May 16, 2023
Public Works
DATE: May 16, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Chavarria, Director of Public Works
Mary Phelps, Project Manager
Subject: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City to execute the Stipulated Order with the Water Board and to pay a
$69,000 Mandatory Minimum Penalty.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Water Resource Recovery Division of the Public Works Department will need to allocate funds for fiscal year 2022-2023 budget in the amount of $69,000 to pay
the MMP. 4003-40322731-400293
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
June 2, 2020
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
On April 19, 2023, the Water Board assessed a
Mandatory Minimum Payment (MMP) to the West County
Agency due to National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit limit violations observed at the
Richmond Water Pollution Control Plant. The violations
were observed and reported between November 2019
and April 2022 due to plant upset conditions. The MMP
is in the amount of $69,000. On April 19, 2023, the City received a Stipulated Order from the Water Board to
execute the administrative process of the MMP. The City must execute the Stipulated Order as required the Water Board by May 19, 2023.
AGENDA
REPORT
642
May 16, 2023
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT a resolution authorizing the City to execute the Stipulated Order between the Water Board and the City
on behalf of West County Agency, and to allocate funds
in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget in the amount of
$69,000 to pay the Mandatory Minimum Penalties –
Public Works Department (Daniel Chavarria/Mary Phelps
510-621-1269).
DISCUSSION:
On October 19, 2022, the Water Board sent a conditional offer letter (Conditional Offer) to the West County Agency informing them of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limit violations observed at Richmond Water Pollution Control Plant (RWPCP). The Conditional Offer gives the City the opportunity to investigate the violations and either file a letter of protest or agree to and sign the Conditional Offer.
After investigating each violation, the City determined that the violations were valid as reported, and should not be contested.
The violations were observed and reported between November 2019 and April 2022 due to plant upset conditions, which is a sudden and unexpected change in the wastewater plant operation. After multiple inspections by the City’s Environmental Compliance Program staff, it was determined the “upset” was due to storm events that had “washed” most of the treatment through the plant. It took several weeks for the plant to turn around due to the treatment processes and the volume of flow(s) that were going through the plant during this time.
The Mandatory Minimum Penalty for each violation is $3,000. The City received a total of twenty-three (23) violations during this time period (Attachment 4). Therefore, the total amount of the penalty is $69,000. Since the City chose not to contest the violations, the City agreed to sign the Conditional Offer letter.
On April 19, 2023, the City received the fully executed Stipulated Order from the Water Board for execution to implement the administrative process of the MMP. The City must execute the Stipulated Order as required by the Water Board by May 19, 2023.
The Water Board allows the City to pay a portion of the penalty to a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP). The Water Board has approved the SEP for the “Kids for the Bay” non-profit agency. This program will provide disadvantaged schools in Richmond with trash cleanup projects that raise awareness among school-aged children of watershed health and social behaviors that contribute to non-point sources of pollution.
Therefore, the City of Richmond will make payments into two different programs in accordance with the Stipulated Order: 1) $29,000 will be paid to the State Water 643
May 16, 2023
Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Program, 2) $40,000 of the administrative civil liability will be directed and paid to the SEP.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resolution Authorizing Payment of the Mandatory Minimum Penalty Fees
Attachment 2 – Conditional Offer Letter – October 2022 (State Waterboard) Attachment 3 – Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Civil Liability 644
1 RESOLUTION NO. ____________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
EXECUTE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY ORDER BETWEEN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND THE CITY OF RICHMOND ON
BEHALF OF THE WEST COUNTY AGENCY, AND TO ALLOCATE FUNDS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,000 TO PAY THE MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTY.
_______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, on October 6, 2022, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (the Water Board) assessed a Mandatory Minimum Penalty (MMP) to the West County Agency in the amount of $69,000, due to NPDES permit limit violations observed at the Richmond Water Pollution Control Plant; and
WHEREAS, the violations were observed and reported between November 2019 and April 2022 due to plant upset conditions at the Richmond Water Pollution Control Plant; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022, the Water Board issued to the City of Richmond (the City) the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Civil Liability (Stipulated Order) to execute the administrative process of the MMP; and
WHEREAS, the City has agreed to the terms and conditions of the Stipulated Order; and WHEREAS, the City shall allocate funds in the fiscal year 2022-2023 budget in the amount of $69,000 to pay the MMP; and
WHEREAS, the City will pay into two different programs as stated in the Stipulated Order: 1) $29,000 will be made payable to State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Program, 2) $40,000 of the administrative civil liability amount will be suspended and the money will instead be used to implement the Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP), the Watershed Rangers Program managed by Kids for the Bay in accordance with the Stipulated Order.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Richmond hereby accepts the Stipulated Order (a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Public Works Director and the Attorney of the City of Richmond, or said City Attorney’s designee, are hereby authorized to execute the Stipulation Order on behalf of the City.
-----------------------------------
645
2 I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on May 16, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.
City of Richmond }
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. _____, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on May 16, 2023.
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
646
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
October 6, 2022
CW-215234
West County Agency
Joe Neugenbauer, Environmental Programs Manager
(via email only to [email protected])
2910 Hilltop Drive
Richmond, CA 94806
Subject: Conditional Offer to Settle Violations of NPDES Permit CA0038539, West County Agency Outfall, Richmond, Contra Costa County Dear Joe Neugenbauer:
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) is charged with enforcing violations of the Water Code. This letter notifies West County Agency (Discharger) of alleged violations of discharge limitations and provides the Discharger an opportunity to settle the violations through a payment of $69,000, the mandatory minimum penalty pursuant to Water Code section 13385. Please reply by November 7, 2022.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
As the Regional Water Board’s Interim Executive Officer, I allege that the Discharger has violated the NPDES permit indicated above as identified in Exhibit A, which is attached to this letter and incorporated by reference. The Discharger has the opportunity to address the alleged violations as discussed below.
STATUTORY LIABILITY
Water Code section 13385, subdivisions (h) and (i), requires the assessment of a $3,000 mandatory minimum penalty for specified serious and chronic effluent limitation violations.
Failure to file a discharge monitoring report required pursuant to Water Code section 13383 constitutes a serious violation for each complete period of 30 days following the deadline for submitting the report. The Discharger may also be subject to discretionary administrative civil liabilities of up to $10,000 per day for each violation, plus $10 for each gallon discharged but not cleaned up in excess of 1,000 gallons. The Regional Water Board or the State Water Resources Control Board (collectively, the Water Boards) may assess these mandatory minimum penalties and discretionary administrative civil liabilities beginning with the date on which each violation first occurred.
1 To assess such liabilities, the Water Boards could initiate a formal enforcement action by issuing an administrative civil liability complaint to be followed by a public hearing.
Alternatively, the Water Boards could refer the matter to the Attorney General’s Office for enforcement in the Superior Court. The Superior Court may assess up to $25,000 per day for each violation, plus $25 per gallon discharged but not cleaned up in excess of 1,000 gallons. 1 The statute of limitations does not apply to administrative proceedings to assess mandatory minimum penalties. See City of Oakland v. Public Employees’ Retirement System, (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 29, 48; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Actions, § 430.
647
Conditional Settlement Offer
West County Agency
CONDITIONAL OFFER TO SETTLE
The Discharger can avoid a formal enforcement action and settle the alleged violations identified in Exhibit A by accepting this conditional offer as described below and in the enclosed “Acceptance of Conditional Resolution and Waiver of Right to Hearing” (Acceptance and Waiver). This offer does not address liability for any violation not specifically identified in Exhibit A.
OPTIONS FOR RESPONSE
To accept this offer, the Discharger must complete, sign, and return the enclosed Acceptance and Waiver on or before the date specified in the first paragraph of this letter.
If the Discharger chooses to contest any of the violations alleged in Exhibit A, the Discharger should identify the specific violation and the basis for the challenge (factual error, affirmative defense, etc.) on or before the date specified in the first paragraph of this letter. Regional Water Board staff will evaluate any contested violation and take one of two actions:
1. Determine that the alleged violation warrants dismissal, dismiss the alleged violation within the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) database, notify the Discharger of the dismissal, and take no further action against the Discharger for the alleged violation; or
2. Determine that the alleged violation is meritorious and notify the Discharger of that determination. The Discharger will then have 30 days from the date of the determination to accept the mandatory minimum penalty as settlement for that violation.
If the Discharger chooses not to accept the settlement or does not reply to the determination, it should expect to be contacted regarding formal enforcement for the contested violation. With respect to formal enforcement, information Water Board staff receive during any formal investigation and assessment of the violation, as well as staff costs associated with pursuing enforcement and other considerations, may increase the liability beyond that set forth in this conditional offer.
CONDITIONS FOR REGIONAL WATER BOARD ACCEPTANCE OF RESOLUTION Federal regulations require the Regional Water Board to publish and allow the public at least 30 days to comment on any settlement of an enforcement action addressing an NPDES permit violation (40 C.F.R. § 123.27(d)(2)(iii)). Upon receipt of the Discharger’s Acceptance and Waiver, Regional Water Board staff will publish a notice of the proposed settlement. If staff receives no comment within the 30-day period and no new material facts are available to the Regional Water Board, the settlement will be presented to the Executive Officer who will determine whether to execute the Acceptance and Waiver as a stipulated order assessing the uncontested mandatory minimum penalty pursuant to Water Code section 13385.
If, however, significant comments are received in opposition to the proposed settlement, this offer may be withdrawn. In that circumstance, the Water Boards will also treat the Acceptance and Waiver as withdrawn. Water Board staff will advise the Discharger of any withdrawal and may issue an administrative civil liability complaint and schedule a hearing before the Regional Water Board or State Water Board. For such a hearing, the Discharger will be free to argue against the alleged violations. Water Board staff will treat the Discharger’s Acceptance and Waiver as if it were a settlement communication and will not use it as evidence in the hearing.
Water Board staff will provide the Discharger with additional information on hearing procedures if a hearing is to occur.
648
Conditional Settlement Offer
West County Agency
If the Regional Water Board’s Executive Officer executes the Acceptance and Waiver, payment of the settlement amount shall be due within 30 calendar days from the date of the Executive Officer’s signature. In accordance with Water Code section 13385(n)(1), funds collected pursuant to Water Code section 13385 shall be deposited into the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account. Failure to pay the penalty within the required time may subject the Discharger to additional liability.
OPPORTUNITY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT
In lieu of paying all of the mandatory minimum penalty to the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account, the Discharger may elect to apply a portion of the penalty to fund a supplemental environmental project (SEP).2,3 One SEP option is available: the SEP Fund to supplement the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP). This SEP Fund will supplement RMP studies that would not otherwise be conducted through the RMP’s annually approved cost allocations. The RMP collects data and communicates information about water quality in the San Francisco Estuary in support of management decisions to restore and protect beneficial uses of the region’s waters. Information about the RMP is available at sfei.org/rmp. The non-profit San Francisco Estuary Institute manages and administers RMP funds. No funds will go to the Water Boards.
The Discharger also may choose to pay the total mandatory minimum penalty to the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account. These options are represented in the enclosed Acceptance and Waiver.
REGIONAL WATER BOARD CONTACT
Please reply to the attention of Marcos De la Cruz, either by email or U.S. mail. If you want to discuss or have questions regarding this matter, please contact Marcos De la Cruz at (510) 622-2365 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Thomas Mumley
Interim Executive Officer
Enclosures: Exhibit A - Notice of Violation
Acceptance and Waiver
2 Water Code section 13385(l)(1) authorizes the Regional Water Board, with the Discharger’s concurrence, to direct a portion of the penalty to be expended on a SEP in accordance with the State Water Board’s Enforcement Policy (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/enforcement/water_quality_enforcement.shtml). If the penalty is less than or equal to $15,000, 100 percent of the penalty may be expended on a SEP. If the penalty exceeds $15,000, then up to $15,000 plus 50 percent of the penalty that exceeds $15,000 may be expended on a SEP.
3 See State Water Board Policy on Supplemental Environmental Projects (2017), page 10, and Resolution 2018-0034. 649
Conditional Settlement Offer
West County Agency
EXHIBIT A - Alleged Violations
Discharger: West County Agency
West County Agency Outfall
2910 Hilltop Drive, Richmond, Contra Costa County
NPDES Permit CA0038539
The following table lists the alleged violations for which the Discharger is subject to civil liabilities pursuant to Water Code section 13385. The table lists the mandatory minimum penalty (MMP) that applies.
Table 1. List of Alleged Violations
CIWQS
Violation
ID No.
Violation
Date Parameter (units) Group Effluent Limitation
Reported
Value
Percent
Exceedance[1]
Violation
Type MMP[2]
1071432 11/30/2019 Ammonia, Monthly
Average 1 32 33 3% C1 $0
1079928 8/15/2020 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 50 11% C1 $0 1079926 8/31/2020 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 31 3% C2 $0 1079927 8/31/2020 BOD, Monthly Average 1 30 32 7% C3 $0 1080763 9/30/2020 Ammonia, Monthly Mean 1 32 35 9% C4 $3,000 1080762 9/30/2020 BOD, Monthly Mean 1 30 32 7% C5 $3,000 1082120 10/3/2020 BOD, Weekly Average 1 45 49 9% C6 $3,000 1082121 10/10/2020 BOD, Weekly Average 1 45 58 29% C7 $3,000 1082115 10/10/2020 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 56 24% C8 $3,000 1082122 10/17/2020 BOD, Weekly Average 1 45 68 51% C9, S $3,000 1082118 10/17/2020 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 64 42% C10, S $3,000 1082119 10/24/2020 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 48 7% C11 $3,000 1082116 10/31/2020 BOD, Monthly Average 1 30 49 63% C12, S $3,000 1082117 10/31/2020 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 49 63% C13, S $3,000 1092714 6/12/2021 BOD, Weekly Average 1 45 48 7% C1 $0
1092716 6/12/2021 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 59 31% C2 $0 1092715 6/19/2021 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 63 40% C3, S $3,000 1092717 6/30/2021 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 42 40% C4, S $3,000 650
1095606 9/11/2021 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 55 22% C5 $3,000 1100231 10/24/2021 Copper, Daily Max 2 76 95 25% C6, S $3,000 1105516 12/18/2021 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 48 7% C7 $3,000 1105515 12/31/2021 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 38 27% C8 $3,000 1101091 1/29/2022 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 48 7% C9 $3,000 1101090 1/31/2022 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 33 10% C10 $3,000 1102671 2/12/2022 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 47 4% C11 $3,000 1102669 2/19/2022 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 66 47% C12, S $3,000 1102670 2/28/2022 BOD, Monthly Average 1 30 31 3% C13 $3,000 1102668 2/28/2022 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 44 45% C14, S $3,000 1104602 4/30/2022 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 33 10% C15 $3,000 Total Penalty: $69,000
Legend:
CIWQS = California Integrated Water Quality System database that the Water Boards use to track violations and enforcement.
Violation ID = Identification number assigned to each permit violation within CIWQS.
C = Count – Number of violations within past 180 days, including this violation. A penalty applies under Water Code section 13385(i) when the count is greater than three (> C3).
S = Serious. A penalty applies under Water Code section 13385(h) whenever an effluent limitation is exceeded by 40 percent or more for a Group 1 pollutant or 20 percent or more for a Group 2 pollutant.
Footnotes:
[1] Percent that a discharger’s reported value exceeds the effluent limitation for a Group 1 or 2 pollutant. [2] The MMP required under Water Code section 13385(h) and/or (i).
CIWQS Place ID: 215234
WDID: 2 071107001
651
This page intentionally left blank
652
ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONAL RESOLUTION
AND WAIVER OF RIGHT TO HEARING
ORDER NO. R2-20_________
West County Agency
West County Agency Outfall
2910 Hilltop Drive, Richmond, Contra Costa County
NPDES Permit CA0038539, Regulatory Measure 449397
By signing below and returning this Acceptance of Conditional Resolution and Waiver of Right to Hearing (Acceptance and Waiver) to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), West County Agency (Discharger) hereby accepts the conditional offer to settle alleged violations through payment of a mandatory minimum penalty and waives the right to a hearing before the Regional Water Board to dispute the alleged violations. The violations are attached to this Acceptance and Waiver as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.
The Discharger agrees that Exhibit A shall serve as a complaint pursuant to Article 2.5 of the Water Code and that no separate complaint is required for the Regional Water Board to assert jurisdiction over the alleged violations. The Discharger agrees to pay the penalty authorized by Water Code section 13385, which shall be deemed payment in full of any civil liability pursuant to Water Code section 13385 that otherwise might be assessed for the violations described in Exhibit A. The Discharger understands that this Acceptance and Waiver waives its right under Water Code section 13323 to contest the allegations in Exhibit A and the amount of civil liability assessed for the violations.
The Discharger understands that this Acceptance and Waiver does not address or resolve liability for any violation not specifically identified in Exhibit A.
This Acceptance and Waiver may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute one document. This Acceptance and Waiver may be executed by wet or electronic signature, and may be transmitted by hand, mail service, facsimile, or email. Any such signature shall be deemed to be an original signature and shall be binding to the same extent as if it were an original signature.
Upon execution, the Discharger shall return the Acceptance and Waiver to the following:
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region NPDES Wastewater Enforcement Section
Attention: Marcos De la Cruz
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, California 94612
or
[email protected]
The Discharger understands that federal regulations set forth in Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section 123.27(d)(2)(iii), require the Regional Water Board to publish notice of, and provide at least 30 days for public comment on, any proposed resolution of an enforcement action. Accordingly, prior to execution by the Regional Water Board’s Executive Officer, this Acceptance and Waiver will be published for public comment as required by law. 653
Acceptance of Conditional Resolution and Waiver of Right to Hearing West County Agency
Regulatory Measure: 449397
The Discharger understands that the Executive Officer may execute the Acceptance and Waiver if no comments are received within the public notice period and the Executive Officer agrees that the assessment of the mandatory minimum penalty appropriately resolves the alleged violations.
The Regional Water Board’s resolution of the violations will preclude State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) action for the same violations.
The Discharger understands that the offer may be withdrawn if significant comments are received in opposition to the conditional offer. In that circumstance, Regional Water Board staff will advise the Discharger of the withdrawal and may issue an administrative civil liability complaint and schedule the matter for a hearing before the Regional Water Board or State Water Board.
The Discharger understands that funds collected for violations pursuant to Water Code section 13385 shall be deposited in the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account.
The Discharger understands that, in lieu of full payment of the assessed mandatory minimum penalty to the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account, it may elect to pay a portion toward a supplemental environment project (SEP). The SEP option is the SEP Fund, which supplements Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) studies that would not otherwise be conducted through the RMP’s annually approved RMP cost allocations.
The Discharger understands that once the Regional Water Board’s Executive Officer executes this Acceptance and Waiver, payment no later than 30 days after the date of the Executive Officer’s signature is a condition of this Acceptance and Waiver. The Discharger shall pay the assessed civil liability to the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account and/or San Francisco Estuary Institute (for the SEP Fund) as selected above. The State Water Board will send an invoice for any payment due to the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account. The Regional Water Board will send an invoice for any payment due to the SEP Fund.
The Discharger agrees to pay the amounts indicated below to the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account and, if chosen, the SEP Fund. The Discharger understands that the Regional Water Board will consider the Discharger to have fulfilled any SEP obligation if and when the San Francisco Estuary Institute receives the Discharger’s contribution to the SEP Fund. (Place a “” or “” in one box below and fill in the blanks as appropriate. Electing to pay a portion of the assessed liability to the SEP Fund will not change the total amount to be paid.) 654
Acceptance of Conditional Resolution and Waiver of Right to Hearing West County Agency
Regulatory Measure: 449397
Payment Options:
Option 1: Pay a portion of the assessed liability to the RMP SEP Fund:
$_______ Amount to be paid to the SEP Fund (cannot exceed $42,000) $_______ Amount to be paid to the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account ($69,000 minus amount inserted above)
$ 69,000 Total assessed mandatory minimum penalty (sum of amounts above).
Or
Option 2: Pay the total assessed mandatory minimum liability ($69,000) to the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account.
I hereby affirm that I am duly authorized to act on behalf of, and to bind, the Discharger in the making and giving of this Acceptance and Waiver.
West County Agency
By: __________________________________________ ____________________________ Printed or typed name Title
__________________________________________ ____________________________ Signature Date
Note: Please return the signed Acceptance and Waiver with Exhibit A, together IT IS SO ORDERED PURSUANT TO WATER CODE SECTION 13323 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 11415.60
By: __________________________________________ ____________________________ Eileen White
Executive Officer
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
Date
655
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
In the matter of:
WEST COUNTY AGENCY,
WEST COUNTY
WASTEWATER DISTRICT,
CITY OF RICHMOND, AND
RICHMOND MUNICIPAL
SEWER DISTRICT NO.1,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
NPDES Permit CA0038539
(Order R2-2019-0003)
Effluent Limit Violations
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY
ORDER
PROPOSED
ORDER
R2-2023-1004
Section I: INTRODUCTION
This Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Administrative Civil Liability Order (Stipulated Order) is entered into by and between the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Prosecution Team (Prosecution Team) and the West County Agency, West County Wastewater District, City of Richmond, and Richmond Municipal Sewer District No. 1 (Dischargers) (collectively Parties), and is presented to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (Regional Water Board), or its delegate, for adoption as an Order by settlement pursuant to California Water Code (Water Code) section 13323 and Government Code section 11415.60. This Stipulated Order resolves all the violations alleged herein by the imposition of administrative civil liability against the Dischargers in the amount of $69,000.
Section II: RECITALS
1. The West County Agency is a Joint Powers Authority whose members are the West County Wastewater District, City of Richmond, and Richmond Municipal Sewer District No. 1. The City of Richmond and Richmond Municipal Sewer District No. 1 operate the Richmond Municipal Sewer District Water Pollution Control Plant (Richmond Plant), a municipal wastewater treatment plant that serves most of the City of Richmond. The West County Wastewater District owns and operates the West County Wastewater District Treatment Plant (West County Plant), a municipal wastewater treatment plant that serves the communities of San Pablo, Tara Hills, Rollingwood, Bayview, El Sobrante, portions of Pinole, parts of northern Richmond, and some unincorporated portions of Contra Costa County. Secondary-treated wastewater from the 656
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability West County Agency et al.
Richmond Plant and West County Plant is combined prior to discharge to Central San Francisco Bay through the West County Agency Outfall.
2. The Dischargers are required to operate and maintain the Richmond Plant and West County Plant in compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit CA0038539 (Permit), an NPDES permit for point source discharges to surface waters of the United States issued pursuant to Clean Water Act section 402 and Water Code Chapter 5.5, Division 7 (commencing with section 13370). The Dischargers are also required to comply with the Permit at the West County Agency Outfall. The Permit was most recently reissued on February 13, 2019, through Regional Water Board Order R2-2019-0003, which became effective April 1, 2019.
3. Water Code section 13385, subdivisions (h) and (i), requires assessment of mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) for certain discharge violations. a. Water Code section 13385, subdivision (h)(1) states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, and except as provided in subdivisions (j), (k), and (l), a mandatory minimum penalty of three thousand dollars ($3,000) shall be assessed for each serious violation.
b. Water Code section 13385, subdivision (h)(2) states:
For the purposes of this section, a “serious violation” means any waste discharge that violates the effluent limitations contained in the applicable waste discharge requirements for a Group II pollutant, as specified in Appendix A to Section 123.45 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by 20 percent or more or for a Group I pollutant, as specified in Appendix A to Section 123.45 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by 40 percent or more. c. Water Code section 13385, subdivision (i)(1) states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, and except as provided in subdivisions (j), (k), and (l), a mandatory minimum penalty of three thousand dollars ($3,000) shall be assessed for each violation whenever the person does any of the following four or more times in any period of six consecutive months, except that the requirement to assess the mandatory minimum penalty shall not be applicable to the first three violations:
i. Violates a waste discharge requirement effluent limitation. ii. Fails to file a report pursuant to Section 13260.
iii. Files an incomplete report pursuant to Section 13260. 657
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability West County Agency et al.
iv. Violates a toxicity effluent limitation contained in the applicable waste discharge requirements where the waste discharge
requirements do not contain pollutant-specific effluent limitations for toxic pollutants.
d. Water Code section 13385, subdivision (i)(2) states:
For the purposes of this section, a “period of six consecutive months” means the period commencing on the date that one of the violations described in this subdivision occurs and ending 180 days after that date.
4. The Prosecution Team alleges that the Dischargers violated their biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), ammonia, and copper effluent limitations 29 times between November 2019 and April 2022. The 26 BOD and TSS effluent limit violations occurred at Monitoring Location EFF-002 at the Richmond Plant. The one copper and two ammonia effluent limit violations occurred at Monitoring Locations EFF-001 and EFF-001B at the West County Agency Outfall. The Discharger is subject to MMPs for 23 of these violations pursuant to Water Code section 13385, subdivisions (h) and (i), as shown in Attachment A, incorporated by reference herein.
5. To resolve the alleged violations in Section II, paragraph 4, by consent and without further administrative proceedings, the Parties have agreed to the imposition of an administrative civil liability of $69,000 against the Discharger.
6. The Parties have agreed to settle this matter without administrative or civil litigation, and to present this Stipulated Order to the Regional Water Board or its delegate for adoption as an Order by settlement pursuant to Water Code section 13323 and Government Code section 11415.60.
7. The Prosecution Team contends that the resolution of the alleged violations is fair and reasonable, and fulfills all of its enforcement objectives; that no further action is warranted concerning the violations, except as provided in this Stipulated Order; and that this Stipulated Order is in the public’s best interest.
Section III: STIPULATIONS
The Parties incorporate the foregoing Recitals and stipulate to the following:
1. Administrative Civil Liability: The Dischargers hereby agree to the imposition of an administrative civil liability of $69,000 to resolve the alleged violations set forth in Section II, paragraph 4, as follows:
a. No later than 30 days after the Regional Water Board or its delegate signs this Stipulated Order, the Dischargers shall mail a check for $29,000, 658
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability West County Agency et al.
made payable to “State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account,” referencing the Order number on page one of this Stipulated Order, to:
State Water Resources Control Board Accounting Office
Attn: ACL Payment
P.O. Box 1888
Sacramento, CA 95812-1888
The Dischargers shall email a copy of the check to the Regional Water Board ([email protected]).
b. The Parties agree that the remaining $40,000 of the administrative liability shall be suspended pending completion of the Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) described in Section III, paragraph 2, and Attachment B, incorporated by reference herein.
2. SEP Description: The SEP is the Watershed Rangers Program managed by KIDS for the BAY (SEP Implementer). The SEP will provide disadvantaged schools in Richmond with trash cleanup projects that raise awareness of watershed health and social behaviors that contribute to non-point source pollution. Attachment B further describes the SEP and its project milestones, budget, and reporting schedule.
3. Representation and Agreements Regarding the SEP:
a. As a material condition for the Regional Water Board’s acceptance of this Stipulated Order, the Dischargers represent that they will use the suspended liability of $40,000 (SEP Amount) to implement the SEP as set forth in Section III, paragraph 2, and attachment B. The Dischargers understand that their promise to implement the SEP, in its entirety and in accordance with the implementation schedule and budget set forth in Attachment B, represents a material condition of this settlement of liability between the Dischargers and the Regional Water Board.
b. The Dischargers agree to (1) spend the SEP Amount as described in this Stipulated Order; (2) provide certified, written reports to the Regional Water Board consistent with the terms of this Stipulated Order; and (3) provide as part of the final report due August 30, 2024, a certification by a responsible official, signed under penalty of perjury, that the SEP Implementer followed all applicable environmental laws and regulations in implementing the SEP, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and federal Clean Water Act.
c. The Dischargers further agree that the Regional Water Board has the right to require a third-party audit of the funds expended to implement the SEP at the Dischargers’ cost, and that the Dischargers bear ultimate 659
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability West County Agency et al.
responsibility for meeting all deadlines and requirements specified in Attachment B.
4. Publicity Associated with the SEP: Whenever the Dischargers, or their agents or subcontractors, publicize one or more SEP elements, they shall state in a prominent manner that the project is undertaken as part of a settlement of a Regional Water Board enforcement action against the Dischargers.
5. Progress Reports and Inspection Authority: The Dischargers shall provide reports describing SEP implementation progress to the Regional Water Board as described in Attachment B. The Dischargers agree that Regional Water Board staff has permission to inspect SEP Implementation at any reasonable time during normal business hours with 24-hour notice.
6. Certification of SEP Completion: On or before August 30, 2024, a responsible official of the Dischargers shall submit a final completion report as described in Attachment B and a certified statement, signed under penalty of perjury, that documents the expenditures during the SEP completion period, and that the SEP Implementer completed the SEP in accordance with the terms of this Stipulated Order. The expenditures may include external payments to outside vendors, but may not include the cost of normal, routine work undertaken by SEP Implementer staff. In making such certification, the signatories may rely on normal organizational project tracking systems that capture employee time expenditures and external payments to outside vendors, such as environmental and information technology contractors or consultants. Documentation of SEP completion may include photographs, invoices, receipts, certifications, and other materials reasonably necessary for the Regional Water Board to evaluate SEP completion and the costs incurred.
The Dischargers shall provide the Regional Water Board with any additional information reasonably necessary to verify the SEP expenditures and completion.
7. Time Extension for SEP: The Executive Officer of the Regional Water Board may extend the SEP deadlines contained in Attachment B of this Stipulated Order if the Dischargers demonstrate delays from unforeseeable circumstances or circumstances beyond their control, provided that the Dischargers continues to undertake all appropriate measures to meet the deadlines. The Dischargers shall make any deadline extension request in writing. Any approval of an extension by the Executive Officer must be in writing.
8. Regional Water Board Acceptance of Completed SEP: Upon the Dischargers’ satisfaction of their obligations under this Stipulated Order, including SEP completion and any audits, the Executive Officer shall issue a “Satisfaction of Order” terminating any further obligations under this 660
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability West County Agency et al.
Stipulated Order, permanently suspending the remaining penalty, and resolving the Administrative Civil Liability proceedings.
9. Failure to Expend All Suspended Funds on the Approved SEP: If the Dischargers are unable to demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Executive Officer that the entire SEP Amount was spent on the completed SEP, the Dischargers shall pay the difference between the SEP Amount and the amount the Dischargers can demonstrate was actually spent on the SEP (Difference). The Executive Officer shall issue a “notice” that requires the Dischargers to pay the Difference to the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account within 30 days of the notice issuance date. The Dischargers shall submit payment consistent with the payment method described in Section III, paragraph 1.a. Payment of the Difference shall satisfy the Dischargers’ obligations to implement the SEP.
10.Failure to Complete the SEP: If the SEP is not fully implemented by August 30, 2024, or by the due date if extended pursuant to Section III, paragraph 7, or if there has been a material failure to satisfy a project milestone, the Executive Officer shall issue a Notice of Violation. The amount of suspended liability owed shall be determined by a written, stipulated agreement of the Parties, or if the Parties cannot reach agreement, via a Motion for Payment of Suspended Liability before the Regional Water Board or its delegate. The Dischargers shall be liable to pay the entire SEP Amount, or, if shown by the Dischargers, some portion thereof less the value of any completed milestones as stipulated to by the Parties in writing or as determined by the Motion for Payment of Suspended Liability. Unless the Regional Water Board or its delegate determines otherwise, the Dischargers shall not be entitled to any credit, offset, or reimbursement from the Regional Water Board for expenditures made on the SEP prior to the Notice of Violation’s issuance date. Within 30 days of the Regional Water Board’s or its delegate’s determination of the suspended liability amount assessed for the Dischargers to pay, the Dischargers shall submit payment consistent with the payment method described in Section III, paragraph 1.a. Payment of the assessed amount shall satisfy the Dischargers’ obligation to implement the SEP.
11.Regional Water Board Not Liable: The Regional Water Board and its members, staff, attorneys, and representatives shall not be liable for any injury or damage to persons or property resulting from negligent or intentional acts or omissions by the Dischargers or their directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, or contractors in carrying out activities pursuant to this Stipulated Order. The Regional Water Board, its members, and its staff shall not be held as parties to, or guarantors of, any contract entered into by the Dischargers or their directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, or contractors in carrying out activities pursuant to this Stipulated Order.
661
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability West County Agency et al.
12.Compliance with Applicable Laws: The Dischargers understand that payment of administrative civil liability in accordance with the terms of this Stipulated Order and/or compliance with the terms of this Stipulated Order is not a substitute for compliance with applicable laws, and that continuing violations of the types alleged herein may subject it to further enforcement, including additional administrative civil liability.
13.Party Contacts for Communications related to this Stipulated Order:
For the Regional Water Board: For the Dischargers:
Marcos De la Cruz
San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board
1515 Clay Street, 14th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
(510) 622-2365
Counsel:
Laura Drabandt, Attorney IV
State Water Resources Control Board
Office of Enforcement
801 K Street, 23rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
[email protected]
(916) 341-5180
Mary Phelps, Project Manager
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
[email protected]
(510) 621-1269
Counsel:
Dave Aleshire, City Attorney
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
[email protected]
(510) 620-5439
14.Attorney Fees and Costs: Except as otherwise provided herein, each Party shall bear all attorney fees and costs incurred pursuant to this Stipulated Order.
15.Matters Addressed by this Stipulated Order: Upon the Regional Water Board’s or its delegate’s adoption, this Stipulated Order represents a final and binding resolution and settlement of the alleged violations contained in Section II, paragraph 4, as of the effective date of this Stipulated Order. The provisions of this paragraph are expressly conditioned on the full payment of the administrative civil liability by the deadline specified in Section III, paragraph 1.
16.Public Notice: The Dischargers understand that this Stipulated Order must be noticed for a 30-day public review and comment period prior to consideration by the Regional Water Board or its delegate. If significant new information is received that reasonably affects the propriety of presenting this Stipulated Order to the Regional Water Board or its delegate for adoption, the Prosecution Team may unilaterally declare this Stipulated Order void and decide not to present it to the Regional Water Board or its delegate. The Dischargers agree that they may not rescind or otherwise withdraw their approval of this Stipulated Order.
662
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability West County Agency et al.
17.Addressing Objections Raised During Public Comment Period: The Parties agree that the procedure contemplated for public review of this Stipulated Order and the Regional Water Board’s or its delegate’s adoption of this Stipulated Order is lawful and adequate. The Parties understand that the Regional Water Board or its delegate has the authority to require a public hearing on this Stipulated Order. If procedural objections are raised or the Regional Water Board or its delegate requires a public hearing prior to the Stipulated Order becoming effective, the Parties agree to meet and confer concerning any such objections, and may agree to revise or adjust the procedure and/or this Stipulated Order as necessary or advisable under the circumstances.
18.Interpretation: This Stipulated Order shall be construed as if the Parties prepared it jointly. Any uncertainty or ambiguity shall not be interpreted against any one Party. The Parties are represented by counsel in this matter.
19.Modification: The Parties shall not modify this Stipulated Order by oral representation made before or after its execution. All modifications must be in writing, signed by all Parties, and approved by the Regional Water Board or its delegate.
20.If the Stipulated Order Does Not Take Effect: If this Stipulated Order does not take effect because the Regional Water Board or its delegate does not approve it, or because the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) or a court vacates it in whole or in part, the Parties acknowledge that they expect to proceed to a contested evidentiary hearing before the Regional Water Board to determine whether to assess administrative civil liabilities for the underlying alleged violations, unless the Parties agree otherwise. The Parties agree that all oral and written statements and agreements made during the course of settlement discussions will not be admissible as evidence in the hearing or in any other administrative or judicial proceeding. The Parties agree to waive any and all objections based on settlement communications in this matter, including but not limited to objections related to prejudice or bias of any of the Regional Water Board members or their advisors or any other objections that are premised in whole or in part on the fact that the Regional Water Board members or their advisors were exposed to some of the material facts and the Parties’ settlement positions as a consequence of reviewing this Stipulated Order and, therefore, may have formed impressions or conclusions prior to any contested evidentiary hearing on the violations alleged herein in this matter. The Parties also agree to waive any and all objections based on laches, delay, or other equitable defenses related to the period for administrative or judicial review to the extent this period has been extended by these settlement proceedings.
21.Waiver of Hearing: The Dischargers have been informed of the rights Water Code section 13323, subdivision (b), provides and, if the settlement is 663
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability West County Agency et al.
adopted by the Regional Water Board or its delegate, hereby waive their right to a hearing before the Regional Water Board prior to the Stipulated Order’s adoption. However, if the settlement is not adopted, or if the matter proceeds to the Regional Water Board or the State Water Board for hearing, the Dischargers do not waive the right to a hearing before an order is imposed.
22.Waiver of Right to Petition or Appeal: Except in the instance where the Stipulated Order is not adopted by the Regional Water Board or its delegate, the Dischargers hereby waive their right to petition the Regional Water Board’s or its delegate’s adoption of the Stipulated Order for review by the State Water Board, and further waive their rights, if any, to appeal the same to a California Superior Court and/or California appellate court. This explicit waiver of rights includes potential future decisions by the Regional Water Board or its delegate directly related to this Stipulated Order, including but not limited to time extensions, SEP completion, and other terms contained in this Stipulated Order.
23.Covenant Not to Sue: The Dischargers covenant not to sue or pursue any administrative or civil claims against the State of California, any State agency, or its officers, Board members, employees, representatives, agents, or attorneys arising out of or relating to any matter expressly addressed by this Stipulated Order or the SEP, except that this covenant is not intended to bar and does not limit the Dischargers’ rights to sue over other Regional Water Board orders (e.g., permits or cease and desist orders) or limit the Dischargers’ rights to defend against any additional enforcement or other actions taken by the Regional Water Board or its employees, representatives, agents, or attorneys. Moreover, this covenant shall not release any claims or complaints against any State agency or the State of California, its officers, Regional Water Board members, employees, representatives, agents, or attorneys to the extent such covenant would be prohibited by California Business and Professions Code section 6090.5 or by any other statute, rule, regulation, or legal principle of similar effect.
24.Necessity for Written Approvals: All approvals and decisions of the Regional Water Board or its delegate under the terms of this Stipulated Order shall be communicated to the Dischargers in writing. No oral advice, guidance, suggestions, or comments from Regional Water Board employees or officials regarding submissions or notices shall be construed to relieve the Dischargers of their obligation to obtain any final written approval this Stipulated Order requires.
25.Authority to Bind: Each person executing this Stipulated Order in a representative capacity represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to execute this Stipulated Order on behalf of, and to bind, the entity on whose behalf he or she executes the Stipulated Order.
664
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability West County Agency et al.
26.No Third-Party Beneficiaries: This Stipulated Order is not intended to confer any rights or obligations on any third party or parties, and no third party or parties shall have any right of action under this Stipulated Order for any cause whatsoever.
27.Severability: This Stipulated Order is severable; if any provision is found to be invalid, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect.
28.Counterpart Signatures and Facsimile and Electronic Signatures: This Stipulated Order may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute one document.
Further, this Stipulated Order may be executed by facsimile or electronic signature, and any such facsimile or electronic signature by any Party hereto shall be deemed to be an original signature and shall be binding on such Party to the same extent as if such facsimile or electronic signature were an original signature.
29.Effective Date: This Stipulated Order shall be effective and binding on the Parties upon the date the Regional Water Board or its delegate enters the Order incorporating the terms of this Stipulated Order.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION, PROSECUTION TEAM
665
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability West County Agency et al.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
WEST COUNTY AGENCY
666
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability West County Agency et al.
ORDER OF THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD
1. This Stipulated Order incorporates the foregoing Sections I through III by this reference as if set forth fully herein.
2. In accepting this Stipulated Order, the Regional Water Board or its delegate has considered information the Prosecution Team obtained in investigating the allegations set forth in the Stipulated Order or otherwise provided to the Regional Water Board.
3. This is an action to enforce the laws and regulations administered by the Regional Water Board. Issuance of this Stipulated Order is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) in accordance with section 15321, subdivision (a)(2), title 14, of the California Code of Regulations.
4. The Executive Officer of the Regional Water Board is authorized to refer this matter directly to the Attorney General for enforcement if the Dischargers fail to perform any of their obligations under this Stipulated Order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to Water Code section 13323 and Government Code section 11415.60, on behalf of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region.
Eileen White Date
Executive Officer
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
Eileen
White
Digitally signed by
Eileen White
Date: 2023.04.18
17:00:43 -07'00'
667
ATTACHMENT A
Mandatory Minimum Penalties
Dischargers: West County Agency
West County Wastewater District
City of Richmond
Richmond Municipal Sewer District No. 1
The following table lists the alleged violations for which the Dischargers are subject to civil liabilities pursuant to Water Code section 13385. The table lists the mandatory minimum penalty (MMP) that applies.
Table 1. List of Alleged Violations
CIWQS
Violation
ID No.
Violation
Date Parameter (units) Group Effluent Limitation
Reported
Value
Percent
Exceedance[1]
Violation
Type MMP[2]
1071432 11/30/2019 Ammonia, Monthly
Average 1 32 33 3% C1 $0
1079928 8/15/2020 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 50 11% C1 $0 1079926 8/31/2020 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 31 3% C2 $0 1079927 8/31/2020 BOD, Monthly Average 1 30 32 7% C3 $0 1080763 9/30/2020 Ammonia, Monthly Mean 1 32 35 9% C4 $3,000 1080762 9/30/2020 BOD, Monthly Mean 1 30 32 7% C5 $3,000 1082120 10/3/2020 BOD, Weekly Average 1 45 49 9% C6 $3,000 1082121 10/10/2020 BOD, Weekly Average 1 45 58 29% C7 $3,000 1082115 10/10/2020 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 56 24% C8 $3,000 1082122 10/17/2020 BOD, Weekly Average 1 45 68 51% C9, S $3,000 1082118 10/17/2020 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 64 42% C10, S $3,000 1082119 10/24/2020 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 48 7% C11 $3,000 1082116 10/31/2020 BOD, Monthly Average 1 30 49 63% C12, S $3,000 668
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability, Attachment A West County Agency et al.
1082117 10/31/2020 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 49 63% C13, S $3,000 1092714 6/12/2021 BOD, Weekly Average 1 45 48 7% C1 $0
1092716 6/12/2021 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 59 31% C2 $0 1092715 6/19/2021 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 63 40% C3, S $3,000 1092717 6/30/2021 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 42 40% C4, S $3,000 1095606 9/11/2021 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 55 22% C5 $3,000 1100231 10/24/2021 Copper, Daily Maximum 2 76 95 25% C6, S $3,000 1105516 12/18/2021 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 48 7% C7 $3,000 1105515 12/31/2021 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 38 27% C8 $3,000 1101091 1/29/2022 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 48 7% C9 $3,000 1101090 1/31/2022 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 33 10% C10 $3,000 1102671 2/12/2022 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 47 4% C11 $3,000 1102669 2/19/2022 TSS, Weekly Average 1 45 66 47% C12, S $3,000 1102670 2/28/2022 BOD, Monthly Average 1 30 31 3% C13 $3,000 1102668 2/28/2022 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 44 45% C14, S $3,000 1104602 4/30/2022 TSS, Monthly Average 1 30 33 10% C15 $3,000 Total Mandatory Minimum Penalty: $69,000
Legend:
CIWQS = California Integrated Water Quality System database that the Water Boards use to track violations and enforcement.
Violation ID = Identification number assigned to each permit violation within CIWQS.
C = Count. Number of violations within past 180 days, including this violation. A penalty applies under Water Code section 13385(i) when the count is greater than three (>C3).
S = Serious. A penalty applies under Water Code section 13385(h) whenever an effluent limitation is exceeded by 40 percent or more for a Group 1 pollutant or 20 percent or more for a Group 2 pollutant.
Footnotes:
[1] Percent that the reported value exceeds the effluent limitation for a Group 1 pollutant. [2] The MMP required under Water Code section 13385(h) and/or (i).
CIWQS Place ID: 215234, 252657
WDID: 2 071037001
669
ATTACHMENT B
Project Description for
Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) for
Watershed Rangers Program
1. Project Name
Watershed Rangers Program
2. Project Amount
$40,000
3. Project Lead
KIDS for the BAY on behalf of West County Agency et al.
4. Contacts
● Mary Phelps, Project Manager, City of Richmond,
[email protected], (510) 621-1269
● Mandi Billinge, Executive Director, KIDS for the BAY, [email protected], (510) 734-3835
5. Project Description
KIDS for the BAY coordinates and supervises watershed stewardship and trash cleanup projects with local schools on a class-by-class basis. Students perform projects with assistance from their teachers and families. The primary goal of each project is trash removal from nearby neighborhoods, parks, and waterways (e.g., creeks, lakes, and beaches). In the process, KIDS for the BAY raises awareness of watershed health and social behavior that contributes to pollution.
The Watershed Rangers Program prioritizes projects in disadvantaged and environmental justice communities as encouraged by the State Water Board Policy on Supplemental Environmental Projects, December 5, 2017 (SEP Policy). Projects target areas where trash is prevalent, cleanup resources are limited, and local communities are less informed about environmental protection and watershed stewardship. This SEP serves low-income, urban schools in Richmond with 50 percent or higher low-income students, as recorded on Great School Ratings (https://www.greatschools.org).
This SEP is for ten classes of third, fourth, and fifth grade students; their teachers; and volunteer family members to complete the Watershed Rangers Program. Each class project consists of the following project components:
a. Orientation. KIDS for the BAY’s class orientation prepares participants for project work by providing the following information:
670
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability, Attachment B West County Agency et al.
i. Background. Participants learn about the San Francisco Bay watershed and how pollutants in stormwater enter and impact the system. Emphasis is placed on the benefits of healthy watershed ecosystems to people and wildlife, and ways to protect water quality (e.g., reducing trash that reaches the Bay by practicing the Five Rs:
Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Rot).
ii. Planning. Participants prepare for field activities and receive training on how to conduct a neighborhood survey and trash cleanup. Training covers procedures to collect, sort, document, and dispose of trash, and procedures to identify locations of storm drains and trash hotspots. iii. Safety. Participants receive training on safe field practices (e.g., stay in the public rights-of-way and do not handle unsafe wastes like chemical containers, hypodermic needles, or sharp objects). b. School Neighborhood Survey and Trash Cleanups. Students implement a school neighborhood survey and three trash cleanup projects under KIDS for the BAY direction and supervision. Each trash cleanup project is expected to collect 5 to 25 gallons of trash. During the school year, ten classes will collect a total of 150 to 750 gallons of trash.
Neighborhood surveys and trash cleanups take approximately one hour to complete.
i. School Neighborhood Survey and Trash Cleanup. During a walking tour of the school neighborhood, students identify the number and location of storm drains and the location of any trash hotspots.
Students pick up trash and record information on neighborhood survey sheets provided by KIDS for the BAY.
ii. Watershed Habitat Trash Cleanup (Adopt a Spot). Students pick up trash during a walking field trip to an “adopted” watershed habitat location. The location may be an urban open space area where trash collects at a local park, creek, lake, or section of Bay shoreline — or if no urban open space is available within the local watershed — a storm drain or collection of storm drains.
iii. Creek or Bay Trash Cleanup. Students pick up trash on a field trip to visit a creek or Bay habitat location.
Trash encountered during each cleanup is picked up, categorized, and counted. Students calculate the total gallons of trash collected and share results with the local Clean Water Program. KIDS for the BAY disposes of collected trash at an authorized disposal or recycling facility, and shares the location and content of significant trash hotspots beyond the scope of the Watershed Rangers Program with the appropriate local agency and 671
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability, Attachment B West County Agency et al.
requests cleanup from city services (e.g., large accumulation of trash, illegally dumped large items, hazardous waste, drug paraphernalia).
KIDS for the BAY may coordinate other activities in conjunction with the trash cleanups to help students connect with their watershed habitat or improve community outreach. For example, the class may post signs in the neighborhood about adopted spots to inform the public about student efforts to deter littering.
Students complete the Watershed Rangers Program by pledging to make behavior changes including not littering and using the Five Rs to reduce trash and waste in their watershed. Students write their pledges on environmental pledge cards provided by KIDS for the BAY and are encouraged to share them with classmates and family.
6. Compliance with SEP Criteria
A SEP must directly benefit or study groundwater, surface water, or drinking water quality or quantity and the beneficial uses of waters of the State, and must fit within one or more of designated categories. Many aspects of this SEP directly benefit surface water quality and the beneficial uses of waters of the State and fit into several SEP categories. The SEP is primarily a pollution reduction SEP because the trash cleanups result in a decrease in the amount of waste and pollutants discharged to waters of the State. It is also an environmental restoration and protection SEP because it benefits surface water quality and enhances the condition of the ecosystem and immediate geographic area adversely affected by the alleged violations listed in Attachment A. It is also an assessment and audit SEP because classes identify and report trash hotspots and adopt a local watershed habitat for monitoring and cleanup.
7. Above and Beyond Discharger’s Obligations
This SEP provides no direct benefit to the West County Agency, West County Wastewater District, City of Richmond, or Richmond Municipal Sewer District No. 1. These Dischargers have no obligation to provide financial or other support for this project, will receive no direct or indirect benefit for this effort, and will not direct or exercise any control over the project.
8. No Benefit to the Water Board Functions, Members, or Staff This SEP provides no direct fiscal benefit to the Regional Water Board’s functions, its members, its staff, or any family of its members or staff.
9. Nexus to Nature or Location of Violations
This SEP has a nexus to the location of the violations (listed in Attachment A) in Richmond. Trash cleanups will occur in or around Richmond.
10.California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance This is an environmental stewardship, trash cleanup, and monitoring program 672
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability, Attachment B West County Agency et al.
for elementary school students and is not subject to CEQA.
11.Project Milestone, Schedule, and Budget
Table 1 lists the primary project milestones, deliverables, and schedule.
Table 2 includes the projected cost for each milestone.
Table 1. Project Milestones and Deliverables
Due Date Task Description Deliverable
10/15/2023 Project planning: Complete outreach to
classrooms. Meet with teachers to set project
schedules, sign Letters of Agreement, and
distribute informational materials.
None
01/15/2024 Milestone 1: Complete project orientation and school neighborhood survey and trash cleanup
project components described in section 5.a
and 5.b.i, above. Documentation shall include:
1. Narrative description of activities with
photos, including “before and after”
photos of trash cleanup areas;
2. Google map (or equivalent) showing
locations of survey area, trash cleanup
areas, and any trash hotspots;
3. Table listing total gallons of trash
collected by type;
4. Documentation that trash hotspots were
reported to the appropriate local agency
and city services for cleanup;
5. Identification of any trash disposal and
recycling centers used; and
6. Account for expenditures.
Quarterly
Report 1
04/15/2024 Milestone 2: Complete watershed habitat trash cleanup (adopt a spot) project component
described in section 5.b.ii, above.
Documentation shall include:
1. Narrative description of activities with
photos, including “before and after”
photos of trash cleanup areas;
2. Google map (or equivalent) showing
locations of the trash cleanup areas and
any trash hotspots;
3. Table listing total gallons of trash
collected by type;
4. Documentation that trash hotspots were
reported to the appropriate local agency
and city services for cleanup;
5. Identification of any trash disposal and
recycling centers used; and
Quarterly
Report 2
673
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability, Attachment B West County Agency et al.
Due Date Task Description Deliverable
6. Account for expenditures.
07/15/2024 Milestone 3: Complete creek or Bay trash
cleanup project component described in section
5.b.iii., above. Documentation shall include:
1. Narrative description of activities with
photos, including “before and after”
photos of trash cleanup areas;
2. Google map (or equivalent) showing
locations of the trash cleanup areas and
any trash hotspots;
3. Table listing total gallons of trash
collected by type;
4. Documentation that trash hotspots were
reported to the appropriate local agency
and city services for cleanup;
5. Identification of any trash disposal and
recycling centers used; and
6. Account for expenditures.
Quarterly
Report 3
08/30/2024 Completion Report: Submit final report with
the following elements:
1. Summary of project components
reported previously and any new or
updated information about trash
cleanups and other activities;
2. Discussion of whether and how the
project performance measures described
in section 13, below, were met;
3. Explanation of any deviations from
project schedule or budget;
4. Table listing total gallons of trash
collected by type for all trash cleanups;
5. Google map (or equivalent) showing all
locations where trash cleanups occurred
and locations where city services were
requested; and
6. Final post-project accounting of
expenditures as described in section 12,
below.
Completion
Report
Table 2. Project Budget by Milestone
Description Hours Cost
Project Planning
Labor
Executive Director
Education Manager
12 18
$840
$630
674
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability, Attachment B West County Agency et al.
Description Hours Cost
Program
Manager/Educator
Program Educators
Other Costs
Printing and copying
Travel – staff mileage
Education equipment
Subtotal
30 58
$900
$1624
$150
$150
$206
$4,500
Milestone 1
Labor
Executive Director
Education Manager
Program
Manager/Educator
Program Educators
Other Costs
Travel – Staff Mileage
Subtotal
12 18
60 176
$840
$630
$1,800
$4,928
$152
$8,350
Milestone 2
Labor
Executive Director
Education Manager
Program
Manager/Educator
Program Educators
Other Costs
Travel – Staff mileage
Subtotal
12 18
60 176
$840
$630
$1,800
$4,928
$152
$8,350
Milestone 3 and Completion Report
Labor
Executive Director
Education Manager
Program
Manager/Educator
Program Educators
Other Costs
Travel – Staff Mileage
Travel – Bus
12 18
60 192
$840
$630
$1,800
$5,376
$154
$10,000
675
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability, Attachment B West County Agency et al.
Description Hours Cost
transportation
Subtotal
$18,800
TOTAL $40,000
12.Final Post-Project Accounting of Expenditures
West County Agency will track all costs and include financial data with quarterly reports. West County Agency will also provide the Regional Water Board with a final report, submitted under penalty of perjury, that declares SEP completion, addresses how the expected performance measures for the project were met, and provides a final accounting of SEP expenditures, as required by Stipulated Order Section III, paragraphs 3.b and 6.
13.Project Performance Measures
The SEP must achieve all the following performance measures to be deemed complete:
a. Milestone 1: Submit signed teacher contracts and schedules of activities, collect at least five gallons of trash for each trash cleanup, submit survey results to city Clean Water Program, and identify and report location of any trash hotspots to city services for cleanup as applicable.
b. Milestone 2: Register adopted watershed habitat if applicable, collect at least five gallons of trash for each trash cleanup, submit survey results to city Clean Water Program, and identify and report location of any trash hotspots to city services for cleanup as applicable.
c. Milestone 3: Collect at least five gallons of trash for each trash cleanup, submit survey results to city Clean Water Program, and identify and report location of any trash hotspots to city services for cleanup as applicable.
d. Prepare and submit deliverable reports by the deadlines set forth in Table 1 above.
14.Reports to the Water Board
All reports will be submitted to the Regional Water Board at:
676
Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability, Attachment B West County Agency et al.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board
Kerry O’Connor
1515 Clay Street, 14th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
(510) 622-2465
677
May 16, 2023
Finance Department
DATE: May 16, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Shasa Curl, City Manager
Nickie Mastay, Deputy City Manager
Mubeen Qader, Deputy Director of Finance
Subject: State Audit Corrective Action Plan, Pension Funding Policies
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No Fiscal Impact
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
May 2, 2023, December 20, 2022
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
California State Auditor’s 2021-806-Audit Corrective
Action Plan includes Implementing Pension (CalPERS)
funding policy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE a presentation regarding pension (CalPERS) funding policies per the California State Auditor’s 2021- 806-Audit Corrective Action Plan – Finance (Nickie
Mastay 510-620-6609/ Mubeen Qadar 510-412-2077).
DISCUSSION:
On April 4, 2022, the City of Richmond was notified by the California State Auditor that they will be conducting an audit of the City as approved by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee on June 30, 2021. The State Auditor’s local audit program identifies and supports local government agencies that might be at high risk based upon analysis of the City’s audited financial statements. Richmond’s risk assessment began in February 2021 based upon the City’s June 2020 financial statements.
The Audit was initiated in May 2022, and was completed and published on November 10, 2022. During the audit process, the State Auditor held meetings with City staff to AGENDA
REPORT
678
May 16, 2023
review and discuss many aspects of the City’s financial management procedures and protocol. In compliance with the State Auditor’s request, City staff provided complete access to the City’s financial data and systems.
At the conclusion of the audit, the State Auditor formalized 11 recommendations that were presented to the City Council at the December 20, 2022, City Council meeting.
City staff incorporated the Auditor’s recommendation into a Corrective Action Plan (Attachment 1). One of the State Audit recommendations is regarding unfunded pension liabilities.
“To ensure that Richmond is able to fund its retirement-related costs, city staff should, by June 2023, propose to the city council a specific policy regarding funding of its pension trust fund for this purpose. Staff should report to the city council on estimated long-term savings from increasing its direct payments to Cal PERS compared to investing the same amounts in its pension trust fund. Staff members should use this information to inform their recommendations related to funding targets for the pension trust fund and should consider recommending that the council increase the city's payments directly to CalPERS.” (Attachment 1)
To implement the State Audit recommendations regarding CalPERS, the City entered into a contract with GovInvest to receive assistance for policy revisions per the following timeline.
Table 1: OPEB and CalPERS Funding Policy Revision Timeline City Council Meeting Action
May 16, 2023 Introduction to CalPERS
June 6, 2023 Policy Options and City Council Feedback
June 21, 2023 CalPERS Funding Policies Adopted
The presentation to the City Council will cover CalPERS Pension Basics, comparison to other agencies, and changes to CalPERS and the impact of the changes.
NEXT STEPS:
City staff will return to the City Council with proposed policy options on June 6, 2023.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – State Auditor's Recommendations-Corrective Action Plan May 2023 Update
679
Recommendation
Number Description Responsible for Implementation Time Frame Corrective Action Plan May 2023 Update 1 To help ensure that Richmond maintains appropriate reserves for times of fiscal uncertainty, city staff should, by June 2023, review Richmond's reserve policy to determine whether a higher reserve target is appropriate. As part of the review, staff should consider all the factors the Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) recommends for setting a reserve target. Once that review is complete, city staff should present proposals to the city council for modifying the city's policy.
City Manager Office
&
Finance
6/30/2023
Schedule City Council review/consideration of updated General Fund reserve policy in March 2023 for implementation in the Fisacl Year (FY) 2023-2024 Budget, for adoption by June 2023.
Staff presented GFOA best practices to the City Council on May 2, 2023, with the first draft budget for FY23-24 2 To decrease the risk that Richmond will deplete its reserves, city staff should, by June 2023, present to the city council a list of proposed budget actions that would help ensure balancedbudgets and eliminate projected deficits.
City Manager Office
&
Finance
6/30/2023
Present contingent, long-term budget balancing options with the FY 2023-2024 proposed budget, by June 2023.
Staff presented a balanced first draft of the FY23-24 budget on May 2, 2023, to adopt a balanced budget by June 30, 2023 3 Richmond should include multiple scenarios in its financial projections, including scenarios with potential additional risks, such as economic downturns or recessions, and how the city would continue to fund its operations under those circumstances.
City Manager Office
&
Finance
On Going
Present expanded 5-year financial projection with the FY 2023-2024 Proposed Budget, by June 2023.
Staff will present a draft five-year forecast (with scenarios) to the City Council in June 2023, for review and discussion. 4 To ensure that Richmond is able to fund its retirement-related costs, city staff should, by June 2023, propose to the city council a specific policy regarding funding of its pension trustfund for this purpose. Staff should report to the city council on estimated long-term savingsfrom increasing its direct payments to Cal PERS compared to investing the same amountsin its pension trust fund. Staff members should use this information to inform theirrecommendations related to funding targets for the pension trust fund and should considerrecommending that the council increase the city's payments directly to CalPERS.
City Manager Office
&
Finance
6/30/2023
Schedule City Council review/consideration of updated Pension funding policy in March 2023 for implementation in the FY 2023-2024 Budget, for adoption by June 2023.
The City has contracted with GovInvest to keep an on-going monitoring of the retirement related costs and impact of funding initiatives. First presentation to the City Council is expected on May 16, 2023 5 To improve the city's ability to pay other post-employment benefits, Richmond should, by June 2023 and annually thereafter, implement a policy identifying funds, such as surplusesor one-time revenues that should be contributed to the OPEB trust fund. Staff shouldconduct an annual analysis to determine whether any funds available to the city areapplicable under the city's policy and should present a proposal to the city council to apply those funds to the trust fund.
City Manager Office
&
Finance
6/30/2023
Schedule City Council review/consideration of updated OPEB funding policy in March 2023 for implementation in the FY 2023-2024 Budget, for adoption by June 2023.
City staff will be presenting options to the City Council regarding OPEB-Prefunding on June 2023. 6 To mitigate the costs of increasing salaries, the city should perform a workforce analysis byJune 2024. Based on the results of the analysis, the city council should consider eliminatingvacant positions that it deems no longer necessary. Additionally, the city should assess itsneed for each vacant position before it seeks to fill the positions and eliminate any positionsthat it does not need.
City Manager Office
&
Human Resources
6/30/2024
The City is issuing a Request for Proposal for a professional firm to conduct a formal workforce analysis. While the City evaluates the professional firms that replied to the Request for Proposal, the City will do an annual analysis of funded positions proposed by departments during the annual budget process, starting with the FY 2023-24 budget, by June 2023.
Due to time constraints of City Council meeting on May 2, 2023, the results of the workforce analysis RFP is tentatively scheduled to go to the City Council on May 16, 2023. 7 To ensure compliance with federal requirements, Richmond should dedicate the resourcesnecessary to provide records needed for an independent auditor to complete all outstandingsingle audits of the housing authority within the next fiscal year. To comply with existinglegal obligations, Richmond should make available sufficient resources to enable theHousing authority to resolve all past due requirements of the recovery agreement and tomeet the remaining deadlines in a timely manner by January 2024.
City Manager Office
&
Richmond Housing
Authority
1/1/2024
Identify and assign resources to complete Housing Authority Single Audit backlog by June 30, 2023. Identify and assign resources to complete Housing Authority Recovery Agreement actions by January 2024.
The City has made the following resources available to RHA: Senior Accountant, Outside Consultant, Accountant I, Interim Director Housing Authority. 8 To define Richmond's responsibility related to the housing authority, Richmond shouldimmediately enter into a written agreement with the housing authority defining each entity'sfinancial responsibilities and draft plans to resolve past tax liabilities and preventunnecessary new liabilities.
City Manager Office
&
Richmond Housing
Authority
2/28/2023
Draft and Schedule City Council consideration of Housing Authority Administration Agreement by February 2023.
The City and RHA are in process of preparing a draft written agreement regarding tax liabilities and prevention of unnecessary new liabilities.
9 To ensure that Richmond is receiving the best value when entering into contracts, city staff should immediately begin documenting that they are following the contracting requirements in the city's municipal code and contracting policies for all contracts. City Manager Office &
Finance
6/30/2023
Draft and implement Contract Compliance Documentation processes by June 2023.
City staff conducted an assessment of training materials to ensure compliance with contracting requirements in the City's Municipal Code and contracting policies. Staff prepared training programs to help employees develop the knowledge and skills to ensure compliance. [See Attached pdf Contract Compliance Training] 10 To reduce potential errors and omissions by city staff members when contracting for goods and services, by January 2023 Richmond should require its finance department to create a comprehensive checklist of required documentation for contract files that other departments must follow when conducting procurements.
City Manager Office
&
Finance
6/30/2023
Draft and implement Contract Compliance Checklist by June 2023. City staff compiled comprehensive checklists that are being utilized in reviewing and approving all contracts to ensure that proper procurement procedures and adherence to applicable City policies is being followed. [See Attached pdf Contract Compliance Checklists]. 11 To ensure that city fees appropriately cover the cost of providing services, by June 2023,Richmond should determine a cost-effective frequency for updating its fee schedule toreflect all allowable costs, including adjusting fees for inflation as appropriate. Richmondshould then revise its municipal code as necessary.
City Manager Office
&
Finance
6/30/2023
Review and update the Fee Schedule policy for City Council consideration and update of Municipal Code as needed by June 2023.
On May 2, 2023 the City Council adopted an ordinance (first reading) to update the Master Fee Schedule annually (rather than quarterly). 680
May 16, 2023
Finance Department
DATE: May 16, 2022
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Shasa Curl, City Manager
Nickie Mastay, Deputy City Manager, Internal Services
LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager, Community
Services
Mubeen Qader, Deputy Director of Finance
Antonio Banuelos, Accounting Manager
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Quarter 3 Budget Report and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Update,
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The $15 million appropriation for the Library Upgrade Project will be transferred to the General Capital Fund from the Salary & Benefits savings in the General Fund.
The City received an ARPA allocation of ~$27.74 million which will cover the cost of any City Council-approved
ARPA expenditures. On June 21, 2021, as part of a
larger ARPA allocation, the City Council approved $1
million to support a community beautification project.
Public Works is requesting use of those funds to
complete the construction phase for the 13th Complete
Street project (15491331-400708-29120).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
June 21, 2022, December 6, 2022, March 28, 2023
AGENDA
REPORT
681
May 16, 2023
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
City staff is presenting the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-2023 Quarter 3 General Fund budget to actuals report, All
Funds budget to actuals report, and the Capital
Improvement budget to actuals report. The purpose of
this report is to monitor revenues and expenditures, as compared to the approved budgeted amounts. In
addition, City staff will request an additional appropriation to support the Richmond Main Library renovation project, and present information regarding ARPA.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Quarter 3 budget report for the period of July 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023; ADOPT a resolution to APPROPRIATE $15 million
for the Main Library Upgrade project via a transfer in from the General Fund to the Capital Fund; RECEIVE a report
regarding the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
budget, Community Needs Assessment and Strategic
Investment Plan; and APPROPRIATE $1 million in ARPA
funds to complete the 13th Complete Street project –
Finance Department (Shasa Curl/LaShonda White 510-
620-6828/Nickie Mastay 510-620-6609/Mubeen Qader
510-412-2077).
DISCUSSION:
FY 2022-2023 Quarter 3 Budget Report
The purpose of the quarterly budget report is to assist with monitoring revenue and expenditures, as compared to the approved budgeted amounts. The report also provides City staff members, the City Council, and the community at-large with the ability to monitor trends that impact the budget cycle.
This report represents an overview of the Quarter 3 operating revenues and expenditures for FY 2022-23, which covers budget activity from July 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023. The threshold for the first three quarters of the fiscal year is 75 percent, meaning that it is expected to have 75 percent of the adopted budget expended.
Revenues are not necessarily measured against the same standard due to the seasonality of some major revenue sources, such as property taxes, which are received in December, April, and June each year.
682
May 16, 2023
General Fund
General Fund Revenues
Overall, revenue received totaled $139.2 million (64.73 percent of budget) for Quarter 3 of FY 2022-23. This is below the threshold of 75 percent. The variance is primarily due to the seasonality of some revenue sources. For example, the City’s final Sales Tax payment will not be received until August 2023, at which point it will be accrued and accounted for in the year it was earned. Figures 1 and 2 below summarize the Quarter 3 revenue budget to actuals. See Attachment 1 for the breakdown by department.
Figure 1: General Fund Revenue, FY2022-23, Quarter 3
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
YTD ACTUAL ENCUMB. AVAILABLE
BUDGET
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB.
% USED
W.
ENCUMB
30 PROPERTY TAXES $ 46,056,962 $ 48,608,929 $ 26,338,464 $ - $ 22,270,465 54% 31 SALES & USE TAX $ 55,282,200 $ 55,554,137 $ 31,428,903 $ - $ 24,125,234 57% 32 UTILITY USERS TAX $ 49,963,589 $ 50,861,279 $ 42,302,382 $ - $ 8,558,897 83% 33 OTHER TAXES $ 21,638,449 $ 22,452,187 $ 8,593,459 $ - $ 13,858,728 38% 34 LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES $ 11,129,402 $ 11,080,956 $ 9,927,244 $ - $ 1,153,712 90% 35 FINES & FORFEITURES $ 475,275 $ 465,275 $ 148,263 $ - $ 317,012 32% 36 USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY $ 236,079 $ 1,021,047 $ 501,329 $ - $ 519,718 49% 37 CHARGES FOR SERVICES $ 3,571,292 $ 3,568,792 $ 1,830,690 $ - $ 1,738,102 51% 38 OTHER REVENUE $ 187,500 $ 192,545 $ 260,714 $ - $ (68,169) 135% 39 RENTAL INCOME $ 874,506 $ 874,506 $ 740,716 $ - $ 133,791 85% 3A INTERGOV STATE TAXES $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 118,794 $ - $ 6,206 95% 3C INTERGOV STATE GRANT $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 131,430 $ - $ 43,570 75% 3D INTERGOV OTHER GRANT $ 253,569 $ 263,569 $ 289,943 $ - $ (26,374) 110% 60 PROC FR SLE PROP $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 715 $ - $ 99,285 1% 61 LOAN/BOND PROCEEDS $ - $ 39,400 $ 39,400 $ - $ - 100% 90 OPER XFERS IN $ 16,563,424 $ 19,720,418 $ 16,541,728 $ - $ 3,178,690 84% Total Revenue $206,632,248 $ 215,103,041 $139,194,175 $ - $ 75,908,866 65% 683
May 16, 2023
Figure 2: General Fund Revenue, FY 2022-23, Quarter 3
General Fund revenues were adjusted at mid-year based on revenues received through December 2022. From the data points observed thus far in FY 2022-23, most revenues are trending as expected or better.
Property Tax -- For the FY 2022-23 General Fund property taxes, City staff estimated growth of 2.9 percent for Secured Property Taxes and overall growth for this revenue category of 1.8 percent. Contra Costa County (County) released the 2022-2023 Assessment Roll in July 2022, which indicated growth of the Assessed Valuation (AV) at 8.15 percent for Secured Property Taxes. This is the main component in changes to secured property taxes year to year. Other significant impacts include the sale of properties and tax increment allocation.
The Property Taxes budgeted amount was increased by $2.6 million during midyear. It is expected that this revenue will come in at the budgeted amount or slightly higher.
Sales & Use Tax -- The sales tax revenue stream, post COVID’s shelter–in-place and the associated downturn in the economy, has experienced significant increases over the last two years and the trend is expected to continue through the current fiscal year. The updated forecast from the City’s financial consultants and the internal forecast tie to what is currently budgeted for FY 2022-23. Utility Users Tax (UUT) --This revenue stream, including the maximum cap amount paid by Chevron, has been received as expected except for the Gas and Electricity Utility Users Tax, which is trending higher. Other Taxes -- Other revenues of note include the documentary transfer tax which is collected by Contra Costa County on the sale of properties. The City has received a total $8.5 million (38.3 percent of budget) through March 2023. Of the 48,608,929
55,554,137
50,861,279
22,452,187
11,080,956
465,275
1,021,047
3,568,792
192,545
874,506
125,000
175,000
263,569
100,000
39,400
19,720,418
26,338,464
31,428,903
42,302,382
8,593,459
9,927,244
148,263
501,329
1,830,690
260,714
740,716
118,794
131,430
289,943
715
39,400
16,541,728
- 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 30 PROPERTY TAXES
31 SALES & USE TAX
32 UTILITY USERS TAX
33 OTHER TAXES
34 LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES
35 FINES & FORFEITURES
36 USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY
37 CHARGES FOR SERVICES
38 OTHER REVENUE
39 RENTAL INCOME
3A INTERGOV STATE TAXES
3C INTERGOV STATE GRANT
3D INTERGOV OTHER GRANT
60 PROC FR SLE PROP
61 LOAN/BOND PROCEEDS
90 OPER XFERS IN
Amounts
Revenue
YTD ACTUAL REVISED BUDGET
684
May 16, 2023
major revenue streams, this is the most volatile and unpredictable with month-tomonth revenue amounts varying significantly. In addition, one or two property sales can have a huge impact on the overall tax amount received. The budgeted amount corresponds to the formula as outlined in the Guiding Fiscal Policies.
This formula is basically the monthly mean (since passage of Measure H in November 2018 and effective January 2019).
Licenses, Permits, and Fees – This revenue stream includes the business tax revenue. Through March 2023, the full revenue is at 105 percent of the budgeted amount. Comparing Quarter 3 of FY 2021-22 with Quarter 3 of FY 2022-23, an increase of nearly $5.7 million is expected. The increase stems from the collection of business tax after the adoption of Measure U.
General Fund Expenditures
Overall, expenditures totaled $72.8 million (62 percent of budget) through Quarter 3 of FY 2022-23. Actuals are trending lower than the approved budgeted amounts mainly due to the significantly higher vacancy rate and several pending encumbrances. With encumbrances, the expenditures are at 66 percent of the budget. Encumbrances are funds earmarked for specific operating expenditures, such as copier leases. Figures 3 and 4 below summarize the expenditure budget to actuals through March 31, 2023. See Attachment 1 for a detailed report by department.
Figure 3: General Fund Expenditures, FY 2022-23, Quarter 3
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
YTD ACTUAL ENCUMB. AVAILABLE
BUDGET
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB.
% USED
W.
ENCUMB
40 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 78,761,868 $ 76,709,826 $ 51,433,017 $ - $ 25,276,809 67% 67% 41 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT $ 66,929,804 $ 66,887,828 $ 49,053,513 $ - $ 17,834,315 73% 73% 42 PROF & ADMIN $ 16,977,138 $ 19,841,882 $ 7,154,972 $ 4,053,446 $ 8,633,464 36% 56% 43 OTHER OPERATING $ 7,970,902 $ 11,219,048 $ 3,847,892 $ 1,031,044 $ 6,340,113 34% 43% 44 UTILITIES $ 5,399,957 $ 5,394,982 $ 3,381,924 $ 530,620 $ 1,482,438 63% 73% 45 EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS $ 2,731,448 $ 2,877,188 $ 1,540,298 $ 382,456 $ 954,434 54% 67% 46 PROVISN FOR INS LOSS $ 25,725 $ 29,641 $ 28,641 $ - $ 1,000 97% 97% 47 COST POOL $ 15,277,766 $ 15,277,766 $ 11,458,322 $ - $ 3,819,444 75% 75% 48 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 3,172,136 $ 5,820,423 $ 513,767 $ 2,390,281 $ 2,916,374 9% 50% 49 DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE $ 1,037,009 $ 1,037,009 $ 618,921 $ - $ 418,088 60% 60% 4A A87 COST PLAN REIMBS $ (3,531,610) $ (3,531,610) $ (2,631,979) $ - $ (899,631) 75% 75% 50 GRANT EXPENDITURES $ 2,500 $ 117,338 $ (1,464) $ 8,000 $ 110,802 -1% 6% 91 OPER XFERS OUT $ 11,877,605 $ 13,458,369 $ 7,553,337 $ - $ 5,905,032 56% 56% Total Expenditure $206,632,248 $ 215,139,689 $133,951,159 $ 8,395,847 $ 72,792,683 62% 66% 685
May 16, 2023
Figure 4: General Fund Expenditures, FY 2022-23, Quarter 3 The following provides additional information regarding the major expenditure categories:
Salaries & Wages – This category includes base salaries for full-time and part-time staff, overtime, and other pay types. Actual expenditures total $51.4 million (67 percent of budget). This category is lower than the threshold primarily due to vacant positions that Human Resources has significantly addressed over the current FY through strategic hiring.
Benefits – This includes medical, dental, workers compensation, CalPERS pension costs, Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB), and other benefits. Actual expenditures total $17.8 million (73 percent of budget) and is also below the threshold due to vacant positions. Total benefits include the $6.1 million payment into the OPEB trust.
Professional & Admin Services – This category includes professional and consulting services, and contractual obligations, such as animal control services. Actual expenditures total $7.2 million (36 percent of budget) and are below the threshold.
Factoring in purchase order encumbrances of $4 million, the total is $11.2 million (56 percent of budget).
Other Operating – This includes copier leases, office supplies, and other items.
Actual expenditures total $3.8 million (34 percent of budget). Factoring in purchase 686
May 16, 2023
order encumbrances of $1.01 million, the total is $4.81 million (43 percent of budget).
Utilities – This category includes gas, electricity, water, refuse, telephone, and internet services. Actual expenditures total $3.4 million (63 percent of budget).
Factoring in purchase order encumbrances of $531,000, the total is $3.9 million (73 percent of budget).
Equipment & Contract Services - This category includes equipment and maintenance/repair services. Actual expenditures total $1.5 million (54 percent of budget). Factoring in purchase order encumbrances of $382,000, the total is $1.9 million (67 percent of budget).
Cost Pool – This includes vehicle replacement, general liability, and Civic Center debt allocation. Since these charges are distributed through equal monthly journals, the expenditures are at the threshold of 75 percent.
Asset/Capital Outlay – This includes capital purchases and major facility and infrastructure upgrades. The total expenditures, including encumbrances, are at 50 percent of the budgeted amount.
Debt Service – Included in this category are debt payments per the debt service schedule, with total expenditures at 60 percent of the budget. A87 Cost Plan Reimbursement – This category includes administrative overhead credit from non-General Fund programs through monthly journals. The expenditures are at 75 percent of the budget.
Grant Expenditures – This category includes Office of Neighborhood Safety and Recreation grant expenditures. The expenditures, including encumbrances, are at six percent. Year-to-date actuals have a pending correction to be made. Transfers Out – This includes transfers out from the General Fund to non-General Funds for operating subsidies and a portion of the debt service. The General Fund Actuals total $1.7 million (14 percent of budget).
Projected General Fund Surplus due to Higher Vacancy Rate As mentioned above, the salary and benefits are below the budgeted amounts due to the vacancy rate. The current year budget included an assumption of a six percent vacancy rate. However, the estimated vacancy rate was higher through March and, with hiring in the pipeline, will bring the total FTEs to approximately 620. The figure below compares the budgeted vacancy rate with the actual monthly vacancy report. 687
May 16, 2023
Figure 5: FY 2022-23 Vacancy Rate through March 2023:
Total salaries and benefits in the General Fund revised budget is at $143.6 million, which equates to an average monthly budget of about $11.96 million. However, due to the vacancy rate, the average monthly actual for salaries and benefits has been below the budgeted amount in the current fiscal year. Based on the current vacancy rate and respective actuals, City staff is currently projecting approximately $16.2 million that can be redeployed to address needed updates to the Main Library.
The Main Library upgrade project is anticipated to cost approximately $30 million.
Approximately $10 million has been secured from a state grant and approximately $5 million in matching funds from Library Impact Fees and ARPA funds.
Non-General Funds
Non-General Fund Revenues
Overall, 46 percent of non-general fund revenues have been collected and are trending as expected. The timing of receipts vary amongst the funds based on the source of funding. For instance, grant funds are typically received after expenditures are incurred and reimbursement requests are submitted to grantors. The chart below summarizes the revenue budget to actuals for non-general funds. Please see Attachment 2 for revenue budget to actuals by individual fund. Figures 7 and 8 provide an overview of non-general fund revenues and below are explanations for some of the major categories:
Capital Improvement Funds – The total revenue is 12 percent of the budget. The major variance is due to the grants that are pending for reimbursements in outside-funded budgeted services fund.
Other Operations Funds – The total revenues are 36 percent of the budget.
Major variance is due to the grant funded program revenues, for which the reimbursements are generally received towards the end of the fiscal year. Special Revenue Funds – Actual revenue is above the budget by a significant amount due to American Rescue Plan (ARPA) unearned revenue. 688
May 16, 2023
Figure 7: Non-General Fund Revenues, FY 2022-23, Quarter 3 Figure 8: Non-General Fund Revenues, FY 2022-23, Quarter 3 Non-General Fund Expenditures
Overall, 48 percent of non-general fund budget appropriations have been expended, including encumbrances. Spending patterns in other funds are like those in the General Fund and trending as expected. Most of the actual expenditures are either at or below the threshold of 75 percent. Amounts over the threshold are primarily due to purchase order encumbrances. Figures 9 and 10 below summarize the expenditure budget to actuals for non-general funds. See Attachment 2 for expenditure budget to actuals by FUND
ORIGINAL
APPROP
TRANFRS
/
ADJSMTS
REVISED
BUDGET YTD EXPENDED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET % USED
Total Capital Improvement Fund 31,852,226 36,494,133 68,346,359 8,153,977 60,192,382 12% Total Debt Service Fund 20,629,090 - 20,629,090 6,012,216 14,616,874 29% Total Enterprise Fund 58,991,980 - 58,991,980 22,752,196 36,239,784 39% Total Housing Funds 2,161,415 62,168 2,223,583 1,594,067 629,516 72% Total Housing Authority Funds 4,880,044 15,000 4,895,044 3,157,909 1,737,135 65% Total Internal Service Funds 24,730,653 - 24,730,653 19,906,599 4,824,054 80% Total Other Operations Funds 27,276,353 12,004,536 39,280,890 14,299,142 24,981,748 36% Total Pension Funds 165,305 - 165,305 (1,268,917) 1,434,222 -768% Total Special Revenue Funds 29,253,674 10,714,233 39,967,907 36,818,670 3,149,237 92% Total Trust Funds - 80,000 80,000 8,765,445 (8,685,445) 10957% -
Total All Funds 199,940,740 59,370,071 259,310,811 120,191,303 139,119,508 46% 689
May 16, 2023
individual fund.
Figure 9: Non-General Fund Expenditures, FY 2022-23 Quarter 3 Figure 10: Non-General Fund Expenditures, FY 2022-23 Quarter 3 Quarter 3 Budget Adjustments:
City staff propose budget adjustments that will appropriate $15 million from the General Fund into the Richmond Main Library Renovation Project, located in General Capital Fund.
Richmond Main Library Renovation Project
The California State Library made the Building Forward Infrastructure Grant Program available in the Fall of 2021 to address life-safety and critical maintenance needs in libraries. The City of Richmond applied for the maximum amount of grant funding ($10,000,000) and a 50 percent reduction in required matching funds. On September 12, 2022, the City was notified of a $9,712,979 grant award to fund infrastructure improvements to revitalize the historic Richmond Main Library, and a required 50 FUND
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUALS THRU
MARCH 2023
ENCUMB.
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB.
% USED
W.
ENCUMB.
Total Capital Improvement 37,256,854 83,961,614 10,565,649 14,840,028 73,395,965 13% 30% Total Debt Service 21,612,086 21,612,086 19,658,266 11,050 1,953,820 91% 91% Total Enterprise Fund 70,579,794 109,136,999 33,958,394 13,886,087 75,178,606 31% 44% Total Housing Funds 5,458,047 5,496,861 734,121 482,389 4,762,740 13% 22% Total Housing Authority 4,880,044 4,915,044 2,463,192 190,354 2,451,852 50% 54% Total Internal Service Funds 25,169,925 28,033,672 15,494,201 8,588,148 12,539,471 55% 86% Total Other Operations 27,075,053 44,979,085 14,883,750 7,195,961 30,095,335 33% 49% Total Pension Funds 0 210,463 951,921 0 -741,458 452% 452% Total Special Revenue Funds 39,674,849 58,399,752 23,105,061 3,594,951 35,294,691 40% 46% Total Trust Funds 0 80,000 355,056 6,628 -275,056 444% 452% Total All Funds 231,706,650 356,825,576 122,169,611 48,795,596 234,655,965 34% 48% 83,961,614
21,612,086
109,136,999
5,496,861
4,915,044
28,033,672
44,979,085
210,463
58,399,752
80,000
10,565,649
19,658,266
33,958,394
734,121
2,463,192
15,494,201
14,883,750
951,921
23,105,061
355,056
0 20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000 120,000,000 Total Capital Improvement
Total Debt Service
Total Enterprise Fund
Total Housing Funds
Total Housing Authority
Total Internal Service Funds
Total Other Operations
Total Pension Funds
Total Special Revenue Funds
Total Trust Funds
Amount
Fund Type
YTD EXPENDED REVISED BUDGET
690
May 16, 2023
percent cash match of $4,856,490 ($3,656,490 from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), $500,000 from the Capital Improvement Program budget (ARPA), and $700,000 from Library Impact Fees).
The full renovation and retrofit of the library project is anticipated to go beyond the scope to address life-safety and critical maintenance needs included in the grant application to deliver a modern library that meets the current needs of the Richmond community. The project will enable the review of the current program and space needs of the library in order to develop a floor plan that allows the library to make best use of the available space to maximize operational efficiency, and better serve the community.
All new building systems will be installed including electrical, mechanical, plumbing, data/IT, etc. In addition, all new interior partitions, finishes, photovoltaic, library shelves, racks, furniture, and equipment will be installed. On the exterior, all the doors and glazing system will be replaced along with the roof. The building will also be seismically strengthened including re-anchoring of the brick façade to the structure.
For budgeting purposes, the rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimated construction cost for a full renovation and retrofit project is anticipated to be around $700 - $750 per square foot (sf). Also, for budgeting purposes, it is recommended that the City allow for approximately 25 percent to 30 percent of construction cost ($175 - $225/sf) for project soft costs like design, planning, management, permitting, furniture, fixtures and equipment, testing and inspections, etc. A total ROM budget of $875 - $975/sf is currently anticipated to be the overall project budget. For 31,500 sf, the ROM project budget comes out to be $27,562,500 - $30,712,500.
The additional funds needed, beyond the $15 million grant and match, are anticipated to be expended during the construction phase (2025 – 2026). The total project timeline is expected to be approximately 36 to 48 months from the contract award.
American Rescue Plan Act Update
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress enacted the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) in 2021, providing economic incentives to mitigate its impacts. The City of Richmond has been allocated $27.74 million through ARPA, with a deadline to obligate funds by December 31, 2024, and expend them by December 31, 2026. Since ARPA funding is a one-time source, it is advisable to prioritize investments in projects or programs that do not require ongoing funding. The eligible uses for ARPA funds encompass replacing lost public sector revenue, addressing public health and environmental effects of COVID-19, offering premium pay to essential workers, and investing in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure.
To date, the Richmond City Council committed approximately $16 million in ARPA funds, leaving approximately $11.7 million remaining to be invested (see Figure 12).
During the FY 2021-22 budget process, the City “held” $4 million in case there was a budget shortfall (listed in Figure 11 as “Recovery of Lost Revenue Applied to Balance of FY 2021-22 GF Budget). However, the FY 2021-22 budget ended with a surplus and these funds were not utilized. Therefore, these funds are available for City Council to 691
May 16, 2023
allocate for other projects. This will increase the new total unallocated ARPA funds from approximately $11.7 million to $15.7 million. Additional information regarding the allocated ARPA projects are listed below and can be found in Attachment 5.
Figure 11: American Rescue Plan Act Funding
The City Council approved a contract with HR&A (subcontracting with Contigo Communications) on February 15, 2022, to conduct a Community Needs Assessment (CNA) and Strategic Investment Plan (SIP). HR&A and Contigo provided an update on the CNA process during the June 28, 2022, City Council meeting. Additional information regarding ARPA can be located at https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4095/AmericanRescue-Plan-Act.
ARPA Community Outreach
A demographic analysis was conducted to identify populations in Richmond that were disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on this information, a robust engagement process was conducted that included a community listening tour (focus groups, public meetings, and a public survey) in Richmond to gather insights on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify priorities for allocating funds from ARPA. Outreach efforts included various strategies such as television promotions, doorto-door visits, email blasts, and engagement with community organizations. The survey received 210 responses and highlighted support for investments in neighborhoods, infrastructure, local businesses, and families. The focus groups engaged 126 community members, targeting underrepresented voices. Additionally, two community meetings were held, attracting over 150 attendees, with Spanish translation services 692
May 16, 2023
available. The meetings provided a platform for participants to share ideas and priorities, fostering robust dialogue among diverse community members.
ARPA Community Needs Assessment (CNA) Findings (Attachment 6) Through the community listening tour and subsequent analysis, five significant community themes (not in a particular order) were identified in Richmond's recovery priorities:
1. Jobs and Businesses: Economic insecurity has been a prominent issue, with many residents struggling to afford basic necessities such as rent and healthcare. Local small businesses faced challenges in accessing necessary support, including difficulties with obtaining Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans.
2. Health: The pandemic has resulted in a higher demand for mental health services, particularly among disconnected youth, overwhelmed parents, and isolated older adults. However, there is a shortage of culturally competent and accessible mental health service providers, hindering access to care.
3. Homes and Neighborhoods: Richmond already had a high rent burden before the pandemic, which worsened as individuals faced income disruptions. Housing insecurity has become an urgent concern, and community members identified tenant assistance and rental assistance programs as their most pressing needs.
4. Families: Accessing information and services has proven challenging for communities with limited connectivity and digital literacy. Broadband internet access, technology resources, and computer literacy were highlighted as critical needs, particularly for youth and older adults.
5. Culture and Community: Churches, neighborhoods, and community organizations play vital roles in connecting and supporting Richmond residents. The return of safe community events and increased support for local nonprofit organizations were identified as essential for preserving community bonds and well-being.
Strategic Investment Plan (SIP) Findings (Attachment 7) The CNA informed the development of a SIP that can serve as a guide for allocating unexpended ARPA funds. The SIP aims to address the identified priorities and ensure that the recovery efforts are targeted towards meeting the specific needs of the community in a comprehensive and equitable manner.
To address these priorities, specific proposed actions are outlined in the SIP. These actions include providing direct support to businesses, improving accessibility of business services, supporting economic development efforts, reducing community health disparities, expanding mental health services, addressing housing needs, leveraging additional state and federal funding, partnering with schools for family 693
May 16, 2023
support, expanding childcare services, enhancing cultural and recreational programming, improving public facilities, and expanding broadband access.
Next Steps
As part of the FY 2023-24 budget process, City staff will return to City Council in May/June 2023, with additional information and to receive directions on how to allocate the remaining ARPA funds. To prioritize investments, the City could focus on projects that build upon existing progress, have public support, align with City staff capacity for implementation by ARPA deadlines, help achieve anticipated impacts, correspond with City Council priorities, and align with the City’s fiscal policy (i.e., spending one-time revenues on one-time expenditures). Based on these considerations, potential projects for City Council discussion may include, but is not limited to, the following projects:
Nystrom Housing Project - ~$2 million
Project Home Key - ~$3 million
Housing First and Emergency Rental Assistance - TBD
Small Business Support - TBD
CIP and Infrastructure Projects:
o Fire Training Center - ~$2 million
o Corporation Yard Restrooms - ~$700,000
o Corporation Yard Fence - TBD
o Park-related Projects: Soccer fields, playground equipment, Parks Master Plan Update, etc. - TBD
o Facility-related Projects: Upgrades to various city-owned facilities, Facilities Master Plan development, etc. - TBD
ARPA-Funded Community Beautification Project
On June 21, 2021, as part of a larger ARPA allocation, the City Council approved $1 million to support an unspecified community beautification project. Public Works is requesting use of those funds for FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 to help close a funding gap in the construction phase for the 13th Complete Street project.
Per the grant application, the 13th Street Complete Streets project transforms a fourlane arterial street from Harbour Way to Costa Avenue into multi-modal complete streets. Eliminating one vehicular travel lane in each direction and using the space to create continuous directional cycle tracks along the length of the corridor will be a key element of the Complete Streets transformation. Sidewalks will be widened (as feasible) and bus stop and crosswalk improvements will be made throughout the corridor. The project will close a gap between the Active Transportation Program (ATP) funded Rumrill Boulevard Complete Streets project in San Pablo and the ATP funded Yellow Brick Road project in Richmond. This project also connects to previous Safe Routes to School work around Peres Elementary School as part of the 2012 Richmond Health Equity Partnership.
694
May 16, 2023
The total project budget is currently $5,352,450, with funding sources coming from Measure J ($848,000), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Safe & Seamless Mobility Quick Strick One Bay Area Grant 2 ($2,821,000), City matching funds from tax increment financing, developer fees, and gas tax ($183,450), City SB-1 Funds ($500,000), and City ARPA funds ($1,000,000). Figure 12 below provides additional detail.
Figure 12. 13th Street Complete Streets Project
The $1 million in ARPA funds will provide the financial support needed to construct the completed designs. The project is currently at a preliminary 100 percent design phase and working towards E-76 for construction funding obligation. Public Works intends to advertise the contract in Fall 2023, and award in Winter/Spring 2024. With the ARPA funds, the project can continue to deliver a complete streets project that will include trees, median landscaping, irrigation, street lighting, and more uniform median layout throughout the project corridor for a Class IV bike lane. The project limits are displayed below.
Phase
Total
Phase Cost
Measure J -
TLC
MTC Safe &
Seamless
Mobility QuickStrike OBAG-2
City Match
Funds (TIF, Dev
Fees, & Gas
Tax)
City
Funds
(SB-1)
City Funds
(ARPA)
Total
Funding
Studies $ - $ -
Project Management $ - $ -
Environmental Studies/Document $ 297,150 $ 283,000 $ - $ 14,150 $ 297,150 Design - Plans, Specifications & Estimate $ 593,250 $ 565,000 $ - $ 28,250 $ 593,250 Right of Way & Permitting Included Above $ -
Construction $ 2,962,050 $ - $ 2,821,000 $ 141,050 $500,000 $ 1,000,000 $4,462,050 Post-Construction $ -
Total $ 3,852,450 $ 848,000 $ 2,821,000 $ 183,450 $500,000 $ 1,000,000 $5,352,450 Enter Fund Source Names (add columns as necessary)
695
May 16, 2023
Figure 13: 13th Complete Street project
Next Steps
City staff will continue to closely monitor the revenues and expenditure trends in the current fiscal year and will incorporate City Council direction into the FY 2022-23 budget and FY 2023-24 budget, as appropriate.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – General Fund – Quarter 3 Budget Report
Attachment 2 – Non-General Funds – Quarter 3 Budget Report Attachment 3 – Capital Improvement Projects Quarter 3 Report Attachment 4 – Grants Report
Attachment 5 – ARPA Budget and Project Status Update
Attachment 6 – Draft ARPA Community Needs Assessment
Attachment 7 – Draft ARPA Strategic Investment Plan
Attachment 8 – Resolution
696
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment 1
General Fund - Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP REVISED BUDGET ACTUAL THRU MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB W/ ENCUMB % USED W/O ENCUMB % USED AVAILABLE BUDGET 10 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
OTHER REVENUE - (4,565) (4,620) - 101% 101% 55
REVENUE - (4,565) (4,620) - 101% - 55
SALARIES AND WAGES 290,056 329,833 196,936 - 60% 60% 132,897 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 255,823 255,823 179,741 - 70% 70% 76,082 PROF & ADMIN 16,100 54,800 14,906 - 27% 27% 39,894
OTHER OPERATING 2,400 2,400 1,347 - 56% 56% 1,053
UTILITIES 1,250 1,250 2,405 - 192% 192% (1,155)
COST POOL 19,191 19,191 14,394 - 75% 75% 4,797
EXPENDITURE 584,820 663,297 409,729 - 62% 0% 253,568
11 CITY COUNCIL
OTHER REVENUE - - (4,000) - - - 4,000
REVENUE - - (4,000) - - - 4,000
SALARIES AND WAGES 298,872 300,067 188,620 - 63% 63% 111,447 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 217,790 217,790 199,361 - 92% 92% 18,429 PROF & ADMIN 39,550 56,588 19,234 - 34% 34% 37,354
OTHER OPERATING 18,600 18,297 5,821 1,147 38% 32% 12,477 UTILITIES 1,100 1,365 245 - 18% 18% 1,120
COST POOL 31,943 31,943 23,957 - 75% 75% 7,986
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,200 1,200 - - 0% 0% 1,200
EXPENDITURE 609,055 627,250 437,237 1,147 70% 0%
EXPENDITURE 584,820 663,297
12 COMMUNITY POL REV COMMISSION
SALARIES AND WAGES 77,000 71,500 25,037 - 35% 35% 46,463 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT - - 3,241 - - - (3,241)
PROF & ADMIN 10,300 15,800 7,108 1,338 53% 45% 8,693
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment 1
General Fund - Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP REVISED BUDGET ACTUAL THRU MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB W/ ENCUMB % USED W/O ENCUMB % USED AVAILABLE BUDGET OTHER OPERATING 1,050 1,050 18 - 2% 2% 1,032
EXPENDITURE 88,350 88,350 35,404 1,338 42% -100% 52,946 13 CITY MANAGER
INTERGOV STATE GRANT - - (33,442) - - - 33,442
REVENUE - - (33,442) - - - 33,442
SALARIES AND WAGES 469,443 469,443 402,645 - 86% 86% 66,798 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 252,744 252,744 186,168 - 74% 74% 66,576 PROF & ADMIN 124,750 159,750 73,575 5,036 49% 46% 86,175 OTHER OPERATING 9,200 9,200 1,516 964 27% 16% 7,684
UTILITIES - - 434 - - - (434)
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 200 200 118 82 100% 59% 82
COST POOL 105,040 105,040 78,781 - 75% 75% 26,259
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY - - 347 - - - (347)
A87 COST PLAN REIMBS (180,453) (180,453) (135,341) - 75% 75% (45,112) EXPENDITURE 780,924 815,924 608,243 6,082 75% -100% 207,681 14 CITY CLERK
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (600) (600) (14,038) - 2340% 2340% 13,438 CHARGES FOR SERVICES (3,000) (500) - - 0% 0% (500)
OTHER REVENUE - - (255) - - - 255
REVENUE (3,600) (1,100) (14,293) - 1299% - 13,193
SALARIES AND WAGES 450,250 450,250 342,012 - 76% 76% 108,238 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 279,190 279,190 234,906 - 84% 84% 44,284 PROF & ADMIN 334,100 334,100 162,019 27,493 57% 48% 172,081 OTHER OPERATING 20,300 19,900 4,056 1,506 28% 20% 15,844 UTILITIES - 400 210 - 53% 53% 190
COST POOL 22,250 22,250 16,688 - 75% 75% 5,562
A87 COST PLAN REIMBS (70,463) (70,463) (52,849) - 75% 75% (17,614) EXPENDITURE 1,035,627 1,035,627 707,041 28,999 71% -100% 328,586
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment 1
General Fund - Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP REVISED BUDGET ACTUAL THRU MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB W/ ENCUMB % USED W/O ENCUMB % USED AVAILABLE BUDGET 15 CITY ATTORNEY
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES - - (515) - - - 515
OTHER REVENUE - - (26,000) - - - 26,000
REVENUE - - (26,515) - - - 26,515
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,485,029 1,485,029 690,382 - 46% 46% 794,647 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 725,294 725,294 358,052 - 49% 49% 367,242 PROF & ADMIN 2,101,435 2,138,823 915,147 1,243,689 101% 43% 1,223,676 OTHER OPERATING 24,750 24,750 12,200 4,551 68% 49% 12,550 UTILITIES - - 759 - - - (759)
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 4,075 4,075 256 21 7% 6% 3,819
COST POOL 79,950 79,950 59,961 - 75% 75% 19,989
A87 COST PLAN REIMBS (319,088) (319,088) (239,316) - 75% 75% (79,772) EXPENDITURE 4,101,445 4,138,833 1,797,441 1,248,260 74% -100% 2,341,392 16 PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (955,500) (905,500) (366,861) - 41% 41% (538,639) OTHER REVENUE (30,000) (30,000) (52,183) - 174% 174% 22,183 REVENUE (985,500) (935,500) (419,043) - 45% - (516,457) SALARIES AND WAGES 798,887 819,267 531,133 - 65% 65% 288,134 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 645,462 645,462 442,982 - 69% 69% 202,480 PROF & ADMIN 373,400 898,400 134,067 545,024 76% 15% 764,333 OTHER OPERATING 28,947 28,947 8,982 2,507 40% 31% 19,965 UTILITIES 11,500 11,500 4,839 3,395 72% 42% 6,661
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 13,549 13,549 7,105 - 52% 52% 6,444 COST POOL 165,000 165,000 123,750 - 75% 75% 41,250
EXPENDITURE 2,036,745 2,582,125 1,252,859 550,926 70% -100% 1,329,266 17 FINANCE
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (17,000) (17,000) - - 0% 0% (17,000)
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment 1
General Fund - Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP REVISED BUDGET ACTUAL THRU MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB W/ ENCUMB % USED W/O ENCUMB % USED AVAILABLE BUDGET REVENUE (17,000) (17,000) - - 0% - (17,000)
SALARIES AND WAGES 2,733,520 2,733,513 1,902,148 - 70% 70% 831,365 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 2,155,114 2,155,114 1,322,870 - 61% 61% 832,244 PROF & ADMIN 837,722 977,722 438,335 43,220 49% 45% 539,387 OTHER OPERATING 65,806 65,806 46,628 12,536 90% 71% 19,178 UTILITIES 1,400 1,400 2,226 - 159% 159% (826)
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 435 442 78 192 61% 18% 364
COST POOL 179,722 179,722 134,791 - 75% 75% 44,931
A87 COST PLAN REIMBS (1,152,435) (1,152,435) (864,329) - 75% 75% (288,106) EXPENDITURE 4,821,284 4,961,284 2,982,747 55,948 61% -100% 1,978,537 18 HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,004,427 1,004,427 576,019 - 57% 57% 428,408 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 611,438 611,438 387,380 - 63% 63% 224,058 PROF & ADMIN 706,200 943,762 352,721 231,277 62% 37% 591,041 OTHER OPERATING 21,625 22,343 16,917 3,691 92% 76% 5,426 UTILITIES - 800 785 - 98% 98% 15
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 150 150 78 72 100% 52% 72
COST POOL 107,789 107,789 80,843 - 75% 75% 26,946
A87 COST PLAN REIMBS (184,290) (184,290) (138,217) - 75% 75% (46,073) EXPENDITURE 2,267,339 2,506,419 1,276,526 235,040 60% -100% 1,229,893 19 POLICE
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (90,500) (90,500) (78,909) - 87% 87% (11,591) FINES & FORFEITURES (150,000) (140,000) 30,241 - -22% -22% (170,241) CHARGES FOR SERVICES (1,102,500) (1,102,500) (646,202) - 59% 59% (456,298) OTHER REVENUE (82,000) (82,000) (58,205) - 71% 71% (23,795) INTERGOV STATE GRANT (10,000) (10,000) (7,885) - 79% 79% (2,115) INTERGOV OTHER GRANT (250,000) (250,000) (269,817) - 108% 108% 19,817 REVENUE (1,685,000) (1,675,000) (1,030,776) - 62% - (644,224)
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment 1
General Fund - Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP REVISED BUDGET ACTUAL THRU MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB W/ ENCUMB % USED W/O ENCUMB % USED AVAILABLE BUDGET SALARIES AND WAGES 32,201,099 30,044,353 19,637,713 - 65% 65% 10,406,639 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 28,524,847 28,524,847 16,547,971 - 58% 58% 11,976,876 PROF & ADMIN 4,362,874 4,232,984 2,657,893 622,330 77% 63% 1,575,091 OTHER OPERATING 2,503,881 2,523,896 1,951,179 438,358 95% 77% 572,717 UTILITIES 400,000 400,000 145,718 197,009 86% 36% 254,282 EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 662,996 524,996 124,114 49,495 33% 24% 400,882 PROVISN FOR INS LOSS 1,725 5,200 5,200 - 100% 100% -
COST POOL 3,269,974 3,269,974 2,452,480 - 75% 75% 817,494 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 325,306 2,726,452 80,331 2,332,188 88% 3% 2,646,121 DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE 206,031 206,031 206,031 - 100% 100% - EXPENDITURE 72,458,732 72,458,732 43,808,630 3,639,379 65% -100% 28,650,103 20 FIRE
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (925,000) (925,000) (466,432) - 50% 50% (458,568) CHARGES FOR SERVICES (870,503) (870,503) (485,191) - 56% 56% (385,312) INTERGOV OTHER GRANT - - (18,127) - - - 18,127
REVENUE (1,795,503) (1,795,503) (969,750) - 54% - (825,753) SALARIES AND WAGES 18,574,259 19,009,103 12,915,522 - 68% 68% 6,093,581 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 14,824,371 14,824,371 9,867,382 - 67% 67% 4,956,989 PROF & ADMIN 1,376,815 1,588,365 129,826 73,305 13% 8% 1,458,539 OTHER OPERATING 250,294 262,352 56,430 4,734 23% 22% 205,922 UTILITIES 33,500 33,500 14,488 - 43% 43% 19,012
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 136,850 136,850 41,204 18,150 43% 30% 95,646 PROVISN FOR INS LOSS 23,000 23,441 23,441 - 100% 100% - COST POOL 1,214,448 1,214,448 910,836 - 75% 75% 303,612 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 25,500 25,059 4,275 - 17% 17% 20,784 DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE 114,613 114,613 57,328 - 50% 50% 57,286 OPER XFERS OUT 326,018 326,018 244,514 - 75% 75% 81,504 EXPENDITURE 36,899,668 37,558,120 24,265,245 96,190 65% -100% 13,292,876
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment 1
General Fund - Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP REVISED BUDGET ACTUAL THRU MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB W/ ENCUMB % USED W/O ENCUMB % USED AVAILABLE BUDGET 21 OFFICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY
INTERGOV OTHER GRANT - - (2,000) - - - 2,000
REVENUE - - (2,000) - - - 2,000
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,341,638 1,341,638 609,835 - 45% 45% 731,804 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 1,153,168 1,153,168 465,994 - 40% 40% 687,174 PROF & ADMIN 756,090 757,738 16,098 7,000 3% 2% 741,640 OTHER OPERATING 109,640 109,986 5,296 2,507 7% 5% 104,691 UTILITIES 66,000 64,060 6,834 - 11% 11% 57,226
COST POOL 507,111 507,111 380,331 - 75% 75% 126,780
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY - 1,756 2,602 - 148% 148% (846)
GRANT EXPENDITURES - 34,838 1,532 - 4% 4% 33,306
EXPENDITURE 3,933,647 3,970,295 1,488,522 9,507 38% -100% 2,481,773 23 PUBLIC WORK & ENGINEERING SVCS
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (131,100) (131,100) (22,561) - 17% 17% (108,539) CHARGES FOR SERVICES (1,463,289) (1,463,289) (698,783) - 48% 48% (764,506) OTHER REVENUE - - (9,413) - - - 9,413
RENTAL INCOME (18,000) (18,000) (12,913) - 72% 72% (5,087) PROC FR SLE PROP (100,000) (100,000) (715) - 1% 1% (99,285) REVENUE (1,712,389) (1,712,389) (744,386) - 43% - (968,003) SALARIES AND WAGES 9,824,095 9,409,739 6,459,611 - 69% 69% 2,950,128 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 7,919,295 7,919,295 5,408,371 - 68% 68% 2,510,924 PROF & ADMIN 1,138,095 1,630,396 412,811 461,576 54% 25% 1,217,586 OTHER OPERATING 2,067,607 6,269,231 1,459,096 446,194 30% 23% 4,810,135 UTILITIES 4,128,266 4,091,266 2,758,993 300,177 75% 67% 1,332,273 EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 1,032,400 1,014,212 650,012 274,857 91% 64% 364,200 COST POOL 4,429,831 4,429,831 3,322,372 - 75% 75% 1,107,459 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 10,000 780,800 18,171 - 2% 2% 762,629 DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE 716,365 716,365 355,563 - 50% 50% 360,803 A87 COST PLAN REIMBS (647,398) (647,398) (574,144) - 89% 89% (73,254)
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment 1
General Fund - Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP REVISED BUDGET ACTUAL THRU MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB W/ ENCUMB % USED W/O ENCUMB % USED AVAILABLE BUDGET OPER XFERS OUT - 11,530 - - 0% 0% 11,530
EXPENDITURE 30,618,556 35,625,267 20,270,856 1,482,804 61% -100% 15,354,411 24 LIBRARY & CULTURAL SERVICES
RENTAL INCOME - - (22,527) - - - 22,527
INTERGOV OTHER GRANT - (10,000) - - 0% 0% (10,000)
REVENUE - (10,000) (22,527) - 225% - 12,527
SALARIES AND WAGES 2,438,588 2,438,588 1,596,425 - 65% 65% 842,163 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 2,002,202 2,002,702 1,258,970 - 63% 63% 743,732 PROF & ADMIN 625,389 637,605 240,717 43,162 45% 38% 396,887 OTHER OPERATING 66,050 63,485 25,264 25,379 80% 40% 38,221 UTILITIES 8,000 8,000 5,434 - 68% 68% 2,566
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 2,136 1,586 270 130 25% 17% 1,316
COST POOL 258,762 258,762 194,070 - 75% 75% 64,692
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 12,700 13,100 263 - 2% 2% 12,837
EXPENDITURE 5,413,827 5,423,827 3,321,413 68,671 63% -100% 2,102,414 25 COMMUNITY SERVICES
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (781,808) (781,808) (409,669) - 52% 52% (372,139) OTHER REVENUE (15,500) (15,500) (31,560) - 204% 204% 16,060 RENTAL INCOME (525,567) (525,567) (547,327) - 104% 104% 21,760 INTERGOV OTHER GRANT (3,569) (3,569) - - 0% 0% (3,569)
REVENUE (1,326,445) (1,326,445) (988,556) - 75% - (337,889) SALARIES AND WAGES 2,614,550 2,642,422 1,950,484 - 74% 74% 691,938 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 2,081,914 2,039,438 1,604,850 - 79% 79% 434,588 PROF & ADMIN 507,319 543,206 136,649 9,972 27% 25% 406,556 OTHER OPERATING 28,541 67,733 12,236 13,279 38% 18% 55,497 UTILITIES 55,520 53,020 16,387 10,045 50% 31% 36,633
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 10,500 5,671 2,731 2,553 93% 48% 2,940 COST POOL 592,854 592,854 444,639 - 75% 75% 148,215
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment 1
General Fund - Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP REVISED BUDGET ACTUAL THRU MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB W/ ENCUMB % USED W/O ENCUMB % USED AVAILABLE BUDGET ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 15,430 10,455 9,601 - 92% 92% 855
GRANT EXPENDITURES 2,500 82,500 (2,996) 8,000 6% -4% 85,496 EXPENDITURE 5,909,128 6,037,298 4,174,580 43,849 70% -100% 1,862,717 26 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
OTHER REVENUE - - (22,057) - - - 22,057
REVENUE - - (22,057) - - - 22,057
SALARIES AND WAGES 978,767 978,767 590,689 - 60% 60% 388,078 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 650,072 650,072 391,058 - 60% 60% 259,014 PROF & ADMIN 643,652 1,508,652 482,391 5,527 32% 32% 1,026,261 OTHER OPERATING 69,880 69,880 43,229 43,034 123% 62% 26,651 UTILITIES 435,100 435,100 405,729 6,360 95% 93% 29,371
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 727,220 945,448 683,462 - 72% 72% 261,986 COST POOL 114,668 114,668 86,003 - 75% 75% 28,665
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,030,000 1,259,600 397,830 58,093 36% 32% 861,770 A87 COST PLAN REIMBS (410,873) (410,873) (308,156) - 75% 75% (102,717) EXPENDITURE 4,238,486 5,551,314 2,772,235 113,014 52% -100% 2,779,079 36 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRM
OTHER TAXES (1,607,614) (1,607,614) (970,581) - 60% 60% (637,033) OPER XFERS IN (86,778) (86,778) (65,082) - 75% 75% (21,696) REVENUE (1,694,392) (1,694,392) (1,035,663) - 61% - (658,729) SALARIES AND WAGES 704,487 704,987 525,146 - 74% 74% 179,841 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 420,961 420,961 315,977 - 75% 75% 104,984 PROF & ADMIN 1,348,936 1,253,436 186,406 501,276 55% 15% 1,067,030 OTHER OPERATING 305,150 305,150 2,818 1,506 1% 1% 302,332 UTILITIES 440 35,440 16,436 13,634 85% 46% 19,004
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 1,000 1,000 791 - 79% 79% 209
PROVISN FOR INS LOSS 1,000 1,000 - - 0% 0% 1,000
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY - - 347 - - - (347)
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment 1
General Fund - Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP REVISED BUDGET ACTUAL THRU MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB W/ ENCUMB % USED W/O ENCUMB % USED AVAILABLE BUDGET EXPENDITURE 2,781,974 2,721,974 1,047,922 516,416 57% -100% 1,674,052 37 INTERNAL SERVICES PROGRAM
SALARIES AND WAGES 234,114 234,114 168,470 - 72% 72% 65,644 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 110,057 110,057 77,864 - 71% 71% 32,193 PROF & ADMIN 31,400 31,400 1,313 2,688 13% 4% 30,088
OTHER OPERATING 1,500 1,500 747 753 100% 50% 753
UTILITIES 1,000 1,000 - - 0% 0% 1,000
EXPENDITURE 378,071 378,071 248,394 3,440 67% -100% 129,677 38 TRANSPORTATION OPERATION
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (35,000) (35,000) (25,579) - 73% 73% (9,421) CHARGES FOR SERVICES - - (355) - - - 355
OTHER REVENUE - - (435) - - - 435
REVENUE (35,000) (35,000) (26,369) - 75% - (8,631)
SALARIES AND WAGES 134,503 134,503 174,195 - 130% 130% (39,692) PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 61,922 61,922 101,853 - 164% 164% (39,931) PROF & ADMIN 9,000 16,028 435 - 3% 3% 15,593
OTHER OPERATING 13,800 13,800 5,340 1,181 47% 39% 8,460 EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 10,000 2,972 1,015 - 34% 34% 1,957 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,000 2,000 - - 0% 0% 2,000
EXPENDITURE 231,225 231,225 282,838 1,181 123% -100% (51,613) 91 NON-DEPARTMENTAL
PROPERTY TAXES (46,056,962) (48,608,929) (26,338,464) - 54% 54% (22,270,465) SALES & USE TAX (55,282,200) (55,554,137) (31,428,903) - 57% 57% (24,125,234) UTILITY USERS TAX (49,963,589) (50,861,279) (42,302,382) - 83% 83% (8,558,897) OTHER TAXES (20,030,835) (20,844,573) (7,622,878) - 37% 37% (13,221,695) LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (8,192,894) (8,194,448) (8,542,680) - 104% 104% 348,232 FINES & FORFEITURES (325,275) (325,275) (178,504) - 55% 55% (146,771)
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment 1
General Fund - Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP REVISED BUDGET ACTUAL THRU MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB W/ ENCUMB % USED W/O ENCUMB % USED AVAILABLE BUDGET USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY (236,079) (1,021,047) (501,329) - 49% 49% (519,718) CHARGES FOR SERVICES (132,000) (132,000) (158) - 0% 0% (131,842) OTHER REVENUE (60,000) (60,480) (51,986) - 86% 86% (8,494) RENTAL INCOME (330,939) (330,939) (157,948) - 48% 48% (172,991) INTERGOV STATE TAXES (125,000) (125,000) (118,794) - 95% 95% (6,206) INTERGOV STATE GRANT (165,000) (165,000) (90,103) - 55% 55% (74,897) LOAN/BOND PROCEEDS - (39,400) (39,400) - 100% 100% -
OPER XFERS IN (16,476,646) (19,633,640) (16,476,646) - 84% 84% (3,156,994) REVENUE (197,377,419) (205,896,147) (133,850,177) - 65% - (72,045,970) SALARIES AND WAGES 2,108,284 2,108,284 1,949,995 - 92% 92% 158,289 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 4,038,140 4,038,140 9,698,519 - 240% 240% (5,660,379) PROF & ADMIN 1,634,011 2,062,328 773,323 229,535 49% 37% 1,289,005 OTHER OPERATING 2,361,882 1,339,343 188,775 27,218 16% 14% 1,150,568 UTILITIES 256,881 256,881 - - 0% 0% 256,881
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 129,937 226,037 29,065 36,903 29% 13% 196,972 COST POOL 4,179,233 4,179,233 3,134,426 - 75% 75% 1,044,807 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,750,000 1,000,000 - - 0% 0% 1,000,000 A87 COST PLAN REIMBS (566,610) (566,610) (319,627) - 56% 56% (246,983) OPER XFERS OUT 11,551,587 13,120,821 7,308,823 - 56% 56% 5,811,998 EXPENDITURE 27,443,345 27,764,457 22,763,298 293,657 83% -100% 5,001,159 GF - REVENUE (206,632,248) (215,103,041) (139,194,175) - 65% 65% (75,908,866) GF - EXPENDITURE 215,139,689 206,632,248 133,951,159 8,395,847 66% 62% 81,188,530 GF - GRAND TOTAL 36,648 - (5,243,016) 8,395,847 8603% -14306% 5,279,664
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
1001 SECURED PENSION OVERRIDE
PROPERTY TAXES (17,350,450) (17,350,450) (14,039,731) - 81% 81% (3,310,719)REVENUE (17,350,450) (17,350,450) (14,039,731) - 81% 0% (3,310,719) OPER XFERS OUT 17,350,989 17,350,989 17,286,989 - 100% 100% 64,000 EXPENDITURE 17,350,989 17,350,989 17,286,989 - 100% 0% 64,000 1002 STATE GAS TAX
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (6,342) - - - 6,342
INTERGOV STATE TAXES (3,203,193) (3,203,193) (2,027,659) - 63% 63% (1,175,534) REVENUE (3,203,193) (3,203,193) (2,034,001) - 63% 0% (1,169,192) PROF & ADMIN 4,000 4,000 - - 0% 0% 4,000
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 850,000 850,000 560,911 - 66% 66% 289,089ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,961,755 1,981,431 1,104,663 266,461 69% 56% 876,769EXPENDITURE 2,815,755 2,835,431 1,665,574 266,461 68% 16% 1,169,857 1003 TRANSPORTATION OPERATION
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES - - (46,458) - - - 46,458
OTHER REVENUE (20,000) (20,000) (5,708) - 29% 29% (14,293)INTERGOV OTHER GRANT (859,097) (859,097) - - 0% 0% (859,097) REVENUE (879,097) (879,097) (52,166) - 6% 0% (826,931)
SALARIES AND WAGES 213,008 213,008 166,153 - 78% 78% 46,855PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 230,737 230,737 174,894 - 76% 76% 55,843 PROF & ADMIN 110,000 110,000 - - 0% 0% 110,000
OTHER OPERATING 12,900 12,900 3,354 4,872 64% 26% 9,546 UTILITIES 2,500 2,500 425 - 17% 17% 2,076EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 19,097 19,097 - - 0% 0% 19,097 COST POOL 261,260 261,260 195,944 - 75% 75% 65,316EXPENDITURE 849,502 849,502 540,770 4,872 64% 1% 308,732
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
1004 ASSET SEIZURE FUND
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (2,264) - - - 2,264
CHARGES FOR SERVICES (20,000) (20,000) (5,017) - 25% 25% (14,983)REVENUE (20,000) (20,000) (7,281) - 36% 0% (12,719) ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 20,000 145,000 18,018 - 12% 12% 126,983 EXPENDITURE 20,000 145,000 18,018 - 12% 0% 126,983
1005 LIBRARY FUND
FINES & FORFEITURES - - (2,668) - - - 2,668USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (3,102) - - - 3,102 OTHER REVENUE (2,500) (2,500) - - 0% 0% (2,500)
INTERGOV FED GRANT (127,339) (44,884) (12,736) - 10% 10% (114,603) INTERGOV STATE GRANT (10,323,903) (126,222) (411,493) - 4% 4% (9,912,410) INTERGOV OTHER GRANT (37,285) (10,000) (9,333) - 25% 25% (27,952) REVENUE (183,606) (10,491,027) (439,332) - 4% 0% (10,051,695) PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 87,528 21,146 9,006 - 10% 10% 78,522 PROF & ADMIN 139,259 334,761 56,277 2,653 18% 17% 278,483 OTHER OPERATING 14,701 43,217 7,976 - 18% 18% 35,241
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 3,000 10,006,169 17,521 6,458 0% 0% 9,988,648 GRANT EXPENDITURES 5,500 19,352 5,527 - 29% 29% 13,825EXPENDITURE 183,606 10,491,027 96,308 9,111 1% 9% 10,394,719 1006 OUTSIDE FUNDED SVCS - GRANTS
INTERGOV STATE GRANT (27,958,453) (6,704,833) (1,199,391) - 4% 4% (26,759,062) INTERGOV OTHER GRANT (1,081,164) (611,164) (352,486) - 33% 33% (728,677) REVENUE (7,315,997) (29,039,617) (1,551,877) - 5% 0% (27,487,740) PROF & ADMIN 3,611,939 11,538,220 1,229,876 1,237,241 21% 11% 10,308,344OTHER OPERATING 7,234 83,461 917 - 1% 1% 82,544UTILITIES - 72,500 - - 0% 0% 72,500 EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 302,000 304,156 - 2,156 1% 0% 304,156
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 3,759,415 16,839,278 606,923 2,267,909 17% 4% 16,232,355GRANT EXPENDITURES 982,251 3,033,384 88,205 - 3% 3% 2,945,179 OPER XFERS OUT 64,084 - 64,084 - 100% 100% -
EXPENDITURE 8,662,839 31,935,083 1,990,005 3,507,306 17% 176% 29,945,078 1007 EMERGENCY MED SERV
PROPERTY TAXES (215,586) (215,586) - - 0% 0% (215,586)
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (3,256) - - - 3,256
REVENUE (215,586) (215,586) (3,256) - 2% 0% (212,330)
PROF & ADMIN 102,600 102,600 61,676 27,200 87% 60% 40,924OTHER OPERATING 77,000 77,000 13,553 - 18% 18% 63,447 EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 80,000 80,000 - - 0% 0% 80,000
EXPENDITURE 259,600 259,600 75,229 27,200 39% 36% 184,371 1009 VEOLIA MITIGATION
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (25,000) (25,000) (18,750) - 75% 75% (6,250) USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (2,031) - - - 2,031
REVENUE (25,000) (25,000) (20,781) - 83% 0% (4,219)
PROF & ADMIN 100,000 100,000 - - 0% 0% 100,000
EXPENDITURE 100,000 100,000 - - 0% - 100,000
1010 N.RICHMOND WASTE
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (124,207) (124,207) (407,388) - 328% 328% 283,181 REVENUE (124,207) (124,207) (407,388) - 328% 0% 283,181 PROF & ADMIN 122,375 122,375 20 - 0% 0% 122,354
OTHER OPERATING 1,000 1,000 340 - 34% 34% 660
UTILITIES 1,000 1,000 447 553 100% 45% 553
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY - - 712 - - - (712)EXPENDITURE 124,375 124,375 1,519 553 2% 36% 122,856 1011 OUTSIDE FUNDED SVCS - DONATION
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (49) - - - 49
REVENUE - - (49) - - - 49
1012 HILLTOP LANDSCAPE MAINT DIST
PROPERTY TAXES (1,091,839) (1,091,839) (600,514) - 55% 55% (491,325) USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (2,419) - - - 2,419
OPER XFERS IN (229,115) (229,115) (171,839) - 75% 75% (57,276) REVENUE (1,320,954) (1,320,954) (774,772) - 59% 0% (546,182) SALARIES AND WAGES 511,840 511,840 354,525 - 69% 69% 157,315PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 386,386 386,386 324,081 - 84% 84% 62,305 PROF & ADMIN 45,000 45,000 9,856 16,008 57% 22% 35,144OTHER OPERATING 70,691 70,691 45,549 5,585 72% 64% 25,142UTILITIES 88,000 88,000 62,415 - 71% 71% 25,585 EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 75,000 75,000 42,825 7,796 67% 57% 32,175COST POOL 230,455 230,455 172,841 - 75% 75% 57,614ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY - 230,000 - 230,000 100% 0% 230,000 EXPENDITURE 1,407,372 1,637,372 1,012,092 259,388 78% 26% 625,280 1013 HAZMAT FUND
PROF & ADMIN 53,400 53,400 - - 0% 0% 53,400
OTHER OPERATING 10,000 10,000 - - 0% 0% 10,000
EXPENDITURE 63,400 63,400 - - 0% - 63,400
1015 MARINA BAY LNDSCP & LIGHT DIST
PROPERTY TAXES (688,858) (688,858) (381,347) - 55% 55% (307,512) USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (5,103) - - - 5,103
OPER XFERS IN (462,436) (462,436) (346,828) - 75% 75% (115,608) REVENUE (1,151,294) (1,162,824) (733,278) - 63% 0% (429,546) SALARIES AND WAGES 478,364 478,364 374,026 - 78% 78% 104,338 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 344,979 344,979 287,745 - 83% 83% 57,234
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
PROF & ADMIN 53,503 70,103 25,402 43,590 98% 36% 44,701OTHER OPERATING 78,703 62,103 40,805 - 66% 66% 21,298 UTILITIES 134,395 134,395 114,937 - 86% 86% 19,458EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 7,075 7,075 22,268 505 322% 315% (15,193) COST POOL 194,271 194,271 145,703 - 75% 75% 48,568EXPENDITURE 1,291,290 1,291,290 1,010,886 44,095 82% 4% 280,404 1017 CHEVRON MODERNIZATN PROJ & CIA
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (118,171) - - - 118,171
OTHER REVENUE (69,000) (69,000) (49,824) - 72% 72% (19,176)INTERGOV OTHER GRANT (206,842) (206,842) - - 0% 0% (206,842) REVENUE (275,842) (275,842) (167,995) - 61% 0% (107,847) PROF & ADMIN 8,880,135 8,980,135 292,010 409,252 8% 3% 8,688,125 OTHER OPERATING 69,941 69,941 - - 0% 0% 69,941
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 518,000 518,000 210,658 289,342 97% 41% 307,342 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,406,156 1,638,073 156,945 78,173 14% 10% 1,481,128GRANT EXPENDITURES 50,000 50,000 - - 0% 0% 50,000 EXPENDITURE 10,924,232 11,256,149 659,613 776,768 13% 118% 10,596,536 1018 RENT CONTROL
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (3,062,687) (3,062,687) (2,430,492) - 79% 79% (632,195) USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY (14,000) (14,000) (15,586) - 111% 111% 1,586 OTHER REVENUE (30,000) (30,000) (40,078) - 134% 134% 10,078INTERGOV OTHER GRANT - - (10,000) - - - 10,000 REVENUE (3,106,687) (3,106,687) (2,496,156) - 80% 0% (610,531) SALARIES AND WAGES 1,246,571 1,246,571 933,521 - 75% 75% 313,050PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 872,288 872,288 634,193 - 73% 73% 238,095 PROF & ADMIN 362,085 365,085 131,832 81,295 58% 36% 233,253OTHER OPERATING 60,204 59,904 9,749 3,263 22% 16% 50,155 UTILITIES 500 500 - - 0% 0% 500
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS - 300 84 181 88% 28% 216
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
PROVISN FOR INS LOSS 9,300 9,300 9,171 64 99% 99% 129
COST POOL 184,632 184,632 138,474 - 75% 75% 46,158EXPENDITURE 2,735,580 2,738,580 1,857,024 84,803 71% 5% 881,556 1019 ROAD MAINT & REHAB ACCT (RMRA)
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (25,697) - - - 25,697
INTERGOV STATE TAXES (2,510,376) (2,510,376) (1,683,420) - 67% 67% (826,956) REVENUE (2,510,376) (2,510,376) (1,709,118) - 68% 0% (801,258) PROF & ADMIN 80,000 80,000 - - 0% 0% 80,000
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,315,337 4,844,446 3,510,822 852,163 90% 72% 1,333,624EXPENDITURE 2,395,337 4,924,446 3,510,822 852,163 89% 24% 1,413,624 1050 CR-PLANNING & BUILDING
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (6,902,259) (6,902,259) (6,747,603) - 98% 98% (154,656) USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (77,831) - - - 77,831
CHARGES FOR SERVICES (2,989,592) (2,989,592) (340,088) - 11% 11% (2,649,504) OTHER REVENUE - - (20) - - - 20
INTERGOV FED GRANT - - (25,000) - - - 25,000
INTERGOV STATE GRANT (5,374,517) (500,000) (427,364) - 8% 8% (4,947,153) OPER XFERS IN (1,800,000) (1,800,000) (518,049) - 29% 29% (1,281,951) REVENUE (12,191,851) (17,066,368) (8,135,956) - 48% 0% (8,930,412) SALARIES AND WAGES 2,473,701 2,509,046 1,683,364 - 67% 67% 825,682PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 1,602,380 1,602,380 1,091,665 - 68% 68% 510,715 PROF & ADMIN 6,020,078 11,526,434 2,904,134 2,430,976 46% 25% 8,622,300 OTHER OPERATING 83,406 186,291 53,730 11,835 35% 29% 132,561 UTILITIES 9,000 59,000 11,556 42,187 91% 20% 47,444
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 11,409 52,086 1,313 122 3% 3% 50,773COST POOL 1,985,965 1,985,965 1,489,471 - 75% 75% 496,494ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,000 1,000 1,764 - 176% 176% (764)EXPENDITURE 12,186,939 17,922,201 7,236,997 2,485,121 54% 34% 10,685,205
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
1054 ENGINEERING GRANTS
INTERGOV FED GRANT (8,245) (8,245) (270,335) - 3279% 3279% 262,090 INTERGOV STATE GRANT (22,920,578) (13,920,623) (650,439) - 3% 3% (22,270,139) INTERGOV OTHER GRANT (580,910) (580,910) (82,500) - 14% 14% (498,410) REVENUE (14,509,778) (23,509,733) (1,003,274) - 4% 0% (22,506,459) PROF & ADMIN - 2,009,350 133,559 16,367 7% 7% 1,875,791EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 30,000 30,000 - - 0% 0% 30,000 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 14,479,778 25,134,898 1,552,787 8,420,573 40% 6% 23,582,111 EXPENDITURE 14,509,778 27,174,248 1,686,346 8,436,940 37% 500% 25,487,902 1055 ENCROACHMENT SVCS
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (838,000) (838,000) (767,499) - 92% 92% (70,502) USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (16,597) - - - 16,597
CHARGES FOR SERVICES (227,000) (227,000) (257,763) - 114% 114% 30,763 REVENUE (1,065,000) (1,065,000) (1,041,859) - 98% 0% (23,141) SALARIES AND WAGES 403,126 403,126 221,703 - 55% 55% 181,423 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 323,028 323,028 175,753 - 54% 54% 147,275 OTHER OPERATING 4,700 4,700 616 414 22% 13% 4,084
UTILITIES 2,900 2,900 1,866 - 64% 64% 1,034
COST POOL 172,555 172,555 129,417 - 75% 75% 43,138EXPENDITURE 906,309 906,309 529,355 414 58% 0% 376,954 1200 HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES - (23,150) (28,865) - 125% 125% 5,715 USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (5,271) - - - 5,271
OTHER REVENUE (567,110) (567,110) (567,110) - 100% 100% - OPER XFERS IN - - (38,305) - - - 38,305
REVENUE (567,110) (590,260) (639,551) - 108% 0% 49,291
SALARIES AND WAGES 130,042 130,042 73,623 - 57% 57% 56,418
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 26,296 26,296 40,695 - 155% 155% (14,399) PROF & ADMIN 28,956 29,581 11,971 15,887 94% 40% 17,611OTHER OPERATING 1,909 1,284 1,462 - 114% 114% (178)UTILITIES 801 801 - - 0% 0% 801 COST POOL 123,459 123,459 92,594 - 75% 75% 30,865
EXPENDITURE 311,463 311,463 220,345 15,887 76% 7% 91,118 1201 CDBG
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY (26,677) (26,677) (11,599) - 43% 43% (15,078) LOAN/BOND PROCEEDS (149,898) (149,898) (117,011) - 78% 78% (32,887) REVENUE (176,575) (176,575) (128,610) - 73% 0% (47,965) PROF & ADMIN 19,772 28,291 16,908 6,783 84% 60% 11,383OTHER OPERATING 51 51 - - 0% 0% 51 COST POOL 26,923 26,923 20,193 - 75% 75% 6,730
CDBG/HOME/HSG PROJ 935,000 972,795 139,852 164,322 31% 14% 832,943 EXPENDITURE 981,745 1,028,060 176,953 171,104 34% 97% 851,106 1202 HOME PROGRAM
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY (3,689) (3,689) (1,132) - 31% 31% (2,557) LOAN/BOND PROCEEDS - (20,075) (20,449) - 102% 102% 374REVENUE (3,689) (23,764) (21,581) - 91% 0% (2,183) PROF & ADMIN - - 374 - - - (374)EXPENDITURE - - 374 - - - (374) 1203 NEIGHBORHOOD STAB(NP)
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY (144) (144) - - 0% 0% (144)
LOAN/BOND PROCEEDS (15,000) (15,000) - - 0% 0% (15,000) REVENUE (15,144) (15,144) - - 0% - (15,144)
SALARIES AND WAGES 2,373 2,373 1,780 - 75% 75% 593
PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 1,320 1,320 990 - 75% 75% 330
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
PROF & ADMIN 9,500 2,000 - 2,000 100% 0% 2,000
EXPENDITURE 13,193 5,693 2,769 2,000 84% 72% 2,923
1205 EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING
OTHER REVENUE - - (85) - - - 85
INTERGOV FED GRANT (6,031,702) (3,484,752) (1,168,012) - 19% 19% (4,863,691) INTERGOV STATE GRANT (4,159,296) (1,186,601) (180,494) - 4% 4% (3,978,802)INTERGOV OTHER GRANT (2,264,843) (2,328,927) (20,000) - 1% 1% (2,244,843)OPER XFERS IN (2,723,201) (2,787,285) (2,080,249) - 75% 75% (707,036) REVENUE (9,723,481) (15,243,126) (3,448,840) - 23% 0% (11,794,286) SALARIES AND WAGES 1,838,079 1,895,278 910,995 - 48% 48% 984,283PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 1,462,600 1,462,600 718,223 - 49% 49% 744,377 PROF & ADMIN 7,300 13,588 19,051 513 144% 140% (5,462)
OTHER OPERATING 69,380 85,461 35,694 24,052 70% 42% 49,767UTILITIES 9,000 9,000 6,212 1,892 90% 69% 2,788 EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 508,879 1,240,257 28,557 65,961 8% 2% 1,211,700COST POOL 693,079 693,079 519,810 - 75% 75% 173,269 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 100,000 100,678 - 678 1% 0% 100,678 GRANT EXPENDITURES 4,622,448 7,824,606 1,678,808 299,744 25% 21% 6,145,798 EMPLMT & TRNG ALLOC 2,824 2,592,489 29,350 - 1% 1% 2,563,139 EXPENDITURE 9,313,589 15,917,036 3,946,700 392,840 27% 10% 11,970,336 1207 COR-NEIGHBORHOOD STAB(CITY)
PROC FR SLE PROP (133,664) (133,664) - - 0% 0% (133,664) REVENUE (133,664) (133,664) - - 0% - (133,664)
OTHER OPERATING 6,753 6,753 3,365 135 52% 50% 3,388
EXPENDITURE 6,753 6,753 3,365 135 52% 4% 3,388
1208 COR-SUCCESSOR HOUSING AGENCY
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY (30,823) (30,823) (16,441) - 53% 53% (14,383)
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
OTHER REVENUE (51,541) (51,541) (38,305) - 74% 74% (13,236) PROC FR SLE PROP - (18,943) (18,943) - 100% 100% (0)
LOAN/BOND PROCEEDS (83,480) (83,480) (3,243) - 4% 4% (80,237) REVENUE (165,844) (184,787) (76,931) - 42% 0% (107,856) SALARIES AND WAGES 114,672 114,672 103,997 - 91% 91% 10,676 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 73,563 73,563 66,153 - 90% 90% 7,410 PROF & ADMIN 200 200 - 130 65% 0% 200
CDBG/HOME/HSG PROJ 1,000,000 1,000,000 - - 0% 0% 1,000,000 OPER XFERS OUT - - 38,305 - - - (38,305)
EXPENDITURE 1,188,435 1,188,435 208,454 130 18% 0% 979,981 1209 CAL-HOME GRANT FUND
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY (1,000) (1,000) (39,582) - 3958% 3958% 38,582 LOAN/BOND PROCEEDS (63,142) (63,142) (185,494) - 294% 294% 122,352 REVENUE (64,142) (64,142) (225,076) - 351% 0% 160,934
PROF & ADMIN 333 333 5,171 - 1553% 1553% (4,838)
EXPENDITURE 333 333 5,171 - 1553% 0% (4,838)
1302 HOUSNG IN LIEU FEE - DEVELOPER
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (568,000) (568,000) (307,606) - 54% 54% (260,394) USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY (566) (566) (19,544) - 3455% 3455% 18,979 REVENUE (568,566) (568,566) (327,150) - 58% 0% (241,415) SALARIES AND WAGES 98,803 98,803 67,875 - 69% 69% 30,928 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 62,022 62,022 41,949 - 68% 68% 20,073 PROF & ADMIN 15,300 15,300 - - 0% 0% 15,300
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,150,000 1,150,000 - - 0% 0% 1,150,000 CDBG/HOME/HSG PROJ 850,000 850,000 - - 0% 0% 850,000
OPER XFERS OUT 480,000 480,000 - - 0% 0% 480,000
EXPENDITURE 2,656,125 2,656,125 109,824 - 4% 0% 2,546,301
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
1303 KIDS FIRST INITIATIVE
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (16,822) - - - 16,822
OPER XFERS IN (3,936,896) (3,936,896) (2,952,674) - 75% 75% (984,222) REVENUE (3,936,896) (3,936,896) (2,969,496) - 75% 0% (967,400) SALARIES AND WAGES 143,632 143,632 117,745 - 82% 82% 25,887PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 154,726 154,726 72,518 - 47% 47% 82,208 PROF & ADMIN 3,623,000 3,623,000 574,906 1,659,914 62% 16% 3,048,094OTHER OPERATING 14,000 14,000 926 - 7% 7% 13,074 EXPENDITURE 3,935,358 3,935,358 766,095 1,659,914 62% 217% 3,169,263 1304 EMERGENCY OPE & DISASTR RECVRY
INTERGOV FED GRANT - - (1,058) - - - 1,058
OPER XFERS IN - (406,812) - - 0% 0% (406,812)
REVENUE - (406,812) (1,058) - 0% 0% (405,754)
PROF & ADMIN - 156,812 - - 0% 0% 156,812
OTHER OPERATING - 250,000 8,875 - 4% 4% 241,125ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY - - 43 - - - (43) EXPENDITURE - 406,812 8,918 - 2% 0% 397,894
1305 PUBLIC ART
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (200,000) (200,000) (1,174,254) - 587% 587% 974,254 USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (11,247) - - - 11,247
REVENUE (200,000) (200,000) (1,185,501) - 593% 0% 985,501 PROF & ADMIN 321,000 346,500 48,500 25,300 21% 14% 298,000 EXPENDITURE 321,000 346,500 48,500 25,300 21% 52% 298,000 1306 AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (175,708) - - - 175,708
INTERGOV FED GRANT (2,770,400) (2,770,400) (13,870,362) - 501% 501% 11,099,962 REVENUE (2,770,400) (2,770,400) (14,046,069) - 507% 0% 11,275,669
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
PROF & ADMIN 950,000 1,849,439 184,715 507,360 37% 10% 1,664,724 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,820,400 8,571,215 1,590,797 503,528 24% 19% 6,980,418EXPENDITURE 2,770,400 10,420,654 1,775,511 1,010,888 27% 57% 8,645,142 2001 GENERAL CAPITAL FUND
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (2,191) - - - 2,191
OTHER REVENUE - - (146,000) - - - 146,000
OPER XFERS IN - (3,915,181) - - 0% 0% (3,915,181)
REVENUE - (3,915,181) (148,191) - 4% 0% (3,766,990)
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 3,061,487 7,484,955 550,285 419,817 13% 7% 6,934,669 EXPENDITURE 3,061,487 7,484,955 550,285 419,817 13% 76% 6,934,669 2002 MEASURE J
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (15,123) - - - 15,123
INTERGOV OTHER GRANT (4,292,882) (4,292,882) - - 0% 0% (4,292,882) REVENUE (4,292,882) (4,292,882) (15,123) - 0% 0% (4,277,759) PROF & ADMIN 200,000 200,000 155,697 - 78% 78% 44,303EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 150,230 104,779 - - 0% 0% 104,779 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 3,436,717 4,864,256 611,835 434,282 22% 13% 4,252,421 EXPENDITURE 3,786,947 5,169,035 767,532 434,282 23% 57% 4,401,503 2007 HARBOR FUND
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (329) - - - 329
REVENUE - - (329) - - - 329
2110 IMPACT FEE - PARKS
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES - (5,364) (8,856) - 165% 165% 3,492USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (1,123) - - - 1,123 REVENUE - (5,364) (9,979) - 186% 0% 4,615
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 15,000 15,000 15,000 - 100% 100% -
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
EXPENDITURE 15,000 15,000 15,000 - 100% 0% -
2111 IMPACT FEE - TRAFFIC
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES - (562,079) (588,255) - 105% 105% 26,176 USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (8,282) - - - 8,282
REVENUE - (562,079) (596,537) - 106% 0% 34,458
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 57,419 57,419 - - 0% 0% 57,419
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 206,220 313,015 7,168 50,447 18% 2% 305,847EXPENDITURE 263,639 370,434 7,168 50,447 16% 704% 363,266 2113 IMPACT FEE - FIRE
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES - (55,381) (59,295) - 107% 107% 3,914 USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (783) - - - 783
REVENUE - (55,381) (60,078) - 108% 0% 4,697
OTHER OPERATING 89,383 89,383 - 84,259 94% 0% 89,383EXPENDITURE 89,383 89,383 - 84,259 94% - 89,383 2114 IMPACT FEE - POLICE
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES - (189,101) (45,962) - 24% 24% (143,139) USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (4,750) - - - 4,750
REVENUE - (189,101) (50,712) - 27% 0% (138,389)
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY - 120,000 - - 0% 0% 120,000
EXPENDITURE - 120,000 - - 0% - 120,000
2115 IMPACT FEE - COMM/AQUATC
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES - (26,101) (40,207) - 154% 154% 14,106USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (3,793) - - - 3,793 REVENUE - (26,101) (44,000) - 169% 0% 17,899
2116 IMPACT FEE - PARKS/OPEN
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES - (108,864) (167,685) - 154% 154% 58,821 USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (21,696) - - - 21,696
REVENUE - (108,864) (189,381) - 174% 0% 80,517
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 373,264 642,783 269,519 - 42% 42% 373,264 EXPENDITURE 373,264 642,783 269,519 - 42% 0% 373,264
2117 IMPACT FEE - LIBRARY
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES - (73,310) (90,753) - 124% 124% 17,443USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (12,670) - - - 12,670 INTERGOV STATE GRANT (250,000) - - - 0% 0% (250,000)REVENUE - (323,310) (103,423) - 32% 0% (219,887) PROF & ADMIN 55,000 74,100 11,218 17,632 39% 15% 62,882ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 414,295 1,345,195 4,690 1,882 0% 0% 1,340,505EXPENDITURE 469,295 1,419,295 15,908 19,513 2% 123% 1,403,387 2118 IMPACT FEE - HILLTOP
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (229) - - - 229
REVENUE - - (229) - - - 229
2119 IMPACT FEE - STORM DRAINAGE
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES - (204,910) (212,279) - 104% 104% 7,369 USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (6,339) - - - 6,339
REVENUE - (204,910) (218,617) - 107% 0% 13,707
2120 IMPACT FEE - WASTEWATER
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES - (380,267) (395,593) - 104% 104% 15,326 USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (16,233) - - - 16,233
REVENUE - (380,267) (411,826) - 108% 0% 31,559
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 794,130 1,636,521 69,472 768,840 51% 4% 1,567,049EXPENDITURE 794,130 1,636,521 69,472 768,840 51% 1107% 1,567,049
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
2125 IRON TRIANGLE/EPA PROGRAM
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY (250) (250) (1,870) - 748% 748% 1,620 INTERGOV FED GRANT (300,000) (300,000) (6,867) - 2% 2% (293,134) REVENUE (300,250) (300,250) (8,736) - 3% 0% (291,514)
CDBG/HOME/HSG PROJ 300,000 300,000 6,867 293,134 100% 2% 293,134 EXPENDITURE 300,000 300,000 6,867 293,134 100% 4269% 293,134 2126 HOUSING CIP FUND
INTERGOV STATE GRANT (166,432) (166,432) (166,432) - 100% 100% - REVENUE (166,432) (166,432) (166,432) - 100% 0% -
3001 DS - 2005 TAXABLE POB
PROPERTY TAXES (13,052,125) (13,052,125) - - 0% 0% (13,052,125) USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (29,422) - - - 29,422
REVENUE (13,052,125) (13,052,125) (29,422) - 0% 0% (13,022,703) DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE 13,052,125 13,052,125 13,178,851 11,050 101% 101% (126,726) EXPENDITURE 13,052,125 13,052,125 13,178,851 11,050 101% 0% (126,726) 3002 DS - 99A PENSION OBLIG BOND
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (290) - - - 290
OPER XFERS IN (809,523) (809,523) (809,523) - 100% 100% - REVENUE (809,523) (809,523) (809,813) - 100% 0% 290
DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE 809,023 809,023 729,495 - 90% 90% 79,528EXPENDITURE 809,023 809,023 729,495 - 90% 0% 79,528 3005 DS - 07 REFNDING&CVC CTR
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (6,222) - - - 6,222
CHARGES FOR SERVICES (5,349,070) (5,349,070) (4,102,978) - 77% 77% (1,246,092) OPER XFERS IN (1,418,372) (1,418,372) (1,063,781) - 75% 75% (354,591) REVENUE (6,767,442) (6,767,442) (5,172,981) - 76% 0% (1,594,461)
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE 7,750,938 7,750,938 5,749,920 - 74% 74% 2,001,018 EXPENDITURE 7,750,938 7,750,938 5,749,920 - 74% 0% 2,001,018 4001 PORT OF RICHMOND
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES - - (44,462) - - - 44,462
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (152,489) - - - 152,489
RENTAL INCOME (10,348,460) (10,348,460) (3,730,155) - 36% 36% (6,618,305) PROC FR SLE PROP - - (496,250) - - - 496,250
REVENUE (10,348,460) (10,348,460) (4,423,356) - 43% 0% (5,925,104) SALARIES AND WAGES 466,228 466,228 114,564 - 25% 25% 351,664 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 267,043 267,043 101,042 - 38% 38% 166,001 PROF & ADMIN 953,121 1,175,321 420,259 152,544 49% 36% 755,062 OTHER OPERATING 12,200 12,200 3,120 3,005 50% 26% 9,080 UTILITIES 359,600 359,600 347,911 2,641 97% 97% 11,689
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 49,000 49,000 6,510 4,650 23% 13% 42,490PROVISN FOR INS LOSS 40,000 41,800 41,765 - 100% 100% 35COST POOL 476,163 476,163 357,124 - 75% 75% 119,039 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,250,000 1,226,000 62,000 10,000 6% 5% 1,164,000 DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE 4,690,700 4,690,700 211,800 - 5% 5% 4,478,900 EXPENDITURE 8,564,055 8,764,055 1,666,095 172,840 21% 10% 7,097,960 4003 WASTEWATER
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (36,000) (36,000) (100,901) - 280% 280% 64,901 FINES & FORFEITURES (2,000) (2,000) - - 0% 0% (2,000)
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (286,706) - - - 286,706
CHARGES FOR SERVICES (26,905,520) (26,905,520) (17,018,423) - 63% 63% (9,887,097)LOAN/BOND PROCEEDS (20,000,000) (20,000,000) - - 0% 0% (20,000,000) REVENUE (46,943,520) (46,943,520) (17,406,029) - 37% 0% (29,537,491) SALARIES AND WAGES 1,217,321 1,253,582 644,985 - 51% 51% 608,596PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 734,156 734,156 385,227 - 52% 52% 348,929 PROF & ADMIN 10,251,945 13,355,387 5,752,925 4,540,713 77% 43% 7,602,463
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
OTHER OPERATING 346,346 346,346 277,879 248 80% 80% 68,467 UTILITIES 1,308,323 1,308,323 985,781 - 75% 75% 322,542EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 415,000 475,109 115,566 132,906 52% 24% 359,544 COST POOL 955,041 955,041 716,286 - 75% 75% 238,755
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 36,310,185 71,467,578 14,264,246 9,030,337 33% 20% 57,203,331DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE 7,979,500 7,979,500 7,975,955 - 100% 100% 3,545EXPENDITURE 59,517,817 97,875,022 31,118,851 13,704,204 46% 44% 66,756,172 4005 MARINA
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (33,902) - - - 33,902
RENTAL INCOME (450,000) (450,000) (356,470) - 79% 79% (93,530) REVENUE (450,000) (450,000) (390,372) - 87% 0% (59,628) PROF & ADMIN 929,161 929,161 4,319 - 0% 0% 924,842
DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE 206,815 206,815 206,815 - 100% 100% -OPER XFERS OUT 86,778 86,778 65,082 - 75% 75% 21,696 EXPENDITURE 1,222,754 1,222,754 276,216 - 23% 0% 946,538 4006 STORMWATER
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (75,000) (75,000) (16,104) - 21% 21% (58,896)FINES & FORFEITURES - - (2,250) - - - 2,250USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (9,172) - - - 9,172 CHARGES FOR SERVICES (1,930,296) (1,930,296) (1,122,855) - 58% 58% (807,441) RENTAL INCOME (4,380) (4,380) (3,750) - 86% 86% (630)
INTERGOV STATE GRANT (1,598,844) - - - 0% 0% (1,598,844) REVENUE (2,009,676) (3,608,520) (1,154,130) - 32% 0% (2,454,390) SALARIES AND WAGES 109,720 109,720 14,613 - 13% 13% 95,107 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 75,431 75,431 8,595 - 11% 11% 66,836 PROF & ADMIN 1,678,806 1,954,285 764,846 583,918 69% 39% 1,189,439 OTHER OPERATING 2,500 193,500 67,520 78,880 76% 35% 125,980 UTILITIES 41,250 41,250 10,525 - 26% 26% 30,725
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS - - 499 - - - (499)
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
COST POOL 118,654 118,654 88,989 - 75% 75% 29,665
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY - 4,868,844 180,718 3,346,847 72% 4% 4,688,126EXPENDITURE 2,026,361 7,361,684 1,136,305 4,009,645 70% 353% 6,225,378 4008 KCRT - CABLE TELEVIS
LICENSES,PRMITS&FEES (1,250,000) (1,250,000) (527,401) - 42% 42% (722,599) USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (5,038) - - - 5,038
REVENUE (1,250,000) (1,250,000) (532,439) - 43% 0% (717,561) SALARIES AND WAGES 455,280 455,280 380,439 - 84% 84% 74,841PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 341,209 341,209 253,318 - 74% 74% 87,891 PROF & ADMIN 58,800 58,800 38,212 - 65% 65% 20,588
OTHER OPERATING 37,721 37,721 18,295 - 49% 49% 19,426
UTILITIES 5,727 5,727 2,471 2,756 91% 43% 3,256
PROVISN FOR INS LOSS 604 604 - - 0% 0% 604
COST POOL 255,827 255,827 191,869 - 75% 75% 63,958ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 120,000 120,000 12,627 6,286 16% 11% 107,373 EXPENDITURE 1,275,168 1,275,168 897,232 9,042 71% 1% 377,936 4201 RHA-CAPITAL FUND
INTERGOV FED GRANT (1,110,141) (1,110,141) (1,058,363) - 95% 95% (51,778) OPER XFERS IN - (111,014) - - 0% 0% (111,014)
REVENUE (1,110,141) (1,221,155) (1,058,363) - 87% 0% (162,792) PROF & ADMIN - 264,500 112,492 27,008 53% 43% 152,008OTHER OPERATING 20,000 20,000 - - 0% 0% 20,000 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 344,626 244,626 - - 0% 0% 244,626
GRANT EXPENDITURES 467,980 303,480 27,327 2,673 10% 9% 276,153 OPER XFERS OUT 277,535 277,535 293,989 - 106% 106% (16,454) EXPENDITURE 1,110,141 1,110,141 433,808 29,681 42% 7% 676,333 4401 RHA-HACIENDA
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
OTHER REVENUE - - (40) - - - 40REVENUE - - (40) - - - 40 SALARIES AND WAGES - - 9,080 - - - (9,080)PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT - - 4,875 - - - (4,875) EXPENDITURE - - 13,954 - - - (13,954)
4404 RHA-NEVIN PLAZA
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (114) - - - 114
OTHER REVENUE (6,000) (6,000) (301,529) - 5025% 5025% 295,529 RENTAL INCOME (400,000) (212,864) (242,529) - 114% 114% 29,665 INTERGOV FED GRANT (635,243) (635,243) (489,248) - 77% 77% (145,995) OPER XFERS IN (1,036,515) (1,036,515) - - 0% 0% (1,036,515) REVENUE (2,077,758) (1,890,622) (1,033,421) - 55% 0% (857,201) SALARIES AND WAGES 329,657 329,657 196,432 - 60% 60% 133,225 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 254,542 254,542 135,364 - 53% 53% 119,178 PROF & ADMIN 655,308 561,264 139,816 72,280 38% 25% 421,448OTHER OPERATING 80,445 90,429 53,846 9,155 70% 60% 36,583 UTILITIES 530,108 614,168 483,547 - 79% 79% 130,621
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 74,700 74,700 15,110 16,432 42% 20% 59,590PROVISN FOR INS LOSS 38,120 38,120 17,675 2,445 53% 46% 20,445 COST POOL 78,878 78,878 - - 0% 0% 78,878
ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 36,000 36,000 - - 0% 0% 36,000
EXPENDITURE 2,077,758 2,077,758 1,041,791 100,313 55% 10% 1,035,967 4405 RHA-NYSTROM VILLAGE
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (21) - - - 21
OTHER REVENUE (6,000) (6,000) (1,786) - 30% 30% (4,214) RENTAL INCOME (250,000) (250,000) (154,734) - 62% 62% (95,266) INTERGOV FED GRANT (416,629) (416,629) (390,516) - 94% 94% (26,113) OPER XFERS IN (355,119) (355,119) (293,989) - 83% 83% (61,130)
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
REVENUE (1,027,748) (1,027,748) (841,047) - 82% 0% (186,701) SALARIES AND WAGES 249,318 249,318 146,681 - 59% 59% 102,637 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 194,769 194,769 111,031 - 57% 57% 83,738 PROF & ADMIN 113,328 123,988 37,948 23,935 50% 31% 86,040OTHER OPERATING 50,630 54,970 38,448 2,473 74% 70% 16,522UTILITIES 195,100 195,100 125,525 - 64% 64% 69,575EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS 134,000 134,000 42,678 32,322 56% 32% 91,322PROVISN FOR INS LOSS 25,420 25,420 11,789 1,631 53% 46% 13,631COST POOL 41,183 41,183 - - 0% 0% 41,183 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 24,000 24,000 - - 0% 0% 24,000
EXPENDITURE 1,027,748 1,042,748 514,101 60,360 55% 12% 528,647 4406 RHA-RICHMOND VILLAGE ONE
INTERGOV FED GRANT (233,080) (233,080) (104,092) - 45% 45% (128,988) REVENUE (233,080) (233,080) (104,092) - 45% 0% (128,988) SALARIES AND WAGES - - 3,780 - - - (3,780)PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT - - 1,895 - - - (1,895) GRANT EXPENDITURES 233,080 233,080 85,971 - 37% 37% 147,109 EXPENDITURE 233,080 233,080 91,646 - 39% 0% 141,434
4407 RHA-RICHMOND VILLAGE TWO
INTERGOV FED GRANT (205,818) (205,818) (83,301) - 40% 40% (122,517) REVENUE (205,818) (205,818) (83,301) - 40% 0% (122,517) GRANT EXPENDITURES 205,818 205,818 75,527 - 37% 37% 130,291 EXPENDITURE 205,818 205,818 75,527 - 37% 0% 130,291
4408 RHA-RICHMOND VILLAGE THREE
INTERGOV FED GRANT (78,516) (78,516) (37,636) - 48% 48% (40,880) REVENUE (78,516) (78,516) (37,636) - 48% 0% (40,880)
GRANT EXPENDITURES 78,516 78,516 34,782 - 44% 44% 43,734
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
EXPENDITURE 78,516 78,516 34,782 - 44% 0% 43,734
4501 RHA-CENTRAL OFFICE COST CNTR
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (9) - - - 9
OTHER REVENUE - - (1) - - - 1
OPER XFERS IN (146,983) (238,105) - - 0% 0% (238,105)
REVENUE (146,983) (238,105) (10) - 0% 0% (238,095)
SALARIES AND WAGES 38,255 38,255 121,352 - 317% 317% (83,097) PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 88,354 88,354 123,576 - 140% 140% (35,222) PROF & ADMIN - - 380 - - - (380)OTHER OPERATING - - 4,925 - - - (4,925)UTILITIES - - 7,065 - - - (7,065)EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS - - 286 - - - (286)COST POOL 20,374 20,374 - - 0% 0% 20,374 EXPENDITURE 146,983 146,983 257,583 - 175% 0% (110,600) 4502 RHA-HOUSING CORPORATION
PROF & ADMIN - 20,000 - - 0% 0% 20,000
EXPENDITURE - 20,000 - - 0% - 20,000
5001 INSURANCE RESERVES
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (348,438) - - - 348,438
CHARGES FOR SERVICES (19,184,635) (19,184,635) (13,240,563) - 69% 69% (5,944,072)OTHER REVENUE - - (771,025) - - - 771,025 INTERGOV STATE GRANT - - (397,858) - - - 397,858
REVENUE (19,184,635) (19,184,635) (14,757,885) - 77% 0% (4,426,750) SALARIES AND WAGES 440,821 482,616 348,416 - 72% 72% 134,200 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT 277,397 277,397 194,346 - 70% 70% 83,051 PROF & ADMIN 1,027,700 1,408,478 534,390 71,927 43% 38% 874,088OTHER OPERATING 50,500 45,500 6,720 - 15% 15% 38,780
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
EQPT & CONTRACT SVCS - 25,000 - 25,000 100% 0% 25,000PROVISN FOR INS LOSS 16,740,502 16,023,334 11,180,169 274,020 71% 70% 4,843,165COST POOL 533,987 533,987 400,489 - 75% 75% 133,498 ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000 2,339,698 536,373 4,269,407 205% 23% 1,803,325EXPENDITURE 19,077,907 21,136,010 13,200,904 4,640,354 84% 35% 7,935,106 5003 EQUIPMENT SERVICES
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (33,160) - - - 33,160
CHARGES FOR SERVICES (5,120,000) (5,120,000) (2,834,997) - 55% 55% (2,285,003) PROC FR SLE PROP - - (11,047) - - - 11,047
OPER XFERS IN (426,018) (426,018) (319,515) - 75% 75% (106,503) REVENUE (5,546,018) (5,546,018) (3,198,719) - 58% 0% (2,347,299) ASSET/CAPITAL OUTLAY 5,766,000 6,571,644 12,057 3,947,794 60% 0% 6,559,587 DEBT SVC EXPENDITURE 326,018 326,018 244,514 - 75% 75% 81,505EXPENDITURE 6,092,018 6,897,662 256,571 3,947,794 61% 1539% 6,641,091 5008 COMPENSATED ABSENCES
OTHER REVENUE - - (1,949,995) - - - 1,949,995
REVENUE - - (1,949,995) - - - 1,949,995
SALARIES AND WAGES - - 2,007,452 - - - (2,007,452)
PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT - - 29,275 - - - (29,275)
EXPENDITURE - - 2,036,726 - - - -
6004 COMMISSION ON AGING
OTHER REVENUE - (30,000) (8,414) - 28% 28% (21,586)
REVENUE - (30,000) (8,414) - 28% 0% -
OTHER OPERATING - 30,000 8,414 428 29% 28% 21,586
EXPENDITURE - 30,000 8,414 428 29% 5% 21,586
6007 SENIOR TRUST DEPOSIT
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
OTHER REVENUE - (50,000) (5,564) - 11% 11% (44,436)
REVENUE - (50,000) (5,564) - 11% 0% (44,436)
OTHER OPERATING - 50,000 5,564 6,200 24% 11% 44,436
EXPENDITURE - 50,000 5,564 6,200 24% 111% 44,436
6047 CERTBT PLAN FUND
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - 172,475 - - - (172,475)
OTHER REVENUE - - (1,487,812) - - - 1,487,812
REVENUE - - (1,315,337) - - - 1,315,337
PROF & ADMIN - - 3,200 - - - (3,200)EXPENDITURE - - 3,200 - - - (3,200) 6048 OPEB PLAN FUND
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (1,072,045) - - - 1,072,045
OTHER REVENUE - - (6,364,043) - - - 6,364,043
REVENUE - - (7,436,088) - - - 7,436,088
PROF & ADMIN - - 82,790 - - - (82,790)
EXPENDITURE - - 82,790 - - - (82,790)
6049 PT MOLATE PRIVATE-PURPOSE TRST
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (42) - - - 42
REVENUE - - (42) - - - 42
GRANT EXPENDITURES - - 255,089 - - - (255,089)
EXPENDITURE - - 255,089 - - - (255,089)
6050 GENERAL PENSION FUND
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (8,378) - - - 8,378
OPER XFERS IN (152,897) (152,897) (152,897) - 100% 100% - REVENUE (152,897) (152,897) (161,275) - 105% 0% 8,378
PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT - - 177,763 - - - (177,763)
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Quarterly ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023Threshold 75% Attachment #2
Non-General Funds -Quarter 3 Budget Report
ORIGINAL
APPROP
REVISED
BUDGET
ACTUAL THRU
MARCH FY2023 ENCUMB
W/
ENCUMB
% USED
W/O
ENCUMB
% USED
AVAILABLE
BUDGET
EXPENDITURE - - 177,763 - - - (177,763)
6051 POLICE & FIRE PENSION
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - 1,447,154 - - - (1,447,154)
REVENUE - - 1,447,154 - - - (1,447,154)
PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT - - 720,459 - - - (720,459)
PROF & ADMIN - - 44,854 - - - (44,854)
EXPENDITURE - - 765,312 - - - (765,312)
6052 GARFIELD PENSION FUND
USE OF MONEY&PROPRTY - - (4,554) - - - 4,554
OPER XFERS IN (12,408) (12,408) (12,408) - 100% 100% -REVENUE (12,408) (12,408) (16,962) - 137% 0% 4,554 PYRLL/FRINGE BENEFIT - - 8,845 - - - (8,845)
OPER XFERS OUT 210,463 - - - 0% 0% 210,463
EXPENDITURE - 210,463 8,845 - 4% 0% 201,618
NON GF - REVENUE (199,940,740) (259,310,811) (120,191,303) - 46% 0% (139,119,508) NON GF - EXPENDITURE 231,706,650 356,825,576 122,169,611 48,795,596 48% 40% 234,655,965 NON GF - GRANT TOTAL 31,765,910 97,514,765 1,978,308 48,795,596 52% 24.66532 95,536,457
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Variance Report
Period 9 - March 2023
Threshold 75%
Attachment 3
Capital Improvement Projects
Quarter 3 Report
EXPENDITURES - CAPITAL PROJECTS by DEPARTMENT
REVISED
BUDGET
FY2022-23
Actual Thru
March 2023 ENCUMB
BALANCE
REMAINING
% Without
ENCUMB % USED 3RD QUARTER STATUS Contact Person
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - CIP
13TH STREET COMPLETE STREET 1,161,526 185,809 281,847 693,870 16% 40% Preparing final package for E-76 approval. Josef Munoz AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), SIDEWALKS, CURBS 3,611,230 219,506 146,007 3,245,717 6% 10% In construction with two PO's encumbered. Josef Munoz APRA/MAIN LIBRARY 4,156,490 - 48,000 4,108,490 0% 1% Staff is working on Request for Proposal (RFP). Wendy Wellbrock ARPA/NEVIN CENTER 489,750 - 39,750 450,000 0% 8%
Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning (HVAC) Project on hold due to resources from consultants. Preliminary design by sub-consultant completed. Contract extension in progress. Request for $500K. Josef Munoz
ARPA/RECREATION CENTER 474,975 - 23,975 451,000 0% 5%
HVAC project on hold due to resources from consultants. Preliminary design by subconsultant completed. Contract extension in progress. Currently staff is applying for a $10M grant and included a "complete" rec center ~$1M via grant. Oakley & Oakley preliminary assessment. Josef Munoz
ARPA/RICHMOND MUSEUM 500,000 - 32,600 467,400 0% 7%
HVAC project on hold due to resources from consultants. Preliminary design by subconsultant completed. Contract extension in progress. Request for $500K. Josef Munoz ATP QUICK BUILD CUTTING/HOFFMAN 625,212 10,000 402,419 212,793 2% 66% 90% completed - RS to discuss with contractor. Ken Cheng ATP QUICK BUILD HARBOUR WAY S. CYCLE TRACK 184,300 29,579 - 154,721 16% 16% 90% completed - RS to discuss with contractor Ken Cheng HARBOUR WAY IMPROVEMENTS 82,500 - - 82,500 0% 0% 90% completed - RS to discuss with contractor Ken Cheng STREET PAVING SB1 CUTTING/HARBOUR WAY S. BIKEWAY 865,822 368,861 416,434 80,526 43% 91% 90% completed - RS to discuss with contractor Ken Cheng BOORMAN PARK REVITALIZATION 3,987,457 208,338 449,629 3,329,489 5% 17% Clean up in progress. Wendy Wellbrock BRIDGE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 2,138,521 6,245 8,133 2,124,143 0% 1% Working with consultants to rectify Caltrans programming issues for next fiscal year for state. Josef Munoz
CARLSON BLVD. CROSSTOWN CONNECTIONS IMPROVEMENTS 421,268 178,811 22,858 219,599 42% 48% NEMA Construction - Closed Circuit Television Camera (CCTV) to be complete by June 2023 and confirm conduits for bus shelter were installed. Josef Munoz CARLSON BLVD. FY2023-24 750,000 - - 750,000 - 0% Mid year adjustment for - striping work only (install bus shelters). Josef Munoz CASTRO RANCH ROAD 477,335 - 477,335 - 0% 100% Consultant closing out the project with Caltrans. Josef Munoz CORP YARD ROOF-BATHROOM REMODEL AND FUEL SITES UPGRADES 482,149 45,986 77,021 359,142 10% 26% Plans are with building permit. Requested additional funding for construction allocation prior to bid phase. Josef Munoz
DEVELOPING PERSONAL RESOURCES CENTER (DPRC) ROOF
REPLACEMENT PROJECT 100,000 - 93,779 6,221 0% 94% Operations is addressing construction issues. Josef Munoz FIRE STATION 66 - GENDER SPECIFIC RESTROOMS 275,052 - - 275,052 0% 0% Initial design was completed several year ago. Additional funds requested for design completion and construction. Josef Munoz
FIRE ACCESS TRAIL 50,000 - - 50,000 0% 0% New - mid-year approved Josef Munoz GREENWAY GAP AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 149,926 133,559 16,367 1 89% 100% Final invoice sent. Ken Cheng GREENWAY REHAB AND BIKE EDUCATION 127,310 - - 127,310 0% 0% No change from last report, balance will be re-budgeted next year. Ken Cheng GREENING THE YELOW BRICK ROAD 2,376,117 456,474 1,567,874 351,769 19% 85% PG&E providing service connection Wendy Wellbrock HARBOUR 8 PARK EXTENSION 6,312,278 398,431 5,396,833 517,014 6% 92% Project balance will be re-budgeted next year Wendy Wellbrock HARBOUR WAY & WRIGHT SECTION 130 1,199,075 - - 1,199,075 0% 0% RS request for PM being discussed Ken Cheng HILLTOP FIRE STATION FUEL SYSTEM 50,000 - - 50,000 0% 0% Additional funding is needed, focus is on the Corp Yard Fuel Station Josef Munoz I-80 CENTRAL INTERCHANGE PHASE II 2,385,476 183,502 2,963 2,199,012 8% 8% CTC money appropriated and working with Caltrans on E-76 for ROW. ENV phase complete. Josef Munoz
JPA SPORTS FIELD PARTNERSHIP 15,000 15,000 - - 100% 100% $15,000 annual payment Avinesh Nadan MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. COMMUNITY CENTER 267,692 - - 267,692 0% 0% Additional funding is needed. Josef Munoz MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. TURF FIELD REPLACEMENT 634,000 400,000 - 234,000 63% 63% Project completed (donation form Oakland A's). Josef Munoz MEMBERSHIP & DUES CCTA and WCCTAC 200,000 155,697 - 44,303 78% 78% Annual payment to West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) Joint Powers Agreement DAvinesh Nadan NATIVE AMERICAN HEALTH CENTER 50,000 - - 50,000 0% 0% Project balance will be carried-forward to next year Josef Munoz PARKS YARD FUEL SITE UPGRADES 220,000 - - 220,000 0% 0% No change from last report, balance will be carried-forward to next year. Josef Munoz RUBERIZED SURFACING AT VARIOUS PARKS 269,519 269,519 - - 100% 100% Project completed. Josef Munoz SF BAY TRAIL- GOODRICK AVENUE 21,350 - 21,350 - 0% 100% Project completed. Josef Munoz SHIMADA PARK RESTROOM 246,690 205,296 33,779 7,615 83% 97% Project completed. Josef Munoz SF BAY TRAIL- PT. MOLATE 1,019,967 13,190 14,768 992,009 1% 3% Project balance will be re-budgeted next year Josef Munoz
731
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Variance Report
Period 9 - March 2023
Threshold 75%
Attachment 3
Capital Improvement Projects
Quarter 3 Report
EXPENDITURES - CAPITAL PROJECTS by DEPARTMENT
REVISED
BUDGET
FY2022-23
Actual Thru
March 2023 ENCUMB
BALANCE
REMAINING
% Without
ENCUMB % USED 3RD QUARTER STATUS Contact Person
STREET PAVING 3,119,676 1,665,574 230,856 1,223,246 53% 61% Annual/ongoing Josef Munoz STREET PAVING - SB1 - 37TH STREET 155,354 - 36,915 118,439 0% 24% Project completed. Josef Munoz STREET PAVING - SB1 - CASTRO RANCH ROAD 593,346 10,094 257,948 325,304 2% 45% Project completed. Josef Munoz STREET PAVING SB1 - MARINA WAY - WELLNESS TRAIL 109,923 3,570 72,604 33,749 3% 69% Project completed. Josef Munoz STREET PAVING - SBI - RICHMOND PARKWAY 1,000,000 936,529 60,027 3,444 94% 100% Annual funding needed Josef Munoz STREET PAVING - SB1 - SAN PABLO AVE. RESURFACE 2,200,000 2,191,767 8,233 - 100% 100% Project completed. Josef Munoz STREET REPORT - AUDIT 4,000 - - 4,000 0% 0% Annual payment. Josef Munoz SURFACE DRAINAGE 300,000 - - 300,000 0% 0% Annual/ongoing Josef Munoz TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 411,173 30,186 68,169 312,819 7% 24% Various projects ongoing, balance will be carried-forward to next year. Josef Munoz YELLOW BRICK ROAD 1,904,636 409,988 173,450 1,321,197 22% 31% Construction continuing, balance will be carried-forward to next year. Wendy Wellbrock TOTAL - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CIP 46,176,096 8,731,512 10,481,925 26,962,659 19% 42%
PUBLIC WORKS - WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY WASTEWATER - CIP COGENERATION 2,337,865 71,342 801,164 1,465,359 3% 37%
DECLORINATION SODIUM BISULFITE TANK (SBS) 14,885,711 3,749,669 452,362 10,683,679 25% 28% DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES 516,775 - 516,775 - 0% 100% DESIGN CUTTING, CARLSON & HOFFMAN 709,409 - 702,487 6,922 0% 99% DORNAN DRIVE FORCE MAIN REHABILITATION 4,000,000 - - 4,000,000 0% 0% FERRY POINT DORNAN DRIVE PUMP STATION 3,339,991 317,911 2,720,414 301,665 10% 91% FIRST & BISSEL SEWER REHAB 10,433 - 10,433 - 0% 100%
FIRST STREET WET WEATHER 221,248 13,677 207,572 - 6% 100% FLEET REPLACEMENT/OTHER EQUIPMENT 1,569,907 1,070,931 45 498,931 68% 68% GRIT AND AERATION REPLACEMENT 37,139,075 9,796,427 2,550,011 24,792,637 26% 33% MACDONALD & VIRGINIA SEWER CAPACITY 80,568 - 79,593 976 0% 99% MARINA BAY PARKWAY FORCE MAIN RELOCATION 414,608 - 64,608 350,000 0% 16% PIPELINE REHAB & REPLACEMENT 674,172 36,013 548,566 89,594 5% 87% SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS /BRICK MANHOLE REHAB 794,130 - - 794,130 0% 0% SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS 4,058,835 - 518,070 3,540,765 0% 13% SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS POINT REPAIR 475,212 15,364 459,848 - 3% 100% STORMWATER GRANT - - - - 0% 0%
SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISTION (SCADA) UPGRADES 126,276 - 30,422 95,855 0% 24% WWTP SEISMIC RETROFITS 348,443 - 23,443 325,000 0% 7%
WWTP SLUDGE THICKENER 1,146,440 331,910 113,366 701,165 29% 39% TOTAL - WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY WASTEWATER CIP 72,849,099 15,403,245 9,799,177 47,646,677 21% 35%
PUBLIC WORKS - WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY STORMWATER - CIP FLOOD RISK REDUCTION - RHEEM CREEK 1,598,844 - 300,500 1,298,344 0% 19% Project balance will be re-budgeted next year FULL TRASH CAPTURE FACILITIES 3,270,000 180,718 3,046,347 42,934 6% 99% ARPA/NORTH RICHMOND PUMP STATION 1,800,000 1,440,797 359,203 - 80% 100% TOTAL - PUBLIC WORKS - WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY STORMWATER - CIP 6,668,844 1,621,515 3,706,050 1,341,278 24% 80%
732
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Variance Report
Period 9 - March 2023
Threshold 75%
Attachment 3
Capital Improvement Projects
Quarter 3 Report
EXPENDITURES - CAPITAL PROJECTS by DEPARTMENT
REVISED
BUDGET
FY2022-23
Actual Thru
March 2023 ENCUMB
BALANCE
REMAINING
% Without
ENCUMB % USED 3RD QUARTER STATUS Contact Person
POLICE DEPARTMENT - CIP
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES SAFETY EQUIPMENT 145,000 18,018 - 126,983 12% 12% TOTAL - POLICE DEPARTMENT CIP 145,000 18,018 - 126,983 12% 12%
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - CIP
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) BOOKER T. ANDERSON (BTA) 485,000 2,569 116,779 365,652 1% 25% Project balance will be re-budgeted next year AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) PARCHESTER CENTER 496,314 145,802 47,542 302,970 29% 39% Project balance will be re-budgeted next year AUDITORIUM CONVENTION CENTER UPGRADES 913,638 226,843 188,840 497,955 25% 45% Project balance will be re-budgeted next year RECREATION COMPLEX HVAC 120,000 - - 120,000 0% 0% Project balance will be re-budgeted next year SHIELDS-REID COMMUNITY CENTER HVAC SYSTEM UPGRADE 132,850 - 5,600 127,250 0% 4% Project balance will be re-budgeted next year TOTAL - COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT CIP 2,147,802 375,214 358,762 1,413,827 17% 34%
LIBRARY DEPARTMENT - CIP
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) RAMP MAIN LIBRARY STAFF ENTRANCE 30,000 - - 30,000 0% 0% Project balance will be re-budgeted next year BOOKMOBILE - NEW 70,000 - - 70,000 0% 0% Project balance will be re-budgeted next year DELIVERY VAN - NEW 70,000 - - 70,000 0% 0% Project balance will be re-budgeted next year TOTAL - LIBRARY DEPARTMENT CIP 170,000 - - 170,000 0% 0%
PORT OF RICHMOND - CIP
BERTH ELECTRIFICATIONS 750,000 - - 750,000 0% 0% PSE Ready for release.
PPMT ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 100,000 - - 100,000 0% 0% Coordinating with DTSC.
PPMT GENERAL UPGRADES 214,150 54,000 10,000 150,150 25% 30% First phase complete. Assessing next task now.
TERMINAL 4 WHARF REMOVAL 3,401,288 309,771 404,201 2,687,316 9% 21% Final comments to bid documents complete, expect to release for bid in mid January.
TOTAL - PORT OF RICHMOND CIP 4,465,438 363,771 414,201 3,687,466 8% 17%
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - CIP
AREA FM CAP 929,161 4,319 - 924,842 0% 0% Project balance will be re-budgeted next year TOTAL - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CIP 929,161 4,319 - 924,842 0% 0%
KCRT CABLE TELEVISION - CIP
CIVIC CENTER TECH ENHANCE - 955 - (955) 100% 100%
ENGINEERING; (Microwave Transmission & Playback System) 120,000 11,673 6,286 102,041 10% 15% TOTAL - KCRT CIP 120,000 12,627 6,286 101,086 11% 16%
PUBLIC WORKS - EQUIPMENT SERVICES AND REPLACEMENT - CIP FIRE VEHICLES 875,000 (177,230) 423 1,051,808 -20% -20% OTHER CITY EQUIPMENT 100,000 - 100,000 - 0% 100%
OTHER CITY VEHICLES 3,820,230 177,230 2,672,385 970,615 5% 75% POLICE VEHICLES 1,676,413 1,189 1,174,986 500,238 0% 70% TOTAL - EQUIPMENT SERVICES CIP 6,471,644 1,189 3,947,794 2,522,661 0% 61% GRAND TOTAL 140,143,083 26,531,411 28,714,195 84,897,478 19% 39%
733
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Variance Report
Period 9 - March 2023
Threshold 75%
Attachment 3
Capital Improvement Projects
Quarter 3 Report
NON-GENERAL FUND - PROJECT FUNDS
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FY2022-23
ADJUST
FY2022-23
REVISED
BUDGET
FY2022-23
Actual Thru
March 2023 ENCUMB
BALANCE
REMAINING
% Without
ENCUMB % USED
1002 - GAS TAX
REVENUE (3,203,193) - (3,203,193) (2,034,001) - (1,169,192) 63% 63% ADA MISCELLANEOUS SIDEWALK REHAB 36,105 - 36,105 - 36,105 - 0% 100% BRIDGE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 248,340 - 248,340 - - 248,340 0% 0% GREENWAY REHAB AND BIKE EDUCATION 27,310 - 27,310 - - 27,310 0% 0% STREET AUDIT REPORT 4,000 - 4,000 - - 4,000 0% 0%
STREET PAVING 2,500,000 19,676 2,519,676 1,665,574 230,356 623,746 66% 75% TOTAL - STATE GAS TAX - EXPENSES 2,815,755 19,676 2,835,431 1,665,574 266,461 903,396 59% 68% 1004 - ASSET SEIZURE
REVENUE (20,000) - (20,000) (7,281) - (12,719) 36% 36%
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES SAFETY EQUIPMENT 20,000 125,000 145,000 18,018 - 126,983 12% 12% TOTAL - ASSET SEIZURE - EXPENSES 20,000 125,000 145,000 18,018 - 126,983 12% 12% 1006 - OUTSIDE FUNDED GRANTS
REVENUE (3,635,288) - (3,635,288) (243,130) - (3,392,158) 7% 7% MLK PARK FIELD TURF 234,000 250,000 484,000 250,000 - 234,000 52% 52% TERMINAL 4 WHARF REMOVAL 3,401,288 - 3,401,288 309,771 404,201 2,687,316 9% 21% TOTAL - OUTSIDE FUNDED GRANTS - EXPENSES 3,635,288 250,000 3,885,288 559,771 404,201 2,921,316 14% 25% 1019 - ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION ACCOUNT (RMRA) SB1 REVENUE (2,510,376) - (2,510,376) (1,709,118) - (801,258) 68% 68% STREET PAVING - SB1 - 37TH STREET 300,000 (144,646) 155,354 - 36,915 118,439 0% 24% STREET PAVING - SB1 - CASTRO RANCH ROAD 329,168 264,178 593,346 10,094 257,948 325,304 2% 45% STREET PAVING SB1 CUTTING/HARBOUR WAY S. BIKEWAY 706,308 159,514 865,822 368,861 416,434 80,526 43% 91% STREET PAVING SB1 - MARINA WAY - WELLNESS TRAIL 59,861 50,062 109,923 3,570 72,604 33,749 3% 69% STREET PAVING - SB1 - RICHMOND PARKWAY 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 936,529 60,027 3,444 94% 100% STREET PAVING - SB1 - SAN PABLO AVE. RESURFACE - 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,191,767 8,233 - 100% 100% TOTAL - RMRA - EXPENSES 2,395,337 2,529,109 4,924,446 3,510,822 852,163 561,461 71% 89% 1054 - ENGINEERING GRANTS
REVENUE (14,509,778) - (14,509,778) (1,003,274) - (13,506,504) 7% 7% ATP QUICK BUILD CUTTING/HOFFMAN 625,212 - 625,212 10,000 402,419 212,793 2% 66% ATP QUICK BUILD HARBOUR WAY S. CYCLE TRACK 184,300 - 184,300 29,579 - 154,721 16% 16% BOORMAN PARK REVITALIZATION 3,490,204 497,253 3,987,457 208,338 449,629 3,329,489 5% 17% BRIDGE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 1,875,803 14,378 1,890,181 6,245 8,133 1,875,803 0% 1% CASTRO RANCH ROAD - 477,335 477,335 - 477,335 - 0% 100%
734
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Variance Report
Period 9 - March 2023
Threshold 75%
Attachment 3
Capital Improvement Projects
Quarter 3 Report
NON-GENERAL FUND - PROJECT FUNDS
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FY2022-23
ADJUST
FY2022-23
REVISED
BUDGET
FY2022-23
Actual Thru
March 2023 ENCUMB
BALANCE
REMAINING
% Without
ENCUMB % USED
CARLSON BLVD. CROSSTOWN CONNECTIONS & IMPROVEMENTS 398,410 22,858 421,268 178,811 22,858 219,599 42% 48% GREENING THE YELOW BRICK ROAD 351,769 2,024,348 2,376,117 456,474 1,567,874 351,769 19% 85% GREENWAY GAP AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY - 149,926 149,926 133,559 16,367 1 189% 100% GREENWAY REHAB AND BIKE EDUCATION 100,000 - 100,000 - - 100,000 0% 0% HARBOUR 8 PARK EXTENSION 6,194,260 118,018 6,312,278 398,431 5,396,833 517,014 6% 92% HARBOUR WAY & WRIGHT SECTION 130 1,199,075 - 1,199,075 - - 1,199,075 0% 0% HARBOUR WAY IMPROVEMENTS 82,500 - 82,500 - - 82,500 0% 0% YELLOW BRICK ROAD 8,245 360,399 368,644 264,908 95,491 8,245 72% 98% TOTAL - ENGINEERING GRANTS - EXPENSES 14,509,778 3,664,515 18,174,293 1,686,346 8,436,940 8,051,009 9% 56% 1306 - AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA)
REVENUE (2,770,400) - (2,770,400) (14,046,069) - 11,099,962 507% 507% APRA/MAIN LIBRARY 452,000 3,704,490 4,156,490 - 48,000 4,108,490 0% 1% ARPA/MLK TURF FIELD - 150,000 150,000 150,000 - - 100% 100% ARPA/NEVIN CENTER 450,000 39,750 489,750 - 39,750 450,000 0% 8% ARPA/RECREATION CENTER 451,000 23,975 474,975 - 23,975 451,000 0% 5% ARPA/RICHMOND MUSEUM 467,400 32,600 500,000 - 32,600 467,400 0% 7% ARPA/NORTH RICHMOND PUMP STATION - 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,440,797 359,203 - 80% 100% TOTAL - AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA) - EXPENSES 1,820,400 5,750,815 7,571,215 1,590,797 503,528 5,476,890 100% 100% 2001 - GENERAL CAPITAL
REVENUE - - - (2,191) - 2,191 100% 100%
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), SIDEWALKS, CURBS - 3,115,181 3,115,181 - - 3,115,181 AUDITORIUM UPGRADES (Main floor lighting, electrical & switch board upgrade, and remove curtains from stage area) 500,000 413,638 913,638 226,843 188,840 497,955 25% 45% CARLSON BLVD. FY2023-2024 - 750,000 750,000 - - 750,000 CORP YARD ROOF-BATHROOM REMODEL AND FUEL SITES UPGRADES 399,000 83,149 482,149 45,986 77,021 359,142 10% 26%
DEVELOPING PERSONAL RESOURCES CENTER (DPRC) ROOF
REPLACEMENT PROJECT 100,000 - 100,000 - 93,779 6,221 0% 94% FIRE STATION 66 - GENDER SPECIFIC RESTROOMS 275,052 - 275,052 - - 275,052 0% 0% FIRE TRAIL ACCESS - 50,000 50,000 - - 50,000 0% 0%
HILLTOP FIRE STATION FUEL SYSTEM 50,000 - 50,000 - - 50,000 0% 0% MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. CENTER 267,692 - 267,692 - - 267,692 0% 0% NATIVE AMERICAN HEALTH CENTER 50,000 - 50,000 - - 50,000 0% 0% PARKS YARD FUEL SITE UPGRADES 220,000 - 220,000 - - 220,000 0% 0% RECREATION COMPLEX HVAC 120,000 - 120,000 - - 120,000 0% 0% SF BAY TRAIL - (PT. RICHMOND TO PT. MOLATE) 646,703 - 646,703 13,190 14,768 618,745 2% 4% SHIELDS-REID COMMUNITY CENTER HVAC SYSTEM UPGRADE 127,250 5,600 132,850 - 5,600 127,250 0% 4% SHIMADA PARK RESTROOM 240,790 5,900 246,690 205,296 33,779 7,615 83% 97%
735
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Variance Report
Period 9 - March 2023
Threshold 75%
Attachment 3
Capital Improvement Projects
Quarter 3 Report
NON-GENERAL FUND - PROJECT FUNDS
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FY2022-23
ADJUST
FY2022-23
REVISED
BUDGET
FY2022-23
Actual Thru
March 2023 ENCUMB
BALANCE
REMAINING
% Without
ENCUMB % USED
TOTAL - GENERAL CAPITAL - EXPENSES 2,996,487 4,423,468 7,419,955 491,314 413,788 6,514,852 7% 12% 2002 - MEASURE J
REVENUE (4,292,882) - (4,292,882) (15,123) - (4,277,759) 0% 0% 13TH STREET COMPLETE STREET 793,870 367,656 1,161,526 185,809 281,847 693,870 16% 40% AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), SIDEWALKS, CURBS 294,065 165,879 459,944 219,506 109,902 130,536 48% 72% I-80 CENTRAL INTERCHANGE PHASE II 2,199,012 186,464 2,385,476 183,502 2,963 2,199,012 8% 8% MEMBERSHIP & DUES CCTA and WCCTAC 200,000 - 200,000 155,697 - 44,303 78% 78% SF BAY TRAIL - GOODRICK AVE - 21,350 21,350 - 21,350 - 0% 100% STREET PAVING - 600,000 600,000 - 500 599,500 0% 0%
SURFACE DRAINAGE 300,000 - 300,000 - - 300,000 0% 0%
TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS - 40,739 40,739 23,018 17,722 - 56% 100% TOTAL - MEASURE J - EXPENSES 3,786,947 1,382,088 5,169,035 767,532 434,282 3,967,221 15% 23% 2110 - PARK IMPACT FEE
REVENUE - (5,364) (5,364) (8,856) - - 165% 165%
JPA SPORTS FIELD PARTNERSHIP 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 - - 100% 100% TOTAL - PARK IMPACT FEE - EXPENSES 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 - - 100% 100% 2111 - TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
TOTAL REVENUE - - - (151,959) - -
TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 263,639 106,795 370,434 7,168 50,447 312,819 2% 16% TOTAL - TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE - EXPENSES 263,639 106,795 370,434 7,168 50,447 312,819 2% 16% 2116 - OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE
REVENUE - (108,864) (108,864) (167,685) - - 154% 154%
RUBERIZED SURFACING AT VARIOUS PARKS - 269,519 269,519 269,519 - - 100% 100% SF BAY TRAIL - (PT. RICHMOND TO PT. MOLATE) 373,264 - 373,264 - - 373,264 0% 0% TOTAL - OPENSPACE IMPACT FEE - EXPENSES 373,264 269,519 642,783 269,519 - 373,264 42% 42% 2117 - LIBRARY IMPACT FEE
REVENUE - (250,000) (250,000) - - (250,000) 0% 0%
ADA RAMP MAIN LIBRARY STAFF ENTRANCE 30,000 - 30,000 - - 30,000 0% 0% BOOKMOBILE - NEW 70,000 - 70,000 - - 70,000 0% 0%
DELIVERY VAN - NEW 70,000 - 70,000 - - 70,000 0% 0%
TOTAL - LIBRARY IMPACT FEE - EXPENSES 170,000 - 170,000 - - 170,000 0% 0% 2120 - WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE
736
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Variance Report
Period 9 - March 2023
Threshold 75%
Attachment 3
Capital Improvement Projects
Quarter 3 Report
NON-GENERAL FUND - PROJECT FUNDS
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FY2022-23
ADJUST
FY2022-23
REVISED
BUDGET
FY2022-23
Actual Thru
March 2023 ENCUMB
BALANCE
REMAINING
% Without
ENCUMB % USED
TOTAL REVENUE - (380,267) (380,267) (395,593) - (261,390) 104% 104% COGENERATION - 842,391 842,391 69,472 768,840 4,079 8% 100% SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS /BRICK MANHOLE REHAB 794,130 - 794,130 - - 794,130 0% 0% TOTAL - WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE - EXPENSES 794,130 842,391 1,636,521 69,472 768,840 798,209 4% 51% TOTAL - REVENUE - CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS (30,941,917) - (30,941,917) (19,057,996) - (12,059,629) 62% 62% TOTAL - EXPENSES - CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS 33,596,025 19,363,376 52,959,401 10,651,333 12,130,649 30,177,419 20% 43% 1017 - ECIA DEPARTMENT
YELLOW BRICK ROAD 1,313,655 222,337 1,535,992 145,080 77,959 1,312,952 9% 15% TOTAL - ECIA DEPARTMENT 1,313,655 222,337 1,535,992 145,080 77,959 1,312,952 9% 15% 1201 - HOUSING DEPARTMENT - CDBG
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) BOOKER T. ANDERSON (BTA) 485,000 - 485,000 2,569 116,779 365,652 1% 25% AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) PARCHESTER CENTER 450,000 46,314 496,314 145,802 47,542 302,970 29% 39% TOTAL - HOUSING DEPARTMENT - ADA 935,000 46,314 981,314 148,371 164,322 668,622 15% 32% 4001 - PORT CIP
BERTH ELECTRIFICATIONS 750,000 - 750,000 - - 750,000 0% 0% PPMT ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 100,000 - 100,000 - - 100,000 0% 0% PPMT GENERAL UPGRADES 250,000 (35,850) 214,150 54,000 10,000 150,150 25% 30% TOTAL - PORT CIP 1,100,000 (35,850) 1,064,150 54,000 10,000 1,000,150 5% 6% 4003 - WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY WASTEWATER CIP
COGENERATION 1,461,280 34,194 1,495,474 1,870 32,324 1,461,280 0% 2% DECLORINATION SODIUM BISULFITE TANK (SBS) 3,250,000 11,635,711 14,885,711 3,749,669 452,362 10,683,679 25% 28% DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES - 516,775 516,775 - 516,775 - 0% 100% DESIGN CUTTING, CARLSON & HOFFMAN - 709,409 709,409 - 702,487 6,922 0% 99% DORNAN DRIVE FORCE MAIN REHABILITATION 4,000,000 - 4,000,000 - - 4,000,000 0% 0% FERRY POINT DORNAN DRIVE PUMP STATION 375,000 2,964,991 3,339,991 317,911 2,720,414 301,665 10% 91% FIRST & BISSEL SEWER REHAB - 10,433 10,433 - 10,433 - 0% 100% FIRST STREET WET WEATHER - 221,248 221,248 13,677 207,572 - 6% 100% FLEET REPLACEMENT/OTHER EQUIPMENT 515,000 1,054,907 1,569,907 1,070,931 45 498,931 68% 68% GRIT AND AERATION REPLACEMENT 20,000,000 17,139,075 37,139,075 9,796,427 2,550,011 24,792,637 26% 33% MACDONALD & VIRGINIA SEWER CAPACITY - 80,568 80,568 - 79,593 976 0% 99% MARINA BAY PARKWAY FORCE MAIN RELOCATION 350,000 64,608 414,608 - 64,608 350,000 0% 16% PIPELINE REHAB & REPLACEMENT - 674,172 674,172 36,013 548,566 89,594 5% 87%
737
City of Richmond
FY2022-23 Variance Report
Period 9 - March 2023
Threshold 75%
Attachment 3
Capital Improvement Projects
Quarter 3 Report
NON-GENERAL FUND - PROJECT FUNDS
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FY2022-23
ADJUST
FY2022-23
REVISED
BUDGET
FY2022-23
Actual Thru
March 2023 ENCUMB
BALANCE
REMAINING
% Without
ENCUMB % USED
SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS 3,325,000 733,835 4,058,835 - 518,070 3,540,765 0% 13% SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS POINT REPAIR 475,000 212 475,212 15,364 459,848 - 3% 100% STORMWATER GRANT 1,598,844 (1,598,844) - - - - 0% 0%
SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISTION (SCADA) UPGRADES - 126,276 126,276 - 30,422 95,855 0% 24% WWTP SEISMIC RETROFITS 325,000 23,443 348,443 - 23,443 325,000 0% 7% WWTP SLUDGE THICKENER 630,061 516,379 1,146,440 331,910 113,366 701,165 29% 39% TOTAL - WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY WASTEWATER CIP 36,305,185 34,907,393 71,212,578 15,333,773 9,030,337 46,848,468 22% 34% 4005 - MARINA
AREA FM CAP 929,161 - 929,161 4,319 - 924,842 0% 0%
TOTAL - MARINA CIP 929,161 - 929,161 4,319 - 924,842 0% 0% 4006 - STORMWATER
FLOOD RISK REDUCTION - RHEEM CREEK - 1,598,844 1,598,844 - 300,500 1,298,344 0% 19% FULL TRASH CAPTURE FACILITIES - 3,270,000 3,270,000 180,718 3,046,347 42,934 6% 99% TOTAL - STORMWATER CIP - 4,868,844 4,868,844 180,718 3,346,847 1,341,278 4% 72% 4008 - KCRT
CIVIC CENTER TECH ENHANCE - - - 955 - (955) 100% 100%
ENGINEERING; (Microwave Transmission & Playback System) 120,000 - 120,000 11,673 6,286 102,041 10% 15% TOTAL - KCRT CIP 120,000 - 120,000 12,627 6,286 101,086 11% 16% 5003 - EQUIPMENT SERVICES CIP
FIRE VEHICLES 810,000 65,000 875,000 (177,230) 423 1,051,808 -20% -20% OTHER CITY VEHICLES 3,305,000 515,230 3,820,230 177,230 2,672,385 970,615 5% 75% POLICE VEHICLES 1,451,000 225,413 1,676,413 1,189 1,174,986 500,238 0% 70% OTHER CITYEQUIPMENT 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 0% 100% TOTAL - EQUIPMENT SERVICES CIP 5,666,000 805,644 6,471,644 1,189 3,947,794 2,522,661 0% 61% TOTAL - EXPENSES - ENTERPRISE AND OTHER OPERATING FUNDS 46,369,001 40,814,681 87,183,682 15,880,078 16,583,545 54,720,059 18% 37% GRAND TOTAL EXPENSES - ALL FUNDS 79,965,026 60,178,057 140,143,083 26,531,411 28,714,195 84,897,478 19% 39%
738
City of RichmondFY2022-23 Grant Variance ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023 Attachment # 4
Grants Report
Project Code Project Name Fund Type Start End Grant Source Grant Award Grant Match Actual Revenue
Thru March 2023
Actual Expenditure
Thru March 2023 Total Revenues Total Expenditures NET to Date Pending
Reimbursements
% of Award
Expenditures
AR231 Building Forward - New Library 1005 S 10/19/2022 3/31/2026 9,712,979.00 4,856,490.00 - - - - - 29A14 29A14 - LIBRARY/CENIC BROADBAND 1005 O 7/1/2017 6/30/2019 Califa Group - Donation 67,500.00 - - (65,656.39) 85,173.59 19,517.20 19,517.20 29CHS 29CHS - High School Diploma for Adults 1005 O 6/30/2021 Richmond Public Library Foundation 5,000.00 - 1,095.00 (7,450.00) 23,522.26 16,072.26 16,072.26 24G11 ACCESS FOR RICHMOND 1005 F/P 06/07/22 06/30/23 Federal Communications Commission 31,510.00 - 14,032.70 - 14,032.70 14,032.70 14,032.70 45% 29A45 29A45 - CLLS 1005 S 7/1/2020 6/30/2021 California State Library 96,544.00 - - (96,544.00) 107,572.85 11,028.85 11,028.85 24G08 Link + Service Via Innovative 1005 O 03/22/22 06/30/22 Pacific Library Partnership 7,402.00 - 7,402.00 - 7,402.00 7,402.00 7,402.00 100%29A41 29A41 - FFL 1005 S 7/1/2020 12/31/2021 CA State Library 36,000.00 - - (36,000.00) 43,391.82 7,391.82 7,391.82 29A42 BALIS Financial Support for Library 1005 O 02/03/22 07/30/22 Pacific Library Partnership 7,000.00 - 7,000.00 - 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 100% 29A40 29A40 - Family Literacy Program 2019-20 1005 S 9/4/2019 6/30/2020 CA Library Literacy and English Acquisition (CLLS) 40,000.00 - - (40,000.00) 46,698.67 6,698.67 6,698.67 24G05 CA LIBRARY & LITERACY & ENGL ACQUIS 1005 S 07/01/21 06/30/22 CA Library Literacy and English Acquisition (CLLS) - 36,000.00 6,283.06 (19,925.37) 26,208.43 6,283.06 6,283.06 73% 29A19 29A19 - LIBRARY/MISCELLANEOUS DONATIONS 1005 S - - (4,000.00) 10,115.05 6,115.05 6,115.05 29A05 29A05 - LIBRARY/PLP CLSA COMM'N & DELIVERY 1005 S 5/22/2015 State of CA - - (5,984.03) 11,816.91 5,832.88 5,832.88 29A21 29A21 - LIBRARY/CA LITERACY FY 2018 1005 - - (105,956.00) 111,365.16 5,409.16 5,409.16 29A07 29A07 - LIBRARY/LEAP-RUBICON $15,800. 1005 O 6/30/2016 Rubicon - - (12,110.71) 15,083.80 2,973.09 2,973.09 29A13 29A13 - LIBRARY/CALIFA $12,000 1005 - - (9,465.77) 12,038.79 2,573.02 2,573.02 29A08 29A08 - LIBRARY/CA LIB LITERCY SVC $127,107 1005 S 07/01/15 06/30/16 CA Library Literacy and English Acquisition (CLLS) - 127,107.00 1,399.51 (127,107.00) 128,920.50 1,813.50 1,813.50 101% 29A35 29A35 - CLLS Library Literacy 1005 - - (107,271.00) 108,480.75 1,209.75 1,209.75 29A16 29A16 - LIBRARY/WIOA Title II FY17 $47,520 1005 - - (50,131.00) 50,442.33 311.33 311.33 29A02 29A02 - LIB-2014 NAT'L LEADERSHIP $249,314 1005 - - (249,314.00) 249,543.80 229.80 229.80 29A15 29A15 - LIBRARY/CA Literacy FY17 $127,107 1005 - - (114,396.00) 114,597.51 201.51 201.51 29A26 29A26 - WIOA Title II 1005 - - (27,975.00) 28,176.00 201.00 201.00 25G08 CA Library Literacy & English Acqui 1005 S 07/01/21 06/30/22 California State Library 90,222.00 - 103.60 (90,222.00) 90,325.60 103.60 103.60 100% 24G03 24G03 - Workforce Innovation and Opportunit 1005 - - (44,884.00) 44,717.85 (166.15) 01B06 01B06 - STREET LIGHTING LSE/STREET LIGHT LS 1005 - - (7,800.00) 7,500.00 (300.00) 25G14 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 1005 F/P 12/12/22 06/30/23 California Department of Education 50,945.00 (12,736.00) 12,141.19 (12,736.00) 12,141.19 (594.81) (594.81) 24% 29A23 29A23 - WIOA TITLE II - FY 2018 1005 - - (39,552.00) 38,737.69 (814.31) 29A18 29A18 - LIBRARY/Mini Grant 2016 ($1K) 1005 - - (1,000.00) - (1,000.00) 29A24 29A24 - WIOA FY2018 1005 - - (53,379.00) 51,479.00 (1,900.00) 24G02 24G02 - LET'S READ/LEAMOS:DIVERSE BOOKS 1005 - - (5,000.00) - (5,000.00) 08R01 08R01 - PORT REHAB/PPMT STORM DRAIN,WATER Q 1005 - - (5,775.00) - (5,775.00) 24G07 CALIF LIBRARY LITERACY SERV - ESL 1005 S 05/11/22 06/30/25 California Library Literacy Services (CLLS) 21,700.00 - 12,401.83 (21,700.00) 12,401.83 (9,298.17) 57%24G16 BALIS Financial Support for Library 1005 O Pacific Library Partnership 9,333.00 (9,333.00) - (9,333.00) - (9,333.00) 0% 08Q01 08Q01 - PORT REHAB/PPMT DOCK REPAIR 1005 - - (10,500.00) - (10,500.00) 04E01 04E01 - POLICE FACILITIES/WCC FMILY JST CTR 1005 - - (24,666.00) 10,750.00 (13,916.00) 24G13 Family literacy Programming Svcs 1005 S California State Library 34,194.00 (34,194.00) 3,989.01 (34,194.00) 3,989.01 (30,204.99) 12%24G12 English as a Second Language 2 1005 S California State Library 54,300.00 (61,300.00) 4,295.28 (61,300.00) 4,295.28 (57,004.72) 8% 24G15 Adult Literacy Services 1005 S California State Library 1,054. (87,799.00) 00 13,889.31 (87,799.00) 13,889.31 (73,909.69) 1318% 24G09 Stronger Together New Bookmobile 1005 S 07/01/22 03/31/24 California State Library 250,000.00 69,100.00 (225,000.00) - (225,000.00) - (225,000.00) 0% Total Library Fund - Fund 1005 421,526.00 69,100.00 (430,362.00) 84,032.49 (1,814,126.27) 1,491,809.68 (322,316.59) 121,805.44 13003 National Opioids Settlement 1006 (177,877.94) 80,307.40 - (177,877.94) - (177,877.94) (177,877.94) 0% Subtotal - City Manager - Grants - 80,307.40 (177,877.94) - (177,877.94) - (177,877.94) (177,877.94) -
19G05 Edward Byrne Justice Grant 2019 1006 F 08/09/21 09/30/22 Contra Costa County 68,840.00 (47,124.86) - (49,189.86) 49,189.86 - - 71% 19G06 Edward Byrne Justice Grant 2020 1006 F 08/09/21 09/30/23 Contra Costa County 66,080.00 - - (1,982.00) 1,982.00 - - 3% 24118 Richmond Police Department Peer Support Enhancement 1006 F 09/01/19 08/31/21 US. Department of Justice 100,000.00 - - (85,000.00) 85,000.00 - - 85% 19G07 Selective Traffic Enforcement 1006 F 10/14/21 09/30/22 State of California 235,000.00 (32,059.30) 30,666.64 (167,709.78) 167,709.78 - - 71% 19G08 Selective Traffic Enforcement 1006 F 10/14/21 09/30/23 State of California 235,000.00 (30,458.75) 30,458.75 (30,458.75) 30,458.75 - - 13% Subtotal - Police - Grants - 704,920.00 (109,642.91) 61,125.39 (334,340.39) 334,340.39 - - 2BQ03 CALVIP 1006 O 10/01/20 12/31/23 Board of State and Community Corrections 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 (144,513.00) 198,692.47 (551,469.00) 828,294.33 276,825.33 276,825.33 55% 2CC01 East Bay Community Foundation 1006 O 05/01/20 02/28/21 East Bay Community Foundation 30,000.00 - 773.59 (30,000.00) 3,291.13 (26,708.87) (26,708.87) 11% 2CB01 ONS/Youth Reinvestment Grant 1006 O 07/01/19 02/28/23 Board of State and Community Corrections 333,333.00 250,000.00 (333,334.00) 361,392.52 (612,993.92) 676,350.34 63,356.42 63,356.42 203% Subtotal - ONS - Grants 1,750,000.00 1,863,333.00 (477,847.00) 560,858.58 (1,194,462.92) 1,507,935.80 313,472.88 313,472.88 23G08 CalRecycle Illegal Dumping Prevention 1006 S 07/22/22 06/30/24 State of California Department of Resources 400,360.00 - - - - - 0% 23028 Sihields-Reid Park Revitalization 1006 S 04/01/22 03/01/25 State Department for Parks and Recreation 8,000,000.00 - 29,101.70 - 29,101.70 29,101.70 29,101.70 23029 Dirt World Bike Park Revitalization 1006 S 04/01/22 03/01/25 State of California 1,170,000.00 - 36,950.00 - 36,950.00 36,950.00 36,950.00 3%23030 Richmond Communities Clean Colloboration 1006 O 05/15/22 12/31/24 California Department of Transportation 5,000,000.00 - 167.67 - 167.67 167.67 23007 MLK Park Turf Field 1006 O 07/01/20 06/30/30 Local Initiatives Support Corporation and Friends of Recreation - 250,000.00 - - 16,000.00 16,000.00 16,000.00 6% 23025 Parks Maintenance Equipment 1006 O 12/01/21 12/15/22 Hellman Foundation Grant 264,000.00 (206,341.00) - (206,341.00) - (206,341.00) (206,341.00) 0% Subtotal - Public Works - Grants - 15,084,360.00 (206,341.00) 66,219.37 (206,341.00) 82,219.37 (124,121.63) (124,289.30) 20F13 FY17-18 North Richmond Mitigation Fee-Beautification 1006 O 04/26/18 11/26/19 Community Housing Development Corp 15,600.00 - 486.45 (12,977.45) 13,463.90 486.45 486.45 86% 25G07 MLK TURF REPLACEMENT PROJECT 1006 O 09/20/21 06/30/22 Contra Costa County - CBDG 250,000.00 - 250,000.00 - 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 100% 25G11 National Recreation Grant - Food Fit Fun 1006 05/17/22 07/01/23 National Recreation and Park Association 90,000.00 (85,000.00) - (85,000.00) - (85,000.00) (85,000.00) 0% 25G10 Nevin and Shields Reid Resilience 1006 05/17/22 07/01/23 Pacific Gas and Electric 100,000.00 - - - - - - 0% 25G13 Sisters on the Links Golf 02/28/22 09/30/22 Sistas on the Links 3,500.00 (11,000.00) - (11,000.00) - (11,000.00) 0% 25G09 PGE grant funded Cooling Centers 1006 O 05/17/22 07/01/23 Pacific Gas and Electric 100,000.00 - 135.00 - 135.00 135.00 135.00 0% Subtotal - Community Services - Grants - 559,100.00 (96,000.00) 250,621.45 (108,977.45) 263,598.90 154,621.45 165,621.45 739 City of RichmondFY2022-23 Grant Variance ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023 Attachment # 4
Grants Report
Project Code Project Name Fund Type Start End Grant Source Grant Award Grant Match Actual Revenue
Thru March 2023
Actual Expenditure
Thru March 2023 Total Revenues Total Expenditures NET to Date Pending
Reimbursements
% of Award
Expenditures
36G03 CA Energy Com Phase II Advance 1006 S 03/02/21 12/30/21 California Energy Commission 345,715.00 - - - 38,357.18 38,357.18 38,357.18 11% 13G01 CALRECYCLE BEV CONTAINER PYMT 1006 S 04/26/22 03/01/24 State of California Department of Resources 27,482.00 - - - - - - 0%36G02 CALRECYCLE BEV CONTAINER PYMT PRGM 1006 S 10/08/21 03/01/23 State of California Department of Resources 27,535.00 - - (27,535.00) 27,535.00 - - 100%36G08 CALRECYCLE SB 1383 LOCAL ASSISTANCE 1006 S 06/07/22 06/07/24 State of California Department of Resources 156,235.00 - - (9,145.44) 9,145.44 - - 6%36G01 Cannabis Equity Assessment 1006 S 08/09/21 08/09/21 Cal Governor's Office of Business 75,000.00 - - (75,000.00) 75,000.00 - - 100%36G07 CANABIS EQUITY PROGRAM 1006 O 05/19/22 05/19/25 Agency Grant CEG 1,319,360.00 - - - - - - 0% 2AA14 CalRecycle Food Waste - - (278,611.69) 278,613.62 1.93 1.93 23021 Terminal 4 Wharf Removal 1006 S 12/02/21 12/02/31 California State Coastal Conservancy 4,150,000.00 (243,129.90) 309,771.11 (474,057.90) 386,113.38 (87,944.52) (87,944.52) 9% Subtotal - Economic Development - Grants - 6,101,327.00 (243,129.90) 309,771.11 (864,350.03) 814,764.62 (49,585.41) (49,585.41) 2AA10 Integrated and Equitable Multimod Mob 1006 S 06/08/16 03/13/17 Department of Transportation 259,730.00 - - (207,753.00) 203,684.65 (4,068.35)2AA12 2 Car Charging Stations 1006 O 07/25/16 01/24/17 Regional Governemtn Bay Area Air Quality Management District - 47,511.00 - (40,384.00) 47,511.00 7,127.00 7,127.00 2AA18 Bike Share Capital Program 1006 O 07/01/18 06/30/20 Metropolitan Transportation Commission 1,024,000.00 (20.40) - (1,024,020.40) 920,000.00 (104,020.40) (104,020.40) 90% 38G01 CEC Phase II EV Ready 1006 S 05/18/21 03/01/24 California Energy Commission 855,380.00 - 128,319.00 (38,595.00) 267,601.78 229,006.78 229,006.78 31% 38G02 MTC Nystrom Village Hub 1006 S 03/15/18 12/31/24 (MTC) Metropolitan Transportation Commission - Nystrom Village Hub - 347,851.00 94,835.00 - 97,335.00 97,335.00 97,335.00 28% 38G03 On Demand Shuttle 1006 S 08/24/21 08/24/26 CAL START 1,000,000.0 (238,018.30) 518,248.25 0 (238,018.30) 658,694.51 420,676.21 420,676.21 66% 38G05 Plug in America 1006 (3,000.00) 3,000.00 - (3,000.00) - (3,000.00) (3,000.00) 0% 2AA23 Transportation Fund for Clean Air 1006 O 12/01/20 12/01/23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 55,000.00 18,500.00 - - - 32,233.02 32,233.02 32,233.02 59% Subtotal - Transportation - Grants 18,500.00 3,285,231.00 (241,038.70) 741,402.25 (1,551,770.70) 2,227,059.96 675,289.26 679,357.61 Total Outside Funded Grants - Fund 1006 27,678,578.40 1,768,500.00 (1,551,877.45) 1,989,998.15 (4,438,120.43) 5,229,919.04 791,798.61 806,699.29 2A1JB CHEVRON- PD-EXPLORER 1017 09/23/15 09/23/15 Chevron ECIA 20,000 - .00 - (9,856.41) 74,044.41 370% 2A112 CHEVRON/ ONS-OPERATION PEACEMAKER 06/30/16 06/30/17 Chevron ECIA 58,000.00 - - - 290,000.00 500% 2A1AA CHEVRON/CLIMATE ACTION PLAN ($1m) 1017 05/07/15 05/07/25 Chevron ECIA 1,000,000.00 - 42,395.78 (387,224.72) 792,347.11 79% 2A111 CHEVRON/Competitive Grant Prog 1017 07/01/16 06/30/17 Chevron ECIA 650,000.00 (3,239.74) 27,386.39 (39,739.74) 3,214,009.38 494% 2A1EC CHEVRON/ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROG 1017 06/11/15 06/11/15 Chevron ECIA - 210,657.68 (111,454.63) 3,471,068.60 0% 2A101 CHEVRON/FIRE/DIESEL SYSTEM 1017 04/29/16 04/29/16 Chevron ECIA - - - 283,115.43 0% 2A102 CHEVRON/FIRE/EMERGENCY NOTIFICATN 1017 04/29/16 04/29/16 Chevron ECIA 8,960.00 - - - 83,859.90 936% 2A1HA CHEVRON/SHOLARSHIP ($35M) 06/11/15 06/11/24 Chevron ECIA 35,00 - 0,000.00 - - 17,700,000.00 51% 2A109 CHEVRON/Transp Mobility Mstr Plan 1017 07/01/16 06/30/17 Chevron ECIA 3,000,000.00 - - (50,000.00) 3,217,553.30 107% 2A1GA CHEVRON/URBAN FORESTRY ($2m) 1017 06/11/15 06/11/15 Chevron ECIA 88,833.00 - 111,865.25 (95,546.99) 1,089,046.40 1226% 2A1FA CHEVRON-FREE INTERNET ACCESS 1017 05/27/15 05/27/18 Chevron ECIA 500,000.00 - - (44,876.37) 542,130.56 108% 2A1JE CHEVRON-PD-REPLACEMENT CCTV CAMERA 1017 09/23/17 09/23/25 Chevron ECIA 32,775.00 - - - - 0% 2A1JR ECIA-Car Share 1017 Chevron ECIA (46,584.56) - (46,584.56) - 0% 2A1JK Electric Vehicle Charging 1017 Chevron ECIA - 7,745.35 (14,000.00) 215,514.58 0% 2AA23 Transportation Fund for Clean Air 1017 12/01/20 12/01/23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 55,500.00 18,500.00 - 1,674.56 - 1,674.56 3% 29113 Yellow Brick Road 1017 06/01/17 06/30/20 FHA-Thru CA- Department of Transportation - 146,719.80 - 1,975,886.52 0% Total ECIA Grants - Fund 1017 18,500.00 40,414,068.00 - - 35001 RENT PRGRAM ERAP OUTREACH 1018 11/18/21 11/18/22 10,000.00 (10,000.00) - (10,000.00) - 0% Total Rent Program - Grants - Fund 1018 - 10,000.00 (10,000.00) - - - (10,000.00) - 16G06 Certified Local Government (CLG) Gr 1050 10/05/21 09/30/22 State Department of Parks & Recreation 25,000.00 (25,000.00) 7,500.00 (25,000.00) 15,000.00 (10,000.00) - 60%16G05 Homebase/Tides Center for Homeless 1050 01/01/22 12/31/27 Tides 50,000.00 - 50,000.00 - 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 100% 16G03 Homeless Emergency Aid Prog. (HEAP) 1050 06/30/20 06/30/21 Contra Costa County 320,000.00 - 350.35 (320,000.00) 258,218.31 (61,781.69) - 81% 16G07 Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEA 1050 02/02/22 03/31/25 State of California Consumer Services & Housing Agency (427,364.41) 731,936.88 4,881,247.00 (434,119.41) 738,691.88 304,572.47 304,572.47 15%16G02 Local Early Action Planning 1050 05/29/20 06/30/24 LEAP 500,00 (250,206.51) 178,55 0.00 9.22 (250,206.51) 442,079.53 191,873.02 455,393.33 88% 2DM01 NYSTROM VILLIAGE MASTER PLAN 1050 07/02/20 07/02/22 MTC 30,000. - 00 - (30,000.00) - (30,000.00) - 0% SB200 SB2 Planning Grants - State of CA Dept of Housing & Community 1050 03/10/20 06/30/22 State of California 310,000.00 - 7,209.50 (233,259.63) 306,261.93 73,002.30 138,795.10 99% Total Planning & Building - Grants - Fund 1050 - 6,116,247.00 948,760.90 517,666.10 29105 37th Street Improvement 1054 07/01/15 06/30/23 CA Department of Transportation 286,600.00 (15,484.51) - (225,883.74) 286,600.00 60,716.26 60,716.26 100% 23G06 ATP Quick Build Cycle Track-Cutting Hoffman 1054 02/25/21 02/25/25 CA Transportation Commission 725,000.00 - 10,000.00 - 281,070.57 281,070.57 281,070.57 39% 23G07 ATP Quick Build Cycle Track-Harbour Way 1054 07/01/20 04/14/29 Metropolitan Transmission Commission (MTC) 325,000.00 (169,385.69) 29,579.30 (284,773.60) 320,876.15 36,102.55 36,102.55 99% 23006 Boorman Park Revitalization 1054 06/10/20 06/30/48 CA-Department of Parks and Recreation-Statew - 4,165,000.00 208,337.79 - 373,618.79 373,618.79 373,618.79 9% 23G02 Bridge Preventive Maintenance 1054 11/20/19 06/30/25 CA Department of Transportation 1,903,395.00 246,605.00 - 6,245.00 (6,989.45) 26,482.60 19,493.15 19,493.15 1% 29122 Carlson Crosstown Connections 1054 01/23/19 01/30/22 Metropolitan Transmission Commission (MTC) 500,000.00 - 178,811.00 - 466,715.30 466,715.30 466,715.30 93% 23G03 Castro Ranch Road 1054 02/23/21 06/30/25 CA Department of Transportation 2,205,000.00 - (1,342,826.11) 1,727,664.61 384,838.50 384,838.50 78% 29101 CIP.29-Goodrick Ave Bay Trail Plan 1054 05/15/15 05/15/15 Measure J 63,000.00 7,000.00 - - (63,000.00) 54,664.51 (8,335.49) (8,335.49) 29103 CIP/Harbor Way Improvement 1054 07/01/15 06/30/20 MTC -TDA, article 3 82,500.00 216,000.00 (82,500.00) - (97,188.22) 97,188.22 - - 118% 29108 CIP/PLUNGE BAY TRAIL$85,211.96-2grt 1054 06/02/15 06/02/15 San Francisco Bay Trail 92,862.96 - - (98,541.76) 85,211.96 (13,329.80) (13,329.80)29125 Greening the Yellow Brick Road 1054 12/13/19 03/01/25 California Natural Resources Agency 4,100,000.00 - 456,474.31 (318,862.82) 2,181,829.95 1,862,967.13 1,862,967.13 53% 23G04 Greenway Gap Connectivity Study 1054 02/24/21 02/24/25 Caltrans 280,208.00 36,304.00 (111,774.43) 133,558.95 (111,774.43) 263,840.88 152,066.45 152,066.45 94% 23023 Greenway Rehabilitation & Bike Education 1054 Metropolitan Transmission Commission (MTC) 100,000.00 - - - - - - 0% 23004 Harbour 8 Park Expansion 1054 07/01/18 06/30/48 CA-Department of Parks and Recreation-Statew (369,279.00) 398,430.94 8,500,000.00 (2,157,753.00) 2,600,874.81 443,121.81 443,121.81 31% 740
City of RichmondFY2022-23 Grant Variance ReportPeriod 9 - March 2023 Attachment # 4
Grants Report
Project Code Project Name Fund Type Start End Grant Source Grant Award Grant Match Actual Revenue
Thru March 2023
Actual Expenditure
Thru March 2023 Total Revenues Total Expenditures NET to Date Pending
Reimbursements
% of Award
Expenditures
23022 Harbour Way and Wright Avenue Section 130 1054 12/02/21 12/02/31 Federal Highway Administration through Caltra 1,284,000.00 1,200,000.00 - - (756.83) 1,142.60 385.77 385.77 0% 23G05 Local Roadway Safety Plan 1054 07/01/20 06/30/24 CA Department of Transportation 72,000.00 8,000.00 - - - 72,000.00 72,000.00 72,000.00 100% 29119 Rich-SR Bridge Bicycle Ped. Network 1054 01/03/19 09/30/19 Metropolitan Transmission Commission (MTC) 750,000.00 - - (609,668.49) 750,000.00 140,331.51 140,331.51 100%29113 Yellow Brick Road 1054 06/01/17 06/30/24 FHA-Thru CA- Department of Transportation 6,209,000.00 (254,850.36) 264,908.23 (4,564,338.36) 6,065,425.92 1,501,087.56 1,501,087.56 98% Total Public Works Engineering - Grants - Fund 1054 1,797,909.00 31,559,565.96 (1,003,273.99) 1,686,345.52 (9,882,356.81) 15,655,206.87 5,772,850.06 5,772,850.06 03D06 CDBG Grant - Public Facility ADA Rehabilitation - Booker T. Anderson (BTA) 1201 05/28/14 N/A 385,372.00 - 2,569.13 (58,306.23) 60,875.36 2,569.13 2,569.13 16% 03F06 CDBG Grant - Public Facility ADA Rehabilitation - Parchester Center 1201 05/28/14 N/A 650,000.00 - 172,748.27 (29,725.98) 571,160.04 541,434.06 910,119.85 88% Total CDBG - Grants - Fund 1201 - 650,000.00 - 172,748.27 (29,725.98) 571,160.04 541,434.06 910,119.85 22034 Acoe K-12 Strong Workface 1205 03/01/21 06/30/22 State California Department of Education 47,500.00 - - - 38,693.36 38,693.36 77,386.72 81% 22903 CAREER DISLOCATED WORKER GRANT 2021 1205 12/07/21 12/07/24 National Dislocated Worker 893,164.00 (314,040.52) 253,860.24 (314,040.52) 422,062.29 108,021.77 276,223.82 47% 42818 CHEVRON STAGE PROJECT 1205 06/22/13 06/30/14 Chevron 100,000.00 (20,000.00) 5,931.20 (197,000.00) 133,993.19 (63,006.81) - 134% 27G01 COMM CHALLENGE EV READINESS 1205 09/20/21 05/30/24 California Energy Commission (CEC) 154,949.00 (64,084.00) 64,084.00 (64,084.00) 64,084.00 - - 41% 22194 COVID-19 ER NDWG 1205 04/01/20 03/31/22 US. Department of Labor 215,000.00 - - (197,393.86) 197,393.86 - - 92% 22035 Dislocated Youth Worker 1205 06/01/21 11/30/22 US. Department of Labor 250,000.00 (73,287.06) 139,123.25 (154,732.89) 226,227.22 71,494.33 77,152.47 90% 22292 E&T/Rapid Response Layoff Aversion 1205 02/25/15 02/25/15 CA EDD 35,000.00 (35,867.00) 42,518.03 (228,456.00) 246,306.89 17,850.89 29,050.75 704% 22116 East Bay ACES 1205 02/01/18 07/31/19 US. Department of Labor 50 - ,000.00 - (50,000.00) - (50,000.00) - 0% 22126 English Language Learners 1205 06/01/21 12/31/22 California EDD 274,300.00 (61,579.47) 52,034.61 (142,928.63) 160,065.09 17,136.46 43,817.78 58% 22417 English Language Learners 1205 07/01/19 12/31/20 California EDD 300,000.00 - 97.94 (300,000.00) 302,940.22 2,940.22 5,782.50 101% 22944 EPA Workforce 2019 1205 10/25/19 10/25/21 US Environmental Protection Agency 200,000.00 (5.00) - (155,769.00) 162,741.63 6,972.63 13,950.26 81% 22715 EPT Grant - Employment Training Panel 1205 12/31/14 12/31/17 Employment & Training Panel 13-0179 2,061.00 - 2,390.53 (420,515.86) 234,978.60 (185,537.26) - 11401%22856 Prison to Employment Planning 1205 03/25/19 03/31/21 CA-Workforce Development Board 467,225.00 - - (397,025.05) 421,417.00 24,391.95 48,783.90 90%22585 SB1 High Road Constr Careers 1205 09/01/20 08/31/22 California Transportation Commission 364,500.00 (149,580.11) 67,790.13 (282,929.49) 335,577.95 52,648.46 187,086.90 92% 22024 STEPS 2021 1205 05/22/21 04/30/22 CA Employment Training Panel (30,913.76) 87, 250,000.00 860.32 (111,980.83) 241,253.82 129,272.99 201,599.42 97% 22901 WIA Adult 1205 07/01/16 06/30/18 US. Department of Labor 301,4 (48,218.93) 106,5 76.00 64.74 (5,988,864.79) 6,097,520.93 108,656.14 158,966.47 2023% 22902 WIA Dislocated Worker 1205 07/01/16 06/30/18 US. Department of Labor 221,188.00 (157,038.30) 102,499.67 (4,730,475.36) 4,363,978.33 (366,497.03) - 1973% 22906 WIA Rapid Response 1205 07/01/13 06/30/15 US. Department of Labor 99,764.00 (118,249.34) 110,220.74 (1,677,818.17) 1,669,789.57 (8,028.60) - 1674% 22923 WIA Youth 1205 07/01/12 06/30/13 US. Department of Labor 301,20 (176,664.12) 161,57 5.00 3.79 (5,904,814.82) 6,091,852.51 187,037.69 389,165.71 2022% 22080 WIOA High Performing Boards 1205 12/01/16 06/30/17 US. Department of Labor 54,839.00 - - (3,846.16) 58,091.38 54,245.22 108,490.44 106% 22118 Workforce Accelerator 8.0 1205 04/01/20 09/30/21 US. Department of Labor 150,000.00 - - (159,995.22) 159,995.22 - - 107% 42116 Y.H. SODA FOUNDATION R.B. 1205 02/05/13 02/05/13 412,000.00 - 22,669.00 (412,000.00) 325,455.55 (86,544.45) - 79% 22128 YOUTHBUILD 2020 DOL 1205 01/01/20 03/30/23 US. Department of Labor 1,080,000.00 (511,055.29) 378,965.97 (891,480.13) 1,018,888.62 127,408.49 386,906.30 94% Total Employment & Training - Grants - Fund 1205 - 6,224,171.00 (1,760,582.90) 1,598,184.16 (22,786,150.78) 22,973,307.23 187,156.45 2,004,363.44 29120 13th Street Complete Street 2002 07/01/19 06/30/23 Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) 3,669,000.00 - 209,787.63 - 636,068.24 636,068.24 1,062,348.85 17% 29101 CIP.29-Goodrick Ave Bay Trail Plan 2002 05/15/15 05/15/15 Measure J 894,095.00 - - (894,094.61) 1,079,885.95 185,791.34 371,582.68 121% 29110 I-80 Interchange Phase II 2002 04/28/16 10/18/19 Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) 2,970,000.00 - 183,501.70 (1,009,241.64) 1,641,127.81 631,886.17 1,080,270.64 55% Total Measure J - Grants - Fund 2002 - 7,533,095.00 - 393,289.33 (1,903,336.25) 3,357,082.00 1,453,745.75 2,514,202.17 07A73 EPA Brownfield Assessment Grant 2125 09/01/16 08/31/19 USA. Environmental Protection Agency 400,000.00 (6,866.50) 60,994.71 (406,835.98) 460,103.39 53,267.41 52,406.61 115% Total Housing Iron Triangle - Grants - Fund 2125 - 400,000.00 (6,866.50) 60,994.71 (406,835.98) 460,103.39 53,267.41 52,406.61 22A02 FLOOD RISK REDUCTION-RHEEM CREEK 4006 06/06/22 06/06/22 California Natural Resources Agency - - 0% 22A01 Full Trash Capture Device-Caltrans Cooperative Agreement 4006 04/07/17 04/07/20 CA-Caltrans 5,499,569.00 - 225,804.54 (3,544,819.73) 3,792,638.89 247,819.16 269,833.78 69% Total Stormwater - Grants - Fund 4006 - 5,499,569.00 - 225,804.54 (3,544,819.73) 3,792,638.89 247,819.16 269,833.78 Non-Departmental -
EOP01 EMERGENCY OP/COVID-19 - CARES ACT 1304 03/04/20 03/04/25 (1,058.00) 7,891.50 (1,818,960.00) 1,826,851.50 7,891.50 8,949.50 0% EOP02 EMERGENCY OP/COVID-19 - FEMA 1304 03/04/20 03/04/25 - - - 70,996.20 70,996.20 141,992.40 0%EOP03 EMERGENCY OP/COVID-19 - COR 1304 - 2,860.34 (167,632.95) 170,493.29 2,860.34 2,860.34 0% F6049 Point Molate Remediation-Fund 6049 6049 US Navy-Point Molate - 28,500,000.00 - (28,769,005.81) 27,477,875.79 (1,291,130.02) - 96% Total Non-Departmental - 28,500,000.00 (1,058.00) 10,751.84 (30,755,598.76) 29,546,216.78 (1,209,381.98) 153,802.24 AR235 ARPA Community Beautification 1306 07/01/21 12/31/24 ARPA 1,000 - ,000.00 - - - 0% AR236 ARPA Community Needs Assessment 1306 07/01/21 12/31/24 ARPA 300 - ,000.00 137,327.91 - 223,442.79 223,442.79 309,557.67 74% AR237 ARPA Environmental Planning Consult 1306 07/01/21 12/31/24 ARPA 300,000.00 - 117,095.66 - 120,765.66 120,765.66 124,435.66 40% AR231 ARPA Main Library HVAC 1306 07/01/21 12/31/24 ARPA 500,000.00 - - - - - - 0% AR241 ARPA MLK Turf Field 1306 07/01/21 12/31/24 ARPA 150,000.00 - 150,000.00 - 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 100% AR232 ARPA Nevin Center HVAC 1306 07/01/21 12/31/24 ARPA 500,000.00 - - - 10,250.00 10,250.00 20,500.00 2% AR240 ARPA North Richmond Pump Station 1306 07/01/21 12/31/24 ARPA 1, - 1,4 800,000.00 40,796.90 - 1,440,796.90 1,440,796.90 1,440,796.90 80% AR238 ARPA Rapid Response 1306 07/01/21 12/31/24 ARPA 1,000,000.00 - (57,094.09) - 300,000.00 300,000.00 657,094.09 30%AR233 ARPA Recreation Center HVAC 1306 07/01/21 12/31/24 ARPA 500,000 - .00 - - 25,025.00 25,025.00 50,050.00 5% AR234 ARPA Richmond Museum HVAC 1306 07/01/21 12/31/24 ARPA 500,000.0 - 0 - - - - - 0% Total ARPA - 6,550,000.00 - 1,788,126.38 - 2,270,280.35 2,270,280.35 2,752,434.32 GRAND TOTAL 5,491,609.00 190,349,537.76 (4,764,020.84) 8,010,275.39 (75,561,070.99) 85,347,724.27 10,294,319.38 16,307,278.10 741
Attachment 5 - American Rescue Plan Act Update
Federal Grant
TOTAL $ 27,740,723
BUDGET ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCES REMAINING DEPARTMENT STATUS UPDATE
NEVIN COMMUNITY CENTER - HEATING, VENTILIATION,
AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) IMPROVEMENTS
$ 10,250 500,000 $ 39,750 $ $ Public Works In progress - Contract with Oak 450,000 ley & Oakley for HVAC design work
RECREATION CENTER ADMINISTRATION - HVAC
IMPROVEMENTS
$ 25,025 500,000 $ 23,975 $ $ Public Works In progress - Contract with Oak 451,000 ley & Oakley for HVAC design work
RICHMOND MUSEUM - HVAC IMPROVEMENTS $ - 500,000 $ 32,600 $ $ Public Works In progress - Contract with Oak 467,400 ley & Oakley for HVAC design work
COMMUNITY BEAUTIFACTION $ - 1,000,000 $ - $ 1, $ Public Works Not started - Proposed project wil 000,000 l support the completion of the 13th Street Project and will leverage grant funds received by One Bay Area Grant.
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT $ 250,000 $ 11,840 223,443 $ 14,717 $ Community Services In progress - The City hired HR&A Consulting to conduct a Community Needs Assessment and Strategic Invest Plan to help inform future ARPA funding decisions. HR&A completed both documents and will present findings to City Council in May 2023.
BLUE/GREEN NEW DEAL & JUST TRANSITION $ 300,000 $ 52,226 151,444 $ 96,330 $ Economic Development In progress - On July 6, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 88-21 to support the process of developing a Richmond GreenBlue New Deal Plan and Just Transition framework to 21st Century jobs. Appraccel, LLC is leading this work. The Community Outreach and Engagement process is wrapping up in May with community workshops on May 20 and 24, 2023. The Community Profile/Economic Insights has been drafted. The Safe Return workshop report has been draft and currently under review. The Gap Analysis is wrapping up.
RICHMOND RAPID RESPONSE FUND (DIRECT
DISBURSEMENT, RENT RELIEF & GUARANTEED INCOME)
$ 1,000,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ Community Development In progress - The City 300,000 contracted with Ed Fund West (serving as a fiscal sponsor for the Richmond Rapid response Fund) to provide direct disbursements and rent relief to those negatively impacted by COVID, and design and implement a Guaranteed Income pilot program for Richmond. Thus far, $300,000 has been spent to support 25 individuals with direct disbursements, 59
individuals/families via rent relief, and immense research regarding the GI project. City Council initially received a written report on April 4, 2023.
RECOVERY OF LOST REVENUE (FY2020-21) APPLIED TO
BALANCE FY2021-22 GF BUDGET*
$ - 4,000,000 $ - $ 4, $ Finance 000,000 This funding was "held" during the FY 2021-22 budget process in case there was a budget shortfall. The FY 21-22 budget ended with a surplus and these funds were not utilized. These funds are available for City Council to allocate for other projects.
NORTH RICHMOND PUMP STATION $ 1,800,000 $ 1,440,797 $ - 359,203 $ Public Works - Waste Water Recovery
Completed - The North Richmond Pump Station project was completed in partnership with Contra Costa County.
MLK PARK TURF FIELD $ 150,000 $ - 150,000 $ - $ Public Works & Community Services
Completed - The MLK Jr Turf Field upgrade project was
completed. Community Development Block Grant funds were also used to upgrade this community asset.
UNHOUSED FLEX FUNDS $ 50,000 $ - - $ 50,000 $ Community Development Completed - The flex funds were provided to individuals living at Rydin Road to assist with their transition after the sunset of the Rydin Road encampment. The funds need to be transferred so that the expenditures hit the correct ARPA account.
LIBRARY INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT MATCH 3,656,490 $ - $ 15,000 $ $ Public Works & 3,641,490 Community Services
In progress - The City received a $9.8 million State Library grant to renovate the Richmond Main Library. A 50% grant match was required and ARPA funds helped cover that cost. Engineers from Public Works and Library staff are working collaboratively to start the project by first developing a Request for Proposals for a design team. Initial funds have been encumbered to support preliminary planning work.
MAIN LIBRARY - HVAC IMPROVEMENTS (TO BE USED AS
PART OF LIBRARY INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT MATCH)
$ 500,000 $ 48,000 - $ $ Public Works & 452,000
Community Services
In progress - This amount was allocated to upgrade the library's HVAC system pre-infrastructure grant award. City staff is using these funds as part of the 50% match requirement. Funds were initially encumbered to support HVAC design work.
NEVIN PLAZA HOUSING PROJECT 1,750,000 $ $ - 1,750,000 $ - $ Economic Development - Richmond Housing
Authority
Completed - On December 6, 2022, City Council approved this allocation to help close the funding gap for the Nevin Housing Project. Nevin Plaza is a two-phase project,
consisting of the renovation of the existing structure (Phase I), and the construction of a new building providing new affordable housing to low-income seniors and those with special needs (Phase II). A kick-off celebration will be held on Friday, May 19, 2023 at 11:00am at Nevin Plaza.
NOTE: This is a loan for the Nevin Housing Project
Total - Council-Approved APRA 15,956,490 $ 4,050,959 $ 982,595 $ 10,922,937 $ REMAINING ARPA ALLOCATION* 11,784,233 $
* Note: This amount does not include the $4 million that was "held" for use in the FY 2021-22 budget.
EXPENDITURE
REVENUE
CITY OF RICHMOND AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT BUDGET Update through May 10, 2023 742
DRAFT
.
Richmond, CA | Community Needs Assessment
Using the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
to Meet our Highest Needs
Image Source: Balazs Gardi/The Guardian
O C T O B E R 2 0 2 2
DRAFT 743
DRAFT 2| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Table of Contents
Introduction3
Impacted Populations 10
Engagement Process 23
Community Needs 33
Next Steps 49
744
DRAFT
3| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment
INTRODUCTION
01 Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment
Image Source: Balazs Gardi/The Guardian DRAFT 745
DRAFT
4| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment This draft Community Needs Assessment provides a summary of work completed to date to develop Richmond’s ARPA Strategic Investment Plan.
INTRODUCTION
LISTENING TOUR
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT APRIL JUNE
AUGUSTNOVEMBER
DEVELOP
RECOMMENDATIONS
ARPA INVESTMENT PLAN
The City of Richmond hired a team including HR&A
Advisors and Contigo Partners to develop a Community
Needs Assessment to shape the City’s COVID-19 recovery
efforts. The Community Needs Assessment provides a
summary of the findings of an inclusive community
listening tour and additional needs analysis. It will inform the development of the ARPA Strategic Investment Plan.
This draft briefing book provides a visual summary of
work completed and the findings of the Community
Needs Assessment. It provides information including:
• An overview of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
• A description of the Strategic Investment Planning
process and of engagement activities undertaken in
the community listening tour
• A description of the communities in Richmond that
have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19
• An overview of cross-cutting themes that emerged
from the listening tour and additional analysis and
which will underpin recommended uses of ARPA funds
• A summary of the next steps for this project.
746
DRAFT
5| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment The Community Needs Assessment will inform the City’s use of its ARPA funds to support recovery from the impacts of COVID-19.
INTRODUCTION
Through the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the federal government provided state, tribal and local governments with much needed assistance to help offset the negative impacts of COVID-19. As part of the $1.9 trillion ARPA relief package, the City of Richmond received an allocation of $27.7 million.
The City of Richmond would like to understand how COVID-19 has impacted Richmond businesses and residents and work with the community to identify priorities for the allocation of its ARPA funds. HR&A Advisors and Contigo Partners conducted a Community Needs Assessment, including a community listening tour, to help the City better understand the impacts of COVID-19 and remaining recovery needs. The goal for the community listening tour was to assess community needs and priorities for the use of ARPA funds by facilitating an inclusive and equitable process, reaching a representative range of Richmond residents, businesses, and other stakeholders, including new voices, and empowering community members by providing opportunities for them to share their experiences and perspectives about community needs.
The Community Needs Assessment will inform the development of a plan for the strategic investment of ARPA funds in Richmond, in accordance with ARPA requirements.
SUITABLE USES OF
ARPA FUNDS
COMMUNITY NEEDS
AND PRIORITIES
Identify
alignment
747
DRAFT
6| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment The American Rescue Plan Act provides federal funding to cities and counties to support COVID-19 recovery efforts.
INTRODUCTION
The American Rescue Plan Act, which was passed in March 2021, provides Federal funding for cities and states address COVID-19 recovery needs, with a focus on supporting the development of strong and equitable communities.
ARPA funds must be obligated by December 31, 2024, and must be expended by December 31, 2026.
While not an explicit requirement of the program, ARPA is a one-time source of funding, and therefore the most suitable uses of ARPA funds will be investment in projects or programs that do not require ongoing funding.
ARPA legislation outlines four broad categories of eligible uses for ARPA funds:
REPLACING LOST PUBLIC SECTOR REVENUE
RESPONDING TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF COVID-19
PROVIDING PREMIUM PAY FOR ESSENTIAL WORKERS
MAKING INVESTMENTS IN WATER, SEWER, AND BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE 748
DRAFT
7| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment ARPA legislation outlines four broad categories of eligible uses for ARPA funds.
INTRODUCTION
Responding to public health and economic impacts of COVID-19 | This can be a program or service related to identified impacts and designed to benefit impacted groups. Subcategories include:
• Public health, including COVID-19 mitigation and prevention, assistance with medical expenses, behavioral and mental health treatment, and preventing or responding to violence.
• Assistance to households, including food assistance, emergency housing, internet access or digital literacy, burials, home repair or weatherization, paid leave, workforce development services, financial services, affordable housing development, education, childcare, and direct cash assistance.
• Assistance to small businesses, including loans, grants, and technical assistance and other services. • Assistance to nonprofits, including loans, grants, or technical assistance and other services. • Aid to impacted industries, including financial support for payroll, and support for the maintenance and operations of existing facilities, technical assistance or other services, and COVID-19 mitigation or prevention. • Public sector capacity, including increased capacity for public safety, public health, and human services staff; rehiring of public sector staff or providing other staff retention; and effective service delivery including program evaluation, community outreach, investments in technology, and costs related to COVID-19 response. • Assistance to disproportionately impacted households, businesses, and communities, such as services to address health disparities, vouchers to help households relocate to neighborhoods with higher economic opportunity, investments in neighborhoods to promote improved health outcomes, remediation and removal of hazardous materials, improvements to vacant and abandoned properties, services or investments to address educational disparities, support for start-ups or expanding small businesses, and funding for rehabilitation or improvements to commercial properties.
Please visit the Department of the Treasury’s page for more information on Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds 749 DRAFT
8| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment The Final Rule from the Department of the Treasury outlines four broad categories of eligible uses for ARPA funds.
INTRODUCTION
Replacing lost public sector revenue | To assist cities, the federal government allowed cities to take a maximum allowance of up to $10 million, allowing recipients to select between a standard amount of revenue loss or calculate revenue loss using the Treasury’s formula, which compares actual revenue to a counterfactual trend. Funds can be used for any typical government services, including general administrative staff, services, and facilities, public safety services, road maintenance, infrastructure, and environmental remediation. The City of Richmond elected to calculate its revenue loss based on the Treasury formula and saw a 12.4% reduction in revenue, or $34.9K, which is otherwise greater than the City’s allocation.
Premium pay for eligible workers | Cities can provide premium pay up to $13 per hour for eligible workers performing essential work, including:
• Health care, public health, mental health, social services, family or childcare, emergency response providers, medical testing, pharmacy, and other health and social services
• Grocery stores, restaurants, food production, and delivery • Sanitation, maintenance, laundry, elections, and other critical services • Biomedical research
• Transportation and warehousing
• Hotel and commercial lodging facilities used for COVID-19 mitigation and containment Investments in Water, Sewer, and Broadband Infrastructure | Cities can make investments to improve specific categories of infrastructure, including broadband, drinking water systems, and wastewater and sewer systems. This helps address the consequences of deferred maintenance in drinking water systems, treatment of sewage and stormwater, and some resiliency-focused projects such as green infrastructure, rainwater harvesting, and water conservation. Broadband infrastructure investments are intended to address areas without access to reliable, affordable broadband, add enrolment in a low-income subsidy program, and modernize cybersecutiry.
Please visit the Department of the Treasury’s page for more information on Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds 750 DRAFT
9| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Richmond received an allocation of $27.7M in ARPA funds and has already allocated approximately $10.5M, leaving $17.2M in uncommitted funds.
INTRODUCTION
Use of Funds
ARPA is a one-time source of funding, and therefore the most suitable use of ARPA funds is investment in projects or programs that do not require ongoing funding. Examples of suitable projects include:
• Temporary programs that address short-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic
• One-time capital investments in property or infrastructure • Spending to conduct studies or pilot programs
• Seed funding for loan funds
• Other projects that do not require hiring new permanent staff or ongoing commitment of funds
ARPA funds must be obligated by December 31, 2024 and
expended by December 31, 2026. Therefore, Richmond should consider both:
• Short-term recovery, including providing immediate relief to disproportionately impacted individuals
• Long-term stability, including any long-term community needs Richmond can address now based on funding
availability
$27.7M
Richmond’s local ARPA funding award
$17.2M
To be allocated based on identified community needs
$10.5M
Already committed funds
751
DRAFT
10| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment
IMPACTED
POPULATIONS
02 Richmond ARPA Community Needs
Assessment
Image Source: The Richmond Standard DRAFT 752
DRAFT
11| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment
IMPACTED POPULATIONS
Nationally, data and news stories indicate that particular populations were likely to be disproportionately impacted during the pandemic. As such, ARPA includes specific provisions to provide assistance to those households, businesses, and communities.
US Treasury Definition of Disproportionate Impacts
Disproportionately impacted households are those that
experienced a disproportionate, or meaningfully more
severe, impact from the pandemic. Pre-existing disparities in health and economic outcomes magnified the impact of the COVID-19 public health emergency on certain households and communities. Many different geographic, income-based, or poverty-based presumptions could be used to designate disproportionately impacted populations. For example, if a household qualifies for programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Section 8 Vouchers, and Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (NSLP) and/or School Breakfast (SBP) programs, the household is also recognized as
disproportionately impacted.
The interim final rule for ARPA funds provided significant flexibility for recipients to determine which households, populations, communities, or small businesses have been impacted and/or disproportionately impacted by the
pandemic and to identify appropriate responses.
Community Demographics
Based on national data trends, key demographic components that were likely to impact an individual or household’s experience during the pandemic include:
• Neighborhood: dense, urban areas saw higher transmission of the COVID-19 virus.
• Race and ethnicity: ongoing and historic systemic barriers for specific populations, including redlining, restrictions from job opportunities, reduced opportunities to build generational wealth, and more, meant that some populations were more likely to be physically and economically impacted by the pandemic.
• Language and immigration status: this community often was unable to access key resources, including stimulus checks.
• Poverty and housing status: without stable resources, it became more difficult for many to afford basic necessities, including rent payments. • Age: both younger and older adults particularly struggled with the social isolation of the pandemic.
• Education level: individuals without a high school diploma, including those in service industries, were more likely to be laid off during the initial lockdown, and had less transferrable skills so continue to struggle to find new work. 753
DRAFT
12| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment
IMPACTED POPULATIONS
Demographic analysis was conducted to identify potential populations that faced disproportionate impacts in Richmond for focused outreach and conversations.
Richmond Focus Populations
Based on this data, and in collaboration with the City and other stakeholders, we identified organizations serving the following populations/stakeholder groups to meet with during focused conversations and share additional outreach with:
• Latinx/Spanish speaking residents
• Black residents
• Asian and Pacific Islander residents
• Disabled residents
• Immigrants
• Community service providers (services range in type, but include health and educational organizations)
• Homeless individuals
• Renters and housing advocacy organizations
• Youth
• Seniors
• Local businesses, particularly in retail and hospitality • Local workforce, including reentry population
Community Demographics
To identify the same demographic components in Richmond, demographic research questions included:
• Neighborhood: Which areas of Richmond may have been more dangerous for residents, due to density proximity to one another? • Race and ethnicity: Which racial and ethnic communities faced additional barriers during the pandemic, and how did those barriers impact them? • Language and immigration status: Which people had a harder time accessing resources during the pandemic due to communication barriers or disconnect from government? What resources were they able to use, and what should be done to help them now?
• Poverty and housing status: How did income and housing insecurity impact Richmond residents during the pandemic? What do they need to have more housing security?
• Age: How did the pandemic impact different age groups in Richmond, from students to older adults?
• Education level: As Richmond residents continue their work or find new work, how does their education level impact their ability to earn a living? What do business owners need support with?
754
DRAFT
13| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Denser, more urban areas of Richmond had higher rates of COVID-19 positivity, though contraction did not vary significantly from other cities throughout Contra Costa County.
CURRENT COVID-19
CASES INCONTRACOSTA COUNTY
Current testing positivity rate
and cases in the last 7 days
(September 7-14, 2022).
Census tracts in darker colors
have higher testing positivity
rates.
Source: Contra Costa Health Services
IMPACTED POPULATIONS
755
DRAFT
14| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Populations that face structural racism are nationally overrepresented among populations that contracted COVID-19, more likely to work in essential services with increased exposure, and may have language barriers that limit access to services and information.
RICHMOND POPULATIONS FACING STRUCTURAL RACISM
Concentration of
Black or African
American Residents
Concentration of
Asian Residents
Concentration of
Hispanic Residents
Source: US Census ACS 5-Year Estimates (2020)
20K residents (18% of the
population of Richmond)
48K residents (44% of the
population of Richmond)
17K residents (15% of the
population of Richmond)
IMPACTED POPULATIONS
756
DRAFT
15| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Language Spoken At Home in Richmond
Source: US Census ACS 5-Year Estimates (2020)
Speak Only English (46%) Speak a Language Other Than English (54%) 30%
12%
4%
2%
Spanish
Asian And Pacific Island Languages
Other Indo-European Languages
Other Languages
Household Language of Households with Limited
English Speaking Status in Richmond
Over half of Richmond residents speak a language other than English at home, which can increase barriers to accessing information and services during the pandemic, impacting residents’ health, safety, and economic recovery.
IMPACTED POPULATIONS
757
DRAFT
16| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Source: US Census ACS 5-Year Estimates (2020)
Nativity by Citizenship Status in Richmond
34%
15%
11%
7%
6%
6%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
Mexico
El Salvador
South Eastern Asia
South Central Asia
China
Other Central America (1)
Africa
Nicaragua
Brazil
Other South America (2)
Hong Kong
Europe
Other Eastern Asia (3)
Taiwan
Western Asia
Oceania
Northern America
Caribbean
Place of Birth for Foreign-Born Population in Richmond
Aggregation excludes country-specific populations with statistical significance over 2%:
(1) Aggregation excludes Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua (2) Aggregation excludes Brazil
(3) Aggregation excludes China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan
For the 35% of Richmond residents born in another country, many may have struggled while disconnected from their family and international support networks. The 19% of Richmond residents that do not hold citizenship status faced additional insecurities during the pandemic, including being blocked from financial support like stimulus checks.
Native Born Population (65.5%) Foreign Born Population (34.5%)
IMPACTED POPULATIONS
758
DRAFT
17| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment People living in poverty, concentrated in
the middle of Richmond, were more
vulnerable to food insecurity, digital
inequities, and housing insecurity and
potential evictions.
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level, where families
under 1.00 are considered in poverty, 1.00 to
1.99 are considered struggling, and over 2.00
are not at risk of poverty*
PEOPLE LIVING IN POVERTY
Source: US Census ACS 5-Year Estimates (2020)
15K residents, or 14% of the
population of Richmond
21K residents, or 19% of the
population of Richmond
72K residents, or 67% of the
population of Richmond
IMPACTED POPULATIONS
*For more information on how the US Census Bureau measures poverty, please visit the guidance data for poverty data users website. 759 DRAFT
18| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Source: US Census ACS 5-Year Estimates (2020)
CONCENTRATION OF RENTERS
Renters during the pandemic may have also been
experiencing un- or under-employment, thus placing
them at risk of missing monthly payments in an
already insecure housing environment. In Richmond,
renters are far more likely to be Black or Hispanic.
Total Renters: 18K units, or 47% of all
occupied housing units in Richmond
71%
60%
44% 41%
29%
40%
56% 59%
Asian White Hispanic Black or
African
American
Owner Renter
HOUSING TENURE BY RACE
IMPACTED POPULATIONS
760
DRAFT
19| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment The impact to youth, including remote learning, social isolation, and familial deaths, created dozens of stressors that their developing brains have a harder time adapting to. Meanwhile, older adult populations were cut off from family and social networks and may have had a harder time accessing online resources due to digital illiteracy.
Concentration of
Residents Under 18
Concentration of
Residents Over 65
Source: US Census ACS 5-Year Estimates (2020)
YOUTH POPULATIONS OLDER ADULT POPULATIONS
24K residents, or 22% of the
population of Richmond
15K residents, or 14% of the
population of Richmond
IMPACTED POPULATIONS
761
DRAFT
20| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Individuals with disabilities may have had a more difficult time maintaining their health throughout the pandemic, as existing conditions require support that may have been reduced or eliminated due to social distancing. Nationally, systemic racism and historical inequities in health care access mean that Black residents are far more likely to have a disability today, a trend seen clearly in Richmond.
Source: US Census ACS 5-Year Estimates (2020)
IMPACTED POPULATIONS
8%
20%
12%
11% 11%
10%
5%
4%
Hispanic or
Latino
Black or
African
American
White Native
Hawaiian
And Other
Pacific
Islander
Two or
More
Races
Asian Other Race American
Indian And
Alaska
Native
Disability Status by Race and Ethnicity in Richmond
46%
40%
39%
11%
3%
2%
With An Independent Living Difficulty
With An Ambulatory Difficulty
With A Cognitive Difficulty
With A Self-Care Difficulty
With A Hearing Difficulty
With A Vision Difficulty
Share of Population with Disabilities in
Richmond
762
DRAFT
21| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Source: US Census ACS 5-Year Estimates (2020)
INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT A HIGH
SCHOOL DIPLOMA
Many individuals without a high
school diploma were employed in
industries like restaurants, retail, and
hospitality, or working in the gig
economy. These industries were most
impacted by the pandemic, whether
facing job loss or increased exposure.
17K residents, or 22% of the
population 25 and over in Richmond
IMPACTED POPULATIONS
763
DRAFT
22| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment
IMPACTED POPULATIONS
Through the demographic analysis, the consulting team was able to better define the populations to engage with during the listening tour in targeted conversations.
Latinx/Spanish speaking residents: 44% of Richmond’s population is Hispanic, with over 11,000 households primarily speaking Spanish in the home.
This community may have faced increased difficulty accessing resources through local, state, or federal resources, and focus groups should seek to understand what support is needed to reduce these barriers. Additionally, through the engagement process, it is essential to provide both English and Spanish options for discussion, surveys, and feedback opportunities.
Black residents: Richmond includes roughly 20,000 Black residents, or 18% of the population. Focus groups should reach out to these communities to understand how their lived experiences mirror national systemic inequities, including preexisting health conditions, job opportunities, housing insecurity, and other barriers that are blocking their paths to an equitable recovery.
Asian and Pacific Islander residents: The 15% of Richmond residents that are Asian may have had difficulty overcoming language and cultural barriers to access resources during the pandemic. The listening tour should aim to understand what resources these communities felt blocked from and what they need to stabilize and recover socially and economically.
Disabled residents: Richmond has a large share of residents that have difficulty with independent living, ambulatory difficulty, and cognitive difficulty, which relates to mental health needs. Focus groups should seek to understand what services these populations could not use during the pandemic, and what they need to recover moving forward. In particular, outreach should focus on Black residents, who are disproportionately likely to have a disability in Richmond.
Renters and housing advocacy organizations: Richmond has a relatively high concentration of renters as compared to surrounding cities. Renters had less housing security and more cost burden during the pandemic, and in Richmond, this disproportionately impacted Black and Hispanic residents. Focus groups should include residents from these communities to hear about particular stressors, including evictions or trouble accessing rent relief.
Youth and seniors: Youth and senior populations frequently felt the impact of social isolation most acutely during the pandemic. Focus groups should include individuals from both of these demographics across racial and ethnic groups to hear about their support networks, thus better understanding social resilience across Richmond and the success of outreach efforts through schools and other organizations. 764
DRAFT
23| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment
ENGAGEMENT
PROCESS
03 Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment
Image Source: Evelio Contreras/CNN 765
DRAFT
24| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment HR&A and Contigo led a community listening tour to provide insight for City leadership to the impacts of the pandemic and priorities for ARPA investments.
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
What have been the impacts of COVID-19 on
Richmond, its residents, and its businesses?
• How has the city been impacted? Its
households, businesses?
• How has it impacted participants
personally (immediate and long-term
impacts)?
• Which households and businesses were
most impacted?
• How and where were impacts felt most
strongly?
• What have the lasting impacts to the
economy been?
• Who was or is most vulnerable to
impacts?
What is the status of recovery?
• What is the perception or understanding
of the City’s recovery efforts to date?
• What should the City be continuing to do
to address COVID-19 impacts?
• Where have people gone for information
or assistance with COVID-19 impacts?
What types of assistance have they
received?
• What services or recovery assistance is
needed but not available?
How should the City prioritize and allocate ARPA
funds?
• What types of expenditures (revenue
replacement, economic recovery, public
health, water and broadband
infrastructure, premium pay for essential
workers) should the City prioritize, and
how?
• Within those types of expenditures, what
projects or investments are the greatest
priority or address the greatest need?
• What can private industry and
households do to help to Richmond
recover?
766
DRAFT
25| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment The consultant team connected with a broad and inclusive range of stakeholders through a robust outreach and engagement process described in the following pages.
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
COMMUNITY
SCAN
The team assessed the
existing landscape to find
partners and paths to
connection.
PUBLIC
SURVEY
A bilingual online
questionnaire gathered
broad input from the diverse
Richmond community.
FOCUS
GROUPS
Focus groups
allowed targeted
engagement with impacted
residents, who were
compensated for their time.
PUBLIC
MEETINGS
Public meetings connect with
a broad range of community
members and help share
information.
LISTENING TOUR
Throughout the engagement process, outreach focused
on reaching diverse residents, businesses,
community serving organizations and other key
stakeholder groups to gather broad meaningful input to
inform the City’s COVID-19 recovery efforts and
investments. In particular, efforts focused on reaching community members that may not participate in
traditional engagement, including attending large format public meetings, but have been most impacted by the
economic and health impacts of the pandemic.
The key goals of the outreach program were to:
1. Empower community members by providing
opportunities for them to share their “voices” and
perspectives about community needs
2. Create working partnerships with community
groups, community-serving organizations and
stakeholders that engender trust and collaboration
3. Maintain transparent and productive two-way
communications program that exceeds minimum
public participation requirements
767
DRAFT
26| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment The community scan enabled the consulting team to collaborate with community organizations to identify and reach target populations.
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
COMMUNITY
SCAN
Based on these studies, and bolstered by other experts in engagement, a successful and inclusive engagement process includes:
• A diverse sample of residents, including a diverse range of incomes, ages, and racial and ethnic backgrounds, with a focus on identifying and reaching those most impacted by COVID-19. • Vulnerable or hard-to-reach populations, including veterans, disabled individuals, the unhoused, and undocumented, or organizations that provide services to these populations. • Individuals or organizations that have not previously been engaged in efforts related to ARPA or other community needs. • Business owners and property owners in Richmond, as well as residents and community service providers. • Residents from throughout the city.
Community-based organizations have conducted many important previous outreach efforts both prior to and following the pandemic. The consulting team began by gathering data and existing documentation from earlier outreach efforts to understand local best practices for successful engagement and avoid duplication of research, which can become tiring for residents. This community scan created goals for what engagement should look like for this project.
768
DRAFT
27| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment The focus groups and public community meetings brought a diverse group of community members together to discuss their individual and collective experience during the pandemic, in addition to their vision for equitably spending ARPA dollars.
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
Discussion Focus Discussion Questions
INDIVIDUAL
Understanding
Personal
Priorities
• Prior to March 2020, what were three meaningful personal concerns/challenges you felt needed to be addressed in your life?
• Over the past two years a lot has shifted for people personally and for our community, if you think about your personal concerns and challenges during the pandemic, did they change from those prior to the pandemic? • Looking ahead to 2022 and 2023, what personal concerns and challenges do you anticipate?
COLLECTIVE
Understanding
Community
Connections
• Describe how you and/or people you know in your community accessed information to address personal or business concerns and challenges during the pandemic? • Describe how you and/or people you know in your community accessed resources to address personal or business concerns and challenges during the pandemic. • Was there a specific pain point that you consistently wished could be addressed by the City of Richmond?
RESOURCES
Understanding
Access
• Was there a specific success or helpful resources that you believe should be celebrated and/or continued by the City of Richmond.
• As you think about all of your interactions connected to the City of Richmond (people and systems) during the pandemic, what descriptive words come to mind? Share an example that helps us understand why you chose those words.
VISION
Understanding
Unique and
Shared Priorities
• When we are successful equitably investing ARPA funds in the Richmond community what does that look like and feel like?
• COVID recovery funds can be used to assist people and the community in a variety of ways, What are your top three needs as you and your community continue to recover from impacts of the pandemic?
Outreach
The project used many outreach strategies to reach the
widest group of people and encourage them to
participate in the project in whatever ways possible
(through the survey, in public meetings, and in targeted focus groups).
Public outreach included promoting meetings on KCRT
Television, going door to door to local businesses on
23rd street, sending email blasts to community-based
organizations and government departments, Facebook
and Instagram advertising, promotion at community
events, and website with updates and survey
participation. In addition, a group of students at
Richmond High School conducted survey and business
outreach through the Youth Plan, Learn, Act Now (YPLAN) program.
In addition, the consultant team used targeted outreach to bring together focus groups of various organizations that serve impacted organizations, described in further detail on the following page.
Facilitation Agenda
769
DRAFT
28| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment The public survey was designed to understand how Richmond residents and businesses were impacted by COVID, as well as how they would like to allocate ARPA funding.
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
Target: Receive at least 500 total survey
responses, aiming for a near representative
sample of Richmond residents in terms of
age, race/ethnicity, income, and geography.
Result: 210 survey responses
PUBLIC
SURVEY
LISTENING TOUR
7%
7%
12%
49%
24%
0.01%
14%
17%
18%
41%
Native American or Alaskan Native
AAPI
Black American
White
Hispanic/Latinx
PUBLIC SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS
Share of Population (2020 Census) Share of Survey Respondents The survey results were analyzed with the understanding that respondents do not mirror the diversity of the Richmond community in terms of race/ethnicity, income, and age. Thus, the data collected through the public survey is used to characterize and pull additional insight into the Community Needs Assessment, but not determine most findings. Additional survey results can be found in the appendix.
770
DRAFT
29| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Survey participants prioritized nearly equal support for investment in neighborhoods and infrastructure, local businesses, and families.
BUSINESSES: Help local
businesses and
entrepreneurs recover
from COVID impacts, 32%
PEOPLE: Help residents with personal and family
because of COVID impacts, 36%
INFRASTRUCTURE: Help rebuild
local streets and parks, and
improve broadband and sewer
systems, 32%
If you had $1,000 to invest in the City of Richmond, how would you divide up the spending among the areas below?
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
771
DRAFT
30| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment When asked about the economic impacts of the pandemic, most survey respondents indicated that direct cash assistance to businesses would best provide the support their industry needs for long-term sustainability.
42 25
21 13
9 12
19 30
27 24
12 12
16 19
29 19
23 20
Direct cash assistance to
businesses
Reimbursement of COVID
related expenses
Technical assistance to
businesses and impacted
industries
Improved access to
broadband internet
Improvements to water and
sewer infrastructure
Improvements to the area
where my business is located
What support would most help the long-term vitality and resilience of your industry? Please choose and rank your top three options.
# 1 # 2 # 3
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
772
DRAFT
31| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Target: Speak with at least 100
community members from target
populations.
Result: 126 community members from
a range of target populations engaged
through focus groups
The consulting team directly engaged underrepresented voices through small facilitated focus groups hosted in partnership with community organizations.
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
Target Population Attendees
Black residents and Youth 16
Community service providers 16
Latinx/Spanish speaking residents, and Immigrant Community 11 Local workforce, including reentry population 12
Black residents and Youth 8
Community service providers, Youth 5
Disabled Residents 18
Youth, Seniors, Asian Residents, Immigrants 17
Local Business/Retail and Hospitality 7
Seniors; Asian American and Pacific Islander Community 12 Total Number of Participants 126
FOCUS
GROUPS
LISTENING TOUR The consulting team reached out to community-based organizations that served the individuals noted in the “Impacted Populations” section of this report in order to directly reach those who had been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. After an organization was contacted, organizational leaders helped coordinate scheduling, invitations, and any special accommodations (e.g., technology, translation) to ensure a large and representative group of participants could join and participate fully. Nationally, members of these community groups may also be unlikely to attend traditional, public community meetings due to barriers or perceived barriers with participating or having their voices heard; thus, focus groups helped individuals to share their thoughts and center the conversation on that community’s unique and shared lived experiences. 773
DRAFT
32| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Two open community meetings were hosted for community members to share ideas and priorities for ARPA spending.
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
Target: Host 3 virtual community
meetings in both English and Spanish
Result: 2 community meetings hosted todate with over 150 attendees to-date. A third will be held to discuss the findings of
the Community Needs Assessment and
initial Strategic Investment Plan
PUBLIC
MEETINGS
LISTENING TOUR Public meetings created opportunities to hear from individuals throughout the community, highlighting experiences both specific to population groups and shared throughout Richmond. Participants were able to ask questions about the community engagement process and overall community needs assessment methodology. Then, transitioning to discussion, all participants were invited to answer the questions previously listed and engage in a dialogue by speaking up during the meetings and/or adding thoughts live in the virtual chat box. The dialogue during both meetings was robust, with representative participants from community-based organizations, residents, workers and business owners, racial and ethnic communities, and other communities. Spanish translation services were available during the meeting, with an additional survey shared following the meeting for participants to add any thoughts that did not fit within the 60 to 90 minute meetings. 774
DRAFT
33| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment
COMMUNITY
NEEDS
04 Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment
Image Source: Balazs Gardi/The Guardian DRAFT 775
DRAFT
34| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment The community listening tour and additional analysis identified five cross-cutting themes of community need with implications for Richmond’s recovery priorities.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES
Economic insecurity is at the root of Richmond resident’s struggles, as without sufficient and sustainable income, people struggle to pay rent, afford medical care, and more. To make it through the pandemic, local small businesses needed a range of technical, economic, and social support that many felt unable to access, including difficulties accessing Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans.
OUR HEALTH
More people than ever sought mental health services as a result of the pandemic, including disconnected youth, overburdened parents, and isolated older adults. For some, this was their first time seeking mental health services, and they found a lack of culturally-competent and accessible mental health service providers.
OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
Rent burden has been high in Richmond since even before the pandemic and was made worse as the pandemic disrupted workers’ ability to earn income. Housing insecurity is more pressing than ever, and many community members prioritized tenant assistance and rental assistance programs as their highest need.
OUR FAMILIES
Communities that struggle with accessing information often cannot overcome the barriers necessary to understand public announcements and connect with services. Access to broadband internet, technology and computer literacy further compounded issues of service access, particularly for youth and older adults.
OUR CULTURE AND COMMUNITY
Richmond residents rely on their churches, neighborhoods, and community organizations to stay socially and economically connected, and need events to return safely and quickly. To do so, the City can increase support for nonprofit organizations already leading this work locally. 776
DRAFT
35| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Small business owners shared difficulties accessing Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans, particularly businesses without relationships with banks.
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES
Businesses in Richmond received nearly $240M in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans between April 2020 and May 2021. Of the roughly 3,000 loans distributed in Richmond, 75% were for amounts smaller than $30K. However, Retail, Health Care, Arts and Recreation, and other hard-hit industries received relatively low volume of PPP loans as compared to their pandemic employment losses. Of the Richmond
businesses that did receive PPP loans, the loan amount per job was relatively consistent regardless of the business size.
A San Francisco Chronicle analysis of census tracts throughout the Bay Area found that businesses located in lower income and communities of color were less likely to receive PPP loans than more affluent areas. During the listening tour, Black- and Brown-led businesses shared that having
relationships with banks was a top factor in securing PPP loans. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Construction
Manufacturing
Retail Trade
All Other Industries
Profes. and Tech. Svcs.
Admin. and Support Svcs.
Other Services
Health Care and Social Asst.
Wholesale Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Hospitality
Arts and Recreation
Pandemic Job Losses in Richmond and PPP Loan Volume by
Industry in Richmond
PPP Loan Amount Pandemic Job Losses
Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, San Francisco Chronicle; Sources: BLS LAUS, BLS CES, EMSI Industry Tables Members of the API community shared that first-generation children are used as interpreters and advocates for accessing government information and services, but small businesses who rely on their children were not able to access government loans because their child interpreters do not have the skills and financial competency needed to submit loan applications.
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
777
DRAFT
36| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Richmond residents that lost work during the pandemic have faced challenges in finding new job opportunities; those with barriers to employment have particularly struggled.
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a large share of Richmond residents worked in sectors such as restaurants and
hospitality, which faced extreme disruption due to
mandatory stay-at-home regulations and social distancing. As a result, many workers either saw their hours reduced, were let go, or saw their businesses close entirely.
Though the Citywide unemployment rate has returned to
pre-pandemic levels, populations with barriers to
employment struggle to find new work – for example,
communities with limited English proficiency have struggled to find employment, while individuals with a criminal record have a harder time finding work opportunities that welcome them. For other communities, social distancing regulations cut them off from their networks and they couldn’t find new work. For example, Hispanic residents shared that they find many jobs through informal conversations with their family and
community; once this communication channel was closed, they struggled connecting to work opportunities. During a focus group with Black and Latinx youth connected to the Office of Neighborhood Safety, attendees discussed their lack of job security both currently and into the future. They shared that workforce training and other opportunities are important to lead to more stable employment, which is critical for overall long-term stability. One participant said this could look like a transition from hourly to salaried employment.
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
4%
18%
3.7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
2020 2021 2022
City of Richmond Unemployment Rate Since March 2020
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 778
DRAFT
37| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment To make it through the pandemic, local small businesses needed a range of technical, economic, and social support that many felt unable to access.
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES
Small business owners shared that they loved having their businesses in the City of Richmond, but encountered many challenges doing business here. There was a shared sentiment across participants that the City was not sufficiently supportive of small businesses. However, Richmond has a strong
ecosystem of nonprofit organizations that provide
important services to the small business community
particularly during the pandemic. Nonprofits were able to provide services like business owner outreach, sharing materials and information, and shop local campaigns, including CoBiz, Richmond Main Street Initiative and the Renaissance Center.
Many perceived these organizations, not the City, as the most effective and supportive institutions during the pandemic.
Business owners shared a strong call for more accountability and access to information from the City. Businesses during the pandemic noted their need for a range of technical
assistance to access PPP loans, formalize their structure and bookkeeping, and also to transition businesses to online business platforms.
The City’s Short-Term Local Business Recovery Action Plan (STLBRAP) included a deeper analysis of the near-term impacts of COVID-19 on Richmond’s economy and made recommendations to support business recovery. Access to capital and regulatory challenges were among the major challenges identified in the STLBRAP, particularly because many businesses were hesitant or unable to take on new debt in an uncertain business environment. In response to these findings the STLBRAP recommended that small business assistance should focus on grants and technical assistance to access needed resources, as well as other changes to increase the accessibility of business services.
The City has already committed $1 million of its ARPA allocation to the Richmond Rapid Response Fund (R2F) to provide direct financial assistance to residents, businesses, and community-based organizations to meet a range of recovery needs.
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHT
Small business owners shared that during the pandemic, they needed a range of technical assistance to formalize their structure and bookkeeping and to transition businesses into online business platforms. Heading into the pandemic, many small businesses and entrepreneurs did not have their business formalized and did not have their financial statements organized in Quickbooks, which made it difficult to navigate PPP loans.
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
779
DRAFT
38| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment More people than ever sought mental health services as a result of the pandemic, including disconnected youth, overburdened parents, and isolated older adults.
OUR HEALTH
According to community providers, the demand for mental health services has risen exponentially during the
pandemic. Isolation, stress, and other issues have contributed to a growing need for mental health services. Many parents spoke about their children’s mental health challenges, and noted that they needed to advocate for their children to receive adequate care. Populations with cultural or other barriers, including the disabled, seniors, limited English speaking residents, and the immigrant and Asian Pacific Islander refugee community, reported an increased sense of isolation due to an inability to connect to community or access services.
In response to these challenges, some residents accessed mental health services for the first time during the pandemic.
However, some reported a lack of culturally-competent and accessible mental health service providers. For instance, those seeking care for the first time might find it challenging to connect with providers that do not understand their unique beliefs and behaviors in their treatment.
During a focus group, one parent shared that during the pandemic, his highschool aged son “is doing okay, but he is missing his friends. He is pretty lonely. And no sports, and he liked to play sports. So basically he just does school, and it’s been pretty stressful for him all year… during the pandemic it’s been really hard to handle for us as parents because we don’t know how to help him. We are not psychologists, and he can only handle it in the school with his friends.”
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
One focus group participant
recounted that “I was a parent at
home, and it was really hard to
work from home when everyone
is interrupting you and freaked
out. I had my kids and an elder
living with me. We couldn’t have
anyone over because [my mom]
was so nervous about someone
bringing COVID inside. It really
affected my kids mentally, and
they’re still really shook up
about it.”
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
Listening tour participants noted RYSE Youth
Center’s Community Health program, which
creates support networks for youth to find safe,
welcoming, and loving spaces, in addition to case
management and individual counseling services.
Image: RYSE Center 780
DRAFT
39| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Residents are still struggling to find affordable, accessible food due to the rising price of household goods; some are still facing medical bills lingering from the pandemic.
OUR HEALTH
Basic health needs, including food access and the ability to see a doctor, became even more important during the pandemic.
While food banks have seen a slight dip since the peak of the pandemic, local pantry workers indicated they are still seeing demand far above pre-pandemic levels. At the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano Counties, demand for services has picked up again since April 2022. Schools also served as an important distribution hub for food: since the start of the pandemic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has reimbursed districts for providing free meals to all students, and California will expand access to free school meals during the 2022-23 school year.
Even though the impacts of the pandemic have lessened,
residents are still struggling to afford basic health care, including nutritious food and lingering medical bills, while the nation struggles with inflation. As of July 2022, inflation on consumer prices in the Bay Area, at 6.8 percent, representing a
4.4 percent increase compared with last June. This trend is repeated throughout the country, with the national average on consumer prices up to 9.1 percent inflation.
Source: Fox News Digital; NBC Bay Area; EdSource
Many groups recognized food distribution programs and the role of schools and libraries as trusted entities to provide much needed food and nutritional support to community members. Members of the API community noted that the foods offered are not always culturally inclusive, as food distribution did not include necessities like rice. Community-based organizations like APEN helped fill this gap in services.
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
6.8%
3.0%
4.4%
June
2019
Aug Oct Dec Feb
2020
April June Aug Oct Dec Feb
2021
April June Aug Oct Dec Feb
2022
April June
Consumer Price Index in Bay Area
June 2019 – June 2022
All Items All Items less food and energy
781
DRAFT
40| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment
OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
29.3%
25.3%
22.0%
25.3% 24.6%
21.8%
City of Richmond Contra Costa County Metro Area
Renter Cost Burden (2020)
Cost Burdened Extremely Cost Burdened
Even before the pandemic, residents in Richmond needed
to spend more of their income on housing than surrounding communities. 54% of Richmond renters are housing cost
burdened, which means they spend over one-third of their income on rent, compared to 50% in Contra Costa County and 44% in the Metro Area*. This trend is mirrored among
homeowners; 58% of Richmond homeowners pay over onethird of their monthly income on mortgage costs, compared to 50% in both Contra Costa County and the Metro Area.
Over the course of the pandemic, as residents couldn’t work and lost income, many faced new struggles with rent. Some fell behind on rent while out-of-work sick with COVID-19, or due to un-/under-employment, and have not been able to recover from past-due rent and bills.
Rent burden had been high in Richmond in advance of the pandemic and was made worse as the pandemic disrupted workers’ ability to earn income.
Source: US Census ACS 5-Year Estimates (2020)
One focus group participant explained that “my husband, our only family worker, did not work for one month when he was sick and the rent doesn’t wait, the food doesn’t wait. We don’t have family here, but neighbors helped.” Another shared that “My husband got sick and he also had high fever. No one helped us with high rent.”
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
*”Metro Area” refers to the San Francisco–Oakland–Berkeley Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Spend over 30% of income on housing Spend over 50% of income on housing 782
DRAFT
41| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Rental assistance programs supported some families, but many found these programs inaccessible and ineffective.
OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
To keep renters in their homes, California operated an
Emergency Rental Assistance Program which provided funding for households who fell behind on rental payments due to the economic impacts of COVID. The program ended in June 2022.
Over 2,800 households in Richmond received assistance (7.5% of all households), the majority of which identified as Black or Hispanic. However, Hispanic renters were relatively
unrepresented among recipients, and may have faced
barriers to accessing assistance.
During the pandemic, the Richmond Rapid Response Fund (R3F) partnered with related organizations to provide one-time funds to households unable to pay rent due to a COVID-19 related job loss or loss of income. Additionally, the City shared rental resources on its webpage, including links to the California rent relief program application and contact information for local organizations providing rent assistance.
California Emergency Rental Assistance Program in Richmond Data as of August 2022
2,850
Total Households Served
$12,590
Average Assistance Received
Source: State of California COVID-19 Rent Relief Dashboard Many focus groups expressed the need to make rental
assistance programs more accessible. One participant
shared that after applying for rental relief, “we had to take out a loan because it took 8 months [to receive funding from the State]. We couldn’t access services even if they existed.”
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
14%
24%
31%
8% 6%
17%
20%
44%
27%
16%
4% 2%
White Black Hispanic Asian 2+ Races Other
Access to Rental Assistance by Race in Richmond
Renter Households Rental Assistance Recipients
783
DRAFT
42| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Housing insecurity is more pressing than ever, as some communities faced evictions and others experiencing homelessness became disconnected from services.
OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
Richmond residents may be particularly vulnerable to
eviction due to a perceived lack of legal protections, despite the City temporary ordinance and State tenant relief act. Contra Costa County has one of the highest rates of pandemic evictions in the Bay Area, second only to Solano County. Eviction rates are 2 to 3 times higher for Black households in the County.
During the pandemic, the homeless population in Contra Costa County grew by 35%. According to the 2021 Continuum of Care Annual Report, of those who reported losing their housing, 30% of households reported losing it in West County, where
Richmond has the largest population. That share is slightly higher than the population that reported sleeping in West County before enrolling into crisis response, suggesting that people who experience homelessness in West County
cannot locally access supportive services. At the household level, 1,320 households reported losing their housing in Richmond, roughly 1.5 times more than the next closest city.
Source: State of California COVID-19 Rent Relief Dashboard; SF Chronical; Contra Costa County Health Services “Our landlord is asking for a large deposit of $6,000 to get into a new place. I had to get it somewhere only to end up on the street with 3 adolescent daughters. I was up to date with rent payments and would always pay on time.
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
Members of the housing justice community recognized that this has been a major challenge for Richmond since far before the pandemic: “Our community is historically disinvested. The people that bore the brunt of it have already been pushed out. Some folks never rebounded from the foreclosure crisis, and never came back into ownership/stability with housing. Some became serial renters, others got pushed out, others became homeless.” This was compounded by a “pre-pandemic [Not in My Backyard or “NIMBY”] perspective on homelessness. Everyone knows homelessness is a problem, but if people are given the chance to be part of the solution, they send it somewhere else.”
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
30%
23%
30%
17%
26%
30% 30%
14%
West County Central County East County Out of County
Location of Where Households Lost their Housing and Where Households Slept Before Enrollment in Crisis Response, 2021 Where a Household Lost Housing Where a Household Slept Before Enrolling in Crisis Response 784
DRAFT
43| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment The State has dedicated significant recovery resources to increasing housing affordability throughout California.
OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
Source: League of California Cities, National Low Income Housing Coalition, Department of Housing and Community Development California has dedicated ARPA funds and other funding to create and expand programs to increase the supply of housing and address housing security and affordability statewide. These include:
• Multifamily Housing Program: Provides low-interest deferred-payment loans for new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing that serves lower-income households • California Housing Accelerator Fund: Provides funding for shovel-ready development projects that have received awards of funding from the department of Housing and Community Development but have funding gaps • HOME-ARP Program: Funding for the Department of Housing and Community Development to assist individuals or households experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness by providing rental assistance, supportive services, shelters, and other support • State Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program: Provides tax credits to support the development of rental housing for low-income households • Adaptive Reuse Program and Homekey Program: Provides funding to convert commercial buildings, hotels, and motels into affordable housing • Infill Infrastructure Grant Program: Provides funding to accelerate the development of infill projects in brownfields and downtowns • Preservation Fund: Funding to preserve existing affordable housing • Legal Aid: Provides funding for legal services to prevent evictions
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHT
785
DRAFT
44| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment With children and youth suddenly confined to stay at home, families needed affordable accessible childcare and programs for youth struggling to stay connected and motivated.
OUR FAMILIES
California offers subsidies childcare, but they are capped by income: a family of three can earn no more than $78K to qualify.
There is a high demand for childcare, but due to the rising costs of living, families who might make slightly more than the household maximum are left with few affordable options, often waiting months, or even years to find a slot that works for them.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) defines childcare as “affordable” if the copay costs 7 percent or less of a family’s income. Based on the statewide average cost of childcare, a family in California would need to make at least $341K to pay for both an infant and preschooler. Childcare – and not housing – is now the largest expense for households in California.
Many youth, parents and formerly incarcerated residents in particular spoke to the need for youth programming and
positive outlets for youth. West Contra Costa Unified School District noted that programming for middle schoolers in particular is lacking, and that better family engagement is needed at all levels. Residents shared that they see Richmond as lacking spaces for youth socialization, especially with parks closed during the pandemic. Particularly during the beginning of the pandemic, when social engagements were most restricted and youth had to stay home from school, community members
wanted more services that support the youth’s mental health.
In a conversation with Building Blocks for Kids, Latina Center, and Family Justice, families voiced the need for education and program support for older children 6-19 years of age. While speaking with the Reentry Success Center, participants stressed interest in support for people coming out of high school, who “need more direction or help, instead of being dumped on the street. Young people could use help, education, and housing assistance.”
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
Source: East Bay Times; Image: Ali Tadayon/EdSource
Dorcas Sims leads her fifth-grade
class at Nystrom Elementary as
schools return to in-person learning.
Attendance data showed that about
3,400 students left West Contra Costa
Unified during the pandemic. One
resident shared that “The youth got
forgotten. Doing school from home was
really hard. The school district lost a lot
of students because teachers couldn’t
connect with them. A lot of kids got
lost, a lot of education got lost.” Another
noted that some students “had to stop
school in order to work, because if
they didn’t work, they couldn’t make
ends meet. We saw 16-year-olds
entering the workforce full-time.”
786
DRAFT
45| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Access to broadband internet, technology, and computer literacy further compounded issues of service access, particularly for youth and older adults.
OUR FAMILIES
While 90 percent of households in the city of Richmond
have internet access, statewide data shows that this access is likely not equitably distributed across income levels.
During the listening tour, residents shared that the need for internet service and technology added a new expense and source of stress at a time when household incomes were
declining for non-salaried and laid-off workers. Many shared that the transition to online learning and workshop offerings was challenging and did not provide the same benefits of being in person.
Many services, such as vaccination and testing appointments, required online scheduling further compounding access to care.
For others, not being literate in digital programs like Zoom limited their ability to connect with others or participate in remote work.
31%
8%
3%
Less than $20K $20-40K $40K+
California Households without Internet Access, by Income Without an Internet Subscription
California’s Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB) was established during the pandemic to help families and households struggling to afford internet service. The program provided a discount of up to $50 per month towards broadband service for eligible households and a one-time discount to purchase computers or tablets. Since then, congress has created the Affordable Connectivity Program, a new long-term, $14 billion program, to replace the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program In total, roughly 4,500 Richmond residents accessed EBB services in 2021, or 4.1% of the City’s population, despite 13% of residents that report that their cell phone service is the only way they access the internet. Many Richmond residents reported being unaware of the services and programs that are available to them at the local, state, and federal level, including help accessing the internet.
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHT
Source: Universal Service Administrative Co.; U.S. Census (2020); USC and the California Emerging Technology Fund One focus group participant shared their experience saying, “I had online school since the start of the pandemic from
sophomore to senior year of high school. At the very start, all my parents and sisters had to work from home, and we
had a lot of internet issues. One day, my teacher’s internet was so bad that we just had to cancel school that day.”
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
787
DRAFT
46| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Communities that struggle with accessing information often cannot overcome the barriers necessary to understand public announcements and connect with services.
OUR FAMILIES
The lack of available interpreters in languages like Laotian dialects, Hmong and Vietnamese, as well as other Asian Pacific Islander (API) languages, means that these communities do not have equitable access to resources.
However, this results in a lot of community cohesion in the API community and a strong shared commitment to sharing information through their networks of family, friends and religious/spiritual organizations.
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
Latinx families spoke to the need to have access to information for the Latinx community and non- and limited-English speaking Richmond residents.
Multiple participants discussed the challenge with access to information, the lack of cultural competency in service delivery, and the lack of accountability amongst services providers, nonprofits and City departments alike for not serving community members equitably and with respect.
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
Small businesses, residents and service providers alike emphasized the need for access to information. Language is a major barrier for the 54% of Richmond residents that speak a language other than English at home. People reported not knowing where to go to get accurate COVID-19 guidance or information about available programs. Some were able to get information through schools or connections to doctors and nurses, but most did not know where to go for credible and accurate information, and many relied on social media.
Focus group participants suggested many ways to improve access to information, including a City of Richmond app, a centralized phone number that provides access to live
assistance in multiple languages, more flyers, door-to-door canvassing in multiple languages, and more. Others suggested providing resources to existing service providers in the community who are already delivering information to the community so that these organizations could increase their capacity. For example, LEAP supported students by providing access to the internet and sharing information about available resources in the City of Richmond. County Supervisor John Gioia was also highlighted for his office’s efforts to share information about how to accessing COVID-19 tests and masks, and getting these resources to community service providers who could distribute them to residents.
Source: US Census ACS 5-Year Estimates (2020) 788
DRAFT
47| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Nonprofit organizations played critical, central roles for many types of communities during the pandemic, but still face tight resourcing and some competition for funding.
OUR CULTURE AND COMMUNITY
Out of the roughly 2,300 PPP loans dispersed in Richmond, only 81 went to organizations that identified as a nonprofit.
Amongst nonprofit organizations, focus group participants shared that there seems to be a fair bit of competition for resources and some duplication of services. Many suggested greater efficiency and improved outcomes could be gained by establishing a nonprofit convening or forum to encourage collaboration and learning from each other. Community
members added that holding a community service fair could be another way to get information out about available
resources to community members, particularly those who are not active online.
Many nonprofit organizations had to shift internal resources during the pandemic while still providing services to their constituents. One participant in the public survey shared that “nonprofits that have shifted to hybrid workforces still need spaces to meet in person from time to time. It would be great if the city's community centers could offer this space a low or no cost.” Another noted that the City should prioritize “support for the nonprofits who have been particularly hit, which makes it hard [for nonprofit organizations to provide services]. Help for the nonprofits is an investment that will pay back dividends.”
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
During a focus group
with NIAD (Nurturing
Independence
Through Artistic
Development), which
serves people with
disabilities, organizers
shared that they
struggled to transition
their in-person studio
space to online
opportunities that
adequately serve
their artists, including
supply distribution.
Nonprofits, already connected closely within their networks, were able to distribute funds to meet their cultural and constituent needs with more discretion during the pandemic.
One focus group’s participants noted that “when you give money to nonprofits it is really going out into their
community. For example, [an organization the participant is part of], they have meetings with the community and go out and ask how they want to spend it.”
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
789
DRAFT
48| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Richmond residents rely on their faith-based organizations, neighborhoods, and community organizations to stay socially and economically connected.
OUR CULTURE AND COMMUNITY
During the pandemic, there were significantly fewer places to connect. City facilities closed for a few months, reopened for virtual programming, and moved to hybrid models. The closure of day programs for the disabled, churches and community centers, the cancellation of large cultural celebrations and community festivals, and the closure of ethnic restaurants or the shift to take-out only service all impacted the social and economic health of Richmond residents.
“In the past, Laotian New Year was celebrated in the
Richmond auditorium. We have a big gathering and people come from around the Bay Area. We haven’t been able to
celebrate since 2020. Not being able to have this
celebration is another loss of the pandemic and it
affects our sense of community.”
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Source: Trust for Public Land ParkServe (2022)
Community Center
Wat Lao New Year 2019
Parks and Community Centers Throughout Richmond
790
DRAFT
49| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment
NEXT STEPS
05 Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment
Image Source: Trails for Richmond Action Committee DRAFT 791 DRAFT
50| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment Richmond’s ARPA Strategic Investment Plan will make recommendations for how the City should allocate its ARPA funds to address community needs.
NEXT STEPS
LISTENING TOUR
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT APRIL JUNE
AUGUSTNOVEMBER
DEVELOP
RECOMMENDATIONS
ARPA INVESTMENT PLAN
This draft community needs assessment will be finalized following input from City Council as well as a third
community meeting in October 2022.
The Community Needs Assessment will serve as the
basis for the ARPA Strategic Investment Plan. Drawing
on the findings of the Community Needs Assessment,
HR&A will work with the City to identify potential uses for the City’s ARPA funds, including how they align with both community needs and ARPA requirements. HR&A will
also make recommendations for the distribution of the
City’s ARPA funds across the five areas of need identified. 792
DRAFT
51| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment The strategic investment plan will identify potential uses of ARPA funds, with a focus on identifying projects that meet ARPA requirements and address community needs.
NEXT STEPS
REPLACING LOST PUBLIC SECTOR REVENUE
RESPONDING TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF COVID-19
PROVIDING PREMIUM PAY FOR ESSENTIAL
WORKERS
MAKING INVESTMENTS IN WATER, SEWER,
AND BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE
SUITABLE USES OF
ARPA FUNDS
COMMUNITY NEEDS
AND PRIORITIES
OUR CULTURE AND COMMUNITY
OUR FAMILIES
OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
OUR HEALTH
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES
Identify
alignment
793
DRAFT
52| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment The community has already provided a range of ideas for the City to fund using ARPA, with other ideas for investment still to come. Suggestions from the community include:
• Provide technical assistance in a variety
of languages
• Increase broadband access citywide
• Establish a community bank
• Add English as a second language classes
• Expand programs to help small local
businesses, such as marketing support
and streetscape improvements
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES
• Expand mental health services in schools
• Expand culturally-specific mental health
services to reduce health disparities
• Add transportation to grocery stores to
eliminate food deserts
• Support for equitable access to
healthcare, including help covering
medical costs and more transportation
OUR HEALTH
• Reduce barriers to homeownership
• Provide emergency rental assistance to
prevent eviction and homelessness
• Develop an affordable housing plan
• Invest in stormwater infrastructure and
green streets
• Fund streetscape improvements,
including trash cleanup
OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
• Support for preschool and childcare
entrepreneurship
• Provide youth programming, including
programs that employs Richmond
residents and support the community
• Improve literacy through family-level
interventions
OUR FAMILIES
• Increase amenities at city parks,
including bathrooms and drinking water
• Add free programs in the city’s parks
• Increase public art throughout Richmond
• Reopen and enhance community centers
citywide
• Support capital investment in the public
library system
OUR CULTURE AND COMMUNITY
• Hire grant writers to help access funding
• Pursue federal and state funding for
equitable broadband access
• Pilot Restorative Justice programs
• Create jobs for residents to serve as
interpreters to other residents in their
community in a service language
assistance program
OTHER AREAS
NEXT STEPS
794
DRAFT
53| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Community Needs Assessment The City should allocate available ARPA funds across the five areas of need based on the level of need, likely cost of potential projects, and other factors.
NEXT STEPS
OUR JOBS AND
BUSINESSES 30%
OUR HEALTH 15%
OUR HOMES AND
NEIGHBORHOODS 30%
OUR FAMILIES 10%
OUR CULTURE AND
COMMUNITY 15%
Potential allocation of ARPA funds by category of need
795
DRAFT
.
Richmond, CA | Community Needs Assessment
Using the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
to Meet our Highest Needs
Image Source: Balazs Gardi/The Guardian
O C T O B E R 2 0 2 2
DRAFT 796
DRAFT
.
Richmond, CA | Strategic Investment Plan
Using the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
to Meet our Highest Needs
Image Source: Balazs Gardi/The Guardian
D E C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
DRAFT 797
DRAFT 2| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy Contents
Introduction
Purpose of the Strategic Investment Plan
Planning Process
ARPA Overview
Community Needs Assessment Summary
3 Strategic Investment Plan
Recommendations Framework
Overview
Our Jobs and Businesses
Our Health
Our Homes and Neighborhoods
Our Families
Our Culture and Community
12 Guidance to Prioritize ARPA Spending 40
Appendix: Community Needs Assessment 38
798
DRAFT
3| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Acknowledgements
In addition to deep engagement with Richmond community members, a diverse range of stakeholders and community representatives provided meaningful and strategic input on ARPA investment priorities.
In particular, this report would like to acknowledge:
Leadership from City Staff in the Department of Children and Youth:
• LaShonda White, Interim Library and Community
Services Director
• Patrick Seals, Senior Management Analyst
Interviews and Direction from City Council:
• Tom Butt, Mayor
• Claudia Jimenez
• Demnlus Johnson III
• Eduardo Martinez
• Gayle McLaughlin
• Melvin Willis
• Nathaniel Bates
Focus Groups Organized with Community Leaders from:
• Office of Neighborhood Safety
• Rubicon Programs/Safe Organized Spaces (SOS)
• Literacy for Every Adult Program (LEAP)
• Reentry Success
• Literacy for Every Adult Program (LEAP)
• East Bay Center
• Building Blocks for Kids
• Family Justice
• YMCA
• Latina Center
• Nurturing Independence Through Artist Development (NIAD) • Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)
• Local Business Owners (coordinated with Lizeht Zepeda from Richmond BED) • ABLE Community Development
799
DRAFT 4| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy 01 Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Image Source: Balazs Gardi/The Guardian DRAFT
Introduction
800
DRAFT
5| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) provides local governments, including Richmond, with funds to address COVID-19 and support economic recovery.
INTRODUCTION
Signed into law in March 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) provides Federal funding for states, counties, and cities to address both the public health crisis of COVID-19 and the pandemic’s impact on the economy. The funding focuses on supporting the development of strong and equitable communities.
ARPA funds must be obligated by December 31, 2024 and must be expended by December 31, 2026.
While not an explicit requirement of the program, ARPA is a one-time source of funding, which means that the most suitable uses of ARPA funds are investment in projects or programs that do not require ongoing funding.
ARPA legislation outlines four broad categories of eligible uses for ARPA funds:
REPLACING LOST PUBLIC SECTOR REVENUE
RESPONDING TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF COVID-19
PROVIDING PREMIUM PAY FOR ESSENTIAL WORKERS
MAKING INVESTMENTS IN WATER, SEWER, AND BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE 801
DRAFT
6| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
INTRODUCTION
Responding to public health and economic impacts of COVID-19 | This can be a program or service related to identified impacts and designed to benefit impacted groups. Subcategories include:
• Public health, including COVID-19 mitigation and prevention, assistance with medical expenses, behavioral and mental health treatment, and preventing or responding to violence.
• Assistance to households, including food assistance, emergency housing, internet access or digital literacy, burials, home repair or weatherization, paid leave, workforce development services, financial services, affordable housing development, education, childcare, and direct cash assistance.
• Assistance to small businesses, including loans, grants, and technical assistance and other services. • Assistance to nonprofits, including loans, grants, or technical assistance and other services. • Aid to impacted industries, including financial support for payroll, and support for the maintenance and operations of existing facilities, technical assistance or other services, and COVID-19 mitigation or prevention. • Public sector capacity, including increased capacity for public safety, public health, and human services staff; rehiring of public sector staff or providing other staff retention; and effective service delivery including program evaluation, community outreach, investments in technology, and costs related to COVID-19 response. • Assistance to disproportionately impacted households, businesses, and communities, such as services to address health disparities, vouchers to help households relocate to neighborhoods with higher economic opportunity, investments in neighborhoods to promote improved health outcomes, remediation and removal of hazardous materials, improvements to vacant and abandoned properties, services or investments to address educational disparities, support for start-ups or expanding small businesses, and funding for rehabilitation or improvements to commercial properties.
ARPA funding primarily focuses on either addressing the immediate public health needs that emerged during the pandemic or mitigating the pandemic’s adverse economic impacts.
Eligible uses for ARPA funds:
802
DRAFT
7| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
However, local governments can also use the funding to invest in specific infrastructure needs, like expanding broadband access, or replace lost revenue.
INTRODUCTION
Replacing lost public sector revenue | To assist cities, the federal government allowed cities to take a maximum allowance of up to $10 million, allowing recipients to select between a standard amount of revenue loss or calculate revenue loss using the Treasury’s formula, which compares actual revenue to a counterfactual trend. Funds can be used for any typical government services, including general administrative staff, services, and facilities, public safety services, road maintenance, infrastructure, and environmental remediation. The City of Richmond elected to calculate its revenue loss based on the Treasury formula and saw a 12.4% reduction in revenue, or $34.9K, which is otherwise greater than the City’s allocation.
Premium pay for eligible workers | Cities can provide premium pay up to $13 per hour for eligible workers performing essential work, including:
• Health care, public health, mental health, social services, family or childcare, emergency response providers, medical testing, pharmacy, and other health and social services
• Grocery stores, restaurants, food production, and delivery • Sanitation, maintenance, laundry, elections, and other critical services • Biomedical research
• Transportation and warehousing
• Hotel and commercial lodging facilities used for COVID-19 mitigation and containment •
Investments in Water, Sewer, and Broadband Infrastructure | Cities can make investments to improve specific categories of infrastructure, including broadband, drinking water systems, and wastewater and sewer systems.
Eligible uses for ARPA funds:
803
DRAFT
8| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
In 2022, the City of Richmond engaged a team, led by HR&A Advisors, to develop recommendations for how the city should allocate ARPA funds.
INTRODUCTION
LISTENING TOUR
COMMUNITY NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
APRILJUNEAUGUST
DECEMBER
DEVELOP
RECOMMENDATIONS
ARPA
INVESTMENT
PLAN
The following document outlines how the City can use of its American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to support COVID-19 recovery and address community needs.
This work began with a Community Needs Assessment, where HR&A and Contigo Partners (“the Consulting Team”) led a community engagement process to help the City of Richmond (“the City”) understand how COVID-19 has impacted Richmond businesses and residents. The Consulting Team used a range of activities to connect with representative and diverse populations, focusing on the engagement of diverse residents, businesses, community serving organizations and other key stakeholder groups to gather broad meaningful input to inform the City’s COVID-19 recovery efforts and investments. The engagement efforts focused on reaching community members that may not typically attend public meetings but were most impacted by the economic and health impacts of the pandemic.
This process identified community needs and priorities. Input from the Community Needs Assessment, paired with a sociodemographic and market analysis, informed how the City should allocate ARPA funds. Those recommendations begin on page 11.
804
DRAFT
9| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
The Community Needs Assessment identified priorities around job opportunities, economic and housing stability, mental health services, and access to information.
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES
Economic insecurity is at the root of Richmond resident’s struggles, as without sufficient and sustainable income, people struggle to pay rent, afford medical care, and more. To make it through the pandemic, local small businesses needed a range of technical, economic, and social support that many felt unable to access, including difficulties accessing Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans.
OUR HEALTH
More people than ever sought mental health services as a result of the pandemic, including disconnected youth, overburdened parents, and isolated older adults. For some, this was their first time seeking mental health services, and they found a lack of culturally-competent and accessible mental health service providers.
OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
Rent burden has been high in Richmond since even before the pandemic and was made worse as the pandemic disrupted workers’ ability to earn income. Housing insecurity is more pressing than ever, and many community members prioritized tenant assistance and rental assistance programs as their highest need.
OUR FAMILIES
Communities that struggle with accessing information often cannot overcome the barriers necessary to understand public announcements and connect with services. Access to broadband internet, technology and computer literacy further compounded issues of service access, particularly for youth and older adults.
OUR CULTURE AND COMMUNITY
Richmond residents rely on their churches, neighborhoods, and community organizations to stay socially and economically connected, and need events to return safely and quickly. To do so, the City can increase support for nonprofit organizations already leading this work locally.
INTRODUCTION
805
DRAFT
10| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Richmond was awarded $27.7M in ARPA funds and has already set aside approximately $10.5M, leaving $17.2M in uncommitted funds.
INTRODUCTION
Use of Funds
ARPA is a one-time source of funding. Therefore, the most suitable use of ARPA funds is investment in projects or programs that do not require ongoing funding. Examples of suitable projects include:
• Temporary programs that address short-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic
• One-time capital investments in property or infrastructure • Spending to conduct studies or pilot programs
• Seed funding for loan funds
• Other projects that do not require hiring new permanent staff or ongoing commitment of funds
ARPA funds must be obligated by December 31, 2024 and
expended by December 31, 2026. Richmond should consider both:
• Short-term recovery, including providing immediate relief to disproportionately impacted individuals; AND
• Long-term stability, including any long-term community needs Richmond can address now based on funding
availability
$27.7M
Richmond’s local ARPA funding award
$17.2M
To be allocated based on identified community needs
$10.5M
Already committed funds
806
DRAFT
11| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Richmond’s ARPA Strategic Investment Plan makes recommendations for how the City should allocate its funds to address these needs in alignment with ARPA requirements.
INTRODUCTION
REPLACING LOST PUBLIC SECTOR REVENUE
RESPONDING TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ECONOOMIC IMPACTS OF COVID-19
PROVIDING PREMIUM PAY FOR ESSENTIAL
WORKERS
MAKING INVESTMENTS IN WATER, SEWER,
AND BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE
SUITABLE USES OF
ARPA FUNDS
COMMUNITY NEEDS
AND PRIORITIES
Identify
alignment
OUR CULTURE AND COMMUNITY
OUR FAMILIES
OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
OUR HEALTH
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES
807
DRAFT
12| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
ARPA Investment
Recommendations
02 Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Image Source: Evelio Contreras/CNN 808
DRAFT
13| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
This section provides high-level guidance for how
the City of Richmond should deploy its ARPA
funding. This includesa potential allocation of ARPA funds among areas of need, and an overview of all the strategies discussed anda guide for reading each potential project.
The subsequent recommendations are organized by the five priorities from the recommendations that emerged from the Community Needs Assessment and include:
• Insights from the Community Needs Assessment;
• Case studies highlighting how other municipalities have already allocated their ARPA funds;
• Potential projects that both align with ARPA requirements and community needs, and
•A brief summary of how the City has already addressed
COVID-19 recovery needs, as well as opportunities to
leverage other funding sources.
Finally, the section provides context about how the City can advance implementation and prioritize ARPA expenditures. 13 ARPA INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The City should use its ARPA
funds efficiently and effectively
to address community needs.
13 809
DRAFT
14| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
The City should allocate available ARPA funds across the five areas of need based on the level of need, likely cost of potential projects, and input from the community.
ARPA INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
OUR JOBS AND
BUSINESSES 30%
OUR HEALTH 15%
OUR HOMES AND
NEIGHBORHOODS 30%
OUR FAMILIES 10%
OUR CULTURE AND
COMMUNITY 15%
Below is a potential allocation of ARPA funds based on the findings of the community needs assessment and the relative costs of potential projects. 810
DRAFT
15| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
The Strategic Investment Plan outlines specific actions the City can take to address community needs by advancing the strategies below.
ARPA INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
OUR JOBS AND
BUSINESSES
A. Provide direct support to businesses
B. Increase accessibility of business services
C. Support broader economic development efforts (incl. infrastructure, marketing, and access to capital) OUR HEALTH D. Reduce community health disparities
E. Expand mental health services
STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY NEEDS
OUR HOMES AND
NEIGHBORHOODS
F. Address immediate or emergency housing needs
G. Plan for bigger citywide efforts to increase housing affordability and strengthen neighborhoods H. Leverage available state and federal funding
OUR FAMILIES I. Partner with West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) to support children and families J. Expand the availability of childcare services
OUR CULTURE AND
COMMUNITY
K. Expand cultural and recreational programming and public art L. Make improvements to public facilities and subsidize available programming M. Expand access to broadband
811
DRAFT
16| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
The summary of potential projects includes context about how each project aligns with community needs and ARPA requirements, as well as high-level implementation needs.
ARPA INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
How to read overview of potential projects for Richmond’s ARPA funds Alignment with
Community Needs
Needs Addressed & Beneficiaries
Alignment with ARPA
Requirements
Eligible Uses, Timing, & Suitability
Implementation
Needs
Responsibility &
Approximate Cost
1 2 3 4
1 A brief description of the recommended project or activity, as well as which strategy it aligns with. These projects came from sources including:
• Ongoing work the City is already doing;
• Direct comments and feedback during the Community Needs Assessment; and • Best practices and examples from other communities
2 A summary of how this project addresses critical community recovery needs, and additional context from the Community Needs Assessment.
A
A An overview of how this recommended project aligns with the strategies to address community needs (found on page 15). 812
DRAFT
17| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
The summary of potential projects includes context about how each project aligns with community needs and ARPA requirements, as well as high-level implementation needs.
ARPA INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
4 Information about whether the City, a nonprofit partner, a private consultant, or another entity would lead implementation. Where available, an estimate of the scale of funding and potential impacts. Cost estimates may include a 10% allowance for administration or management of the proposed program.
3 • A determination of the eligible uses of ARPA funds this project aligns with • Relevant context about project readiness and the feasibility of deploying funds by the December 31, 2026 deadline
• Context about whether the project is suitable for a one-time source of funds, or whether it requires an ongoing commitment of funds.
An overview of how well the project aligns with the requirements and best uses for ARPA funds, including:
How to read overview of potential projects for Richmond’s ARPA funds Alignment with
Community Needs
Needs Addressed & Beneficiaries
Alignment with ARPA
Requirements
Eligible Uses, Timing, & Suitability
Implementation
Needs
Responsibility &
Approximate Cost
A 1 2 3 4
813
DRAFT
18| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Cities are using ARPA funds to help bolster this segment of the economy in several ways. A popular strategy includes training and technical assistance programs.
Anchorage, AK has used funds to help a nonprofit hire full-time outreach and technical assistance staff. In Torrington, CT, the city has allocated funds to offer special classes focused on a range of topics, including accounting, finance, and marketing. Other cities have taken an explicitly racial equity approach, as is the case in Buffalo, NY where the city awarded a $3.5 million grant to a minority-focused small business resource center.
Funds for the project will help the center provide technical assistance and develop a start-up incubator.
One of the other ways ARPA funds have helped small businesses is through façade and aesthetic improvements. For example, in Madison, WI, the city decided to dedicate $500,000 in funds for retail improvement grants that businesses can use to physically rehabilitee commercial spaces. Another strategy is “buy local” campaigns. In Oswego, NY, the city used a “Buy One, Get One” model where residents could pay $25 to receive a $50 gift card that they could redeem at local restaurants and retailers. Participating locations were not charged a fee, which meant the city’s investment helped local businesses increase foot traffic and keep money circulating in the local economy.
Small businesses represent a vital part of a city’s local CASE STUDIES and regional economic development, employing
nearly half of the nation’s workforce.
Small business owners in Richmond shared that they
loved having their businesses in the City of Richmond but encountered many challenges doing business here. There
was a shared sentiment across participants that the City was not sufficiently supportive of small businesses.
Richmond’s strong ecosystem of nonprofit
organizations help fill this gap. Nonprofits were able to provide services like business owner outreach, sharing
materials and information, and shop local campaigns,
including CoBiz, Richmond Main Street Initiative and the Renaissance Center. Many perceived these organizations, not the City, as the most effective and supportive
institutions during the pandemic.
Business owners shared a strong call for more
accountability and access to information from the
City. Businesses during the pandemic noted their need
for a range of technical assistance to access PPP loans, formalize their structure and bookkeeping, and transition businesses to online business platforms.
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES
One of the ways other cities are supporting the local economy is either through expanding small business support or through workforce development initiatives. 814
DRAFT
19| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
The City’s Short-Term Local Business Recovery Action Plan (STLBRAP) included a deeper analysis of the near-term impacts of COVID-19 on Richmond’s economy and made recommendations to support business recovery. Access to capital and regulatory challenges were among the major challenges identified in the STLBRAP, particularly because many businesses were hesitant or unable to take on new debt in an uncertain business environment. In response to these findings the STLBRAP recommended that small business assistance should focus on grants and technical assistance to access needed resources, as well as other changes to increase the accessibility of business services.
The City has already committed $1 million of its ARPA allocation to the Richmond Rapid Response Fund (R2F) to provide direct financial assistance to residents, businesses, and community-based organizations to meet a range of recovery needs.
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHT
Small business owners shared that during the pandemic, they needed a range of technical assistance to formalize their structure and bookkeeping and to transition businesses into online business platforms. Heading into the pandemic, many small businesses and entrepreneurs did not have their business formalized and did not have their financial statements organized in Quickbooks, which made it difficult to navigate PPP loans.
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
Small Business Recovery Resources
Businesses in Richmond received nearly $240M in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans between April 2020 and May 2021. Of the roughly 3,000 loans distributed in Richmond, 75% were for amounts smaller than $30K. However, Retail, Health Care, Arts and Recreation, and other hard-hit industries received relatively low volume of PPP loans as compared to their pandemic employment losses. A San Francisco Chronicle analysis of census tracts throughout the Bay Area found that businesses located in lower income and communities of color were less likely to receive PPP loans than more affluent areas. During the listening tour, Black- and Brown-led businesses shared that having relationships with banks was a top factor in securing PPP loans.
Employment Opportunities
Though the Citywide unemployment rate has returned to prepandemic levels, populations with barriers to employment struggle to find new work – for example, communities with limited English proficiency have struggled to find
employment, while individuals with a criminal record have a harder time finding work opportunities that welcome them. For other communities, social distancing regulations cut them off from their networks and they couldn’t find new work.
To make it through the pandemic, local small businesses in Richmond needed a range of technical, economic, and social support that many felt unable to access.
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES | RICHMOND’S NEED
815
DRAFT
20| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Strategies
A. Provide direct support to businesses
B. Increase accessibility of business services
C. Support broader economic development efforts (incl. infrastructure, marketing, and access to capital)
Alignment with
Community Needs
Needs Addressed & Beneficiaries
Alignment with ARPA
Requirements
Eligible Uses, Timing, & Suitability
Implementation Needs
Responsibility &
Approximate Cost
Dedicate additional funding to provide
grants to small business owners to
support business recovery or expansion
During the pandemic, small business owners
needed a range of technical assistance to adapt to
new business practices, and many were unable to
access recovery loans due to a lack of formalized or
digital bookkeeping and other barriers. The ShortTerm Local Business Recovery Action Plan also found that many small businesses had limited
ability or willingness to take on additional debt. The
City has already committed $1.0M of ARPA funding
to provide emergency assistance to residents and
businesses, but additional direct assistance to
businesses may be needed.
H&E, PS
Work with implementation
partners to confirm feasibility of
deploying funds on time
No ongoing commitment
Nonprofit business service
providers or fund administrator
such as a Community
Development Financial
Institution (CDFI)
$0.5M - $1.0M (20-35 grants with
average value of $25K)
Dedicate funding to provide façade
improvement grants for businesses in
commercial districts
Small business owners face ongoing recovery
challenges and may have limited funds available to
make needed investments in storefronts or critical
repairs. Retail businesses have seen challenges
from declining foot traffic.
H&E*, PS
Provide pilot funding to ensure
deployment on time
Non-ARPA funds could be
allocated based on pilot success
Nonprofit fund administrator
such as a CDFI, or City
$150K - $250K (10-15 grants with
average value of $15K)
Eligible uses for ARPA funds:
• H&E – Responding to the public health and economic impacts of COVID-19 • PS – Replacing lost public sector revenue
• PP – Premium Pay for Eligible Workers
• WSB – Investments in Water, Sewer, and Broadband Infrastructure * indicates eligibility in Qualified Census Tracts or disproportionately impacted communities) A
As the city looks ahead towards allocation and implementation, there are existing small business support programs and relationships with nonprofits that Richmond can leverage.
A
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES | POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS
816
DRAFT
21| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Alignment with
Community Needs
Needs Addressed & Beneficiaries
Alignment with ARPA
Requirements
Eligible Uses, Timing, & Suitability
Implementation Needs
Responsibility &
Approximate Cost
Provide funding to nonprofit business
service providers to hire and train
community members to provide
translation, or to expand outreach
and technical assistance to business
owners in multiple languages to improve
access to recovery funding and services
Many small business owners had difficulty accessing
recovery funding due to digital literacy, capacity, or
language barriers. Nonprofits are a primary resource
for local businesses, but additional support is needed.
H&E, PS
Work with partners to confirm
feasibility of deploying funds on
time
Funding for temporary additional
capacity, no ongoing commitment
Nonprofit business service
providers, RichmondWORKS (tent.)
$150K - $250K (15-30 part-time
temp workers at $15/hr)
Provide funding to launch a Buy-Local
Campaign for Richmond businesses,
including developing branded marketing
materials, planning neighborhood
business events, and consolidating
shared resources.
Small businesses in Richmond faced challenges due to
COVID-19, including reduced business and the
challenges of adapting to accommodate remote work
and social distancing. The Short-Term Business
Recovery Action Plan identified a Buy-Local Campaign
as a way for the City and its partners to promote and
celebrate locally-owned businesses.
H&E, PS
Program design completed, so
funds can be deployed quickly
No ongoing commitment
City & Economic Development
Working Group
$16,500 - $45,000
Make streetscape improvements in
commercial corridors
Many businesses, community members, and
commercial property owners have cited built
environment challenges including buildings in need of
repair and illegal dumping in commercial areas.
Richmond’s Business Investment and Attraction
Strategy highlights the need for built environment
improvements to support Richmond’s businesses.
H&E*, PS
City to confirm timing
No ongoing commitment
City
TBD based on City capital needs
B
B
C
The City can use its ARPA funds to provide direct support to businesses and to increase the uptake and accessibility of business services.
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES | POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS
817
DRAFT
22| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Alignment with
Community Needs
Needs Addressed & Beneficiaries
Alignment with ARPA
Requirements
Eligible Uses, Timing, & Suitability
Implementation Needs
Responsibility &
Approximate Cost
Study the feasibility of establishing a
public bank to increase access to
capital for residents and businesses
Some business owners had difficulty accessing
recovery loans through commercial lenders. Residents
may also have barriers to accessing capital. A public
bank could help more businesses and residents access
financing for businesses, education, and
homeownership.
PS
Funds can be deployed on time
No ongoing commitment
City, consultant
$100K - $200K
Expand the provision of English as a
Second Language classes or subsidize
class fees for job-seeking residents
Job-seeking residents with language barriers have
continued to face challenges returning to work in the
wake of COVID-19.
H&E, PS
Subsidizing fees for existing classes
may be the most efficient way to
deploy funds by the deadline
No ongoing commitment
RichmondWORKS
TBD, potentially $50K-$100K
C
C
The City can use its ARPA funds to provide direct support to businesses and to increase the uptake and accessibility of business services.
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES | POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS
818
DRAFT
23| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Business Recovery Planning
▪ The City developed a Short-Term Local
Business Recovery Action Plan and
Business Investment and Attraction
Strategy.
ARPA Expenditures
▪ The City dedicated $1M to the
Richmond Rapid Response Fund which
provides emergency assistance to
businesses and residents. Economic
recovery & security is one of the fund’s
priority areas.
▪ The City has used ARPA funds to
undertake a Green-Blue New Deal
Workforce Development Plan.
C U R R E N T C I T Y
E F F O R T S
I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
A P P R O A C H
O T H E R F U N D I N G
S O U R C E S
Nonprofit Business Service
Providers
▪ Richmond has many nonprofits that
provide outreach and services directly to
businesses. The City can award funds to
these partners to provide enhanced
services, and use nonprofit networks to
connect businesses with resources.
Other
▪ Some funds may be best distributed
through financial institutions that can
handle large financial transactions.
▪ RichmondWORKS, the city’s workforce
development agency, provides services
to businesses and job seekers.
County Funding
▪ The County has funding such as
Community Development Block Grant
funds that can be leveraged to support
infrastructure investments and other
economic recovery efforts.
▪ In addition, there are potentially other
State resources that the city can
leverage to support business
development.
▪ The City’s Small Business Recovery
Action Plan and Business Improvement
and Attraction Strategy identify funding
sources and implementation needs to
support Richmond business recovery.
As the City looks ahead towards allocation and implementation, there are existing small business support programs and relationships with nonprofits that Richmond can leverage.
OUR JOBS AND BUSINESSES
819
DRAFT
24| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
According to community providers, the demand for
mental health services has risen exponentially during
the pandemic.
Isolation, stress, and other issues have contributed to a growing need for mental health services. Many parents
spoke about their children’s mental health challenges
and noted that they needed to advocate for their children to receive adequate care. Populations with cultural or
other barriers, including the disabled, seniors, limited English speaking residents, and the immigrant and Asian Pacific Islander refugee community, reported an increased sense of isolation due to an inability to connect to
community or access services. In response to these
challenges, some residents accessed mental health
services for the first time during the pandemic. However, some reported a lack of culturally-competent and
accessible mental health service providers. For
instance, those seeking care for the first time might find it challenging to connect with providers that do not
understand their unique beliefs and behaviors in their
treatment.
According to a 2021 report on the state of mental health in the United State, the number of people living with a mental health condition increased over the duration of the pandemic to nearly one in four individuals, or roughly 47.1 million Americans. As cities and the private sector begin to explore this growing health care need, ARPA offers a way for municipalities to address mental health by either expanding existing services or piloting new programs.
In San Francisco, the city started a Street Crisis Response Team in partnership with the San Francisco Department of Public Health, the Fire Department, and Emergency Management. The program provides an opportunity for non-law enforcement response to behavioral health crises, including delivering de-escalation services and linking people to the appropriate treatment options they may need. ARPA funding helped the City expand the program and hire more staff. Similar crises intervention programs in cities like Dallas, Denver, and Portland have open budget proposals or are already used ARPA to expand their service.
ARPA funding is also used to address the growing youth and young adult mental health crisis. In St. Louis, the city has committed $1 million through the Department of Health to help create safe spaces, drop-in centers, and community projects for youth. Kings County, which includes Seattle, have allocated $2 million in ARPA funding to support an initiative to “build, improve and enhance culturally appropriate behavioral health services” for communities disproportionately impacted by COVID.
CASE STUDIES
More people sought mental health services as a result of the pandemic, including disconnected youth, overburdened parents, and isolated older adults.
OUR HEALTH
820
DRAFT
25| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Strategies
D. Reduce community health disparities
E. Expand mental health services
Alignment with
Community Needs
Needs Addressed & Beneficiaries
Alignment with ARPA
Requirements
Eligible Uses, Timing, & Suitability
Implementation Needs
Responsibility &
Approximate Cost
Create a mobile service center to
provide public health outreach and
referrals, including for mental health
services.
Community health providers indicate an increase
demand for mental health services during the
pandemic. Offering mobile services can help
address this urgent need, particularly for vulnerable
populations, like the elderly, who may face mobility
or digital accessibility challenges.
H&E, PS
Make deployment deadline a
requirement of the NOFA
Startup would be a one-time cost.
Additional funding might be
needed to subsidize ongoing
operations.
Implementation by nonprofit
service provider identified
through a NOFA
TBD based on NOFA responses
Create programs to provide residents
and families with community health
tools including nutrition education,
fresh food access, and programming to
help parents of children in crisis
Isolation, stress, and other issues have contributed
to a growing need for mental health services.
Populations with cultural or other barriers,
including the disabled, seniors, limited English
speaking residents, and the immigrant and Asian
Pacific Islander refugee community, reported an
increased sense of isolation due to an inability to
connect to community or access services.
H&E, PS
Make deployment deadline a
requirement of the NOFA
Startup would be a one-time cost.
Additional funding might be
needed to subsidize ongoing
operations.
Implementation by nonprofit
service provider identified
through a NOFA
TBD based on NOFA responses
Eligible uses for ARPA funds:
• H&E – Responding to the public health and economic impacts of COVID-19 • PS – Replacing lost public sector revenue
• PP – Premium Pay for Eligible Workers
• WSB – Investments in Water, Sewer, and Broadband Infrastructure * indicates eligibility in Qualified Census Tracts or disproportionately impacted communities) D
D
The City should use its ARPA funds to reduce community health disparities and expand mental health services.
OUR HEALTH | POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS
821
DRAFT
26| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Alignment with
Community Needs
Needs Addressed & Beneficiaries
Alignment with ARPA
Requirements
Eligible Uses, Timing, & Suitability
Implementation Needs
Responsibility &
Approximate Cost
Provide financial support to ensure
access to healthcare by providing
families with help covering their medical
costs and related transportation costs
Rising costs due to inflation, and job losses
means that households have less money to
spend on nonessentials. Services like
healthcare are often deprioritized over
groceries and rent.
H&E, PS
Make deployment deadline a
requirement of the NOFA
Startup would be a one-time cost.
Additional funding might be needed
to subsidize ongoing operations.
Implementation by nonprofit service
provider identified through a NOFA
TBD based on NOFA responses
Develop a program for communityprovided mental health services by training residents to provide counseling
within their communities
Residents noted difficulty accessing
culturally competent and representative
mental health service providers, which
contributed to feelings of isolation and
mental health crisis.
H&E, PS
Make deployment deadline a
requirement of the NOFA
Startup would be a one-time cost.
Additional funding might be needed
to subsidize ongoing operations.
Implementation by nonprofit service
provider. RichmondWORKS may be able
to coordinate training
TBD based on NOFA responses
Expand the provision of mental
health services in schools
Many parents spoke about their children’s
mental health challenges, and noted that
they needed to advocate for their children
to receive adequate care.
H&E, PS
Make deployment deadline a
requirement of the NOFA
Temporary cost for expanded
services
Programming should be deployed in
partnership with WCCUSD; work with
WCCUSD to determine whether a
nonprofit partner is needed.
TBD based on potential scale of added
services.
D
E
E
D
The City should use its ARPA funds to reduce community health disparities and expand mental health services.
OUR HEALTH | POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS
822
DRAFT
27| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Early Pandemic Response
▪ The City took action early in the
pandemic to address the health and
safety needs of the community,
including launching a website and
hotline with health information,
community resources, and information
about County-provided services.
ARPA Expenditures
▪ The City dedicated $1M to the
Richmond Rapid Response Fund which
provides emergency assistance to
businesses and residents. Two priority
areas for this fund are food & essential
supplies and health & healing.
C I T Y P R O G R E S S
MADE
I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
A P P R O A C H
O T H E R F U N D I N G
S O U R C E S
Nonprofit Service Providers
▪ Nonprofit organizations will be crucial
partners in the temporary expansion of
health care services and outreach to
improve community health outcomes.
▪ The City should issue a Notice of
Funding Availability (NOFA) for regional
health care providers to deliver
programming that meets community
needs guided by the proposed projects.
Regional Partnerships
▪ The City should work with WCCUSD and
Contra Costa County to identify ways it
can deploy funding to supplement
available programs.
County Funds
▪ Contra Costa County has approved the
use of over $112M in ARPA funds for its
health department to support COVID-19
response, including addressing
disparities in public health outcomes
through community engagement and
targeted outreach.
State
▪ Through State Proposition 63, California
has a $11.6 billion available this
upcoming fiscal year to fund mental
health programs throughout the state.
Health services are frequently provided at the County level and by nonprofits, but the City can put forward funding for organizations to provide needed additional services.
OUR HEALTH
823
DRAFT
28| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Housing insecurity is more pressing than ever; as a result of COVID some Richmond residents faced loss of housing
despite eviction protections, and others experiencing
homelessness became disconnected from services.
Richmond residents may be particularly vulnerable to
eviction due to a perceived lack of legal protections, despite the City temporary ordinance and State tenant relief act.
Contra Costa County has one of the highest rates of
pandemic evictions in the Bay Area, second only to Solano County. Eviction rates are 2 to 3 times higher for Black households in the County. During the pandemic, the
homeless population in Contra Costa County grew by 35%.
According to the 2021 Continuum of Care Annual Report, of those who reported losing their housing, 30% of households were in West County, where Richmond has the largest
population.
California has dedicated ARPA funds and other funding to create and expand programs to increase the supply of housing and address housing security and affordability statewide. These include:
• Multifamily Housing Program: Provides low-interest deferred-payment loans for new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing that serves lower-income households
• California Housing Accelerator Fund: Provides funding for shovel-ready development projects that have received awards of funding from the department of Housing and Community Development but have funding gaps • HOME-ARP Program: Funding for the Department of Housing and Community Development to assist individuals or households experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness by providing rental assistance, supportive services, shelters, and other support
• State Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program: Provides tax credits to support the development of rental housing for low-income households • Adaptive Reuse Program and Homekey Program: Provides funding to convert commercial buildings, hotels, and motels into affordable housing • Infill Infrastructure Grant Program: Provides funding to accelerate the development of infill projects in brownfields and downtowns
• Preservation Fund: Funding to preserve existing affordable housing • Legal Aid: Provides funding for legal services to prevent evictions
AVAILABLE STATE FUNDING
Focus group participants expressed the need to make
rental assistance programs more accessible. One
participant shared that after applying for rental relief, “we had to take out a loan because it took 8 months [to receive funding from the State]. We couldn’t access
services even if they existed.”
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
The State has dedicated significant recovery resources to increasing housing affordability throughout California.
OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
824
DRAFT
29| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Strategies
F. Address immediate or emergency housing needs
G. Plan for bigger citywide efforts to increase housing affordability and strengthen neighborhoods
H. Leverage available state and federal funding
Eligible uses for ARPA funds:
• H&E – Responding to the public health and economic impacts of COVID-19 • PS – Replacing lost public sector revenue
• PP – Premium Pay for Eligible Workers
• WSB – Investments in Water, Sewer, and Broadband Infrastructure * indicates eligibility in Qualified Census Tracts or disproportionately impacted communities) F
G
H
Alignment with
Community Needs
Needs Addressed & Beneficiaries
Alignment with ARPA
Requirements
Eligible Uses, Timing, & Suitability
Implementation Needs
Responsibility &
Approximate Cost
Provide funding for emergency rental
assistance to prevent eviction and
homelessness
Rent burden had been high in Richmond in
advance of the pandemic and was made worse as
the pandemic disrupted workers’ ability to earn
income. Focus group participants indicated that
this is an important, unaddressed challenge. As
one participant explained, “My husband got sick
and he also had high fever. No one helped us with
high rent.”
H&E, PS
Funding can be deployed promptly
to meet immediate need,
dependent on capacity of fund
administrator
No ongoing commitment
City or nonprofit fund
administrator
TBD based on capacity of fund
administrator. $1.0-$1.5 million
could provide 12 months of
assistance to approx. 100
households.
Provide funding to hire and train
community members to provide
translation, or to expand outreach and
technical assistance to residents in
multiple languages to help them access
available housing assistance
Richmond is a diverse community – over half of
residents speak a language other than English and
a third are foreign-born. However, that cultural
and linguistic diversity is not always reflected in
the services that the city currently offers.
Additional funding can help address this gap.
H&E, PS
Work with partners to confirm
feasibility of deploying funds on
time
Temporary additional capacity, no
ongoing commitment
Nonprofit service provider,
RichmondWORKS (tentatively)
$150K- $$250K (15-30 part-time
temp workers at $15/hr)
The City can use ARPA funds to address immediate housing needs while planning for bigger citywide efforts.
OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS | POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS
825
DRAFT
30| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Alignment with
Community Needs
Needs Addressed & Beneficiaries
Alignment with ARPA
Requirements
Eligible Uses, Timing, & Suitability
Implementation Needs
Responsibility &
Approximate Cost
Develop a citywide Affordable Housing
Plan
54% of Richmond renters are housing cost
burdened, which means they spend over one-third
of their income on rent, compared to 50% in
Contra Costa County and 44% in the Metro Area.
H&E, PS
Funds can be deployed on time
No ongoing commitment
City, consultant
$150K - $200K
Make streetscape improvements in
neighborhoods, including trash cleanup, to
enhance neighborhood safety and quality
of life; Invest in green streets projects
In both the survey and listening tour, participants
indicated that the city should invest more in its
public spaces by making sidewalk and road
repairs, as well as other quality of life
improvements.
H&E*, PS
City to confirm timing
No ongoing commitment
City
TBD based on City capital needs
Hire temporary grant writers to pursue
additional funding for neighborhood and
affordable housing improvements
City staff have limited capacity to take on
additional work to secure funding in the form of
grants from the state, philanthropic partners, and
other funders that could address the City’s
housing and neighborhood development needs.
H&E, PS
Funds can be deployed on time
No ongoing commitment
City
$50K - $100K (2-4 part time
grantwriters)
G
F
G
H
The City can use ARPA funds to address immediate housing needs while planning for bigger citywide efforts.
OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS | POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS
826
DRAFT
31| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
ARPA Expenditures
▪ The City dedicated $1M to the
Richmond Rapid Response Fund which
provides emergency assistance to
businesses and residents. Housing &
homelessness is one of the fund’s
priority areas.
C I T Y P R O G R E S S
MADE
I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
A P P R O A C H
O T H E R F U N D I N G
S O U R C E S
Use ARPA efficiently and
leverage other funding
▪ The City will not be able to create many
units of affordable housing directly
using ARPA alone. It should focus
funding on helping address emergency
needs while identifying a longer-term
strategy to support affordability.
▪ The City should help its residents,
developers, and departments to access
available funds from state, county, and
federal sources to address affordable
housing.
State Funds
▪ The State of California has dedicated
significant funds, including its COVID-19
recovery funds, to addressing
affordable housing challenges
statewide.
County Funds
▪ Contra Costa County has dedicated over
$10M in HOME-ARP funds to the
development of affordable rental
housing. The City can work with the
County and developers to identify
suitable development sites in
Richmond.
Affordable housing is costly to produce. The City can use its ARPA funds to meet near-term needs, plan for bigger investments, and leverage other funding sources.
OUR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
827
DRAFT
32| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
While California offers subsidies for childcare, support is capped by income.
A family of three can earn no more than $78K to be eligible for childcare assistance. Due to the rising costs of living, families who might make slightly more than the
household maximum are left with limited childcare
options, often waiting months, or even years to find a
slot. The state is providing some relief in the form of tax refunds; California’s 2022-23 budget includes $9.5 billion in tax refunds to directly benefit families. Households making as much as $75,000 for individuals or $150,000 for joint filers will receive $350 per taxpayer, plus an additional $350 if they have at least one dependent - a single parent would receive $700 and two-parent families would receive $1,050.
There are additional barriers that families face once their children are in school. While remote learning was difficult for everyone, its impact was particularly harmful for low income and people of color. These demographics
experienced more dramatic educational declines in reading and math proficiency than their whiter, more affluent peers.
During listening sessions, people expressed a need for
programming that addressed either educational loss or
more focused interventions for older youth.
One major factor driving rising costs of childcare is a lack of qualified providers and caregivers. Local governments and nonprofits are trying to address this. In San Francisco, The Good Rural, a local nonprofit is using city and private funding to develop a pipeline of licensed childcare providers. The program provides 1-on-1 support and group training, as well as support navigating the licensing process, and how to build a successful homebased business. This program is still in its pilot phase but has directly working with over 10 informal childcare providers to help them gain an official license.
Cities have used ARPA funding to address both learning loss and provide general youth programming in a few ways. In Akron, OH, the city has allocated funds for a Youth Violence Prevention Community Grant Program, where children in grades K-3 can participate in an afterschool program. As other cities have even developed youth-specific plans for how they will allocate ARPA funding, like in New Haven, CT, where the city dedicate its first round of funding ($6.3 million) to support a “summer reset” initiative, which included expanding summer learning, youth safety initiatives, and an arts and cultural events.
CASE STUDIES
In a conversation with Building Blocks for Kids, Latina Center, and Family Justice, families voiced the need for education and program support for older children 6- 19 years of age. While speaking with the Reentry Success Center, participants stressed interest in support for people coming out of high school, who “need more direction or help, instead of being dumped on the street. Young people could use help, education, and housing assistance.”
LISTENING TOUR FINDING
There is a growing need for affordable and accessible childcare as well as after school activities for youth, especially ones that address learning loss from the pandemic.
OUR FAMILIES
828
DRAFT
33| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Alignment with
Community Needs
Needs Addressed & Beneficiaries
Alignment with ARPA
Requirements
Eligible Uses, Timing, & Suitability
Implementation Needs
Responsibility &
Approximate Cost
Provide services for families and youth
with the goal of increasing third grade
literacy rates
Two years of navigating remote learning and inperson classes have contributed to declines in reading comprehension in younger grades. Third
grade is an important year for students – studies
show that if children are not proficient readers by
the time they enter fourth grade, it will become
harder for them to catch up.
H&E, PS
Work with partners to confirm
timing
Funds can support startup and
design but additional funding may
be needed for ongoing operations
WCCUSD, Nonprofit service
providers, City and County
TBD
Provide expanded programming for
youth to meet current gaps in City and
School District programming, such as for
middle school-aged children
Many youth, parents, and formerly incarcerated
residents spoke to the need for youth
programming. West Contra Costa Unified School
District noted that there is a gap in programming
for middle schoolers in particular, and that better
family engagement is needed at all levels. One
reason why this happens is because parents are
often less involved due to work commitments; a
way to address this be paying parents a small
stipend for engaging with their children.
H&E, PS
Work with partners to confirm
timing
Funds can support temporary
operations but additional funding
may be needed for ongoing
operations
WCCUSD, Nonprofit service
providers, City (e.g. recreation
department)
TBD
Strategies
I. Partner with West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) to support children and families
J. Expand the availability of childcare services
Eligible uses for ARPA funds:
• H&E – Responding to the public health and economic impacts of COVID-19 • PS – Replacing lost public sector revenue
• PP – Premium Pay for Eligible Workers
• WSB – Investments in Water, Sewer, and Broadband Infrastructure * indicates eligibility in Qualified Census Tracts or disproportionately impacted communities) I
I
J
The City can partner with West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) to increase support for children and families and to support the expansion of childcare services.
OUR FAMILIES | POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS
829
DRAFT
34| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Alignment with
Community Needs
Needs Addressed & Beneficiaries
Alignment with ARPA
Requirements
Eligible Uses, Timing, & Suitability
Implementation Needs
Responsibility &
Approximate Cost
Provide additional support services for
students experiencing homelessness at
the City and School District
Schools are often the only way children and youth
receive social supports, yet administrators and
staff are often unequipped or underfunded to
help address those challenges. Attendance data
showed that about 3,400 students left West
Contra Costa Unified during the pandemic. One
resident shared that “The youth got forgotten.
Doing school from home was really hard. The
school district lost a lot of students because
teachers couldn’t connect with them. A lot of kids
got lost, a lot of education got lost.” Another noted
that some students “had to stop school in order to
work, because if they didn’t work, they couldn’t
make ends meet. We saw 16-year-olds entering
the workforce full-time.”
H&E, PS
Work with partners to confirm
timing
Funds can support temporary
operations but additional funding
may be needed for ongoing
operations
WCCUSD, Nonprofit service
providers
TBD
Provide funding and technical
assistance to help informal childcare
providers establish formal, licensed
childcare facilities or preschools, and to
increase their capacity
Childcare, not housing, has become the highest
expense for families in California, driven in large
part because there is a lack of certified childcare
providers. Lack of affordable childcare may be a
challenge preventing some residents from
returning to work.
H&E, PS
Work with partners to confirm
timing
Funds can support temporary
operations but additional funding
may be needed for ongoing
operations
Nonprofit service providers, CDFIs,
foundations and other
philanthropic partners
I
J
The City can partner with West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) to increase support for children and families and to support the expansion of childcare services.
OUR FAMILIES | POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS
830
DRAFT
35| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
ARPA Expenditures
▪ The City dedicated $1M to the
Richmond Rapid Response Fund which
provides emergency assistance to
businesses and residents. A portion of
that fund is earmarked for education &
learning.
C I T Y P R O G R E S S
MADE
I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
A P P R O A C H
O T H E R F U N D I N G
S O U R C E S
Partnership with WCCUSD
▪ The West Contra Costa Unified School
District (WCCUSD) will be a critical
partner. The City can work with
WCCUSD to identify and bridge gaps in
programming and support for students
and their families.
State & Federal Funding
▪ The West Contra Costa Unified School
District can potentially contribute funds
to support expanded programming
through the Coronavirus Response and
Relief Supplemental Appropriations.
The district received $29 million to help
address lost instructional time.
▪ There are also additional federal funds
available to help school districts
address the rising rates of student
homelessness.
Students and their families were impacted by COVID-19. The City can use funding to pilot interventions and programs to help address short-term educational losses.
OUR FAMILIES
831
DRAFT
36| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Los Angeles County is home to over 400,000 families who do not have a reliable home internet connection. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Los Angeles County Internal Services Department (ISD) designed and supported the implementation of Community Broadband Networks and Digital Navigators, both of which are solutions to broadband access, affordability, and adoption for communities impacted by the digital divide.
Community Broadband Networks are public-private partnerships to deploy new highspeed internet infrastructure and guarantee affordable internet service. ISD was awarded $56 million in American Rescue Plan Act funding to implement the Community Broadband Network program and is currently partnering with a consulting firm to implement the digital navigators program.
Other cities and counties across California have set aside ARPA funding to address broadband access. The library system in Paso Robles used ARPA funding to purchase hotspots, which residents can checkout. In Santa Cruz County, funding was allocated to connect housing developments and low-income neighborhoods with free or low-cost Internet service. Around the country, municipalities have gotten creative with their ARPA funding to address broadband needs. For example, Dallas County is using ARPA funding to focus on providing residents with a minimum of 100 Mbps download and upload speeds; funding will target households and businesses without access, as well as those with low speeds.
Richmond residents are struggling with both CASE STUDIES broadband access and digital literacy.
According to the 2020 US Census, 90 percent of
households in Richmond have access to the internet.
However, the quality and cost of internet access can
vary widely across income groups. For families that had parents and students relying on the internet for work or school at the same time, the quality of their internet
access dipped.
Digital literacy, including accessing virtual meeting spaces, became a constraint for many residents, particularly those from older demographics. Community events, including
religious groups, met online; not being literate in
programs like Zoom limits the ability to connect with
others or participate in remote work. Many services, such as vaccination and testing appointments, required online scheduling further compounding access to care.
Emerging from the pandemic, it is essential to both
increase digital access and literacy and reinvigorate
physical spaces for connection and community. By
investing in parks, libraries, and community spaces,
residents can come together while still reaching their
families and communities online.
Access to affordable, reliable internet service is an important component of staying connected to community events, educational opportunities, and basic services.
OUR CULTURE AND COMMUNITY
832
DRAFT
37| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Alignment with
Community Needs
Needs Addressed & Beneficiaries
Alignment with ARPA
Requirements
Eligible Uses, Timing, & Suitability
Implementation Needs
Responsibility &
Approximate Cost
Provide grants to community nonprofit
organizations providing critical cultural
and supportive services to Richmond’s
communities
Richmond is a diverse city, with half of residents
speaking a language other than English; a third of
the population was born outside of the U.S.
However, the lack of culturally competent and
representative resources means that a significant
portion of the city continues to struggle accessing
information and resources.
H&E, PS
Make deployment deadline a
requirement of the NOFA
Funds for temporary or one-time
programming; no ongoing
commitment
Nonprofit organizations
TBD based on NOFA responses
Dedicate funding to commission local
artists to create public art installations
Arts and cultural institutions were among the
hardest hit industries during the early stages of
COVID and were less likely to receive Paycheck
Protection Program funding. Investment in public
art will not only support local creators, but also
provide a sense of community pride and
connection.
H&E, PS
Make deployment deadline a
requirement of the NOFA
Funds for temporary or one-time
programming; no ongoing
commitment
Arts organizations, City
TBD based on NOFA responses
Strategies
K. Expand cultural and recreational programming and public art L. Make improvements to public facilities and subsidize available programming M. Expand access to broadband
Eligible uses for ARPA funds:
• H&E – Responding to the public health and economic impacts of COVID-19 • PS – Replacing lost public sector revenue
• PP – Premium Pay for Eligible Workers
• WSB – Investments in Water, Sewer, and Broadband Infrastructure * indicates eligibility in Qualified Census Tracts or disproportionately impacted communities) K
K
The City can use ARPA funds to support expanded cultural programming and amenities to enhance mental health, community wellbeing, and quality of life.
OUR CULTURE AND COMMUNITY | POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS
833
DRAFT
38| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
Alignment with
Community Needs
Needs Addressed & Beneficiaries
Alignment with ARPA
Requirements
Eligible Uses, Timing, & Suitability
Implementation Needs
Responsibility &
Approximate Cost
Make improvements to parks, open
space, community centers, libraries and
other amenities to improve safety and
utility
Richmond residents rely on their churches,
neighborhoods, and community organizations to
stay socially and economically connected, and
need events to return safely and quickly.
Improvements and upgrades to these facilities will
help connect residents who have felt socially
disconnected from their neighbors and
community or faced mental health challenges.
PS
City to confirm timing for
improvements
Funds for one-time capital
improvements; no ongoing
commitment
City
Provide additional free or subsidized
community and cultural programs
through the City’s parks, libraries, and
community centers
During the pandemic, there were significantly
fewer places to connect, contributing to mental
health challenges and feelings of isolation, as a
result of closure of day programs for the disabled,
churches and community centers, the
cancellation of large cultural celebrations and
community festivals, and the closure of ethnic
restaurants or the shift to take-out only service.
H&E (may depend on type of
programming), PS
City to confirm ability to deploy
subsidized programming
Funds for temporary programming
City
Address digital access and service
disparities by expanding broadband to
under-resourced communities
While 90 percent of households in the city of
Richmond have internet access, statewide data
shows that this access is likely not equitably
distributed across income levels. During the
listening tour, residents shared that the need for
internet service and technology added a new
expense and source of stress.
WSB, PS
City to confirm timing for
improvements
Funds for one-time improvements;
no ongoing commitment
City
K
L
M
The City can use ARPA funds to support expanded cultural programming and amenities to enhance mental health, community wellbeing, and quality of life.
OUR CULTURE AND COMMUNITY | POTENTIAL INVESTMENTS
834
DRAFT
39| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
ARPA Expenditures
▪ The City has dedicated over $2M in
ARPA funds to make critical repairs and
improvements to community amenities,
including the main library, Nevin
community center, the recreation
center, Richmond Museum, and MLK. Jr.
Park.
C I T Y P R O G R E S S
MADE
I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
A P P R O A C H
O T H E R F U N D I N G
S O U R C E S
Dual Approach
▪ Part of the implementation approach for
culture & community involves issuing a
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) or
identifying arts and cultural service
organizations to provide expanded
programming and public arts in the near
or intermediate term.
▪ The other part relies on investing
directly into improved city services for
recreation and community amenities.
State Funding
▪ California Arts Council has several grant
programs that provide general
operating relief for arts and cultural
organizations that experienced negative
economic impacts of COVID.
▪ The California State Library has a statefunded high-speed broadband program that supports libraries and other
organizations with internet access.
Federal Funding
▪ The Affordable Connectivity Program
provides eligible households with a $30
monthly credit for their internet service
plan.
Nonprofit organizations played critical, central roles for many types of communities during the pandemic, but still face tight resourcing and some competition for funding.
OUR CULTURE AND COMMUNITY
835
DRAFT
40| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
03 Richmond ARPA Community Needs
Assessment
Image Source: The Richmond Standard DRAFT
Guidance to
Prioritize ARPA
Spending
836
DRAFT
41| HR&A Advisors Richmond ARPA Investment Strategy
The City may not be able to advance all potential strategies identified in the Strategic Investment Plan. To prioritize investments, the City should identify projects that:
ARPA INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
BUILD ON CITY PROGRESS MADE
The City has already begun pursuing
investments and programs to address
COVID-19 recovery needs identified
through the Community Needs
Assessment and other outreach, as noted
throughout this plan. Projects for which
planning and implementation is already in
progress will be easier to advance within
the timeframe for ARPA funds.
▪ The City should prioritize projects that
are “shovel-ready” or ready to be
funded, or that can easily be advanced
to funding readiness.
▪ The City should also prioritize projects
with public and political support.
ALIGN CAPACITY AND IMPACTS
The City will implement some projects directly, and engage consultants or nonprofit partners to advance others. City staff have limited capacity for new projects, so it will be critical to consider capacity for implementation and impacts.
▪ The City should prioritize projects for which capacity exists or can be outsourced to ensure implementation
and consider staff's capacity to oversee consultants or a NOFA process.
▪ The City should evaluate NOFA submissions on: their
alignment with ARPA investment strategies and the City’s policy for one-time sources of funding; the level of funding requested; the organization’s capacity to deliver services within the timeframe for ARPA funds; and their anticipated impacts.
▪ The City should apply ARPA funds toward a mix of
investments that address immediate needs and advance
long-term initiatives. In addition, the City’s use of APRA funds should align with the City’s ongoing equity work.
LEVERAGE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES
ARPA is a flexible source of one-time
funding to support recovery needs.
However, community recovery needs are
greater than what the City can address
through ARPA alone. The City should
prioritize projects that leverage or help
capture other funding sources, such as:
▪ Hiring grant writers to secure
additional funds for City projects.
▪ Providing technical assistance that
helps residents and businesses
access other funding sources and
services.
▪ Investing in infrastructure
improvements that may attract or
catalyze private investment.
837
DRAFT
.
Richmond, CA | Strategic Investment Plan
Using the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
to Meet our Highest Needs
Image Source: Balazs Gardi/The Guardian
D E C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
DRAFT 838
Reso. No.