Richmond City Council
September 12, 2023

1311

//&$$WWDFKPHQW
(67


2016 California Secretary of State
www.sos.ca.gov/business/be


  










  











  











  











  











  











  











Attachment to
Statement of Information

/LPLWHG/LDELOLW\&RPSDQ\

LLC-12A
Attachment
7KLV6SDFH)RU2IILFH8VH2QO\
A. Limited Liability Company Name
B. 12-Digit Secretary of State File Number C. State or Place of Organization RQO\LIIRUPHGRXWVLGHRI&DOLIRUQLD

D. List of Additional Manager(s) or Member(s) - ,I WKH PDQDJHUPHPEHU LV DQ LQGLYLGXDO HQWHU WKH LQGLYLGXDO¶V QDPH DQG DGGUHVV ,I WKH PDQDJHUPHPEHUL VDQHQWLW\HQWHUW KHHQWLW\¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV1RWH 7KH//&FDQQRWVHUYHDVLWVRZQPDQDJHUR UPHPEHU )LUVW1DPH  0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
(QWLW\1DPH 
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
)LUVW1DPH   0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
(QWLW\1DPH 
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
 )LUVW1DPH 0LGGOH1DPH  /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
(QWLW\1DPH 
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
 )LUVW1DPH 0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
 (QWLW\1DPH
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH 
 )LUVW1DPH 0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
(QWLW\1DPH 
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
)LUVW1DPH  0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
 (QWLW\1DPH
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
)LUVW1DP H  0LGGOH1DPH /DVW1DPH 6XIIL[
(QWLW\1DPH 
$GGUHVV &LW\
QRDEEUHYLDWLRQV
 6WDWH =LS&RGH
19-D92012

NOMAD TRANSIT LLC
201732010274 DELAWARE

DANIEL RAMOT
95 MORTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR NEW YORK NY 10014

ERIN ABRAMS
95 MORTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR NEW YORK NY 10014

1312
1313
1314
Exhibit G: Resolution/Project Approval
1315
1316
1317
Exhibit H: Conflict of Interest Declaration
1318
Clean Mobility Voucher Pilot Program: CONF LICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION The awardee must disclose any Conflict of Interest with their ability to fulfill the duties of the Clean Mobility Voucher Pilot Program Voucher Agreement (Voucher Agreement). Please summarize all of your organization’s or any subcontractor’s/project partner's direct or indirect interests which may pose an actual, apparent, or potential conflict of interest with your ability to fulfill the duties of the Voucher Agreement. Please note that a potential or actual conflict of interest exists when commitments and obligations under the Voucher Agreement are likely to be compromised by the awardee’s or any subcontractor’s/project partner's other interests (including but not limited to financial interests), or relationships, particularly if those interests or commitments are not disclosed. The Program Administrator may consider the nature and extent of any potential or apparent conflict of interest in reviewing, considering, or processing the voucher application or voucher implementation activities, and may disqualify the awardee/voucher recipient at the Program Administrator's sole discretion.

Please describe below any interests (including but not limited to financial interests), relationships, or positions you or any of your organization’s or subcontractor’s/project partner’s hold (volunteer or otherwise), or circumstances that you believe could contribute to a conflict of interest:

To my knowledge, my organization/ subcontractor/ project partner does not have a C
onflict of Interest to disclose.

My organization/ subcontractor/ project partner has a Conflict of Interest to d
isclose and I have included the appropriate documentation.

Signature of Res ponsible Party Date
Typed Name of Responsible Party
Typed Name of Organization
Sep 12 2021
Tom Butt
_________________
City Clerk Signature
_________________
City Attorney Signature
X
Mayor
City of Richmond California
1319
Exhibit I: Confidentiality Statement
1320
Clean Mobility Voucher Pilot Program
CO

NFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
As an authorized representative and/or officer of the organization named below, I warrant my organization and its employees will not disclose and will keep confidential any documents, diagrams, Personally Identifiable Information ( see next page for the definition of PII), and information storage media (i.e., databases, cloud storage, etc.) made available to us by the State, the Program Administrator, or community members for the purpose of implementing the Clean Mobility Voucher Pilot Program Voucher Agreement (Voucher Agreement) or in conjunction with any sub-contract agreement arising there from. I warrant that only those employees who are authorized and required to use such materials will have access to them and that they will sign confidentiality statements at least as restrictive as this one applicable to the organization named below.

I further warrant that all materials provided by the State, the Program Administrator or community members will be physically and/or electronically destroyed once the information is no longer necessary for the implementation to meet the Voucher Agreement requirements. I will include a letter attesting to documenting the destruction of copies to the Program Administrator as part of the completion of the project milestones. Failure to so comply will subject this organization to potential liability, including all damages to the State and third parties. I authorize the State and Program Administrator to inspect and verify compliance with this statement. _____________________________________ ___________________ Signature of Responsible Party Date
_____________________________________
Typed Name of Responsible Party
_____________________________________
Typed Name of Organization
Sep 12 2021
Tom Butt
_________________
City Clerk Signature
________________
City Attorney Signature
Mayor
City of Richmond California
1321
For purposes of this confidentiality statement, Personally Identifiable Information (PII) includes but is not limited to an individual’s:

• Social Security number
• Driver license or state-issued ID number
• Military ID number
• Passport number
• Credit card (or debit card) number, CVV2, and expiration date • Financial account numbers (with or without access codes or passwords) • Customer account numbers
• Unlisted telephone numbers
• Date or place of birth
• Mother’s maiden name
• PINs or passwords
• Password challenge question responses
• Account balances or histories
• Wage & salary information
• Tax filing status
• Biometric data that can be used to identify an individual, including finger or voice prints
• Digital or physical copies of handwritten signature
• E- mail addresses
• Medical record numbers
• Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers • Medical histories
• National or ethnic origin
• Religious affiliation(s)
• Physical characteristics (height, weight, hair color, eye color, etc.) • Insurance policy numbers
• Credit or payment history data
• Full face photographic images and any comparable images • Certificate/license numbers
• Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers
• Geolocation or physical address

1322
Audit Trail
Document Details
Title MP20W1A-11, City of Richmond: CMO MP Voucher Agreement for Your Signature File Name A-11 City of Richmond MPV Voucher Agreement_9.07.21.pdf Document ID c74e40a6b8654bbb85db651289f6de0e
Fingerprint a14d55410044aad5dc2b92413dc88821
Status Completed
Document History
Document Created Document Created by Cayla McDonell ([email protected]) Fingerprint: a14d55410044aad5dc2b92413dc88821
Sep 08 2021
03:10PM UTC
Document Sent Document Sent to Tom Butt ([email protected]) Sep 08 2021 03:10PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Tom Butt ([email protected]) IP: 174.194.137.0
Sep 08 2021
03:14PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Tom Butt ([email protected]) IP: 174.194.137.0
Sep 08 2021
03:14PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Tom Butt ([email protected]) IP: 40.94.28.225
Sep 08 2021
03:16PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Tom Butt ([email protected]) IP: 40.94.28.225
Sep 08 2021
03:16PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Tom Butt ([email protected]) IP: 174.194.137.0
Sep 12 2021
03:40PM UTC
Document Signed Document Signed by Tom Butt ([email protected]) IP: 174.194.137.0
Sep 12 2021
03:41PM UTC
Document Sent Document Sent to Piero Stillitano ([email protected]) Sep 12 2021 03:41PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Piero Stillitano ([email protected]) IP: 64.52.177.75
Sep 13 2021
04:02PM UTC
Document Signed Document Signed by Piero Stillitano ([email protected]) IP: 64.52.177.75
Sep 13 2021
04:03PM UTC1323
Document Sent Document Sent to Cayla McDonell ([email protected]) Sep 13 2021 04:03PM UTC
Document Viewed Document Viewed by Cayla McDonell ([email protected]) IP: 24.10.98.171
Sep 16 2021
06:58PM UTC
Document Signed Document Signed by Cayla McDonell ([email protected]) IP: 24.10.98.171
Sep 16 2021
07:00PM UTC
Document
Completed
This document has been completed.

Fingerprint: b41c86da3e5a3303a1f524d6c181e6a8
Sep 16 2021
07:06PM UTC
1324

Amendment 01 to Voucher Agreement Number MP20W1A-11
Between CALSTART, Inc. and The City of Richmond

This Amendment No. 01 (Amendment) is dated for convenience as of August 09, 2023, and is made to Voucher Agreement number MP20W1A-11 between City of Richmond (Awardee) and CALSTART, Inc (“CALSTART”), executed September 13, 2021 (“Agreement”). The purpose of this amendment is to increase the voucher amount, update the budget, update the CMO Project Milestone Schedule, expand the project area, and update the project Financial Sustainability Plan.

Recitals

• On April 2, 2019, CALSTART executed grant number G17-CMDC-01 with the State of California Air Resources Board (CARB).
• On September 13, 2021, The City of Richmond (Awardee) entered into voucher agreement number MP20W1A-11 with CALSTART to perform the mobility project funded under CARB grant number G17-CMDC-01 for a reimbursable amount not to exceed one million and no/100 dollars ($1,000,000).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises herein, and for good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree to amend Agreement as follows:

1. The reimbursable amount is increased by five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), for a total reimbursable amount not to exceed one million, five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000).

2. Effective upon execution of this amendment, Attachment 1 (MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER BUDGET WORKSHEET) is replaced in its entirety per revised Attachment 1: MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER BUDGET WORKSHEET attached.

3. Effective upon execution of this amendment, CMO Project Milestone Schedule is replaced in it’s entirety per revised CMO Project Milestone Schedule attached.

4. Effective upon execution of this amendment, the project area information: Location (City/Neighborhood) is updated to: City of Richmond, Belding Woods, North Richmond, East Richmond, and UC Berkeley Field Station. Map of Richmond Expanded Project Area is attached.

5. Effective upon execution of this amendment, the project financial sustainability plan is incorporated, Window 1 Mobility Project Voucher Awardees Updated Financial Sustainability Plan is attached.

Except as provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

1 | P a g e
1325

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused their duly authorized officers to execute this Amendment as of the dates listed below, but to take effect as of August 09, 2023.

CALSTART, Inc.

The City of Richmond

By:

By:

(Signature) (Signature)

Name:

Piero Stillitano

Name:

Eduardo Martinez
(Print Name) (Print Name)

Title:

Chief Financial Officer

Title:

Mayor
(Print Title) (Print Title)

Date:

Date:

2 | P a g e
1326
Attachment 1 (MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER BUDGET WORKSHEET)

Sample Mobility Provider Voucher Budget Worksheet (INCLUDES SAMPLE INFORMATION) Instructions: This is a sample budget worksheet to provide examples of eligible costs and how funding can be allocated. Enter data in blue cells. Do not enter data in grey or white cells. Add rows as necessary. The entire sheet is "unlocked" and it is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that subtotals and calculations are accurate. Voucher amounts and category totals must comply with allowable voucher amounts in the Implementation Manual. For any contributed resource contributions to meet the 5-year Voucher Agreement Term, indicate monetary assets under "Community Resource Contributions". It is recommended that applicants additionally complete the optional "Category Eligibility Check Worksheet" in the table below to ensure that they meet eligibility requirements for categories that have minimum and maximum requirements. Please note that administrative activities can be reimbursed during the last year of your voucher agreement (Year 4 of Service Operation), this includes insurance compliance, activities associated with payment request submissions, insurance compliance, data reporting, printing, record retention, and mailing.

Section 1: Project Components

Section 2: Voucher Budget

Section 3: Additional Funding

(a)
Expense Category and
Sub-Category

(b)
Item description

Description of Voucher Request

Annual Budget Breakdown Up to Year 3 of Service Operation Period
Annual Budget
Breakdown for
Year 4 of
Service
Operation
(Administrative
Expenses Only)

Description of Additional
Funding Requested
(c)
Voucher amount
requested per
unit or hour
($)

(d)
Number of units
or hours
requested

(e)
Total voucher
amount by item
($)
(f)
Project Launch
(Up to 15
Months)
($)

(g)
Year 1 of Service
Operation
($)

(h)
Year 2 of Service
Operation
($)

(i)
Year 3 of Service
Operation
($)

(j)
Year 4 of Service
Operation
($)

(k)
Current
Approved
Voucher Cost

(l)
Difference
Requested
Direct Labor

Voucher Administration
CMEA Participation $300.00 16 hour $4,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,800.00 $0 $4,800 Staff Administration $4,650.00 1 $4,650.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,650.00 $0 $4,650 $0 $0
Planning $5,000 $0
Operations and Maintenance
Outreach and Marketing
$0 $0
$0 $0
Fringe Benefits
Voucher Administration
$0 $0
$0 $0
Planning $0 $0
Outreach and Marketing $0 $0
Travel/Mileage
Voucher Administration
$0 $0
$0 $0
Equipment/Capital Costs (Lead Only)
Motor Vehicles and Associated
Hardware
$0 $0
$0 $0
Charging/Fueling Equipment
and Installation
$15,000 $0
$0 $0
Additional Transportation
Enhancements (Maximum 25%
of total voucher)

$0

$0
Subcontractor
Planning Pre-Launch Planning Cost (Lump
Sum) VIA

$5,000.00

1 $5,000.00

$5,000.00

n/a

n/a

$0

$5,000

Voucher Administration
Ongoing Admin Support (Per Vehicle
Hour)

$2.02

17,977 $36,242
$0

$12,387

$23,855

$12,328

$23,914
Regulatory Fees (Per Ride) $0.10 39,533 $3,953 $0 $1,351 $2,602 $2,804 $1,149 Regulatory Fees (0.3% of Revenue)

n/a

n/a

$3,428

$0

$444

$2,984

$0 $3,428
Regulatory Fees (One-Time Annual
Fee)

$25.00

3 $73

$0

$25

$48

$0

$73

Operations and Maintenance
Driver Costs (Per Vehicle Hour) $27.00 17,977 $485,388 $0 $165,902 $319,486 $341,529 $143,858 Vehicle Costs (Per Vehicle Hour) $26.99 17,977 $485,129 $0 $165,813 $319,316 $341,348 $143,782 Customer Support (Per Vehicle
Hour)

$4.52

17,977

$81,257

$0

$27,773

$53,484

$54,518 $26,739
Insurance (Per Vehicle Hour) $1.60 17,977 $28,764 $0 $9,831 $18,933 $20,762 $8,002 COVID Partition Cost (Per Partition)

$85.00

4 $340

$340

$0

$0

$340

$0
COVID Disinfectant Wipes (Per
Cannister)

$17.75

60 $1,065

$1,065

$0

$0

$1,065

$0
COVID Masks (Per Mask) $5.00 32 $160 $160 $0 $0 $160 $0 Direct Software Costs (Per Vehicle
Hour)

$5.20

17,977

$93,482

$0

$31,951

$61,531

$66,305

$27,177
Tech Support Labor (Per Vehicle
Hour) $3.00 17,977 $53,932 $0 $18,434 $35,498

$36,836

$17,096

Outreach and Marketing
Vehicle Magnets (Per Magnet) $100.00 4 $400 $400 $0 $0 $400 $0 Driver Acquisition (Per Vehicle Hour)

$4.00

17,977 $71,909

$0

$24,578

$47,331

$43,802 $28,107
Launch Rider Marketing (Per Vehicle
Hour)

$1.02

12,289 $12,481
$12,481

$0

$0

$7,500

$4,981
Ongoing Rider Marketing (Per
Vehicle Hour)

$4.25

17,977 $76,404

$0

$26,114

$50,289

$49,160

$27,244
Capital Acquisition
$0 $0
$0 $0

Charging/Fueling Equipment
and Installation
Installation of Charging Infrastructure
(5 Level 2 EVSE charging ports)

$51,143

1 $51,143

$0

$0

$51,143

$1,143

$50,000
$0
Other

Voucher Administration

Operations and Maintenance

Outreach and Marketing

Indirect Costs
Voucher Administration n/a n/a
Grand Total
Grand Total - Voucher Funding Term (Voucher Funds) n/a n/a $ 1,500,000 $ 19,446 $ 484,603 $ 995,951 $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 Grand Total - Other Funds Budget (Non-CMO Funds) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Community Resource Contributions
Resource contributions are assets contributed to the project to support long-term sustainability to meet the 5-year Voucher Agreement Term that includes a minimum of 4 years of service operation and beyond. Resource contributions are not eligible for payment through voucher funding. Instructions: Add in-kind monetary resource contribution assets.

Planning Costs

Operations and Maintenance CalSTA Grant with ECIA match $3,118,000 Subcontractor

Optional: Category Eligibility Check Worksheet
Instructions: Calculate sums in "Category Total" and "Applicable Denominator" Columns. User may need to adjust example formula if additional rows were manually inserted above.

Cost Category Eligibility Requirement Summary
(See Implementation Manual for Details)

Category Total Applicable
Denominator

Percentage

Conforms to Eligibility Requirement?
Bicycle/Scooter Infrastructure and
Installation
Maximum of 300% of amount of electric bicycle/scooter vehicles or 200% of amount of non-electric bicycle/scooter vehicles amount

$0

$0

n/a Yes. Less than 300% of requested voucher funds for electric bikes/scooters (nothing in this category requested).

Additional Transportation
Enhancements Maximum of 10% of total voucher amount $0 $0 n/a Yes. Less than 10% of total voucher request (nothing in this category requested).

Notes: Via's cost model is primarily based on the number of vehicle hours provided over the project's duration. The majority of costs are incurred and tracked on an hourly basis, and Via invoices Richmond on a per-vehicle hour basis. Therefore, the preferred method of voucher reimbursement is payment based on vehicle hours incurred per month of service. 1327

CMO PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE

PURPOSE: The Project Milestone Schedule is a tool to help you know when you need to meet CMO program milestones and to think about the timing and sequence of the project milestones your project needs to have in place to have your project be successful. This template will be included in your voucher agreement and will help to track progress towards your project plan. Your project milestone schedule can be modified and updated over the voucher agreement term.

INSTRUCTIONS: To complete your Project Milestone Schedule, fill out the template below. Items marked RED are requirements, and items color-coded BLUE are for you to modify:

1. Mark the milestone number (Column A), description of the milestone to achieve (Column B), and the month number (Column C) in which you plan to achieve the milestone over the 5-year voucher agreement term, starting with Voucher Execution (O month). Please leave Calendar Date (Column D) blank. You can insert actual calendar dates (Column D) after your voucher has been executed.

2. Add in milestones and details for your project that are other additional steps critical to achieving launch within 1 year of voucher execution.

3. Add/modify rows to this template, as appropriate, based on your project plan. At a minimum, you may use this template as your project milestone schedule, but you are encouraged to modify this template to suit your project.

4. Include work start dates as individual milestones for sub-contractors and other partners.

NOTE 1: Key CMO Program Requirements with deadlines are already in the template; you may meet these deadlines sooner than listed, but no later than those listed in order for you to meet the project launch deadline of within 1 year of voucher execution.

NOTE 2: Quarterly status reporting and payment reimbursements templates will be distributed to awardees at a later date, and are intended as opportunities to reflect the progress made on each of the project milestones.

DEADLINE: Submit your completed Project Milestone Schedule to: [email protected] in Word or Excel Format PRIOR TO VOUCHER EXECUTION in order to include in your voucher agreement.

City of Richmond

PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE
OVER 5-YEAR MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER TERM
A.

MILESTONE
NUMBER
B.

DESCRIPTION OF MILESTONE TO BE ACHIEVED
C.

MONTH
NUMBER

ACHIEVED
D.

CALENDAR DATE
[ADD AFTER

VOUCHER
EXECUTION]
1st Funding Year - PLANNING (O - 4 months) (Launch is required by 12th month) 1 Voucher agreement executed and project
insurance is in compliance.

O months
2 Secure contract with a Mobility Provider.

Provide proof of contract to the Program
1 month
4/15/21 Page 1 of 3

1328

CMO PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE

Administrator that a mobility provider is secured
and under contract.

Finalized project scope.

Establish service parameters.

Define marketing plan.

3 Secure project vehicles.

Localized software suite.

Quality assurance and internal system testing
completed.
2 months
4 Complete final installation of all planned
CMO-funded infrastructure and submit for
reimbursement.

Pre-launch driver training completed.

The app is available for download.

All training workshops for Richmond staff
conducted.

All drivers trained and approved for live service.

Fleet ready for service.

Live field testing completed.

All pre-launch marketing completed.
3 months
5 Launch mobility service. Intended users of the
service start using the service (if services have
not already been launched).

Feedback gathered from initial users.

Post-launch marketings and promotion plan
initiated.

Ongoing optimizations of day-to-day operations.
4 months
2nd Funding Year - OPERATION YEAR 1
6 Continue operating mobility service in
compliance with CMO T&Cs.
5-17 months
(Program
Requirement)

3rd Funding Year - OPERATION YEAR 2
7 Continue operating mobility service in
compliance with CMO T&Cs
18-29 months
(Program
Requirement)

4th Voucher Year (No CMO Funding) - OPERATION YEAR 3
8 Continue operating mobility service in 30-41 months
4/15/21 Page 2 of 3

1329

CMO PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE

compliance with CMO T&Cs. (Program
Requirement)

9 Source additional grant funding and/or other
revenue sources from local businesses,
advertising, and/or public entities to sustain
operations of service.
30-41 months
5th Voucher Year (No CMO Funding) - OPERATION YEAR 4
10 Continue operating mobility service in
compliance with CMO T&Cs.
42-53 months
(Program
Requirement)

11 Source additional grant funding and/or other
revenue sources from local businesses,
advertising, and/or public entities to sustain
operations of service.
42-53 months
12 Voucher Agreement Term Ends. 60 months

4/15/21 Page 3 of 3

1330
Map of Richmond Expanded Project Area

Overview
After launching in April 2022, Richmond Moves has filled a transit gap in the community by connecting residents to transit hubs like BART and the Ferry Terminal, as well as other places in town like MLK Park and Civic Center. Since launch, ridership has increased month after month, surpassing 12,000 total passenger trips. With current funding limitations, Richmond Moves can only cover a small portion of the city. With the additional Plus Up Funds from CMO, we would like to expand the service zone in order to meet the demands of the community. Additionally, at the start of service, there was not an electric Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle (WAV) on the market so had to outsource to a hydrogen power vehicle.

We’re excited to bring a WAV in house now that this is possible and will be using some of the plus up funds to pay for the operation of a WAV. While we wait for an electric WAV, we will be using a hybrid WAV. In summary, with the additional $500,000, we plan to use the funds to 1) expand the service zone, 2) add a WAV EV (and hybrid in the short term), 3)add 1 PHEV to the fleet, and 4)invest in additional charging infrastructure.

Map of Proposed Expanded Area
The current zone (blue) and proposed expanded zone (orange) are shown below. The proposed expanded zone includes:
● Belding Woods
● North Richmond
● East Richmond
● UC Berkeley Field Station
1331
Map of Richmond Expanded Project Area

AB 1550: The expanded zone covers almost all AB 1550 communities.

SB 535: As seen in orange, the expanded zone covers a portion of SB 535 communities, including Belding Woods.

Evidence from the Needs Assessment (Richmond First/Last Mile Transportation Strategic Plan)
The Richmond First/Last Mile Transportation Strategic Plan focuses on the development of a comprehensive strategy that focuses on development and implementation of a first mile/last mile transportation network across the entire city of Richmond. The recommendations in the report, including a first mile/last mile shuttle solution like Richmond Moves, seek to connect the City’s existing mobility hubs, including Richmond BART Station, Richmond Ferry Terminal, and El Cerrito del Norte BART Station - all of which are covered in the Richmond Moves zone.
1332
Map of Richmond Expanded Project Area

By focusing on first mile/last mile connections, the City of Richmond seeks to “improve connections between Richmond’s neighborhoods and the Bay Area region”. Currently due to funding constraints, the Richmond Moves zone covers only a small portion of the City, including City Central and the neighborhoods of Atchison Village, Santa Fe, Coronado, and Pullman. However, the Strategic Plan aims to bridge connections from all neighborhoods in Richmond, not just the city center core. By expanding into Belding Woods, North and East Richmond, more Richmond residents will be able to reach BART stations, AC Transit Bus Stops, and the Ferry Terminal - reaching the vision from the Strategic Plan.

Feedback or Comments from Community Members Showing Interest in Richmond Moves

Rider Comments/Feedback from the Richmond Moves App
● “My first time using this service great driver and very quick .and professional this is a blessing to have. Thank you”
● “Richmond should have implemented this program many many moons ago. ● “Easy rides for sure!”
● “Nice and easy ride!”

Ride Rating
Since launch, Richmond Moves has an average ride rating of 4.8/5.

Ridership per Month

Unique Riders per Month
1333
Map of Richmond Expanded Project Area

Additional Evidence of Community Engagement and Feedback that Shows Demand of Service and How Expanded Project Area helps meet the level of service needed for the Community.

Direct Email Outreach from Community Members
● “I was just reaching out because I wanted to know if there are plans to extend Richmond Moves service to cover all of Richmond? Right now, my house is a block outside of the range of service” (Feb 28, 2023)
● “I started a thread in the ‘Everyone’s Richmond’ Facebook group and got a lot of feedback… others were upset that it doesn’t include the North and East. Are there plans to expand the service?” (Dec 3, 2022)

Richmond Moves App Downloads
The map below shows the locations of where the Richmond Moves app has been downloaded in the greater East Bay area, many of which are in the proposed expanded service area. Note - the chart captures roughly 70% of app downloads since launch. 1334
Map of Richmond Expanded Project Area

Car-Free Households
A portion of the proposed expanded zone includes a dense area of car free households, including part of North Richmond neighborhood. By expanding the zone, more of these households will have access to mobility hubs and other resources within the Richmond core.

Letters of Support from Community Members
See attached for letters from:
● City of El Cerrito
● West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
Community Interest for Expansion
When surveyed, 83 riders wrote it with areas to expand the service to. Responses included North Richmond, Iron Triangle, Hilltop, El Cerrito, San Pablo, and multiple responses for “All neighborhoods”.
1335

WINDOW 1 MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER AWARDEES

UPDATED FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR WINDOW 1 MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER AWARDEES OVERVIEW There is a set-aside fund specifically for current MPV funded projects. Window 1 MPV Awardees are eligible for up to $500,000 in additional funding for their current funded project without submitting a new voucher application1 . The additional funds for Window 1 MPV Awardees may be applied to a variety of eligible activities related to insurance compliance, capital acquisition, planning and operations, administration, outreach and marketing, participation in the Clean Mobility Equity Alliance (CMEA) meetings and other program activities only in support of the project scope outlined in their voucher agreement. Awardees must submit an updated financial sustainability plan and a revised budget that justifies the need and use of additional funds based on the current approved milestone schedule and budget to the Program Administrator for review and approval within 90 business days of receipt of their notification email. The Program Administrator will work with each awardee to process their voucher agreement amendment.

To apply for Additional Funding, please complete this Updated Financial Sustainability Plan by answering all required questions in the boxes, provide all relevant documentation and signatures.

Attachment 1. Mobility Project Voucher Budget Worksheet Attachment 2. Updated Project Milestone Schedule

In order to be eligible to receive additional funding set aside for Window 1 Mobility Project Voucher Awardees, the entire request and supporting documents must be completed and submitted, including all required attachments.

1 Window 1 MPV awardees who have less than $1M in voucher funding in their current voucher agreement may 1336

Organization Name:

Malling Address:

City: State: Zip Code:

Project Lead Primary Contact Name:

Phone: Email:

Organization Name: City of Richmond

Mailing Address: 440 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor
City: Richmond
State: CA
Zip Code: 94804
Project Lead Primary Contact Name: Denee Evans

PROJECT INFORMATION
VOUCHER NUMBER: _MP20W1A-11
EXECUTED VOUCHER AMOUNT: _$1,000,000

1. LEAD APPLICANT (AWARDEE} INFORMATION

2. MOTOR VEHICLE OWNER INFORMATION (If Applicable)
Information about the party that will take ownership of motor vehicle(s) funded by CMO. May be the same or different party than the lead applicant.

3. MICROMOBILITV DEVICES OWNER INFORMATION (If Applicable) Information about the party that will take ownership of micromobility devices (e.g., bicycles, scooters. etc.} funded by CMO. May be same or different party than the lead applicant.

Organization Name:

Address:

City:

Project Lead Primary Contact Name:

Phone:

Email:
1337

4. MOBILITY OPERATOR INFORMATION
May be the same or different party than the lead applicant and/orfleet and micromobility devices owner. Indicate the mobility operatorfor each applicable project service model.

Project Service Model: Mlcrotransit

Organization Name: Nomad Transit, LLC (a subsidiary of Via Transportation, Inc.) Malling Address: 10 Crosby Street, Floor 2
City: New York State: NY Zip Code: 10013
Project Lead Primary Contact Name: Alex Seidel
Phone: 206-669-5988 Email: [email protected]

Project Service Model:

Organization Name:

Mailing Address:

City: State: Zip Code:

Project Lead Primary Contact Name:

Phone: Email:

PROPOSED BUDGET AND PLAN FOR FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
This section collects information about the proposed budget and your plan/orfinancial sustainability. Projects must operate for at least 4 years from the date that operations fully launch (when participants start using the service). This period is referred to as the Project Operation Period. In this section, Window 1 MPV Awardees must describe strategies for maintaining the proposed services at least throughout the project operations period in the required Financial Sustainability Plan in their additionalfunding request.

1. Please indicate the total voucher amount you are requesting not-to-exceed $1,500,000.

Note: Window 1 MPV awardees who have Jess than $1M in voucherfunding in their current voucher agreement may apply for more than $500k to reach up to $1.SM total in their amended voucher agreement. However, approval is upon availability offunds and CARB's discretion.

1338

2, Describe your strategies for maintaining the proposed service{s) for a minimum of 4-year project operation period.

Note: This response must explain how the service will be maintainedfor at least 4 years offull operations and sustained beyond the Project Operation Period. Include resources required to fully operate the projectfor at least 4 years from the date that operationsfully launch.

Years 1-2
During the first two years of operations, the service will be primarily sustained through the CMO Voucher Program. The service will also be collecting farebox revenue.

Years 3-4

For years 3-4, Richmond will utilize several strategies to ensure that the service is sustainable.

Revenues from the farebox will continue to be utilized. Additionally, the City and Via are exploring partnership opportunities with stakeholders in the region. For example, the team is in conversations with UC Berkeley contributing funds to the service once the service zone expands to include the UC Berkeley Field Station.

In addition to these partnership opportunities, the City of Richmond was recently awarded a TIRCP grant that, matched with funds from Richmond's ECIA fund, will enable the service to expand dty-wide and carry on for an additional 3 years once CMO funds are exhausted.

1339

3. Describe your strategies for ensuring vehicles and equipment continue to serve the community if operation discontinues after the 5-year voucher agreement term.

If operation discontinues after the 5-year voucher term, Richmond would work with Via to develop various strategies to continue to service the community. These might include:
• A lease-to-own model for vehicles. Vehicle cost cou!d be amortized over the five years, or longer, to eventually ensure that Richmond owns the vehicles. Via is open to explore other innovative models for the vehicles to continue to service the community.
• Existing charging stations. All EV charging stations will remain permanently for the lifetime of the hardware, usable by all Richmond residents.
• If Richmond takes over the operations of the service, Richmond Moves could transition to a Software-as-a-Service (Saas) model, where Via no longer coordinates and integrates the service and ensures vehicle maintenance, but only provides the software. Via's Saas solution allows partners to plug its transit management software into a fleet operated by the partner or a third-party agency.

Partners rely on Via to provide, maintain, and support the technology system - including the backend routing and ride aggregation system, service management interface, and the Via Rider and Driver Apps. The Saas solution offers a full suite of tools and support services for partners to operate on-demand transit services with their own drivers, vehicles, dispatchers, and customer support representatives.
1340

ATTESTATIONS AND SIGNATURE

1. I, the authorized officer to represent and sign this request on behalf of my organization/tribe as the Lead Applicant, have read, understand and agree to abide by all of the requirements, terms and conditions in the CMO Implementation Manual;

2. I attest to all of the following:

a. Our organization agrees that the eligible additional funds will be used directly towards the awarded project's eligible activities only in support of the project scope outlined in the

1341

b. The total voucher award does not exceed $1,500,000 In the Awardee's amended Voucher Agreement.

Signed by the authorized officer:

Name:

Eduardo Martinez

.,.11 ............. �
Title: Date:

Mayor of Richmond California 05/19/2023

Window 1 Mobilit y Profect Voucher Awardees Additional Funding Request and supporting documents may be submitted by email at
[email protected], or by mail to the following address:

PLEASE RETURN SIGNED DOCUMENTS TO:

Attention: Clean MobJllty Options

CALSTART
48 South Chester Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91106
www.cleanmobilityoptions.org
1342

3. Describe your strategies for ensuring vehicles and equipment continue to serve the community If operation discontinues after the 5-year voucher agreement term.

If operation discontinues after the 5-year voucher term, Richmond would work with Via to develop various strategies to continue to service the community. These might include:
• A lease-to-own model for vehicles. Vehlcle cost could be amortized over the five years, or longer, to eventually ensure that Richmond owns the vehicles. Via is open to explore other innovative models for the vehicles to continue to service the community,
• Existing charging stations. All EV charging stations will remain permanently for the lifetime of the hardware, usable by all Richmond residents,
• If Richmond takes over the operations of the service, Richmond Moves could transition to a Software-as-a-Service (Saas) model, where Via no longer coordinates and integrates the service and ensures vehicle maintenance, but only provides the software. Via's Saas solution allows partners to plug its transit management software into a fleet operated by the partner or a third-party agency.

Partners rely on Via to provide, maintain, and support the technology system - lndudlng the backend routing and ride aggregation system, service management interface, and the Via Rider and Driver Apps. The Saas solution offers a full suite of tools and support services for partners to operate on-demand transit services with their own drivers, vehlcles, dispatchers, and customer support representatives.

1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411

September 12, 2023

Library and Community Services

DATE: September 12, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager, Community
Services
Kate Eppler, Deputy Director of Community Services –
Library
Abigail Sims-Evelyn, Literacy Program Manager
Subject:

California State Library English as a Second Language
Services Project Grant Award
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Accept and appropriate the California State Library grant award of $69,602 for English as a Second Language
services.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

Not applicable.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Richmond Public Library has been awarded a
$69,602 grant from the California State Library to support English as a Second Language educational services
offered at the Library’s literacy services program, Literacy for Every Adult Program (LEAP).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE
into the Fiscal Year 2023-24 budget a California State
Library grant, in the amount of $69,602, to support
English as a Second Language educational services
offered at the Library’s literacy services program, Literacy for Every Adult Program (LEAP) – Community Services
Department (Kate Eppler 510-620-5452/Abigail Sims-
Evelyn 510-307-8082).

AGENDA
REPORT
1412

September 12, 2023
DISCUSSION:

On July 12, 2023, the Library’s Literacy for Every Adult Program (LEAP) received a $69,602 grant from the California Library Literacy Service Program to support LEAP’s English as a Second Language (ESL) program. This grant will cover services from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024. LEAP staff is strongly encouraged to develop and maintain community partners to strengthen the ESL program, attend regular regional library literacy network meetings, participate in local Adult Education Consortium, and participate in literacy training opportunities offered by the State Library.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Grant Award Letter English As a Second Language Program Attachment 2 – Grant Award Agreement and Certificate of Compliance Attachment 3 – Grant Award Package
Attachment 4 – Resolution CLLS
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND TO

ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE
LIBRARY, ADJUST REVENUE BY $69,602 AND ADJUST EXPENDITURES BY $69,602 IN THE 2023-2024 LIBRARY BUDGET.

WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the 2023-2024 City of Richmond operating budget, the Richmond Public Library was awarded $69,602 from the California State Library; and

WHEREAS, the additional grant funding of $69,602 will enable adult literacy education and literacy activities for Literacy for Every Adult Program (LEAP) English as a Second Language participants; and

WHEREAS, this grant funding will continue ESL services at the Richmond Public Library’s adult literacy service, LEAP;

WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Richmond authorizes the City Manager or their designee to execute grant agreements and any other grant-related documents; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Richmond that the 2023-2024 Library Budget is adjusted to add $69,602 to revenue and to add $69,602 to expenditures.

*****************************

I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a _________ meeting held on _____________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

________________________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond

1450
(SEAL)

Approved:

_______________________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

____________________________
City Attorney

1451

September 12, 2023

Library and Community Services

DATE: September 12, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager, Community
Services
Kate Eppler, Deputy Director of Community Services –
Library
Abigail Sims-Evelyn, Literacy Program Manager
Subject: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Title II (WIOA II) Grant Award for $65,296
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Project expenditures will be funded by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Title II. There will be no net additional expense to the General Fund.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

Not applicable.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Richmond Public Library – Literacy for Every Adult
Program has been awarded $65,296 for adult literacy
services through the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act, Title II (WIOA II).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE the
WIOA II grant award of $65,296, to support educational
programs offered at the library’s literacy services
program, Literacy for Every Adult Program – Community
Services Department (Kate Eppler 510-620-5452/Abigail
Sims-Evelyn 510-307-8082).

AGENDA
REPORT
1452

September 12, 2023
DISCUSSION:

The Literacy for Every Adult Program (LEAP) program has been awarded a Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Title II (WIOA II) grant in the total amount of $65,296 for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. This federal grant funding, received annually by LEAP, enables the continued provision of services including adult basic education and high school equivalency education.

Fiscal year 2023-2024 funding was based in part on the following:

 Funding for positive gains in employment and earnings outcome  One-time funding for exit reporting in employment and earnings  An increase in WIOA funding to California

This acceptance and appropriation of the grant funds will allow LEAP to continue providing the essential services that greatly enhance the quality of life for participating Richmond residents.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Grant Award Notification Letter
Attachment 2 – Grant Award Notification
Attachment 3 – California Department of Education Program and Accountability Requirements
Attachment 4 – Resolution

1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND TO

ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE A FEDERAL AWARD PASSED THROUGH THE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AND TO ADJUST
APPROPRIATIONS BY $65,296 AND TO ADJUST EXPENDITURES BY $65,296 IN THE 2023-2024 LIBRARY BUDGET

WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the 2023-2024 City of Richmond operating budget, the Richmond Public Library - LEAP was awarded $65,296 from the California Department of Education; the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Title II Adult Education and Family Literacy Act Grant (WIOA, Title II); and

WHEREAS, the additional grant funding of $65,296 will be able to provide adult literacy education and literacy activities to Literacy For Every Adult Program (LEAP) adult Basic Education and English as a Second Language (ESL) participants; and

WHEREAS, this grant funding will continue Adult Basic Education and English as a Second Language services at the Richmond Public Library’s adult literacy service, LEAP.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Richmond that the 2023-2024 Library Budget is adjusted to add $65,296 to revenue and to add $65,296 to expenditures.

*****************************

I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a _________ meeting held on _____________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

________________________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond

(SEAL)
1465

Approved:

_______________________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

____________________________
City Attorney

1466

September 12, 2023

Mayor's Office

DATE: September 12, 2023
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:

Urban Forest Advisory Committee
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Janet Flint is applying for a vacant seat on the Urban
Forest Advisory Committee and Mayor Martinez is
seeking City Council authorization for her appointment.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPOINT Janet Flint to the Urban Forest Advisory
Committee with a term that expires on November 17,
2026 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-
620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

Janet Flint has a passion for nature that is exhibited by her participation in the Sierra Club. She is also a supporter of Golden Gate Audubon, Homegrown National Parks, AGENDA
REPORT
1467

September 12, 2023
National Wildlife Federation and Bringing Back the Natives Garden Tour in the San Francisco East Bay. Janet’s passion for the greening of Richmond will serve as an asset to the Urban Forest Advisory Committee.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Application
1468
1469

(insert date of meeting)

Mayor's Office

DATE: September 12, 2023
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:

Human Rights and Human Relations Committee
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N//A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Victoria Sawicki’s term on the Human Rights and Human
Relations Committee expired on March 30, 2023.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

REAPPOINT Victoria Sawicki to the Human Rights and
Human Relations Committee, Seat 3, Term Expires
March, 30, 2026 - Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo
Martinez 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

Victoria has been an integral member of the Human Rights and Human Relations Committee for seven years. Victoria has brought her experience from working with the Coalition of Labor Union Women and experience of working with a diverse collection of AGENDA
REPORT
1470

(insert date of meeting)
community groups to the Committee. Victoria’s vast experiences have proven invaluable in her understanding and support of Human Rights and Human Relations.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Application
1471

RECEIVED

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
MAR 1 2023
1472

September 12, 2023

Mayor's Office

DATE: September 12, 2023
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez

Subject:

Economic Development Commission Appointment
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Crashelle Jackson is applying for a vacant seat on the
Richmond Economic Development Commission.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPOINT Crashelle Jackson to the Richmond Economic
Development Commission, term expires, March 30, 2025
– Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-
6503).

DISCUSSION:

Crashelle brings experience with policy work with Richmond Land and Richmond Neighborhood Housing services would prove to be invaluable while working with the Economic Development Commission. Crashelle also has shown her commitment with Urban Tilth to help feed the community. Crashelle energy, passion, and ability to work with diverse and dynamic groups will serve her well on the Economic Development Commission.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Application

AGENDA
REPORT
1473
1474

September 12, 2023

Mayor's Office

DATE: September 12, 2023
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez

Subject:

Richmond Youth Council Appointment
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Jocelyn Nichole Hernandez Trueba is applying for a
vacant seat on the Richmond Youth Council.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPOINT Jocelyn Nichole Hernandez Trueba to the
Richmond Youth Council, term expires, October 1, 2024 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

Jocelyn has tabled events for Reimagine Richmond. Jocelyn exuded confidence and leadership in her interview. Jocelyn clearly expresses her thoughts and visions when it comes to Richmond youth and will be a great addition to the Richmond Youth Council.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Application
AGENDA
REPORT
1475
1476

September 12, 2023

Mayor's Office

DATE: September 12, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez and Councilmember Cesar
Zepeda
Subject:

International Travel Approval to Zhoushan, China to ratify the 2024-2026 Mutual Agreement and celebrate the 30th
anniversary of the Sister City relationship.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Approximately $15,000 (Mayor’s Office: 01101011- 400243; City Council: 01115011-400243)

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

The City Council has approved travel of city officials in the past for anniversaries and to renew the Mutual
Agreement. The last delegation to Zhoushan, China was
in October of 2017.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Mayor He Zhongwei and the Director of Zhoushan's
Department of Culture and Tourism have invited
Richmond officials to the 5th International Island Tourism Conference in Zhoushan, China, from October 12-14,
2023, to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Richmond- Zhoushan sister city relationship. Discussions on
education, tourism, and economic development with
Zhoushan officials are also planned. City Council
approval is required for international travel by
Councilmembers and staff, as per policy.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

AUTHORIZE travel for Mayor Eduardo Martinez,
Councilmember Cesar Zepeda, and the Mayor’s Chief of
Staff Shiva Mishek to Zhoushan, Republic of China, to
celebrate the Sister Cities 30th Friendship Anniversary; attend the fifth annual International Island Tourism
Conference; and update the Mutual Agreement between
Sister Cities Richmond and Zhoushan— Mayor's Office
(Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6502) and
Councilmember Cesar Zepeda (510-620-6593).

AGENDA
REPORT
1477

September 12, 2023
DISCUSSION:

This agenda item seeks the City Council's approval for international travel to Richmond’s Sister City of Zhoushan, China, from October 12-14, 2023. On invitation from Zhoushan officials Mayor He Zhongwei and the Director of the Zhoushan Provincial Department of Culture and Tourism, a delegation consisting of Richmond elected officials and Richmond Zhoushan commissioners would:

1. Commemorate the 30th anniversary of our sister city relationship with Zhoushan and to further strengthen the bonds of friendship and cultural exchange that have been nurtured over the years.

2. Update the Mutual Agreement between Richmond and Zhoushan (see Attachment 1).

3. Participate in the fifth annual International Island Tourism Conference, which will take place in Zhoushan, China, from October 12th to 14th, 2023 (see Attachment 2).

4. Visit Zhoushan’s renowned Maritime Academy, in anticipation of similar workforce development initiatives being created in Richmond.

5. Attend meetings with Zhoushan officials to develop education, tourism, and economic development initiatives.

This trip will not only allow us to celebrate our shared accomplishments over the past 30 years, but also provide us with the opportunity to lay the groundwork for economic development efforts benefiting both cities.

While in Zhoushan, there will also be a meeting between the cities’ officials to discuss and sign the new mutual agreement. The most recent mutual agreement covers 2017- 2020, as our cities have been unable to update the document due to the COVID-19 pandemic (note: both municipalities honor the most current agreement, even if the dates have expired).

The tentative attendees list is currently:

1. Mayor Eduardo Martinez

2. Councilmember Cesar Zepeda

3. Zhoushan Commission Chair Stanley Li

4. Zhoushan Commission Vice-Chair Margaret Lee

5. Zhoushan Commissioner Alex Golovets

6. Zhoushan Commissioner Bobby Winston

7. Zhoushan Commissioner Joseph Kong

8. Chief of Staff Shiva Mishek, Mayor’s Office

9. Former Councilmember Nathaniel Bates

The City of Zhoushan will cover the hotel accommodations and land costs for invited city officials. Funding for the Mayor and Chief of Staff is budgeted in the Mayor’s Office budget. Funding for the attending Councilmember will be taken from their Conferences, 1478

September 12, 2023
Meetings, and Travel account. Members of the Richmond-Zhoushan Friendship Commission and former Councilmember Bates will cover their own travel expenses.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – 2017-2020 Mutual Agreement between Richmond and Zhoushan Attachment 2 – Island Tourism Conference Invitation Letter

1479
M
U
T
U
A
L

A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T

B
E
T
W
E
E
N

R
I
C
H
M
O
N
D
,

C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
,

U
S
A

A
N
D

Z
H
O
U
S
H
A
N
,

Z
H
E
J
I
A
N
G
,

P
.

R
.

C
H
I
N
A
2 0
1 7
-
2 0
2 0
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2 0
1 7
1480
A

.

P

R

E

A

M

B

L

E

Councilmember
Eduardo Martinez
led a delegation to
Zhoushan
, China from
September 20-24, 2017
. The
purpose of the visit was to conduct business meetings
between Richmond and
Zhoushan
officials to discuss and
renew exchanges in the areas of economic development,
arts and culture, education, public health, and tourism, and to renew and update the Mutual Agreement between
the two cities.

B

.

C

U

L

T

U

R

E

A

N

D

A

R

T

S

It is mutually agreed that Richmond and
Zhoushan
will
continue
Cultural Exchange to include:
·
Permanent display of
Zhoushan
artifacts in the lobby
of the renovated Richmond City Hall.
·
The
Zhoushan
Commission will work toward creating
a webpage in Mandarin on the City of Richmond
website to provide information on the sister city
relationship and related projects.
·
Creating a link to the Richmond Chamber of
Commerce website which will provide information
about
Zhoushan
Arts and Culture.
·
A
r
t
s

a
n
d

c
u
l
t
u
r
e

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

f
o
r

a
n

e
x
h
i
b
i
t

i
n

R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d

w
h
i
c
h

w
i
l
l

b
e

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d

b
y

b
o
t
h

t
h
e

R
i
c
h
m
o
n
d

A
r
t
s

a
n
d

C
u
l
t
u
r
e

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

t
h
e

Z
h
o
u
s
h
a
n
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.

C
u
r
r
e
n
t

e
x
h
i
b
i
t

w
i
l
l

b
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
d

a
s

n
e
w

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

a
r
e

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
.
·
Cultural exchanges facilitated by the Richmond Arts
and Culture Commission and the
Zhoushan
City Arts
and Culture Bureau
·
Potential exchanges between
Zhoushan
dance and
music troops and the East Bay Center for the
Performing Arts or other local performing arts
organizations.
1481
C

.

E

D

U

C

A

T

I

O

N

A

N

D

L

A

N

G

U

A

G

E

Both cities renew their commitment to facilitate
an exchange in education and language training.

We mutually agree to the following:
·
The Richmond
Zhoushan
Commission will seek the
support of the West Contra Costa School Board to
assist with encouraging retired teachers from West
Contra Costa Unified School District and other
institutions to travel to
Zhoushan
to teach English as a
second language.
·
To establish contacts with Contra Costa College and
the West Contra Costa Unified School District for
possible exchanges between
Zhoushan
and the City of
Richmond to develop and promote educational
exchange.
·
To pursue adult education English language training
in
Zhoushan
.
·
Zhoushan
delegation will visit Richmond educational
institutions during their future visits.
·
Both cities will provide contact information for
exchange student programs in our cities and their
vicinity.

B.

MEDICAL SERVICES & PUBLIC HEALTH
·
It is mutually agreed that both cities will continue to develop exchanges in medical services and public health, disease control, and food hygiene supervision.
·
To afford
Zhoushan
the opportunity to exchange information,
Richmond will facilitate introductions to
Kaiser Richmond
Medical Center
and the Contra Costa College Nursing
Program as well as the University
of California School Of
Public Health.
·
Both city governments will explore possible exchanges
between
University
of California, Berkeley and the Zhejiang Ocean
University to engage in the exchange of ideas and information. 1482
E.

TOURISM
Richmond and
Zhoushan
renew their commitment to promote tourism
between our two cities to include the following initiatives:
·
Provide air time on the City of Richmond television Station, KCRT with promotional information for travel and tourism in Zhoushan
.
·
Create reciprocal links between the Richmond Convention & Visitors Bureau and both of the
Zhoushan
Tourism
websites (English & Chinese written language)
·
The Richmond Convention & Visitors Bureau will distribute printed tourism-based information about
Zhoushan
, to be
provided by the
Zhoushan
Tourism Bureau
·
The Richmond Convention & Visitors Bureau will create a webpage Mandarin and reviewed by the
Zhoushan
Tourism
Bureau.

F.

BUSINESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Richmond and
Zhoushan
continue their commitment to identify and
pursue areas of business and economic development and agree to the following:
●
P
ledge our commitment to establish business opportunities and p
rojects which will be mutually beneficial to Richmond and Zhoushan
.
●
Renew and expand potential development of business and marketing plans between our ports and related
businesses focusing
on:
automobile and bulk cargo: seafood products: logistics and consulting; and other import/export opportunities.
●
The ports will continue their cooperative efforts on identifying and implementing
appropriate environmental initiatives within the legal
requirements of each jurisdiction.
●
Identify and pursue investment opportunities for business and development projects in each other's city.
1483
●
Examine the potential for business opportunities for member companies of each city's business organizations, and independent companies that have affiliations and/or potential business interest within the respective city
’
s
●
Seek organizations and individuals with business expertise to consult or partner with the sister city initiatives for business and development projects.
●
Identify where potential business partnerships can be established on an individual and business level.
●
Discuss mutual efforts to institute environmental planning efforts in our current and future Port operations.
●
Help create joint business ventures between the City of Richmond's Council of Industries and their member companies, and
Zhoushan's
business and industry as appropriate.

G

.

O

F

F

I

C

I

A

L

V

I

S

I

T

S

Both cities will continue to visit each other's cities on a rotating basis when it is feasibly appropriate.

The M
u
tual Agreement was signed on
September 24, 2017
in
Zhoushan
, Zhejiang, P.R. China.

Xu
Xiaoyue

Eduardo Martinez
Deputy Mayor of
Zhoushan
City
, Zhejiang

Councilmember
of City of
Richmond, CA
The People
’
s Republic of China
The
United States of America
Date: September 24, 2017
Date: September 24, 2017
1484
*OUFSOBUJPOBM
*TMBOET
5PVSJTN
$POGFSFODF

%FBS
4JS.BEBN
"
HSBOE
FWFOU
GPS
HMPCBM
JTMBOET
UPVSJTN

UIF
*OUFSOBUJPOBM
*TMBOET
5PVSJTN

$POGFSFODF
**5$;4

JT
TQPOTPSFE
CZ
UIF
.JOJTUSZ
PG
$VMUVSF
BOE
5PVSJTN
PG
UIF
1FPQMFnT
3FQVCMJD
PG
$IJOB
BOE
;IFKJBOH
1SPWJODJBM
1FPQMFnT
(PWFSO NFOU

**5$;4

JT
UP
CF
IFME
JO
;IFKJBOH
;IPVTIBO
"SDIJQFMBHP
GSPN
0DUPCFS

5IJT
ZFBSnT
UIFNF
JT
/FX
4JML
3PBE

/FX
(SPXUI
%SJWFST

/FX

0QQPSUVOJUJFT

XJUI
UIF
BJN
UP
QSPNPUF
FYDIBOHFT
BOE
USBEF
BDSPTT
UIF
JOEVT USJBM
WBMVF
DIBJO
PG
NBSJOF
BOE
JTMBOET
UPVSJTN
EFWFMPQNFOU
UP
CVJME
B
QMBUGPSN

PG
QFPQMFUPQFPQMF
EJQMPNBDZ
CFUXFFO
$IJOB
BOE
JTMBOE
UPVSJTN
DPVOUSJFT
BOE
SFHJPOT
JO
UIF
XPSME

BOE
UP
FTUBCMJTI
B
GMBHCFBSFS
JO
JOUFSOBUJPOBM
JTMBOET
UPVSJTN
JOEVTUSJFT
*O
UIF
NFBOUJNF

UIF
DPOGFSFODF
XJMM
VOEFSUBLF
JOEFQUI

SFTFBSDI
PO
UIF
EFWFMPQNFOU
NPEFMT
PG

4NBMM
*TMBOE
%FWFMPQJOH
4UBUFT
4*%4

BSPVOE
UIF
XPSME
BOE
QSPQPTF
WBMVBCMF
GSPOUJFS
UPQJDT
FYQMPSF
UIF

DPNCJOBUJPO
BOE
JOUFSBDUJPO
PG
DVMUVSFUPVSJTN
JOUFHSBUJPO
XJUI
SVSBM
SFWJUBM J[BUJPO

IJHIRVBMJUZ
EFWFMPQNFOU

BOE
PUIFS
FMFNFOUT
PG
UIF
UJNFT

BOE
BDUJWFMZ

DVMUJWBUF
FNFSHJOH
JOEVTUSJFT
TVDI
BT
XBUFS
TQPSUT

DBNQJOH
FRVJQNFOU

EJHJUBM

DVMUVSBM
UPVSJTN

GJMN
*1

BOE
DPNQSFIFOTJWF
IFBMUI
DBSF
TFSWJDFT
*O
UIJT
HPMEFO
XJOEPX
QFSJPE
GPS
UIF
SFDPWFSZ
PG
DVMUVSBM
UPVSJTN
BOE
UIF
SFTUSVDUVSJOH
PG
JOEVTUSJBM
FDPMPHZ

UIF
EJHJUBM
BOE
FYQFSJFODFCBTFE
CVTJOFTT

GPSNT
PG
DVMUVSBM
UPVSJTN
BSF
FNFSHJOH

BOE
OFX
JNNFSTJWF
JOEVTUSJFT
BSF
SJTJOH

SBQJEMZ

VTIFSJOH
JO
B
OFX
FSB
PG
NBSJOF
BOE
JTMBOET
DVMUVSBM
UPVSJTN
EFWFMPQ NFOU
'PS
NPSF
JOGPSNBUJPO
BCPVU
**5$;4


QMFBTF
WJTJU
IUUQXXXJJUD[TDPN
4IPVME
ZPV
IBWF
BOZ
RVFTUJPOT

QMFBTF
DPOUBDU
.T
.B
+JBYVBO
&NBJM

JJUD[T![IPVTIBOHPWDO
5FMFQIPOF

8F
MPPL
GPSXBSE
UP
TFFJOH
ZPV
TPPO
JO
;IPVTIBO
"SDIJQFMBHP
:PVST
TJODFSFMZ
international islads tourism conference
IITCZS 2023
2023
%JSFDUPS
(FOFSBM

;IFKJBOH
1SPWJODJBM
%FQBSUNFOU
PG
$VMUVSF
BOE
5PVSJTN
1SFTJEFOU

**5$;4
&YFDVUJWF
$PNNJUUFF


.BZPS

;IPVTIBO
.VOJDJQBM
1FPQMFnT
(PWFSONFOU
1SFTJEFOU

**5$;4
&YFDVUJWF
$PNNJUUFF
New Silk Road
New Growth Drivers
New Opportunities
1485

September 12, 2023

Police Department

DATE: September 12, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Bisa French, Chief of Police

Subject:

First Contract Amendment with Bay Area Marine Services, LLC.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed expenditure of $30,000 is included within the approved fiscal year 2023-24 budget – account string 01191021-400538.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

July 19, 2022

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Richmond Police Department staff planned for a three-
year maintenance and repair contract with Bay Area
Marine Services, LLC., but after thorough inspection,
significant repairs need to be completed prior to providing a safe and reliable marine unit for routine police patrol, and/or search and rescue use.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE a first contract amendment with Bay Area
Marine Services, LLC. to continue providing repair and
maintenance services to Richmond Police Department’s
Marine Unit, increasing the contract by $30,000, for a
total contract amount not to exceed $80,000, with a term beginning August 1, 2022, and ending July 31, 2025 –
Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-621-1802).

AGENDA
REPORT
1486

September 12, 2023
DISCUSSION:

The Richmond Police Department staff requests an additional $30,000 for continued maintenance and repair services completed by Bay Area Marine Services, LLC. The Richmond Police Marine Unit is comprised of two vessels. One vessel is a 2012 Moose Boat with twin Cummings Diesel engines and Hamilton Jet outdrives. The second vessel is a 2002 Almar Rescue cruiser with twin Suzuki 250HP outboard engines.

These vessels are moored at the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor and both vessels sit on lifts to keep them as much out of the saltwater as possible.

These vessels serve in great capacity for the 3rd of July fireworks show, regular patrols of the Richmond Shoreline (including marinas), abandoned sailboats that wash ashore on the Richmond Shoreline, preventing derelict sailboats from trying to moor on Richmond shorelines, and when searching for missing persons/boaters.

In 2022, Richmond Police Department staff solicited bids for maintenance and repair services from local marinas. The large size of the 2012 Moose Boat prevents it from being hooked to a trailer, which limits the repairs to only be completed at a waterfront marina with a hoist lift, ideally within a short drive from the vessel’s current dock location, and with a qualified mechanic capable of working on turbo diesel marine engines. The original three-year contract was to create a regular maintenance and repair plan to get both vessels current according to their manufacturer’s maintenance schedule.

In August 2022, both vessels were removed from the water for the first time in years. It was evident that there would be a significant increase in maintenance and repair costs due to their age and corrosion from the bay waters. The 2002 Almar vessel’s hull sustained major corrosion and chipping on the bottom of the hull, which was causing paint chips to fall into the waterways. This vessel had to be immediately hauled out of the water and completely sanded down and repainted to prevent further damage and debris from entering the waterways. This was a cost that was not expected in the original budget, but needed to be taken care of quickly to prevent the vessel from further corroding and polluting the bay.

The 2012 Moose Boat suffered corrosion from the salt water on the port side, which caused the weld to weaken, letting water seep into the hull. This vessel had to be immediately hauled out of the water and repaired to prevent the vessel from sustaining a large crack and sinking. This vessel also suffered unexpected hydraulic line and hydraulic pump failures – both were custom order parts and were not included as part of the maintenance plan. These hydraulic lines and hydraulic pumps control the steering of the vessel, which is vitally important when maneuvering in narrow waters or when near people in the water.

Furthermore, corrosion had been found under the starboard hull of the 2012 Moose Boat and a thorough inspection of the vessel’s electronic system had to be completed in order to determine if electrical currents were causing the corrosion. The approved 1487

September 12, 2023
mechanic installed new anodes to prevent electrical current from further corroding the hull of the vessel. This inspection and solution were not expected from the original budget.

In summary, the Richmond Police Marine Unit vessels are getting older and are requiring more maintenance and repair - the Moose Boat is 11 years old, and the Rescue vessel is 21 years old. The exposure to the sun and saltwater causes corrosion that needs to be addressed quickly and will continue to be carefully monitored. Luckily, both of the vessels are on lifts (hydro-hoist lift and jet dock) which prevents the vessels from sitting in the saltwater, although on windy days, saltwater spray can accumulate on the sides of the boat, and potentially onto the deck areas. The proposed amendment for $30,000, will assist in providing regular maintenance according to the original schedule, plus any other unexpected problems over the next two years.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Original Contract
Attachment 2 – Amendment to the Contract
1488

CITY OF RICHMOND

STANDARD CONTRACT
Department: Project Manager:

Project Manager E-mail: Project Manager Phone No:

PR No: Vendor No: P.O./Contract No:

Description of Services:

The parties to this STANDARD CONTRACT do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract are the City of Richmond (herein referred to as the “City”) and the following named Contractor:

Company Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No: / Expiration Date:

A California [ ] corporation, [ ] limited liability corporation [ ] general partnership, [ ] limited partnership, [ ] individual, [ ] non-profit corporation, [ ] individual dba as [specify:] , [ ] other [specify:]

2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is and it terminates unless terminated as provided herein.

3. Payment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $ . City shall not pay for services that exceed the Contract Payment Limit unless a contract amendment has been approved by the City Council or City Manager.

4. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor shall provide those services and carry out that work described in the Service Plan (Exhibit A) which is attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein.

5. City's Obligations. City shall make to the Contractor those payments described in the Payment Provisions (Exhibit B) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein.

POLICE
SGT. JOSEPH ENGLAND
[email protected]
(510) 620-6661
15463
6122
Marine vessel repair and maintenance.

Bay Area Marine Services
420 Donahue Street
Sausalito, CA 94965
Alison Healy
(415) 203-6305
[email protected]
40063058
December 31, 2022
August 1, 2022
July 31, 2025
50,000.00
✔
DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1489

6. Authorized Representatives and Notices. This Contract is subject to the Authorized Representatives and Notices Provisions (Exhibit C) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference.

7. General Conditions. This Contract is subject to the General Conditions (Exhibit D) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein.

8. Special Conditions. This Contract is subject to the Special Conditions (Exhibit E) (if any) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein. (Note:
other than Public Works contracts, the City will agree to Special Conditions only in unusual circumstances.)

9. Insurance Provisions. This Contract is subject to the Insurance Provisions (Exhibit F) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference.

10. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' Contract hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND CONTRACTOR:
a municipal corporation

By:
(* The Corporation Chairperson of the Board,
President or Vice President should sign below)

Title: By:

I hereby certify that this Contract Title:
has been approved by City Council.

Date Signed:

B y :

City Clerk
(* The Corporation Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary or Assistant Secretary should sign below)
Approved as to form:

B y :

B y : T i t l e :

City Attorney
Date Signed:

(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations
Code Section 313, if Contractor is a corporation
or nonprofit organization, this Contract (1) must
be signed by (a) the Chairperson of the Board,
President or Vice-President
and (b) the
Secretary any Assistant Secretary, the Chief
Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

Service Plan Exhibit A
Payment Provisions Exhibit B
Authorized Representatives and Notices Exhibit C
General Conditions Exhibit D
Special Conditions Exhibit E
Insurance Provisions Exhibit F
Standard Contract/EJ/TE 9-26-07
Bay Area Marine Services
DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F CEO
7/23/2022
MayoryMayor
1490
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT A

SERVICE PLAN
Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the , perform the following services and be compensated as outlined below:

Police Department
Services will follow the proposed three-year service plan attached, Attachment A.

Bay Area Marine Services
DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1491
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT PROVISIONS
{PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY OF

RICHMOND SHALL NOT PAY FOR SERVICES

THAT EXCEED THE CONTRACT PA YMENT LIMIT UNLESS A CONTRACT

AMENDMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY MANAGER}

1. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated as provided below.

2. Any and all payments made pursuant to this Contract shall be subject to the Contract Payment Limit. The Payment Limit includes expenses (phones, photo copying, meals and travel etc). Invoices, shall be adequately detailed, based on accurate records, and be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City. Contractor may be required to provide back-up material upon request.

3. Contractor shall submit timely invoices to the following address:

Attention: City of Richmond, Finance Department - Accounts Payable Project Manager: Department:

PO Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804-0046

4. All invoices that are submitted by Contra ctor shall be subject to the approval of the City’s Project Manager, before payments shall be authorized.

5. The City will pay invoice(s) within 45 days a fter completion of services to the City’s satisfaction. The City shall not pay late fees or interest.

6. A Richmond business license shall be obtained before any payment under this Contract shall be authorized and the business license must be kept current during the term of this Contract for payments to continue to be authorized.

7. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract shall be executed by the City. The insurance coverage must be kept current during the term of this Contract for payments to continue to be authorized.

SGT. JOSEPH ENGLAND
Bay Area Marine Services
POLICE
SGT. JOSEPH ENGLAND
DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1492
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT C

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES

1. Notices . All notices, demands, statements, or communications provided for by this Contract shall be in writing and may be delivered by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices to the City shall be addressed to the Department Head and (as delineated below in section 1.1) to the project manager responsible for the
administration of or the supervision of the scope of work under this Contract. Notices to the Contractor shall be addressed to the party designated by Contractor (as delineated below in section 1.2). Notice shall be deemed delivered (a) upon personal delivery; (b) as of the fifth business day after mailing by United States certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the proper party; or (c) as of 12:00 p.m. on the second business day immediately after the day it is deposited with and accepted by Federal Express, or a similar overnight courier service, addressed to the proper party and marked for next business day morning delivery. For the purposes of this Contract, a "business day" means any day Monday through Friday that is not a holiday recognized by the federal government or the State of California.

1. 1 CITY hereby designates as its Authorized Representative the Project Manager whose name and address are as follows:

City of Richmond
Richmond, CA 94804-0046

1. 2 CONTRACTOR hereby designates as its Authorized Representative the Project Manager whose name and address are as follows:

Bay Area Marine Services
Bay Area Marine Services
SGT. JOSEPH ENGLAND
1701 Regatta Blvd.

Alison Healy
420 Donahue Street
Sausalito, CA 94965
DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1493
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 1 of 13

EXHIBIT D

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. Independent Contractor . Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor is not a regular or temporary employee, joint venturer or partner of the City, but rather an independent Contractor. This Contract shall not be construed to create an agency, servant, employee, partnership, or joint venture relationship. As an independent Contractor, Contractor shall have no authority to bind City to any obligation or to act as City's agent except as expressly provided herein. Due to the independent Contractor relationship created by this Contract, City shall not withhold state or federal income taxes, the reporting of which shall be Contractor's sole responsibility.

2. Brokers . Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor has not hired, retained or agreed to pay any entity or person any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Contract.

3. City Property . The rights to applicable plans, drawings, reports, calculations, data, specifications, videos, graphics or other materials prepared for or obtained pursuant to this Contract, which, upon request, are to be delivered to City within a reasonable time, shall be deemed assigned to City. If applicable, Contractor shall prepare check prints upon request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall not be obligated to provide to City proprietary software or data which Contractor has developed or had developed for Contractor's own use; provided, however, that Contractor shall, pursuant to Section 15 below, indemnify, defend and hold harmless City from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data.

4. Patents, Trademarks, C opyrights and Rights in Data
. Contractor shall not
publish or transfer any materials, discoveries, developments, concepts, designs, ideas, know how, improvements, inventions and/or original works of authorship resulting from activities supported by this Contract without the express prior written consent of the City Manager. If anything resulting from activities supported by this Contract is patentable, trademarkable, copyrightable or otherwise legally protectable, City reserves the exclusive right to seek such intellectual property rights. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor may, after receiving City's prior written consent, seek patent, trademark, copyright or other intellectual property rights on anything resulting from activities supported by this Contract. However, City reserves, and Contractor irrevocably grants, a nonexclusive, fully paid-up, royalty-free, assumable, perpetual, worldwide license, with the right to transfer, sublicense, practice and exploit said license and the right to make, have made, copy, modify, make derivative works of, use, sell, DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1494
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 2 of 13

import, and otherwise distribute under all applicable intellectual properties without restriction of any kind said license.

Contractor further agrees to assist City, at City's expense, in every proper way to secure the City’s rights in any patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property rights relating thereto, including the disclosure to City of all pertinent information and data with respect thereto. Contractor shall also assist City in the execution of all applications, specifications, oaths, assignments, recordations, and all other instruments which City shall deem necessary in order to apply for, obtain, maintain and transfer such rights, or if not transferable, to waive such rights. Contractor shall further assist City in the execution of all applications, specifications, oaths, assignments, recordations and all other instruments which City shall deem necessary in order to assign and convey to City, and any assigns and nominees the sole and exclusive right, title and interest in and to any patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property rights relating thereto. Contractor further agrees that its obligation to execute or cause to be executed, when it is in Contractor's power to do so, any such instruments or papers shall continue during and at all times after the end of Contractor's services and until the expiration of the last such intellectual property right. Contractor hereby irrevocably designates and appoints City, and its duly authorized officers, agents and servants, as its agent and attorney-in-fact, to act for and in its behalf and stead to execute and file any such applications and to do all other lawfully permitted acts to further the application for, prosecution, issuance, maintenance or transfer of letters of patents, copyright and other registrations. This power of attorney is coupled with an interest and shall not be affected by Contractor's subsequent incapacity.

5. Inspection
. Contractor's performance, place of business and records pertaining to this Contract are subject to monitoring, inspection, review and audit by authorized representatives of the CITY, the State of California, and the United States Government.

If the project or services set forth in Exhibit A shall be performed on City or other public property, City shall have the right to inspect such work without notice. If such project or services shall not be performed on City or other public property, City shall have the right to inspect such work upon reasonable notice.

6. Services
. The project or services set forth in Exhibit A shall be performed to the full satisfaction and approval of City. In the event that the project or services set forth in Exhibit A are also itemized by price, City, in its sole discretion, may, upon notice to Contractor, delete certain items or services set forth in Exhibit A, in which case there shall be a corresponding reduction in the amount of compensation paid to Contractor.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1495
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 3 of 13

Contractor shall, at its own cost and expense, furnish all facilities and equipment necessary for Contractor to complete the project or perform the services required herein, unless otherwise provided in Exhibit A.

7. Records
. Contractor shall keep and make available for inspection and copying by authorized representatives of the City, the State of California, and the United States Government, the Contractor's regular business records and such additional records pertaining to this Contract as may be required by the City.

Contractor shall retain all documents pertaining to this Contract for a period of five (5) years after this C ontract's termination (or for any further period that is required by law) and until all Fede ral or State audits are complete and exceptions resolved for this contract's funding period. Upon request, CONTRACTOR shall make thes e records available to authorized representatives of the CITY, the State of California, and the United States Government.

Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts, maintain records, and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Contract. The Contractor’s accounting and control systems shall be satisfactory to City. Contractor's accounting systems shall conform to generally accepted accounting principles and all records shall provide a breakdown of total costs charged under this Contract, including properly executed payrolls, time records, utility bills, invoices and vouchers. The City shall be afforded prompt access to Contractor's records, books, and Contractor shall preserve such project records for a period of at least five (5 years after the termination of this Contract , or for such longer period as may be required by law.

Contractor shall permit City and its authorized representatives and accountants to inspect, examine and copy Contractor's books, records, accounts, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to the project or services set forth in Exhibit A, and any and all data relevant to this Contract at any reasonable time for the purpose of auditing and verifying statements, invoices, or bills submitted by Contractor pursuant to this Contract and shall provide such assistance as may be reasonably required in the course of such inspection. Contractor shall also allow City access to the record keeping and accounting personnel of Contractor.

City further reserves the right to examine and re-examine said books, records, accounts, and data during the five (5 year period following the termination of this Contract; and Contractor shall in no event dispose of, destroy, alter, or mutilate said books, records, accounts, and data in any manner whatever for five (5 years after the termination of this Contract.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1496
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 4 of 13

Pursuant to California Government Code § 10527, the parties to this Contract shall be subject to the examination and audit of representatives of the Auditor General of the State of California for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Contract. The examination and audit shall be confined to those matters connected with the performance of this Contract including, but not limited to, the cost of administering this Contract.

8. Changes and Extra Work . All changes and/or extra work under this Contract shall be performed and paid for in accordance with the following:

Only the City Council or the City Manager may authorize extra and/or changed work. Contractor expressly recognizes that other City personnel are without authorization to either order extra and/or changed work or waive contract requirements. Failure of Contractor to secure the authorization for such extra and/or changed work shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment in contract price due to such unauthorized work and Contractor thereafter shall be entitled to no compensation whatsoever for performance of such extra and/or changed work.

If Contractor is of the opinion that any work which Contractor has been directed to perform is beyond the scope of this Contract and constitutes extra work, Contractor shall promptly notify City of the fact. The City shall make a determination as to whether or not such work is, in fact, beyond the scope of this Contract and constitutes extra work. In the event that City determines that such work does constitute extra work, City shall provide extra compensation to Contractor on a fair and equitable basis. A change order or Contract Amendment providing for such compensation for extra work shall be negotiated between City and Contractor and executed by Contractor and the appropriate City official.

In the event City determines that such work does not constitute extra work, Contractor shall not be paid extra compensation above that provided herein and if such determination is made by City staff, said determination may be appealed to the City Council; provided, however, a written appeal must be submitted to the City Manager within five (5) days after the staff's determination is sent to Contractor. Said written appeal shall include a description of each and every ground upon which Contractor challenges the staff's determination.

9. Additional Assistance
. If this Contract requires Contractor to prepare
plans and specifications, Contractor shall provide assistance as necessary to resolve any questions regarding such plans and specifications that may arise during the period of advertising for bids, and Contractor shall issue DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1497
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 5 of 13

any necessary addenda to the plans and specifications as requested. In the event Contractor is of the opinion that City's requests for addenda and assistance is outside the scope of normal services, the parties shall proceed in accordance with the changes and extra work provisions of Section 8 of these General Conditions.

10. Professional Ability. Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor and its employees are skilled and able to competently provide the services hereunder, and possess all professional licenses, certifications, and approvals necessary to engage in their occupations.

City has relied upon the professional ability and training of Contractor as a material inducement to enter into this Contract. Contractor shall perform in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and standards of Contractor's profession. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, desires the removal of any person employed or retained by Contractor to perform services hereunder, such person shall be removed immediately upon receiving notice from City.

11. Business License
. Contractor shall obtain a Richmond Business License
before performing any services required under this Contract. The failure to so obtain such license shall be a material breach of this Contract and grounds for immediate termination by City; provided, however, that City may waive the business license requirement in writing under unusual or extraordinary circumstances without necessitating any modification of this Contract to reflect such waiver.

12. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, City may, in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause, terminate this Contract at any time prior to completion by Contractor of the project or services hereunder, immediately upon written notice to Contractor. Contractor may terminate this Contract at any time in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause upon 30 days' written notice to City. In the event of termination by either party, Contractor shall be compensated for: (1) all authorized work satisfactorily performed prior to the effective date of termination; (2) necessary materials or services of others ordered by Contractor for this Contract, prior to receipt of notice of termination, irrespective of whether such materials or services of others have actually been delivered, provided that Contractor is not able to cancel such orders. Compensation for Contractor in such event shall be determined by City in accordance with the percentage of the project or services completed by Contractor; and all of Contractor's finished or unfinished work product through the time of the City's last payment shall be transferred and assigned to City. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1498
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 6 of 13

13. Termination in the Event of Default. Should Contractor fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Contract, City may immediately terminate this Contract by giving written notice of such termination, stating the reasons for such termination. Contractor shall be compensated as provided in Section 12 of these General Conditions; provided, however, there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damage, including attorney's fees, expert witness fees and costs, if any, sustained by City by virtue of Contractor's breach of this Contract. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.

14. Conflict of Interest. Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor shall avoid all conflicts of interest (as defined under any federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation, or at common law) with respect to this Contract. Contractor further acknowledges, represents and warrants that no City official or employee has any economic interest, as defined in Title 2, California Code of Regulations §§ 18703.1 through 18703.5, with Contractor that would invalidate this Contract. Contractor acknowledges that in the event that Contractor shall be found by any judicial or administrative body to have any conflict of interest (as defined above) with respect to this Contract, all consideration received under this Contract shall be forfeited and returned to City forthwith. This provision shall survive the termination of this Contract for one (1) year.

15. Indemnification.

(a) If this Contract is a contract for design professional services subject to California Civil Code Section 2782.8(a) and Contractor is a design professional, as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(b)(2), Contractor shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorneys’ fees arising out of, or pertaining to, or relating to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor, except where caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the City. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall immediately defend and indemnify the City and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all liabilities, regardless of nature or type, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor, or its employees, agents, or subcontractors.

Liabilities subject to the duties to defend and indemnify include, without limitation, any and all claims, losses, damages, penalties, fines, and judgments; associated investigation and administrative expenses; defense costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees; court costs; and costs of alternative dispute resolution. Contractor’s obligation to DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1499
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 7 of 13

indemnify applies unless it is finally adjudicated that the liability was caused by the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of an indemnified party.
(b) If this Contract is not a contract for design professional services subject to California Civil Code Section 2782.8(a) or Contractor is not a design professional as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(b)(2), Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind and description, brought forth on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property arising from or connected with the willful misconduct, negligent acts, errors or omissions, ultra-hazardous activities, activities giving rise to strict liability, or defects in design by Contractor or any person directly or indirectly employed by, or acting as, the agent for Contractor in the performance of this Contract, including the concurrent or successive passive negligence of the City, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers.
(c) It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Contractor shall be obligated to defend, in all legal, equitable, administrative, or special proceedings, with counsel approved by the City, the City and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, immediately upon tender to Contractor of the claim in any form or at any stage of an action or proceeding, whether or not liability is established. An allegation or determination that persons other than Contractor are responsible for the claim does not relieve Contractor from its separate and distinct obligation to defend under this Section 15. The obligation to defend extends through final judgment, including exhaustion of any appeals. The defense obligation includes an obligation to provide independent counsel if Contractor asserts that liability is caused in whole, or in part, by the negligence or willful misconduct of an indemnified party. (d) The review, acceptance or approval of the Contractor’s work or work product by any indemnified party shall not affect, relieve or reduce the Contractor’s indemnification or defense obligations. This Section 15 survives completion of the services or the termination of this Contract.

The provisions of this Section 15 are not limited by, and do not affect, the provisions of this Contract relating to insurance.
(e) Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Contract does not relieve Contractor from liability under this Section

15. This Section 15 shall apply whether or not such insurance policies are determined to be applicable to any such damages or claims for damages.

16. Safety
. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor shall perform all work hereunder in full compliance with applicable local, state and federal safety requirements including but not limited to Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, and shall assume sole and complete DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1500
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 8 of 13

responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any subContractor's employees. If a death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract, Contractor shall immediately notify the City by telephone.

17. Insurance. Insurance requirements are set forth in Exhibit F to this Contract. Contractor shall abide by the insurance requirements set forth in said Exhibit F.

18. Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of the City. No official or employee of the City shall be personally liable for any default or liability under this Contract.

19. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, and the orders and decrees of any courts or administrative bodies or tribunals, with respect to this Contract, including without limitation environmental laws, employment discrimination laws and prevailing wage laws. Compliance under this provision includes compliance with all provisions of the Richmond Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"), including Chapters 2.50, 2.52, 2.56, and 2.60, if applicable.

Contractor acknowledges that under § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code ("Living Wage Ordinance"), Contractor shall promptly provide to City documents and information verifying its compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance. Also as prescribed in § 2.60.070, Contractor shall notify each of its affected employees with regards to the wages that are required to be paid pursuant to the Living Wage Ordinance.

Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or subcontractor under a contract or subcontract with the City for public work or for goods or for services to refrain from discriminatory employment or subcontracting practices on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religious creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential subcontractor.

Contractor acknowledges that the City’s Drug Free Workplace Policy, Violence in the Workplace Policy and the Policy Against Workplace Harassment, are available on the City’s website at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/workplacepolicies
. Contractor agrees to
abide by the terms and conditions of said policies.

20. Limitations upon Subcontracting and Assignment. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1501
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 9 of 13

under this Contract and shall not assign this Contract, nor any portion hereof or monies due or to become due, without the prior written consent of the City Council or its designee.

Contractor acknowledges that the services which Contractor shall provide under this Contract are unique, personal services which, except as otherwise provided herein, Contractor shall not assign or sublet to any other party without the prior written approval of City, which approval may be withheld in City's sole and absolute discretion. In the event that City, in writing, approves any assignment or subletting of this Contract or the retention of subcontractors by Contractor, Contractor shall provide to City upon request copies of each and every subcontract contract prior to the execution thereof by Contractor and subcontractor. Any assignment by Contractor of any or all of its rights under this Contract without first obtaining City's prior written consent shall be a default under this Contract.

The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor (if applicable), or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member if Contractor is a partnership or joint-venture or syndicate, which shall result in a change of control of Contractor, shall be deemed an assignment. For this purpose, control shall mean fifty percent or more of the voting power or twenty-five percent or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint-venture.

21. Integration
. This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous oral or written agreement; provided, however, that correspondence or documents exchanged between Contractor and City may be used to assist in the interpretation of the Exhibits to this Contract.

22. Modifications and Amendments. This Contract may be modified or amended only by a change order or Contract Amendment executed by both parties and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

23. Conflicting Provisions. In the event of a conflict between these General Conditions and those of any Exhibit or attachment hereto, these General Conditions shall prevail; provided, however, that any Special Conditions as set forth in Exhibit E shall prevail over these General Conditions. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of any two or more Exhibits or attachments hereto, those prepared by City shall prevail over those prepared by the Contractor, and the terms and conditions preferred by the City shall prevail over those preferred by the Contractor.

24. Non-exclusivity. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the services provided by Contractor hereunder shall be non-exclusive, and DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1502
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 10 of 13

City reserves the right to employ other Contractors in connection with the project.

25. Exhibits. All Exhibits hereto are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference; provided, however, that any language in Exhibit A which does not pertain to the project description, proposal, scope of services, or method of compensation (as applicable) , or any corresponding responsibilities of City, shall be deemed extraneous to, and not a part of, this Contract.

26. Force Majeure. Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder to the extent that the performance of such an obligation is prevented or delayed by reason of acts of God, strikes, boycotts, lock-outs, inability to procure materials not related to the price thereof, failure of power, restrictive governmental laws and regulations enacted after the date of this Contract, riots, civil unrest, acts of terrorism, insurrection, war, declaration of a state or national emergency or other reasons of a like nature not within the reasonable control of such party.

27. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Contract. Contractor and City agree that any time period set forth in Exhibit A represents their best estimates with respect to completion dates and both Contractor and City acknowledge that departures from the schedule may occur.

Therefore, both Contractor and City will use reasonable efforts to notify one another of changes to the schedule. Contractor shall not be responsible for performance delays caused by others, or delays beyond Contractor's control, and such delays shall extend the times for performance of Contractor's work.

28. Confidentiality. Contractor agrees to comply with, and to require its employees, agents and partners to comply with, all applicable State or Federal statutes or regulations respecting confidentially, including but not limited to, the identity of persons served under this Contract, their records, or services provided them, and assures that:

All applications and records concerning any individual made or kept by Contractor or any public officer or agency in connection with the administration of or relating to services provided under this Contract will be confidential, and will not be open to examination for any purposes not directly connected with the administration of such service.

No person will publish or disclose or permit or cause to be published or disclosed, any list of persons receiving services, except as may be required in the administration of such service.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1503
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 11 of 13

29. Third Parties. Nothing herein shall be interpreted as creating any rights or benefits in any third parties. For purposes hereof, transferees or assignees as permitted under this Contract shall not be considered "third parties."

30. Governing Law. This Contract shall be construed in accordance with the law of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of law.

This Contract is made in Contra Costa County, California, and any action relating to this Contract shall be instituted and prosecuted in the courts of Contra Costa County, California.

31. Nonrenewal. Contractor understands and agrees that there is no representation, implication, or understanding that the services provided by Contractor under this Contract will be purchased or renewed by the City under a new contract following expiration or termination of this Contract, and waives all rights or claims to notice or hearing respecting any failure by City to continue the purchase of all or any failure to continue purchase of all or any such services from Contractor.

32. Claims. Any claim by Contractor against City hereunder shall be subject to Government Code §§ 800 et seq. The claims presentation provisions of said Act are hereby modified such that the presentation of all claims hereunder to the City shall be waived if not made within six months after accrual of the cause of action.

33. Interpretation. This Contract shall be interpreted as if drafted by both parties.

34. Warranty. In the event that any product shall be provided to the City as part of this Contract, Contractor warrants as follows: Contractor possesses good title to the product and the right to transfer the product to City; the product shall be delivered to the City free from any security interest or other lien; the product meets any specifications contained herein; the product shall be free from material defects in materials and workmanship under normal use for a period of one (1) year from the date of delivery; and the product shall be fit for its intended purpose(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, consumable and maintenance items (such as light bulbs and batteries) shall be warranted for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of delivery. All repairs during the warranty period shall be promptly performed by Contractor, at Contractor's expense, including shipping.

35. Severability. In the event that any of the provisions or portions or applications thereof of this Contract are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, City and Contractor shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions of the Contract with a view DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1504
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 12 of 13

toward effecting the purpose of this Contract, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions or applications thereof, shall not be affected thereby.

36. Authority. City warrants and represents that the signatory hereto (the Mayor of the City of Richmond or the City Manager) is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of City. The party signing on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, and shall be personally liable to City if he or she is not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.

37. Waiver. The waiver by City of any breach of any term or provision of this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach.

Inspections or approvals, or statements by any officer, agent or employee of the City relating to the Contractor’s performance, or payments therefore, or any combination of these acts, shall not relieve the Contractor’s obligation to fulfill this Contract as prescribed; nor shall the City be thereby stopped from bringing any action for damages or enforcement arising from any failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Contract.

38. Possessory Interest. If this Contract results in the Contractor having possession of, claim to or right to the possession of land or improvements, but does not vest ownership of the land or improvements in the same person, or if this Contract results in the placement of taxable improvements on tax exempt land (Revenue and Taxation Code 107), such interest or improvements may represent a possessory interest subject to property tax, and Contractor may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest.

39. Performance and Final Acceptance.

Contractor represents that it is experienced, qualified, registered, licensed, equipped, organized and financed to perform the services under this Contract.

Contractor shall perform the services under this Contract with that degree of skill and judgment normally exercised by professional firms performing services of a similar nature in the State of California, and shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of the services it performs under this Contract. In addition to the other rights and remedies which City may have, Contractor shall, at its own expense, correct any services which fail to meet the above standard.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1505
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 13 of 13

City shall provide Contractor an opportunity to cure errors and omission which may be disclosed during the review of submittals, with no increase in the authorized Contract Payment Limit. Should Contractor fail to make necessary corrections in a timely manner, such corrections shall be made by the City and the cost thereof shall be charged to Contractor.

If warranted, City shall determine, and Contractor may request such determination, that Contractor has satisfactorily completed performance of this Contract. Upon such determination, City shall issue to Contractor a written Notice of Final Acceptance, after which Contractor shall not incur further costs under this Contract. Contractor shall respond to such Notice of Final Acceptance by executing and submitting to City a Release and Certificate of Final Payment.

40. Survival
. The rights and obligations of the parties which by their nature survive termination or completion of the services covered by this Contract shall remain in full force and effect after termination or completion.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1506
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT E

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

The General Conditions are hereby amended to include the following modifications and/or provisions (if applicable):

1. Contractor shall provide Certificate of Insurance prior to expiration of current coverage period.

2. Contractor shall renew City of Richmond Business License prior to expiration.

Bay Area Marine Services
DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1507
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT F

INSURANCE PROVISIONS

During the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, the CONTRACTOR shall keep in effect insurance policies meeting the insurance requirements specified in the insurance provisions which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Bay Area Marine Services
DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1508
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors

Type 1 – Page 1 of 4

Revised: September 2011

In all instances where a CONTRACTOR or its representatives will be conducting business and/or providing services, the City requires the following MINIMUM insurance requirements and limits.

CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, agreement, or other order for work, services or supplies, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the CONTRACTOR, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Maintenance of proper insurance coverage is a material element of the contract. Failure to maintain or renew coverage or to provide evidence of renewal may be treated by the City as a material breach of contract.

CONTRACTOR agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide Commercial General Liability insurance, CONTRACTOR shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. CONTRACTOR hereby grants to CITY, on behalf of any insurer providing Commercial General Liability insurance to either CONTRACTOR or CITY with respect to the services of CONSULTANT herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said CONTRACTOR may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

Original, signed certificates and original, separate policy endorsements, naming the City as an additional insured for general liability, as well as a waiver of subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance, shall be received and approved by the City before any work may begin. However, failure to do so shall not operate as a waiver of these insurance requirements.

City reserves the right to modify or require additional coverages for specific risk exposures depending on scope of CONTRACTORS work.

Minimum coverage is detailed below. The policy limits of coverage shall be made available to the full limits of the policy.

The minimum limits stated herein shall not serve to reduce the policy limits of coverage of CONTRACTOR.

Minimum Scope of Insurance – the following forms shall be provided and coverage shall be at least as broad as the following:

1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (ISO Occurrence Form CG 0001) including coverage for bodily and personal injury, property damage, and products and completed operations.

2. Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability coverage (ISO Form CA 0001, Code 1, Any Auto)

3. Original and Separate Additional Insured Endorsements for General Liability (ISO Form CG 20 10 11/85 or its equivalent) with primary and non-contributory language.

4. Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California including Employer’s Liability coverage.

5. Original and Separate Waiver of Subrogation for Workers’ Compensation and Builder’s Risk/ Course of Construction Insurance.

6. Builder’s Risk/Course of Construction insurance covering all risks of loss less policy exclusions when the City of Richmond has a financial interest in the property. – (Only required for Construction Contracts involving property)

7. Contractor’s Pollution Liability (if applicable for Construction Contractors)

Required Coverage

Minimum Limits
Workers’ Compensation and
Employers’ Liability
Statutory limits as required by the State of California including $1 million Employers’ Liability per accident, per employee for bodily injury or disease.

If CONTRACTOR
is self-insured, provide a certificate of Permission to Self- Insure, signed by the California Department of Industrial Relations and Self- Insurance. If contractor is a sole proprietor (has no employees) than contractor must sign “Contractor Release of Liability” found at:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1509
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors

Type 1 – Page 2 of 4

Revised: September 2011

PROJECT COST R EQUIRED LIMIT
$0 - $5 million $2 million p/o
$5 million - $10 million $5 million p/o
Over $10 million $10 million p/o
Fireworks $5 million p/o
General Liability
(primary and excess limits
combined)

Includes coverage for bodily injury, personal injury, property damage and products and completed operations. The policy shall not exclude coverage for XCU perils (explosion, collapse, or damage to underground property).

If the policy includes a general aggregate, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this project, service or location or the minimum required aggregate limit shall be twice the per occurrence limit ($4 million aggregate limit).

Policy shall be endorsed to name the City of Richmond as an additional insured per the conditions detailed below.

Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.

Builders’ Risk/Course of
Construction – Covers property
under construction, repair or
renovation as well as equipment
and materials to be installed.

(Only required for Construction
Projects involving property and
equipment installation.)
Coverage shall include all risks of direct physical loss, excluding earthquake, for an amount equal to the full completed value of the covered structure or replacement value of alterations or additions, including soft costs and business interruption.

If the project does not involve new or major reconstruction, an Installation Floater may be acceptable. For such projects, a property installation floater shall be obtained that provides for the improvement, remodel, modification, alteration, conversion or adjustment to existing buildings, structures, processes, machinery and equipment. The Property Installation Floater shall provide property damage coverage for any building, structure, machinery or equipment damaged, impaired, broken or destroyed during the performance of the Work, including during transit, installation and testing at the City of Richmond’s site.

The City of Richmond shall be named as loss payee as its interest may appear. The insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation against City.

Contractor’s Pollution Liability (if
applicable)
Protects against:
unexpected/unintended release of
pollution resulting from contractors
covered operations such as:

HVAC, paving, carpentry, pipeline
& tank installation, drillers,
remediation contractors,
maintenance, mechanical,
demolition, excavation, grading,
street/road construction,
residential & commercial builders.

Same limits as General Liability.

Required Policy Conditions
A. M. Best Rating A:VII or Better. If the A.M. Best Rating falls below the required rating, CONTRACTOR must replace coverage immediately and provide notice to City.

Additional Insured Endorsement

Applicable to General Liability Coverage.

The City of Richmond, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds for all liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the named insured, including but not limited to bodily injury, deaths and property damage or destruction arising in any respect directly or indirectly in the performance of this contract.

ISO form CG 20 10 (11/85) or its equivalent is required. The endorsement must not
exclude products and completed operations
coverage. If it does, then CG 20 37 (10/01) is also required.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1510
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors

Type 1 – Page 3 of 4

Revised: September 2011
Additional Insured Endorsement
(continued)

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61
Primary and Noncontributory The contractor’s insurance coverage must be primary coverage as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self insurance maintained by the City is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance.

Waiver of Subrogation
Endorsement Form
Contractor’s insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for Workers Compensation and Builder’s Risk/ Course of Construction coverage during the life of this contract.

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61
Deductibles and Self-Insured
Retentions
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retention as respects the City or the CONTRACTOR shall procure a financial guarantee in an amount equal to the deductible or self-insured retention guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense expenses.

Contractor is responsible for satisfaction of the deductible and/or self-insured retention for each loss.

Loss Payable Endorsement (only
required when Builder’s Risk
and/or Course of Construction
Insurance is required.)
Applicable to Builder’s Risk/Course of Construction naming the City of Richmond as Loss Payee.

SURETY BONDS
(If a Public Works/Engineering
Project)
The Contractor shall provide:

1. A Bid bond

2. A Performance Bond

3. A Payment Bond

Umbrella/Excess Liability Policies
If an Umbrella or Excess Liability Policy is used to meet the liability limits, coverage shall be as broad as specified for underlying coverages and cover those insured in the underlying policies.

Claims-Made Policies
If any insurance policy is written on a claims-made form: 1) the retroactive date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. 2) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work. 3) If coverage is canceled or non- renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.

Subcontractors

CONTRACTOR
shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish to the City for review and approval, separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.

CONTRACTOR agrees to defend and indemnify the City of Richmond for any damage resulting to it from failure of either CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor to take out or maintain the required insurance policies. The fact that insurance is obtained by CONTRACTOR, and/or CONTRACTOR’s subcontractors, will not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of CONTRACTOR, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this contract. Damages recoverable by CITY from CONTRACTOR or any third party will not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1511
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors

Type 1 – Page 4 of 4

Revised: September 2011

Verification of Coverage
All original certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work may begin . The City
of Richmond reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies including endorsements affecting the coverage at any time.

Original insurance certificates and required policy endorsements shall be mailed, or delivered to the Designated Project Manager for the City of Richmond.

Insurance certificates and endorsements may be faxed to the Designated Project Manager. However, Contractor must mail the original certificates and endorsements to Designated Project Manager once faxed.

Continuous Coverage
CONTRACTOR shall maintain the required insurance for the life of the contract. Should the CONTRACTOR cease to have insurance as required during this time, all work by the CONTRACTOR pursuant to this agreement shall cease until insurance acceptable to the City is provided. In the event that CONTRACTOR fails to comply with the City’s insurance requirements, the City may take such action as it deems necessary to protect the City’s interests. Such action may include but is not limited to termination of the contract, withholding of payments, or other actions as the City deems appropriate.

If services or the scope of work extend beyond the expiration dates of the required insurance policies initially approved by the City, CONTRACTOR must provide updated certificates and endorsements indicating that the required coverage, terms and conditions are still in place. Renewal certificates and updated endorsements shall be mailed to the Designated Project Manager.

Cancellation

CONTRACTOR shall ensure that coverage shall not be cancelled, reduced or otherwise materially changed except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice has been given to the City.

Reporting Requirements

Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.

Consistent with Public Policy
The insuring provisions, insofar as they may be judged to be against public policy shall be void and unenforceable only to the minimum extent necessary so that the remaining terms and provisions herein may be consistent with public policy and thus enforceable.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1512
Richmond Police Department
Three-Year Maintenance Plan
August 1, £0££ -August 1, £0£5
RPD Vessels: Liberty 97, Rescue £8 & Rescue £9
Work Order - Not to exceed $50,000 over three years
• Haul out fee for vessels: Not to exceed $1,500.
• Hull and deck maintenance to include bottom painting and replacing zincs and anodes: Not to exceed $14,000. • General Service and Repair to all outboards and components: Not to exceed $7,000. • General Service and Repair on both starboard and port Cummings Diesel engines, to include Hamilton Jet Drives:

Not to exceed $9,000.
• Equipment and materials: not to exceed $5,500.
• Inspection and repair if needed all electrical systems on all vessels: Not to exceed $8,000.

Service Details

1. Moose boat: Service 2 Cummings diesel engines (2) 6.71trs.

2. Hamilton Jets: service per manual, with attention to the seals and changes required by number of hours.

3. Equipment and Materials
a. New batteries, new terminals, replace corroded wiring, steering cables, flushing hydraulic steering.

4. Bottom Paint
a. Supplies: Primer, bottom paint, sandpaper rollers, covers, tarps, tape, and consumable supplies b. Yard rent

5. Remove old fuel from tank
a. This requires using pumps to extract fuel. All fuel must be recycled. b. because the vessel has been sitting for more than six months, this service is necessary.

6. Nonskid Application
a. Remove old paint on deck, apply new primer and non-skid application b. Materials: non-skid, primer, brushes, tape tarps, plastic coverings Attachment A
DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1513

7. Inspection & Annual Survey
a. Create and maintain a file on each item on board (check list to be updated any time equipment is replace or added) for maintenance or guaranty. 6 hours one person

8. Remove old fuel
a. If vessel has been sitting for more than six months; this service is necessary.

TOTAL $16,600. Per vessel, $50,000 TOTAL for three-year contract.

This is a proposal. Before work begins, we would create a contract.

Proposal assumes client will work with us to ensure requests do no exceed annual budget.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C252377F-010C-40AC-A0F0-FE4EB3A7625F 1514

CITY OF RICHMOND

CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Department: Project Manager:

Project Manager E-mail:

Project Manager Phone No:

P.R. No: Vendor No: P.O./Contract No:

Description of Services:

Amendment No. ___ modifies the: (2nd or subsequent amendments attach Amendment History page)

Term, Payment Limit and Service Plan
Payment Limit and Service Plan

Term and Service Plan
Service Plan
The parties to this Contract Amendment do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract Amendment are the City of Richmond, California, a municipal corporation (City), and the following named Contractor:

Company Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No: / Expiration Date:

A California [ ] corporation, [ ] limited liability corporation [ ] general partnership, [ ] limited partnership, [ ] individual, [ ] non-profit corporation, [ ] individual dba as [specify:]
[ ] other [specify:]

2. Purpose. This Contract Amendment is being entered into to amend the Contract between City and Contractor which was approved by the City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on , which original term commenced on and terminates with an original contract payment limit of $ . Said contract shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Original Contract" and is incorporated herein by reference.

3. Original Contract Provisions. The parties hereto agree to continue to abide by those terms and conditions of the Original Contract, and any amendments thereto, which are unaffected by this Contract Amendment.

1515
Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 09-26-07

4. Amendment Provisions. This Contract Amendment is subject to the Amendment Provisions attached hereto, which are incorporated herein by reference, and which control over any conflicting provisions of the Original Contract, or any amendment thereto.

5. City of Richmond Business License Active Status Maintained. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 7.04.030, the Contractor must maintain its City of Richmond business license for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

6. Insurance Coverage Updated and Maintained. Pursuant to the Original Contract, the Contractor shall provide the City with updated insurance certificates, and the Contractor shall maintain insurance coverage, for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

7. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties’ agreement hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
a municipal corporation

By _______________________

Title:

I hereby certify that the Original Contract
and this Amendment have been approved
by the City Council or executed by the City
Manager.

By _______________________
City Clerk

Approved as to form:

By_______________________
City Attorney

List of Attachments:

1. Amendment Provisions

2. Updated Insurance Certificates

CONTRACTOR:

______________________________

(*The Corporation Chairperson of the Board, President or Vice-President should sign on the line below.)

By____________________________

Title:________________________

(*The Corporation Chief Financial Officer, Secretary or Assistant Secretary should sign on the line below.)

By:___________________________

Title:________________________

(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations
Code Section 313, if Contractor is a
corporation or nonprofit organization, this
Contract (1) should be signed by the
Chairperson of the Board, President or
Vice-President
and the Chief Financial
Officer, Secretary or Assistant Secretary; (2)
should have both signatures conform to
designated representative groups pursuant
to Corporations Code Section 313.

1516
Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and

Amendment No. P.O./Contract No.

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (PAYMENT LIMIT AND SERVICE PLAN)

1. Paragraph 3 (Payment Limit) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to increase the payment limit by $ . Paragraph 3 of the Original Contract is amended to read as follows:

"3. Payment Limit. City's total payments to Contractor under this Contract Amendment shall not exceed $ including expenses."

“The City of Richmond shall not pay for services that exceed the Contract Payment Limit without the prior written approval of the City Manager if the total Contract amount does not exceed $10,000 or without the prior approval of the City Council if the total Contract amount is over $10,000.”

2. The Service Plan (Exhibit A) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to include the following tasks and/or services:

Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 9-26-07

1517

CITY OF RICHMOND
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement
The undersigned, an authorized agent of (hereafter
"Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of City of Richmond Ordinance 12-18 (hereafter "Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance" or “SCCO”). Contractor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO:
a. "Data Broker” means either of the following:
i. The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, w
hich include both private-sector business and government agencies; ii. The aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ulti
mately used.
b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other sim ilar s
ervices."
Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE.

Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor's failure to comply with the SCCO shall constitute a material default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the Contract and bar Contractor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) y
ears from the effective date of the contract termination.

By executing this Statement, Contractor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the SCCO and that if at any time during the term of the Contract it ceases to comply, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Any person or entity who knowingly or willingly supplies false information in violation of the SCCO shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $1,000 fine.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the for egoing is true and correct. Executed this day of , 20 , at , California.

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:

Vendor SCCO Compliance Statement (Augt2020)
Attachment A-1
1518

September 12, 2023

Police Department

DATE: September 12, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bisa French, Chief of Police
Subject:

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Contra
Costa County Sheriff’s Office for 2022 Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The 2022 JAG Grant will provide funding in the amount of $80,619 less a five-percent administrative fee
($4,030.95) due to the Sheriff’s Office for a total
reimbursable amount of $76,588.05. This is a
reimbursement grant, where funds will be paid out by the City of Richmond and a request for funds will be
processed by the Sheriff’s Office. A City match of funds is not required – account string 10691021-337381.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City of Richmond Police Department was awarded
the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) 2022 by the Office of Justice Programs managed
by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office. Department staff is requesting City Council approval to accept and appropriate $80,619 for the purchase of police safety
equipment.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE
$80,619 in funding from the 2022 Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program for
the purchase of police safety equipment; and
AUTHORIZE the city manager to execute and accept the
Memorandum of Understanding with the Contra Costa
County Sheriff’s Office – Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-621-1802).

AGENDA
REPORT
1519

September 12, 2023
DISCUSSION:

The Federal government has made funds available to local law enforcement agencies under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. The Contra Costa County Sherriff’s Office applies for and receives the initial award, which is then divided between the Sheriff’s Department, City of Antioch, City of Concord, and the City of Richmond.

Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office (CCCSO) manages the grant between the four recipients, but all documentation is completed by the individual jurisdictions. Only after the CCCSO receives back documents from all the jurisdictions, can CCCSO officially present the jurisdictions with their individual funding.

The award was presented to the City of Richmond Police Department in April 2023. The JAG 2022 grant term is October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2025. The City of Richmond is currently using JAG 2020 and JAG 2021 funds for body armor purchases as needed. The JAG 2022 funds will be used when the prior funding is exhausted.

The City of Richmond Police Department was awarded $80,619, of which a five-percent administrative fee ($4,030.95) is deducted for grant management by the Sheriff’s Department. City staff proposes to use the funds for the purchase of police safety equipment (e.g., bullet proof vests, ballistic shields, helmets, etc.) in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office and the City of Richmond Police Department.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – JAG 2022 MOU (Signed by Undersheriff & CAO) Attachment 2 – Resolution
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

AND PARTICIPATING CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF:

REGULAR EOWARD BYRNE ilIEi'ORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) GRANT -2022
lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this M.O.U. to be duly executed as of the date first specified herein. Each person signing this M.O.U. warrants that he or she has full and complete authority to sign this M.O.U. and binds the governmental agency for which he or she signs.

SUBGRANTEE

CITY OF CONCORD
CiW ilanaqer
Title
'Ja)crrc J. Barcrru
Print Name

1550

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BET
WEEN
T

HE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

AND PARTICIPATING CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES F
OR THE DISTRIBUTION OF:

REGULAR EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT
(JAG) GRANT - 2022
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this M.O.U. to be duly executed as of the date first specified herein. Each person signing this M.O.U. warrants that he or she has full and comp lete authority to sign this M.O.U. and binds the governmental agency for which he or she signs.

SUBG
RANTEE
CI

TY OF RICHMOND
_______________________
_________ _____City Manager_____________
Signature Title
______________
__________________
Print Name

1551
1552
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE TO SIGN THE

JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND ACCEPT $80,619 AWARDED TO THE CITY THROUGH THE 2022 EDWARD

BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM TO

SUPPLEMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES

WHEREAS, the Federal government has made funds available under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program through the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) for law enforcement purposes; and

WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa County has been designated as a distinguishable jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff will serve as the applicant fiscal agent and grantee for the joint funds awarded; and

WHEREAS, the City of Richmond is identified as a subgrantee and entitled to a maximum of $80,619 for law enforcement safety equipment purposes; and

WHEREAS, the Richmond Police Chief has submitted to the City Council a request that funds, which the City will receive under the allocations, be used for safety equipment costs; and,

WHEREAS, the Richmond Police Department will be required to adhere to the Memorandum of Understanding set forth by the County of Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Richmond that:

1. Authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute and accept the Memorandum of Understanding with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office.

2. The City of Richmond shall accept the allocation of $80,619 from the Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program.

3. The funds that the City will receive are hereby appropriated towards safety equipment costs.

4. The City Manager, or his/her designee, shall establish a Fund Organization/Object Code in the Munis System for the deposit of the funds which have been allocated to the City of Richmond from the 2022 JAG Grant Program.

5. The Finance Director, or his/her designee, of the City of Richmond shall submit 1553
the necessary quarterly reports and summaries to the grantee which is required by the Memorandum of Understanding between the grantee and subgrantee.

*****************************

I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a _________ meeting held on _____________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

________________________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond

(SEAL)

Approved:

_______________________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

____________________________
City Attorney

1554

September 12, 2023

Public Works

DATE: September 12, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Daniel Chavarria, PE, Director of Public Works
Robert Armijo, PE, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject:

Agreement Execution Authority for Certain Agreements
with the California Department of Transportation
(CalTrans)
FINANCIAL IMPACT: These Agreements are a part of the implementation of projects that have been approved by City Council. The
financial impacts are unique to the projects that the
Agreements cover.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
n/a

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City of Richmond is eligible to receive federal and/or state funding for certain transportation projects through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

However, to claim such funds, the City must first execute several types of agreements with Caltrans, including
Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements,
Fund Exchange Agreements, and Fund Transfer
Agreements.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution that grants the authority to the
Director of Public Works and the City Engineer to
execute Master Agreements, Program Supplemental
Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, Fund Transfer
Agreements, and any amendments thereto with the
California Department of Transportation for transportation projects funded by Federal and/or State sources – Public Works Department (Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478/
Robert Armijo 510-620-5477).

AGENDA
REPORT
1555

September 12, 2023
ISCUSSION:

In an effort to streamline the process of claiming federal and state funds and executing necessary agreements, it is proposed that the authority to sign Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, Fund Transfer Agreements, and any amendments thereto be delegated to the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer. By authorizing these key personnel to execute these agreements, the City can expedite claiming funds for important transportation projects.

This delegation of authority will not only speed up the process but will also ensure a more efficient and effective use of resources.

Local governments often rely on various funds through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for transportation projects. These funds can originate from federal, state, and sometimes local sources. The following are some types of funding that local governments may access through Caltrans:

1. Federal Funds: Caltrans administers a variety of federal funding programs.

These funds are typically generated from federal gasoline and diesel fuel taxes and allocated for transportation projects by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Examples of such programs include:

 The Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG), which funds a broad range of surface transportation capital needs, including roads, transit, seaports, and more.
 The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), aimed at achieving a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

2. State Funds: These funds come from state sources, such as state fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, and bonds. State programs include:

 The State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), the state's "fix-it-first" program that funds the repair and preservation of the State Highway System, improvements necessary to enhance safety, and updates to meet statewide and national standards.
 The Active Transportation Program (ATP), which funds projects to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking.

These are just a few examples among many other specialized funding programs available for specific types of projects or areas. The California Department of Transportation provides guidance and support for local agencies to navigate the various programs and funding opportunities.

This action will not have an immediate financial impact on the City. However, it is expected to expedite the process of receiving funding for transportation projects, thus positively affecting future budget allocations and operations. 1556

September 12, 2023
Given the potential benefits of improved efficiency and effectiveness in securing funding for transportation projects, Public Works staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer to execute all Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, Fund Transfer Agreements, and any amendments thereto with Caltrans.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Resolution
1557

Reso. No.

RESOLUTION NO. ____________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA,

AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ENGINEER TO EXECUTE

MASTER AGREEMENTS, PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENTS, FUND EXCHANGE

AGREEMENTS, AND/OR FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENTS AND ANY AMENDMENTS

THERETO WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION _______________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, the City of Richmond is eligible to receive federal and/or state funding for certain transportation projects, through the California Department of Transportation; and

WHEREAS, Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, and/or Fund Transfer Agreements need to be executed with the California Department of Transportation before such funds could be claimed; and

WHEREAS, the City wishes to authorize the Public Works Director and the City Engineer to execute these agreements and any amendments thereto; and

NOW, TIIEREFORE·BE IT RESOLVED, that the Public Works Director and the City Engineer are authorized to execute all Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, Fund Transfer Agreements, and any amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation.

-----------------------------------

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution of the Council of the City of Richmond was duly passed and adopted at a meeting thereof held September 12, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTION:

______________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond
(SEAL)

Approved:

_________________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

_________________________
City Attorney
1558
Reso. No.

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 September 12, 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 September 12, 2023.

Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
1559
Reso. No.

CLERK’S

CERTIFICATE

I, Pamela Christian, City Clerk of the City of Richmond, do hereby certify as follows:

The foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City duly and regularly held at the regular meeting place thereof on the 12th day of September 2023, of which meeting all the members of said City Council had due notice and at which a majority thereof were present; and that at said meeting said resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

An agenda of said meeting was posted before said meeting at City Hall, 450 Civic Center Plaza in the City of Richmond, California, a location freely accessible to members of the public, and a brief description of said resolution appeared on said agenda.

Such agenda was further posted, and such meeting was conducted in accordance with and pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20, signed by the Governor of the State of California on March 17, 2020, and Executive Order N-35-20, signed by the Governor of the State of California on March 21, 2020.

I have carefully compared the foregoing with the original on file and of record in my office, and the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting.

Said resolution h as not b een amended, mod ified or rescinded s ince the d ate of its adoption and the same is now in full force and effect.

Dated: , 2022.

City Clerk of the
City of Richmond

[SEAL]

1560

September 12, 2023

Library and Community Services

DATE: September 12, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager of Community
Services
Patrick Seals, Project Manager
Subject:

Community Crisis Response Program Update
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City Council allocated $1 million to support the implementation of a Community Crisis Response
Program in Richmond (01204022 400201 RI200). A
contract with Urban Strategies Council was approved on
July 26, 2022, to conduct research and analysis of
various Community Crisis Response Program options, for
a total amount not to exceed $112,844, with a term
beginning August 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2024.

Depending on the final program model, the cost to
implement a CCRP program (if the program is to operate
24 hours per day and 7 days per week) could range
conservatively from approximately $1.87M to $2.37M
annually. These costs are estimates and do not include
overhead charges for non-profit organization or
government agency. A model with less operational hours
or smaller team could result in a lower annual costs.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

July 26, 2022 and February 28, 2023
AGENDA
REPORT
1561

September 12, 2023

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

On July 26, 2022, the City Council approved a contract
with Urban Strategies Council (USC) to conduct research and analysis of various Community Crisis Response
Program (CCRP) options and set forth recommendations.

Consistent with the agreement with USC, City Staff and
the consultants would like to provide a program update
and present a draft report outlining potential program
components and options for CCRP implementation.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a draft report and presentation from Urban
Strategies Council regarding Community Crisis
Response Program model options; and PROVIDE
DIRECTION to City staff – Community Services
Department (LaShonda White 510-620-6828/ Patrick
Seals 510-307-8016). This item was continued from
the July 11, 2023, meeting.

DISCUSSION:

Background

The Community Crisis Program (CCRP) began taking root in November 2020 amidst conversations within the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force (Task Force). Following a host of Task Force Round Table and Sub-committee meetings, the City Council approved an allocation of $1 million as part of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget. Various City staff worked closely with Task Force members to research and discuss components of a CCRP program, as well as draft a Request for Proposal (RFP) to help guide the further development and implementation of an alternative crisis response program in Richmond. The RFP was released in April 2022, and in July 2022, City Council approved a contract with Urban Strategies Council (USC) to assist with this effort.

USC was contracted by the City of Richmond to assess program model options and develop a pilot initiative for a non-police response to low-level 911 calls serving Richmond residents. USC engaged Richmond residents and community stakeholders in a community survey, focus groups, community meetings, organization presentations, and direct interviews to better understand their experiences with the 911 system, crisis resources, and aspirations for new response strategies.

USC’s report is intended as a comprehensive presentation of the program options.

Based on research, promising practices, and community needs, the report is drafted to hopefully provide the information needed for the City Council to make an informed decision regarding how best to move forward with the implementation of the program.

Additional information regarding CCRP can be found at
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4451/Community-Crisis-Response-Program. 1562

September 12, 2023

Urban Strategies Council

Founded in 1987, the Urban Strategies Council (USC) is a regional research, collective action, program innovation and policy advocacy anchor organization dedicated to advancing economic, racial, and social equity in the Bay Area. USC’s most recent work includes: conducting community-based participatory research for the newly created Department of Violence Prevention (DVP); developing the MACRO pilot program in Oakland, CA and Antioch Care Team pilot program (alternative non-police responses for 911 non-violent calls); assisting a community coalition in Cambridge, MA working to design an 911-call nonpolice alternative response system; and convening/facilitating development of the Justice Reinvestment Coalition of Alameda County. USC works with public-sector jurisdictions in the United States and Canada developing alternative emergency response program models and policy recommendations.

USC participates in convenings, both formal and informal, of jurisdictions and practitioners sharing models and learning. As more communities have implemented models, USC engages in more discussions about the experiences, challenges, and needed modifications to programs. USC has deep familiarity with the various models and the initial experiences of jurisdictions with those models, the evaluation approaches, community oversight and engagement strategies and experiences.

Although USC brings those experiences to the discussion, USC remains focused on understanding the specific local needs, resources, and goals of a municipality.

What is Community or Alternative Crisis Response?

CCRP provides a diversion model to reduce reliance on police and criminal justice responses by offering a public health response. A proposed CCRP program would provide an opportunity to improve access to mental health and other community services in Richmond and would also navigate people to the right services at the right time by utilizing community responders with strong ties and connections to Richmond that can respond in a respectful and non-stigmatizing manner.

Some of the desired impacts of CCRP are to reduce the engagement of frequent utilizers of emergency services with Richmond Police Department (RPD) and Richmond Fire Department (RFD); reduce the number of behavioral health and lower acuity calls traditionally responded to by the RPD and RFD; and provide communities with a supportive response option that enables connection to services. CCRP is an opportunity to provide community-focused, trauma-informed, and healing-centered call responses by well-trained non-police personnel who can increase impacted individuals’ access and connection to timely, appropriate and safe community-based services and resources.

The specific types of calls will be developed by the key stakeholders (CCRP staff, RPD, RFD and 911 dispatchers). Situations that are commonly and successfully responded to by an alternative response program may include:
1563

September 12, 2023

 Trespasser/unwanted person
 Loitering
 Public urination/indecent
exposure (without criminal
intent)
 Wellness check
 Subject down (often resident
asleep in public)
 Found syringe
 Person screaming
 Person needing referral to
services
 People in vehicles/camping in
public
 Person drunk in public
 Panhandling/Aggressive
Panhandling
 Disorderly juveniles - group
 Auto Disturbance - noise,
revving engine
 Loud music - Noise complaint
 Incorrigible juvenile
 Confused/senile person
 Family dispute
 Neighbor disputes
 Incomplete 911 call

Proposed Program Options

USC has identified five (5) potential structural options for the City to consider:

1. Non-profit - The City issues an RFP for an independent non-profit agency (vendor) to run the program. Lessons learned from Antioch’s non-profit program implementation can inform the pros and cons for Richmond’s decision-making.

2. Existing City Office – The City can choose to institute the CCRP within an existing municipal department. Potential candidates include the Richmond Fire Department, the Community Services Department, and the Office of Neighborhood Safety. Based on resident feedback, the CCRP should not be implemented under the Richmond Police Department.

3. New City Department – Another option, using the City’s infrastructure as a foundation for the program, is to create a new City department that includes the CCRP and potentially other current initiatives (e.g., social service needs).

4. Nonprofit Hybrid Model – This option combines starting the CCRP in a non- profit (to implement the pilot) with the intention of the CCRP then being brought into the City.

5. Richmond Partnership with Contra Costa County - The City could negotiate with Contra Costa to provide the services the City of Richmond identifies.

Proposed Program Essential Components

Regardless of the option selected, USC has outlined a number of program components that are essential to developing and implementing a successful community or alternative crisis response program. The major components are listed below and described in more detail in the report.

 Coverage
1564

September 12, 2023
 Accessibility
 Community Engagement/Presentations
 Response and Communications
 Staffing (recruitment, positions, etc.)
 Training (Dispatch, staff, collaborative relationships)  Team Safety
 Support Networks & Referrals
 Coordination & Collaboration
 Evaluation & Reporting
 Community Advisory Board

Criteria

Considering the above-mentioned program components, each of the program design options can be evaluated against the following selected criteria:
 Speed of implementation
 Cost
 Sustainability
 Community support

Proposed Pilot Timeline and Cost

Pilot program rollout timeline depends on the implementation decisions, as do the estimated pilot costs. The CCRP pilot should run for 18 months to two years. Depending on the final program model, the cost to implement a CCRP program (if the program is to operate 24 hours per day and 7 days per week) could range from approximately $1.87 million to $2.37 million annually. These costs are estimates and do not include overhead charges for a non-profit organization or government agency. A model with less operational hours or smaller team could result in a lower annual cost. A more detailed breakdown of the costs is included in the report.

Reimagining Public Safety Community Task Force (Task Force)

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023, City Staff received a draft report from USC. The draft document was not ready at the time of the agenda distribution for the Task Force’s regular meeting on June 28, 2023; however, the June 28 meeting was cancelled due to lack of quorum. Once available, the full draft report was shared via email with the Task Force members on July 8, and included in the agenda packet for the July 12, 2023, special meeting of the Task Force (shared via email on July 10). The draft report was briefly discussed at the special meeting, and it was determined that the CCRP item would be discussed at the August 23, 2023, regular meeting.

The Chair requested that all Task Force members review the materials thoroughly in advance of the August 23, 2023 regular meeting. The Chair also requested that Task Force members compare the proposal in the draft 1565

September 12, 2023
report to the original CCRP proposal put forth by the Task Force in 2021.

City staff and USC made a presentation on CCRP and the draft report was discussed at the August 23, 2023 regular meeting. Task Force members agreed that more discussion was needed for members to be able to make and approve any recommendations for City Council consideration.

Members voted to hold a special meeting on August 30, 2023 to continue discussion and approve any recommendations made

During the Task Force meetings, members asked questions regarding but not limited to the following: timeline for implementation, training, constitution of teams, cost for service (including actual costs to hire staff within the city), police presence, interaction/coordination with A3, lessons learned and program models from other jurisdictions (with special focus on Antioch and Oakland), examples and descriptions of potential calls, etc. At the August 30, 2023, Task Force meeting, the members voted to recommend to the City Council that CCRP be implemented within a new or existing department within the City of Richmond without any recommendation regarding length of time for the pilot.

Next Steps

Based on direction from City Council, City staff plan to work closely with USC, Contra Costa County (CCC), RPD, RFD, the Task Force, City staff, and other stakeholders, to refine the selected program model and/or engage in additional conversations and research before returning to City Council after Council returns from recess in September 2023. A partial list of the work City staff may begin after receiving direction on July 11, 2023, includes, but is not limited to the following:

 Work with Human Resources to refine and release a job announcement for a program manager position to lead the CCRP work, and other job classifications, based on the selected program model
 Work with USC on a RFP (if a decision is made to contract with a non-profit)  Discuss dispatch and training with RPD
 Discuss hiring and placement of EMTs with CCC EMS and RFD  Continue coordination with CCC A3 program to discuss program integration, training, outreach, etc. is in place for A3 in Richmond  Work with Richmond’s Fleet Division to purchase one or more vehicles (depending on program option)
 Develop specially designed protocols for CCRP service call referrals and follow up
 Begin to create a community outreach and engagement plan  Establish and strengthen referral relationships with community-based service providers
 Begin to discuss a strong data collection, monitoring, and evaluation system  Engage with City legal staff and risk management regarding liability

1566

September 12, 2023
Prior to the implementation of the pilot, the planning team will create initial administrative and clinical methods, identify logistical needs and considerations, and begin to build resource and referral networks. Overall, there are extensive questions, protocols, procedural issues, and structural components that need to be addressed (e.g., program evaluation, oversight, training, department coordination, staffing requirements, inter-agency agreements, etc.) before the initiation of any program implementation within the community. It is the intent of City staff to be prudent and deliberative in its approach to ensure that any alternative program the City offers is well suited to serve the health and well-being of the community and cause no harm.

Under the contract with the City, USC will continue to provide support to City staff and is expected to participate in further discussions to provide support for deeper conversations for Councilmembers to make the necessary program decisions.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – DRAFT Implementation of the Community Crisis Response Program Report
Attachment 2 – DRAFT PowerPoint Presentation
Attachment 3 – DRAFT Questions and Answers

1567

1 DRAFT
Implementation of the Community Crisis Response
Program in Richmond CA
JULY 2023

SOS Richmond Focus Group 5/17/23

1568

2 What Would Make Richmond’s Emergency
What Would Make Richmond’s Emergency Services Better?

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................... 3 Executive Summary .............................................................................. 5 Project Background/Community Need ..................................................... 8 CCRP Essential Components ................................................................. 12 Program Options ................................................................................ 22 Budget/Funding .................................................................................. 24 Pilot Program Implementation Planning ................................................. 30 Methodology ...................................................................................... 49 Community & Stakeholder ................................................................... 53

Attachment 1: Taskforce Community Crisis Response Program Proposal Attachment 2: CCRP Staff Training Curriculum Topics List Attachment 3: Richmond Meetings & Outreach Events List
Attachment 4: USC Emergency Responder Survey
Attachment 5: Richmond Community Survey Responses
1569

3 Acknowledgements

First and foremost, thank you to Richmond’s residents, political leadership, city government staff, service providers, and community leaders. It is an honor to work on one aspect that reflects Richmond’s commitment to public safety innovation envisioning a caring and violence-free city that advances community wellness, high quality and trust in government services, and support for all residents in need. We thank all of these residents for their thoughtful insights and wisdom, and willingness to share their aspirations and ideas for a new response initiative. We appreciate the City of Richmond’s commitment to addressing equity, public input, transparency, and accountability.

Unfortunately, this report cannot provide full justice to the stories shared with us by residents narrating their lived experiences and impacts from a system/practice that too many times causes harm to individuals, places undue stress on police, and doesn’t solve the root causes of the situations requiring intervention.

Attached is a list of stakeholder interviews and meetings with individuals and organizations who generously gave their time to support the research and community outreach upon which this report is based. We are grateful to everyone.

This report would not have been possible without the thoughtful and extensive research and advocacy by the Richmond Taskforce on Reimagining Public Safety, Chief French and the RPD staff, Chief Angel Montoya and the RFD staff, Communications Center Manager Michael Schlemmer and all the dispatchers who patiently answered questions and permitted us to watch their complex and fast-paced work. Suzanne Tavano, PhD, Director, Behavioral Health Services, Dr. Chad Pierce, PsyD, A3/Crisis Intervention Chief, and Debbie Thomas, LMFT, MH Program Manager ensured that we understand the wonderful work of the Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime (A3) Initiative and how to ensure integration and collaboration between the programs.

The focus groups provided a deeper understanding of the experiences and perspectives of Richmonders. We are deeply appreciative of the leaders who put the groups together: Manusiu Laulea (Greater Richmond Interfaith Program), Anupama Chapagai Parajuli (Nepali Health Advocates), Miriam Wong (Richmond Latina Center), Marisol Cantu (Richmond Progressive Alliance), Eddy Chacon and Chantille Tran (RYSE Youth Center), Daniel Barth (SOS Richmond), and Eren Samano (Shields Reid Community Center).

1570

4 City of Richmond staff were a pleasure to work with. We especially appreciate the guidance and feedback from LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager of Community Services, Patrick Seals, Project Manager in the City Manager’s Office, Guadalupe Morales, Assistant Administrative Analyst.

A special thanks to County Supervisor John Gioia for his valuable attention and support for the CCRP initiative in ensuring an effective collaboration between Richmond and Contra Costa County.

David A. Harris and Anne Janks are the authors of this report. Urban Strategies Council. The USC Research Department developed the community survey and conducted an analysis of the survey. Youth fellows Jocelyn Gama and Jacob Virges assisted with community outreach and focus groups.

1571

5 Executive Summary

Urban Strategies Council (USC) works with public-sector jurisdictions in the United States (US) and Canada developing alternative emergency response program models and policy recommendations. Alternative emergency response programs address situations that drain public safety resources and benefit from a well-trained de-escalation and problem-solving team.

Beginning on August 1, 2022, USC was contracted by the City of Richmond to assess program model options and develop a pilot initiative for a non- police response to low-level 911 calls serving Richmond residents. USC engaged Richmond residents and community stakeholders in a community survey, focus groups, community meetings, organization presentations, and direct interviews to better understand their experiences with the 911 system, crisis resources, and aspirations for new response strategies. This report is intended as a comprehensive presentation of the program options.

The working name of the proposed program is the Community Crisis Response Program (CCRP). The goal is for a CCRP response to:

1. Reduce non-warrant arrests that may result during a 911 response.

2. Reduce the number of residents transported to the emergency department when another solution is possible.

3. Reduce the number of residents who frequently interact with the Richmond Police Department (RPD) and Richmond Fire Department (RFD).

4. Reduce the number of low-level calls that RPD and RFD currently respond to; and

5. Provide communities with a supportive response that helps connect residents to needed services.

CCRP is an opportunity to provide community-focused, trauma-informed, and healing-centered crisis responses by well-trained non-police staff and strengthen residents’ connection to timely, appropriate, and safe services and resources. Everyone in Richmond stands to benefit from the CCRP program. Residents get a safer response and policing that is better able to focus on major crimes, emergency response and investigation - their core public safety responsibilities.

The basic service of the CCRP pilot is the deployment of well-trained teams that respond to a broad range of behavioral health or low-acuity calls and situations without police, fire, or other Emergency Management Services (EMS) personnel. At the center of the team are CCRP responders consisting of a Community Response Specialist and Emergency Medical Technician. The 1572

6 CCRP staff also includes a Project Director and a small clinical and support staff. The pilot program projects a total of 14 full-time positions required for a 24/7 citywide pilot implementation.

For the pilot, RPD Dispatch will dispatch calls to 911 or the non-emergency number that are low-priority and meet identified criteria that make them appropriate for the CCRP response. The specific types of calls will be developed by the key stakeholders (CCRP staff, RPD, RFD and 911 dispatchers). Situations that are commonly and successfully responded to by an alternative response program include:

• Person drunk in public
• Panhandling/Aggressive
Panhandling
• Disorderly juveniles - group
• Auto Disturbance - noise,
revving engine
• Loud music - Noise complaint
• Incorrigible juvenile
• Confused/senile person
• Family dispute
• Neighbor disputes
• Incomplete 911 call
• Trespasser/unwanted person
• Loitering
• Public urination/indecent
exposure (without criminal
intent)
• Wellness check
• Subject down (often resident
asleep in public)
• Found syringe
• Person screaming
• Person needing referral to
services
• People in vehicles/camping in
public

CCRP’s operational requirements include: a small office space (staff will largely operate in a mobile unit); access to RPD’s radio dispatch system; specially designed protocols for CCRP service call referrals and follow up; necessary first-aid supplies; a strong data collection, monitoring, and evaluation system; referral relationships with community-based service providers; ongoing staff training and call reviews; and a pro-active and transparent community outreach and engagement effort. The report also identifies structures to ensure ongoing communication with and feedback from RPD officers and dispatchers, RFD staff, Richmond city staff, Contra Costa County staff, Richmond City Council, and residents.

Four phases are identified for program implementation, including an initial period for City Council decision-making about program implementation (phase 1) and startup planning (including staff hiring/training) (phase 2).

Five implementation options for City Council decision are discussed in this report: 1) selecting a non-profit program vendor from outside the City infrastructure; 2) CCRP implementation in an existing City department; 3) creation of a new City department; 4) a hybrid model involving starting up 1573

7 the program in a nonprofit, then moving it to the City; and 5) a hybrid program implemented in partnership with the County. Pilot program rollout timeline depends on the implementation decisions, as do the estimated pilot costs. The CCRP pilot should run for 18 months to two years.

USC participates in convenings, both formal and informal, of jurisdictions and practitioners sharing models and learning. As more communities have implemented models, USC engages in more discussions about the experiences, challenges, and needed modifications to programs. USC has deep familiarity with the various models and the initial experiences of jurisdictions with those models, the evaluation approaches, community oversight and engagement strategies and experiences. Although USC brings those experiences to the discussion, USC remains focused on understanding the specific local needs, resources, and goals of a municipality. Each city USC has assisted, either formally or informally, will report that USC shares the information and analysis USC have gained, while respecting the unique considerations and decision-making that each city must make for itself.

USC expects that once alternative emergency response programs are integrated into Richmond’s communities, having established themselves as well-known and trusted messengers, they will be used as an effective, accessible community response to a broader range of community needs, such as weather, air quality emergencies, public health, and other emergencies. Once CCRP is established, USC encourages Richmond to engage in future regional discussions to share resources and learning among crisis response programs.

1574

8 Project Background/Community Need
The May 2020 murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd highlighted the level of distrust and problems that develop when police interact with Black and Brown communities, even for the most innocuous of reasons. It also ignited the largest mass protest movement in U.S. history, opening policy windows across the country for reforms and reinventions of policing systems, policies, and practices. Many jurisdictions have developed programs to respond to non-violent, non-medical-emergent situations where a gun and badge is not needed or helpful and where both the residents involved, and the police are better served by alternative non-police responses. This deep and complex community discussion is ongoing in Richmond.

In October 2020, the Richmond City Council appointed 21 residents to a newly constituted Reimagining Public Safety Community Task Force (RPSCTF) to identify public safety policy reforms and program innovations for the city. Unlike in many other jurisdictions where similar taskforces have ended, the RPSCTF remains active and involved in the development of a new alternative response program. Between October 2020 and now, the RPSCTF has met 39 times and hosted eight community round tables and conversations on issues including Mental/Behavioral Health, Homelessness, Police Policies/Alternative Methods, Youth Works, Unhoused interventions, RPD budget and call data, Community Crisis Response Team, and the Office of Neighborhood Safety. The taskforce issued a CCRP Proposal which is attached and discussed in this report (Attachment #1).

The extensive participation of Richmond residents and the Taskforce on Reimagining Public Safety and City Council (including extensive research, alternative models, community discussions) has provided a deep level of understanding, support, and engagement.

The Richmond Police Department (RPD) Dispatch processes over 4000 calls each week. A 2020 report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP)1 looked at 911 calls for service in eight cities and found that 23 to 39 percent of calls were low priority or nonurgent and 18 to 34 percent of calls were for life-threatening emergencies. Similar data has been replicated in other studies. Through in- depth engagement with a broad range of stakeholders, USC has confirmed that there are numerous low-level calls and situations without a serious criminal or medical component that meet the criteria as benefiting from a well-trained community response in Richmond.

1 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/community-responder-model/ 1575

9 Richmond is a diverse community of approximately 115,000 residents in 33 square miles. Rising housing costs have deep and ongoing impacts - a doubling of unhoused residents in the past five years and an ongoing diaspora of Black and low-income residents. With the largest proportion of immigrant residents of any city in the Bay area region, Richmond’s cultural and linguistic diversity creates another challenge in providing services.

Immigrant communities have multiple concerns in interacting with police - history of policing in their countries of origin, immigration status, or that they will have trouble communicating with officers who will have a language barrier or incomplete understanding of their community and culture.

According to the latest Point-In-Time survey of homeless residents2, Richmond is home to 27 percent of all unhoused Contra Costa County residents.

Unhoused individuals have additional reasons to avoid encounters with police. Unhoused residents may have an outstanding warrant or be on probation or parole and could be violated for any law enforcement interaction. An arrest of an unhoused person has multiple negative effects – they are likely to lose their tent, possessions, spot in an encampment, eligibility paperwork for services, and identification. Even without an arrest, there is a broad perception that the level and quality of response and service is lower for Black, Brown, and immigrant residents. It has never been clearer that there is deep community distrust of law enforcement which affects public safety in communities across Richmond. Many institutions and residents feel overwhelmed with the numbers and needs of the unhoused residents and are unsure of how best to engage and what resources are available. There was a widely held perception that there are insufficient resources for the substantial increase in unhoused Richmonders.

There has been a national trend of police departments becoming the default response for a broadening range of societal challenges, requiring new and sometimes conflicting knowledge, skills, and abilities. This expansion of police functions has not been well-planned or conceived but defaulted to police because there were no other existing public services that were so universally available and accessible.

Arrests have long-term impact through exposure to the criminal justice system. Police responding to mental health emergencies is stigmatizing, suggesting a crime rather than a health emergency. In some situations, non- criminal/non-violent calls can be escalated by the mere presence of armed officers. Police are trained to dominate, even using physical force, to manage situations or ensure compliance with orders, that can result in

2 https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/reports.php#Annual
1576

10 trauma for residents and damaged community relations. Even if a situation is handled perfectly, the long-standing distrust of police in many heavily policed communities limits many residents’ willingness to call for police assistance or engage with police on scene. Data from national research of police departments from across the country shows that there is a greater likelihood that a police officer will use force on Black, Indigenous, disabled, unhoused and people of color. When residents distrust police, they are less likely to call for help and more likely to distrust policing efforts to investigate crimes or strengthen community policing.

These discussions are founded on an understanding that in non-violent situations without a medical emergency or serious crime both the individuals involved, and the police can be better served by a well-trained, non-police response. The greatest unintended consequences of armed police responses to low-level calls are trauma, injury and death to the individual(s) being responded to. Additionally, inefficient deployment of police resources results in other negative unintended consequences. Police are increasingly being requested to connect unhoused individuals to short- and long-term support services, respond to 911 calls for people experiencing mental health crises, respond to 911 calls from those during family or neighbor conflicts, and working with young people who may be in danger of getting swept up as trafficking victims or into the criminal justice system.

As is discussed in detail in the MATRIX report3, Richmond’s police staffing challenges reflect a national pattern. Recruiting and retaining police officers makes discussions of appropriate levels of staffing complex – many cities are unable to recruit to their identified needed staffing level. This contributes a practical reason to identify public safety functions that can be re-organized and performed outside of the system that has developed.

In many cases, officers do not have the time and training to address situations with underlying complex socio-economic problems, nor adequate access to community resources. This results in a delayed focus on serious criminal response, investigation, and priority safety issues; poor officer morale/increased officer stress; increased overtime expenses; and arrests of individuals where a non-carceral outcome is warranted.

This is a moment of rapid change and reimagining of public safety and services in many communities, with new and expanded outreach and response teams, many focused on mental health, substance use disorder, and unhoused residents. This is especially true in Contra Costa County

3https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/65094/Richmond-Police-DFR-3-6-23 https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4324/Richmond-Emergency-Services-Study

1577

11 where cities are developing new models to respond to expanding or unaddressed needs while facing understaffing in police departments. County voters approved a special levy, Measure X, to develop an alternative emergency response system for mental health emergencies. The County is implementing this wide ranging and ambitious effort to radically strengthen the response and support for residents with mental health challenges, A3 - Anywhere, Anyone, Anytime - coordinated through the Miles Hall Hub Crisis Call Hub. One of the challenges - and benefits - of addressing the options for Richmond’s response program is this rapidly changing landscape.

USC has found that developing a successful program with broad acceptance across diverse community interests is uniquely possible with alternative emergency response. There are several obvious but crucial elements - ensuring that the broadest possible range of stakeholders have meaningful input, deep, diverse, and culturally competent community participation, and transparent, respectful, principled engagement and reporting. In our experience, model and program development can often find common ground and support from across a spectrum of stakeholders and residents, if people believe that their concerns are meaningfully addressed. USC hopes that the residents of Richmond have found that our work and this report meets those objectives.
1578

12 CCRP Essential Components

The primary goal of the proposed Richmond Community Crisis Program (CCRP) pilot program is to provide a non-police alternative response to a broad range of low-level emergency situations with well-trained teams who are deeply familiar with Richmond communities. The CCRP response focuses on de-escalation, mitigation and prevention of escalation or repeated emergency situations, and connecting residents to appropriate services/supports. CCRP will utilize best practices for harm reduction, street outreach, trauma-informed and culturally competent care. The secondary goal of CCRP is to enable the Richmond Police Department (RPD) officers to focus on more serious calls, crimes, and investigations. CCRP is expected to be separate and independent of the RPD.

Why A Non-Police Response
There are alternative response programs (nationally) that co-respond with police. While there is no available data that measures levels of community support for co-response program models, the trust and relationship issues between law enforcement and many communities is well documented. Co- response models may also reduce police time on a call if they leave after determining the situation is secure, but overall do little to save money or enable police to focus on more serious emergency situations. Models that respond without a police report no increase in safety concerns and infrequent requests for police backup. On those occasions when a team requests a police response, it is typically not because of concerns about the safety of the response team, but because of a situation that can only be addressed by police (such as a resident wishing to report a crime or a situation unsafe for residents). Non-police response programs also appear (anecdotally) to have high levels of community support.

The 34-year program community-based public health response in Eugene Oregon, Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets’ (CAHOOTS) foundational principles are a strong starting point for CCRP:

All services are free and voluntary.
• We rely on effective communication, trauma-informed care, harm reduction, and verbal de-escalation to maintain the safety of our staff and the community.
• We seek the most minimal intervention.
• It is our goal to remain client-centered, and to strive to provide all folks with unconditional positive regard, free of judgment or discrimination.
• We respect a client’s right to privacy, dignity & confidentiality. 1579

13 Program Components

Based on experience in the program development, implementation, and evaluation of alternative emergency response programs, reports from other programs, and the identified priorities in the city of Richmond, USC identifies the following essential components of a non-police alternative emergency response program:

Coverage

Ideally, the pilot will respond to calls 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, to ensure consistency, reliability, and scalability of response. Programs can fail to gain community and stakeholder awareness and confidence if the schedule is inconsistent or unavailable. If 24/7 service is not immediately possible, the goal should be the broadest possible schedule that can be consistently provided. There will be fewer resources available outside of business hours that enable warm handoffs but simultaneously make the need for a response greater; weekends and nights are repeatedly mentioned by stakeholders because no other resources are available.

Accessibility

Offering transportation to a safe location is often an essential factor in resolving or de-escalating a crisis or assisting a resident. Transportation is also essential to ensuring that a resident accesses a resource or referral to a warm and successful handoff. USC encourages Richmond to make a priority of creating a program that can transport people with disabilities. People with disabilities have an increased interaction with emergency services, greater likelihood of becoming homeless, and more negative outcomes in interactions with police. As Richmond creates an alternative response program, USC urges a program that can serve an inclusive population.

Community Presentation

CCRP cannot be used or viewed as an arm of enforcement. Building credibility and trust requires a non-authoritative, non-judgmental approach.

This is especially important for people who have negative perceptions or prior experiences with law enforcement, health care, or government programs and may be hesitant to engage with responders. CCRP responders will carry a police radio and RPD dispatch will refer calls for CCRP response.

It is important to clearly define CCRP roles and scopes of practice. It must be clear that CCRP has no enforcement function and its priority is the best interests of the resident so that the public understands that engaging with 1580

14 CCRP will not (except in extraordinary circumstances) result in police interaction.

Response & Communications

To get a CCRP response, Richmond residents will call 911 and the non- emergency line (510-233-1214) and appropriate situations will be dispatched to CCRP. CCRP is not solely a program that will be accessed by residents requesting the service for themselves. Some residents will call with a complaint or concern about someone who is unaware of the call. Some residents may want a police response. The selection of appropriate situations for a CCRP response rests with dispatch, following established protocols.

The program must have one access point and two-way communications, for the safety and efficiency of the team. Responders will carry a radio that enables them to receive dispatched calls and communicate their location and any other relevant information with RPD dispatch. Some programs have attempted to create multiple points to access their program. This creates a situation where the team is receiving multiple, uncoordinated communications. It also means that the team is expected to answer their phone or radio in the middle of a response, which is distracting and inappropriate. More than one access point also impedes collecting data and reporting. Teams can notify dispatch if they are responding to a situation not sent to them by RPD dispatch, such as “on-view,” follow-up to a previous situation, or a community contact.

There is significant community interest in having another mechanism to reach CCRP without calling 911. There are programs that use other approaches, including separate dispatch and a separate number, educating the community to use a new number or existing number such as 311 for the new program, or (in its infancy) app-based contact and dispatch. There is little data on these approaches at this point, but the experience of hotlines generally is that it is very difficult to educate a community to use a new number or existing number for a new purpose. USC recommends a dedicated CCRP number that is answered by RPD dispatch, using a different script. Ideally, this number would be in place at the beginning of the pilot so that it is integrated into initial community education about CCRP but if delayed, should not delay pilot implementation.

The Taskforce’s Community Crisis Response Program Proposal prefers that calls initially come through 311 and CCRP have a separate dispatcher.

Directing Richmond residents to use 311 for low-level crisis situations would make it much more difficult to garner community engagement with CCRP and use of the response team. USC heard repeatedly that residents want a 1581

15 response to the type of calls currently coming through the non-emergency number or 911 and responded to by RPD or RFD. USC suggests an ongoing effort to work with other referral networks (311, A3, 211) to identify and send to RPD dispatch situations that would benefit from CCRP support. There is a credible concern that if RPD dispatch is assessing and dispatching calls, it could have undue influence on CCRP, and the calls assigned to it. This has been an obstacle for some programs and should be evaluated over time by the CCRP Community Advisory Board and addressed in the program evaluation.

Establishing a new specialized number is straightforward operationally and has minimal additional cost if answered with a separate script by RPD dispatch. If the city determines that it wants to pursue a number that is not answered by RPD dispatch, it is possible to explore having 211 answer calls to a dedicated CCRP number, although with a higher cost and some additional technical issues, it would not be prohibitive. Calls through any system other than RPD dispatch would have to be patched back to RPD dispatch to send to the CCRP team.

Some initiatives narrowly target specific types of calls or communities to receive support, such as identified mental health calls or situations involving unhoused residents or people using drugs. This unnecessarily restricts addressing the types of situations that do not require police and undercounts the calls that should fall under the criteria. The initial types of calls and criteria will be developed in collaboration with CCRP, RPD, RPD dispatch, RFD, and stakeholders.

Examples of situations that CCRP may respond to include:

• Person drunk in public
• Panhandling/Aggressive Panhandling
• Disorderly juveniles - group
• Auto Disturbance - noise, revving engine
• Loud music - Noise complaint
• Incorrigible juvenile
• Confused/senile person
• Family dispute
• Neighbor dispute
• Incomplete 911 call
• Public urination/indecent exposure (without criminal intent) • Wellness check
• Subject down (typically a resident asleep in public)
• Trespasser/unwanted person
• Loitering
1582

16 • Found syringe
• Person screaming
• Person needing referral to services w/o access to phone • People sleeping in vehicles and/or camping in public

CCRP Staffing

The CCRP model has the team in the field for most of their shift, primarily responding to calls from RDP dispatch. The focus of the teams includes mediation, problem solving, crisis prevention and de-escalation, transportation, and connection to resources and referrals. If there is time between dispatched calls, responders will follow-up with residents from prior calls to encourage connection to services, check-in with residents who frequently call 911, visit areas of frequent calls for service, or make “on- view” (the team sees a situation developing and they stop to help) stops.

Pilots and programs in other jurisdictions carry emergency medical supplies such as Narcan, EpiPen, Glucagon (diabetic emergency), O2 tank, Airway kit, wound care materials, and comfort and supportive items, like water, food, hand warmers, socks, etc.

CCRP responders must be well-trained and deeply familiar with the communities they serve. They do not perform clinical work and should not be clinicians or social workers. A model that does not use licensed mental health professionals or social workers as responders is less expensive and greatly expands and diversifies the pool of potential team members. Four years ago, subsequently, some Bay Area programs were already reporting that they could not expand services despite available funding because of challenges in recruiting and retaining clinical staff. Using well-trained non- clinicians removes the recruitment and retention problem faced by programs with licensed clinicians. Given the demographics of the US clinical workforce, non-licensed responders will better reflect the communities they work in.

CCRP will be able to emphasize seeking staff with a deep understanding of impacted communities and lived experience. A common concern is that unlicensed responders could increase a jurisdiction’s potential liability.

Richmond should seek legal counsel on this matter, however other jurisdictions have concluded that responders acting within their scope of practice do not increase liability and that the function of the team may include connecting a resident with a licensed clinician but is not clinical.

Most US programs use licensed mental health clinicians and social workers on responder teams, although they consistently report difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff due to a national shortage and that their experience suggests that staff with lived experience should be utilized more.

More programs are shifting to at least some teams without a clinical/social 1583

17 worker presence. This suggests that there has been an over-reliance on clinicians when responding to situations of lower acuity than identified serious mental health situations that require diagnosis, assessment, and long-term care planning.

Although the CCRP teams do not include a clinician responding to emergency calls, the model relies on a clinical position for developing and revising protocols, collaborating with the County and referral agencies, ensuring warm handoffs to services, appropriate clinical intervention, identifying training needs, case follow-up, when necessary, program oversight, analysis and evaluation of calls, and holding group team meetings to address clinical issues that arise. The other core function of the clinical position is to support the responder teams in their stressful work, including exposure to trauma and vicarious trauma. This is not a direct oversight role that is immediately available or on-call 24/7. Responders must have support for their field work and having a clinician or social worker as part of the program is an important component.

USC recommends a team of two, ideally a community responder with experience providing support to residents and an EMT. The Taskforce’s CCRP Proposal calls for a three-person team - two mental health/harm reduction specialists and one medic. There are many programs responding successfully with two-person teams. In discussions about team size, those programs state that they are very comfortable with their teams and do not believe their work would be strengthened with a third team member.

Programs with three-person teams tend to have very distinct job functions assigned to each team member. The CCRP model provides the teams members with the same training and expects them to function collaboratively.

A program that values a stable workforce must offer salaries that demonstrate commitment to the program and the value of the work. Paying equitable wages will be cost-effective in enabling CCRP responders to make the work their careers as they develop expertise and diminish the costs and program challenges associated with turnover.

CCRP Training

RFD dispatchers must have a deep understanding of the CCRP response, training, and capacity to have confidence in identifying appropriate situations to dispatch to the team. Dispatchers must also have confidence that they will be supported in making reasonable judgements, following their protocols and training. Initially, CCRP will respond to a smaller number of calls that are selected, working with dispatch, RPD, RFD, and utilizing the experiences 1584

18 of other programs. When dispatch has gained experience and comfort with CCRP, dispatchers will begin to identify appropriate situations without solely evaluating calls based on the categorization (call categories were designed for a system where only one type of response ever occurred). Ongoing and regular consultation between CCRP and dispatch is essential to maintaining communication and strengthening collaboration.

CCRP staff must receive comprehensive training, including field and driving safety. They must understand the scope of practice, policies, and procedures for RPD, CCFD, and the County response teams. USC recommends ride- alongs with RPD and A3 and a “sit-along” with RPD dispatch. Ongoing training is essential and must be integrated into the program planning, budgeting, and scheduling considerations, and a topic for evaluation. The training curriculum is discussed in the implementation section of this report.

CCRP Team Safety

The following requirements will help to ensure the safety of CCRP teams and community:

• RPD dispatch assesses the risks of each call with a series of questions and by reviewing the history of the caller and location. • The CCRP responders must have extensive safety training in assessing and responding to a broad variety of situations.
• The teams will carry radios to communicate with RPD dispatch; in an emergency, they can request assistance. As programs across the country have begun implementation, initial data indicate that alternative response teams call for police to come to the scene very infrequently and typically for a non-emergency role (traffic control, relinquishing a gun, resident wants to report a crime, etc.). • Teams are trained to use intuition and have decision-making autonomy for safety decisions.
• All resident interactions are voluntary. A component of CCRP safety is that community members are not worried about bad outcomes because they understand that all interactions with the team are voluntary, and residents will help to formulate and agree to any outcome.
• Ongoing communication, coordination, and engagement with partners – police, fire, dispatch, referral network, and community (including integration with the County, advocacy, and service provider networks). • Ongoing community outreach to build trust, familiarity, and interchange so that residents understand CCRP, what to expect, and can offer feedback.

1585

19 CCRP Community Engagement

Community outreach, education, and engagement are essential to building a successful program and a strong, credible relationship with residents and stakeholders. CCRP must clearly communicate the parameters for a CCRP response. The goal is for all stakeholders and residents to understand when a CCRP response is appropriate and what to expect in the response. The pilot must prioritize engaging the community during the planning and implementation, demonstrate transparency in how CCRP engages with police and all stakeholders, and ensure ongoing community input and feedback.

This ensures that the planning, implementation, and ongoing assessment of the program reflects the unique needs and experiences of Richmond’s diverse communities. Ongoing community outreach and engagement are critical to the success of the program and to continuous improvement of the model to reflect the Richmond residents’ experiences with the pilot. The outreach and engagement strategies must pay special attention to communities less likely to be connected to traditional media and outreach strategies.

Although it is rare to find anyone who does not agree with the importance of robust community engagement, it requires ongoing diligence and attention.

Even the Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) program in Eugene, OR, with over 30 years of experience, has been making significant structural changes to address representation and community input and oversight. Several cities - Denver, San Francisco, and Oakland - are currently facing program hurdles that result from failing to maintain transparency and community engagement.

USC has been involved with program development that effectively sought out representative participation, including residents who are typically disconnected from city interactions, and meaningful and robust engagement from a broad range of perspectives. This report recommends several structural elements to create mechanisms for ongoing stakeholder and community outreach, engagement, and input into the program:

1. A community advisory board to provide oversight and support for the program.

2. Regular and structured meetings with service providers offering referrals and resources for CCRP.

3. A citywide outreach and public education campaign.

4. A regularly updated public facing CCRP website and a data dashboard.

5. A complaint and feedback mechanism and a process for the review of complaints.

1586

20 CCRP Support Networks

To facilitate connections to services, a robust network of referral resources and services that address community needs must exist. Building the network and identifying the parameters of each program should be in place before the pilot begins, although it will always be a work in progress. Regular meetings with service providers offering referrals and resources for CCRP should include reviews of referrals, answering both data and narrative questions (e.g., is the provider receiving appropriate referrals, are the warm handoffs supporting care, are there missing or overlapping elements to the CCRP support of the referral’s clients, what are outcomes from referrals).

Along with structured and ongoing engagement and assessment with RPD leadership, the city must ensure that RPD and RFD staff are well-briefed on the pilot prior to implementation, including the scope and function of CCRP, how to interact beneficially, protocols, and how CCRP is an asset to Richmond’s public safety mission. RPD leadership and officers must understand that CCRP has a separate and distinct scope of work and cannot be used as an arm or extension of law enforcement.

CCPHD Coordination/Collaboration

Contra Costa County’s Behavioral Health Department and especially the Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime (A3) program and the Miles Hall Crisis Call Center are tremendous assets for Richmond and CCRP. The A3 call taking, and response teams provide a level of care for situations not appropriate for a CCRP response. A3’s specially trained clinicians can assist with involuntary hospitalization (often referred to as ‘5150’) for people who are a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage basic needs. It is essential that any city program work closely with the County programs to best design a program that maximizes the relationship, addresses gaps in service, and continually evaluate and jointly identify modifications to develop better strategies and opportunities for integration, collaboration, and mutual support.

CCRP Evaluation

Program evaluation is an essential component to the success and sustainability of CCRP. To evaluate the program meaningfully and accurately, there needs to be an evaluation plan in place at the beginning of the pilot that identifies clear metrics and goals, data to collect, and how and when evaluation will occur. All stages of evaluation should be transparently communicated with the community.

1587

21 A non-police responder program in Richmond, developed in collaboration with community stakeholders and responsive to the needs and experiences of residents, with appropriate representation of impacted residents, training, and access to resources and referrals will benefit everyone. A community- based, resident-centered, trauma-informed response that promotes every resident’s dignity, autonomy, self-determination, and resiliency will result in:

• reduction of police interactions with vulnerable populations. • faster responses to lower priority calls, enabling mitigation and de- escalation of situations.
• lower-cost response to non-criminal, non-violent emergency calls. • RPD officers and RFD firefighters freed up to respond to higher priority calls.
• a more appropriate response which connects residents with services to address underlying or root causes of the emergency issue. • transport to services - removing a frequent barrier to services or crisis resolution.
• uncoupling health crises from unnecessary police contact. • decriminalization of mental illness, alcoholism, and addiction. • qualified and appropriate response for service providers, and families, and residents with mental health challenges.
• improved police/community relationships by reducing negative interactions.
• people impacted by the emergency response system gaining control of their social, emotional, and physical well-being through direct service, education, and increased access to community assets and resources.

1588

22 Program Options

There are five structural options for how and who implements the CCRP. The primary factors impacting the choice of alternatives include: the speed of implementation, cost, sustainability, and community support.

Implementation speed is the factor most valued by both the City’s leadership and residents. City Council and Task Force members have expressed a strong desire for the program to start before the end of 2023. Program cost considerations are also an important factor. The City has included $1 million for the CCRP in its Fiscal Year 2023-2024 budget. While this is likely sufficient for initial pilot implementation, it will not cover the expenses for a full year 24/7 program (see Budget/Funding section). Sustainability refers to the fact that the CCRP needs to address systemic issues that cannot be resolved in a short-term time frame. Sustainability also requires that the program is insulated from changing City priorities and political influences.

CCRP’s sustainability will be insured by maintaining a strong level of community support. Different structural options for the CCRP may also have different levels of community support.

The five potential structural options for the City to consider are:

1. Non-profit - The City issues an RFP for an independent non-profit agency (vendor) to run the program. Lessons learned from Antioch’s non-profit program implementation can inform the pros and cons of Richmond’s decision-making.

2. Existing City Office – The City can choose to institute the CCRP within an existing municipal department. Potential candidates include the Richmond Fire Department, the Community Services Department, and the Office of Neighborhood Safety. Based on resident feedback, the CCRP should not be implemented under the Richmond Police Department.

3. New City Department – Another option, using the City’s infrastructure as a foundation for the program, is to create a new City department that includes the CCRP and potentially other current initiatives (e.g., social service needs).

4. Nonprofit Hybrid Model – This option combines starting the CCRP in a non-profit (to implement the pilot) with the intention of the CCRP then being brought into the City.

5. Richmond Partnership with Contra Costa County - The city could negotiate with Contra Costa to provide the services the City of Richmond identifies.

The following table ranks each primary factor influencing the City’s decision- making with the structural options proposed. The ranking is based on a 1-3 1589

23 scale, low to high ranking (with 1 being very low – more cons than pros, 2 being moderate – some pros and cons, and 3 being high – mainly pros).

Implementation
Speed Cost Sustainability Community
Support TOTAL
Non-Profit 3 3 2 2 10
Existing
City
Department
2 1 3 3 9
New City
Department 1 1 3 3 8
Non-Profit
Hybrid 1 2 2 2 7
CCC
Partnership 1 2 2 1 6

Based on this ranking, the non-profit option received the highest total and the partnership with Contra Costa County received the lowest total. It is likely that a non-profit could be best positioned to implement a program quickly and it may be easier to maintain fidelity to model with a contract in place. Programs implemented within a government agency seem to be more susceptible to political implications and pressures, however they have higher sustainability and community support rankings. Regardless of the structure chosen, sustainability will depend on the program demonstrating efficacy through data and evaluation. The non-profit hybrid option has risks. The non-profits USC has spoken to are not eager to develop an entirely new program and model only to turn it over to the City. One non-profit mentioned that they would also be losing staff they recruited or transferred to the program. For most non-profits, this is a significant undertaking, and they would be ramping up only to ramp back down after. Finally, collaborating with Contra Costa County has advantages, including that the program would be fully integrated with the County’s Behavioral Health services and that the city would not have to create a new model, which the County already has in place. The County, however, has faced challenges recruiting and retaining responders, and feedback from residents indicates a strong preference for a Richmond-run program compared to a County-run program.

Another structural decision is how the Community Advisory Board will be constituted. This should be addressed quickly so that community voices are involved in the design and implementation and in developing and supporting community education and engagement (regardless of the implementation structure).

1590

24 Budget/Funding

Budget

The program budget cannot be finalized until many aspects of the pilot are determined, most significantly, where the program is housed, and operational decisions are made. Based on the structural options, the least costly is the non-profit option and implementing the CCRP within City government is, most likely, the costliest option.

Most of the program expenses will be allocated for program staff. The minimum total program staffing level envisioned, for a citywide 24 hours/day, 7 days/week program operation, is 14 FTEs. This includes: 1 Program Manager, .5 Program Data Analysts, 6 Community Crisis Responders, 6 Emergency Medical Technicians, and .5 Mental Health Clinician.

Following is an example of the work schedules for the CCRP core filed staff (Community Crisis Responders & Emergency Medical Technicians):

CCRP Team Schedule Example
Day of the Week Schedule (Teams 1-
3)
Schedule (Teams 4-
6)
Sunday Off In the Field
Monday Off In the Field
Tuesday In the Field Off
Wednesday In the Field Off
Thursday In the Field, Office
Work, or Training
In the Field, Office
Work, or Training
Friday In the Field, Office
Work, or Training
In the Field, Office
Work, or Training
Saturday In the Field, Office
Work, or
Training
In the Field, Office
Work, or
Training

Shift Name Shift Time
Start
Shift Time
End
Day Shift (Teams
1 & 4)
7:00am 3:00pm
Swing Shift
(Teams 2 & 5)
3:00pm 11:00pm
Night Shift
(Teams 3 & 6)
11:00pm 7:00am

1591

25 Projected (average) annual salaries for each position (based on salary ranges for similar Richmond job classifications) are as follows:

Program Manager – $120,000
Administrative/Data Analyst – $80,000 ($40,000 for .5 FTE) Community Crisis Responder – $70,000
Emergency Medical Technician – $80,000
Mental Health Clinician – $130,000 ($65,000 for .5 FTE)

The following table estimates CCRP personnel costs for a six-month (pilot) and full year (12 month) program implementation. Benefits projections vary based on nonprofit implementation (35%) versus City implementation (80%).

Position Salary #
FTE
Salary
Subtotal
Benefits
(35%)
Total
Comp. (12
Months)
Total
Comp. (6
Months)
Program
Manager $120,000 1.0 $120,000 $42,000 $162,000 $81,000
Data/Admin
Analyst $80,000 .5 $40,000 $14,000 $54,000 $27,000
Community
Crisis
Responder
$70,000 6.0 $420,000 $147,000 $567,000 $283,500
EMT $80,000 6.0 $480,000 $168,000 $648,000 $324,000
Mental Health
Clinician $130,000 .5 $65,000 $22,750 $87,750 $43,875
TOTAL 14 $1,125,000 $393,750 $1,518,750 $759,375

Position Salary #
FTE
Salary
Subtotal
Benefits
(80%)
Total
Comp. (12
Months)
Total
Comp. (6
Months)
Program
Manager $120,000 1.0 $120,000 $96,000 $216,000 $108,000 Data/Admin
Analyst $80,000 .5 $40,000 $32,000 $72,000 $36,000
Community
Crisis
Responder
$70,000 6.0 $420,000 $336,000 $756,000 $378,000
EMT $80,000 6.0 $480,000 $384,000 $864,000 $432,000
Mental Health
Clinician $130,000 .5 $65,000 $52,000 $117,000 $58,500
TOTAL 14 $1,125,000 $900,000 $2,025,000 $1,012,500

Estimates for CCRP personnel expenses range from approximately $759,000 (nonprofit implementation) to $1.013 million (City implementation) for the 6-month pilot startup, and $1.519 million (nonprofit implementation) to $2.025 million (City implementation) for the full-year program operation. 1592

26 In addition to personnel, the key program startup expenses include equipment purchases (including radio communications), staff training, transportation (vans), and office furniture. Additional expenses that need to be determined and incorporated include but are not limited to updated salary ranges based on the classification and compensation study and differential pay for night shifts and any other items subject to meet and confer with Richmond’s unions. Additional analysis and conversations with Human Resources and Finance is needed to determine more refined budget numbers. This analysis can be done after City Council direction is provided.

The following is a sample 12-month program operating expense budget (including some narrative notes).

PROGRAM OPERATING COSTS COST NOTES
Equipment
(Computers/Communications) $55,000 Laptops & 6 Motorola police radios
Professional Services $25,000 Technical assistance, program innovation, data services
Office Supplies/Furniture $5,000
Training/Staff Development $25,000 Pre-startup and ongoing Insurance $15,000 To be researched.

Rent & Utilities $5,000 1000 sq. ft. x $5 ft.

Repairs & Maintenance $2,500
Janitorial $3,000
First Aid Supplies $10,000
Non-First Aid Supplies $10,000 PPE and comfort items such as warm clothes, snacks, water, etc.

Van Expenses (including
maintenance & gas) $100,000 2 Vans, ADA accessible
Travel $1,000
Emergency Housing $5,000
1593

27 Translation/Interpretation $5,000
Postage & Shipping $1,000
Telephone $21,000
Licenses $2,500
Electronic Health Records &
Billing $15,000 Medicare reimbursement
processing
Community Outreach &
Engagement $20,000 Community meetings, social/print
media
Program Evaluation $25,000
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS $351,000

Indirect expenses are not included in the total. Additional funds for indirect may need to be added if the program is contracted to a non-profit partner.

The pilot program implementation (1/2/24-6/30/24) is estimated to cost approximately $1.11 million (nonprofit implementation without indirect costs) to $1.36 million (City implementation). These expenses are estimated based on the program being able to be operational by the beginning of 2024.

Given these projections, it is estimated that a full year implementation for the program will cost approximately $1.82 million (nonprofit implementation without indirect costs) to $2.32 million (City implementation). (Please note – all these projections are subject to value-based budgeting analysis and team deployment scenarios based on emergency call data peak times/days.)

Funding

The City has budgeted initial pilot program funding ($1 million) from American Rescue Program Act (ARPA) reserves. Many response programs, across the country, in the past two years were able to use ARPA funds to support their new response programs. When these funds are exhausted, the City will need to identify additional resources for program operations.

There is an expanded focus of federal and state funding to support response programs, mental health and homeless programs, and “peer” or non-clinical programs. For example, the City of Oakland received $10 million from the CA Budget Act of 2021 to supplement local funding for the MACRO (Mobile 1594

28 Assistance Community Responders of Oakland) program. This is rapidly developing but is worth monitoring for future opportunities. Richmond should examine advocating for similar funding during the State’s next legislative session.

At the federal level, localities have identified different ways to leverage federal funding for local response programs. For example, some jurisdictions have billed Medicaid for reimbursable services such as mobile crisis outreach, which can be offered by many community responder programs.

Because Medicaid is a state-federal partnership program, localities must work within the restrictions specified by their state Medicaid agency and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to use these funds. Despite these restrictions, jurisdictions can access Medicaid funding to support community responder programs in multiple ways. For one, states considering this funding source can apply for a waiver of Medicaid program requirements, known as a Section 1115 waiver. This waiver provides jurisdictions with flexibility to direct Medicaid dollars toward innovative service delivery models like community responders.

One of the program decisions is whether to structure data and client information collection from the outset to enable MediCal billing. There are new billing modalities being developed that address billing based on the degree of the person providing services. Obviously, this is a complex issue, varying by County, but it should be researched to the extent possible, given the ongoing changes, in advance of the pilot. Many programs are relieved not to be required to collect billing information. California’s new Peer Support Specialist Certification enables MediCal billing for support from responders without college degrees or licenses. Additionally, the structural program options could impact whether it is an option. For example, California laws address whether fire departments can bill insurance and government health programs.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has several flexible funding sources that can also be used to support these programs. The Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment or the Community Mental Health Services Block Grants are non-competitive federal formula grants distributed to all states. State Opioid Response grants are another funding source that have been used by states to develop substance use crisis response strategies that could include community responder programs.

Every year, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs (OJP) also distributes roughly $5 billion in grants, much of which is awarded to state and local governments.

1595

29 Three grants Richmond may consider applying to are:

1. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program: A formula grant that provides highly flexible funds that can support a wide range of safety and justice activities.

2. Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program (COSSAP): Competitive COSSAP grants can support first-responder models that divert people with substance use needs and co-occurring mental health disorders from the criminal justice system.

3. Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program (JMHCP): JMHCP grants can be used to support a range of cross-system approaches for helping people with mental illnesses and co-occurring substance use disorders. It may not be a good fit for all community responder programs, however, as it requires a partnership with a criminal justice agency, which excludes programs that operate fully outside of the justice system. Under JMHCP a new grant opportunity called Connect and Protect launched in FY2021.

While federal funding, in many cases, is short-term, City and County funding may provide longer-term sustainable resources for ongoing program implementation. For example, although CCRP is not solely a program responding to unhoused residents, there will be a significant portion of the calls addressing issues arising from homelessness. With 72 percent of unhoused residents in all West Contra Costa County, Richmond could explore County funding to support a response team that will respond to a substantial number of situations that involve unhoused Richmonders and will connect residents with County services.

The County’s A3 program is developing three tiers of response: clinicians co- responding with police for the most serious and potentially hazardous situations; a clinician-led team; and a team of “peers” - non-clinicians with training but no license or advanced education. Although A3 plans to remain focused on situations arising from mental health challenges, the third tier, a peer response, bears the strongest similarity to the CCRP team. Once CCRP and A3 are more developed, it may be possible to explore CCRP responding to calls appropriate for the A3 peer response or providing support if A3 responders are delayed in responding.

Philanthropic support should also be examined, specifically for program startup expenses (including ongoing program data collection/evaluation).

There are some grants specifically for equipment and appropriate for response teams. Such a grant could enable the purchase of a wheelchair - accessible vehicle.

1596

30 Finally, the MATRIX report suggests “to increase utilization and potentially share costs, the department should examine opportunities to utilize the team regionally with other nearby municipalities.” After the pilot, Richmond can assess, based on the data, if this is worth considering.

Pilot Program Implementation Planning

The pilot’s goals are for rapid implementation, flexibility to tweak processes and learn during the pilot, and collaboration with RPD, RPD dispatch, referral agencies, the County’s A3 program, and other stakeholders.

To be successful, the program must be able to take advantage of ongoing assessment and evaluation and expect changes based on what is learned during and after implementation. Many programs are hindered because they are unable to make changes. USC participates in meetings where alternative response program managers explain that they wish they could make a change but are hindered by a rigid organizational structure or immutable parameters.

The initial effort should provide the space to build relationships with the community, police, County, and a referral network and opportunities for program innovation and nimbleness in testing, knowledge-building, and continuous improvement.

Collaborations

CCRP will rely on building strong relationships and networks to connect residents with appropriate services and resources. The program will need to develop and maintain a comprehensive, continuously updated list of resources and referral programs based on availability, intake coordination, hours, rules, acceptance statistics, barriers to care, range of disposition options, ADA accessibility, and languages spoken. CCRP will need to track services based on some of the common obstacles to receiving services including how and whether programs accept pets, keep family units together, require sober living, require attendance of religious services, accept participants who are on court supervision, or permit people to store possessions. The success of the CCRP program will depend on the ability to transport residents to a safe location and have a “warm handoff” of clients to referral partners. The program manager and clinician will develop mechanisms, such as check-ins and meetings, for building and maintaining essential relationships with service providers in the city and County.

1597

31 The County is implementing a wide-ranging and ambitious effort to radically strengthen the response and support for residents with mental health challenges, Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime (A3). A3 is designed to receive calls at the Miles Hall Crisis Call Hub and, if necessary, dispatch a tiered response depending on the safety and acuity of each situation: a co-response with licensed clinician and police; a clinician-led team; and a team of well trained, unlicensed staff. One of the challenges of addressing the options for Richmond’s response program is that the landscape is rapidly changing.

What USC knows is that A3 will continue to focus on situations involving county residents with mental health challenges and that A3 does not transport residents. Even when A3 is fully implemented, they will not respond to situations that do not involve a person with a mental health challenge and there will continue to be more than enough situations to keep CCRP fully engaged. Discussions with RPD dispatch, RPD leaders, and Richmond stakeholders and residents indicate that, similar to the experiences of other cities that have implemented alternative response programs, there are a large number of low-level calls that do not involve a mental health situation, such as listed on page 14.

Contra Costa Health Services’ Coordinated Outreach Referral, Engagement (C.O.R.E.) program provides unhoused residents with connection to health, basic needs, and housing. C.O.R.E. is an entry point for the County coordinated entry system. C.O.R.E. is accessed through 211. C.O.R.E. is not a response program for crises. Not every call to Richmond dispatch is for an emergency or crisis. Some situations will be appropriate to either C.O.R.E. or CCRP, whichever team is available.

Consistent and responsive collaboration are vital to fully engage County resources, maintain excellent communication between programs, and ensure clarity of the scope and responsibility of each program.

Community Education & Engagement

Transparent and accessible community education, engagement, and oversight strengthens the program, permits program management to focus on implementation and management of the program, provides residents with a clear and useful mechanism for engagement and feedback, and results in continuous improvement of the model to reflect the Richmond residents’ experiences with the program. USC has been following various approaches to ongoing community engagement. Although many jurisdictions have some form of a community advisory or oversight board, the forms vary. Selection, representation, authority, and transparency all vary. USC is prepared to share with the City models and examples, including best practices for advisory boards, transparency, and engagement of impacted communities, residents, and people with direct experience with the program. 1598

32 Community Advisory Board (CAB)

An independent and committed community advisory board (CAB) is an essential factor in precluding unnecessary complications, maintaining community confidence, and early opportunities to address challenges. The CAB should provide oversight and support for the program, with access to program information and data (anonymized). Meetings, reports, complaints, and data should be public facing (except when it includes identifying information); transparency will help build confidence in the board and diminish any concerns about representation or the selection process for the board. It has proven important to create the board in advance of implementation so that there is a structured mechanism for community engagement in the decision-making leading up to the implementation.

As is emphasized in best practices for community engagement in-service programs, USC recommends that communities who will have extensive interaction with CCRP are represented on the CAB, for example, unhoused Richmonders and voices that might have a unique experience that should be reflected, such as young people, residents living with disabilities, and immigrant communities.

Transparency and Community Education and Engagement

Richmond is well-positioned on public reporting and transparency to provide accessible and useful public information both on the program, development, and planning. Effective community education on the program must include online and in-person outreach, social media, and traditional media to increase community knowledge and confidence, participation, and the formal and informal sharing of materials. All program information should include contact information for any member of the public wishing to provide feedback on reports and program development or make suggestions. USC recommends developing a plan for robust and ongoing community education and outreach including:

This report recommends several structural elements to create mechanisms for ongoing stakeholder and community outreach, engagement, and input into the program with special attention to communities less likely to connect through traditional media and outreach strategies.

1. Accessible educational and outreach materials, including social media posts, flyers, and FAQs.
1599

33 2. Translation of basic materials into languages, identified with input from community members. The city can consider which languages to translate more comprehensive materials and meetings.

3. Distribution and outreach plan -
● Identify mechanisms for distribution of city materials such as existing city communications with residents and organizations’ newsletters.
● Media list
● CCRP Updates/Newsletter distribution list - beginning with participants and attendees to the Taskforce events, if possible ● Develop an outreach list of organizations for presentations and to share materials and announcements, starting with existing City lists.

4. A regularly updated public-facing reporting CCRP webpage including:
● Data Dashboard - A dashboard on the CCRP web page or
Transparent Richmond could provide aggregate data reporting (without identifying information) on types and numbers of calls, outcomes, response time, length of call, length of response, and data analysis. Including demographic breakdowns.
● Regularly published newsletter
● Community Advisory Board meetings and documents
● Timeline
● Reports
● Educational material
● Social media announcements
● How to engage with CCRP
● Sign-up for updates
● Sign-up for hiring announcements
● Upcoming meetings/events
● CCRP History

5. A clear and independent complaint and feedback mechanism with several access points, including training response teams to facilitate the complaint process. A process for the review of complaints, providing the results of the process to the complainant, non- identifiable public reporting.

Program Functions

Primary goals of CCRP include addressing low-level situations as an opportunity to find a resolution before further escalation - whether through mediating a dispute, helping a resident with safety planning, or connecting residents with appropriate services. Through both proactive and self-initiated 1600

34 interactions, CCRP will follow-up on previous situations or with residents who have repeated interactions with emergency services. The team will have more opportunity for follow-up during periods with lower call volume.

All program staff, including both direct service and those in support roles, will follow all of California’s mandated reporter requirements regarding known and suspected instances of child/elder abuse and neglect. Unique standards of care apply to responding to and treating children and adolescents under the age of 18. Additionally, all legal requirements and best practice standards for confidentiality and consent for treatment regarding children and their parents will apply to all program staff. Some Richmond residents have raised concerns about mandatory reporting and the history of government protective services’ invasive and harmful interventions with residents of color and families in poverty. The city should obtain additional counsel on its options in addressing this concern, but USC has not seen a program that does not follow mandated reporting requirements. If necessary, CCRP can consult with CAHOOTS which follows reporting requirements while maintaining the trust and confidence of the community they serve.

It is important not to be overly prescriptive with the details of pilot implementation. The team developing the pilot will consider many factors in deciding whether, for example, to implement immediately with a 24/7 schedule or build to it or whether to initially limit their response to a smaller geographic area, typically with a sizable population of people at risk for negative police interaction and/or a sizable underserved mental health and unhoused populations. Considerations include those discussed in this section. Typically, pilots begin with a smaller set of call types and parameters that expands over time.

Some areas of the city (e.g., libraries, sections of the business district) have been resource-challenged with the substantial increase in the number of unhoused Richmonders and the dearth of resources and referrals. CCRP may decide to develop early relationships to provide additional attention in these areas.

Length of Pilot

This report recommends that the pilot last for at least 18 months and no longer than 2 years. This gives enough time for delays in some aspects of implementation (as have occurred in other programs) and enabling evaluation of a year of full implementation. It is sufficient time to establish the pilot, including responding to feedback, changing elements, and 1601

35 assessing the impact. If the city decides to issue an RFP/Q, two years is long enough for nonprofits to consider making the organizational commitment.

Scheduling of coverage and shifts should consider how to support RPD in high-volume periods and whether to create schedules that do not coincide with RPD shifts to support coverage during shift changes. Many services and referrals are less accessible outside of office hours. Shelter referrals are sometimes not available on weekend days. With fewer referrals available, the need for an alternative response is imperative during nights and weekends. One of the challenges that programs face is when residents and stakeholders find the services unavailable when needed. A 24/7 response helps ensure that all stakeholders and residents have confidence in the program and the ability to access its support.

Crisis Prevention

Another key prevention strategy is identifying cases that are likely to need or benefit from follow-up, including informal welfare checks and encouraging residents to connect to services and clinical interventions. This can be reviewed over time as additional data will provide valuable information in the types of situations that result in escalation, repeated interactions with emergency services, etc. The program team will adjust the balance responding to crisis calls and the time and resources available for follow-up on prior situations.

Residents who have repeated interactions with emergency response programs are not receiving the services they need to break the cycle of intervention and are a significant cost driver for emergency services.

Olympia, Washington’s specific clinical program for high utilizers of services, Familiar Faces, provides strategies and practices for engaging this population. Dispatchers and OFD will be able to help identify frequent callers. Calls dispatched to CCRP can include a focus on frequent callers to 911 that require frequent police officer response. An alternative response team is well-positioned to address the challenges. CCRP responders can displace police in the immediate call with a goal of building a relationship to divert future emergency calls and determine if other solutions or services could be implemented. Success is a significant decrease in the number of calls by the frequent users and receiving a more appropriate and less costly response. It is unlikely that the calls will be eliminated completely.

Prevention of crisis escalation would be greatly strengthened by a resource location available to residents who need a safe place to recover during a crisis and access to support and services, sometimes called a “warming” or “drop-in” center, “sobering center” (although this suggests a much more 1602

36 limited scope of services), or “living room” model. Typically, these programs offer support for up to 23 hours. The closest such facility is being opened by the County in Concord, although the referral and situation specifics are not yet available.

Facilities, Equipment, Supplies

CCRP teams will be in the field for most of their shift, primarily relying on the pilot facility at the beginning and end of the shift to manage paperwork, restock supplies, share information with the incoming shift, etc. Facility needs for the pilot program are: 24-hour access, secure parking, a place to complete and submit paperwork, supplies storage, meeting space, and restrooms. Minimally, the office size should be prepared to accommodate 3- 4 people at one time with a plan for where to hold meetings and training courses.

The most challenging piece of equipment to identify and obtain will be the van(s). Some programs start without their permanent vehicle and use temporary equipment in the interim. USC recommends finalizing vehicle needs as early as possible because of backlogs in specialized vehicles, especially when requiring a wheelchair accessible vehicle.

Ideally, the vehicle will be able to transport several passengers with additional space for belongings or for CCRP responders to assist a resident in a warm, sanitary, and confidential location and will have a separate area to secure supplies.

USC has developed a comprehensive supply list, based on several programs, that can be a starting point for the CCRP team to curate their own list. The list will have seasonal differences and will change over time based on the experiences of the team.

Call Identification & Dispatch

It is important to recognize the centrality of dispatch in identifying calls that could benefit from an alternative response and determining the level of risk for the responder and residents. They use the address and caller history and a series of standard safety screening questions, following up to clarify and gain additional information. An example of dispatcher judgment and discretion would be in calls complaining about loud music. Dispatch might decide that an address with repeated noise complaints, other interactions with RPD, or reports of weapons might be less likely to be responsive to a non-enforcement intervention. Another noise complaint might suggest a situation where the complaining neighbor might be assuaged with 1603

37 information about when the child’s birthday party is expected to end, and the party-throwers are likely to abide by an agreement of the ending time.

Protocol Development

CCRP and RPD Dispatch will need to work together to develop protocols to provide guidance to dispatchers on identifying, assessing, and documenting calls that are appropriate for CCRP dispatch response. CCRP will develop protocols for responding to situations, as well as outlining internal procedures. USC can provide samples used by other programs and facilitate conversations to learn from other programs about their experiences the protocols. After the development of the initial protocols, RPD, CCRP, and RPD dispatch will continue to collaborate to assess the outcomes and further review and refine protocols.

Training

RPD Dispatch

Training for dispatchers and the CCRP team on dispatch process and protocols, including scenario-based, must begin prior to implementation.

Ideally, training would be integrated or coordinated among all resources and programs, including A3, C.O.R.E. and CCRP, so dispatchers understand the criteria and protocols, how the programs work together and how to assess calls for each program. Dispatching calls to CCRP will be most successful with the training and engagement of dispatchers and CCRP field staff, not solely at the management or supervisory level. Initial training should be followed with regular meetings to review calls, data analysis, and continuous dispatch and team assessments. Ongoing engagement of dispatchers, primarily during staff meetings will further their understanding of CCRP, receive their input, and identify and develop additional training as new scenarios, issues, and protocols arise.

Training the entire RPD dispatch staff will require two-hour sessions with morning and evening times, so that dispatchers can attend at the beginning or end of a shift, rather than being required to come in on a day off.

The MATRIX report recommends dispatch training for new Community Service Officer (CSO) methodology into call taking and dispatching protocols. (pg. 72) If this is implemented, the city should coordinate training, so dispatchers better understand the distinctions between the programs.

Collaborative Relationships

1604

38 Education and training must be developed for other emergency services to understand CCRP and how and when to engage them. This information sharing is only one aspect of developing the broader collaboration with these institutions including RFD, A3, CORE, 211, 311, and the Sheriff’s Department.

CCRP staff can attend RPD roll call to briefly explain when CCRP can assist in a situation. Some programs receive up to 30 percent of their calls from officers who arrive in the field and conclude that the situation would be better handled by the alternative response team.

CCRP Staff Training

USC has gathered training curricula and outcomes and feedback from both program leadership and non-licensed responders in other alternative response programs. USC expects to share information on training as CCRP begins planning, including helping identify and select from the many resources available in the County and region, on top of trainers and materials that can be used on-line.

Most of the elements for the California Peer Support Specialist Certification will already be addressed in the CCRP training. CCRP should consider preparing for the Certification exam concurrently with training, if CCRP is considering pursuing MediCal reimbursement.

USC recommends training for de-escalation, trauma-informed care, responding to people in mental health crisis, addressing suicide and drug use. Additionally, self-care, maintaining boundaries, and vicarious trauma are important in supporting team members. Safety for teams and communities should include driving safety. Staff Development is an ongoing priority and should include reviewing calls as well as formal training of additional topics as they are identified. A list of potential topics to cover in training responders is included as Attachment #2.

The Taskforce proposal suggests training like Mental Health First, a hotline run by volunteers, and CAT911, a southern California program that trains residents to respond to community crisis and provide support without involving police. These curricula have much value as community education but are not based on the experience of responding to emergency calls and are not as extensive or comprehensive as recommended here. The Taskforce proposal also mentions the SPIRIT program which is a very impressive and valuable resource. It is important to note that SPIRIT only accepts people with lived experience with mental health, which is a much narrower span of lived experience than this report suggests for recruiting CCRP responders. 1605

39 Staffing

Given the diversity and access challenges faced by community members (which was also identified by police and fire), program success depends on program staff that reflect and deeply understand the communities they serve.

Program/Implementation Manager - USC recommends the city consider a position who can be dedicated to the substantial work of developing a new program. USC has provided the City with some suggestions and the job descriptions of program and implementation managers that have been used in other programs. Richmond city staff have been supportive and responsive throughout this process, but it is very clear that they are stretched thin, often managing multiple assignments. It is not clear that there is anyone within the city with the capacity and bandwidth to dedicate their attention and time to shepherd the development and implementation of the program without delays.

Engagement of Immigrant Communities - Given the demographics of Richmond and the size and range of immigrant communities, USC recommends CCRP build staff capacity to engage with Richmond’s immigrant communities to ensure engagement with CCRP and assisting to overcome differences in language and culture. This responsibility could be filled by the Program Manager or Community Crisis Responders.

Recruitment

Recruiting and prioritizing the hiring of committed and qualified people with lived experience and a deep understanding and knowledge of Richmond communities requires diligence and attention. CCRP can recruit from community resources and programs, with the help of advocacy groups and service providers connected to local networks of qualified people.

Additionally, the Office of Neighborhood Safety has experience in recruiting and hiring using non-traditional priorities.

There are obstacles which must be overcome or avoided, such as giving undue weight to educational advancement. USC recommends ensuring that job requirements do not narrow the pool of applicants unnecessarily. CCRP can expand the pool of experienced applicants by addressing potential barriers to employing otherwise qualified people. Although there is a federal requirement that anyone using a police radio undergoes a lower-level, case- by-case background check, it typically does not need to preclude hiring 1606

40 formerly incarcerated residents who are otherwise qualified if managed thoughtfully.

Successful recruiting also requires ensuring that potential applicants are aware that they should consider a position that they have not typically been eligible for. USC recommends:

● Developing a recruitment list of people (both individual applicants and organizations who would share postings) who would like to be notified when team member jobs are posted.
● Creating an outreach and recruitment plan that engages community groups that could help identify a robust group of potential candidates that reflect the community they will serve.
● Ensuring that job requirements do not create barriers for otherwise qualified applicants.
● Promotional opportunities emphasize knowledge, skills, and abilities that are integral to the job, requiring advanced degrees only if necessary (such as for the licensed clinician/social worker).

CCRP Response Staff

USC had originally expected to recommend a 2-person response team of a Community Response Specialist and an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). This staffing is like the CAHOOTS model in Eugene OR. CAHOOTS has demonstrated 34 years of success in responding to emergency situations with non-clinical field staff, hiring people with experience delivering service in non-traditional environments, ability to engage diplomatically with partner agencies, and resiliency. Many programs find that basic emergency medical training on teams that respond to lower acuity situations than are responded to by Fire, EMS, or clinical mental health responders is helpful in supporting residents with less access to health care. While serving as integral team members, EMTs provide a valuable additional skill set to assist with non- invasive procedures such as wound care, swamp foot (also known as trench foot), assisting with instances of low blood sugar, and Basic Life Support.

Before making final decisions on the composition of the CCRP team, there is additional clarity needed in understanding the parameters and regulations as interpreted by the County Division of Emergency Medical Services. It is too soon to understand the options, but some considerations include CCRP EMTs hired and supervised by RFD while assigned to CCRP teams or contracting with an ambulance company to provide the EMTs who are assigned to the CCRP teams. Even if it is not possible to have EMTs in the CCRP response, the core mission of CCRP can be met, if less optimally.

1607

41 There is sometimes an inclination to add requirements to the responder positions. USC encourages Richmond to keep the barriers to employment as minimal as possible to enable the largest pool of potential applicants for CCRP’s consideration.

Both the EMT and a crisis worker with several years of experience with the required skills of serving the needs of a diverse community, de-escalation, and resident-centered problem-solving can staff ACT mobile units. These skills and experiences are increasingly sought-after in a tight job market, both because of the expansion of new efforts to address mental health and crisis response and because existing programs are recognizing the value and expanding jobs with these skills and backgrounds. For years, the people with these skills and experience were offered low salaries and turnover was high.

CCRP responders represent a new type of emergency response. Although one position may include an EMT license, it would not be a standard EMT job. A CCRP EMT would be a fully integrated team member with an additional license. EMT jobs in the Bay Area average a starting salary between $50,000 - $55,000 are undervalued and have high turnover.

Recruiters often emphasize that the job is a stepping-stone to other health care jobs. A program that values a stable workforce must offer competitive salaries that demonstrate that it values the work and enables responders to become proficient and view CCRP as a career. USC recommends viewing the CCRP jobs as new emergency responder jobs, providing 24-hour field response in emergency situations. CCRP responders work alone in the field, responding to complex situations and relying heavily on independent judgment.

Oakland’s wage scale is $65,700 - $80,000 for their alternative response team with comparable knowledge, skills, and abilities to what USC is recommending for CCRP. Antioch’s new Angelo Quinto Community Response Team has a comparable wage. Antioch was able to fully staff the team on schedule; by comparison, Contra Costa’s A3 recruiting, with substandard wages, has stalled. As more Bay Area jurisdictions create similar programs, recruiting and retaining responders will be essential to a stable program with excellent candidates. Well-paid staff will be cost-effective with low turnover, recruitment of highly qualified candidates, and a stable, dedicated, excellent workforce.

The program manager is a combined role who would be responsible for the day-to-day logistics, inter-departmental communication, data collection, recruiting and hiring, scheduling and supervising responder teams, record keeping, and coordinating training. This person should be familiar with the primary components of the program and effective and diplomatic in 1608

42 facilitating stakeholder communication and resident feedback. They could have additional duties in identifying and securing programmatic resources.

Core staffing levels based on providing Richmond services for 24 hours/day, 7 days/week during the pilot program implementation would require Program Manager (1 FTE) and Crisis Responders/EMTs (12 FTE) for teams of either 1 Crisis Responder and 1 EMT or 2 Crisis Responders.

This staffing meets industry standards for a position with appropriate time off and additional time to cover occasional training, meetings, community outreach, and consultation on clinical situations. Understaffing could undermine the ability to maintain consistent responses.

CCRP Support Staff (Clinical Coordination, Data Analyst, Administrative Support)

CCRP team must have adequate and ongoing support for the program to succeed. These positions enable adequate coordination for training, clinical support, and supervision. Both the Data/Administrative Assistant and Mental Health Clinician positions are part time. Whether the program resides in the city or in a nonprofit, there may be existing or shared positions that can manage these needs.

Coordinating Mental Health Clinician/Social Worker (.5 FTE)

Clinical coordination is integral to the CCRP model. The clinical role will develop, monitor, and evaluate protocols for calls and referrals. There are complex but manageable, multi-tiered considerations in determining appropriate referrals and resources - from health care coverage, if the resident is already receiving County services, obstacles to service access, and managing different constituencies with unique needs, requirements, and referral options (such as elderly, children and youth, intellectual disabilities, etc.). CCRP responders will meet regularly with the clinician to review issues, patient advocacy, and calls, as well as for their own counseling. The Coordinating Clinician will also manage case management, coordination with the County, and developing the referral and resource network.

Data/Administrative Analyst

Collecting baseline and subsequent data is key to measuring progress and improving the program. This includes review of types of calls, outcomes, response time, call characteristics, call origination, and follow-up. The analyst will also build the program’s data capacity and expand data collection. Data must be presented on the public-facing dashboard. The 1609

43 analyst must respond to data requests and present data in accessible, easily understood formats. Although most programs have responder teams filling out paperwork on tablets, some recordkeeping can be done by this position (it reduces the administrative burden on field staff, but by no means eliminates it). This position may also support reporting related to grant reporting requirements or health reimbursements.

Integration with RPD (Program introduction, Roll call engagement, Officer feedback)

RPD leadership has been very supportive of the research and development of an alternative response pilot. Interviews have consistently begun with RPD leaders and officers immediately identifying calls that they would like to see responded to by CCRP. CCRP responders will receive training on the scope of practice, policies, and procedures for RPD, RFD, EMS, and the County response teams.

RPD and RPD dispatch must be involved throughout the development and implementation of the pilot. To ensure that officers are well-briefed on the pilot prior to implementation, there should be presentations during daily rollcalls, including an opportunity to ask questions, and providing community education materials for officers to share with community members. The presentations will cover: the function of the CCRP, how to interact beneficially, protocols, and how CCRP is an asset to RPD’s mission.

USC recommends structured and ongoing engagement and assessment with RPD leadership and looking for opportunities to receive input from line officers, including the survey that is discussed elsewhere.

Data and Evaluation Planning

Collecting baseline and subsequent data is key to measuring progress and improving the program. Data will help to understand the program, frequency of various types of calls, outcomes, response time, call characteristics, call origination, and follow-up. The data analyst should identify the best way to identify and track frequent users and the impact of CCRP response. Data collection and analysis can help target situations, locations, and residents for additional engagement and can inform refinement to call identification, prioritization, and dispatch.

USC can share the models used in other jurisdictions, including public dashboards of call data and regular reports with call data “snapshots.”

1610

44 The pilot design supports innovation and testing of new practices and the structure includes continuous assessment of types of calls, areas of success and failure, relationships with stakeholders, and impact on community.

Specific goals of the CCRP pilot are:

1. Reduce the number of lower acuity behavioral health and community crises traditionally responded to by Police and Fire.

2. Reduce the number of non‐warrant arrests that result during a 911 response.

3. Reduce the number of individuals transported to the emergency department for non-life-threatening medical-related issues because emergency services have limited options for response.

4. Reduce the number of RPD and RFD responses to residents who are frequent callers.

CCRP should be measured for success and evaluated on progress towards meeting these and any additional program goals, including:

● Identification of data to collect should be identified before the pilot is implemented (although during the pilot other data may be added or adjusted).
● Evaluation metrics should be identified before the pilot is implemented, including identifying data needs and gaps.
● An external consultant should be identified to conduct both a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the pilot program. ● When possible, data should be disaggregated by race, gender, age, and language spoken.
● Use social math and data storytelling to transform data into user- friendly visuals and dashboards.
● Track findings, issues, requests, and actions requested by policymakers, stakeholders, and residents.
● The evaluation should include evaluation of the referral and resource network and stakeholder input.
● How to develop a better understanding of populations served. Despite the challenges in collecting this data, this will ensure that the program is culturally relevant and responsive and identifies potential gaps in service.
● The economic impact of the program. Exploring the cost-benefit analysis to the city and County will provide a clearer picture of the return on investment for the city, County, and community partners. ● Is the regular engagement, including case reviews, between CCRP and stakeholders functioning as the foundation for ongoing continuous improvement activities key to using expanded knowledge to refine the program.
1611

45 USC strongly suggests surveying police officers and dispatchers in advance of implementation and at regular intervals. First done in Olympia WA (only police), these surveys could provide actionable information on additional calls, call selection protocols, and how to support a mutually beneficial relationship between the existing emergency services and the new program.

The USC Emergency Services Survey is Attachment #4.

Reporting

The pilot should collect and track adequate data on interactions with residents, outcomes, call responses, types of calls, and outcomes to ensure that analysis, including cost, is comprehensive. Determining what data to collect and what tools to use for input has been considered by multiple jurisdictions. Although Richmond may have specific considerations, looking at the process and results from other programs will be valuable. Some jurisdictions are creating public dashboards to display anonymized call response data, presenting data in comprehensible and accessible language.

USC recommends a comprehensive annual report, a report at the end of the pilot, and in between three-month snapshot status reports during the pilot that include data, brief updates, and changes to parameters of calls dispatched to CCRP.

There is significant interest in alternative crisis response programs from academic researchers. Richmond can consider collaborating with researchers who are interested in a study that works with residents to assess impact through analysis of calls, outcomes, and data. Researchers would be especially helpful in finding ways to disaggregate RPD and CCRP data and find ways of quantifying call and outcome data that is not readily accessible.

USC Implementation Support

Under the contract with the city, USC will continue to provide support with the following areas:

1. After delivering the report to the City Council, USC expects to participate in further discussions to provide support for deeper conversations for Councilmembers to make the necessary program decisions.

2. Training - Identifying topics, developing curricula, finding trainers and programs. Having assisted in several training courses, USC is able to share our experiences in finding training programs, doing direct training, and the feedback of the team members of what was most useful in the field. It is important to identify training that is based on 1612

46 programs that have a depth of experience with a non-police field response and specific training to strengthen appropriate responses for specific communities and residents. Fortunately, Contra Costa and the broader Bay Area have some great resources and organizations with deep experience. The depth of experience of CAHOOTS cannot be overstated, and although they currently have capacity issues, there are some limited ways to bring in that experience in planning and training. Team members consistently rate it as the most impactful training. USC can also assist identifying as part of the training appropriate ride-alongs with other programs that serve Richmond or are similar in the Bay Area.

3. Dispatch - how to design training that is responsive to the needs of Richmond. Dispatch training and protocol resources are available.

4. Collaborating with the County’s A3 program to ensure that CCRP enhances County resources. Explore documentation and integration with social service databases.

5. After the pilot is established, exploring integration of referrals from 211 and other hotlines including the NAMI Warm Line, domestic violence, sexual assault hotlines.

6. Identifying facility needs and potential program facilities.

7. Recruitment - people who have lived experience, eliminating barriers to employment, need to aggressively outreach, unaware of postings or assuming that they are not eligible for jobs. Enable the broadest pool of applicants to enable selecting the best team members.

8. Protocol development, including dispatch protocols. (Even if the program is contracted, the CBO may benefit from guidance on the elements of the protocols and job descriptions that reflect the city’s model. USC can provide other jurisdictions approaches, feedback, and advise on drafting.)
Protocol: The development of program protocols, including dispatch protocols, as well as clinical oversight, analysis and evaluation of calls, training, group team meetings, and support for responders are key components of any program.

9. Equipment and supplies. This is an area where the experience of other programs is very helpful. USC will provide information on supply lists and equipment considerations.

10. Assist in developing job descriptions/staff requirements, providing templates from other programs, advising on how to meet goals of removing employment barriers and other considerations.

11. Depending on which option the city selects, drafting RFP, publicizing RFP to ensure broad response, and vendor selection. (USC has participated in and observed multiple RFQ processes for new response models, can provide drafts, including suggestions around elements that created barriers to some CBOs applying.)
1613

47 12. Pre-implementation community awareness campaign - social media, meeting announcements, Community Advisory Board
recruitment. Community education - outreach and engagement plan, timeline, and materials. Contest for program name & logo.

13. Developing the documentation system prior to rollout.

TIMELINE
Prior to the implementation of the pilot, the planning team will create initial administrative and clinical methods, identify logistical needs and considerations, and begin to build resource and referral networks. The Taskforce proposal timeline requires a longer time to build community awareness and use of the CCRP team because it is based on using 311 as the initial entry point to receive calls about crises from residents. This report assumes the diversion of appropriate calls to CCRP from 911 and the non- emergency number that residents already call.

The pilot program design can occur in four phases. How much time it takes depends on some of the decisions which have been outlined, including the length of pilot.

Phase 1 - The first decision, which informs almost all others, is where to house CCRP. If contracting the program to a non-profit, fast-tracking an RFP/Q and completing a competitive selection process will take at least three months. When placing the program within the city there are several decision points and steps depending on placing it in an existing department and how much it requires the development of new structures within the city.

● Program naming/branding (engage community, focus on youth participation)
● Identifying and convening an internal city planning/support team ● Identifying initial legal/insurance/compliance issues ● Funding research - opportunities and considerations
● Selecting a Program/Implementation Manager
● Staffing
● Identifying facility needs and potential program facilities. ● Identifying and ordering equipment
● Structure of Community Advisory Board (CAB)
● Recruiting/appointing CAB members
● Draft job descriptions (including approval by Civil Service, if within city)
● Create webpage - populate with initial materials

1614

48 Phase 2 - This will be a sprint to start up the pilot. City support external to the program will be needed for: RPD dispatch training, coordination with the County, and community outreach and engagement.

● Recruiting and hiring
● Opening an office
● Referral and resource network development
● Initial training - responders and dispatch
● Obtain equipment and supplies
● Identify initial parameters of situations to dispatch to CCRP ● Develop protocols
● Evaluation outline - metrics, selection process for evaluator ● Determine what data to collect and what tools to use for input; focusing on impact, outcomes, and efficacy.
● Develop documentation and process
● A citywide outreach and public education campaign, beginning several weeks before the pilot startup, including meetings with residents in neighborhoods most impacted by the emergency service system. ● Collaboration with County - how to share information/data/patient files; establish ongoing communication, explore developing data- sharing agreements, and MOUs to streamline information sharing.

Phase 3 - Initial implementation.

● Official roll-out - may wish to have several weeks of a soft launch ● Baseline Survey of RPD

Phase 4 - Pilot through competition

• Continuous assessment for expansion of parameters
• Selection of independent evaluator
• Evaluation during pilot

Sustainability

City leaders and residents appropriately focused on ensuring the long-term sustainability of the program. Data collection, assessment, and evaluation will demonstrate the impact and value of the program. Ongoing community engagement and oversight will not only ensure the support and confidence of Richmonders but the program will also be strengthened by integrating the information and feedback from residents who have received or observed the program. Mechanisms for ongoing analysis of partnerships will maintain and deepen collaborations. Once integrated into the community, CCRP should be used as an effective, accessible community response to a broader range of 1615

49 community needs. COVID, weather emergencies, etc. Eventually, Richmond will benefit from participation in regional and national discussions among alternative response programs.

Methodology

The level of community involvement in discussions, support, and research design options for a new community response program in Richmond has been remarkable, extensive, and continuing. Alternative response programs always have sweeping support across diverse communities. Richmond residents have demonstrated an even greater level of support.

Specific methods informing the pilot program development included:

1) reviewing documentation related to existing and newly developed alternative response program models and alternative-response model best practices and evaluations.
2) reviewing documents and recorded meetings for a comprehensive understanding of the issues and resources affecting the Richmond landscape as it relates to emergency response and community crises. 2) conducting interviews with key Richmond community
leaders/stakeholders; outreach to Richmond residents, focusing on communities most impacted by 911 calls and those communities with unique barriers to engaging with official city and County resources. 3) convening focus groups of Richmond residents and presenting at community meetings.
4) surveying Richmond residents digitally and on paper.

USC’s initial proposal was to recruit fellows who would be trained to do community engagement and survey distribution and collection. Through discussions with city representatives, given some delays in beginning the research, the plan was changed to use those resources directly with Richmond community organizations that assisted with recruiting and organizing outreach in communities with unique perspectives and lived experiences.

Community and Stakeholder Engagement Approach

USC’s community outreach and engagement methodology focused on engaging Richmond residents about their interaction with the 911 emergency call system; assessing support for the City’s leadership objectives and expectations for a pilot program; engaging stakeholders to identify objectives in the development of a pilot that addresses the concerns of the public; and, collecting residents’ experiences with Richmond’s 911 1616

50 system and local/Contra Costa County law enforcement, emergency response systems, and Contra Costa County services that assist residents in crisis. There was a special focus on gathering input and data from neighborhoods with the highest level of 911 calls and engaging specific constituent groups that have been historically disconnected from planning processes.

USC conducted in-depth virtual and in-person interviews with leaders from Richmond and Contra Costa’s municipal and County governments, community-based and civic organizations, service providers, local businesses, and individuals directly impacted by an experience with the emergency call system. All interviews and meetings sought to learn about experiences with the 911 response system, community needs, crisis resources, and to receive feedback on what alternative response models and options would best serve Richmond. These interviews were essential to understanding the landscape, receiving valuable input that helped co-create these findings and recommendations, and identifying program opportunities, potential challenges, and resources for implementation. The list of interviews and meetings is Attachment 3.

Review of Documents and Existing Information

USC reviewed existing data, research, plans, and other relevant documents and recordings regarding community crisis response program development conducted by internal and external entities including:

• Youth Community Needs Assessment and Strategic Investment Plan 2020
• Community Needs Assessment for ARPA
• Health in All Policies 2020 progress report
• North Richmond Quality of Life Plan 2019, Healthy Richmond • Community Engagement and Crime Prevention: RPD Strategic Planning Focus Group Results (February 2019)
• Richmond General Plan
• Taskforce research and planning
• 911 call data analysis by the MATRIX Consulting Group • Contra Costa A3 program planning and meetings
• Recordings of community roundtables, meetings on public safety, and Taskforce Community Conversations between Oct 2021 - Jan 2022 on the subjects of Youthworks, Unhoused Interventions, Community Crisis Response Team, and the Office of Neighborhood were informative avenues for learning about community opinions and perspectives.

1617

51 USC analyzed the status of current and proposed models from Eugene and Portland, OR; Olympia, WA; Cambridge, MA; Albuquerque, NM; Denver, CO; Houston, TX, and Antioch, Oakland, and San Francisco, CA that provided insight into planning issues, proposed models, outcomes, and challenges faced by the different cities working to implement alternative response programs. USC also reviewed analysis and proposals of best practices for alternative response and crisis call management which continues to develop and emerge.

This information informed the development of the survey, questions, and topics pursued with stakeholder and resident interviews and focus groups.

Call Data and Analysis

Both the MATRIX Consulting Group and the Social Movement Support Lab, contracted by the Richmond Progressive Alliance, analyzed Richmond 911 call data. USC met with both groups which assisted in our understanding of the data and their analyses. Because the MATRIX analysis was part of a larger emergency services review, there is a gap between the call data analysis and information about calls needed to inform the planning for CCRP.

This report relies on integrating the MATRIX analysis with the data analysis and experiences of other cities in developing and implementing alternative response programs.

This report reflects the findings from the MATRIX report, including summaries of a series of community meetings. The key issues identified were concerns about:
• the impacts of homelessness and persons in mental health crises on crime and
• the current approaches to policing marginalized populations.

MATRIX identified the following solutions which overlap the focus of this report. The solutions identified include:
• Provide resources inside and/or outside of police to support marginalized communities (e.g., homeless and persons in need of mental health services).
• Implement multi-lingual support throughout the Department. • A recommendation for an emergency response team.

The report offers specific recommendations for a two-person emergency response team to respond to calls related to mental health and homelessness, with a field clinician and an EMT. 2 shifts. There is no information on FTEs or other details. Because MATRIX limited the analysis to a narrow number of mental health situations, it is important to consider the 1618

52 continued implementation of the County’s A3 program. MATRIX suggests that it is likely that five calls per day, or around 3.9 percent of calls handled by RPD could be dispatched to a mental health response team. Although call data analysis is valuable, in practice, each call is dispatched depending on specific parameters, not the call classification.

At least several of these calls likely fall under the scope of A3, if available.

Their analysis of appropriate shifts very likely reflects the highest call volume for a broader range of low-level calls. With a broader range of calls for CCRP and the greater need for support in situations when other resources are unavailable, USC believes that CCRP will receive sufficient dispatches during an overnight shift.

MATRIX also recommended diverting some “non-emergency” calls to newly created Community Service Officers (CSOs). The calls recommended for CSOs are a mix of more bureaucratic types (such as filing crime reports) and some types of calls discussed in this report as potentially being responded to by the CCRP team, including Juvenile Out of Control/Runaway, Juvenile Out of Control, and Runaway Juvenile Return. The recommendation for CSOs to respond to “non-emergency” calls leaves for CCRP those situations that are both an emergency or requiring an immediate response AND not appropriate for a police response. This is not a concerning overlap since the actual number of calls is too small to affect the overall analysis or the planning of either program. If Richmond implements both CCRP and the CSO proposal, we recommend attention to aligning the protocols so there is broad understanding among stakeholders (especially dispatch) on the work that is assigned to each program.

It is noteworthy that the core findings and recommendations of the MATRIX and USC research are similar. USC found similar concerns of residents, agree on the three recommendations that address similar issues, and reflect the experiences of other jurisdictions. The MATRIX report parallels this report in finding that most of the situations proposed do not require a police backup.

1619

53 Community & Stakeholder

USC has found that conducting surveys can be effective in understanding residents’ unique experiences and perspectives with emergency services, service providers, informal support, and barriers to care. 513 people were surveyed between February and May 2023 using on-line and paper surveys. Paper surveys were filled out at meetings, tabling events, and distributed - approaching people and asking them to fill it out with the interviewer. 340 were completed on-line and 115 were filled out on paper. 455 respondents were Richmond residents and 58 were non-residents who work or go to school in Richmond (a majority of whom either used to live in Richmond or have family in Richmond). Gift card incentives were offered in communities that are less likely to engage with a city survey or focus group. Demographic questions were optional. USC monitored the anonymized demographic data of participants in the survey and focus groups to ensure that representation of voices of Richmond residents whose input could be overlooked.

Areas explored in the survey and focus groups included:
• Interactions with emergency services
• Accessing emergency and non-emergency services
• Barriers to access
• Outcomes
• Community Assets
• Unrecognized, under-developed, under-funded community resources • Informal and community support during crisis
• Where residents receive information about resources and services The survey was designed to collect qualitative and quantitative data. The opportunities for comment (qualitative) in the survey were very helpful in discovering issues and ideas that were not previously identified.

The survey was issued in English (396), Spanish (25), Mandarin (2), Hindi (28), and Portuguese (5). These languages were identified during interviews with city staff, stakeholders, and residents. Use of a particular survey language does not correlate with the demographic groups represented, since participants may be English speakers or bilingual.

Alternative crisis teams are always wildly popular. One notable outcome of the Richmond survey was a significantly higher level of support for creating an alternative response program than in similar surveys of other cities’ residents. Although it’s not possible to adjust for the many variables to draw a direct correlation, the ongoing discussions and the work of the Taskforce 1620

54 for the past two years appear to have increased awareness and knowledge about alternative response and appears likely to explain the significant increase.

The data for each question is in Attachment #4. The answers that were individually written in by respondents are not included, due to length, but are available and were integrated into the findings presented in this report.

Who Took the Survey?

1621

55 1622

56 Interacting with Richmond Emergency Services
218 respondents said that they had not called or interacted with Richmond emergency services (police, firefighters, paramedics, etc.) in the past three years.
278 respondents said that they had called or interacted with Richmond emergency services (police, firefighters, paramedics, etc.) in the past three years.
1623

57 Emergency is defined as fire, crime in progress, threat to safety, medical crisis. Quality of life is a parking problem, noise complaint, dumping, etc. Wellness check is when a responder is asked to check on someone.

1624

58 1625

59 Why Don’t They Call?

1626

ATTACHMENTS
1627
City of Richmond Community Crisis Response ProgramProposal Program DescriptionThe Community Crisis Response Program is a community-ledprogram to address crises thatare not appropriate for police response. To start, the program will address mental health crisesand substance use issues, eventually expanding tosupport additional community based issuessuch as domestic conflict, street based conflict,and noise complaints. The program will respondto crises by dispatching a team of community responders(2 mental health/harm reductionspecialists and 1 medic) to the scene, where the responderswill engage with the participantempathetically and supportively, with a focus on de-escalation.The team will be dispatched byan in-house dispatcher, and calls will be directedto the number 311. All program staff willreceive extensive training in de-escalation, mental health first aid, harm reduction, the biologicalimpacts of substance use, and conflict resolution.

Dispatch● The program will use the number 311 to receive calls● Plan includes a public outreach campaign to educatepublic about the existence of theprogram, how to call, and what kinds of situationsthe program can support● Over time, 911 dispatchers will be trained to refercalls to this program. To start, they willsimply let callers know about the existence of theprogram. Eventually, they will be ableto directly transfer calls to the 311 line, so communitymembers will be able to access theline through 911. This program must always remainindependent from the police, andresidents must be able to access the program withoutinvolving police dispatch, even ifpolice dispatch is fully trained. At no point will the 311 line disappear.

Staffing(total: 18.8 FTE)● Office staff (total: 6.2 FTE)○ Program Director (1 FTE, $85K/year)■ Duties: manage staff, evaluate program, make programdesign decisions○ 1 Dispatcher available 24/7 (4.2 FTE, $75K/year)■ Duties: receive calls, conduct intake, assess appropriatenessfor theprogram, determine response (In person? Phone support?),sendresponse team to the site■ As call volume increases, more dispatchers may beadded○ 1 Community Liaison (1 FTE, $75K/year)■ Duties: execute outreach campaign, connect with otherservice providers,community based organizations, potential participants,follow up onparticipants who interfaced with response team, provideconnections toongoing care. NOT case management - follow up doesnot continuebeyond referral call(s).○ At the beginning of the program, there will be fewcalls and the community willneed to be given information about the program. Officestaff will conduct outreachcampaigns, then transition to full time service deliveryas call volume increases.

Attachment 1
1628
● Response team (total: 12.6 FTE)○ 2 community responders available 24/7 (8.4 FTE, $80K/year)■ Duties: engage thoughtfully with program participants,focusing onde-escalation, mental health first aid, harm reduction,and supportivecare. Provide care for any dependents of person incrisis at the scene, asnecessary.■ Community responders will not need to have specificcredentials,education, or work experience; instead, they will need to demonstratesuccess in community engagement and specific corecompetencies.Some local programs (such as SPIRIT at Contra CostaCollege) willqualify graduates for the position, but any communitymember may havetheir application considered.● Based onMental Health Firstmodel (Oakland and Sacramento):community based responders are best equipped to handlecrisesin their own community. Focus should be on preventingfurtherharm and preventing coerced entry into the pre-existingsystem.Community responders have greater flexibility in theirrange ofresponses.○ 1 Medic available 24/7 (4.2 FTE, $85K/year)■ Duties: provide basic first aid to participants, focusedon harm reductionand supportive care○ As call volume increases, more response teams maybe added Training topics (to be given by a successful communitybased organization such asSPIRIT, MH First, CAT-911, etc):● De-escalation, including creating plans for how theteam will respond to violent behaviorfrom person in crisis● Self-defense training (that does not harm the otherperson)● PPE and how to protect oneself from COVID and otherairborne illness● Non-stigmatizing mental health information● Mental health first aid● Conflict resolution● Impacts of common controlled substances on the humanbody● Harm reduction principles and techniques● Trauma informed approach to assessment and care● Existing relevant services in the community● Historical context: why do we need a program likethis? What needs is this programmeeting that have not been met before? What is thedanger of police response to peoplein mental health crisis.● Child development/working with youth?● Impact of secondary trauma/self-care/how to preventburnout● Know your rights re: police interactions, immigrationenforcement● Common crisis situations in Richmond 1629
● Public Safety personnel training: First aid and basic lifesaving measures (CPR etc).Additional training for medic.

Phasing/Scaling● Year 1○ Community Oversight Committee forms, develops protocolsaround policecontact with program○ Training development○ Staff hiring and training○ 311 line setup○ Call types: mental health and substance use○ 1 Program Director, 1 dispatcher, 1 linkage to carespecialist, 1 response team○ Begin providing service to all of Richmond○ Outreach (ongoing)● Year 2○ Ongoing service provision○ Call types: mental health and substance use○ Opportunity to add additional response team(s) basedon call volume (asassessed by program staff and frequency of overlappingresponse needs)○ Training of 911 dispatchers to refer community membersto the program● Year 3○ Ongoing service provision○ Call types: mental health and substance use, withthe possibility to add call typesbased on community need (as assessed by program staff)○ Opportunity to add additional response team(s) basedon call volume (asassessed by program staff and frequency of overlappingresponse needs)○ Ongoing training of and connection with 911 dispatchfor increased call diversion Call flow● Community member calls 311● Dispatch staff answers phone, listens to participantconcerns, asks relevant questions,and determines best response.● Dispatch staff communicates response plan to responseteam● Response team executes response plan● If in-person response: response team drives to scenein city vehicle. Communityresponders engage with person in crisis, de-escalatesthe situation, assess needs, andprovide compassionate care and problem solving support.If necessary, medic performsbasic first aid. If necessary, provide care for dependentsat the scene.● If phone response: Community responder engages withperson in crisis over the phone,potentially transferring to linkage to care specialistfor referral● Response team completes response, returns to office,and submits reports about theresponse● Community liaison reviews reports, identifies potential ongoing supports, and follows upwith person in crisis. 1630
Community Oversight Committee● Composition of the committee: the committee will includerepresentatives of Office ofNeighborhood Safety and CBO mental health, harm reduction,and youth serviceproviders, and will include a majority of memberswho are residents who haveexperience with receiving the services.● Nomination and selection of committee members: eachcity council member willnominate two members and the city council will selectcommittee members with overallcomposition that meets the criteria above.● Members will serve two year terms, and will be ableto serve additional terms uponapproval by city council.● The Community Oversight Committee will be responsiblefor:○ Approving annual program budget○ Reviewing quarterly reports on programs and monitoringprogram implementationand expenditures○ Input on and approval of training goals and requirements○ Participate in hiring decisions, development of jobdescriptions, and programimplementation plans○ Work with Community Outreach staff to receive andrespond to resident feedbackon the program Engagement with Law Enforcement● The program should call on law enforcement only inspecific situations:○ If the person in crisis requests it○ If someone is actively brandishing a weapon towardsprogram staff○ If program staff have exhausted all available de-escalationmethods and still fearfor their safety 1631
USCTrainingOutlinefor AlternativeResponse
I. SUPPORTINGCOMMUNITIESTHATHAVEBEENMARGINALIZED
Howgender, race, class, andablismhaveimpactedcommunities’ healthandinteractionwithhealthcareandcarceral systems.Cultural competency- Cultural HumilityandAnti-RacismStigma&DiscriminationIntersectionality, Culture, Diversity, andWorldviewSocial Determinantsof HealthandAdvocacySelf-DeterminationandStagesof ChangeBarrierstoaccessintraditional healthcare, mental healthcare, andemergencyresponse.

Specifictrainingandtoolsfor communities:LGBTQI &trans, veteran, immigrant, BIPOC, AsianPacificIslander, Latino/Latinx, houseless,Native, elders, childrenandyouth, sexworkers, residentswhoaredisabledand/or faceseriousmental healthchallenges, residentswhoareinthecrisisof poverty, peoplewhousesubstancesor areinrecovery.

Areasof focus:Impact of poverty, specificneedsandexperiencesof childrenandyouthandtransition-agedyouth; religiouscustomsandbeliefs, gender identityandinclusivity.

II. COMMUNITY-CENTEREDRESPONSE
Conceptsandmethodsfor crisisandcommunityresponseCrisisprevention, intervention, andde-escalation;Principlesof wellness&recoverymodel;Principlesof trauma-informedcare, response, andpractices- understandingtheimpact oftraumaontheindividual &community;Buildingsupportiverelationships;Theprocessof recoveryandchange;Fosteringself-determinationandresilience; self-careandwellnessplans;Peer support - values, ethics, andprinciplesof practiceandeffectiveness;Diversion- fromcarceral systems, mental healthsystems;Restorativejustice;Advocatingfor residentsininstitutional andenforcement settings.Languageusedtodescriberesidents- negativedescriptors, appropriatelangauge Crisissituationsandstrategies
Communication, de-escalation, intervention, andmediationDe-escalation, disengagement, andconflict mediation; Attachment 2
1632
Communicationprinciplesandmethods; connectingthroughour experiences;Motivational interviewing; resilience; activelistening, problem-solving, decision-making;Physical andverbal responder presentation;Consent andagencyof residents- centeringtheir decision-making, supportingtheir planning;Identifyingbehavior impactedbytraumaandsupport mechanisms;WellnessRecoveryActionPlan(WRAP)&crisissafetyplanningtools;Questionstounderstandthesituation: physical needs, problem-solvingquestions, care.

BarrierstoCommunicationLanguageProcessing, includingstressHearingCultural interpretationsIdentifyingandovercomingcommunicationbarriers Specificsituationsandtypesof trauma-IssueawarenessandscreeningProtocolsfor rapidresponseConsiderationsandresponse: PTSD; suicideidentification, riskscreening, andinterventionskills; sexual assault; childabuse; self-harm; intimatepartner violence; grief; intellectualdisability; autism; dementia, braininjuryandstroke; panicattack; substanceuseandoverdose;dual diagnosis; wellnesschecks.

Communityhealtheducation&supportHealingpracticesCopingstrategiesRelaxationtechniquesResiliencyskillsPractical andemotional support for residents&familiesduringcrisisanddeath Follow-upandcommunityresourcesCaseManagement &CommunityMental HealthWorkConnectingwithcommunityresourcesCasemanagement andadvocacyWrap-aroundcare, follow-upsupport, wellnessplanningRestorativeJustice- circles, etc III. MENTALHEALTHFIRSTAID-
Commonmental illnessesPsychiatricmedications, withdrawal, andsideeffectsDual diagnosisSupportingresidentsexperiencingsymptoms 1 1633
Considerationsandtoolswhensupportingyouth, elders, andother vulnerablecommunitiesSafetyplanningandadvanceddirectivesfor mental healthepisodesRiskmanagement andcrisisplanning(includingWRAPandcrisissafetyplanningtools) IV. SUBSTANCEUSE&HARMREDUCTION
Substanceuse, symptoms, andwithdrawal; principlesof harmreductionandapproachtocare;safer usestrategies; managingpossibleoverdosesituations, naloxone; medical detox; peoplewhomaybeexperiencingdiversemental statescausedbysubstanceuse; relapseprevention;psychopharmacology10; commonmedications&drugs; howtosupport peoplewhoareusingsubstances; specificissuesfor peoplewhousecrystal meth; harmreductionresourceswithincommunities, buildingengagement andrelationshipsthroughharmreduction.

V. RESOURCES&REFERRALS
What servicesexist, what theydo, whoiseligible, andhowtheyareaccessed. Referral process.CityandcountyemergencyresponseprogramsCityandcountyresourcesCommunity-basedandmutual aidservicesIdentifyingpeer, family, andcommunitysupport Referral considerations:CulturallyandlinguisticallyappropriateservicesandprovidersEmpowerment includesamenuof options- includingdoingnothing.Warmhandoffsareespeciallyimportant for peoplewhohavepreviouslyexperiencedpoortreatment anddenial of appropriatecarefromestablishedsystems.Inventoryingandutilizingaperson'sowncopingstrategiesandindividual support networkpriortoengagingoutsideresources.

CitygeographyDatabasetraining- accessingandutilizingtheresourcedatabase, submittingadditionsandchanges.

VI. TEAM&COMMUNITYSAFETYPlanningandpositioningfor safety; sceneassessment andsituational awareness; intuition;verbal, nonverbal, anddefensiveinterventions; workingwithagitation, violence, andviolence/riskassessments; animal control; preventingslips, trips, andfalls; defensivedriving;infectioncontrol &prevention; standardprecautionsandbloodbornepathogens, incl. HIV&HepC. EMS, police, andfiretraining, scopeof practice, andprotocols; howtocollaborateandmanagesituationsw/ other first responders, ensuringthat residentsfeel safeduringan 2 1634
interactionwithpolice, howtoadvocatefor residents. Communicatingw/ teammember duringcall.

VII. FIELD&SCENARIO-BASEDTRAINING
Scenarioandrole-play-basedlearningwill beusedbothwithinspecificmodulesandtoreviewandincorporatemultipleareasof learning;Presentationsanddiscussionswithresidentsw/ livedexperienceof healthcareandcarceralsystems, usingdrugs, beingunhoused, beingundocumentedandimmigrants;Ride-alongswithexperiencedresponders;Shadowingserviceprovider-partners;Participateat eventstobuildrelationshipswithcommunitymembers&leaders;Participatewithmutual aidevents;Sit-alongat Cambridgedispatch VIII. OPERATIONS&LOGISTICS
Defensivedriving, vehiclemaintenance; transport of residents; parkingconsiderations.Instructionandpracticewithdispatchradio.Useof datamanagement systems, recordkeeping, report writing.Documentationpolicies.Dispatchprocessandprotocols.

IX. PRIVACY, RESIDENTS’ RIGHTS, &RELATEDISSUES
Residents’ privacy, rightstoconfidentialityandrespect, includingHealthInsurancePortabilityandAccountabilityAct (HIPAA) compliance.Mandatedreporting- communityissuesandobstacles.Scopeof practiceandcare.Lawsandissuesonpublicrecords, advocacy, andmental health/substanceuse, andschools.Rightsof residentsregardinginvoluntaryhospitalizationandaccessinghealthcare.Filingacomplaint - medical center, referral agency, providers, police, complaintsabout theresponseteam.Becomingawitness- avoidinggatheringinformationthat makesarespondersawitnessinaninvestigation.Speakingtothemedia.Publicrecordingof theteamswhileengagingw/ residents X. TEAMROLES&RESPONSIBILITIES
3 1635
Structure, roles, andresponsibilitiesPrinciplesof accountability, ethics, consent;Staff standards&expectations(andwhat staff shouldexpect);Clinical oversight andreview;Personnel policies;Sexual harassment anddiscrimination;Teambuildingandthescienceof teamdynamics.

Staff WellnessCompassionfatigue, vicarioustrauma, triggeringpast trauma;Addressingtraumafor staff;Counselingandmental healthsupport for staff;Self-careandbuildingresponder resilience;LimitsandBoundaries. 4 1636
Stakeholder Interviews, Organizational Meetings, andFocusGroups BelowisalistofthemeetingsandpresentationstoensurebroadanddeepcommunityengagementinthedevelopmentoftheCCRPreport.USCwasalsoinvitedtodoa“sit-along”toobserveRPDdispatchandtovisittheContraCostaCountyAnyone,Anywhere,Anytime(A3)MilesHall CrisisHub.

FocusGroups&SurveyDistribution
GreaterRichmondInterfaithProgram(GRIP)Nepali HealthAdvocatesRichmondLatinaCenter(2focusgroups)RichmondProgressiveAllianceRyseYouthCenter(2focusgroups)ShieldsReidCommunityCenterSOSRichmond Meetings
RichmondPoliceDepartmentPoliceChiefBisaFrenchAssistantChiefTimSimmonsCaptainM.Stonebraker,Patrol OperationsCommanderLt.ErnestLoucas,patrol division,HomelessOutreachmanagerOfficerJ.Sousa,Mental HealthEvaluationOfficerMichelleMilam,CrimePreventionManagerandHomelessResourceCoordinator RichmondFireDepartmentFireChiefAngel MontoyaFireMarshall EricGovanFireBattalionChiefVictorBontempo RPDDispatch,Michael Schlemmer,CommunicationsCenterManager RichmondCityCouncil,CMRobinson,CMSoheilaBana,CMClaudiaJimenez,CMGayleMcLaughlin RichmondNeighborhoodCoordinatingCouncilRichmondOfficeofNeighborhoodSafety,SamVaughnRichmondOfficeofNeighborhoodSafety,violenceinterruptersRichmondCommissiononAgingRichmondTaskforceCCRPWorkingGroup,SteveBischoffandLauraMangeles,RichmondLibraryServices-DianaLopez,LibraryDirectorRichmondTaskforceonReimaginingPublicSafety Attachment 3
1637
RichmondCommunityServicesDept,ErenSamanoRichmondMulti-DeptUnhousedWorkingGroup ContraCostaCountySupervisorJohnGioiaContraCostaCountyAnyone,Anywhere,Anytime(A3)Initiative-SuzanneTavano,PhD,Director,Behavioral HealthServices,Dr.ChadPierce,PsyD,A3/CrisisInterventionChief,andDebbieThomas,LMFT,MHProgramManagerContraCostaCountyCOREteam-RobertPreston,Michael CallananContraCostaOfficeofThePublicDefender,Social Workers,AngeleneMusawwir,LCSW BrighterBeginnings,Dr.BarbaraMcCulloghContraCostaAsianAmericanPacificIslanderCoalition,VyVoEasterHill UnitedMethodistChurch,Rev.Dr.DaleWeatherspoon,PastorFamilyJusticeCenterFeltonInstitute(implementingthecrisisresponseinAntioch)HealthCarefortheHomelessHEPPAC,BraunzCourtneyJustCitiesInstitute-MargaretaLinandXavierJohnson(backgroundonRichmondoutreach)LatinaCenter,MiriamWongMATRIXConsultingGroup-RichardBradyNepali HealthAdvocates,AnupamaChapagai ParajuliReimagineRichmond,EmilyRossandEli MooreRichmondLatinaCenter,MiriamWongRichmondProgressiveAlliance,Marisol Cantu-surveydistribuitonRichmondPromise,AnjanineBonet,Miguel Molina,ChristopherWhitmoreRichmondRotaryClub, DarleneRiosDrapkinRyseYouthCenterRichMinds&NAMIWestCounty,EddieMorrisSafeReturnProject,TamishaTorres-WalkerSocial MovementSupportLab,JimFreeman(dataanalysis)SOS,Daniel BarthSaraCantorHarukaKelley,NPKristinKillianLobosDeborahSmallBKWilliams 1638
USCRichmondEmergencyResponder Survey
Wewanttomakesurethattheexperiencesandknowledgefromotheremergencyrespondersarereflectedintheimplementationofthenewalternativecrisisresponseprogram.Yourresponseswill beconfidential.Pleaseansweraccordingtoyourbestestimate,basedonyourexperiences.Thesurveywill take5-10minutes.Thankyouforparticipating!

1. I workfor:DispatchPoliceFire2. I am: CivilianSworn/commissioned

3. What shiftsdoyoutypicallywork?(checkall that apply)DayshiftSwingshiftGraveyardshift

4. Inatypical week, howoftendoyouencounter residentsinsomesort of crisiswithout acriminal or publicsafetyelement that requirespolice, fire, or EMS?None1-56-1011-15Morethan16

5. What arethemost commoncausesof crisesthat youencounter?(checkall thatapply) Mental healthSubstanceusedisorderPovertyHomelessnessCommunity/family/tenantconflictOther:______________

6. Of theresidentsincrisiswhoyouencounter, what percentagearecurrentlyhomeless?NoneUpto25%Upto50%Upto75% Attachment 4
1639
100%

7. What resourceisthegreatest IMMEDIATEneedsof individualsthat youencounterincrisis?(checkall that apply)ImmediateshelterDetoxbedDe-escalationMental healthcounselingFoodNon-emergency,low-level medical careTransportationAsafe,supportiveplacetogoduringthedayOther:________________________________________________

8. Of theresidentsincrisis, howmanyhaveanon-emergency, low-level medicalissue(needingwoundor foot care, lowbloodsugar, etc)?NoneUpto25%Upto50%Upto75%100%

9. What callsofteninvolvesomeoneincrisis?(checkall that apply)Peoplewalkingintotraffic PedestrianinterferenceWelfarecheck Sleeper/PersonDown SuspiciouspersonorcircumstanceUnwantedperson/Criminal trespassDisturbance/disorderlyconduct Suicidal checks PublicServicecallsinthefrontlobbyofRPD Mentallyill/mental disturbanceConfused/elderlyperson LoiteringIntoxicatedsubjectIndecentexposureKeepthepeaceNoisecomplaintRunawayOther:________________________________________ 1640

10. Inatypical week, howoftendoyouencounter residentswhoare“highutilizers”ofservices- peoplewhofrequentlyinteract withemergencyrespondersor otherproviders?None1-5/week6-10/week11-15/week16ormoretimes/week

11. Howshouldthecrisisteamberequested?(checkall that apply)Separate,dedicatednumberforthecrisisteamHotlines(211,988,etc)Richmonddispatchof911/non-emergencycallsRequestfromRichmondofficers/firefightersinthefieldCountymental healthComments:_____________________________________

12. If theycanbedispatchedsafely, shouldtherebealist of callsthat thecrisisteamautomaticallyrespondsto(for example, disorderlyconduct or welfarecheck)?YesNo

13. Doyouagreeor disagreewiththesestatements?1=stronglyagree;5=stronglydisagreeIamconfidentthatIknowaboutresourcesforresidentsincrisis 1-2-3-4-5Low-level crisissituationstaketoomuchtimetoresolve 1-2-3-4-5Low-level crisissituationscouldbebetterhandledbyotherresponders 1-2-3-4-5Itisnotsafetosendunarmedteamsbecausecallscanbeunpredictable 1-2-3-4-5Asworn/commissionedofficershouldembeddedinthecrisisteam 1-2-3-4-5Amental healthprofessional shouldbeembeddedinthecrisisteam 1-2-3-4-5Thenewcrisisteamistakingjobsawayfromus 1-2-3-4-5

14. What will makealow-level crisisteamsuccessful?(checkall that apply)QuickresponsetimeReliableresponsetocallsHoursofoperationAbletotransportresidentsSafetytrainingforcrisisteamConnectiontoimmediateservicesConnectiontolong-termcareCrisisteamfollowsupwithresidentsafterinitial callCrisisteamunderstandspolice,fire,andEMSscopeofworkCrisisteamspeaksSpanishandotherlanguagesofRichmondersPolice/fire/EMS/dispatchunderstandwhenandhowtoaskforthecrisisteamPolice/fire/EMS/dispatchunderstandwhatsituationsthecrisisrespondstoPolice/fire/EMS/dispatchunderstandwhatthecrisisteamcandotoaddressasituationPolice/fire/EMS/dispatchunderstandthesafetyconsiderationsandprotocolsforthecrisisteam 1641
Police/fire/EMS/dispatchunderstandhowtheteamwill handlecriminal situationsorinvestigationsAliaisonoreasywayforofficerstogetanswersoraddressconcernswiththecrisisteamOther:_________________________________________________________

15. What elseshouldbeconsideredinthedevelopment of acrisisresponseteam?______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

16. Arethereanyspecificdispatch/firefighter/EMS/policeconsiderationsweshouldknowabout?______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIALSTATISTICALINFORMATION(Demographics)
Thisinformationisconfidentialandyoucandecidenottoanswer.Ithelpsusunderstandifpersonalexperiencesaffectemergencyresponders’answers.

17.HowlonghaveyouworkedforthecityofRichmond?1-3years4-6years7-10years11-16years17ormoreyearsdeclinetoanswer

18.Howoldareyou?18- 2425- 3435- 4445- 5455- 6465- 7475orolder 1642

18. Whatisyourrace/ethnicity?(checkallthatapply)WhiteorCaucasianBlackorAfricanAmericanHispanicorLatinoAsianorAsianAmericanAmericanIndianorAlaskaNativeNativeHawaiianorotherPacificIslanderAraborMiddle-EasternAnotherrace(pleasespecify)_________________________________

19. Whatisyourgenderidentityandorientation?(checkasmanyasapply)FemaleMaleTransgenderGenderfluid/non-binaryLGBQIA+Yourchosenterm:___________________

20. Whatzipcodedoyoulivein?____________zipcode(5digitinput) Thissurveyisanonymousandconfidential.Ifyouwouldliketotalktous,pleasetellushowtogetintouchwithyou.

Name _________________________________________EmailAddress _________________________________________PhoneNumber _________________________________________Comment _________________________________________ Anyothercommentsyoumayhave:_________________________________________________ Yourvoiceisheard.Thankyou!
1643

Q4. In what kinds of situations have you interacted with emergency services? (select all that apply) Response PercentResponses
Quality of life (parking problem, noise complaint, dumping, etc)37.08%99 Homeless related situation 25.84%69
Emergency - fire 17.98%48
Emergency - crime in progress 15.36%41
Emergency - threat to safety 20.97%56
Emergency - medical crisis 32.96%88
Vehicle accident or problem 23.6%63
Report a crime/accident for a police report 27.72%74
Mental health crisis 20.97%56
Drug/alcohol-related situation 10.86%29
Community dispute 10.86%29
Domestic violence/family conflict 16.1%43
Wellness check (asking a responder to check on someone)13.11%35 Other (please specify) 10.86%29
Answered 267
Q33. ¿En qué tipo de situaciones ha interactuado con los servicios de emergencia? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Calidad de vida (problema de estacionamiento, queja de ruido, basurero, etc.)38.46%5 Situación relacionada con personas sin hogar 15.38%2
Emergencia - incendio 0.0% 0
Emergencia - delito en progreso 15.38%2
Emergencia - amenaza a la seguridad 15.38%2
Emergencia - crisis medica 15.38%2
Accidente o problema de un vehículo 15.38%2
Informar un delito/accidente para un informe policial 15.38%2 Crisis de salud mental 7.69% 1
Situación relacionada con las drogas/alcohol 7.69% 1
Disputa comunitaria 0.0% 0
Violencia doméstica/conflictos familiares 30.77%4
Control de bienestar (pedir al personal de auxilio que controle a alguien)0.0% 0 Otra opción( especifique) 15.38%2
Answered 13
Q62. Em quais tipos de situações você interagiu com serviços de emergência? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Emergência - crise médica 100.0%1
Answered 1
1 Attachment 5
1644

Q6. What number(s) have you called for help with a crisis? (select all that apply) Response PercentResponses
I haven’t called for emergency responders or resources 10.49% 28 911 (Firefighters, Paramedics, Police) 66.67%178
211 (Essential Community Services) 14.98% 40
510-233-1214 (Richmond non-emergency) 50.94%136
County Mental/Behavioral Health Services 9.36% 25
Suicide or other hotline 1.87% 5
Community organization or service provider [non-profit] 9.74% 26 Other resource you’ve used or called: 7.87% 21
Answered 267
Q35. ¿A qué números ha llamado para recibir ayuda con una crisis? (marque todas las opciones pertinentes) No he llamado a los servicios o recursos de emergencia 0.0% 0 911 (bomberos, paramédicos, policía) 84.62% 11
211 (servicios comunitarios esenciales) 30.77% 4
510-233-1214 (para no emergencias) 30.77% 4
Servicios de salud mental/conductual del condado 7.69% 1 Suicidio u otra línea directa 7.69% 1
Organización comunitaria o proveedor de servicios [sin fines de lucro] 7.69% 1 Otro recurso que haya usado o llamado: 0.0% 0
Answered 13
Q63. Qual número(s) você ligou para pedir ajuda?  (selecione todas que se aplicam) 911 (Bombeiros, paramédicos, polícia) 100.0% 1
Answered 1
1 1645

Q7. Do you or a family member have a disability? (check all that apply) Response PercentResponses
No 61.65% 164
I/a family member have mental health challenges 21.05% 56 I/a family member have a physical disability 20.3% 54
I/a family member have a disability that affects my ability to communicate4.14% 11 I/a family member have behavioral or autism spectrum challenges9.02% 24 Answered 266
Q36. ¿Usted o un miembro de su familia tiene una discapacidad? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) No 53.85% 7
Yo/un familiar tengo/tiene problemas de salud mental 23.08% 3 Yo/un familiar tengo/tiene una discapacidad física 15.38% 2 Yo/un familiar tengo/tiene una discapacidad que afecta mi/su habilidad de comunicación7.69% 1 Yo/un miembro de mi familia tengo/tiene problemas de comportamiento o del espectro autista7.69% 1 Answered 13
Q64. Você ou algum membro da família tem alguma deficiência?  (selecione todas que se aplicam) Não 100.0% 1
Answered 1
1 1646

Q8. Has the disability affected your interaction with emergency services? Response PercentResponses
Yes 17.87% 32
No 82.12% 147
Answered 179
Q37. ¿La discapacidad ha afectado su interacción con los servicios de emergencia? Sí 50% 4
No 50% 4
Answered 8
Q65. A deficiência afetou a sua interação com serviços de emergência? Answered 0
1 1647

Q10. The situation was for:

Response PercentResponses
Myself 31.25% 80
A family member/relative 22.66% 58
A friend/neighbor 16.8% 43
A stranger 18.75% 48
Other (please specify) 10.55% 27
Answered 256
Q39. La situación era para:

Mí 30.77% 4
Un familiar/pariente 53.85% 7
Un amigo/vecino 15.38% 2
Un extraño 0.0% 0
Otra opción( especifique) 15.38% 2
Answered 13
Q67. A situação era para:

Um membro da família/parente 100.0% 1
Answered 1
1 1648

Q11. Who responded? (select all that apply)
Response PercentResponses
Police 61.72% 158
Fire Department 35.16% 90
Paramedics/EMS 31.64% 81
Contra Costa County homeless services 6.25% 16
Contra Costa County behavioral health services3.13% 8
Community-based responder 1.95% 5
No one showed up 13.67% 35
Other (please specify) 6.64% 17
Answered 256
Q40. ¿Quién respondió? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Policía 84.62% 11
Cuerpo de bomberos 7.69% 1
Paramédicos/EMS 7.69% 1
Servicios para personas sin hogar del condado de Contra Costa15.38% 2 Servicios de salud conductual del condado de Contra Costa15.38% 2 Personal de auxilio basado en la comunidad0.0% 0
Nadie apareció 30.77% 4
Otro (especifique) 0.0% 0
Answered 13
Q68. Quem respondeu?  (selecione todas que se aplicam)
Paramédicos/EMS 100.0% 1
Answered 1
1 1649

Q12. How long did it take first responders to arrive?
Response PercentResponses
1-5 minutes 16.02% 41
6-10 minutes 24.61% 63
11-15 minutes 19.53% 50
16-60 minutes 19.92% 51
Over 60 minutes 9.77% 25
They never showed up 10.16% 26
Answered 256
Q41. ¿Cuánto tardaron en llegar los primeros en responder? 1-5 minutos 7.69% 1
6-10 minutos 30.77% 4
11-15 minutos 23.08% 3
16-60 minutos 15.38% 2
Más de 60 minutos 15.38% 2
Nunca aparecieron 7.69% 1
Answered 13
Q69. Quanto tempo demorou para a emergência / socorrista chegar? Answer Choices Response PercentResponses
1-5 minutos 0.0% 0
6-10 minutos 100.0% 1
11-15 minutos 0.0% 0
16-60 minutos 0.0% 0
Mais de 60 minutos 0.0% 0
Eles nunca vieram 0.0% 0
Answered 1
1 1650

Q13. How do you feel about the response to the situation? Q13. How do you feel about the response to the situation? Response PercentResponses
I’m glad I called - satisfied 50.39% 129
I shouldn’t have called - disappointed 0.39% 1
It didn’t help or hurt - neutral 29.69% 76
It didn’t help or hurt - neutral 0.39% 1
I shouldn’t have called - disappointed 19.14% 49
Answered 256
Q42. ¿Cómo se siente acerca de la respuesta a la situación? Answer Choices Response PercentResponses
No debí haber llamado - decepcionado/a 0.0% 0
No ayudó ni perjudicó - neutral 0.0% 0
Me alegro de haber llamado - satisfecho/a 46.15% 6
No ayudó ni perjudicó - neutral 46.15% 6
No debí haber llamado - decepcionado/a 7.69% 1
Answered 13
Q70. Como você se sente sobre a resposta à situação?
Estou feliz por ter chamado - satisfeito 100.0% 1
Não ajudou nem atrapalhou - neutro 0.0% 0
Não deveria ter chamado - desapontado 0.0% 0
Answered 1
1 1651

Richmond Resident Survey-- Q14, Q43, Q71
Q14. What did go well interacting with emergency services? (select all that apply) Response PercentResponses
Responders arrived in a reasonable amount of time 49.17%119 Responders provided helpful information or resources 30.58% 74 Responders were well trained 32.23% 78
Responders kept things calm or calmed things down 34.71% 84 Responders were culturally sensitive (understanding people of different backgrounds)19.42% 47 Responders were compassionate 27.69% 67
Responders explained things and answered questions clearly27.27% 66 I felt safe 31.4% 76
The situation was resolved 34.71% 84
Nothing went well 14.46% 35
Other (please specify) 11.16% 27
Answered 242
Q43. ¿Qué salió bien cuando interactuó con el personal de servicios de emergencia?  (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Llegaron en un tiempo razonable 53.85% 7
Proporcionaron información o recursos útiles 15.38% 2
Estaban bien capacitados 15.38% 2
Fueron culturalmente sensibles 15.38% 2
Fueron compasivos 15.38% 2
Explicaron las cosas y respondieron preguntas con claridad23.08% 3 Me sentí seguro/a 15.38% 2
La situación se resolvió 7.69% 1
Nada salió bien 15.38% 2
Otra opción: 23.08% 3
Answered 13
Q71. O que foi bem ao interagir com os serviços de emergência? (selecione todas que se aplicam)Response PercentResponses A emergência chegou em um tempo razoável 100.0% 1
A emergência forneceu informações ou recursos úteis 0.0% 0 A emergência / os socorristas eram bem treinados 0.0% 0 Os socorristas mantiveram as coisas calmas ou acalmaram as coisas0.0% 0 Os socorristas foram atenciosos (entenderam pessoas de diferentes backgrounds)0.0% 0 Os socorristas foram compassivos / altruístas 0.0% 0
Os respondentes explicaram coisas e responderam a perguntas de forma clara0.0% 0 Eu me senti seguro 100.0% 1
A situação foi resolvida 100.0% 1
1 1652

Richmond Resident Survey Q15, Q44, Q72
Q15. What did not go well interacting with emergency services? (select all that apply) Answer Choices Response PercentResponses
Responders arrived too late or never arrived 27.27%66
Responders did not provide any information or resources 13.22%32 Responders were poorly trained 9.09% 22
Responders were not culturally sensitive  (understanding people of different backgrounds)13.64%33 Responders did not keep things calm or calm things down 6.61% 16 Responders overused their power 8.26% 20
Responders didn’t listen or were not compassionate 18.18%44 Responders didn’t explain things or answer questions clearly7.44% 18 I felt unsafe 9.5% 23
The response made the situation worse 11.16%27
Nothing went badly 38.84%94
Other (please specify) 16.53%40
Answered 242
Q44. ¿Qué no salió bien cuando interactuó con el personal de servicios de emergencia?  (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Llegaron demasiado tarde o nunca llegaron 46.15% 6
No escucharon 0.0% 0
No explicaron las cosas ni respondieron preguntas con claridad15.38% 2 No proporcionaron ninguna información ni recursos 0.0% 0 Estaban mal capacitados 0.0% 0
No fueron culturalmente sensibles 0.0% 0
Abusaron de su poder 0.0% 0
La respuesta empeoró la situación 0.0% 0
Me sentí inseguro/a 15.38% 2
Nada salió mal 30.77% 4
Otra opción: 7.69% 1
Answered 13
Q72. O que não correu bem ao interagir com os serviços de emergência? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Os socorristas chegaram tarde demais ou nunca chegaram.0.0% 0 Os socorristas não forneceram nenhuma informação ou recursos.0.0% 0 Os socorristas foram mal treinados. 0.0% 0
Os socorristas não eram culturalmente sensíveis (entendendo pessoas de diferentes origens).100.0% 1 Os socorristas não mantiveram a calma ou acalmaram as coisas.0.0% 0 Os socorristas usaram em demasia seu poder. 0.0% 0
Os socorristas não ouviram ou não foram compassivos. 0.0% 0 Os socorristas não explicaram as coisas nem responderam claramente às perguntas.0.0% 0 1 1653

Richmond Resident Survey Q16, Q45, Q73
Richmond Resident Survey Q16, Q45, Q73
Q16. What was the result of your call or interaction? (select all that apply) Answer Choices Response PercentResponses
Hospitalization 29.34% 71
Arrest 9.92% 24
Referred to services 15.29% 37
Made things more complicated 8.68% 21
Nothing changed 20.25% 49
Officers did not offer any help 10.33% 25
Provided referrals to an aftercare service or facility 7.02% 17 Gave additional resources that could help the situation 15.29% 37 I do not know 21.49% 52
Other (please specify) 13.22% 32
Answered 242
Q45. ¿Cuál fue el resultado de su llamada o interacción?  (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Hospitalización 23.08% 3
Arresto 23.08% 3
Derivaron a servicios 7.69% 1
Se complicaron las cosas 0.0% 0
Nada cambió 15.38% 2
No sé 7.69% 1
Los oficiales no ofrecieron ninguna ayuda 0.0% 0
Hicieron derivación a un servicio o instalación de cuidado posterior0.0% 0 Dieron recursos adicionales que podrían ayudar con la situación7.69% 1 Otra opción (explique) 23.08% 3
Answered 13
Q73. Qual foi o resultado da chamada ou interação? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Answer Choices Response PercentResponses
Hospitalização 100.0% 1
Prisão 0.0% 0
Referido a serviços 0.0% 0
Tornou as coisas mais complicadas 0.0% 0
Nada mudou 0.0% 0
Os oficiais não ajudaram 0.0% 0
1 1654

Richmond Resident Survey Q18, Q47, Q75
Richmond Resident Survey Q18, Q47, Q75
Q18. Does anything stop you from calling 911 or interacting with responders? (check all that apply)Response PercentResponses I haven’t had a reason to call or interact with emergency responders36.25%149 I have had bad experiences with the police 12.9%53
I am on parole/probation 2.19% 9
I might have an outstanding warrant 2.19% 9
I’m worried about my immigration status 3.16%13
I don’t trust police / they might make it worse 23.6%97 I have trouble communicating in English or because of a disability2.19% 9 Emergency services won’t come or takes too long 14.6%60 Emergency services won’t help with the situation 9.49%39 There is no reason that stops me from calling or interacting with emergency services36.98%152 Other (please specify) 7.54%31
Answered 411
Q47. ¿Algo le impide llamar al 911 o interactuar con el personal de emergencias?  (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) No he tenido una razón para llamar o interactuar con ellos 52.0%13 He tenido malas experiencias con la policía 8.0% 2
Estoy en libertad condicional/libertad condicional 0.0% 0 Podría tener una orden pendiente 0.0% 0
Me preocupa mi estatus migratorio 4.0% 1
No confío en la policía / podrían empeorarlo 4.0% 1
Tengo problemas para comunicarme en inglés o debido a una discapacidad12.0% 3 Los servicios de emergencia no llegan o tardan demasiado 28.0% 7 Los servicios de emergencia no ayudarán con la situación 4.0% 1 No hay motivo que me impida llamar o interactuar con los servicios de emergencia12.0% 3 Otra opción (especifique) 4.0% 1
Answered 25
Q75. Algo te impede de ligar para 911 ou interagir com os responsáveis? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Eu não tive motivo para ligar ou interagir com os serviços de emergência66.67%2 Eu tive experiências ruins com a polícia 0.0% 0
Eu estou em liberdade condicional/probatório 0.0% 0
Eu poderia ter uma ordem de prisão pendente 33.33%1
Estou preocupado com o meu estatuto de imigração 0.0% 0 Eu não confio na polícia / isso poderia piorar 0.0% 0
Tenho dificuldade em comunicar em inglês ou devido a uma deficiência 0.0% 0 Os serviços de emergência não vêm ou demoram muito 0.0% 0 Os serviços de emergência não ajudam na situação 0.0% 0 Não há motivo que me impeça de ligar ou interagir com os serviços de emergência0.0% 0 Outro (por favor explique) 0.0% 0
Answered 3
1 1655

Richmond Resident Survey Q19, Q48, Q76
Q19. What would make Richmond’s current emergency responses better? (select all that apply) Response PercentResponses
Improve response/arrival time 48.66%200
More focus on keeping residents safe 38.44%158
Improve de-escalation (calming down a situation) 45.74%188 Improve cultural sensitivity (understanding people of different cultures or backgrounds)41.61%171 Offer more resources to support residents in crisis situations45.26%186 Offer alternative mobile crisis assistance without police 47.69%196 Other (please specify) 14.36%59
Answered 411
Q48. ¿Qué mejoraría las respuestas a emergencias actuales de Richmond? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Mejorar el tiempo de respuesta/llegada 60.0%15
Más enfoque en mantener seguros a los residentes 48.0%12 Mejorar la desescalada (calmar una situación) 28.0% 7
Mejorar la sensibilidad cultural (comprender a las personas de diferentes culturas u orígenes)20.0% 5 Ofrecer más recursos para apoyar a los residentes en situaciones de crisis52.0%13 Ofrecer asistencia de crisis móvil alternativa sin policía 20.0% 5 Otra opción (especifique) 8.0% 2
Answered 25
Q76. O que tornaria as respostas de emergência atuais de Richmond melhores? Melhore o tempo de resposta/chegada 100.0%3
Mais foco em manter os residentes seguros 33.33%1
Melhore o desescalação (acalmar uma situação) 0.0% 0
Melhore a sensibilidade cultural (entendendo pessoas de diferentes culturas ou origens)33.33%1 Ofereça mais recursos para apoiar os residentes em crises 0.0% 0 Ofereça assistência móvel de crise alternativa sem a polícia0.0% 0 Outro (por favor, explique) 0.0% 0
Answered 3
1 1656

Richmond Resident Survey Q20, Q49, Q77
Q20. What stops you from getting help with crisis situations - other than 911? (select all that apply) Response PercentResponses
I don’t know how to find help or resources 28.47%117
Help isn’t available on nights or weekends 17.03%70
There are rules or restrictions on who can get help 13.38%55 There are too many rules about getting help 16.06%66
Calling for help might involve the police 22.38%92
The right kind of help is not available 21.65%89
I have never had trouble getting help during a crisis 25.79%106 There are people in my community who help out (mutual aid)11.19%46 Other (please specify) 11.19%46
Answered 411
Q49. ¿Qué le impide obtener ayuda en situaciones de crisis, aparte del 911? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) No sé cómo encontrar ayuda o recursos 32.0% 8
La ayuda no está disponible en las noches o los fines de semana 8.0% 2 Hay reglas o restricciones sobre quién puede obtener ayuda8.0% 2 Hay demasiadas reglas para obtener ayuda 16.0% 4
Pedir ayuda puede involucrar a la policía 8.0% 2
El tipo correcto de ayuda no está disponible 4.0% 1
Nunca he tenido problemas para obtener ayuda durante una crisis8.0% 2 Hay personas en mi comunidad que ayudan (ayuda mutua) 28.0% 7 Otra opción (especifique) 8.0% 2
Answered 25
Q77. Qual é que te impede de obter ajuda em crises - além do 911? Não sei como encontrar ajuda ou recursos 100.0%3
A ajuda não está disponível à noite ou aos fins de semana 33.33%1 Há regras ou restrições sobre quem pode obter ajuda 0.0% 0 Há muitas regras sobre como obter ajuda 0.0% 0
Chamar por ajuda pode envolver a polícia 0.0% 0
O tipo certo de ajuda não está disponível 0.0% 0
Nunca tive problemas para obter ajuda durante uma crise 0.0% 0 Há pessoas na minha comunidade que ajudam (ajuda mútua)0.0% 0 Quais são os números ou organizações que você liga para encontrar ajuda?0.0% 0 Answered 3
1 1657

Richmond Resident Survey Q22, Q51, Q78
Q22. The City of Richmond is developing a Community Crisis Response Program to respond to certain low-level emergency calls.

Do you support a program where well-trained community members respond to some appropriate situations instead of police? Response PercentResponses
Yes 86.62%356
No 13.38%55
Answered411
Q51. La Ciudad de Richmond está desarrollando un Programa de respuesta a crisis de la comunidad para responder a ciertas llamadas de emergencia de bajo nivel. ¿Usted apoya que haya un programa en el que miembros de la comunidad bien capacitados respondan a algunas situaciones adecuadas en lugar de la policía? Sí 96.0%24
No 4.0%1
Answered 25
Q78. A cidade de Richmond está desenvolvendo o Programa de Resposta a Crise na Comunidade (Community Crisis Response Program) para responder a certas chamadas de emergência de baixo nível. Você apoia um programa onde membros da comunidade bem treinados respondem a algumas situações apropriadas ao invés da polícia? Sim 100.0%3
Não 0.0%0
Answered 3
1 1658

Richmond Resident Survey Q24, Q53, Q80
Q24. How old are you?
Response PercentResponses
Under 18 2.72% 11
18-24 5.2% 21
25-34 16.58% 67
35-44 22.52% 91
45-54 13.61% 55
55-64 11.14% 45
65-74 14.85% 60
75 or older 8.66% 35
Decline to state 4.7% 19
Answered 404
Q53. ¿Cuántos años tiene?
menores de 18 años 8.33% 2
18-24 0.0% 0
25 - 34 4.17% 1
35 - 44 25.0% 6
45 - 54 41.67% 10
55 - 64 12.5% 3
65 - 74 4.17% 1
75 años o más 0.0% 0
No quiero contestar 4.17% 1
Answered 24
Q80. Quantos anos você tem?
18 - 24 0.0% 0
25 - 34 0.0% 0
35 - 44 0.0% 0
45 - 54 33.33% 1
1 1659

Richmond Resident Survey Q25, Q54, Q81
Q25. What is your race/ethnicity? (select all that apply) Response PercentResponses
White/Caucasian 38.62% 151
Black/African American 23.53% 92
Hispanic/Latino 26.09% 102
Asian/Asian American 10.74% 42
American Indian or Alaska Native 2.81% 11
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1.28% 5
Decline to state 0.0% 0
Arab/Middle Eastern 0.51% 2
Other (please specify) 7.16% 28
Answered 391
Q54. ¿Cuál es su raza/etnicidad? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Blanco o caucásico 0.0% 0
Negro o afroamericano 0.0% 0
Hispano o latino 95.65% 22
Asiático o asiático americano 0.0% 0
Indio americano o nativo de Alaska 4.35% 1
Nativo de Hawái u otra isla del Pacífico 0.0% 0
No quiero contestar 0.0% 0
Árabe o persona del medio oriente 0.0% 0
Otra raza (Especifique) 0.0% 0
Answered 23
Q81. Qual sua raça/etnia? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Branco ou caucasiano 0.0% 0
Preto ou afro-americano 100.0% 3
Hispânico ou latino 33.33% 1
Asiático ou ásio-americano 0.0% 0
1 1660

Richmond Resident Survey Q26, Q55, Q82
Q26. What is your gender identity and orientation? (select all that apply) Response PercentResponses
Female 62.92% 246
Male 30.43% 119
Transgender 0.77% 3
Gender fluid/non-binary 3.32% 13
LGBQIA+ 8.18% 32
Decline to state 0.0% 0
Other (your chosen term) 2.56% 10
Answered 391
Q55. ¿Cuál es su identidad y orientación de género? (marque todas las opciones que correspondan) Mujer 86.96% 20
Hombre 13.04% 3
Transgénero 0.0% 0
Género fluido / no binario 0.0% 0
LGBQIA+ 0.0% 0
No quiero contestar 0.0% 0
Su término elegido: 0.0% 0
Answered 23
Q82. Qual sua identidade de gênero e orientação? (selecione todas que se aplicam) Answer Choices Response PercentResponses
Mulher 66.67% 2
Homem 33.33% 1
Transgênero 0.0% 0
Gênero fluído/não binário 0.0% 0
LGBQI+ 0.0% 0
Seu termo de escolha: 0.0% 0
Answered 3
1 1661

Richmond Resident Survey Q27, Q56, Q83
Q27. How do you describe your housing situation?
Response PercentResponses
Unhoused 5.9% 23
At risk of being unhoused 1.03% 4
In transitional housing 1.79% 7
Renter/Tenant 28.97% 113
Home owner 56.67% 221
Decline to state 0.0% 0
Other (please specify) 5.64% 22
Answered 390
Q56. ¿Cómo describe su situación de vivienda?
Sin casa 0.0% 0
En riesgo de quedarse sin casa 5.0% 1
En vivienda transitoria 0.0% 0
Inquilino 40.0% 8
Propietario de casa 45.0% 9
No quiero contestar 0.0% 0
Otra: 10.0% 2
Answered 20
Q83. Como você descreve sua atual situação de domicílio? Pessoa em situação de rua 0.0% 0
Em risco de se tornar uma pessoa em situação de rua 66.67% 2 De mudança 0.0% 0
Inquilino 33.33% 1
Proprietário de casa 0.0% 0
Outro: 0.0% 0
Answered 3
1 1662
Community Crisis
Response Program
Receive the Draft Report on the Development and
Implementation of a Community Crisis Response
Program
Richmond City Council
September 12, 2023
David Harris & Anne Janks - Urban Strategies Council
LaShonda White & Patrick Seals - City of Richmond
1663
● Founded in 1987
● Nationally recognized organization based in the Bay Area, California ● Focused on advancing positive health, economic, and educational outcomes in communities of color, utilizing:
○ Data & Research
○ Leadership Development & Training
○ Collaboration Building
○ Policy Innovation and Advocacy
Who We Are
1664
Community Engagement in CCRP Development
Surveys
Paper surveys were distributed at events, meetings, and shared by community organizations.

Online links were distributed by the city, USC, and community organizations.

Five languages: English, Hindi, Spanish, Portuguese, and Mandarin.

Focus Groups and Community Forums
Nine focus groups and two city community forums.

Stakeholder Interviews
Richmond and Contra Costa’s municipal and County governments Community-based and civic organizations
Service providers
Local businesses
Individuals directly impacted by an experience with the emergency call system “Community engagement is a part of community design. Engagement is a foundation for educating and organizing the community to support implementation”
1665
Engagement Explores Residents’ Experiences
● Interactions with emergency services
● Access to emergency and non-emergency services
● Barriers to access
● Outcomes
● Community assets
● Unrecognized, under-developed, under-funded community resources ● Informal and community support during crisis
● Where and how residents receive information about resources and services
“Community engagement is a part of community design. Engagement is a foundation for educating and organizing the community to support implementation”
1666
1667
1668
1669
Community Response Elements
● Respond to a broad range of calls (not solely identified mental health calls) ● Help residents access referrals and resources
● Engagement is voluntary (no arrest, no involuntary hospitalization) ● Reflects the unique needs and resources of diverse neighborhoods ● Teams recruited from the communities they serve
● Good jobs that honor the challenging work, enable team members to thrive
● Teams are experienced and well -trained, but not professional clinicians 1670
Common Calls Dispatched to Alternative Response Teams
Welfare Check
Down & Out/Sleeper/Unsheltered
individual/subject down
Intoxicated person
Panhandling
Obstructing a business/sidewalk
Refusing to leave a business/trespass
Loitering
Person in traffic/traffic hazard
Disorderly person
Public urination/Indecent exposure
Public drug and alcohol use
Incorrigible youth/disorderly juvenile
Found senile/confused/disoriented person
Disturbance/Nuisance complaint
Noise complaint
Neighbor conflict
Family/relationship dispute
Needles for pickup
Death notification
Chronic caller/repeat users
Public assist
Incomplete 911 call
Police/Fire/EMS request assistance
(up to 30% of calls some programs respond to)
1671
What Would Make Richmond’s Emergency Services Better?
1672
No
Yes
1673
Potential Pilot Implementation Structural Options

1. Non-Profit - Issue an RFP for an independent non-profit agency (vendor) to run the program.

Lessons learned from Antioch’s non-profit program implementation can inform the pros and cons for Richmond’s decision-making.

2. Existing City Office – Institute the CCRP within an existing municipal department. Potential candidates include the Richmond Fire Department, the Community Services Department, and the Office of Neighborhood Safety. Based on resident feedback, the CCRP should not be implemented under the Richmond Police Department.

3. New City Department – Create a new City department that includes the CCRP and potentially other current initiatives (e.g., social service needs).

4. Nonprofit Hybrid Model – Initiate the CCRP in a non-profit (to implement the pilot) with the intention of the CCRP then being brought into the City.

5. Richmond Partnership with Contra Costa County - Negotiate with Contra Costa to provide the services the City of Richmond.

Pilot program rollout timeline depends on the implementation decisions, as do the estimated pilot costs. ​This assumes the CCRP pilot runs for 18 months to two years. 1674
Budget Projections and Assumptions

1. Program expenditures are tentative until the following are finalized:
a. Where program is housed
b. Operational decisions

2. Staffing level 24 hours/day, 7 days/week program operation (14 FTEs)

3. Projected (average) annual salaries for each position (based on salary ranges for similar Richmond job classifications)
Positions (with estimated salaries):
● Program Manager – $120,000
● Administrative/Data Analyst – $80,000 ($40,000 for .5 FTE) ● Community Crisis Responder – $70,000
● Emergency Medical Technician – $80,000
● Mental Health Clinician – $130,000 ($65,000 for .5 FTE) 1675
Budget Projections and Assumptions
Non-Profit
Structure FTE Salary
Subtotal Benefit (35%) Total Comp
(12 mos.)
Total Comp (6
mos.)
Personnel 14 $1,125,000 $393,750 $1,518,750 $759,375
Operations $351,000 $175,500
Total(s) $1,869,750 $934,875
City Structure FTE Salary
Subtotal Benefit (80%) Total Comp
(12 mos.)
Total Comp (6
mos.)
Personnel 14 $1,125,000 $900,000 $2,025,000 $1,012,500
Operations $351,000 $175,500
Total(s) $2,376,000 $1,187,500
Assumptions: 24/7 coverage, 14 FTEs, estimated salaries based on potential classifications from Richmond’s current salary schedule, 35% benefit rate for non -profits, 80% benefit rate for Richmond, cost pool rates not included for City, classifications and salary ranges not established, meet and confer with unions has not occurred, etc. 1676
Ongoing Stakeholder & Community Engagement

1. Community Advisory Board to provide oversight and support for the program.

2. Regular and structured meetings with service providers offering referrals and resources for CCRP.

3. Citywide outreach and public education campaign.

4. Regularly updated public facing CCRP website and a data dashboard.

5. Complaint and feedback mechanism and a process for the review of complaints.
1677
Next Steps
• Hire a program manager position to lead the CCRP work • Create other job classifications, based on the selected program model • Work with USC on a Request For Proposal (if a decision is made to contract with a non-profit)
• Discuss dispatch and training with RPD
• Discuss hiring and placement of EMTs with CCC EMS and RFD • Continue coordination with CCC A3 program
• Purchase one or more vehicles
• Develop CCRP protocols
• Create community outreach and engagement plan
• Define referral relationships with community-based service providers • Discuss a strong data collection, monitoring, and evaluation system • Develop internal and external agreements
1678

THANK YOU &

QUESTIONS
RECEIVE a draft report and presentation from Urban Strategies Council regarding Community Crisis Response Program model options; and PROVIDE DIRECTION to City staff
1679

1 Questions and Response about the Urban Strategies Council (USC) CCRP proposal The challenge in answering almost all of these questions is that either it requires a specific answer to a layered question, or it seeks answers to very specific details that will be worked out by the team that is developing and implementing the pilot. As such, please accept the following responses as a good faith effort to provide some general answers although the specifics will and should be addressed by the team who is implementing the pilot.

Transportation

1. When will the Community Crisis Response Program (CCRP) transport clients? Without knowing the specifics yet to be determined during development and implementation, transportation can be a valuable piece in finding solutions to a crisis. What we have learned from other programs, the optimal approach to transportation is to leave as much discretion as possible to the team as to when transportation is an appropriate part of resolving a crisis.

Providing transportation should always be voluntary - a solution developed with the person.

2. Who will transport people with a medical emergency?
EMS will continue to transport people who are in a medical emergency. If the Community Crisis Response Program (CCRP) team encounters someone in a medical emergency, they will notify dispatch and help to stabilize the person, following standard EMT protocols, and support the community while awaiting EMS response.

3. How will people who need transportation to services be helped? The CCRP will have a knowledge of what referral services are available and the specific considerations of each. If appropriate, the team can offer transportation to the appropriate agreed upon referral service and provide a warm handoff to ensure a successful transition. The CCRP team will be responding within a very imperfect system of support and services.

Sometimes, the best referral will be unavailable, not open, or not accessible for the resident in need. All the CCRP can do is help the person identify the best solution, given the limitations of the moment. That is all that would be available no matter which emergency responder was there.

4. Providing citywide services - Richmond covers 33 square miles - how will one CCRP unit serve this area?
As with any emergency response, the response of the CCRP team is dependent on other demands on the team, the location of the needed response, and other immediate factors. Antioch currently has one team on each of two shifts covering Antioch’s 28 square miles. CCRP will respond as quickly and efficiently, with the support and professional judgment of dispatchers, as possible.

1680

2 5. Situations to be responded to/populations to be served - what are likely responses? • Person drunk in public • Panhandling/Aggressive Panhandling • Disorderly juveniles - group • Auto Disturbance - noise, revving engine • Loud music - Noise complaint • Incorrigible juvenile • Confused/senile person • Family dispute • Neighbor disputes • Incomplete 911 call • Trespasser/unwanted person • Loitering • Public urination/indecent exposure (without criminal intent) • Wellness check • Subject down (often resident asleep in public) • Found syringe • Person screaming • Person needing referral to services • People in vehicles/camping in public If dispatched to one of these situations, the CCRP response will (most broadly) be to seek to understand exactly what is happening, hear from all of the people involved, and de-escalate and find an appropriate solution. Each of these examples can often benefit from an alternative response and may be appropriate for a CCRP response or, depending on the specific circumstances, may be more appropriate for a police, fire, or EMS response. Often situations have more than one element present.

6. It appears that CCRP teams will need some orientation to working with people who may need help in dealing with situations like family or neighbor disputes or disorderly juveniles or confused/senile people - how will teams be helped with this? Along with general training on safety, de-escalation, referral networks, and city procedures, CCRP teams will receive training on the unique needs and considerations of engaging with vulnerable populations and specific types of situations they are likely to encounter or need to be aware of, such as domestic violence, human trafficking, mental health challenges, issues for young people, immigrant communities, and people with physical, developmental, and communication disabilities.

7. Are any people with mental health issues to be served by CCRP? All current emergency responders engage regularly with people who are experiencing mental health challenges. Although some people with identified and diagnosed challenges may receive a county A3 response, CCRP teams will be responding to situations that involve Richmond residents with mental health challenges.

1681

3 8. What are the services in Richmond to which CCRP can refer people? There is a broad network of services that may be appropriate to refer Richmond residents to, some in Richmond and throughout the county. The goal of CCRP during development and implementation will be to identify referral services, understand the parameters of each referral, and develop relationships.

9. Why focus on EMTs instead of trained community medical staff? CMW could be an acceptable alternative.

The most practical reason to use Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) is that they have a skill set that is appropriate for assessing and providing minor medical support to community members. Developing a separate standard that is not generally used in other settings or programs would require identifying the specific skills the program believes are a priority and then developing a process to either ensure that applicants have those skills or developing a curriculum and training program to train in house. USC would not recommend adding this additional requirement. It also creates another possible area of concern for the credibility of the program.

10. Why would people call 911 instead of 311 for CCRP?
Programs that have worked to educate communities to use a new number all report that it is a very heavy lift to get people to use new numbers or use an existing number in a new way. It is exponentially easier to train the professionals who receive calls to identify and divert calls under a new protocol. If 311 were the entry point to request a CCRP response, it also leaves the existing 911 calls which do not necessitate a police response without an alternative response. Many, if not the majority of, calls that CCRP responds to will be calls that are not placed by the person who will receive the response.

11. Concern about transportation – what happens for people that are not transported Transportation can be a valuable piece in finding solutions to a crisis. Some situations can not be improved by offering transportation. For example, a person might be in their own home or where they feel safe and once the issue at the center of the crisis is addressed, they want to stay where they are.

12. There were several questions about whether the county’s Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime (A3) program and CCRP would be redundant or overlapping and whether the situations being responded to are overlapping.

The research reflected in this report includes meetings with the county staff, Supervisor Gioia, and Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime (A3) leadership and staff. Even when A3 is fully implemented, it is designed to respond to behavioral health situations. There is a broad swath of low-level calls that will never fall under the purview of A3 yet do not need a police or fire response. Virtually all of the examples of calls listed in the report are not situations that A3 would respond to.

USC recommends ongoing engagement and collaboration with A3 to ensure that there are neither gaps, nor overlaps in the provision of services (e.g., resources, information, and protocols).

1682

4 13. How is CCRP not redundant to A3 tier 3 with peer response? There are no EMTs used in the A3 model. It has been the experience of other programs that it is valuable for the team to have some modest medical training. Often, the team will be engaging Richmond residents who have faced barriers in accessing health care and not only will assist with minor ongoing conditions (most frequently, “swamp foot” and wound care) as well as assisting residents to connect to care for more serious conditions.

The tiers of response for A3 are all for behavioral health situations, including the “peer” response. While the peer response is closest to the CCRP model, CCRP is intended to respond to a much broader range of situations that A3 has indicated remains distinct in the ways outlined.

The most significant reason that redundancy between the two programs is not going to be a real obstacle is that there are more than enough calls and situations that are appropriate for an alternative response for both A3 and CCRP to respond to, even at full capacity.

14. Can 14 qualified FTEs even be hired by Jan 2024 for a 6-month pilot, especially given the staffing challenges that the County has experienced with both A3 and CORE? A3 did appear to face staffing challenges. The county has significantly increased the wage structure for the positions and it appears to have ameliorated some of those recruitment obstacles. A3 faces significantly more hiring challenges because of their licensing and certification requirements. The city of Antioch’s new alternative emergency response team was fully staffed efficiently and quickly. It may be worth some discussions with the management of A3 and Antioch’s alternative response team to learn about their experiences and recommendations on how to best approach recruitment and staffing.

15. Would these positions in any way cross-compete and perhaps hinder the County’s ability to staff A3’s goal of 32 teams?

There is not significant overlap between the positions that A3 and CCRP will be recruiting for. A3 does not have EMTs on their teams. A3 will be recruiting many more staff with mental health backgrounds and specific certifications and licenses. There may be some overlap between the “peer” position at A3 and CCRP community responder position although A3 has additional requirements, even for the peer positions . The trend is for more of these positions being created in jurisdictions across the country. The initial number of positions for CCRP is fairly small compared to the number of positions that A3 will need to meet the goal of 32 teams.

16. What happens now if someone calls 911 or RPD non-emergency and dispatch determines A3 should respond?
A3 needs to respond to this question.

1683

5 17. Will RPD Dispatch now make the call to direct a response to A3 vs. CCRP and how exactly will that determined?

The report recommends that the dispatch management and staff be involved in development of the protocols on identifying appropriate calls to be dispatched to CCRP and subsequently continue to have structured, regular collaboration with RPD dispatch to address issues, concerns, and questions and strengthen and expand dispatch to CCRP. The exact calls to dispatch to CCRP and the protocols need to be developed with CCRP and RPD dispatch participation. Urban Strategies Council (USC) will provide information about what other programs have found successful and how they have overcome obstacles.

A3 will identify how they engage with each jurisdiction’s emergency response and dispatch. A3 will identify the types of calls and what qualifying questions they would ask.

18. Will Richmond receive fewer A3 services with their own CCRP in place — i.e., will their calls be lower priority since the county may assume their resources may be better served in other cities that don’t have a potentially redundant service?

Alternative emergency response programs typically collect good data on calls, including location, response time, how the call is coded, and outcomes. USC expects that the City of Richmond will be able to look at and compare data.

This question assumes a greater level of overlap in the types of calls and situations that A3 and CCRP would respond to than is indicated.

19. Personally, I would want RPD to respond to a call for a trespasser / unwanted person, and I would be upset if dispatch didn’t send a police officer.

“Unwanted person” and “trespasser” is a code used for a broad set of situations. You may be thinking about someone who has come into your backyard uninvited. The code is also used for a person who does not want to leave a cafe or parking lot. Within a call type, depending on the specifics, it may be appropriate for CCRP or a police response. This scenario also assumes that you can receive a timely police response. Often, the question is: do you want a response from a team that can probably resolve the situation or do you want to wait several hours for a police response to a low-priority call?

20. I am alarmed to see “family dispute” on the list given that DV situations can be one of the most deadly encounters for law enforcement.

Not every call which would be coded a “family dispute” is a domestic violence situation. Dispatchers routinely get calls from a parent complaining about a child who is threatening to run away or refuses to go to school. Family disputes fill a range of situations, many of which could benefit from an alternative 1684

6 response that focuses on de-escalation, which often requires time which is simply unavailable during a police response.

21. No one can predict which “low-level” call may go in a bad direction or how quickly that can occur, so to think that a radio call for emergency backup will save a CCRP team member from harm may be overly optimistic at best.

Concerns about the safety of the response team is one of the most common questions for unarmed alternative response programs. As more programs have been implemented, the evidence builds that alternative responses can be done safely. There are several layers to making CCRP as safe as possible.

Dispatch does an initial safety assessment, the response team must be well trained, including safety training, and ensuring that all interactions with residents are voluntary. The safety design is not relying on calling police as the sole or primary safety strategy. It may help to remind those concerned that unarmed responders are not new - fire and EMS respond without police routinely.

22. If a non-profit implement this, how are they and CCRP team members held accountable for their actions or lack thereof?

The USC report recommends the creation of a Community Advisory Board to ensure transparency and ongoing engagement with Richmond residents. A process to receive and investigate resident complaints is expected to be present upon project implementation. A non-profit would be contracted with the city and the metrics identified for the successful implementation of the pilot.

23. Who is liable when something goes wrong and a crisis response team member is hurt or worse, killed?
As has been previously shared, the details of the program (e.g., operating procedures, policies, training, protocols etc.) have yet to be defined at this point. However, liability with regard to injuries for those serving in this capacity will require thorough discussion with the City Attorney’s Office, as well as the Risk Management Division, and take into consideration past practice and current policies. 1685