to rub the rude, selfish "culture" of noise into my face my whole life here? DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
2 ** Allow two or more citizens to make a complaint, which is our right, something being denied us regarding 338 Willard Ave. fireworks on July 4th. There are three complainants and an officer I saw blocked by a rocket lit off right in front of their car as they turned unto Willard; and yet no citation has been forthcoming that I've heard about. The cops want to forget about it, but I don't. There's nothing I can do but get a lawyer, I suppose, and start some injunctions against the city.
A cop has the right to act on his own accord and cite for things happening right in front of them. But, if three different residences want 338 Willard Ave. cited, the cops are supposed to help us.
I think they want to avoid any paperwork or cost, they say; but then they swarm (several times I can document by now) my house for yelling at an Hispanic cop on the phone or making valid noise complaints against recurring misdemeanor assaults of noise upon me.
** Rubber has a chemical in it which helps protect it from sun damage.
As the rubber wears, this chemical leaches off into all water courses, inevitably killing off Salmon, for instance. This has been proven already by scientists whom I believe know more than the councilmembers trying to please a selfish group of forty year old juvenile delinquents, maybe trying to get their vote too, if only they can get them legal to do so.
So, sideshows cause environmental damage from burning rubber, leaving heavy traces on the pavement to wash off into our water courses. Tell me, councilmembers who think you think, who is going to prevent all the rubber from washing into our bay?
Who is going to provide the needed police or security for the sideshows, anyway?
** A modified exhaust is a "pre‐requisite" for anyone to show their face at a sideshow. Having one will create more noise, which is a main goal, a pain upon reasoning folks nearby being assaulted by it.
Moreover, in most cases, smog law also is being violated. The tuning is configured towards performance and away from state smog standards, and in some cases lots of pollutants are being ejected into the air.
Is the city prepared to face lawsuits pending for willfully helping a whole slew of vehicle owners to drive around here with improper, illegal exhausts ‐‐ and then let them have more fun in sanctioned sideshows? Are these crazy councilmembers, or what?
** The right to quiet enjoyment extends to the trucking industry.
Federal, state, county, city law and ordinance all go by a basic premise: trucks are noisy, dirty, and would represent blight if allowed to operate and exist in residential areas.
Therefore, county areas may allow some instances of parking a truck at home, certainly it's not legal within the City of Richmond.
Our own ordinance says commercial trucks over eighty‐four inches wide or higher than seventy‐eight inches are not allowed parked upon any street in Richmond between the hours of one a.m. and six a.m. A good example is a "pallet truck" being regularly parked on Leo St., between Willard Ave. and Sanford Ave, owned and operated by 406 Sanford Ave.
This truck the police will argue with me, is not commercial because of size, they'll say. But the truck is used commercially and registered as such. He is being allowed a business out of his home, like 324 Duboce with their tree cutting business illegally operating, but on a small scale.
This truck is eighty‐five inches wide and one can see why we have the DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
3 law: he blocks Leo somewhat. When he piles an uncovered pallet load on the flatbed, he is over the height limit. His neighbors have to have that eyesore in front of their houses on a regular basis, though he is entirely in violation. There are many other instances of this illegal truck parking.
** Police don't have any right I can find in the noise ordinance enforcement provisions to grant permission to a no‐ permit party or wedding, or whatever, to proceed and make noise. What I read is they are required to inform the noisemaker there is a complaint, and give warning that after five minutes or within ninety days of this warning they will be cited, found in violation. Instead, the police are granting them rights they have no right to grant.
Who told the cops they could give permission for loud, over the decibel level noise to proceed to any hour they dictate? I had a cop decide to grant two days of noise to one particular address, ignoring my complaint completely, dispatch telling me it was a wedding.
Just this past Sat. / Sun. I had plans to do garden work. The police decided that 233 Vernon now gets to rent out their church for weddings and blast out the neighborhood with loud, raucous, out of tune noise which far exceeded any allowed decibel levels. Cop gave permission, against my complaint and my need to have air and be outside, letting them proceed illegally until eight p.m., as I was informed by dispatch.
Again, Sun. the police allowed the same illegal noise to proceed until eight p.m., forcing me inside for two days of hell, seeing as opening my window in my house for air forced me to hear their selfish godawful noise. So, the city is letting the church raise money or profit from regular weddings at my expense?
Is the city ready to provide me hotel lodging expense and paid security to protect and watch my house while I have to stay away while the city and police appease the selfish, greedy noisemakers and litterbugs?
** Most problem houses are regulars, like 1250 FJW, with monthly noise and fireworks. I have video which I'm sure would fly in civil court, but of course the police demand more than I can give, it seems; but constantly, despite all I really can prove about how rotten they are, the police grant these problem properties the right to make more noise; and it's under the guise of "birthday party", wedding, etcetera.
The problem with the police and I guess the city's new errant viewpoint: our noise ordinance says nothing about letting parties proceed, except to say a permit is required. The permit process allows neighbors to be informed and get out of town if they don't want to hear the permitted, allowed noise.
The police chief cannot rightly grant a permit after the fact to cover letting another assault upon me proceed, as has been continually done by criminal neighbors and police allowing them in most every instance I've documented.
What the police and city do is force someone like me, who's had a glass of wine and a little smoke after my workday here, to now stay at home and have to hear this godawful circus music booming through my walls, all because I had no prior warning from the noisemaker they planned a permitted party. The most important part of the permit process is notifying neighbors, unless you folks think everyone is supposed to like and endure their crap?
Of course, no permits are ever drawn here because the police an d city are once again appeasing a very selfish, noisy
group of regulars, and the city / police dept. will be held liable if they persist.
Most of these noise events are far exceeding any decibel level the city allows, even with a valid noise permit.
** Sales of fruits / food from roving vehicles or from street carts parked upon the sidewalk is not legal without a valid, current permit from the health dept. The folks there say they are completely overwhelmed by cases of illegal sales I'm describing. They have only one or two people for the whole county I believe, and so nothing gets done against this.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
4 I see sales like this from illegal carts at Target / Home Depot / along streets. If one calls police about it, they won't respond at all, arguing instead, asking how do you know they aren't legal?
A current, valid permit must be on display to the public, and they don't have one in my view, I say to dispatch. Still, police do nothing, and this is a political go around our county health codes to appease a group wanting to make money selling food illegally.
It's incumbent upon the city and the police to enforce against the practice of selling fruit / food without permit, as it violates health laws and represents a blight upon my city. I don't live in a foreign land where street hawkers roam to the peril of anyone possibly getting sick from non‐inspected foods. The city / RPD need to help the health dept. by having officers quickly shut them down with citations.
That would let them off the hook a bit, you liberal minded, as the health dept. told me they will seize both the food items and the cart or truck used to sell it, so a citation is nicer, if that's what's required now, instead of having any law and order here at all.
I do not like what happened in Berkeley awhile back, when a good officer cited an illegal food seller, confiscating cash, I believe.
The damn mayor didn't back his police officer about this and I disrespect that whole process highly, where this criminal gets rewarded by the public with gifts of money and the good cop gets in trouble, I suppose. I will not tolerate a Richmond which acts like this, allowing all the above complaints I'm listing, as I need to live here the rest of my life.
If I had a child, I would not want someone selling them food I don't know about out upon the sidewalks as they walk to school. The fact the police and city are allowing this along Rheem, for instance, around near 36th or something where the school crossings are; or, how about near Verde School where street hawkers are hustling food to children as they dodge all the junk and debris brought on by the continued allowed and illegal trucking activity along Giramita, for instance.
These are some of my concerns. It will be worth hiring a good lawyer to settle some of these persistent selective enforcement issues the city and police like to wield as a vicious sword, using power of the city against those not wanting the damn noise and blight.
Tom Sumner
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Cordell Hindler <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 4:24 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments J-1 Budget Session
good evening Mayor Butt, council members and city staff, I must commend the city manager's office and Management Partners for this excellent presentation
the funds should be allocated to fill certain Positions
Sincerely
Cordell
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Susan Hybloom <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 11:40 AM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment: Agenda Item L-5
As a Richmond resident I am very concerned that Mayor Butt has the sole authority to cancel City Council meetings when they are to deal with subjects he doesn't like. I don't think that action is democratic. Therefore I support Item L‐5 which would stop the Mayor or any one Council member from unilaterally canceling a meeting.
Thank you.
Susan Hybloom
939 28th St
Richmond 94804
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Jeff Royal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 7:47 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comment for agenda L-5
Dear City Council,
I am a Richmond resident urging the Council to support agenda item L‐5 at the upcoming City Council meeting. I was surprised to hear that up until now the mayor had the power and ability to cancel City Council meetings at will.
Thank you,
Jeff Royal
District 5, Richmond
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Anna Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:59 AM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda L-5
Dear City Council,
I’m a Richmond resident and I support L‐5. Transparency is critical to a functioning democracy. It is not ok for Mayor Butts to cancel meetings that us citizens should have the rights to hear. I urge your support of L‐5 as well.
Thank you,
Anna Chavez
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Tom Clancy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 12:41 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item L-5
Dear City Council: I am writing in support of Item L‐5 on today’s council agenda. I believe that local democracy is best served if no one person, even the mayor, has the sole authority to cancel meetings. Thank you. ‐Tom Clancy
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Stacey Frederick <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 11:08 AM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item L-5 for today's meeting: In strong support of rectify this terrible rule I was first made aware of this rule from a local news source, where they called out the mayor for canceling a meeting over something that was clearly against his interests rather than allowing the procedures of democracy and I was aghast that a mayor could hold such power.
I have been a Richmond resident for over 4 years and I would like to voice my strong support of today's L‐5 agenda item to assure future fair and democrat process for our city.
Thank you for your time,
Stacey Frederick
Resident
4781 Hershey Ct, Richmond, CA 94804
‐‐
Stacey Sargent Frederick
Pronouns: she/her/hers
[email protected]
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Sally Tobin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 11:11 AM
To: City Clerk Dept User; Gayle McLaughlin; Eduardo Martinez; Melvin Willis; Claudia Jimenez; Demnlus Johnson; Tom Butt - external; Nat Bates
Cc: Laura Snideman; Teresa Stricker
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item L-5
To: City Council Members
City of Richmond
I would like to express my support for Item L‐5, which proposes to adopt a resolution that limits the mayor’s ability to cancel regularly scheduled meetings of the City Council. This power was probably intended to permit a mayor to deal with unexpected events or emergencies, but has recently been misused by Mayor Butt. It is a shame to lose governmental flexibility, but Mayor Butt’s actions have impeded municipal functions and are anti‐democratic. Please vote to amend the City of Richmond City Council Rules of Procedure and Order.
Thank you very much,
Sally Tobin
Richmond Resident
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Rita Barouch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 12:50 AM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comment Agenda item L-5
Please share this email with Mayor Butt and Councilpersons Martinez, McLaughlin, Jimenez, Johnson, Bates, Willis,
I am a 21 year Richmond resident writing to you in strong support of L‐5. This is necessary to protect our democratic process in Richmond. No one person should be able to cancel City Council meetings and interfere with important city business.
I am especially concerned about risking the loss of valuable city income if meetings are cancelled.
Thank you for protecting responsible government.
Sincerely,
Rita Barouch MSW
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Nancy Donald <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 9:01 AM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item L-5.
I strongly urge you, the representatives of demcratic Richmond, to adopt a resolution amending the City of Richmond City Council Rules of Procedure and Order (initially adopted by Resolution No. 27-06 and amended in subsequent years) to modify the last sentence of Section II A. (1) of this policy to eliminate the authority of the mayor to unilaterally cancel any future regular or special meeting of the City Council, so as to concur with the City of Richmond's democratic process of governance
Nancy Donald
662 38th St
Richmond CA
94805
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Jim Hite <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 12:19 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item L-5
Hi. My name is Jim Hite, Richmond resident. City Council members, please vote yes on Agenda Item L‐5 which will change a particular city council procedural rule that is currently being put in play to satisfy a willful member of your body at the expense of most all the citizens of Richmond. The intentional disregard of good and prudent standards and proper conduct is shameful and out of place in decent society. Thank you DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Janet Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 11:17 AM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item L-5.
Dear City Clerk, Mayor, and City Council members,
I support agenda item L-5. It is critical that democracy prevails in our city council procedures. Unfortunately, the existing rule that allows one person the sole authority to cancel meetings has been abused, obstructing the democratic process and wasting valuable staff time. Richmond community members deserve to participate fully in council deliberations on the many items that affect them; cancelling council meetings arbitrarily denies them that right. The council can rectify this problem by voting "yes" on item L-5.
Thank you for your consideration!
Janet Johnson
‐‐
Janet Scoll Johnson
pronouns: she/her
Unceded Chochenyo Ohlone Territory, Richmond CA
Sunflower Alliance
Richmond Shoreline Alliance
“Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” — James Baldwin
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Emily Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 2:01 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item L-5
Hello,
As a Richmond resident I'd like to voice my support for Item L‐5, which would change the City Council procedural rule currently allowing City Council meetings to be canceled at the mayor's discretion. Controversial agenda items should be put up for public discussion rather than silenced because the mayor (or any one person) dislikes them.
Thank you,
Emily Johnson
5005 State Ave.
Richmond 94804
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 2:52 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Gayle McLaughlin; Claudia Jimenez; Melvin Willis
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item L-5
We do not need a ONE-MAN-FILIBUSTER.
Mayor Butt must be stopped from behaving like the infamous Senator Macconnell.
Stop allowing one person (i.e. the Mayor) from cancelling City Council meetings willy nilly.
Richmond has a lot of serious business to accomplish.
Sincerely,
Elsa Stevens
Richmond voter
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Dajenya <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 5:00 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item L-5
Regardless of whatever differences in political views of various council members and/or the mayor, I would expect everyone to agree to democratic processes.
Democracy means we (or our elected representatives) all decide together. No one wants a dictatorchip where one person has the power to force his or her or their views on everyone else, or by silencing people, or by canceling meetings whenever a topic arises that one doesn't like. This is like a kid throwing a tantrum and destroying game equipment if everyone doesn't concede to whatever he wants to happen.
So of course I, (like all democracy-minded people would), support L-5 to assure that democracy prevails in our city council procedures rather than allowing one person the sole authority to cancel meetings.
Thank you,
Dajenya Kafele
Richmond resident since 1984
Richmond business owner and service provider since 2013
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Carolyn Graves <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 11:30 AM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item L-5
I support agenda item L-5, to allow the city council to modify the city council procedures so that regular and special City Council meetings can no longer be canceled unilaterally by the Mayor.
Regards,
Carolyn Graves
Richmond resident
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. v.173.295 Thank you.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Helsel Bill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 4:14 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM L-5 - TUESDAY July 27th
I wish to voice my support of Public Comment Agenda Item L‐5 scheduled for Tuesday July 27th City Council Meeting .
I have lived in the City of Richmond for over 40years and voted for Mayor Butt but I DO NOT agree that he should have the ability to unilaterally cancel meetings. That is totally undemocratic . No member of our council should wield that amount of control. Please register that I SUPPORT PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM L‐5
Thank you
Bill Helsel
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Anne Marie Richard <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 12:44 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item L-5
Dear City Council,
I am a Richmond resident and wish to register my strong support for Agenda Item L‐5 on the upcoming City Council meeting. It is important that our city enfranchises all residents and that our City Council has procedures in place to protect democratic participation.
Thank you,
Anne Marie Richard
District 5 resident
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Margaret Helsel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 10:55 AM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item L-5
I wish to voice my support of Public Comment Agenda Item L‐5. I have lived in the City of Richmond for over 40years and voted for Mayor Butt but I DO NOT agree that he should have the ability to unilaterally cancel meetings or items. That is totally undemocratic . No member of our council should wield that amount of control. Please register that I SUPPORT PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM L‐5 Thank you Margaret Helsel
Sent from my iPhone
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Laura Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 10:56 AM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Gayle McLaughlin
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item L-5
My name is Laura Thomas, a Richmond resident and homeowner. I am appalled at Mayor Butt's abuse of power in cancelling meetings where he did not like the agenda. I support item L‐5 and believe it is crucial to ensure Butt, and others in the future, cannot use their power to impede democracy.
Regards,
Laura Thomas
‐‐
Join the Richmond Shoreline Alliance in the fight for environmental justice.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: TARNEL ABBOTT <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 12:48 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User; Laura Snideman
Cc: Tom Butt; Demnlus Johnson; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; Claudia Jimenez; Nat Bates
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item J 1
Council Members:
RE Agenda Item J 1, Attachment 1 you are again being asked to consider contracting out the Richmond Public Library to the Contra Costa County Library. The last time there was an attempt to eliminate the library from the budget by this method about 200 people lobbied you to keep our city library, Richmond Public Library. Why is this consulting firm being paid a huge contract to recommend something that the people of our community have already resoundingly rejected? The library has been sacrificed to save the budget so many times it is a ghost of its prior self. Libraries are essential infrastructure.
This is your only city educational institution. The needs of this community are unique within Contra Costa County and the Richmond Library has a history and tradition of meeting those unique needs.
Richmond deserves a stronger library not a weaker one.
Please advocate for more staff, more open hours, more collections (including databases), more programs and facility improvement. The Richmond Public Library was built in 1949 and has had very little in the way of infrastructure/facility upgrades. There is no HVAC , the radiators are antiquated, the lighting insufficient, the floor tiles should be replaced, the elevator is not 100% reliable, the loading dock should have power assist, etc. Please send a letter to Congressman DeSaulnier in support of this bill to to Build America's Libraries:
“S. 127 — 117th Congress: Build America’s Libraries Act.” For further information see:
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/buildlibraries
Thank you,
Tarnel Abbott
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 11:59 AM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Claudia Jimenez; Demnlus Johnson; Melvin Willis; Gayle McLaughlin; Eduardo Martinez; Trina Jackson Subject: City Council Meeting - Public Comment - Item L-1; L-5; L-7 I would like to submit a comment IN STRONG FAVOR OF
L‐5.
ADOPT a resolution amending the City of Richmond City Council Rules of Procedure and Order (initially adopted by Resolution No. 27‐06 and amended in subsequent years) to modify the last sentence of Section II A. (1) of this policy to eliminate the authority of the mayor to unilaterally cancel any future regular or special meeting of the City Council, so as to concur with the City of Richmond's democratic process of governance ‐ Councilmembers Gayle McLaughlin (510‐620‐6636) and Claudia Jimenez (510‐620‐6565).
AND
L‐7.
DISCUSS and PROVIDE direction to staff to implement a street sweeping pilot program that engages stakeholders, characteristic of the diversity of communities within the City and conforms to the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit ‐ Public Works Department (Joe Leach 510‐620‐ 5478).
AND
L‐1.
DIRECT staff (city attorney) to review University of California Berkeley's research, the City Charter and other relevant legal authority to determine if the City Council has the authority to extend voting rights to undocumented Richmond residents to participate in local elections and, upon completion, DIRECT staff to present their findings to Council and, if authority exists, agendize an item for Council to consider such voting rights extension ‐ Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (510‐620‐6565), Councilmember Eduardo Martinez (510‐620‐6593) and Vice Mayor Demnlus Johnson, III (510‐620‐ 6568). This item was continued from the July 6, 2021, and cancelled July 20, 2021, meeting.
I will try to call in during the meeting to comment on this item, but since it seems to be middle of work day, I may not be able to be present.
These are all very important items, and I want to express my STRONG support for all of them.
Thank you!
Kathleen Erwin
Richmond Resident and VOTER
Panhandle Annex Neighborhood
____________________________________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
2 Choose to be safer online.
Opt-in to Cyber Safety with NortonLifeLock.
Get Norton 360 with LifeLock starting at $9.95/month.*
NetZero.com/NortonLifeLock
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Jeannette Kortz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 12:28 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item L-5
Below is my public comment regarding Agenda Item L‐5:
I am writing in support of Agenda Item L‐5. A mayor should not have the power to unilaterally cancel a city council meeting simply because he or she does not want to discuss a certain item on the City Council agenda.
This is highly undemocratic, and the last sentence of Section II of the Richmond City Council Rules of Procedure and Order (initially adopted by Resolution No. 27‐06 and amended in subsequent years) that currently gives the mayor the power to unilaterally cancel a city council meeting, serves as a tool that is currently being abused by Mayor Butt because there is a particular agenda item that he does not want discussed at the City Council meetings. Canceling city council meetings based on non‐emergency reasons, and giving the mayor sole authority to cancel meetings, costs the city money. We cannot afford this.
Again, in the name of democracy and moving forward with important City business, I urge the City Council to support this agenda item.
Thank you for your time
Jeanne Kortz
Richmond Resident
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Janis E. Eggleston <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 12:10 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Gayle McLaughlin
Subject: Public Comment to Approve Item # L-5 to adopt a resolution to the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order to Remove the Mayor's Discretionary Authority to Unilaterally Cancel any Future Special or Regular meeting on the Agenda
Importance: High
Dear City Clerk and City Council Members:
I strongly urge the City Council to adopt a resolution to the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order, cited in the last sentence pf Section II, A.(1), to strike the provision of the Rule that grants the Mayor discretionary authority to unilaterally cancel any future Special or Regular Meeting already on the Agenda. Instead, I ask the City Council to amend the language of this provision to require a vote of a majority of City Council Members to cancel any Special or Regular Meeting. This Amendment to the Rules of Procedure and Order is necessary and urgent.
The Mayor has demonstrated that he has abused his discretion when he removed at least two items on the (1) July 20th Special Meeting Agenda, Item # L-5 re: the Campus Bay Development (See, Tom Butts E-Forum public comments, dated 7/24/21 entitled “Campus Bay, the RPA, and the City Attorney,”) to justify his abusive, obstructionist machinations during the July 22nd public City Council Meeting, which he described as a “Shitshow” and for which he took no responsibility for having created; and (2) July 20th Item # I-21 from the Consent Calendar re: the Oppenheimer Investigator Group, LLC’s, which would investigate Personnel Matters as required by law, including the FEHA.
At the July 22nd City Council Meeting, the Mayor openly abused the City Attorney in a manner that is unlawful under FEHA, and distracted, obstructed, and interfered with Councilmember McLaughlin’s two- part motion to address the Mayor’s abuse of his discretionary authority to cancel Special and Regular Meetings so that he could delay public hearing on certain Agenda Items.
The Mayor’s Abuse of the City Attorney at a Public Meeting
The Mayor abused the City Attorney by telling her she was “full of it;” “flat wrong;” that “ I just don’t think you are very smart;” she is “not right;” “is wrong;” and that “she is not all knowing.” He also accused the City Attorney of “being complicit in a plot of overturn the Brown Act” and that she is “sworn to uphold the law, not collaborate with City Council members to try to get around the law.” I believe the Mayor’s public comments about the City Attorney violate the FEHA and requires the City to take corrective action against him.
The Mayor also grossly and materially misrepresented to the public and City Council members that they had no authority to confer with the City Attorney and she had no authority to advise them. A clear reading of the City Attorney’s duties posted on the City’s webpage states that one of the City DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
2 Attorney’s primary responsibilities is to: “Serve[ing] as the primary legal advisor and legal representative to the City and City Council.”
The Mayor, by and through his conduct on July 22nd, has signaled that he will go to great lengths to achieve his nefarious ends. His abuse of his discretionary authority needs to stop. Thus, I urge the City Council to remove his discretionary authority to cancel Special and Regular meetings and adopt the proposed resolution to require a majority vote of the City Council members before any Special or Regular meeting may be cancelled.
The Mayor Is No Authority on the Brown Act and Repeatedly Violates It by Publicly Disclosing the Content of Confidential Closed Session Meetings on His E-Forum.
The Mayor has, at least twice, publicly disclosed the contents of confidential closed session items, on his public E-Forum.
First, he disclosed the contents of the City Council’s June 22nd Closed Session discussion regarding the Anticipated Litigation re: the Reese-Brown DFEH Right-to-Sue letter that announced the threat of litigation. In his June 23rd E-Forum calling for the Resignation of the City Manager and City Attorney, he openly discussed what he alleged to be conflicting allegations made by City employee, Ms. Reese-Brown.
Second, he publicly disclosed the contents of the City Council’s Closed Session discussions when he announced he wanted the DA to investigate the City Attorney and City Manager because of an independent investigation contract and expenditure into personnel matters, which they are required, by FEHA to conduct, once presented with the City employee complaint of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
In both instances, there was no vote by the City Council to authorize the Mayor’s public disclosure of confidential closed sessions discussions, as required by the Brown Act. Thus, the Mayor has violated the Brown Act.
The previously noticed July 20th Consent Calendar Item # I-21, and current Consent Calendar Item # I- 20, are efforts to resolve the Mayor’s threatened actions against the City Manager and City Attorney, who acted to fulfill their statutory duties, as required by FEHA, which requires among other things for the City to conduct immediate and effective investigations into personnel matters. The Mayor abused his discretionary authority to cancel these attempts to authorize expenditures to conduct investigations into personnel matters and the Mayor’s alleged wrongful conduct.
Thus, I urge the City Council to strike the Mayor’s discretionary authority from the Section II, A. 1 of the Rules of Procedure and Order and instead required a majority vote by the City Council to cancel any Regular or Special meeting.
Madame City Clerk, please distribute this email to the City Council prior to this evening’s City Council Meeting.
Thank you,
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
3 Janis E. Eggleston
District 5, City of Richmond Resident
Janis E. Eggleston
LAW OFFICE OF JANIS E. EGGLESTON
1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 201
Alameda, CA 94501-6472
Telephone: 510-735-9986
Facsimile: (877) 863-3714
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.jegglestonlaw.com
The information in this email is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient. It may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which is the exclusive property of the Law Office of Janis E. Eggleston. This e-mail may also contain privileged information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product, pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 952 and 954 and Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2018.020-2018.040. If you have received this email in e rror, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this email and permanently destroying and deleting all copies without disclosing the contents to anyone. You ar e hereby notified that any review, disclosure, dissemination, copying distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.
To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Leisa Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:06 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Leisa Johnson
Subject: Open Forum - Written Comments for Supplementary Material, July 27th, 2021 council meeting Dear City Clerk,
Could you please confirm receipt of this request & include these comments as part of the City Council meeting supplementary material?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Leisa
*************************************************************************
Good Evening Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Councilmembers and City Staff ‐
I am speaking out tonight on the discussion that occurred last Thursday regarding fireworks & sideshows.
I know I speak for many when I say that the RPA 5 councilmembers completely disrespected the vast majority of Richmond residents and businesses regarding illegal fireworks and sideshows.
You expressed more concern for the people who are doing the illegal activities than for the public health & safety of this entire community, including many who suffer from PTSD, such as some of our veterans, and who are traumatized by these activities. A homeowner’s dog died on July 4th in response to the firework battleground now as Richmond.
Councilmember Martinez & Vice Mayor Johnson expressed more concern for 12, 13 and 14 year olds, implying they are the primary ones blowing up fireworks and doing sideshows. First of all, they are not the ones spending thousands of $ buying fireworks; Nor are they allowed to drive let alone do a sideshow; and Any parent or adult who is letting them light these powerful fireworks or drive, let alone participate in a sideshow, could even be charged with child endangerment.
Councilmember Martinez wants to devote land for folks to conduct illegal sideshows. As one speaker appropriately noted, he appeared to be more concerned about finding land to support this than helping our unhoused residents.
What resident or business would want this next to them? Wouldn’t this violate our City’s Noise Ordinance?
This is also a bay area issue; if he wants to find land to support sideshows, then he should work with other cities on such an endeavor.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
2 Regarding preventive measures - there are numerous city-sponsored firework shows that families and adults can attend, and Richmond plans to have a show again in 2022.
These folks are spending thousands on fireworks and tires (if the sideshow vehicles aren't stolen), and as other cities crack down on sideshows, they will only continue to increase in Richmond if we don’t similarly send a strong message that they won’t be tolerated in Richmond.
The RPA has no problem fining ma & pa landlords $10K or higher for a minor first time infraction.
Why do you think illegal fireworks & sideshows aren’t worthy of appropriate fines coupled with community service as well as impounding cars and suspending drivers license? Moreover, many of these participants do not even live in Richmond.
I also hope that Vice Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Martinez plan to address the property owner(s) whose home or business is destroyed or, god forbid, whose child is seriously injured or killed resulting from illegal fireworks. When you defund RPD and eliminate several RPD positions, you should have the courage to step up and own your actions instead of expecting RPD or RFD to deliver such difficult news.
Please show some respect for your community that has been begging for proactive and effective solutions.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Leisa Johnson
21‐year Richmond resident
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Good evening Mayor, council members and city staff. My name is María López and I am a member of the West County Regional Group sponsored by First 5 Contra Costa.
I am here today to speak about the right to vote in local elections in our community. For our group the most important values are human dignity, respect, and justice. We work very hard to create healthy, safe and equitable communities for children and families. All residents of our city are a part of the same ecosystem, and we all deserve to have the same value and rights.
For this reason, I’m here today. Because at this time part of our community does not have the right to vote due to their immigration status. Our community needs equity for all, it is important that everyone casts their vote regardless of their immigration status. Not allowing all residents of a city to vote in local elections is a form of voter oppression. And in times like these, when so many voter oppression laws are being passed across the country, Richmond has the opportunity to be the example of inclusion, and be a leader for immigrant rights.
We are a community rich in diversity and all decisions made in this community affect or benefit us all. Voting is a basic right to which all human beings should have access to.
The solution for our community is that all Richmond residents be allowed to take part in local elections, which directly affects our daily lives.
You can support us to make this dream come true where we can all feel integrated and part of the community. Take action today by approving Council Member Jimenez's proposal and investigating the possibility of allowing non-citizen Richmond residents to vote in local elections. Thanks DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Linda Watson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 4:59 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item #L-1
Good Evening Mayor, Council Members and Staff. My name is Linda Wiggins and I am a volunteer with the West County Regional Group sponsored by First 5 Contra Costa.
I’m writing to you today to discuss my support for Councilmember Jimenez’s proposal to expanding voting rights to Richmond residents, regardless of immigration status. Our group is a multi‐cultural advocacy group with organizational values that work to make West Contra Costa a healthier, safer, more equitable place to live. We promote increased representation of low‐income families and families of color in local decision‐making.
Our United States, noted as the Land of the Free, is a democracy, in which our government officials are elected by vote by the very people they represent. The fact that non‐citizen immigrants in the U.S. are not allowed to vote is a form of voter suppression. Laws like the poll tax were struck down because our courts decided that financial barriers to voting were unconstitutional.
But how are the financial barriers of becoming a citizen any different? I support allowing noncitizens to vote! I humbly submit and argue that prohibiting them from doing so is unjust because of barriers to naturalization; that prohibiting them from voting encourages discriminatory public policy; that allowing noncitizens to vote does not discourage them from seeking citizenship; and that allowing noncitizens to vote promotes policy that benefits society as a whole as opposed to just the elites.
I am a registered voter. I'm asking you to please take action by supporting staff to research expanding voting to noncitizens in our local elections. We need your help! Our democracy depends on your action.
Thank you, West County Regional Group advocate,
Ms Linda Wiggins
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
Buenas tardes señor alcalde, concejales y personal de la ciudad. Mi nombre es María López y soy miembro del Grupo Regional del Oeste del Condado patrocinado por Los Primeros 5 de Contra Costa.
Hoy estoy aquí para hablar sobre el derecho al voto en las elecciones locales de nuestra comunidad. Para nuestro grupo los valores más importantes son la dignidad humana, el respeto, y la justicia. Trabajamos muy duro para crear comunidades saludables, seguras y equitativas para los niños y familias. Todos los residentes de nuestra ciudad forman parte del mismo ecosistema, y todos merecemos tener el mismo valor y derechos.
Por esta razón me dirijo a ustedes, porque en este momento parte de nuestra comunidad no tiene el derecho a votar debido a su estatus migratorio. Nuestra comunidad necesita equidad para todos, es importante que cada quien ejerza el voto sin importar su estatus migratorio. El no permitir a todos los residentes de una ciudad votar en las elecciones locales es una forma de opresión de voto. Y en tiempos como estos donde tantas leyes de opresión de voto se están aprobando a lo largo del país, Richmond tiene la oportunidad de ser el ejemplo de inclusión, y ser un líder por los derechos de los inmigrantes.
Somos una comunidad rica en diversidad y todas las decisiones que se tomen en esta comunidad nos afecta o nos beneficia a todos. El voto es un derecho básico al cual todos los seres humanos deberíamos detener acceso.
La solución para nuestra comunidad es que se nos permita a todos los residentes de Richmond formar parte de las elecciones locales, las cuales afectan nuestra vida diaria directamente.
Ustedes nos pueden apoyar para poder realizar este sueño donde todos nos podamos sentir integrados y parte de la comunidad. Tomen acción hoy, al aprobar la propuesta del concejal Jiménez e investigar la posibilidad de permitir a los residentes de Richmond no ciudadanos votar en las elecciones locales. Gracias
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Michael Gliksohn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 2:05 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment on Item L-5
Dear City Clerk, Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing to express my support for item L‐5, the resolution amending the City of Richmond City Council Rules of Procedure and Order. I urge a Yes vote.
Thank you,
Michael Gliksohn
Richmond resident
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Leisa Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 11:22 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Leisa Johnson
Subject: Written Public Comments for Item I-19, July 27th, 2021 City Council meeting Dear City Clerk,
Could you please confirm receipt of this request & include these comments as part of the City Council meeting supplementary material?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Leisa
*************************************************************************
Good evening Mayor, Council and Staff -
The Public agrees that we have a crisis with our unhoused population in Richmond which needs support.
However, you can’t violate City Policy in the process, especially when dealing with $1M of taxpayer money.
This item is for a $1M sole‐source contract. Were this any other matter doing something comparable, the RPA would be having a coronary if someone else had put this on the consent calendar. You can’t sit on the dais and cry that there is a lack of functioning democracy when this action is not following Richmond policy as well as a fair bidding, negotiation & public review process.
As per RMC 2.52.326 and sole source procurement. "A contract may be awarded without competition when the City determines in writing, after conducting a good faith review of available sources, that there is only one source for the required goods or service. The City Manager shall conduct negotiations, as appropriate, as to
price, delivery, and terms. A written statement of the basis for the sole source determination shall be placed in the contract file."
I would like the City Manager & City Attorney to please clarify for the Public why policy wasn’t followed? RMC code doesn’t support this action but the City Attorney basically just said, “Oh well”.
1. Is the contract with Rebuilding Together East Bay-North or is this a work around on paper and the contract is really with SOS! Richmond, who does not have the current in-house capabilities to oversee such a large contract being paid for with Richmond taxpayer money?
2. As per RMC, did you conduct a good faith review of all available sources & determine that there is no other source besides Rebuilding Together East Bay-North to provide the required goods or service that SOS can’t? That is the question and Councilmember McLaughlin is not directly addressing it.
If so, please provide the public with the relevant information pertaining to this review & determination.
3. Rebuilding Together East Bay-North is based in Berkeley and doesn’t currently exist in Richmond. Which other non-profit agencies/entities were contacted, especially in Richmond? DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
2 4. As per RMC, did you conduct negotiations regarding price, delivery & terms?
The responsibility of items 2-4 lies with the City Manager, not Councilmembers McLaughlin or Jimenez.
5. Where is the written statement of the basis for this sole source determination?
6. What are the metrics of success and failure?
7. What audit mechanisms are in place?
This might very well be the best combo but who has vetted Rebuilding Together? Who has researched other options? Who has defined the proposal requirements? Until the proposal requirements/outcomes/measurement criteria & methodology are clearly defined, and until the call for services is broadcast through whatever social service channels exist, and until the contracts have been negotiated, we are shortchanging the process for everyone involved. None of this has to take an inordinately long time, but why not lay a solid foundation for success?
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Leisa Johnson
21‐year Richmond Resident
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
1 Pamela Christian
From: Joaquin Montalvo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 6:00 PM
To: City Clerk Dept User; Cecilia Perez-Mejia
Subject: public comments agenda Item#
Good evening Mayor, council members and city staff. My name is Enicia Montalvo and I am a volunteer with the West County Regional Group, sponsored by First 5 Contra Costa. WCRG promotes healthy, safe and equitable communities for all families and children. I am also a pastor of a church within the Hispanic community.
I am here today to speak in support of the proposal to investigate the possibility of Richmond residents having the right to vote in local elections regardless of their immigration status.
The immigrant community is full of highly qualified people with good conduct, integrity, morals and principles, and we’re active in our community. We are also people who have bright and intelligent minds, with good ideas and creativity. We fight for our families and for our community.
The problem is that because some are undocumented immigrants or non-citizen immigrants of this country, they are not allowed to exercise the right to vote. We’re being deprived of the opportunity to elect worthy and valuable representatives to represent us in the decision-making. The immigrant community is also being deprived from expressing our valuable opinion and to have a just democracy.
We as an immigrant community equally deserve to have a voice just like other Richmond residents.
We participate in enriching this city and it is only fair that we have a voice in how it is run.
Please take positive action by supporting an investigation into the possibility of allowing undocumented immigrants and / or non-citizens to be active participants in the City of Richmond elections. Be the leaders we need right now and please support this proposal.
Thanks
Enicia Montalvo, Pastor of the Hispanic community
DocuSign Envelope ID: DD9ADCFB-ECBB-40A1-8BC4-0A9E6270DC8D
June 21, 2022
Library and Community Services
DATE: June 21, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
LaShonda White, Interim Director of Library and
Community Services
Ranjana Maharaj, Deputy Director for Community
Services – Recreation
Greg Hardesty, Parks and Landscaping Superintendent
Tetteh Kisseh, Recreation Supervisor
Subject:
Convert the West Side Tennis Court At Booker T.
Anderson to Two Fixed Pickleball Courts
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The project will have no financial impact on the City’s budget. The East Bay Pickleball Association will work in collaboration with the Parks and Landscaping Division to convert this court and will pay for the conversion through grant funds they have received.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
July 27, 2021
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
On July 27, 2021, City Council approved the installation of six temporary pickleball courts at the Booker T.
Anderson tennis courts. The Recreation Division and the Parks and Landscaping Division are now seeking City
Council approval to convert the west side tennis court to two permanent pickleball courts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVE the conversion of one tennis court at the
Booker T. Anderson tennis courts to two permanent
pickleball courts – Library and Community Services
Department/Public Works Department (Ranjana
Maharaj/Tetteh Kisseh/Greg Hardesty 510-620-6919).
AGENDA
REPORT
June 21, 2022
DISCUSSION:
On July 14, 2021, the Recreation and Parks Commission (Commission) approved a request from City staff to convert the Booker T. Anderson (BTA) tennis courts into a multi-use facility by superimposing temporary lines to allow pickleball to be played on the tennis courts. This request came from the East Bay Pickleball Association (EBPA) and was approved by the Southside Plus One Neighborhood Group (neighborhood council). On July 27, 2021, this item was approved by City Council (Attachment 1).
On December 2, 2021, Darlene Drapkin, a representative from the East Bay Pickleball Association, provided an update to the Commission about the pickleball program and requested the Commission approve conversion of two of the pickleball courts at BTA to permanent pickleball courts. City staff indicated at that meeting that this proposal would first need to be approved by the neighborhood council and would then be brought back to the Commission for their approval prior to acquiring City Council approval.
On February 23, 2022, City staff presented this request to the neighborhood council, and the neighborhood council conditionally approved this request provided that the permanent pickleball courts be located closer to the play structure (west side) of the BTA tennis courts. On February 28, 2022, a follow up meeting was scheduled with the neighborhood council and the Parks Division staff. It was confirmed at this meeting that permanent courts could be installed closer to the west side of the courts. Parks staff also agreed to create an additional gate on the west end of the courts for easy access for pickleball participants. A gate has since been installed.
Initial concerns were raised about west side placement of the pickleball courts by Ms.
Drapkin, and on behalf of the EBPA, a request was made for the permanent courts to be placed on the east side of the BTA tennis courts. During March and April 2022, City staff continued conversations with the neighborhood council, EBPA, and the Commission about permanent placement of the pickleball courts (Attachment 2). Both sides had valid points to substantiate their preferences; however, after further discussion and in an effort to move forward, the representative from the EBPA agreed to placement of the permanent pickleball courts on the west side of the BTA tennis courts. On April 20, 2022, the Commission unanimously approved the placement of the permanent fixed pickleball courts on the west side of the BTA tennis courts (Attachments 3 and 4).
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – 2021-7-27(mins)-City Council approval-Item I-22 Pickleball lines at BTA Attachment 2 – 2022-4-6(mins)Recreation and Parks Commission Attachment 3 – 2022-4-20 – Minutes and Public Comments - Recreation and Parks Commission Special Meeting
Attachment 4 – Diagrams of Tennis Court with proposed permanent Pickleball lines
From: Ursula Deloa <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 10:48 AM
Subject: APPROVED - CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - JULY 27, 2021
The following items were approved by the City Council at its July 27, 2021, City Council meeting:
HOUSING AUTHORITY CONSENT CALENDAR
G-1. ADOPT a resolution authorizing the executive director to execute standing purchase orders with W.W. Grainger, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $40,000 and HD Supply in an amount not to exceed $80,000, for maintenance, repairs, and unit turnover activities for an initial two-year period - Richmond Housing Authority (Nannette Beacham 510-621-1300).
G-2. ADOPT a resolution authorizing an extension of negotiating period for Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) to reach agreement with McCormack Baron Salazar (MBS) and Community Housing Development Corporation of North Richmond (CHDC), through September 30, 2021, with up to two 30-day extensions at the discretion of the executive director and issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit a new owner/operator for Richmond Village in the event RHA fails to reach agreement with MBS and CHDC - Richmond Housing Authority (Nannette J. Beacham 510-621-1300).
G-3. ADOPT a resolution approving a one-year term contract and two optional one-year extensions, with NBS a financial consulting group to prepare the indirect cost allocation and Title 2 CFR compliance plans in an amount not to exceed $50,000 ending August 1, 2024 - Richmond Housing Authority/Finance (Anil Comelo/Nannette Beacham 510-620- 6740).
G-4. APPROVE the minutes of the June 15, 22, and 29, 2021, special meetings, and June 29, 2021, special joint meeting of the Richmond Housing Authority - City Clerk's Office (Pamela Christian 510-620-6513).
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items D-1 through D-3 were added to the Consent Calendar)
D-1. PROCLAMATION declaring September 2021 as Betty Reid Soskin Month in the City of Richmond - Office of the Mayor (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503).
D-2. PROCLAMATION recognizing former Richmond resident and blues legend Mr. Jimmy McCracklin's Centennial Birthday (posthumously) and declare August 13, 2021, as Richmond Ambassador Blues Legend Jimmy McCracklin Day - Councilmember Nathaniel Bates (510-620-6743).
D-3. ANNOUNCE recent resignation from City of Richmond boards, commissions, and committees; and ANNOUNCE vacancies as of July 21, 2021, and ask that interested
individuals send applications to the City Clerk - Office of the Mayor (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503).
I-1. APPROVE a contract with Net Electric, Inc.in an amount not to exceed $74,867; and AUTHORIZE the city manager to execute the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Funding Agreement Amendment No. 2 to complete Project 19EV021 related tasks; and APPROPRIATE grant funds in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Transportation budget - Library and Community Services Department (LaShonda White/Denée Evans 510-621-1718).
I-2. APPROVE the minutes of the June 29, 2021, special meeting of the City Council - City Clerk's Office (Pamela Christian 510-620-6513).
I-3. APPROVE appointments to the Commission on Aging: APPOINT Regina Whitney, new appointment, seat #8, term expiration date May 19, 2025; and Cate Burkhart, re- appointment, seat #11, term expiration date May 19, 2025 - Office of the Mayor (Mayor Tom Butt 620-6503).
I-4. APPROVE a three-year contract with Verizon Connect (formerly Networkfleet) for monthly GPS tracking and management in an amount not exceed $150,000 - Public Works Department (Joe Leach 510-620-5478).
I-5. APPROVE the purchase of a HD Tilt Back Tire Changer from Snap-On in an amount not to exceed $13,500 - Public Works Department (Joe Leach 510-620-5478/Dee Karnes 510-231-3044).
I-6. APPROVE a contract for transmission repairs to a Fire Department apparatus (Unit #514; VIN 4S7AT2F997C057106) with AG Transmission Repair, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $15,000 - Public Works Department (Joe Leach 510-620-5478/Dee Karnes 510- 231-3044).
I-7. ADOPT a resolution appropriating funds from the 2019A Wastewater Bond proceeds and APPROVE Veolia Water to manage and award contracts for the BAAQMD permitting for the Grit Removal, Aeration Process Upgrade Project to Yorke Engineering, LLC ("Yorke") and to be managed by Veolia Water in an amount not to exceed $19,139 [project cost of $16,428 plus a 16.5 percent mark-up of $2,711] - Public Works Department (Joe Leach 510-620-5478).
I-8. ADOPT a resolution approving a contract for Veolia Water to manage a subcontract with Myers & Sons Construction in an amount not to exceed $6,429,791 [Project cost of $4,839,888, plus 16.5 percent Veolia mark-up $798,582, plus 15 percent project contingency $725,983, plus a (9 percent Veolia mark-up of $65,338)] - Public Works Department (Joe Leach 510-620-5478).
I-9. ADOPT a resolution to ACCEPT the Cutting-Carlson-Hoffman Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Capacity Improvement Project in the Richmond Municipal Sewer District and AMEND the Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget in the amount of $329,550 - Public Works Department (Joe Leach 510-620-5478/Mary Phelps 510-621-1269).
I-10. APPROVE a contract with the Local Government Commission in the amount of $57,000, for two AmeriCorps CivicSpark fellows to support citywide greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and climate action efforts from September 2021 to August 2022 - City Manager's Office (Shasa Curl/Samantha Carr 510-620-6512).
I-11. ADOPT a resolution approving the final recommendation from the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth (RFCY) Oversight Board to award 20 RFCY grants to youth-serving public and nonprofit organizations in a total amount not to exceed $1,620,000 from July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022; AUTHORIZE the city manager or her designee to negotiate and execute Grant Service Agreements with approved grantees; and APPROPRIATE an additional $120,000 to align the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 RDCY budget with the approved FY 2021-22 one percent General Fund allocation - Department of Children and Youth (LaShonda White/Patrick Seals/Guadalupe Morales 510-620-6512).
I-12. APPROVE a recommendation from the Environment & Community Investment Agreement (ECIA) Grant Review Committee to award a Fiscal Year 2021-2022 grant to Mindful Life Project in an amount not to exceed $12,500, and AUTHORIZE the city manager to negotiate and execute Grant Service Agreements with the approved grantee - Library and Community Services Department (LaShonda White 510-620- 6512).
I-13. ADOPT a resolution to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE the Sexual Assault Law Enforcement Specialized Units Program grant from the Cal OES funds in the amount of $204,500 and APPROVE the continuation of a contract with Community Violence Solutions, funded by the Cal OES grant for on-site advocates to assist victims of sexual assault in the amount not to exceed $94,611 - Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-621-1802).
I-14. ADOPT a resolution to accept and appropriate $68,840 in funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program awarded to the Richmond Police Department for the purchase of police safety equipment - Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-621-1802).
I-15. ADOPT a resolution to accept and appropriate $66,080 in funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program awarded to the Richmond Police Department for the purchase of police safety equipment - Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-621-1802).
I-19. APPROVE a sole-source contract with Rebuilding Together East Bay-North, in an amount not to exceed $983,975, for a term ending on June 30, 2022, for SOS! Richmond to provide outreach and support services to unsheltered people who reside in encampments and safe parking sites in the City of Richmond - Councilmembers Gayle McLaughlin (510-620-6636) and Claudia Jimenez (510-620-6565). This item was continued from the cancelled July 20, 2021, meeting.
I-21. ADOPT an ordinance (second reading) setting the tax rate for the Tax Override Pension Fund for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 at 0.14 percent - Finance Department (Anil Comelo 510- 620-6600/Antonio Banuelos 510-620-6741)..
I-22. APPROVE for the Community Services Department-Recreation Division and Parks and Landscaping Division to superimpose six Pickle Ball Courts onto the Booker T. Anderson Tennis Courts to make it a multi-sport use sport facility - Councilmember Eduardo Martinez (510-620-6593) and Library and Community Services Department (Jim Nantell/Ranjana Maharaj 510-685-7095).
I-23. APPROVE a contract with Renne Public Law Group to provide professional services to develop a city-wide Community Benefits Policy with the term ending October 31, 2021; and APPROPRIATE funds in the amount of $100,000 for the contract expenditure from the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget - City Manager's Office (Shasa Curl 510-620-6512).
Ursula De Loa
Deputy City Clerk
City Of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
(510) 620-6513 (Main)
(510) 621-1257 (Direct)
(510) 620-6542 (Fax)
Please Note: This message is being sent on a public e-mail system and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act. The City Clerk’s Department is prohibited from giving legal advice, per California Business and Professions Code 6125.
1 Richmond Recreation & Parks Commission
MINUTES
Wednesday, April 6, 2022 6:00 PM
To view a video of this meeting click on this link:
https://richmond.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=37
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Meeting called to order by Chair Joey Smith at 6:09 P.M. who led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Smith requested that the Commission embrace a genuine land acknowledgement that the City of Richmond was situated on land that was previously and currently occupied and cared for by First Peoples, the Huichin: Confederated Villages of Lisjan, Chochenyo Ohlone Territory, made up of the seven Tribes of Lisjan (Ohlone), Karkin (Ohlone), Bay Miwok, Plains Miwok, Wappo, Delta Yokut and Napian (Patwin) whose territory included Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa and San Joaquin counties. The intent was to relentlessly identify and pursue opportunities for genuine engagement with local indigenous communities to understand indigenous struggles, needs and goals, with a specific focus on exploring pathways to return indigenous lands to indigenous hands.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Joey Smith, Allison Blakeley*, Maryn Hurlbut, Catalin Kaser, and Eleanor Thompson *Arrived after Roll Call
ABSENT: Brendan Havenar-Daughton (Excused), Aaron Rowden (Excused), Soheila Bana (Excused)
Chair Smith advised that the Commission is one member short of being able to vote but will be able to discuss business and if necessary, a special meeting can be called if urgent votes are needed.
Chair Smith provided a brief overview of the meeting procedures and the Mission of the Recreation & Parks Commission.
AGENDA REVIEW
Ranjana Maharaj, Deputy Director for Community Services - Recreation, advised there is an Amendment to Item 9, Presentation by Darlene Drapkin with East Bay Pickleball Association has been removed and will be discussed under Item 11 (Action Items).
By consent, the agenda was approved as submitted with the Amendment noted by Ms. Maharaj.
OPEN FORUM
2 Cordell Hindler, Richmond, advised he will be attending the Youth Council Meeting later this month to advise of the vacancy on the Recreation and Park Commission. In addition, Mr. Hindler invited Commissioners to attend the Richmond Rotary Club weekly meeting on May 6 th at 12:30 pm at the Richmond Country Club.
Marcia Vallier, with Vallier Design Associates, requested approval from the Commission to install a temporary plaque at Shimada Friendship Park to honor Japanese American Families and dedicated to David Ninomiya, a former Rotary President, with a ceremony planned for April, 2022.
Chair Smith advised that without a quorum, the Commission was unable to vote, however Commissioner Hurlbut expressed her suppo rt for the project. Commissioner Kaser stated she would like to get more information on the project. Greg Hardesty, Superintendent of Parks & Landscaping, advised there is support from the Marina Bay Landscaping District.
LaShonda White, Interim Library and Community Services Director, informed that as this item was not on the Agenda, and cannot be further discussed. Chair Smith invited Ms. Vallier to present at the May Commission Meeting and be placed on the May Agenda.
JC Farr, President of t he Eastshore Neighborhood Council, inquired about the plans for the B ooker T Anderson (BTA) facility. Chair Smith advised work has been done and monthly updates are provided in the staff reports presentations.
ANNOUNCEMENTS THROUGH THE CHAIR
1. Chair Smith advised that the Next Commission meeting would be held on May 4, 2022 via Zoom.
2. The balance in the Commission Trust account was reported to be $413.08, with an additional $1,000 in the Trust for the RTA Snow Ball account.
3. There were no membership changes.
Chair Smith encouraged all to donate to the RTA Snow Ball event. Commissioner Hurlbut advised that additional funds have been received by way of donations making the overall total more than $6,500.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approve Minutes of the March 2, 2022 Meeting
Commission was unable to approve as a quorum was not in attendance. Commissioner Kaser asked for a correction on her report update and her participation on graffiti removal at the skate park.
DEPARTMENT REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
Public Works: Facilities
Report from Jose Urquilla, Superintendent of Facilities, was provided verbally and visually , and responded to questions from Commissioner Hurlbut as to the Plunge’s mural and the repairs needed due to the humidity issues. Mr. Urquilla gave an update on the BTA facility addressing the delays and progress.
3 Parks & Landscaping Divisions
Greg Hardesty, Superintendent of Parks & Landscaping , provided a verbal and visual report , and responded to questions including the Park Rules and QR code signage. Chair Smith suggested including Spanish on all signage and Commissioner Blakely suggested the use of symbols for clarity .
Commissioner Kaser commented on the current bike rack situ ation at Nicholl Park. Chair Smith questioned the illegal dumping situation and Mr. Hardesty advised of the notification procedures his team uses to address the issues.
Community Services Division: Recreation and Neighborhood Services
Ranjana Maharaj, Deputy Director for Community Service-Recreation, provided an extensive oral and visual report and responded to comments from Commissioner Hurlbut on the promotion of the Willie Mays Event on May 21st and getting it posted on the City Calendar.
Stephanie Ny, CSD staff, provided a presentation and update on Richard J. Boyd Park and the Urban Greening Grant Application. In addition, Ms. Ny presented updates on the North Richmond Mobile Tool Library and a soft launch date of 4/22-23 at the Earth Day Events. Ms. Ny continued with the Love Your Block Mini -Grants for Fiscal Year 2020 -2022 and concluded by answering the Commission er’s questions.
PRESENTATIONS
LaShonda White , Interim Director, Library and Community Services Department presented to the Commission a Draft Fee Waiver Policy and Partnership Policy. Ms. White advised this information was presented to City Council on March 15 th. Ms. White responded to the Commission’s questions and encouraged continued feedback.
Commissioner Kaser asked how the fee waiver policy would affect spontaneous gatherings and what would be the process versus planned events. Ms. White noted the important concern, and it will be included in the staff report to City Council.
Commission Kaser questioned the process in Richmond for basic table set up requests, as it is more complicated and more expensive than surrounding cities. Ms. White reiterated the need to hear this type of feedback so these could be incorporated into the process going forward.
Chair Smith asked to clarify that paid fees for the use of parks and city facilities goes to the General Fund and none goes into the CSD-Recreation’s budget. Ms. Smith asked with regard to partnership policies to ensure fairness, to specify terms for the partnership policies, and provide quarterly updates.
AD HOC COMMITTEE STATEMENTS
Sustainability and Climate Responsiveness Committee (Brendan/Catalin/Maryn)
Commissioner Kaser stated on behalf of Commissioner Havenar -Daughton, that he has made progress but no actual reporting yet. Commission Kaser communicated a tree planting partnership is in the works with more info rmation to follow. Ms. Kaser invited all to Earth Day activities on 4/23 at Unity Park from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm and to join the Closing the Greenway Gap Community input sessions at Harbour Eight Park on April 12-14 from 2:00 pm– 6:00 pm.
4 Willie Mays’ Day Project (Maryn/Eleanor/Joey)
Chair Smith provided an update to the Willie Mays Day celebration with the new date of Saturday, May 21st. In addition, there will be a parade , video presentations, and the reveal of the kiosk. Chair Smith shared her excitement for all to attend and enjoy the festivities.
Associate Commissioner Committee (Maryn/Allison/Joey)
Chair Smith stated again that the Associate Commissioner Committee had not met given the time devoted to the Willie Mays’ Day Project.
Statement of Policy and Guidelines for Naming or Re-naming of Parks, Facilities and Streets
Ms. Maharaj advised that a meeting would need to be scheduled with the Mayor’s Office Staff to discuss the two versions of the document ; however, with much of the focus on the Willie Mays Day, setting a meeting should be picked up after the May 21st event.
DISCUSSIONS & ACTION ITEMS
a. COORDINATE Open Conversation on How the City can Support the Native Stewardship of Ookwe Park:
As Vice Chair Havenar-Daughton was not in attendance, this item was continued until the next meeting.
b. APPROVE a Request to Convert One Tennis Court to Fixed Pickleball Courts at BTA
Tetteh Kisseh, Recreation Supervisor, presented the staff report on the request to convert one tennis court to fixed pickleball courts at Booker T. Anderson , Jr. (BTA) Park tennis courts. This request was presented to the Southside Plus One Neighborhood Council and was conditionally approved provided the courts were located on the West side of the courts. Mr. Kisseh stated that follow up meetings were held on 3/16 and 3/25 but the Southside Plus One Neighborhood Council members were not in attendance at both meetings . He stated that he is s ubmitting a staff recommendation to place the permanent pickleball courts on the East side of the courts.
Commissioner Kaser followed up with questions as to why the recommendation was ultimately in favor of the Pickleball Association and their request fo r permanent East side courts . Mr. Kisseh stated the decision was made after several attempts to meet with the Southside Plus One Neighborhood Council to hear their recommendations, but they did not attend these scheduled meetings.
JC Farr, President of the Eastshore Neighborhood Council, stated they anticipated a partnership with the Pickleball Association but feels pickleball is taking over their community tennis courts. Mr. Farr stated he would like to take this issue to City Council.
Eduardo Martinez, Vice Mayor of Richmond, spoke to voice his disappointment that people are viewing this as a political issue when it is an issue of equality. He addressed as pickleball players must bring their equipment that it makes sense to have the permanent pickleball courts closer to the street (East side). He expressed his hope that there will be more pickleball courts in Richmond in the future but not at the expense of tennis.
Darlene Rios Drapkin, President of the East Bay Pickleball Associati on, spoke on being pleased in
5 making pickleball happen at BTA. Ms. Drapkin stated the reason she wants the pickleball courts closest to the main gate (East side) is due to the many cracks on the courts West side and she hopes in the future they can raise funds for resurfacing to contribute to the neighborhood.
Madalyn Law, President of the Park Plaza Neighborhood Council and Co -Chair of the Southside Plus One Neighborhood Council, spoke of her acceptance of pickleball at BTA and welcomed them by providing two designated courts but felt insulted when it was expressed that the offered courts were cracked. As a result, Ms. Law stated there is frustration that pickleball is pushing the community to the lesser part of the court.
Secretary Blakeley asked questions about resurfacing the courts and the hopes of having a resolution that benefits all parties.
Commissioner Thompson suggested that perhaps the pickleball community and Neighborhood Council should meet again to try and come to a decision that works for all.
Chair Smith reiterated that as the Commission does not have a quorum and cannot vote this evening, that perhaps each side can meet to come to an agreement and is brought to the Commission next month.
Commission Kaser stated she could not support staff’s recommendation at this time as the Neighborhood Council opinions are an important part of the process and structure for making decisions.
Ms. Drapkin commented that she has been collaborative with the N eighborhood Council and attended many meetings. As a resident of Richmond, Ms. Drapkin is willing to concede with the Neighborhood Council but is re -thinking in providing East Bay Pickleball Association’s support to pickleball in Richmond.
COMMISSIONER LIAISON REPORTS
Secretary Blakeley shared her concern for garbage at many parks, specifically beer bottles and cigarette butts. She will continue to send out the rolling report for other commissioners to share their liaison reports.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Chair Smith , Commissioner Thompson and Commissioner Kaser referenced their previous statements addressed during the Ad Hoc Committee Statements.
AGENDA SETTING FOR NEXT MEETING AND FUTURE TOPICS
The pickleball request would return on the agenda for the May 4, 2022 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:59 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Christine George
Executive Secretary
1 Richmond Recreation & Parks Commission
MINUTES
Wednesday, April 20, 2022 6:00 PM (SPECIAL MEETING)
To view a video of this meeting click on this link:
https://richmond.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=37
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Meeting called to order by Chair Joey Smith at 6:00 P.M. who led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Smith expressed a genuine acknowledgement of the land which was previously and currently occupied and cared for by First Peoples and wanted to embrace this wisely and respectfully.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Joey Smith, Allison Blakeley*, Soheila Bana, Maryn Hurlbut, Catalin Kaser, Aaron Rowden and Eleanor Thompson
*Arrived after Roll Call
ABSENT: Brendan Havenar-Daughton
Chair Smith provided a brief overview of the meeting procedures and the Mission of the Recreation & Parks Commission.
AGENDA REVIEW
Motion by Commissioner Hurlbut to approve the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried by a voice vote, the agenda was approved as submitted.
OPEN FORUM
Garry Hurlbut, Richmond, expressed disappointment that SnowBall was a virtual event and hoped the event will be an in-person event in the future.
DISCUSSIONS & ACTION ITEMS
a. APPROVE a Request to convert one Tennis Court to fixed Pickleball Courts at BTA
Tetteh Kisseh, Recreation Supervisor, presented the staff report on the request of the East Bay Pickleball Association to convert one tennis court to fixed pickleball courts at Booker T. Anderson, Jr. (BTA) Park.
2 The request was presented to the Southside Plus One Neighborhood Council and was approved as long as the courts were located on the West side of the courts and not the East side as preferred by Darlene Drapkin from the East Bay Pickleball Association. Follow up zoom meetings with the Southside Plus One Neighborhood Council were conducted in March but due to a lack of quorum, staff proceeded to submit a request to the Recreation and Parks Commission for their approval to install the pickleball courts on the East side of the tennis courts at the 4/6/22 meeting. However, due to lack of quorum at the Recreation and Parks Commission meeting, no vote was taken. Mr. Kisseh, reached out to both Southside Plus One and East Bay Pickleball Association for their reasons and provided a br eakdown from each group in the staff report. Mr. Kisseh request ed the Commission to provide direction as to the placement of the permanent Pickleball courts.
Commissioner Thompson, asked for clarification on which side has more cracks and Mr. Kisseh stated that while both sides show cracks, the East side, requested by the East Bay Pickleball Association has less cracks.
Commissioner Hurlbut inquired whether the mounted storage on the fence is mobile, to which Mr. Kisseh advised the storage can be moved. In addition, Ms. Hurlbut advised that the Pickleball Association has free reign to hire someone to fix the cracks. It is in her opinion the neighborhood should have preference over where to locate the pickleball courts, as they represent the people in the community that are maintaining the park.
Secretary Blakeley asked if it is possible to repave the courts and solve the issue and Mr. Kisseh advised it would solve the issue. As a result, Ms. Blakeley suggested that the courts be resurfaced.
Commissioner Rowden had questioned the dimensions of the courts and what equipment is being carried to play pickleball. Mr. Rowden also referenced the correspondence from Vice Mayor Martinez that Ms.
Drapkin, on behalf of Pickleball Association, is willing to cooperate with the Neighborhood Council’s view and should; therefore, be considered by the Commission.
Commissioner Bana asked if there was data as to the number of pickleball participants and for clarification on the vote forthcoming.
Myrtle Braxton clarified that the neighborhood is not against Pickleball but wants to ensure the community has say about what is in their parks.
JC Farr, President of the Eastshore Neighborhood Council, reiterated the desire to have Pickleball at BTA.
He later received information that Pickleball was taking over the entire court s and now that Pickleball is agreeing to go to the West side, there should not be a problem.
Garry Hurlbut, President of the Richmond Tennis Association, wanted to express their support of an active and healthy lifestyle whether that is pickleball, soccer, tennis, etc. He further expressed that a grant was submitted but they didn’t receive enough funds for BTA. He proposed to the Commission to look at the area by Nystrom School that needs development.
Commissioner Hurlbut presented the motion to have the permanent pickleball court on the West side, as proposed by the Neighborhood Council, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, a nd carried by a voice vote.
b. APPROVE a Request to temporarily display a plaque at Shimada Friendship Park
3 Marcia Vallier presented as part of the Miraflores Sustainable Greenbelt Project and Richmond Rotary’s Centennial Project, to place a temporary plaque at Shimada Friendship Park.
Jan Brown, former President of the Richmond Rotary, also spoke on the Rotary’s Centennial Project to honor David Ninomiya and hopes to have a dedication this Friday (4/22/22) at 10:30 am. at Shimada Park, pending permanent placement at Miraflores Park.
Commissioner Kaser thanked Marcia and Jan for their presentation and stated she recently tou red the progress at Miraflores Park and supports the temporary placement at Shimada Park
Commissioner Hurlbut asked for the dimensions of the plaque and who will be handling the placement.
Marcia Vallier stated the plaque is 3 ft by 3 ft and 4 inches thick and she has been working with Jose Moreno and Greg Hardesty in the Parks Department.
Secretary Blakeley clarified that only the plaque will be displayed at Shimada Friendship Park and will be moved to Miraflores Park when ready and this was confirmed by Marcia Vallier.
Chair Smith inquired as to who is responsible for the maintenance and per Ms. Vallier, she has been in talks with Greg Hardesty of the Parks Department, who assured her it would be taken care of by the Parks Department and staff. In addition, Chair Smith asked what is the estimated time frame in which the plaque will be at Shimada Park and Ms. Vallier anticipated approximately 2 years and was affirmed by Jan Brown.
Don Lau and Madalyn Law both spoke in support of this development and expressed the hope of keeping the project in the public eye until the anticipated completion in 2025.
Commissioner Hurlbut motioned to allow temporary placement of the plaque at Shimada Friendship Park as outlined in the request until i t can be permanently installed at its formal location, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried by a voice vote.
c. REVIEW AND PROVIDE COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS for the Draft Fee Waiver Policy and Partnership Policy
Ranjana Maharaj, Deputy Director for Com munity Services -Recreation, reminded the Commission the Draft Fee Waiver Policy and Partnership Policy was presented by LaShonda White (Interim Director of Library and Community Services) at the April Commission Meeting. Ms. Maharaj indicated the item will be presented to City Council in May and encouraged the commissions feedback.
Commissioner Rowden expressed his appreciation of the research and consideration put forth in the proposal and looks forward to having a clear standard that will benefit the community and provide the appropriate level in which to waive fees.
Discussion arose as to whether a vote is needed, however Commissioner Hurlbut stated that as the item is not listed as needing approval, it should be placed on the May Commission Agenda (5/4/22). Ms. Maharaj will reach out to LaShonda White asking to present to City Council at their May 17th meeting, which would allow the Recreation and Parks Commission to vote on the item.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 P.M.
4 Respectfully Submitted,
Christine George
Executive Secretary
Hi,
I am writing in support of permanent pickleball courts. I play every weekend at Booker T Anderson Park. I bring my own net. Sure would be nice to not have to lug and to set up equipment! Pickleball has become my saviour during Covid and for keeping me healthy today. It provides me with a social group. I’m 61 and it is something I hope to play well into my retirement years.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Leigh Gronet
510-559-6969
163 Lakeshore Court,
Richmond, CA 94804
Park & Rec Commision,
I am a Richmond resident and I ask you to please approve without further delay the recommendation of 2 dedicated Pickleball courts at Booker T. Anderson park.
Thank you, Nora Lee
Hi, as a Richmond resident and pickleball player, I urge you to convert at least two of the tennis courts at BTA park to dedicated pickleball courts.
Jim Gierszewski
1645 Merced Street
Richmond
I live in Richmond Annex, and Anderson Park is the park in our city that is closest to our neighborhood.
I would definitely like to see dedicated permanent Pickle Ball courts at our park.
Thank you,
Fletcher
Fletcher Oakes
To whom it may concern,
Please consider putting permanent pickleball nets at BTA. I learned how to play PB just a year ago at BTA. I am also a tennis player, but there are plenty of tennis courts in and around Richmond. My husband also plays both tennis and PB and we are Richmond residents.
As you probably know, the equipment box was stolen, so now when we play we must bring our own nets. I have never seen anyone play tennis on these courts but you can see many, many people playing PB.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lorraine Sommers
510-932-8455
June 21, 2022
Library and Community Services
DATE: June 21, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
LaShonda White, Interim Director of Library and
Community Services
Lori Reese-Brown, Project Manager
Subject:
Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget for the North Richmond
Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee Expenditure Plan
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The North Richmond Waste and Recovery Mitigation Fee
Expenditure Plan requires approval by the Richmond City Council and the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors. The plan prioritizes the proposed activities, program services, and the projected revenues derived from the collection of the Mitigation Fee for calendar years 2022 and 2023, to support efforts of blight reduction and cleanliness.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVE the 2022/2023 North Richmond Waste and
Recovery Mitigation Fee Expenditure Plan (Exhibit A) for FY 2022-2023, as recommended by the North Richmond
Mitigation Waste and Recovery Mitigation Fee Joint
Expenditure Planning Committee, to fund the listed
projects and activities in the Fiscal Year that support the reduction of blight in North Richmond – Community
Services Department (LaShonda White/Lori Reese-
Brown 620-6869)
AGENDA
REPORT
June 21, 2022
DISCUSSION:
The North Richmond Waste and Recovery Mitigation Fee Joint Expenditure Planning Committee (Mitigation Committee) was formed for the specific purpose of preparing a North Richmond Waste and Recovery Mitigation Fee Expenditure Plan (Expenditure Plan) to assist the City and County with the administration of funds for the benefit of North Richmond. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding, all proposed projects and activities included in the Expenditure Plan require authorization by the Richmond City Council and Board of Supervisors for consistency with the purpose of mitigation fund use.
Approval of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Expenditure Plan would allow City staff to contract with community-based organizations, formally approved by the Mitigation Committee, and to implement programs and projects under the jurisdiction of the City of Richmond.
All the proposed projects were evaluated based on projected outcomes, contributions to the North Richmond community, fiscal management, diversity, and collaboration.
The Expenditure Plan includes all approved strategies as discussed and recommended for action by the Mitigation Committee (Attachment 1). North Richmond community- based organization projects represent collaboration with the City and County to ensure successful outcomes for blight reduction. Approving the Expenditure Plan authorizes the use of mitigation fee funds for the intended purposes and requires proposals to be aligned with the strategies contained therein.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee 2022/23 Expenditure Plan
North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee
2022/23 Expenditure Plan
The Waste & Recovery Mi tigation Fee was established as a result of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated November 2003 for the WCCSL Bulk Materials Processing Center (BMPC) and Related Actions (Project). The Project involved new and expanded processing and resource recovery operations on both the incorporated and unincorporated area of the Project site, which the EIR concluded would impact the host community. To mitigate this impact Mitigation Measure 4-5 called for a Mitigation Fee to benefit the host community, described as follows:
“Mitigation Fee. The facility operator shall pay a Mitigation Fee of an amount to be determined by the applicable permitting author ity(ies) to defray annual costs associated with collection and disposal of illegally dumped waste and associated impacts in North Richmond and adjacent areas. The mitigation fee should be subject to the joint-control of the City and County and should be collected on all solid waste and processible materials received at the facility consistent with the existing mitigation fee collected at the Central IRRF.”
In July 2004, the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to jointly administer Mitigation Fee monies collected from the BMPC for the benefit of the incorporated and unincorporated North Richmond area. This North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee Joint Expenditure Planning Committee (Committee) was formed pursuant to the terms of the MOU for the specific purpose of preparing a recommended Expenditure Plan. This Expenditure Plan provides a means to jointly administer the Mitigation Fee funding for the benefit of the host community, as des cribed in the EIR. The Expenditure Plan is subject to final approval of the Richmond City Council and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.
By approving this Expenditur e Plan, the City Council and Board of Supervisors authorize the use of Mitigation Fee funding for only the purposes and in the amounts specified herein. The City and County have each designated their respective staff persons responsible for administering the development and implementation of the approved Expenditure Plan, which includes responsibility for drafting and interpreting Expenditure Plan language. However, the City and County have not delegated to the Committee or to staff the authority to expend funding for purposes not clearly identified in the Expenditure Plan document officially approved by their respective decision-making bodies.
Activities which can be funded in this Expenditure Plan period with the Mitigation Fee amounts specified within this Expenditure Plan are described herein as “Strategies” or “Staff Costs”.
Strategies are categorized as either “Core Services” or “Supplemental Enhancements” . Core Services includes the higher funding priority s trategies that most directly address the intended purpose of this City/County approved Mitigation Fee, “to defray annual costs associated with collection and disposal of illegally dumped waste and associated impacts in North Richmond”.
All references to the “Mitigation Fee Primary Funding Area” or “Mitigation Fee Funding Area” pertain to the geographic area shown in the attached map (Attachment 4).
Expenditure Plan Period: July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023
(unless otherwise specified herein)
2022/2023 Expenditure Plan - North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee
- Page 2 of 14 -
BUDGET
The funding allocation amounts included in this document apply to the Expenditure Plan Period specified on the first page unless otherwise specified herein. The total amount of funding allocated in the Expenditure Plan Budget is based on revenue projections provided by the BMPC operator, Republic Service, which are dependent upon multiple variables (e.g. number of tons of recovered materials vs. solid waste, per ton gate rate charged and amount of CPI- adjusted per ton Mitigation Fee). Actual Mitigation Fee revenue may deviate from revenue projections provided by Republic and used to prepare this Budget. A “Contingency” line item is included in the Budget to help accommodate variations between projected and actual r evenue.
Excess funding allocated to strategies and not expended by the end of each Expenditure Plan period is treated as “roll-over” funding for reallocation in a subsequent Expenditure Plan period.
The Budget includes some line items that are based on fixed costs, however there are other line items which are scalable and/or dependent on utilization thereby providing flexibility to reallocate amounts if and when a significant need is identified. Allocated funding may remain unspent due to under -utilization of a particular program. If the amount allocated to a particular line item is determined to exceed needs based upon usage, the remaining funding can only be reallocated by officially amending the Expenditure Plan. This Expenditure Plan may only be adjusted upon official action taken by both the City and County. Although there has been some interest in allowing flexibility for staff to adjust funding allocations under specific circumstances, the authority to approve or modify the Expenditure Plan rests solely with the City Council and Board of Supervisors.
Annual fiscal year Expenditure Plan cycle is expected to reduce margin of error of Mitigation Fee revenue projects, streamline financial reconciliation/budgeting process and minimize need to amend Ex penditure Plans mid-cycle. Amending Expenditure Plans involve administrative burden and costs due to the joint approval needed from both the Richmond City Council and County Board of Supervisors. In order to minimize the amount of funding needed to cover staff costs incurred to amend the Expenditure Plan, s taff will only recommend changes to the Expenditure Plan when necessary to address a significant and time-sensitive need.
NORTH RICHMOND MITIGATION FEE EXPENDITURE PLAN BUDGET
# Expenditure Plan (EP) Strategy
Budget
Allocations for
2022/2023
1 Bulky Item Pick-ups & Disposal Vouchers 1,000.00$
2 Neighborhood Clean-ups 30,000.00$
3 Prevention Services Coordinator 50,726.75$
4.A. City/County Right-of-Way Pick-ups 30,000.00$
4.B. City/County Right-of-Way Pick-ups 20,000.00$
5 Code Enforcement - County 91,850.60$
6 Illegal Dumping Law Enforcement 175,814.30$
7 Surveillance Cameras -$
8 Code Enforcement - City 26,666.67$
9 Community Services Coordinator $ 90,909.09
10 Community Clean-Up Projects (See Attachment 2) 75,750.00$ 11 North Richmond Green Community Service Programs 20,042.00$ 12 North Richmond Green Campaign 10,500.00$
13 Garden Projects (See Attachment 4) 48,179.79$
14 Mobile Tool Lending Library 35,540.00$
Contingency (10% of Projected Revenue) 79,816.50$
Subtotal (without Committee Staffing) 786,795.70$
X Committee Administration/Staffing 90,000.00$
Total Projected Revenue in 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 thru June 30, 2023) 798,165.00 $ 78,630.70$
876,795.70$
Core ServicesSupplemental
Enhancements
Roll-over Funding from Prior EP Cycle(s)
Total 2022/23 Expenditure Plan Budget
2022/2023 Expenditure Plan - North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee
- Page 4 of 14 -
DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING
Funding allocation amounts for each strategy are specified in the Budget table on page
3. The following Strategies describe the activities allowed to be funded with the amounts allocated to each in the Budget (associated allowable agency staff costs are described in the Staff Costs section). Strategies are grouped based on relative funding priority levels and the “Core Services” category contains higher priority Strategies than the “Supplemental Enhancements” category. Higher funding priority Strategies are those which best address the Fee’s intended purpose, “to defray annual costs associated with collection and disposal of illegally dumped waste and associated impacts in North Richmond”) and “Supplemental Enhancements”.
Level 1 Priority - PRIMARY CORE SERVICES STRATEGIES
• 1 - Bulky Item Pick-ups & Disposal Vouchers
• 2 - Neighborhood Clean-up Events
• 4.A. - City/County Right-of-Way Trash & Tagging Removal • 4.B. - City/County Right-of-Way Trash Removal
• 5 - Code Enforcement - County
• 6 - Illegal Dumping Law Enforcement
• 8 - Code Enforcement – City
Level 2 Priority - SECONDARY CORE SERVICES STRATEGIES
• 3 - Prevention Services Coordinator
• 7 - Surveillance Cameras
Level 3 Priority - PRIMARY SUPPLEMENTAL ENHANCEMENTS STRATEGIES • 9 - Community Services Coordinator
• 11 - North Richmond Green Community Services Program
• 12 - North Richmond Green Campaign
• 13 - Garden Project
• 14 - Mobile Tool Lending Library
Level 4 Priority - SECONDARY SUPPLEMENTAL ENHANCEMENTS STRATEGIES • 10 - Community Clean-up Projects
CORE SERVICES
1. Bulky Item Pick-ups & Disposal Vouchers
Provide residents in the Mitigation Fee Primary Funding Area, who prove eligibility consistent with City/County procedures, with the option of choosing to:
o Request up to one on-call pick-up service per household per calendar year for bulky items that are not accepted in the current on-call clean-ups through Richmond Sanitary Service (RSS), only available to those with an active account with RSS; or
2022/2023 Expenditure Plan - North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee
- Page 5 of 14 -
1 Administering agency contracting charge applies ($3,000 per contract) o Request up to twelve $5 vouchers per household for disposal at Republic’s transfer station on Parr Blvd. per calendar year (vouchers expire after six months, Mitigation Fees only pay for vouchers that are actually redeemed). [See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
Administering Agency: City of Richmond
Implementing Entity(ies):
Community Housing Development Corporation (processes requests and issues Disposal Vouchers/arranges Bulky Item Pick-ups)
Republic Services - Golden Bear Transfer Station & Richmond Sanitary Service (reimbursed for Disposal Vouchers redeemed and Bulky Item Pick-ups provided)
Reporting/Payment Requirements: Effective July 1, 2012, CHDC and Republic Services shall provide required data pertinent to Strategy 1 based upon the strategy-specific invoicing/reporting requirements and schedule developed/maintained by Committee Staff in order to receive NRMF-funded payments.
2. Neighborhood Clean-ups
Provide at least one neighborhood and/or creek clean-up event in the Mitigation Fee Funding Area; additional clean-up event may be scheduled as funding allows. [See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
Administering Agency: City of Richmond
Implementing Entity(ies):
City Manager’s Office (coordinates scheduling of clean-up dates and associated arrangements in conjunction with partner entities) Republic Services - Richmond Sanitary Service (reimbursed for providing/servicing clean-up boxes and disposing of debris placed in clean-up boxes)
Reporting/Payment Requirements: Effective July 1, 2012, the City Manager’s Office and Republic Services shall provide required data pertinent to Strategy 2 based upon the strategy-specific invoicing/reporting requirements and schedule developed/maintained by Committee Staff in order to receive NRMF-funded payments (funding transfers).
3. Prevention Services Coordinator
Fund at least a portion of a Prevention Services Coordinator (PSC) position (including salary/benefits/overhead and administering agency contracting charge 1)
on a contract basis to assist the City and County in implementing Strategy 1 as the point of contact for community members interested in claiming Disposal Vouchers
2022/2023 Expenditure Plan - North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee
- Page 6 of 14 -
or Bulky-Item Pick ups. Assist community members interested in reporting illegal dumping and seeking referral/resources. Track and report data related to illegally dumped waste collected by Republic Services Hot Spot Crew and handle associated referrals to applicable public agencies, including right-of-way referrals for Strategy 4. The PSC may also assist City and County with administering funding allocated to selected non-profit organizations under Strategies 10 and 13. [See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
Administering Agency: Contra Costa County
Implementing Entity: Community Housing Development Corporation (CHDC) (reimbursed actual cost for part-time position and issues Disposal Vouchers/arranges Bulky Item Pick-ups)
Reporting/Payment Requirements: Effective July 1, 2012, CHDC shall provide required data pertinent to Strategy 1 and Strategy 3 based upon the strategy- specific invoicing/reporting requirements and schedule developed/maintained by Committee Staff in order to receive NRMF-funded payments.
4.A. City/County Right-of-Way Pick-up & Tagging Abatement Fund consolidated pick-up program (including personnel, mileage, equipment rental and administrative costs) for removal of illegal dumping and tagging abatement in the public right-of-way located within the unincorporated & incorporated Mitigation Fee Primary Funding Area. Additional tasks would include identifying potential sites for Strategy 10 Clean-Up Projects. Funding is intended to pay for removal of illegal dumping that occurs as a result of referrals from the Prevention Services Coordinator for items/debris not collected by the designated Republic Services Hot Spot Route crew.
[See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
Administering Agency
: City of Richmond
Implementing Entity: Richmond Public Works Department’s Abatement Division
Reporting/Payment Requirements: Effective July 1, 2012, the Richmond Public Works Department’s Abatement Division shall provide required data pertinent to Strategy 4.A. based upon the strategy-specific invoicing/reporting requirements and schedule developed/maintained by Committee Staff in order to receive NRMF- funded payments (funding transfers).
4.B. City/County Right-of-Way Pick-up
Fund consolidated pick-up program (including personnel, mileage, equipment rental and administrative costs) for removal of illegal dumping in the public right-of- way located within the unincorporated & incorporated Mitigation Fee Primary Funding Area. Additional tasks would include identifying potential sites for Strategy 10 Clean-Up Projects. Funding is intended to pay for removal of illegal dumping
2022/2023 Expenditure Plan - North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee
- Page 7 of 14 -
that occurs as a result of referrals from the Prevention Services Coordinator for items/debris not collected by the designated Republic Services Hot Spot Route crew.
[See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
Administering Agency: Contra Costa County
Implementing Entity: Contra Costa County Public Works
Reporting/Payment Requirements: Effective July 1, 2022, Contra Costa County’s Department of Public Works shall provide required data pertinent to Strategy 4.B. based upon the strategy-specific invoicing/reporting requirements and schedule developed/maintained by Committee Staff in order to receive NRMF-funded payments (funding transfers).
5. Code Enforcement Staff - County
Fund at least a portion of County code enforcement position (including salary/benefits and related vehicle and equipment costs), to assist with vacant/ abandoned lot abatements and fencing as well as other health/building/zoning violations related to illegal dumping and blight throughout the unincorporated Mitigation Funding Area. Additional tasks would include identifying potential sites for Strategy 10 Clean-Up Projects.
[See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
Administering Agency
: Contra Costa County
Implementing Entity
: County Department of Conservation & Development’s
Building Inspection Division
Reporting/Payment Requirements: Effective July 1, 2012, the County Department of Conservation & Development’s Building Inspection Division shall provide required data pertinent to Strategy 5 based upon the strategy-specific invoicing/reporting requirements and schedule developed/maintained by Committee Staff in order to receive NRMF-funded payments (funding transfers).
6. Illegal Dumping Law Enforcement
Fund majority of a full-time Sheriff Deputy (between approximately 90-100% of salary/benefits, overtime, uniform and related cell phone, equipment, and vehicle costs) to assist with law enforcement investigations and patrols to combat illegal dumping within the Mitigation Fee Primary Funding Area. Additional tasks would include identifying potential sites for Strategy 10 Clean-Up Projects. [See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
Administering Agency
: Contra Costa County
2022/2023 Expenditure Plan - North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee
- Page 8 of 14 -
Implementing Entity: County Sheriff’s Office
Reporting/Payment Requirements: Effective July 1, 2012, the County Sheriff’s Office shall provide required data pertinent to this Strategy based upon the strategy-specific invoicing/reporting requirements and schedule developed/maintained by Committee Staff in order to receive NRMF-funded payments (funding transfers).
7. Surveillance Cameras
Fund the cost of cameras, camera infrastructure, camera signage and costs related to monitoring, maintenance, warranty, repair & relocation of surveillance camera system equipment within the Mitigation Fee Primary Funding Area.
Cameras will be used to assist the dedicated Illegal Dumping Law Enforcement officer prevent dumping in targeting specific locations where illegal dumping occurs most regularly.
[See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
Administering Agency
: Contra Costa County
Implementing Entity(ies):
Richmond Police Department (operate, move and maintain eight Pan-Tilt-Zoom wireless video surveillance cameras and associated camera system infrastructure throughout NR -AND- install/clean/move FlashCam cameras located within the incorporated NR area if funding is available)
County Sheriff’s Department (coordinate monitoring of FlashCams or other camera systems located throughout NR and identify/request relocation of surveillance cameras throughout NR as needed)
County Public Works Department (install/clean/move FlashCam or other camera systems cameras located within the unincorporated NR area upon request if funding is available)
Reporting/Payment Requirements: Effective July 1, 2012, each Implementing Entity shall provide required data pertinent to each entity’s applicable Strategy 7 responsibilities based upon the strategy-specific invoicing/reporting requirements and schedule developed/maintained by Committee Staff in order to receive NRMF- funded payments (funding transfers) now or in the future.
8. Code Enforcement Staff - City
Fund at least a portion of City code enforcement position (including salary/benefits and related vehicle and equipment costs), to assist with vacant/ abandoned lot abatements and fencing as well as other health/building/zoning violations related to illegal dumping and blight throughout the incorporated Mitigation Funding Area.
Additional tasks would include identifying potential sites for Strategy 10 Clean-Up Projects.
[See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
2022/2023 Expenditure Plan - North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee
- Page 9 of 14 -
Administering Agency: City of Richmond
Implementing Entity: City Department of Infrastructure Maintenance & Operations
Reporting/Payment Requirements
: Effective July 1, 2020, the City Department of
Infrastructure Maintenance & Operations shall provide required data pertinent to Strategy 8 based upon the strategy-specific invoicing/reporting requirements and schedule developed/maintained by Committee Staff in order to receive NRMF- funded payments (funding transfers).
SUPPLEMENTAL ENHANCEMENTS
9. Community Services Coordinator
Fund at least a portion of a Community Services Coordinator (CSC) position to be staffed on a contract basis (including salary/benefits/overhead and administering agency contracting charge2). The CSC shall:
• serve as a link between the community of North Richmond, the City of Richmond, and Contra Costa County for issues related to beautification, illegal dumping, and blight using referral process identified by the City and County;
• coordinate outreach activities related to illegal dumping and beautification within the Primary Funding area, as specified by the City/County, including North Richmond Green community service programs and outreach activities described under Strategies 11 & 12; and
• Identifying potential sites for Strategy 10 Clean-Up Projects. • be bilingual in order to assist with Spanish translation as needed. [See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
Administering Agency
: Contra Costa County
Implementing Entity
: Community Housing Development Corporation (CHDC).
Reporting/Payment Requirements: CHDC shall provide required data pertinent to Strategies 9, 11 & 12 based upon the strategy-specific invoicing/reporting requirements and schedule developed/maintained by Committee Staff in order to receive NRMF-funded payments.
10. Community Clean-up Projects
Fund the implementation, oversight and administering agency contracting charges3 of community clean-up projects with specific focus on reducing blight. Community clean-up projects may involve the removal of debris and/or landscaping 2Administering agency contracting charge is $3,000 per contract.
2022/2023 Expenditure Plan - North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee
- Page 10 of 14 -
maintenance. Sites to be cleaned shall be in the Mitigation Fee Funding area and designated by the Administering Agency. The number of sites to be cleaned will be determined by the amount of funding allocated.
A breakdown of contracting costs and amount awarded to the Implementing Entity is contained in the Community Clean-up Project Table included as Attachment 2.
Up to 15% of the Implementing Entity’s Award Amount in Attachment 2 may be used for a fiscal sponsor or administrative oversight.
[See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
Administering Agency
: Contra Costa County. Community Housing Development
Corporation (CHDC) may under contract with the County as an Administering Agency, administer Community Clean-Up Project contracts funded under this Strategy. CHDC shall use no more than twenty (20) percent (%) of the total amount awarded to Community Clean-Up Projects (after subtracting City/County contracting cost) listed in Attachment 2 to oversee implementation, including facilitating review/assessment of reports’ and deliverables. Payments to Implementing Entities for Community Clean-Up Projects shall not be issued by CHDC without the written approval of City and County Committee Staff.
Implementing Entity
: See Community Clean-up Project Table in Attachment 2
Reporting/Payment Requirements: Any Community Clean-Up Projects shall be subject to the Reporting & Invoicing Requirements specified in the template Memorandum of Understanding included in Attachment 1. Attachment 1 only applies to Community Clean-Up Project contracts with the Implementing Entities.
The County will issue advance payments to CHDC, as needed, to ensure there is adequate funding available for payments requested by Implementing Entities if and when authorized by City and County Staff. Additionally, CHDC would be subject to contractual payment and reporting provisions that differ from those in Attachment 1 due to the nature of the services to be provided.
11. North Richmond Green Community Services Programs
Fund the following North Richmond Green programs on a contract basis4 to the extent the specific details submitted are determined to align with the purpose of the Mitigation Fee and Expenditure Plan:
• NR Little League Baseball Program - Includes cost of registration and uniforms with customized North Richmond Green patches for up to 5-6 teams, season kick-off event/parade, equipment, stipends for game monitoring and oversight, food and transportation.
3Administering agency contracting charge is $3,000 per contract entered into by the County and up to 20% of the per project funding allocation as described in Administering Agencies section below).
2022/2023 Expenditure Plan - North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee
- Page 11 of 14 -
4 Administering agency contracting charge applies ($3,000 per contract) • NR Youth Twilight Basketball Program - Includes cost of registration and uniforms with North Richmond Green patches for up to 5-6 teams, equipment, stipends for game monitoring and oversight, food and transportation. • NR Eco Workshops & Beautification Projects – Eco Workshops and Beautification Projects include school gardens, recycling efforts, beach/creek/neighborhood clean-ups and ecological field trips. May fund the cost of materials, transportation and fees associated with pre-approved community beautification projects such landscaping and murals. [See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
Administering Agency: Contra Costa County
Implementing Entity: Community Housing Development Corporation (CHDC).
Reporting/Payment Requirements: CHDC shall provide required data pertinent to Strategies 9, 11 & 12 based upon the strategy-specific invoicing/reporting requirements and schedule developed/maintained by Committee Staff in order to receive NRMF-funded payments.
12. North Richmond Green Campaign
Fund the design, printing and/or distribution of education and outreach materials on a contract basis
4 which must align with the purpose of the Mitigation Fee and Expenditure Plan and be pre-approved by Committee Staff. Outreach materials must include “Jointly funded by City of Richmond & Contra Costa County” unless otherwise specified herein. Outreach materials may be any of the types specified below, however must clearly intend to directly:
• Inform the community about Mitigation Fee funded programs/efforts, • Increase participation in Mitigation funded programs/efforts, • Reduce illegal dumping and blight in the Mitigation Fee Funding Area, and/or • Promote beautification in the Mitigation Fee Funding Area.
The following type of outreach material expenditures may be funded if reviewed and pre-approved by Committee Staff:
• STIPENDS – Pay local community members (youth and adults) to distribute printed outreach materials door-to-door to promote mitigation-funded strategies (Jointly Funded text not applicable to stipend expenses, only materials) • HANDOUTS/MAILERS – Newsletters, flyers, brochures or other documents intended to be handed out or mailed to local residents/organizations. • T-SHIRTS - Shirts shall include the NRGreen.org website to encourage people to learn more about Mitigation funded programs/efforts (local phone number should also be included when possible, however inclusion of Jointly Funded text may not be required)
2022/2023 Expenditure Plan - North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee
- Page 12 of 14 -
• NR GREEN FESTIVAL – Event held once per year and generally include information booths to raise awareness about mitigation-funded efforts and other local beautification efforts as well as fun activities for kids and food.
Materials promoting the event shall include the NRGreen.org website as well as a local phone number.
• SIGNAGE – Printed or manufactured signage, which includes promotional banners for local events/parades, which should include the NRGreen.org website for Community members to learn more about Mitigation funded programs/efforts. Repair, replacement and removal of NRMF-funded Light Pole Banners.
[See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
Administering Agency: Contra Costa County
Implementing Entity
: Community Housing Development Corporation (CHDC).
Reporting/Payment Requirements: CHDC shall provide required data pertinent to Strategies 9, 11 & 12 based upon the strategy-specific invoicing/reporting requirements and schedule developed/maintained by Committee Staff in order to receive NRMF-funded payments.
13. Garden Projects
Community Garden Projects: Fund on-going maintenance and up-keep of existing community gardens within the Primary Funding Area. The projects selected under this Strategy has been funded on an on-going basis.
Garden Retrofit Projects: Fund the development and implementation of educational garden retrofit events within the Primary Funding Area. Sites for garden retrofits shall be selected via an application process administered by the implementing Entity and approved by County/City staff. Garden retrofit applications will be ranked based on the applicant’s ability/willingness to maintain the garden after installation, the visibility of the site from the street, and the size of the garden site.
The number of garden sites to be retrofitted will be determined by the amount of funding allocated. Garden retrofits shall contain drought-tolerant, native plants.
Details, including recommended allocation amounts, for Projects are included in Attachment 4. Up to 15% of the Non-Profit Implementer Award Amount specified in Attachment 4 may be used for administrative oversite.
[See “Staff Costs” section for agency activities that may also be funded under this Strategy.]
Administering Agencies: Contra Costa County.
5 Community Housing Development
Corporation (CHDC) may under contract with the County as the Administering Agency, administer Community Garden & Garden Retrofit contracts funded under this Strategy. CHDC shall use no more than twenty (20) percent (%) of the total amount awarded to Projects (after subtracting City/County contracting cost) to oversee implementation, including facilitating review/assessment of reports and
2022/2023 Expenditure Plan - North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee
- Page 13 of 14 -
deliverables. Payments to Implementing Entities for Community Garden & Garden Retrofit Projects shall not be issued by CHDC without the written approval of both City and County Committee Staff.
Implementing Entity: Various Non-Profit Organizations (see Garden Projects Table in Attachment 4)
Reporting/Payment Requirements: Any Garden Project contracts issued or amended by the City/County shall incorporate Reporting & Invoicing Requirements equivalent with those shown in Attachment 3. Garden Project contracts being administered by CHDC on behalf of the County shall also incorporate Reporting & Invoicing Requirements equivalent with those shown in Attachment 3. Attachment 3 only applies to the Garden Project contracts with the Implementing Entities.
CHDC would be subject to contractual payment and reporting provisions that differ from those in Attachment 3 due to the nature of the services to be provided. The County will issue advance payments to CHDC, as needed, to ensure there is adequate funding available to payments requested by Implementing Entities if and when authorized by City and County Staff.
14. Mobile Tool Lending Library
Fund the development, implementation, and on-going maintenance of a mobile tool lending library that is accessible to the public within the Mitigation Fee Primary Funding Area at least once a week. Funding is intended to pay for the purchase of educational material, tools, a cell phone for the library, costs related to the tool lending system & trailer/tool maintenance, and personnel/labor.
Administering Agency
: City of Richmond
Implementing Entity: City of Richmond Community Services Department Reporting/Payment Requirements: Effective July 1, 2020, the City of Richmond Community Services Department shall provide required data pertinent to Strategy 15 based upon the strategy-specific invoicing/reporting requirements and schedule developed/maintained by Committee Staff in order to receive NRMF-funded payments (funding transfers).
STAFF COSTS
Committee Administration/Staffing Funding: The funding allocated for Committee Administration/Staffing may not be adequate to cover the full cost of staff time necessary for jointly staffing the North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee Joint Expenditure Planning Committee as well as developing, administering and overseeing this Expenditure Plan for the specified period. Supplemental funding
2022/2023 Expenditure Plan - North Richmond Waste & Recovery Mitigation Fee
- Page 14 of 14 -
allocation may be necessary upon determining actual costs exceed the amount budgeted to cover the intended City/County costs for joint staffing.
Strategy-Specific Funding: The cost of City/County staff time spent providing direct implementation assistance and/or coordination for specific Strategies may be covered with a portion of the NRMF funding budgeted for each applicable Strategy. Additionally, a portion of the NRMF funding budgeted for Strategies will be used to pay fixed administering agency contracting charge for each applicable contract (Currently $3,000 per contract. An additional $3,000 may be added to a contract amendment to add additional funding or nonprofits to a contract during an existing contract cycle) unless otherwise specified herein.
G:\Conservation\Deidra\Illegal Dumping\BMPC Mitigation Fee Committee\_EPs\2022-2023\2022-23 NRMF EP_CleanAfterMeeting_Final for BOS.doc
TEMPLATE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
AND
COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
This is an agreement made and executed on _______ between Community Housing Development Corporation (CHDC) and _______ (Contractor). This contract will remain in effect for the time period identified in the TERM section of the agreement.
OVERVIEW:
The _________ North Richmond Mitigation Fee (NRMF) Expenditure Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors in ______ and Richmond City Council in _______ allocates a total of $19,400 to the Contractor for the disbursement of funds within Strategy 10 to complete Clean-Up Project(s) in the North Richmond Mitigation Area.
TERM:
The term of this agreement begins on _______ and ends on _______. Contractor will complete all work performed under this agreement not later than ________. Invoices submitted for work performed before or after this specified term and invoices submitted after _______will not be paid.
I. Contractor’s Obligations
The Contractor shall a dminister the _________, as described herein for an amount not to exceed $19,400 involving the following activities:
A. Recruit and Hire up to four (4) workers
1. Contractor will develop and publicize the job announcements. Job announcements shall co ntain, “Jointly funded by The City of Richmond & Contra Costa County” language.
2. Contractor will interview, select and hire up to four workers.
3. Contractor will host training for new hires that discusses the proper procedures of dispos al of hazardous waste (televisions, phones, batteries, tires, paint etc.).
Task A - Deliverables:
1. Documentation of publicized job announcement in English/Spanish with required jointly funded language.
2. Documentation of hiring papers.
B. Clean up to eight (8) North Richmond Sites Approved by the County
1. Contractor shall select North Richmond addresses provided by the County or City to be cleaned during each clean up. Community clean -up p rojects may involve the remo val of debris and/or landscaping maintenance.
a. Addresses provided by the County or City will include a description of debris for removal and/ or landscaping needs.
b. Addresses provided by the County o r City shall only be selected once for clean -up unless directed otherwise by County Staff.
2. Contractor will confirm with the County the address for cleanup one week and provide clear written procedures for the proper disposal of all waste types previously described at each clean-up site, including Attachment 1