September 24, 2024
Economic Development
Port
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Charles Gerard, Port Director
Lizeht Zepeda, Senior Business Assistance Officer
Kyle Lam, Management Analyst
Subject:
Resolution to Approve Final Payment to WR Forde
Associates, Inc. for Services Rendered for Leak Repair in 2020
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed expenditure of $16,290.08 will be paid with funds approved for the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 (Account
String 40163080-400708-36009).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
May 19, 2020
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
In early January 2020, the Port identified a significant leak in the water line at the Point Potrero Marine
Terminal (PPMT). Additional leaks were discovered,
necessitating emergency repairs and infrastructure
improvements. WR Forde Associates, Inc. was awarded
a Construction Agreement to address these issues.
Although the work was completed and additional
changes to the contract were made, the final payment of $16,290.08 remains pending due to a management
transition. The agreement expired in June 2021, and the Port now seeks to resolve this matter by processing the final payment and closing out the project.
AGENDA
REPORT
376
September 24, 2024
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT a resolution to approve the final payment of $16,290.08 to WR Forde Associates, Inc. for services
rendered for the Leak Repair Project in the year 2020;
and ACCEPT the completed project and formal close out
the project; and AUTHORIZE the city manager, or their
designee, to execute any necessary documentation to
process the final payment and close out the agreement – Economic Development Department (Charles Gerard
510-829-2253/Lizeht Zepeda 510-620-6653/Kyle Lam
510-620-6802).
DISCUSSION:
In early January 2020, the Port identified a leaking water line at the Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT). While attempting to isolate the leak by closing valves, additional leaks were discovered in the underground mains and at the dock. Portions of the existing water system date back to the original 1940s shipyard infrastructure.
To address these issues, the Port initiated a request for proposals (RFP) for the necessary repairs. After evaluating the submissions, WR Forde Associates, Inc. (WR Forde), based in Richmond, was selected for having submitted the lowest, responsive, and responsible bid. Given the urgency of the situation, the work was authorized to proceed on an emergency basis.
At the City Council meeting on May 19, 2020, WR Forde Associates, Inc. was awarded a Construction Agreement. The agreement included an initial lump sum payment of $23,275 for the initial work to repair the water line. Additionally, a contingency amount of $131,725 was allocated to cover unforeseen conditions related to water line rehabilitation and pavement repairs, to be paid on a time and materials basis. The total value of the agreement was set at $155,000.
During the course of repairs, WR Forde encountered additional water leaks. The Port directed the contractor to address these leaks to prevent water loss and ensure the continued functionality of the fire water system. WR Forde also completed necessary pavement repairs as part of the finalization of improvements. Given that asphalt crews were already on-site, the Port seized a cost-effective opportunity to further expand the scope of work to include additional infrastructure improvements.
In May 2020, a first change order was issued, directing the contractor to complete extra work based on unforeseen conditions encountered during the original leak repair. The contract price was increased by $112,820.86, bringing the new total to $136,095.86.
In December 2020, a second change order increased the contract price by $9,485.28, resulting in a final contract price of $145,581.14. This increase was due to the Engineer's directive in November 2020 for WR Forde to investigate the source of 377
September 24, 2024
additional pressure loss in the fire water system located south of the AWC facility, near the General Warehouse and Riggers Loft.
WR Forde has been paid $129,291.06. On November 30, 2021, WR Forde submitted an invoice for the final payment of $16,290.08, bringing the total payment to $145,581.14—an amount below the original contract value.
Due to a management transition from the former Port Director, Jim Matzorkis, to the current staff, the final payment of $16,290.08 was delayed. WR Forde’s Construction Agreement with the Port expired in June 2021 before the Port could issue this payment.
The Port recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the final payment of $16,290.08 to WR Forde Associates for the project. Additionally, the resolution should authorize the acceptance and closure of the project and grant the City Manager, or their designee, the authority to execute all necessary documentation to process the payment and close out the agreement.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – WR Forde Associates Agreement – May 2020 Attachment 2 – Change Order Number 1 – May 2020
Attachment 3 – Change Order Number 2 – December 2020
Attachment 4 – After the Fact Form; Emergency Justification Form; and Contract Amendment
Attachment 5 - Resolution
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
1322 Canal Boulevard Richmond, CA 94801
PORT DEPARTMENT
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 1
Project: Water Line Repair
Location: Point Potrero Marine Terminal Date: May 2020
Vendor Number: Purchase Order: N/A
Contractor: WR Forde Sheet: 1 of 1
The following changes are hereby made to the Contract Documents:
The Engineer hereby directs the Contractor to complete Extra Work based on unforeseen conditions encountered during the progress of the original leak repair. This Contractor shall complete the following:
1. The Contractor shall complete a 2 inch mill and placement of asphalt concrete of up to 14,000 square feet of area as directed in the field by the Port within the Point Potrero Marine Terminal. The Contractor shall re-stripe to the current conditions. The total lump sum value of this work is $68,180.00.
2. The Contractor shall locate and raise four sanitary sewer manholes in the locations shown in the attached exhibit.
This work shall be completed in accordance with the City of Richmond ’s standards. The total lump sum value of this work is $15,640.00.
3. The Contractor shall complete additional leak detection within the Point Potrero Marine Terminal to determine the location of a new leak discovered by the East Bay Municipal Utility District within the fire water system. The total value of this work shall not exceed $9,300.86 invoiced on a time and materials not to exceed basis.
4. The Contractor shall excavate and repair the fire water pipeline that was found to be leaking near the rail support building as shown in the attached . T he Contractor shall backfill and re store the surface to existing or better condition. The total lump sum value of this work is $19,700.00.
The total value for this work is $112,820.86.
Change to Contract Price:
Original Contract Price: $ 23,275
Current Contract Price, as adjusted by previous Change Orders: $ 23,275 The Contract Price due to this Change Order will be increased by: $ 112,820.86 The new Contract Price due to this Change Order will be: $ 136,095.86
399
Change to Contract Time:
The Contract time will be increased by forty-five (45) working days.
Approvals:
To be effective, this order must be approved by the Owner if it changes the scope or objective of the project, or as may otherwise be required under the terms of the Contract.
Approved By 8/12/2020
Resident Engineer Date
Accepted By
Contractor Date
Authorized By
Project Manager Date
400
2667
2668
2669
2645
401
402
Leak Repair
1322 Canal Boulevard, Richmond, CA 94804
The following images illustrate the location of the valve to shutoff the water supply to the location of the leak.
Building 9
Water Shutoff
Water Shutoff
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
1322 Canal Boulevard Richmond, CA 94801
PORT DEPARTMENT
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 2
Project: Water Line Repair
Location: Point Potrero Marine Terminal Date: December 2020 Vendor Number: Purchase Order: N/A
Contractor: WR Forde Sheet: 1 of 1
The following changes are hereby made to the Contract Documents:
As directed by the Engineer in the field in November 2020, the Contractor shall complete Extra Work to investigate the source of additional pressure loss in the fire water system located south of the AWC facility within the PPMT near the General Warehouse and Riggers Loft. The Contractor shall core drill, pressurize, and use other sources to determine the location of the leak. The Port will provide the Contractor with as -built records of the area. This work shall be completed on a time and materials ba sis. Based on t he work completed, the total lump sum value is $9,485.28 as documented in the attached. Based upon the f inal investigation, the source of the pressure loss likely originates from the Red Oak Victory.
Change to Contract Price:
Original Contract Price: $ 23,275
Current Contract Price, as adjusted by previous Change Orders: $ 136,095.8 The Contract Price due to this Change Order will be increased by: $ 9,485.28 The new Contract Price due to this Change Order will be: $ 145,581.14
Change to Contract Time:
The Contract time will be increased by fifteen (15) working days.
Approvals:
To be effective, this order must be approved by the Owner if it changes the scope or objective of the project, or as may otherwise be required under the terms of the Contract.
Recommended By 12/29/2020
Contract Port Engineer Date
Accepted By
Contractor Date
Authorized By
Port Director Date
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
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.
Economic Development - Port
Charles Gerard
[email protected]
1103
22002158/5200
REPAIR WATER LEAK AT POINT POTRERO MARINE TERMINAL
✔
3 WR Forde Assosciates
984 Hensley Street
Richmond, CA, 94801
David Voorhis
(510) 215-9338
[email protected]
40004786
December 31, 0202
✔
May 19, 2020
May 19, 2020
December 31, 2020
155,000.00
424
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.
WR Forde Assosciates
425
Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and
Amendment No. P.O./Contract No.
AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (TERM AND SERVICE PLAN)
1. Paragraph 2 (Term) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to extend the Contract term. Paragraph 2 of the Original Contract is amended to read as follows:
"2. Term . The effective date of this Contract is
_____________________________________________________________ (Insert original contract commencement date)
and it terminates
_____________________________________________________________. (Insert new contract termination date)
unless sooner terminated as provided herein."
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
22002158/5200
3 WR Forde Assosciates
May 19, 2020
December 31st, 2024
No additional task or services will be added to the service plan. This contract amendment is to amend the expired contract with WR Forde to pay the outstanding invoices for services rendered for the completed project.
426
Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and
Amendment No. P.O./Contract No.
AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (AMENDMENT HISTORY)
The first Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.
Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________
Service Plan
The second Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.
Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________
Service Plan
The third Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.
Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________
Service Plan
The fourth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.
Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________
Service Plan
The fifth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.
Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________
Service Plan
22002158/5200
3 WR Forde Assosciates
155,000.00
✔
155,000.00
155,000.00
155,000.00
155,000.00
✔
✔
427
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
APPROVING THE FINAL PAYMENT AND CLOSURE OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH WR FORDE ASSOCIATES, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER, OR THEIR DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL
NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION AS NEEDED
WHEREAS, in early January 2020, the Port identified a leaking water line at the Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT); and
WHEREAS, additional leaks were discovered in the underground mains and at the dock, with portions of the existing water system dating back to the 1940s; and
WHEREAS, the Port issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for repairs, and WR Forde Associates, Inc. (WR Forde) was selected as the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, the City Council awarded a Construction Agreement to WR Forde on May 19, 2020, with an initial lump sum payment of $23,275 for initial repairs and a contingency of $131,725 for unforeseen conditions and additional work, making the total agreement value $155,000; and
WHEREAS, the scope of work expanded to address additional leaks and include pavement repairs, resulting in a first change order increasing the contract price by $112,820.86, and a second change order increasing the contract price by $9,485.28, bringing the final contract price to $145,581.14; and
WHEREAS, a payment of $129,291.06 was made on July 8, 2020, and an invoice for the final payment of $16,290.08 was submitted by WR Forde on November 30, 2021; and
WHEREAS, due to a management transition, the final payment was delayed; and
WHEREAS, the Port now seeks to process the final payment and formally close out the project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Richmond approves the final payment of $16,290.08 to WR Forde Associates, Inc. for the completion of the project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Richmond accepts the completed project; and authorize termination of the construction agreement with W.R.
Forde)
428
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Richmond authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute any and all necessary documentation to process the final payment and formally close out the agreement.
*****************************
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
429
September 24, 2024
Finance Department
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Andrea Miller, Director of Finance
Mubeen Qader, Deputy Director of Finance
Jerry Gurule, Accounting Manager
Subject:
Investment and Cash Balance Report, Monthly Overtime
Reports, and Documentary Transfer Tax Report for the
Month of July 2024
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact due to this agenda item.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
City staff is requesting that the City Council receive the City’s Investment and Cash Balance Report, Monthly
Overtime Reports, and Documentary Transfer Tax
Report for the month of July 2024.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RECEIVE the City’s Investment and Cash Balance
Report, Monthly Overtime Reports, and Documentary
Transfer Tax Report for the month of July 2024 – Finance Department (Andrea Miller 510-620-6740).
DISCUSSION:
Investment and Cash Balance Report
It is the policy of the City of Richmond (City) to invest public funds in a manner which prioritizes safety and liquidity over yield while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the City and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public AGENDA
REPORT
430
September 24, 2024
funds. In accordance with California Government Code Section 53 646 and the City’s Investment Policy, the Director of Finance shall report monthly on the City's pooled and Bond funds to the City Manager and City Council and shall report quarterly on other investments.
The Investment and Cash Balance Report is a monthly report of the City’s pooled cash balance which include General Fund, Special Revenue, Debt Service, Capital Projects, Enterprise, Internal service, Trust & Agency, Redevelopment/Successor Agency, and any other Funds investment activities under the direction of the City.
The Portfolio Management Report represe nts the monthly bank balances, along with market balances of permitted investments according to the City’s Investment Policy.
Investment in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), CalTrust, money market, agency bonds, certificates of deposits, and corpora te notes are all allowable by California Government Code Section 536 01 and permitted according to the City of Richmond’s Investment Policy updated October 17, 2023.
This investment report was prepared after the April 30, 2024 special City Council meeting to add additional restrictions to the City of Richmond’s Investment Policy and reflects the portfolio as of July 31, 2024. Based on the policy direction received during the special City Council meeting, Council directed staff to review and modify the City o f Richmond’s Investment Policy to add additional restrictions eliminating the investment of City funds in industries that facilitate violence, war, oppression, and apartheid. Staff has been directed to present Investment Policy modifications and recommendations for socially responsible investments to Council for consideration which will occur at the September 24, 2024 City Council meeting.
The City is allowed to prefund future Pension and OPEB costs in accordance with the City’s Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) policies. These funds are invested according to the polic ies funding objectives and funding guidelines. The City maintains a Section 115 C ombination Trust for City -OPEB & Pension administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) and a California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) administered by California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) for RPOA -OPEB. Each Trust is comprised of a diversified portfolio of investments consistent with the Trust’s objectives and liquidity requirements.
Overtime Reports
The overtime reports for the month of July 2024 provides a summary of budget-to-actual overtime usage by department for miscellaneous and sworn staff. Year-over-year and month-over-month totals are included for sworn staff.
431
September 24, 2024
Documentary Transfer Tax
At the June 24th City Council Budget Hearing, City Council requested monthly updates of the Transfer Tax received by the City of Richmond from the County for the sale of properties in Richmond. As this being the most volatile revenue stream for the City, the amounts received month-to-month can vary from the low $300 thousand to the highs of $3 million – a few large sales can widely swing the revenues.
In August, the City received data from the County for the July 2024 Transfer Tax which will total over $3. 4 million. This is a good start to FY2024 -25 for this volatile revenue stream.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Investment and Cash Balance Report for July 2024 Attachment 2 – Overtime Report for July 2024
Attachment 3 – Overtime Public Safety Report for July 2024 Attachment 4 – Documentary Transfer Tax Report for July 2024
432
Finance Department – Treasury Division
M E M O R A N D U M
T
o: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Fr
om: Andrea Miller, Director of Finance
Mubeen Qader, Deputy Director of Finance
Jerry Gurule, Accounting Manager
D
ate: September 24, 2024
S
ubject: MONTHLY CASH BALANCES & INVESTMENT REPORT –
July 2024
E
nclosed for your information are the Investment Report, Portfolio Summary, and Comparative Cash Report for the month of July 2024 prepared by the City Treasurer pursuant to the statutory requirements of the State of California.
I
t is the policy of the City of Richmond (City) to invest public funds in a manner which prioritizes safety and liquidity over yield while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the City and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds. In accordance with California Government Code Section 53646 and the City’s Investment Policy, the Director of Finance shall report monthly on the City's pooled and Bond funds to the City Manager and City Council and shall report quarterly on other investments.
T
he City is allowed to prefund future Pension and OPEB costs in accordance with the City’s Pension and Other Post -Employment Benefits (OPEB) policies. These funds are invested according to the polic ies funding objectives and funding guidelines. Each Trust is comprised of a diversified portfolio of investments consistent with the Trust’s objectives and liquidity requirements. The City maintains a Section 115 Combination Trust for City - OPEB & Pension administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) an d a California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) administered by California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) for RPOA-OPEB.
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
Attachment 3 - Overtime Public Safety Report for July 2024 City of Richmond
Public Safety Sworn Overtime
Fund: 0001 - General Fund
Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Average
Month July August September October November December January February March April May June YTD YTD Remaining Monthly Target % 8% 17% 25% 33% 42% 50% 58% 67% 75% 83% 92% 100% Total $ Total % Budget Expense
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
REVISED
BUDGET
FY2017-18 Overtime - Sworn 3,169,000 3,169,000 569,194 440,670 445,282 459,402 452,278 396,762 322,524 497,979 455,202 554,449 509,368 466,567 5,569,677 175.8% (2,400,677) 464,139.77 FY2018-19 Overtime - Sworn 3,433,019 3,433,019 482,143 537,369 655,866 437,794 524,577 430,398 367,322 512,595 422,587 497,767 536,209 505,966 5,910,592 172.2% (2,477,573) 492,549.37 FY2019-20 Overtime - Sworn 5,000,000 4,800,000 473,963 469,392 491,205 509,931 449,751 473,935 390,897 498,501 501,383 479,696 560,031 439,159 5,737,844 119.5% (937,844) 478,153.64 FY2020-21 Overtime - Sworn 2,497,290 3,533,043 275,202 246,822 296,775 382,618 306,787 278,293 205,529 303,631 307,092 357,284 323,537 368,366 3,651,935 103.4% (118,892) 304,327.96 FY2021-22 Overtime - Sworn 5,165,434 5,165,434 379,016 408,253 487,481 423,830 333,006 307,152 255,420 330,788 314,524 336,044 304,989 366,419 4,246,922 82.2% 918,512 353,910.14 POLICEFY2022-23 Overtime - Sworn 5,165,435 4,800,000 373,491 355,649 399,628 355,866 377,889 401,964 396,783 474,403 463,499 416,775 496,542 449,394 4,961,883 103.4% (161,883) 413,490.26 FY2023-24 Overtime - Sworn 4,800,000 6,708,965 487,105 925,716 477,693 462,417 470,347 531,204 424,452 626,680 478,293 593,735 568,535 588,097 6,634,274 98.9% 74,691 552,856.16 FY2024-25 Overtime - Sworn 6,708,965 6,708,965 560,788 560,788 8.4% 6,148,177 560,787.82 FY2017-18 Overtime - Sworn 2,486,914 2,486,914 268,465 345,174 291,221 359,542 367,182 310,508 336,315 176,449 132,298 196,306 203,912 166,108 3,153,480 126.8% (666,566) 262,789.99 FY2018-19 Overtime - Sworn 2,509,914 2,509,914 257,785 245,946 179,272 171,370 219,937 204,997 261,780 216,596 196,343 310,702 220,368 275,166 2,760,261 110.0% (250,347) 230,021.77 FY2019-20 Overtime - Sworn 4,305,402 2,509,914 295,166 277,886 286,016 300,083 332,654 382,084 347,492 328,467 350,709 302,505 264,571 325,335 3,792,969 151.1% (1,283,055) 316,080.74 FY2020-21 Overtime - Sworn 1,993,165 3,193,165 398,678 380,282 417,982 393,922 267,819 345,928 341,403 305,081 172,961 261,923 263,518 286,039 3,835,537 120.1% (642,372) 319,628.09 FY2021-22 Overtime - Sworn 3,629,097 4,334,499 334,236 434,974 358,578 358,251 352,789 327,832 448,493 410,429 297,215 355,475 725,409 438,807 4,842,489 111.7% (507,990) 403,540.77 FIREFY2022-23 Overtime - Sworn 4,334,499 4,334,499 444,959 444,457 414,638 401,115 402,116 379,882 443,531 475,560 339,814 398,079 369,477 435,057 4,948,685 114.2% (614,186) 412,390.41 FY2023-24 Overtime - Sworn 4,482,969 5,135,869 524,969 473,094 348,296 346,854 363,759 315,266 363,100 382,930 381,442 417,762 431,523 357,820 4,706,814 91.6% 429,055 392,234.47 FY2024-25 Overtime - Sworn 4,481,969 4,481,969 285,095 285,095 6.4% 4,196,874 285,094.60 FY2024-25 TOTAL 11,190,934 11,190,934 845,882 - - - - - - - - - - - 845,882 7.6% 10,345,052 845,882.42
BUDGET ACTUALS TOTAL
449
Documentary Transfer Tax
The City of Richmond receives Documentary Transfer Tax from the County for the sale of properties in Richmond. As one of the most volatile revenue stream s for the City, the amounts received can vary month- to-month from the low $300 thousand to the highs of $3 million. A few large sales can widely swing the revenues.
In FY2023-24, the City budgeted $13.3 million for the Transfer Tax category and only received $8.6 million, equating to a difference of $4.7 million.
For FY2024-25, the City has budgeted $7.4 million. The difference between the budgeted amounts in these two years is that in the current budget, staff did not include sales over $10 million. These few and unpredictable transactions skew the monthly sales amounts.
Removing these transactions from the calculation yields more predictable and obtainable amounts to be used for budgeting.
As a reminder, Measure H, approved by Richmond voters in November 2018, went into effect at the end of December 2018. M easure H increased the real estate transfer tax from 0.7 percent to 1.25 percent for properties with a sale price of over $1 million but below $3 million, 2.5 percent for properties with a sale price between $3 - $10 million, and
3.0 percent for properties with a sale price over $10 million.
The table below shows each monthly payment going back to FY2018- 19 and highlights the volatility of this revenue stream. Of note are the very high payments received certain months which are shown as significant peaks in the chart.
Attachment 4 – Documentary Transfer Tax Report for July 2024
450
Action City Split
$4,270.00
$1,080,000.00
$1,710,000.00
$1,253.00
$13,750.00
$15,687.50
$2,940.00
$3,710.00
$3,815.00
$4,655.00
$4,760.00
$4,060.00
$3,535.00
$6,895.00
$4,620.00
$4,501.00
$5,215.00
$4,823.00
$13,750.00
$3,570.00
$1,400.00
$4,830.00
$6,300.00
$23,687.50
$4,900.00
$3,318.00
$5,243.00
$5,355.00
$2,975.00
$5,180.00
$24,375.00
$4,690.00
$3,710.00
$3,878.00
$4,725.00
$4,725.00
$5,537.00
$2,100.00
$13,312.50
$5,075.00
$4,760.00
$462.00
$4,270.00
$882.00
$6,720.00
$3,647.00
$4,305.00
$4,550.00
$3,213.00
2024-0068761 07/18/2024 12:34 07/18/2024 12:34:00
2024-0068827 07/18/2024 14:23 07/18/2024 14:23:00
2024-0069304 07/19/2024 12:06 07/19/2024 12:06:00
2024-0068662 07/18/2024 10:34 07/18/2024 10:34:00
2024-0068673 07/18/2024 10:59 07/18/2024 10:59:00
2024-0068724 07/18/2024 12:09 07/18/2024 12:09:00
2024-0068129 07/17/2024 10:39 07/17/2024 10:39:22
2024-0068382 07/17/2024 14:21 07/17/2024 14:21:00
2024-0068528 07/18/2024 08:15 07/18/2024 08:15:00
2024-0067972 07/17/2024 07:59 07/17/2024 07:59:00
2024-0068091 07/17/2024 09:23 07/17/2024 09:23:00
2024-0068094 07/17/2024 09:25 07/17/2024 09:25:00
2024-0067620 07/16/2024 10:19 07/16/2024 10:19:00
2024-0067621 07/16/2024 10:19 07/16/2024 10:19:00
2024-0067636 07/16/2024 10:33 07/16/2024 10:33:00
2024-0067212 07/15/2024 11:42 07/15/2024 11:42:00
2024-0067422 07/15/2024 15:25 07/15/2024 15:25:00
2024-0067427 07/15/2024 15:30 07/15/2024 15:30:00
2024-0066925 07/12/2024 14:33 07/12/2024 14:33:00
2024-0067106 07/15/2024 09:40 07/15/2024 09:40:00
2024-0067203 07/15/2024 11:39 07/15/2024 11:39:00
2024-0066739 07/12/2024 10:36 07/12/2024 10:36:00
2024-0066743 07/12/2024 10:38 07/12/2024 10:38:00
2024-0066872 07/12/2024 12:52 07/12/2024 12:52:00
2024-0066676 07/12/2024 09:48 07/12/2024 09:48:00
2024-0066708 07/12/2024 10:15 07/12/2024 10:15:00
2024-0066733 07/12/2024 10:32 07/12/2024 10:32:00
2024-0066334 07/11/2024 13:37 07/11/2024 13:37:00
2024-0066349 07/11/2024 13:45 07/11/2024 13:45:00
2024-0066607 07/12/2024 08:56 07/12/2024 08:56:00
2024-0065697 07/10/2024 14:00 07/10/2024 14:00:00
2024-0066164 07/11/2024 11:26 07/11/2024 11:26:00
2024-0066224 07/11/2024 11:58 07/11/2024 11:58:00
2024-0065482 07/10/2024 08:37 07/10/2024 08:37:00
2024-0065531 07/10/2024 09:38 07/10/2024 09:38:00
2024-0065684 07/10/2024 13:49 07/10/2024 13:49:00
2024-0064802 07/08/2024 13:54 07/08/2024 13:54:00
2024-0065182 07/09/2024 12:30 07/09/2024 12:30:00
2024-0065480 07/10/2024 08:37 07/10/2024 08:37:00
2024-0063704 07/03/2024 13:11 07/03/2024 13:11:00
2024-0063750 07/03/2024 13:55 07/03/2024 13:55:00
2024-0064683 07/08/2024 11:01 07/08/2024 11:01:00
2024-0063180 07/02/2024 14:00 07/02/2024 14:00:00
2024-0063232 07/02/2024 14:42 07/02/2024 14:42:00
2024-0063677 07/03/2024 12:54 07/03/2024 12:54:00
2024-0062683 07/01/2024 13:36 07/01/2024 13:36:00
2024-0062781 07/01/2024 15:42 07/01/2024 15:42:00
2024-0063149 07/02/2024 13:48 07/02/2024 13:48:00
Document No. Recording Date/Time Transaction Date/Time
For Richmond
2024-0062612 07/01/2024 12:27 07/01/2024 12:27:00
KRISTIN B. CONNELLY, CLERK-RECORDER
County of Contra Costa
555 Escobar Street * Martinez, CA 94553
Recorder (925) 335-7900 * Fax (925) 335-7926
Transfer Tax Monthly Detail by City
Report Date & Time
08/08/2024 09:10
City: Rm Richmond
For Month: July 2024
Attachment 4 – Documentary Transfer Tax Report for July 2024
451
$4,235.00
$3,717.00
$4,200.00
$5,355.00
$4,235.00
$3,710.00
$13,250.00
$3,675.00
$5,740.00
$3,360.00
$5,845.00
$3,885.00
$25,000.00
$840.00
$980.00
$6,475.00
$12,812.50
$15,237.50
$2,800.00
$3,710.00
$5,166.00
$3,150.00
$2,100.00
$3,395.00
$3,710.00
$2,583.00
$3,052.00
$81,250.00
$6,475.00
$2,310.00
$15,000.00
$2,219.00
$4,487.00
$3,570.00
$12,937.50
$2,240.00
$1,365.00
$5,334.00
$3,353,340.00
Total $ of Cap docs 3,293,728.00$ $3,353,340.00
Total Count of Cap docs 62 87
Total:
Count:
2024-0073535 07/31/2024 11:10 07/31/2024 11:10:00
2024-0073665 07/31/2024 13:37 07/31/2024 13:37:00
Total For Richmond
2024-0073285 07/30/2024 15:34 07/30/2024 15:34:00
2024-0073368 07/31/2024 08:08 07/31/2024 08:08:00
2024-0073515 07/31/2024 10:44 07/31/2024 10:44:58
2024-0073109 07/30/2024 11:57 07/30/2024 11:57:00
2024-0073127 07/30/2024 12:05 07/30/2024 12:05:56
2024-0073159 07/30/2024 12:32 07/30/2024 12:32:00
2024-0072914 07/29/2024 16:32 07/29/2024 16:32:00
2024-0072991 07/30/2024 09:45 07/30/2024 09:45:00
2024-0072993 07/30/2024 09:47 07/30/2024 09:47:00
2024-0072854 07/29/2024 15:02 07/29/2024 15:02:00
2024-0072879 07/29/2024 15:57 07/29/2024 15:57:00
2024-0072893 07/29/2024 16:20 07/29/2024 16:20:00
2024-0072159 07/26/2024 14:19 07/26/2024 14:19:00
2024-0072193 07/26/2024 14:58 07/26/2024 14:58:00
2024-0072558 07/29/2024 10:03 07/29/2024 10:03:00
2024-0071787 07/26/2024 09:06 07/26/2024 09:06:00
2024-0071901 07/26/2024 10:18 07/26/2024 10:18:00
2024-0072109 07/26/2024 12:57 07/26/2024 12:57:00
2024-0071328 07/25/2024 11:51 07/25/2024 11:51:00
2024-0071517 07/25/2024 14:05 07/25/2024 14:05:00
2024-0071601 07/25/2024 14:30 07/25/2024 14:30:00
2024-0071023 07/24/2024 12:43 07/24/2024 12:43:00
2024-0071137 07/24/2024 15:58 07/24/2024 15:58:00
2024-0071139 07/24/2024 15:58 07/24/2024 15:58:00
2024-0070512 07/23/2024 14:30 07/23/2024 14:30:00
2024-0070675 07/24/2024 08:09 07/24/2024 08:09:00
2024-0070974 07/24/2024 11:42 07/24/2024 11:42:00
2024-0070142 07/23/2024 11:31 07/23/2024 11:31:00
2024-0070191 07/23/2024 12:02 07/23/2024 12:02:00
2024-0070492 07/23/2024 14:16 07/23/2024 14:16:00
2024-0069927 07/23/2024 08:23 07/23/2024 08:23:00
2024-0069951 07/23/2024 08:44 07/23/2024 08:44:00
2024-0069957 07/23/2024 08:46 07/23/2024 08:46:00
2024-0069509 07/19/2024 13:59 07/19/2024 13:59:00
2024-0069554 07/19/2024 14:31 07/19/2024 14:31:00
2024-0069584 07/19/2024 14:45 07/19/2024 14:45:00
Attachment 4 – Documentary Transfer Tax Report for July 2024
452
(September 24, 2024)
Fire Department
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Michael E. Smith, Interim Fire Chief
Aaron Osorio, Deputy Fire Chief
Anthony Woodards, Battalion Chief
Den Mark Marcelo, Administrative Services Coordinator
Subject: Service Contract with Bauer Compressors, Inc. to Provide Preventative Maintenance and Repairs to Air Products
and Air Compressor Systems
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed three-year contract should not exceed $30,000. Funding for Fiscal Year 2024-25 is included in the Fire Department budget. The department will budget
accordingly for the subsequent fiscal years. Account
Strings: 01204022-400501.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Breathing air compressors are essential components of
every fire department’s self-contained breathing
apparatus (SCBA) systems. SCBA provides respiratory
protection to firefighters in firefighting operations and hazardous environments. Regular maintenance and
timely servicing are crucial to ensure that these
compressors function efficiently and safely.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVE a sole-source contract with Bauer
Compressors, Inc for preventative maintenance and
repair of the Fire Department’s self-contained breathing apparatus systems in an amount not to exceed $30,000,
for a three-year term effective September 11, 2024,
through September 10, 2027, with two one-year
extension options not to exceed an additional $20,000 for AGENDA
REPORT
453
(September 24, 2024)
the total extended term – Fire Department (Chief Michael E. Smith 510-307-8041/Deputy Chief Aaron Osorio 510-
307-8021/Battalion Chief Anthony Woodards 510-620-
6989/Den Mark Marcelo 510-307-8038).
DISCUSSION:
Breathing air compressors are essential components of every fire department’s self- contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) systems. These compressors are used to refill the air on SCBA bottles which are part of firefighters’ personal protective equipment.
The Richmond Fire Department (Department) is seeking to enter into a contract with Bauer Compressors, Inc. to provide preventative maintenance and repairs to the department’s breathing high-pressure breathing air compressor systems.
The Department has two breathing air products and high-pressure breathing air compressor systems used for refilling SCBA bottles. The air compressor system located at Station 61 is a mobile breathing air compressor, model NMOK22.42, installed on a breathing support apparatus. This mobile air compressor system is dispatched to incidents when firefighters need to refill their SCBA bottles during emergencies. The air compressor system located at Station 68 is a stationary breathing air compressor, model Unicus 4/13H-EI, also used to refill SCBA bottles.
The Department seeks City Council approval of a sole-source contract with Bauer Compressors, Inc. for preventative maintenance and repair of the Fire Department’s self-contained breathing apparatus systems. The division of Bauer Compressors, Inc., located in Livermore, California, is the only company in the Bay Area qualified to work on our systems. The two other certified vendors in California are located in Anaheim and San Diego. Due to performance risks and safety considerations, it is crucial to work with vendors located in the Bay Area should emergency services be required.
Regular maintenance and timely servicing are critical to the safety and functionality of these compressors. The air compressor systems have specific respiratory protection standards required by Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA). The service contract for the Department’s air compressors is vital for maintaining our SCBA systems and ensuring that the bottles are refilled with breathable air.
454
(September 24, 2024)
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Sole Source Justification
Attachment 2 – Standard Contract
455
456
457
458
CITY OF RICHMOND
STANDARD CONTRACT
Department: Project Manager:
Project Manager E-mail: Project Manager Phone No:
Vendor No: 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, a municipal corporation (“the City”), and the following named Contractor:
Contractor Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Contact Person:
Telephone: Email:
Business License No:
2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is ________________________ and terminates ______________ unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
3. Payment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $______________ (“Contract Payment Limit”) unless a Contract Amendment has been approved by the City Council or City Manager. If this amount includes a contingency, Contractor acknowledges that any use of such contingency shall be for work beyond the original scope of services and requires prior written authorization by the City. If noted below, Compensation for work done under this Contract, shall not exceed as follows:
FY
total compensation shall not exceed $
FY total compensation shall not exceed $
FY total compensation shall not exceed $
4. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor agrees to perform all work at its own cost and expense, to furnish all labor, tools, equipment, materials, except as otherwise specified, in accordance with Exhibit A:
Service Plan which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. [ ] A California corporation , [ ] limited liability corporation, [ ] general partnership, [ ] limited partnership, [ ] individual, [ ] non-profit corporation, [ ] individual dba as [specify:]______________________________ [ ] other [specify:]__________________________________ Fire
Anthony Woodards
[email protected]
510-620-6989
8827
7115
Provide preventive maintenance services and repairs to breathing air products and compressors located at Station 61 and 68.
Virginia corporation
September 11, 2024
30,000
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
1216 Stealth Street
Norfolk, VA 23502
Ashley Biallas
925-449-7210
[email protected]
40059713
September 10, 2027
10,000
10,000
10,000
24-25
✔
25-26
26-27
459
5. City Obligations. City shall make payments to the Contractor in accordance with the Payment Provisions set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
6. Authorized Representatives and Notices. This Contract is subject to the Authorized Representatives and Notices Provisions (Exhibit C), attached hereto and incorporated herein.
7. General Conditions. This Contract is subject to the General Conditions (Exhibit D) which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
8. Special Conditions. This Contract is subject to the Special Conditions (Exhibit E) (if any) which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
9. Insurance Provisions. This Contract is subject to the Insurance Provisions (Exhibit F) which are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
10. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' agreement hereto:
CITY OF RICHMOND,
a municipal corporation [BUSINESS NAME]
(* The Corporation Chairperson of the Board,
President or Vice President should sign below)
By:
Title By:
I hereby certify that this Contract Title:
has been approved by City Council
or the City Manager. Date Signed:
By:
City Clerk
(* The Corporation Chief Financial Officer, Secretary or Assistant Secretary should sign below)
Approved as to form:
By:
By: Title:
City Attorney
Date Signed:
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
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement Exhibit G
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
440 Civic Center Plaza460
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
EXHIBIT A
SERVICE PLAN
Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the Project Manager (set forth in Exhibit B), perform the following services and be compensated as outlined below [or attach service plan if necessary]:
7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
Bauer Compressors, Inc., with its factory division in Livermore, CA, will provide preventive maintenance services and repairs for breathing air products and high-pressure breathing air compressor systems. Additionally, Bauer Compressors, Inc. will handle as-needed repairs for the mobile breathing air compressor unit at Station 61 and the stationary air compressor unit at Station
68. 461
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT PROVISIONS
1. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR:
a. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated in the manner set forth herein.
b. 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.
c. All City vendors receiving new contracts shall sign up to receive electronic payments through the City’s Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) payments service/provider.
2. SUBMISSION OF INVOICES:
Contractor shall submit timely invoices by email to
[email protected] and/or to the following address: Attention:
City of Richmond Finance/Account Payable
Project Manager:
P.O. Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804
3. All invoices that are submitted by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of the City Project Manager, before payments shall be authorized.
4. The City will pay invoice(s) within 45 days after completion of services to the City’s satisfaction. The City shall not pay late fees or interest.
5. All appropriate permits, certificates, and licenses, including a City business license shall be obtained and maintained for the duration of this Contract before any payment is authorized.
6. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract is executed by the City. The insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be maintained by Contractor for the duration of this Contract and must be in place before any payment is authorized. 7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
Anthony Woodards
Anthony Woodards
462
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
EXHIBIT C
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES
1. All required written notices shall be delivered: (i) by hand; or (ii) sent by registered, express, or certified mail, with return receipt requested or with delivery confirmation requested from the U.S. postal service; (iii) sent by overnight or same day courier service at the party’s respective address listed in this Section.
2. Each notice shall be deemed to have been received on the earlier to occur of: actual delivery or the date on which delivery is refused; or three (3) days after notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or with a courier service in the manner described above (Sundays and City holidays excepted).
3. Either party may, at any time, change its notice address (other than to a post office box address) by giving the other party three (3) days prior written notice of the new address.
4. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Contractor to the City shall be addressed to the City at:
City of Richmond –
Richmond, CA 94804
Email: ______________________________________________________
5. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from the City to Contractor shall be addressed to Contractor at:
Business Name
Street Address
City, State Zip
Email: ______________________________________________________ 1216 Stealth Street
[email protected]
440 Civic Center Plaza
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
2nd Floor
[email protected]
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
Livermore, CA 94551
7115
ATTN: Richmond Fire Department c/oAnthony Woodards
Ashley Biallas
463
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
EXHIBIT D
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:
Contractor hereby declares that Contractor is engaged as an independent business and Contractor agrees to perform the services as an independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the services and tasks are under the control of Contractor exce pt to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Contract. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Contractor’s services. None of the benefits provided by the City t o its employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation plans, vacation and sick leave, are available from the City to Contractor, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer - employee relationship from any compensation due to Contractor. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Contractor.
2. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:
Contractor and the City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Contract.
3. STANDARD OF CARE:
Contractor agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals or service Contractors, as applicable, in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City.
4. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA):
Contractor assumes all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of its employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Contractor.
5. NON-DISCRIMINATION:
Consistent with the City’s policy and state and federal law that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable conduct, Contractor and its employees, contractors, and agents shall not harass or discriminate against any job applicant, City employee, or any other person on the basis of any kind of any statutorily (federal, state or local) protected class, including but not limited to: race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, disability (both mental and physical) including HIV and AIDS, medi cal condition (e.g. cancer), genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, political 7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
464
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
affiliation, military and veteran status or legitimate union activities . Contractor agrees that any violation of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.
6. CITY PROPERTY:
a. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record, applicable plans, drawings, calculation, data, specification, video, graphic or any other material or document produced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Contractor pursuant to or in connection with this Contract shall be the exclusive property of the City.
b. 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 11 below, indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data. c. No report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be made available to any individual or organization by Contractor without prior approval of the City Manager or their designee. d. Contractor shall, at such time and in such form as City Manager or their designee may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services and tasks required under this Contract.
7. RECORDS:
a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the services, tasks, work, documents and data in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of Contractor’s performance under the Contract, as well as maintain books and records related to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by the City that relate to the performance of the services and tasks under this Contract (collectively the “Records”). b. All Records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the Records to the representatives of the City or its designees during regular business hours upon reasonable prior notice. The City has the right to examine and audit the Records, and to make copies or transcripts therefrom as necessary, and t o allow inspection of all proceedings and activities related to this Contract. Such Records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained by Contractor for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment. c. If supplemental examination or audit of the Records is necessary due to concerns raised by the City’s preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City’s supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of this Contract or failure to act in good faith, then Contractor shall reimburse the City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.
7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
465
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
8. PERMITS AND LICENSES:
Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Contract, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses, including a City business license , required in connection with the performance of the services and tasks hereunder . The failure to obtain such permits and licenses 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 circumst ances without necessitating any modification of this Contract to reflect such waiver.
9. TERMINATION:
a. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the 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 transmission of written notice to Contractor as provided in Exhibit C “Authorized Representatives and Notices”.
b. 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 Exhibit B; 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.
10. 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.
11. HOLD HARMLESS:
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City) and hold harmless the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, obligations, claims, suits, judgments, costs and expenses 7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
466
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
whatsoever, including attorney’s fees and costs of litigation (“Claims”), arising from or in any manner connected to Contractor’s performance of its obligations under this Contract or failure to comply with any of its obligations under this Contract or out of the operations conducted by Contractor even if the City is found to have been negligent. If the Claims filed against Indemnitees allege negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct on the part of Contractor, Contractor shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct is not found on the part of Contractor.
Contractor shall not have any obligations to indemnify Indemnitees if the loss or damage is found to have resulted solely from the negligence or the willful misconduct of the City. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Contract are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Contract. b. This indemnification obligation shall survive this Contract and shall not be limited by any term of any insurance policy required under this Contract; provided however, that if this Contract is for design professional services, this indemnity provision is limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional (as defined in California Civil Code section 2782.8).
12. LIMITATIONS UPON SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENT:
a. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated 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. b. Contractor shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Contract, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of the City Manager. Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to transfer to the City Manager at least thirty (30) days in advance of the desired transfer. The City Manager or their designee may consent or reject such request in their sole and absolute discretion. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money against the City under this Contract may be assigned by Contractor to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent.
c. 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. d. Only those persons and/or businesses whose names and resumés are attached to this Contract shall be used in the performance of this Contract. However, if after the start of this Contract, Contractor wishes to use sub-contractors, at no additional costs to the City, then 7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
467
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
Contractor shall submit a written request for consent to add sub-contractors including the names of the sub-contractors and the reasons for the request to the City Manager at least five (5) days in advance. The City Manager may consent or reject such requests in their sole and absolute discretion.
e. Each sub-contractor shall be required to furnish proof of workers’ compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance (as applicable) in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Contractor. f. In addition, any tasks or services performed by sub-contractors shall be subject to each provision of this Contract. Contractor shall include the following language in their Contract with any sub-contractor: “Sub-Contractors hired by Contractor agree to be bound to Contractor and the City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to the City.” g. The requirements in this Section 12 shall not apply to persons who are merely providing materials, supplies, data or information that Contractor then analyzes and incorporates into its work product.
13 SAFETY:
a. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor will be solely and completely responsible for conditions of all vehicles owned or operated by Contractor, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the services and tasks under this Contract. Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any of subcontractor's employees This requirement will apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours.
In addition, Contractor will comply with all safety provisions in conformance with U.S.
Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Act, any equivalent state law, and all other applicable federal, state, county and local laws, ordinances, codes, and any regulations that may be detailed in other parts of the Contract. Where any of these are in conflict, the more stringent requirements will be followed. Contractor’s failure to thoroughly familiarize itself with the aforementioned safety provisions will not relieve it from compliance with the obligations and penalties set forth herein.
b. Contractor will immediately notify the City (in no event less than 24 hours) of any incident of death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage that occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract. Contractor will promptly submit to the City a written report of all incidents that occur in connection with this Contract. This report must include the following information: (i) name and address of injured or deceased person(s); (ii) name and address of Contractor’s employee(s) involved in the incident; (iii) name and address of Contractor’s liability insurance carrier; (iv) a detailed description of the incident; and (v) a police report.
c. Contractor acknowledges that the City shall have the right to impose, at the City’s sole discretion, requirements that it deems are necessary to protect the health and safety of the City employees, residents, and visitors. Contractor agrees to comply with all such requirements, 7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
468
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
including, but not limited to, mandatory vaccinations, the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. masks), physical distancing, and health screenings. Contractor also agrees to make available to the City, at the City’s request, records to demonstrate Contractor’s compliance with this Section.
14. 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.
15. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS:
a. During the term of this Contract, Contractor shall keep fully informed of all existing and future state and federal laws and all municipal ordinances and regulations of the City of Richmond which affect the manner in which the services or tasks are to be performed by Contractor, as well as all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the same. Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, state and federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by the City. 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. b. Contractor acknowledges that under § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code ("Living Wage Ordinance"), Contractor is required to provide the City with documents and information verifying its compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance. 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 as prescribed in § 2.60.070 of the Municipal Code. c. Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or sub-Contractor under an agreement or sub-agreement with the City for public works, goods or services to refrain from discriminatory employment or 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 sub-contractor .
d. 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.
16. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
The Recitals and exhibits are a material part of this Contract and are expressly incorporated herein. This Contract represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall 7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
469
Contract No: For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and
be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Contract will be effective only by written execution signed by both the City and Contractor.
17. 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 Condition 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.
18. 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.
19. CONFLICT OF LAW:
This Contract shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California without regard to any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Contract and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Contract (or the successors of those authorities). Any suits brought pursuant to this Contract shall be filed with the courts of the County of Contra Costa, State of California.
20. 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.
21. INTERPRETATION:
This Contract shall be interpreted as if drafted by both parties.
22. WARRANTY:
If any product is 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 7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
470
Contract No: For the Contract between the City
of Richmond and
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.
23. 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 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.
24. 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 they are duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, and shall be personally liable to City if they are not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.
25. 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 payment 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.
26. COUNTERPARTS:
This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts (including by fax, PDF, DocuSign, or other electronic means), each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
27. SANCTUARY CITY CONTRACTING ORDINANCE (SCCO):
The Richmond Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance No. 12-18 prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the 7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
471
Contract No: For the Contract between the City
of Richmond and
United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor must submit the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit G. 7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
472
Contract No: 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, otherwise please state “NONE”):
7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
NONE
473
Contract No: For the Contract between the City
of Richmond and
EXHIBIT F
INSURANCE PROVISIONS
___ Check here if Risk Management has approved waiving insurance requirements for this contract.
a. Before the commencement of the terms of this Contract, and during the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, Contractor shall furnish the City’s Risk Manager with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with Sections 10.b. (1) through (5) Such certificates, which do not limit Contractor’s indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement:
“Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to the City of Richmond. Attention: Risk Manager.” Contractor shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Contract all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Contract with an insurance company licensed to offer insurance business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII or Standard & Poor’s Rating (if rated) of at least BBB unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Contractor shall deliver updated insurance certificates to the City at the address described in Section 17.f. prior t o the expiration of the existing insurance certificate for the duration of the term of Contract. Endorsements naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.
b. COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS:
Contractor shall maintain insurance coverage and limits at least as broad as:
(1) Workers’ Compensation:
Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. (2) Liability:
Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits:
Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate - all other
Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate
If submitted, combined single limit policy with per occurrence limits in the amounts of $2,000,000 and aggregate limits in the amounts of $4,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. Additional 7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
474
Contract No: For the Contract between the City
of Richmond and
Insured Endorsement naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers is required. (3) Automotive:
Comprehensive automobile liability coverage (any auto) in the following minimum limits:
Bodily injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence
or
Combined Single Limit: $2,000,000 each occurrence
Additional Insured Endorsement naming the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers is required. (4) Professional Liability:
Professional liability insurance which includes coverage appropriate for the professional acts, errors and omissions of Contractor’s profession and work hereunder, including, but not limited to, technology professional liability errors and omissions if the services being provided are technology -based, in the following minimum limits:
$2,000,000 each occurrence
Technology professional liability errors and omissions shall include, or be endorsed to include: property damage liability coverage for damage to, alteration of, loss of, or destruction of electronic data and/or information “property” of the City in the care, custody, or control of Contractor. If not covered under Contractor’s liability policy, such “property” coverage of the City may be endorsed onto Contractor’s Cyber Liability Policy as covered property as follows: cyber liability coverage in an amount sufficient to cover the full replacement value of damage to, alteration of, loss of, or destruction of electronic data and/or information “property” of the City that will be in the care, custody, or control of Contractor. (5) Cyber Liability:
Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations as are undertaken by Contractor in this Contract and shall include, but not be limited to, claims involving infringement of intellectual property, copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, alteration of electronic information, extortion and network security. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties as well as credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations with the following minimum limits:
$2,000,000 per occurrence or claim.
7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
475
Contract No: For the Contract between the City
of Richmond and
As to commercial general liability and automobile liability insurance, such insurance will provide that it constitutes primary insurance with respect to claims insured by such policy, and, except with respect to limits, that insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. Such insurance is not additional to or contributing with any other insurance carried by or for the benefit of the City.
c. SUBROGATION WAIVER:
Contractor hereby agrees to waive rights of subrogation that any insurer of Contractor may acquire from Contractor by virtue of the payment of any loss. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors. d. FAILURE TO SECURE:
If Contractor at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, the City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in Contractor’s name or as an agent of Contractor and shall be compensated by Contractor for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.
e. ADDITIONAL INSUREDS:
The City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be named as additional insured(s) under all insurance coverages, except workers’ compensation and professional liability insurance. The naming of an additi onal insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An y additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy.
Additional Insured coverage under Contractor’s policy shall be primary and non-contributory and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance or self -insurance. Any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be available to the additional insured(s). f. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE:
The insurance limits required by the City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Contractor. Contractor is advised to consult Contractor’s insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Contractor. The coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Contract; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of the coverage carried by or available to Contractor; whichever is greater. 7115
Bauer Compressors, Inc.
476
EXHIBIT G
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, which 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 ultimately used.
b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services."
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) years 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 foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of , 20 , at , California.
Printed Name: Title:
Signed: Date:
Business Entity:
477
September 24, 2024
Mayor's Office
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:
Appointment of Kiara Kempski Richmond Arts and Culture
Commission
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Kiara Kempski is applying for an unexpired seat on the
Richmond Arts and Culture Commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPOINT Kiara Kempski to the Richmond Arts and
Culture Commission with a term that expires on January
31, 2027 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-
620-6503).
DISCUSSION:
Kiara Kempski brings knowledge and experience to the Arts and Culture Commission.
With experience in marketing, Kiara brings a unique skill set to the commission which will benefit the community. Kiara studied art history at the University of San Francisco and volunteered with the SF Arts Commission and Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. Finally, Kiara is passionate about the arts and sees the arts as a vehicle for economic growth.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Kiara Kempsi Redacted Application
AGENDA
REPORT
478
Check one: New Appointment 0
Re-Appointment D
NAME OF BOARD OR COMMISSION: Richmond Arts & Culture Commission NAME: Kiara Kempski
HOME ADDRESS: Richmond CA
ZIP CODE:94801 HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE: ________ _
OCCUPATION: VP of Marketing EMAIL ADDRESS:
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND:4 years ------------ PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: ----------------------------
RE AS ON S FOR INTEREST IN APPOINTMENT:
I've been deeply passinate about art, artists and public art since my college years studying art history at the Urnvers1fy of San Francisco and volunteering with the SF Arts Com1ss1on and FAMSF Museums. I've spent many years growing my protesslonal career In the tectt Industry bat have felt a gap In service to the arts ti 1at I wish to pu1 sue witl 1in n 1y con II i 1ui 1ity. I believe ti 1e1 e is so Ii ,ucl I oppo, tm ,ity ii, Rici 111101 ,d to grow this eity to be an arts destination that both seP1es the eommunity and stFOngthens its eeonomy.
FRATERNAL AND/OR CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS:
College Chapter Director, Delta Zeta Sorority at University of San Francisco EDUCATION:
Bachelors of Arts from The University of San Francisco
REFERENCES (Minimum 5 - List Name, Address, Phone Number, and Email Address)
1.Dr Arely Macias,
2_ Katherine Johnson,
3_Adam Faughnan,
4_ Nadia Garcia,
5. Lauren Austin,
i a ture1/'
=M�iltQ:
For Office Use Only:
To the best of my knowledge the infonnation provided is true and correct:
City Clerk:
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
New Appointment:
t l2<J I :t�
Date I 1
or Email to; CityGterk:Dept@c;i.rlc;hrnoncJ.c;a.u:;
□ Reappointment: □ □ 1st □ 2nd □ 3rd
479
09/24/2024
Mayor's Office
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:
Appointment of Michael Gliksohn to the Economic
Development Commission
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Michael Gliksohn is applying for an unexpired seat on the Economic Development Commission
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPOINT Michael Gliksohn to the Economic
Development Commission with a term ending March 30,
2025 - Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-
6503).
DISCUSSION:
Michael Gliksohn has been an active member of the Richmond community for the past 10 years, dedicated to making a positive impact. With a strong educational background, AGENDA
REPORT
480
09/24/2024
he plans to contribute to the Economic Development Commission by assisting educational campaigns that inform businesses about regulatory changes and new opportunities. His goal is to help create a more positive, business-friendly culture in Richmond, ultimately attracting and retaining more businesses in the City.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Michael Gliksohn redacted application
481
482
09/24/2024
Mayor's Office
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:
Appointment of Eric Moseley to the Commission on Aging
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Eric Mosley is applying to fill a seat on the Commission on Aging and the Mayor’s Office is recommending
appointment of Eric Moseley to this commission during
the remainder of the term of the appointment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPOINT Eric Moseley to the Commission on Aging with
a term that expires on May 19, 2025 – Mayor’s Office
(Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).
DISCUSSION:
Eric Moseley is a good candidate for the Commission on Aging, with a diverse background that includes work as a documentary filmmaker focused on important social issues such as homelessness. His creative approach to addressing community challenges demonstrates his commitment to contributing to society.
AGENDA
REPORT
483
09/24/2024
Eric’s desire to stay involved and support the aging community stems from his previous civic engagement and volunteer work. As someone who has documented stories that reflect real struggles in society, Eric brings a unique perspective to the commission, informed by his experiences working with various populations. His passion for giving back to the Richmond community through continued service makes him a valuable asset to the Commission on Aging.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Redacted Application for Eric Moseley
484
485
09/24/2024
Mayor's Office
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:
Appointment of Keri Sullivan to Community Crisis
Response Program Advisory Board
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Keri Sullivan is applying for a vacant seat on the
Community Crisis Response Program (CCRP)
Community Advisory Board (CAB)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPOINT Keri Sullivan to the Community Crisis
Response Program Advisory Board. The current term
ending on December 31, 2025, serves as a placeholder.
Terms will be established at a later date once a quorum has been appointed – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo
Martinez 510-620-6503).
DISCUSSION:
AGENDA
REPORT
486
09/24/2024
Keri Sullivan holds a BA in Criminal Justice and is currently working toward certification in substance abuse treatment. Her combination of academic knowledge and hands-on experience will be invaluable to the Community Crisis Response Program Community Advisory Board. Keri’s background equips her with the skills needed to address complex crisis situations, making her a strong candidate to contribute effectively to the board’s efforts in supporting community-focused crisis response.
The current term ending on December 31, 2025, serves as a placeholder. Their term will be established at a later date once a quorum has been appointed.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Redacted Keri Sullivan application
487
488
09/24/2024
Mayor's Office
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:
Community Crisis Response Program (CCRP) Community
Advisory Board (CAB) Appointment Alice LoCicero
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Alice LoCicero is applying for a vacant seat on the
Community Crisis Response Program Community
Advisory Board
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPOINT Alice LoCicero to the Community Crisis
Response Program Advisory Board. The current term
ending on December 31, 2025, serves as a placeholder.
Terms will be established at a later date once a quorum has been appointed – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo
Martinez 510-620-6503).
DISCUSSION:
Alice LoCicero’s expertise as a clinical psychologist with crisis and disaster experience makes her an excellent fit for the Community Crisis Response Program Community AGENDA
REPORT
489
09/24/2024
Advisory Board. Her belief in the need for alternatives to traditional police responses aligns with the program's mission. With three years as a Richmond resident and active volunteer work in psychotherapy and community service, she brings valuable insight and leadership. Alice’s strong background, including a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology and an MBA, positions her well to contribute effectively to the board's efforts.
The current term ending on December 31, 2025, serves as a placeholder. Their term will be established at a later date once a quorum has been appointed.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Redacted Alice LoCicero application
490
491
09/24/2024
Mayor's Office
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:
Appointment of Rosie Rendon to Community Crisis
Response Program Advisory Board
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Rosie Rendon is applying for a vacant seat on the
Community Crisis Response Program Community
Advisory Board
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPOINT Rosie Rendon to the Community Crisis
Response Program Advisory Board. The current term
ending on December 31, 2025, serves as a placeholder.
Terms will be established at a later date once a quorum has been appointed – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo
Martinez 510-620-6503).
DISCUSSION:
Rosie Rendon’s commitment to life-affirming resources and community safety makes her a good fit for the Community Crisis Response Program (CCRP) Community Advisory Board. Rosie sees CCRP as a way to create jobs and support sustainable AGENDA
REPORT
492
09/24/2024
living for residents. Her involvement with groups like the Bay Queer and Gay Alliance and the Progressive Youth Book Club highlights her dedication to community engagement and advocacy. Rosie’s passion for helping Richmond thrive aligns well with the mission of the advisory board.
The current term ending on December 31, 2025, serves as a placeholder. Their term will be established at a later date once a quorum has been appointed.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Rosie Rendon redacted application
493
BOARD OR COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM
'$7(
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
&KHFN RQH
New Appointment
Re-Appointment
1$0( 2) %2$5' 25 &200,66,21
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 1$0(
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB +20( $''5(66
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB =,3 &2'(
BBBBBBBBBBBB+20( 3+21(
BBBBB :25. 3+21(
BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
2&&83$7,21
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB (0$,/ $''5(66
B
+2: /21* +$9( <28 %((1 $ 5(6,'(17 2) 7+( &,7< 2) 5,&+021'
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBB
3/$&( 2) (03/2<0(17
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5($6216 )25 ,17(5(67 ,1 $332,170(17
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB )5$7(51$/ $1'25 &,9,& 25*$1,=$7,216
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB ('8&$7,21
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5()(5(1&(6
0LQLPXP ± /LVW 1DPH $GGUHVV 3KRQH 1XPEHUDQG(PDLO$GG UHVV
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBB
7R WKH EHVW RI P\ NQRZOHGJH WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLGHG LV WUXH DQG FRUUHFW
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6LJQDWXUH 'DWH
'HOLYHU RU 0DLO WR
&LW \ &OHUN2U(PDLO WR
&LW\&OHUN'HSW#FLULFKPRQGFDXV
&LYLF &HQWHU 3OD]D
5LFKPRQG &$
)RU 2IILFH 8VH 2QO\
1HZ $SSRLQWPHQW
5HDSSRLQWPHQW
VW
QG
UG
By Sabrina Lundy at 1:51 pm, Jul 09, 2024
07/08/2024
✔
CCRP Community Advisory Board
Rosie Rendon
94805
retail
5 years
I'm intrested in life affirming resources for my community and i think CCRP would be a great asset to help keep our community safe. Hearing about CCRP i think that this could be a perfect opportuinity to bring more jobs to the richmond community and at the same time we are providing our Richmond residents an opportunity for a sustainable life. I was born in the bay area and had to leave because we couldn't afford living out here but i've come back and i want to continue living in a community where we can all thrive. bay queer and gay allience, nextdoor bay area lgbt group, progressive youth book club Connections Academy, High School diploma. NHI massage therapy dipolma, herbalist specailist certification.
Kiara Guzman,
Kenya Assia,
Rosemarie Figeroa,
Vero Alcaraz,
clark appleton,
7/8/24
494
09/24/2024
Mayor's Office
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:
Appointment of Sahai Burrowes to Community Crisis
Response Program Advisory Board
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Sahai Burrowes is applying for a vacant seat on the
Community Crisis Response Program Community
Advisory Board
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPOINT Sahai Burrowes to the Community Crisis
Response Program Advisory Board. The current term
ending on December 31, 2025, serves as a placeholder.
Terms will be established at a later date once a quorum has been appointed – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo
Martinez 510-620-6503).
DISCUSSION:
Sahai Burrowes, an Associate Professor of Public Health with eight years of experience at a nearby University, is an excellent candidate for the CCRP Community Advisory AGENDA
REPORT
495
09/24/2024
Board. Her expertise in data evaluation, public health systems, and collaborative research makes her well-suited to support the program’s goals. Sahai is passionate about ensuring the CCRP collects, analyzes, and shares information effectively with Richmond residents, leveraging her global health experience and research skills to contribute to the board’s mission.
The current term ending on December 31, 2025, serves as a placeholder. Their term will be established at a later date once a quorum has been appointed.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Sahai Burrowes redacted application
496
BOARD OR COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM
'$7(
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
&KHFN RQH
New Appointment
Re-Appointment
1$0( 2) %2$5' 25 &200,66,21
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 1$0(
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB +20( $''5(66
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB =,3 &2'(
BBBBBBBBBBBB+20( 3+21(
BBBB :25. 3+21(
BBBBBBBBB
2&&83$7,21
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB (0$,/ $''5(66
BBBB
+2: /21* +$9( <28 %((1 $ 5(6,'(17 2) 7+( &,7< 2) 5,&+021'
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBB
3/$&( 2) (03/2<0(17
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
5($6216 )25 ,17(5(67 ,1 $332,170(17
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB )5$7(51$/ $1'25 &,9,& 25*$1,=$7,216
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB ('8&$7,21
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5()(5(1&(6
0LQLPXP ± /LVW 1DPH $GGUHVV 3KRQH 1XPEHUDQG(PDLO$GG UHVV
BBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
7R WKH EHVW RI P\ NQRZOHGJH WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLGHG LV WUXH DQG FRUUHFW
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6LJQDWXUH 'DWH
'HOLYHU RU 0DLO WR
&LW \ &OHUN2U(PDLO WR
&LW\&OHUN'HSW#FLULFKPRQGFDXV
&LYLF &HQWHU 3OD]D
5LFKPRQG &$
)RU 2IILFH 8VH 2QO\
1HZ $SSRLQWPHQW
5HDSSRLQWPHQW
VW
QG
UG
By Sabrina Lundy at 3:32 pm, Jul 01, 2024Clear Form
June 22, 2024
✔
Community Crisis Response Program Community Advisory Board Sahai Burrowes
94805
Associate Professor, Public Health
8y e a r s
I am interested in supporting the CCRP's evaluation, ensuring that it collects & tracks appropriate information, analyzes data rigorously, & disseminates findings clearly to Richmond residents. I believe that my research skills, global health experience working collaboratively & diplomatically with a diverse collection of stakeholders, and understanding of public health systems uniquely position me to support the CCRP.
American Public Health Association, African Studies Association, AidData Research Consortium, OASIS Sahel
University of California Berkeley: PhD in Health Policy, May 2014; The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University: Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy, May 1997; University of California at Santa Cruz: Bachelor of Arts, Politics, June 1995
Alison Bing,
Sarah Sullivan,
Celine Schein,
Carinne Brody,
Gayle Cummings,
June 22, 2024
Print and Sign
497
September 24, 2024
Mayor's Office
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:
Appointment of Oscar Flores to the Community Police
Review Commission
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Oscar Flores is applying for a vacant seat on the
Community Police Review Commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPOINT Oscar Flores to the Community Police Review
Commission with a term that expires on November 1,
2027 - Mayor’s Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-
6503).
DISCUSSION:
Oscar Flores is a strong candidate for the Community Police Review Commission, with over 12 years of experience as a resident of Richmond and extensive work as a AGENDA
REPORT
498
September 24, 2024
community organizer. His background includes advocating for criminal justice reform and supporting families impacted by systemic issues, which aligns with the commission's goals of fostering accountability and trust in policing.
Oscar’s experience in leading various community initiatives highlights his dedication to addressing inequities and improving public safety. With a solid foundation in social advocacy and a deep understanding of the challenges faced by marginalized communities, he brings valuable insight and commitment to the role. His work demonstrates a thoughtful approach to supporting the Richmond community through fair and effective policing practices.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Oscar Flores redacted application to the Community Police Review Commission
499
500
PUBLIC WORKS
JUNE 2024
ABATEMENT UPDATE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
501
NEIGHBORHOOD
CLEAN-UPS (4)
PULLMAN
PARK PLAZA
CORTEZ STEGE
PARCHESTER VILLAGE
(23 DUMPSTERS – 49.78 TONS)
502
92 SENIORS/DISABLED
PERSONS ASSISTED
(26.14 TONS)
PULLMAN
PARK PLAZA
CORTEZ STEGE
PARCHESTER VILLAGE
503
ILLEGAL DUMPING
208.95 TONS REMOVED
504
ILLEGAL DUMPING
505
ILLEGAL DUMPING: MATTRESSES,
PAINT/OIL AND TIRES
506
WEED ABATEMENT
City Owned Lots/Alleyways
507
WEED ABATEMENT
City owned properties
City Alleyways/Richmond
Parkway
508
DISMANTLED TRAILERS (2) EMPTIED
VEHICLES (3)
509
PRIVATE PROPERTY
CLEAN-UP (1)
1 LOCATION
510
WALKWAYS
ABATEMENT (4)
4 LOCATIONS
511
ENCAMPMENT ABATEMENT (10)
22.66 Tons removed
512
ENCAMPMENT ABATEMENT
513
DecNovOctSepAugJulJunMayAprMarFebJanTonnage Collected
208.95286.88194.45229.98185.55290.37Illegal Dumping
75.9287.2572.05121.3827.630Neighborhood Clean‐Ups*
22.6624.9714.8717.0610.813.20Encampments
307.53399.1281.37369.02223.98303.57Totals
324510*Number of Events
514
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
190 Tags Removed
102 Locations
515
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
516
ABATEMENT STAFF HOURS
Illegal Dumping 938
Encampment Removal 78
Graffiti Abatement 280
North Richmond Mitigation 48
Weeds/Brush Abatement 332
Private Board Ups & Clean-Ups 70
Seniors Assistance 96
Leave 320
Transport/Misc.* 110
Total 2280
June Hours
Illegal Dumping Encampment Removal
Graffiti Abatement North Richmond Mitigation
Weeds/brush Abatement Transport/Misc*
Board Ups/Clean Ups Seniors Assistance
Leave
Transport/Misc. includes staff hours for removal of debris from vehicles, Point Molate trash removal, and hazardous waste facility disposal.
517
ILLEGAL DUMPING TONNAGE COLLECTED PER MONTH - 2024
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
January February March April May June
518
ILLEGAL DUMPING TOTAL COST PER MONTH – 2024*
0.00 20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
80,000.00
100,000.00
120,000.00
140,000.00
160,000.00
180,000.00
January February March April May June
*Includes Labor and Equipment
519
520
PARTNERSHIPS
521
PUBLIC WORKS
JULY 2024
ABATEMENT UPDATE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
522
NEIGHBORHOOD
CLEAN-UPS (3)
SOUTHWEST/PANHANDLE
ANNEX
LAUREL PARK
IRON TRIANGLE/ATCHISON
VILLAGE
(23 DUMPSTERS – 51.19 TONS)
523
98 SENIORS/DISABLED
PERSONS ASSISTED
(31.65 TONS)
SOUTHWEST
ANNEX/PANHANDLE
ANNEX
LAUREL PARK
IRON TRIANGLE/ATCHISON
VILLAGE
524
ILLEGAL DUMPING
216.76 TONS REMOVED
525
ILLEGAL DUMPING
526
ILLEGAL DUMPING:
MATTRESSES,
PAINT/OIL AND TIRES
228 MATTRESSES 112
GALLONS OF PAINT/OIL 261
TIRES
527
WEED ABATEMENT
City Owned Lots/Alleyways
528
WEED ABATEMENT
City owned properties
City Alleyways/Richmond
Parkway
529
DISMANTLED
RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES (2)
EMPTIED VEHICLES
(4)
530
WALKWAYS CLEANED (5)
5 Walkways Abated
531
WALKWAYS CLEANED (5)
532
ENCAMPMENT ABATEMENT (13)
36.44 Tons removed
533
ENCAMPMENT ABATEMENT
534
DecNovOctSepAugJulJunMayAprMarFebJanTonnage Collected
216.76208.95286.88194.45229.98185.55290.37Illegal Dumping
82.8475.9287.2572.05121.3827.630Neighborhood Clean‐Ups*
36.4422.6624.9714.8717.0610.813.20Encampments
336.04307.53399.1281.37369.02223.98303.57Totals
3324510*Number of Events
535
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
202 Tags Removed
130 Locations
536
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
537
ABATEMENT STAFF HOURS
Illegal Dumping 1081
Encampment Removal 126
Graffiti Abatement 290
North Richmond Mitigation 57
Weeds/Brush Abatement 142
Private Board Ups & Clean-Ups 0
Seniors Assistance 124
Leave 624
Transport/Misc.* 196
Total 2640
July Hours
Illegal Dumping Encampment Removal
Graffiti Abatement North Richmond Mitigation
Weeds/brush Abatement Transport/Misc*
Board Ups/Clean Ups Seniors Assistance
Leave
Transport/Misc. includes staff hours for removal of debris from vehicles, Point Molate trash removal, and hazardous waste facility disposal.
538
ILLEGAL DUMPING TONNAGE COLLECTED PER MONTH - 2024
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
January February March April May June July
539
ILLEGAL DUMPING TOTAL COST PER MONTH – 2024*
0.00 20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
80,000.00
100,000.00
120,000.00
140,000.00
160,000.00
180,000.00
January February March April May June July
*Includes Labor and Equipment
540
541
PARTNERSHIPS
542
PUBLIC WORKS
AUGUST 2024
ABATEMENT UPDATE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
543
NEIGHBORHOOD
CLEAN-UPS (10)
RICHMOND ANNEX
EAST RICHMOND
MARINA BAY
HILLTOP GREEN
HILLTOP VILLAGE
RICHMORE VILLAGE/METRO
MAY VALLEY/GREENBRIAR/EL
SOBRANTE/QUAIL HILL/HASFORD
HEIGHTS
(34 DUMPSTERS – 72.87 TONS)
544
269 SENIORS/DISABLED
PERSONS ASSISTED
(60.78 TONS)
RICHMOND ANNEX
EAST RICHMOND
MARINA BAY
HILLTOP GREEN
HILLTOP VILLAGE
RICHMORE VILLAGE/METRO
MAY VALLEY/EL
SOBRANTE/GREENBRIAR/
QUAIL HILL/HASFORD HEIGHTS
545
ILLEGAL DUMPING
392.56 TONS REMOVED
546
ILLEGAL DUMPING
547
ILLEGAL DUMPING:
MATTRESSES,
PAINT/OIL AND TIRES
• 247 MATTRESSES
• 108 GALLONS OF PAINT/OIL
• 166 TIRES
548
WEED ABATEMENT
City Owned Lots/Public
Right of Ways
549
WEED ABATEMENT
City owned properties
City Alleyways/Richmond
Parkway
550
TRAILERS
REMOVAL (2)
EMPTIED
VEHICLES (6)
551
ENCAMPMENT ABATEMENT (14)
72.44 Tons removed
552
ENCAMPMENT ABATEMENT
553
DecNovOctSepAugJulJunMayAprMarFebJanTonnage Collected
392.56216.76208.95286.88194.45229.98185.55290.37Illegal Dumping 133.6582.8475.9287.2572.05121.3827.630Neighborhood Clean‐Ups*
72.4436.4422.6624.9714.8717.0610.813.20Encampments
598.65336.04307.53399.1281.37369.02223.98303.57Totals
53324510*Number of Events
554
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
222 Tags Removed
164 Locations
555
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
556
ABATEMENT STAFF HOURS
Illegal Dumping 1510
Encampment Removal 264
Graffiti Abatement 400
North Richmond Mitigation 46
Weeds/Brush Abatement 96
Private Board Ups & Clean-Ups 12
Seniors Assistance 184
Leave 278
Transport/Misc.* 210
Total 3000
August Hours
Illegal Dumping Encampment Removal
Graffiti Abatement North Richmond Mitigation
Weeds/brush Abatement Transport/Misc*
Board Ups/Clean Ups Seniors Assistance
Leave
Transport/Misc. includes staff hours for removal of debris from vehicles, Point Molate trash removal, and hazardous waste facility disposal.
557
ILLEGAL DUMPING TONNAGE COLLECTED PER MONTH - 2024
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
January February March April May June July August
558
ILLEGAL DUMPING TOTAL COST PER MONTH – 2024*
0.00 20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
80,000.00
100,000.00
120,000.00
140,000.00
160,000.00
180,000.00
January February March April May June July August
*Includes Labor and Equipment
559
560
PARTNERSHIPS
561
September 24, 2024
City Council
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Council Member Soheila Bana
Subject:
Renaming the Section of Spring Street South of Cutting
Boulevard to Pedie Perez Avenue to Memorialize the Life of Richard “Pedie” Perez III
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The foreseeable financial impact is staff time and the cost of signage
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
September 10, 2024 – Adopted a Resolution of Intent to
rename a section of Spring Street to Pedie Perez Ave.
September 19, 2023- Proclamation honoring the life of
Richard “Pedie” Perez, III
September 19,2023 - Approved an art project to include
two decorative refuse receptacles
December 1, 2020 – Adopted Richmond's Ordinance No.
29-20 N.S.- Community Police Review Commission
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Renaming the Section of Spring Street South of Cutting
Boulevard to Pedie Perez Avenue to Memorialize the Life of Richard “Pedie” Perez III
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
HOLD a public hearing to rename the section of Spring
Street South of Cutting Boulevard to Pedie Perez Avenue to memorialize the life of Richmond “Pedie” Perez III - Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-620-6743).
AGENDA
REPORT
562
September 24, 2024
DISCUSSION:
As a City Councilmember, I acknowledge the profound grief and ongoing pain of the Perez family and friends, who have endured a heartbreaking loss that has deeply affected our community. Richard "Pedie" Perez III's untimely death serves as a painful reminder of the importance of ensuring the safety and well-being of every member of our community, especially when it comes to interactions with law enforcement.
I commend and acknowledge the unwavering dedication and tireless efforts of Richard "Pedie" Perez III's parents and grandparents who, in the face of immeasurable grief, have tirelessly worked to bring about positive change, advocating for significant legislation and ordinances to promote transparency, accountability, and improved police-community relations.
Their advocacy includes support for:
1. SB 1421 - Peace Officers: Release of Records
2. AB 392 - California Act to Save Lives
3. SB 2 - Police Decertification Act
4. Richmond's Ordinance No. 29-20 N.S. - Community Police Review Commission I acknowledge and appreciate the initiative taken by the Richmond Police Department in incorporating Richard "Pedie" Perez III's story and legacy into its Cultural Compatibility training for new officers, promoting a deeper understanding of the importance of empathy, de-escalation, and preserving the sanctity of human life.
To honor the life and memory of Richard "Pedie" Perez III, the proposed renaming of the section of Spring Street south of Cutting Blvd to Pedie Perez Avenue in tribute, would serve as a reminder of the sanctity of life and the need to strive towards change that fosters a relationship of trust and respect between its law enforcement and the community they serve.
Part of the process for a street name change is as follows: The Recreation and Parks Commission (“Commission”) recommends the name change and that recommendation is then made to the City Council. Due to quorum issues, the Commission has not met to make such name change recommendations. As an alternative, the Chair of the Commission sent a letter to the City Council advising that the Commission is unable to review this request due to the lack of active Commission members to achieve a quorum.
I am committed to the principles of justice, transparency, and community trust, acknowledging the challenges and complexities of such incidents and recognizing the imperative for reconciliation and healing.
563
September 24, 2024
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resolution of Intent
Attachment 2 – Map of Spring Street South of Cutting Boulevard Attachment 3 – Street Renaming Public Hearing Announcement Attachment 4 – Letter from Recreation and Parks Commission Chair re: Name Change 564
Reso. No. XX-17
DocID #26728v1
RESOLUTION NO. XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND TO
RENAME THE SECTION OF SPRING STREET SOUTH OF CUTTING BOULEVARD
TO PEDIE PEREZ AVENUE
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing to rename the section of Spring Street south of Cutting Boulevard to Pedie Perez Avenue was duly distributed to property and residents on Spring Street owners on or before April 16, 2024, and published in the East Bay Times on September 14, 2024, as required by City of Richmond policy, as appears from the affidavit of publishing now on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Richmond; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on September 10, 2024, the City Council (the “Council”) adopted a resolution stating its intention (“Resolution of Intention”) to rename a section of Spring Street south of Cutting Boulevard to Pedie Perez Avenue and setting a public hearing for all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed street name change for September 24, 2024, at 6:30 PM or as soon thereafter as practicable in the Richmond City Council Chambers; and WHEREAS, not less than ten (10) days have elapsed since the date of passage of said Resolution of Intention; and
WHEREAS, the name change is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Council has authority under Government Code Section 34091.1 to adopt a resolution to rename an existing public street; and
WHEREAS, such public hearing on the proposed street name change was duly held at such appointed date, time and place and the Council considered all comments made orally and in writing regarding the proposed name.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richmond as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to the authority vested in the City Council by Government Code Section 34091.1 the City Council hereby changed the name of section of Spring Street South of Cutting Blvd to Pedie Perez Avenue; and
Section 2. That the City Clerk and the Public Works Department are hereby directed to take whatever steps are required by law to notify the public of said name change, including providing any required notices, including to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors pursuant to Government Code Section 34092, and proceed to make physical improvements to the street that reflect the intent of this resolution. Tuesday, September 24, 2024, at 6:30pm, or as soon thereafter, in the City Council Chambers of the City of Richmond, 440 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, California, is hereby fixed as the time and place for hearing all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed street name change.
**********************
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held Insert Date, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
565
Reso. No. XX-17
DocID #26728v1
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. XX, finally passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on INSERT DATE ADOPTED.
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
566
567
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, September 24, 2024, the City Council of the City of Richmond will hold a public hearing to consider renaming Spring Street South of Cutting Blvd to Pedie Perez Avenue herein.
The google map showing Spring Street South of Cutting Boulevard can be accessed by clicking the internet link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/i6TfNSVVTgxw3tb76.
For more information regarding the proposed street renaming, please contact the City Council’s Office at (510) 620-6861.
The hearing will commence at 6:30 p. m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard and will be held via Zoom video conference and by toll-free teleconference call. All persons interested in or objecting to the proposed renaming of said street may attend the public hearing online or by toll-free teleconference call, or, prior to the time of the hearing, submit written comments.
To participate in the Zoom video conference online meeting and obtain detailed information on how to provide public comment, please visit the City of Richmond, City Clerk’s Office website, Council Agenda Documents webpage at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/151/Council-Agenda-Documents and review the published agenda for the September 24, 2024 meeting.
Public comment may be submitted by mail, email and/or Zoom video conference in the manner that follows, provided that no member of the public may submit more than one verbal comment per agenda item.
1. Via mail received by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting, sent to 450 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor, Office of the Clerk, Richmond, CA 94804.
2. Via email to [email protected] by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.
Emails MUST contain in the subject line 1) public comments agenda item #__ [include the agenda item number]. All such email will be posted on-line and emailed to the City Council before the meeting is called to order. No individual email will be read into the record. Due to the high volume of emails received, emails that do not contain the correct identifying information in the subject line may be overlooked and may not become part of the record. Email received after 1:00 p.m. will be posted on-line following the meeting as part of the supplemental materials attached to the meeting minutes.
3. Via Zoom by video conference or by phone using the following link/call-in numbers – for City Council:
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/99312205643?pwd=MDdqNnRmS2k4ZkRTOWhlUldQOUF1Zz09 Passcode: ccmeeting
Webinar ID: 993 1220 5643
Or iPhone one-tap:
US: +16699006833,,99312205643# or +13462487799,,99312205643# Or Telephone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592
Pamela Christian
Clerk of the City of Richmond
Dated: August 30, 2024
Published: September 14, 2024
568
569
September 24, 2024
Public Works
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Daniel Chavarria, PE, Public Works Director
Robert Armijo, PE, Deputy Public Works Director / City
Engineer
Subject:
Appeal of Encroachment Permit (#EN23-00843) Denial for
Up and Under Pub & Grill BBQ Smoker
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Applicant has paid all required fees associated with the submission and review of encroachment permit
#EN23-00843. There are no anticipated additional costs
to the City because of this appeal.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
Not applicable.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Nathan Trivers, owner of Up & Under Pub & Grill, is
appealing the City Engineer's denial of encroachment
permit application #EN23-00843, which seeks approval
to place a BBQ smoker on the public sidewalk/street
adjacent to 2 West Richmond Avenue. The denial is
based fire safety concerns, municipal code violations,
community complaints, and public right-of-way issues.
The City Council must now determine whether to uphold
or overturn the denial, considering both the Applicant’s appeal and the City’s regulatory and safety concerns.
AGENDA
REPORT
570
September 24, 2024
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the City Engineer’s decision to deny encroachment
permit application #EN23-00843 submitted by Nathan
Trivers, owner of Up & Under Pub & Grill, to place a BBQ smoker on the public sidewalk/street in front of 2 West Richmond Avenue based on fire safety concerns,
municipal code violations, community complaints, public right-of-way issues and failure to comply with other
applicable state and local regulations. – Public Works
(Robert Armijo 510-620-5477, Daniel Chavarria 510-620-
5478)
Applicant Nathan Trivers (“Applicant”), the owner of Up & Under Pub & Grill and tenant at 2 West Richmond Avenue, appeals the City Engineer’s denial of encroachment permit application #EN23-00843 which seeks to place a BBQ smoker on the public sidewalk/street in front of 2 W. Richmond Avenue.
The process to appeal the denial of an encroachment permit application is as follows:
“Any person aggrieved by City Engineer’s decision may appeal by submitting a written appeal to City Clerk within 15 days of the date of the decision.” [Richmond Municipal Code (“RMC”) section 12.30.290] “City Council shall hold a hearing on the appeal at a regularly scheduled meeting not fewer than 14 days and not greater than 45 days after City receives the appeal. City shall provide appellant at least ten days' written notice of the hearing's date and time. City Council's decision on the appeal shall be final and binding.” [RMC 12.30.290(b)]
On August 15, 2024, Applicant appealed the denial of the encroachment permit. The hearing is being held on September 24, 2024, which is less than 45 days after the City received Applicant’s appeal. On September 12, 2024, the City Clerk sent Applicant written notice of this hearing by overnight mail. Notice of the hearing was also published in the West County Times on Saturday, September 14, 2024.
BACKGROUND:
On February 7, 2023, a Richmond Code Enforcement Officer conducted an inspection of the Up & Under Pub & Grill. During that inspection, a BBQ grill was observed on the city street and photographs were taken.
On February 9, 2023, the Code Enforcement Unit issued a Notice of Violation and Demand to Abate (“NOV”) to the property owner and Applicant. The NOV stated the BBQ grill was being stored on the city street in violation of RMC section 12.28.040 571
September 24, 2024
which prohibits placing “any material, machinery or apparatus for building, paving or other purposes” “on any street, sidewalk or public place in the City of Richmond” “for over twenty-four hours without a permit.” The NOV directed the BBQ grill be stored “on the property and not on the city street, sidewalk, or any other public space.” The NOV attached the photographs taken during the inspection on February 7, 2023. (Exhibit A – 2/9/2023 NOV.)
On February 28, 2023, the Code Enforcement Unit conducted a compliance inspection and found the BBQ grill remained stored on the city street. Photographs were taken. (Exhibit B – 2/28/2023 Photographs.)
On March 3, 2023, an Administrative Citation was issued to the property owner and Applicant. It included a $250 fine for failing to remove the BBQ grill that was being stored on the city street. (Exhibit C – 3/3/2023 Administrative Citation.)
Applicant appealed the Administrative Citation. On April 4, 2023, a hearing was conducted on Applicant’s appeal. (Exhibit D – Report to Hearing Officer (without exhibits).) On April 12, 2023, the hearing officer issued a written decision upholding the Administrative Citation, writing:
The Appellant testified the smoker has been in use and stored in public area for over 13 years. Appellant does not dispute the fact that the smoker was stored on public roadway but believes the Appellant is unfairly targeted by a disgruntled neighbor. Appellant stated the smoke is used about four hours a week and during special events and does not have any suitable storage area in his restaurant.
The Appellant may have been using and storing the BBQ smokers on public streets for over 13 years, this does not mean the Appellant can legally store the BBQ smoker on public streets. Instead, the Appellant was in violation of RMC 12.28.040 for over 13 years.
Although the Appellant feels he is unfairly targeted by a disgruntled neighbor, the complaint is valid as Code Enforcement Officer Causey performed an impartial inspection and the allegation of violation of RMC
12.28.040 is sustained. Code Enforcement Officer Causey’s duty is to perform inspections regardless of who originated the complaint. A sustained finding that may have been filed by the Appellant’s disgruntled neighbor is not a valid argument for dismissing the fine and not a valid reason for allowing the Appellant to continue operating the BBQ smoker that violates RMC 12.28.040.
572
September 24, 2024
(Exhibit E – 4/12/2023 Hearing Officer Findings/Determination.) Applicant appealed the Hearing Officer Findings/Determination. A hearing was held on May 26, 2023, and on June 8, 2023, the hearing officer upheld the Hearing Officer Findings and Determination dated April 12, 2023. (Exhibit F – Report to Hearing Officer (without exhibits); Exhibit G – 6/8/2023 Hearing Officer Findings/Determination.) On October 12, 2023, Applicant submitted encroachment permit application #EN23- 00843 seeking approval to place a BBQ smoker on the public sidewalk/street adjacent to his establishment at 2 West Richmond Avenue. (Exhibit H – 10/12/2023 Encroachment Permit Application.)
While the encroachment permit application was being reviewed, the City made several attempts in early 2024 to have Applicant remove the BBQ smoker from the public right- of-way voluntarily without success.
On July 31, 2024, after completing a careful review of the application and consulting with other City departments, the City Engineer in the Public Works Department denied the permit in writing, citing several regulatory and safety concerns. (Exhibit I – 7/31/2024 Encroachment Permit Denial Letter.)
On August 15, 2024, the City Clerk received the Applicant’s appeal. (Exhibit J – Appeal received 8/15/2024.)
On September 12, 2024, the City Clerk mailed, via overnight mail, a letter to the Applicant advising that the hearing of his appeal had been scheduled for the September 24, 2024 City Council meeting and included a copy of the Notice of Hearing. The Notice of Hearing was also published in the West County Times on Saturday, September 14, 2024. (Exhibit K – Notice of Hearing.)
DISCUSSION:
RMC 12.30.010 recognizes “[t]he public rights-of-way are unique, physically limited public resources held in trust for the public’s benefit, and they require proper management to maximize their efficiency and minimize the taxpayers’ costs; to protect against foreclosure of future economic expansion due to premature exhaustion of these resources; and to minimize the inconvenience to, and negative effects on, the public from use of these rights-of-way by individuals, contractors, utility companies, video service providers, utilities, special districts, et al.”
573
September 24, 2024
As such, RMC 12.28.040 prohibits placing “any material, machinery or apparatus for building, paving or other purposes” “on any street, sidewalk or public place in the city of Richmond” “for over twenty-four hours without a permit.” Moreover, RMC [12].30.030 requires “any person” to “obtain a permit . . . before placing any encroachment in, on, over, or under any [right of way] within the City.”
RMC 12.30.280(a) relates to “Decisions on permits and encroachment agreements.” According to RMC 12.30.280(a)(1), “City Engineer shall put their decision to grant or to deny a permit in writing and deliver it to applicant within five calendar days following the decision. Notice of a decision to deny the permit shall enumerate the reason(s) for denial.”
Applicant’s permit application underwent review by multiple City departments, including Public Works, Fire, Building, and Planning, to ensure compliance with the Richmond Municipal Code and safety regulations. The timeline from the application submission in October 2023 to the denial in July 2024 reflects the careful review process across these departments, given the workload and resources of the Public Works Department and other departments.
The City Engineer denied the application based on the following seven reasons:
1. Incomplete Application:
Denial: The application was incomplete, lacking a site plan or drawing to confirm ADA compliance.
Appeal: The applicant contends they promptly submitted the missing information and questions why the City delayed feedback for nine months.
2. Fire Code Compliance:
Denial: The smoker violates California Fire Code § 308.1.4, which prohibits open-flame cooking devices within 10 feet of combustible materials.
Appeal: The applicant argues that no combustible materials are within 10 feet of the smoker, asserting compliance with fire codes.
3. Municipal Code Compliance:
Denial: Richmond Municipal Code §§ 11.96.030 and 11.96.040 prohibit unauthorized cooking facilities in public spaces.
Appeal: The applicant asserts that the smoker has been in place for 12 years without any enforcement issues, challenging the City's sudden change in interpretation.
574
September 24, 2024
4. Community Complaints:
Denial: The City received multiple complaints about the smoker from community members.
Appeal: The applicant requests proof of multiple complaints and suggests the complaints may originate from one individual rather than the broader community.
5. Public Right of Way Management:
Denial: The City expressed concern that allowing the smoker would contradict public right of way management objectives and expose the City to liability.
Appeal: The applicant points to the 12-year history of safely using the public space without incident and argues this should be taken into consideration.
6. Planning Division Comments:
Denial: The smoker may be non-compliant with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations and the applicant’s current use permits do not authorize BBQ equipment on the sidewalk.
Appeal: The applicant asserts that BAAQMD regulations apply to char broilers, not smokers, and that they cook far below the threshold required for registration.
They also argue that their use permits have never been an issue.
7. Building Division Comments:
Denial: Concerns were raised regarding insurance, proximity to public travel, smoke impact, and the need for Contra Costa County Health permits.
Appeal: The applicant claims they have passed all environmental health inspections and have requested records to confirm this. They have not received the necessary documentation to address this point in full.
The City Engineer’s denial was based on seven areas of non-compliance, each of which remains valid despite Applicant’s appeal.
1. Incomplete Application:
The application lacked a complete site plan or drawing showing the BBQ smoker's placement relative to public spaces, which is necessary to confirm compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, the letter denying the encroachment permit explicitly stated that “Despite the incomplete application, [the City Engineer had] sufficient details to make a determination on the application given what information was submitted.” While the Applicant later submitted additional information, this delay prevented staff from fully assessing the impact on public way accessibility in a timely manner. Given the smoker’s potential to obstruct pathways, this remains a legitimate concern. 575
September 24, 2024
2. Fire Code Compliance:
The California Fire Code §308.1.4 prohibits the operation of open-flame cooking devices within 10 feet of combustible materials. The Applicant contends that no combustible materials are within this range, but staff has observed the smoker being placed near wooden structures such as a doorway, parklet, and telephone pole. The photographs taken in February 2023 show the smoker on the street, next to a parklet and adjacent to a sidewalk. These photographs also show a tree and building nearby. These observations suggest that the fire code violation is valid, and allowing the smoker to remain in these locations would pose significant safety risks to the public.
3. Municipal Code Compliance:
Richmond Municipal Code §§ 11.96.030 and 11.96.040 prohibit unauthorized cooking facilities from being placed in public spaces. Although the applicant states that the smoker has been in place for 12 years without issue, this does not negate the current violation of municipal codes. The City’s responsibility to uphold public safety and protect public spaces overrides any precedent set by the past use of the smoker.
4. Community Concerns:
The City received complaints regarding the smoker’s presence in the public right of way. While the applicant argues that these complaints may come primarily from one individual, this does not negate that the presence of the smoker in the public right of way violates multiple municipal and may violate state regulations.
The Public Works Department conducted an impartial review of the encroachment permit, and this concern is one of many reasons that justify the decision to deny the permit. The complaints, even if limited, demonstrate a public concern that must be addressed.
5. Public Right of Way Management:
RMC Chapter 12.30 emphasizes the efficient and safe management of public right of way to protect public resources and minimize liability. Allowing a BBQ smoker to occupy a public sidewalk or street introduces liability risks, particularly concerning pedestrian safety, fire hazards, and potential accidents. Even with the applicant's history of safe operation, future risks cannot be ignored.
6. Planning Division Comments:
The BBQ smoker may require registration with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) under its commercial cooking equipment 576
September 24, 2024
regulations. The Applicant asserts that their smoker is not subject to these regulations but has not provided formal documentation from BAAQMD to confirm this. Without verification that their equipment is exempt, the City’s concern about air quality compliance remains valid, and this must be resolved before proceeding with the encroachment request.
7. Building Division Comments:
The Building Division raised concerns about insurance requirements, proximity to public travel, and the potential impact of smoke on nearby structures. The Applicant claims to have passed health inspections but has not provided the necessary documentation to fully address these issues. The proximity of the smoker to public areas and the risk of smoke affecting nearby buildings remain critical concerns, supporting the denial.
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the applicant’s appeal and uphold the City Engineer’s denial of encroachment permit #EN23-00843 by resolution. (Exhibit L - Resolution No. __24.) While the Applicant raises points regarding the delay in the application process and community complaints, the Applicant was well-aware of the City’s concerns of placing a BBQ smoke in a public right of way from the prior code enforcement efforts when he applied for the encroachment permit. The denial of the encroachment permit is consistent with the City’s prior code enforcement actions and justified based on non-compliance with fire safety regulations, municipal codes, and public safety concerns. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with BAAQMD, ADA, or building codes. Allowing the smoker to remain in a public area, whether the street or sidewalk, introduces unacceptable risks to both the City and to the public.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Exhibit A – 2/9/2023 Notice of Violation
Exhibit B – 2/28/2023 Photographs
Exhibit C – 3/3/2023 Administrative Citation
Exhibit D – 3/30/2023 Report to Hearing Officer (without exhibits) Exhibit E – 4/12/2023 Hearing Officer Findings/Determination Exhibit F – 5/24/2023 Report to Hearing Officer (without exhibits) Exhibit G – 6/8/2023 Hearing Officer Findings/Determination Exhibit H – 10/12/2023 Encroachment Permit Application
Exhibit I – 7/31/2024 Encroachment Permit Denial Letter Exhibit J – Appeal received 8/15/2024
Exhibit K – Notice of Hearing
Exhibit L – Resolution No. __24
577
AGENDA REPORT
EXHIBIT A
2/9/2023 NOTICE OF VIOLATION
578
579
580
581
582
AGENDA REPORT
EXHIBIT B
2/28/2023 PHOTOGRAPHS
583
584
585
586
AGENDA REPORT
EXHIBIT C
3/3/2023 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
587
588
589
590
591
AGENDA REPORT
EXHIBIT D
3/30/2023 REPORT TO HEARING
OFFICER (without exhibits)
592
593
594
AGENDA REPORT
EXHIBIT E
4/12/2023 HEARING OFFICER
FINDINGS/DETERMINATION
595
596
597
598
AGENDA REPORT
EXHIBIT F
5/24/2023 REPORT TO HEARING
OFFICER (without exhibits)
599
600
601
AGENDA REPORT
EXHIBIT G
6/8/2023 HEARING OFFICER
FINDINGS/DETERMINATION
602
603
604
AGENDA REPORT
EXHIBIT H
10/12/2023 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION
605
Updated 08/02/2023 BEFORE YOU DIG – CALL USA @ 1-811/800-227-2600 Submittal Date: ____________________ Staff: ___________________ Assigned Permit Number (CRW): _______________________________
Applicant:
Property Owner Contractor Utility Company Other Contact Name:
Address:
Phone: Cell:
Email:
Job/Reference Number:
Cntractor/Sub-Contractor:
Contractor License No.:
Contact Name:
Address:
Phone: Cell:
Email:
Richmond Business License No:
Scope of Work:
__________________________________________________________
STAFF USE ONLY
Encroachment Permit: $575
Sewer Lateral (Sewer District: Richmond West County Stege) Right of Entry (monitoring wells, pavement coring)
Facility Placement (debris box, temporary fence) $218 Concrete: (sidewalk, driveway approach, curb/gutter) $224 Plumbing: (Cleanout/2-Way Back Flow Preventer) $194
Traffic Control Plan Review:
# of Hours: x $290/hr. $
Design Plan Review:
# of Hours: x $290/hr. $
Major Encroachment: (additional days in ROW, in excess of 3) # of Days: x Inspector Hourly Rate: $192/hr. $
Warranty Bond: (required for street cut and for concrete work by a Licensed Concrete Contractor) $500
2% Credit Card Processing Fee $
TOTAL: $
Property Address: ________________________________________ Property Type for 4” Sewer Lateral:
Single Family Multi-Family (4 units or less)
Property Type for 6” Sewer Lateral:
Multi-Family (over 4 units) Commercial Industrial (Refer to WRR)
Est. Start Date: # o f D a y s W o r k i n g i n R - O - W : ________ Street Cut Prohibition: Yes / No (See General Conditions)
1. Is the project within the Marina Bay Area: Yes / No : If yes ,
2. Is the project within the Deed Restricted Areas: Yes / No : If yes,
3. Additional requirements may apply. (See General Conditions) Please draw below or attach a site plan for the proposed work:
SITE PLAN FOR
PROPOSED WORK
CITY OF RICHMOND
Public Works Department
Encroachment Services Division
Office: (510) 307-8091
Apply Online using eTRAKiT
etrakit.ci.richmond.ca.us
ENCROACHMENT APPLICATION FORM
450 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804
www.ci.richmond.ca.us
[email protected]
10/12/2023
Nathan Trivers
Nathan Trivers
2 W Richmond Ave, Richmond, CA 94801
916-640-6239
[email protected]
By owner
N/A
BBQ smoker placement on sidewalk/street
2 W Richmond Ave, Richmond, CA 94801
1/1/2024 Permanent
606
Updated 08/02/2023
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Street C ut Prohibition: Additional requirements may apply for Prohibition Streets. If proposed work involves street excavat ion, the Applicant must check and indicate if the excavation is within any P r o h i b i t i o n S t r e e t . A l i s t o f c u r r e n t P r o hibition Streets is available on our web site at www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=2534.
2. Marina Bay Deed Restricted Areas: Additional requirements ma y apply for work conducted within the nine (9) Marina Bay Deed R estricted Areas. If proposed work is conducted within the boundari es of the deed restricted properties, Applicant is to check Deed Restriction and Operation and Maintenance Plan for specific deed restricted area condition of compliance (e.g. Notifica tion of DTSC). A map showing the loca tions and boundaries of these 9 areas is available on our website at www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=2752&ART=7571&ADMIN=1.
3. Work shall be done in accordance with the City of Richmond Standard Plans and specifications.
4. This Permit, or a complete copy, shall be kept at t he work site at all times while work is being performed.
5. The Permittee shall repair or replace at the discretion of the City Engineer, any and all pub lic facilities damaged as a res ult of Permittee’s actions in connection with this permit, and shall guarantee repairs or replacements to all work done under this permit, as deemed necessary by the City Engineer, for a period of one year after completion of said work. For concrete and utility trench Works, see Standard Specifications for Concrete Work and Standard Specification for Utility Trench.
6. Permittee shall comply with all Federal, State and Local laws, regulations and statutes applic able to the work being performed under this permit. This also includes compliance with the requirements and permit conditions of the State of California, Division of Industrial Safety.
7. “No Parking” signs must be installed 24 hours in advance.
8. Traffic and pedestrian access control must be in place prior to start of work. No traffic signs and cones are to be left ove rnight without the written permission of the City Department Head/Enginee r. Barricades with flashers are to be us ed. Traffic Control plan shall be in accordance with latest California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and Pedestrian access plan shall be in accordance with the latest ADA requirements.
9. Traffic shall be permitted to pass through the work area at a ll times. Complete street closures must be approved by the City Department Head/ Engineer.
10. The Permittee shall not work on Saturdays, Sundays, City of Richmond holidays nor between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. without the written permission of the applicable City Department Head/ City Engineer or their designee.
11. Driveways (business, apartments, homes, side streets) must not be closed but are to have access at all times.
12. Except in an emergency, street cut permits shall be obtained in advance for excavation work. An emergency is considered to exis t only when life or property is endangered or when an essential utility service is or may be interrupted during weekends, holidays, or between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. of normal working days.
13. In the event of an emergency excavation work, the Applicant shall notify the City of Richmond and apply for a street cut pe rmit for “emergency work” within four (4) hours after the City of Richmond’s office opens.
14. All excavation shall be backfilled and paved either temporarily or permanently at the end of each work day or covered with steel traffic plates held securely in place and flush mounted with a non-skip surface.
15. Use and install Best Management Practices (BMP) to comply wi th the City of Richmond Stormwater Management Discharge and Control Ordinance.
Construction activities, including trenching and pavement repair work will be limited when rain is forecast within five days. Supply a recovery system for saw cut waste and sweep all streets daily.
16. Report all utility line breaks to the appropriate utility com pany immediately and notify the City of Richmond Engineering & Capital Improvement Projects Department at (510) 307-8091.
17. The Applicant shall designate in writing before starting work, an authorized English speaking representative who shall have the authority to represent and act for the Applicant. Failure of the authorized representative to be present at the jobsite at all times when work is in progress will be considered as failure on the part of the Applicant to provide adequate supervision and work will be suspended until a representative is present.
18. Construction activity shall be conducted in such a manner that the maximum sound levels at affected properties shall not ex ceed per Municipal Code Chapters 9.52 – Community Noise Ordinance and 15.04.840 – Performance Standards.
19. All utility markings and construction signs shall be removed upon completion of the project.
20. Traffic Control Plans and/or Design Plans must be submitted at least fifteen (15) business days prior to the construction start date.
21. A minimum of 0.5 hour will be charged for Traffic Control Plans and/or Design Plans separately. Increments of 0.5 hour will be charged based on the Engineer’s time to review.
22. No POD container encroachment permits will be issued on the public right of way.
23. A $500 guarantee deposit fee is required for concrete wo rk performed by a licensed concrete contractor.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Special conditions may apply after the initial review of the application and will be marked with . Applicant shall review and acknowledge each special condition by initial next to each before signing below. ______ 1. Door hanger notices shall be distributed no sooner than 72 hours and no later than 24 hours prior to the start of work. ______ 2. Additional requirements apply for recently improved street. See attached “Special Conditions for Street Excavations in recently Improved Street”.
______ 3. Obtain permit from Richmond Fire Department. Call (510) 307-8031. ______ 4. Approval from County Health Department must be obtained prior to starting work. Call (925) 646-5225. ______ 5. Comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 and General Order 128. ______ 6. Contact West County Wastewater District (WCWD) for line location and provide copy of their permit at (510) 222-6700. ______ 7. Contact Stege Sanitary District for line location and provide copy of their permit at (510) 524-4668. ______ 8. Provide AC Transit with information for re-route. Call (510) 891-4839 or (510) 891-4734. ______ 9. Install two way cleanout/ backflow prevention valve/ overflow device per City of Richmond Sewer Lateral Compliance Plan RMC 12.17.040.
______10. Prior to start of work, the Permittee shall inform the property owner/occupant in writing, 72 hours in advance the details (purpose, schedule, time and duration, contact person, etc.) of work in the area. ______11. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I hereby certify that all information provided in this application is true and complete and I agree to comply with the General Conditions and any applicable Special Conditions attached to the permit and all information provided of this application form.
APPLICANT NAME (PRINT): _______________________________________________________ APPLICANT SIGNATURE: ___ ______________________________________________________ DATE: ___________________________10/12/2023 Nathan Trivers
607
AGENDA REPORT
EXHIBIT I
7/31/2024 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
DENIAL LETTER
608
609
610
AGENDA REPORT
EXHIBIT J
APPEAL RECEIVED 8/15/2024
611
August 12, 2024
Pamela Christian
City Clerk
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Dear Pamela Christian,
Subject: Appeal of Encroachment Permit Application #EN23-00843 Denial I'm reaching out to appeal the recent denial of our Encroachment Permit Application #EN23-00843. We submitted this application on October 24, 2023, and received a denial notice on July 31, 2024. I'd like to address some points that I believe are important for reconsideration.
1. Incomplete Application:
When we first submitted the application, it was flagged for missing the Property Address, Estimated Start Date, and the number of days working in the Right of Way (ROW). We promptly uploaded the missing information to ETrakit and, for the next njne months, we didn't hear anything from the City about further issues with our application. If we had been notified sooner, we would have immediately taken care of any additional requirements. It's disappointing that it took this long for the City to provide feedback, especially when we could have addressed everything in a much shorter timeframe.
2. Fire Code Compliance:
I want to assure you that there is NO combustible construction within 1 0 feet of our BBQ Smoker. We take fire safety very seriously and have always ensured that we comply with all relevant codes.
3. Municipal Code Compliance:
Our BBQ Smoker has been on the sidewalk since 2010 without any problems. It has never been labeled as camp paraphernalia or a non-City authorized cooking facility. The sudden interpretation of municipal codes to challenge the presence of the smoker seems inconsistent, especially since the City has not previously provided a list of what constitutes a non-City authorized cooking facility. After 12 years of no issues, it feels unfair to have this brought up now.
4. Community Concern:
We've asked for public records to confirm whether there are complaints from multiple community members, but we haven't received them yet. Without these records, it's hard to u
�
erstand the basis for the City's concern. We'd appreciate proof that the complaints are in eed from more than one person and not just from a single individual. Given the time-sensitive n ure of this appeal, we are submitting this letter before the records are released. 612
613
AGENDA REPORT
EXHIBIT K
NOTICE OF HEARING
614
City Hall • 450 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 300 • Richmond, California 94804 • (510) 620-6513 • www.ci.richmond.ca.us • E-mail: [email protected] O
FFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
S
eptember 12, 2024
N
athan Trivers
2 W Richmond Avenue
Richmond, California 94801
D
ear Mr. Trivers:
A
public hearing for your appeal of the Engineering Department’s denial of Encroachment Permit Application EN23-008341 has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 24, 2024, during the regular meeting of the City Council which will begin at 6:30 p.m.
A
s the appellant, you, or your representative, will have eight minutes to present your reason(s) for supporting the appeal and there will be an opportunity for a two-minute rebuttal. All other speakers will have three minutes to state whether they are in support of or oppose the appeal. A copy of the Notice of Hearing is enclosed.
P
lease call me at (510) 620-6513, ext. 9 should you have any questions.
S
incerely,
P
amela Christian
City Clerk
PC
Enclosure
cc: R
obert Armijo, Engineering Department
615
CITY OF RICHMOND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
EN23-00843
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Richmond, will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, September 24, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard (RMC Section 12.30.290) to:
Consider an appeal of the Engineering Department ’s decision regarding the denial of Encroachment Permit Application EN23-00843, received on August 15, 2024.
Any questions regarding this hearing may be directed to Robert Armijo Engineering Department at (510) 620-5477.
All interested persons are invited to give public comment by mail, eComment, email, and/or Zoom video conference or in-person in the manner that follows, provided that no member of the public may submit more than one verbal comment per agenda item:
In-Person: Interested persons having objections to or wishing to speak in support of this matter may appear and be heard before the City Council in the Council Chamber at 440 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, California.
Via mail: received by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting, sent to 450 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor, Office of the Clerk, Richmond, CA 94804.
Via eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published. Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on.
Email your comment to [email protected] should you have difficulty submitting an eComment during a meeting.
Via email: to [email protected] by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Email MUST contain in the subject line 1) public comments – Agenda Item #. All such email with correctly labeled subject lines will be posted on-line and emailed to the City Council before the meeting is called to order. Email received after 1:00 p.m. will be posted on-line following the meeting as part of the supplemental materials attached to the meeting minutes.
Via Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/99312205643?pwd=MDdqNnRmS2k4ZkRTOWhIUIdQOUF1Zz09 Meeting ID: 99312205643
Passcode: ccmeeting
Or iPhone one-tap:
US: +16699006833, 99312205643# or +13462487799, 99312205643# Or Telephone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592
By Order of the Richmond City Council:
Pamela Christian
City Clerk
Dated: September 11, 2024 Published: September 14, 2024
AVISO: Para obtener ayuda interpretative con esta noticia, por favor llame a la oficina de la Secretaria Municipal, al (510) 620-6513.
616
AGENDA REPORT
EXHIBIT L
RESOLUTION NO. ___24
617
DocID #27394v3
RESOLUTION NO. __24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,
DENYING THE APPEAL OF NATHAN TRIVERS, OWNER OF UP & UNDER PUB &
GRILL, AND UPHOLDING THE DENIAL OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION #EN23-00843 FOR PLACEMENT OF A BBQ SMOKER ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK OR STREET ADJACENT TO 2 WEST RICHMOND AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond Code Enforcement Unit previously issued a notice of violation and demand to abate on February 9, 2023 and an administrative citation on March 3, 2023 under Code Enforcement Case No. CE23-000077 to the owner of 2 West Richmond Avenue and the tenant, Up & Under Pub & Grill, at 2 West Richmond Avenue for storing a BBQ grill on a city street in violation of Richmond Municipal Code (“RMC”) section
12.28.040; and
WHEREAS, Applicant Nathan Trivers (“Applicant”), owner of Up & Under Pub & Grill, appealed the administrative citation; and
WHEREAS, the administrative citation was upheld in a written decision dated April 12, 2023; and
WHEREAS, Applicant appealed the written decision dated April 12, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the written decision dated April 12, 2023 was upheld in a written decision dated June 8, 2023; and
WHEREAS, Applicant submitted an encroachment permit application #EN23-00843 dated October 12, 2023, seeking approval to place a BBQ smoker on the public sidewalk/street adjacent to 2 West Richmond Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department with the support of other City Departments reviewed the application and the City Engineer denied it on July 31, 2024, due to concerns including fire safety, non-compliance with municipal codes, community complaints, and public right-of-way management; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a written appeal to the City Clerk under RMC
12.30.290 challenging the denial;
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2024, the City Clerk mailed, via overnight mail, a letter to the Applicant advising that the hearing of his appeal had been scheduled for the September 24, 2024 City Council meeting and included a copy of the Notice of Hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing on September 24, 2024 in accordance with the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order and received, reviewed, and considered testimony and evidence from City staff, the Applicant, and the public; and
618
DocID #27394v3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richmond, as follows:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and this City Council hereby so finds and determines.
Section 2. After careful consideration of the testimony and evidence at the hearing on September 24, 2024, the City Council makes the following findings of facts:
1. The Applicant is a tenant at 2 West Richmond Avenue and the owner of Up & Under Pub & Grill.
2. Applicant has placed a BBQ smoker on the street/sidewalk adjacent to 2 West Richmond Avenue since 2010.
3. Photographs taken in February 2023 show the BBQ smoker near an active roadway intersection, next to a parklet, and adjacent to a sidewalk. The photographs also show a tree and building nearby.
4. The City has received complaints concerning the placement of the BBQ smoker in the public right-of-way.
5. The City is responsible for managing public rights-of-way and public areas and maintaining them in a clean, safe, and accessible condition as set forth in the Richmond Municipal Code, including but not limited to Chapters 11.96, 12.28, and 12.30.
6. The City has not received information showing that allowing the BBQ smoker on the sidewalk/street would be compliant with Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and applicable health and safety, fire, and building code provisions.
Section 3. Based on the foregoing findings of facts and the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing on September 24, 2024, the City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the City Engineer’s denial of encroachment permit application #EN23-00843, which sought approval to place a BBQ smoker on the public sidewalk/street adjacent to 2 West Richmond Avenue. The evidence shows that allowing a BBQ smoker on the public sidewalk/street adjacent to 2 West Richmond Avenue poses a risk to public safety, violates multiple City code provisions, including but not limited to RMC 11.96.030, 11.96.040, and 12.28.040, and exposes the City to liability risk. The City Engineer’s decision to deny the encroachment permit application is consistent with the City’s prior code enforcement effort and the City’s duty to maintain safety and compliance with regulatory standards.
Section 4. City staff shall continue enforcement of the applicable municipal and state codes and regulations regarding the use of public spaces and public rights of way.
Section 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. 619
DocID #27394v3
**********************
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 24, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTION:
___________PAMELA CHRISTIAN___________
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Approved:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
620
September 24, 2024
City Council
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Council Member Soheila Bana
Subject:
Direct Staff to Conduct an Assessment, Study and
Community Outreach on the Usage of Chevron's $550
Million Payment Over the Next 10 Years
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for a fee of up to $100,000 to hire consultants to facilitate community outreach efforts, conduct related
assessments and studies will need to be determined.
Staff time is needed to assist in the collection,
compilation and assessment of data for the spending use of the annual payments beginning in 2025 and an outline of spending for the $550 million payment over the next 10 years
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
Special City Council Meeting - August 14, 2024
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
To ensure the $550 million to be paid over the next 10
years is used according to the will of the community to address the unmet needs of our residents and benefit the next generation, and to create a just pathway to create more revenue sources for the city and transition from
reliance on Chevron as a primary revenue source.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DIRECT staff to issue a request for proposals, IDENTIFY a funding source and ALLOCATE up to $100,000 to hire
consultants to facilitate community outreach efforts and conduct assessments, and to DIRECT the city manager
and appropriate staff to design and implement
comprehensive community outreach to gather input on
enhancing public safety and quality-of-life services,
AGENDA
REPORT
621
September 24, 2024
support and assist with the assessment of the City's
unmet infrastructure needs, and assess the City's
unfunded obligations and develop a strategy to reduce
these within 10 years and to create a reserve fund to
relieve future generations of debt burdens -
Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-620-6743).
DISCUSSION:
The $550 million payment from Chevron presents a historic opportunity for Richmond to address longstanding infrastructure deficits, critical public safety needs, and to improve the quality of life for its residents. By ensuring these funds are allocated equitably, with broad community input, we can make meaningful improvements for our current population while safeguarding Richmond’s financial future for generations to come.
The City Council would benefit from comprehensive studies and assessments in the following areas:
1. Community Outreach and Engagement:
Design and implement a thorough community outreach process to hear directly from all communities about their needs and priorities, especially in enhancing quality-of-life services (e.g., housing, parks, youth services, employment and training opportunities, healthcare, and recreational services). Ensure that outreach efforts prioritize equitable representation from historically underrepresented communities, guaranteeing inclusivity and fairness. Utilize a variety of methods, such as town halls, online surveys, and partnerships with local organizations to capture the full spectrum of resident input.
2. Assessing Basic Infrastructure Needs:
Conduct a detailed assessment of the City's unmet infrastructure needs, focusing specifically on public and environmental safety. Public safety should be considered broadly, encompassing traffic safety, reducing gun violence, addressing gender-based violence, providing shelter for all residents, wildfire prevention, and healthcare access.
Identify high-priority areas for investment to ensure a safe, sustainable environment for all residents.
3. Assessing Unfunded Obligations and Long-Term Financial Stability:
Provide a thorough assessment of the City’s unfunded obligations, including pension liabilities and infrastructure deficits. Develop a strategy to reduce these obligations over the next 10 years using Chevron's payments to ensure financial benefit to future generations.
622
September 24, 2024
Explore the creation of a reserve fund or other financial safeguards to address these long-term liabilities, ensuring that future generations are not burdened with excessive debt.
4. Planning for a Just Economic Transition:
Develop a strategic framework within the next 6 months to transition Richmond away from reliance on Chevron as its primary revenue source. This plan should focus on diversifying economic opportunities, attracting new businesses, and promoting green initiatives to build a sustainable future for Richmond. Collaborate with local labor organizations, environmental groups, and economic experts to develop a transition plan that includes workforce training and retraining, particularly in industries aligned with environmental sustainability.
Timeline and Deliverables:
City staff should present their assessments on community outreach findings, unmet infrastructure needs, and unfunded obligations by the end of February 2025.
These findings will play a critical role in shaping the City’s budget for FY 2025-26, which will be finalized by June 2025, while also providing a clear outlook for long-term planning and future allocation of Chevron’s $550 million payment.
Richmond has a unique opportunity to lead the way in community-driven decision- making and sustainable development, while also addressing its unfunded liabilities and reducing its dependence on Chevron for revenue.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
None
623
September 24, 2024
City Council
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Councilmember McLaughlin, Vice Mayor Jimenez and
Councilmember Robinson
Subject:
Chevron Settlement Fund Intentions
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The resolution is an expression of future intent with no immediate direct financial impact, aside from a prohibition on City employees making any commitment of the
Chevron settlement funds without City Council approval.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-24 on
August 14, 2024, rescinding Resolution No. 63-24 and
approving a settlement agreement with Chevron
Corporation to pay the City $550M over ten (10) years.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The resolution would express City Council’s intention
moving forward to spend the funds received from
Chevron in a manner that does not increase the City’s
dependence upon Chevron tax revenues, but instead
facilitates development of a resilient and just local
economy that is independent of the fossil fuel industry.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ADOPT a resolution expressing City Council’s
overarching intention with respect to expenditure of the Chevron settlement funds, outlining types of expenditures that would be consistent with this intention, and
prohibiting City employees from making alternative plans or commitments of the funds without first obtaining City Council consent - Vice Mayor Claudia Jimenez (510-
620-6565), Councilmembers Gayle McLaughlin (510-
620-6636) and Doria Robinson (510-620-6593).
AGENDA
REPORT
624
September 24, 2024
DISCUSSION
The Chevron Richmond refinery and other fossil-fuel related industries in Richmond will inevitably curtail or cease operations in the foreseeable future in the context of the shifting state and global energy economy. One of the reasons City Council and community members advocated for a ballot measure aimed at increasing revenue from Chevron was that this revenue stream would better position the City to transition to a healthy and diversified economy that is not fossil fuel-dependent. Now that the City has settled with Chevron for a $550 million revenue stream in lieu of the revenues that would have been generated from success of the ballot measure, it is important that the City spend the funds in a manner that does not simply double down on the City’s dependence on Chevron, but rather helps eliminate that dependency and replace it with a diversified local economy that will thrive even as the fossil fuel industry wanes.
To this end, this resolution lays out the intention of the City Council moving forward to appropriate the Chevron settlement funds for a set of overarching purposes that will improve the lives of City residents without risking deepened dependence on the fossil fuel industry. The resolution provides a number of specific examples of types of expenditures that would be consistent with this intention. However, it is neither the purpose nor the effect of this resolution to implement specific funding appropriations.
Rather, it expresses Council’s directional intention regarding such future appropriations.
The City Council recognizes, as do advocates supporting the resolution, that substantive decisions concerning appropriation of the funds and the structure of decision-making governing such appropriation will require further in-depth analysis and public dialogue.
To ensure that City Council maintains the ability to fully effectuate its expressed intent, the resolution requires that City employees collaborate with and assist the City Council in development of future actions appropriating the settlement funds, and prohibits them from committing the funds without City Council consent.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment – Resolution
625
RESOLUTION NO. __-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,
CALIFORNIA EXPRESSING THE INTENTION THAT FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE
CITY FROM CHEVRON PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT APPROVED ON AUGUST 14, 2024 BY RESOLUTION NO. 98-24 BE APPROPRIATED IN A MANNER THAT REDUCES RATHER THAN EXACERBATES THE CITY’S DEPENDENCE
UPON THE CHEVRON REFINERY AND THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY AND
FACILITATES A RESILIANT AND JUST LOCAL ECONOMY
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 63-24 on June 18, 2024 to place a measure on the ballot for the November 5, 2024 election (Ballot Measure) to allow voters of the City to impose a business license tax on oil refining in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98 -24 on August 14, 2024 withdrawing the Ballot Measure in exchange for agreement by Chevron Corporation to pay the City the sum of $550 million over a period of 10 years (the Settlement Funds); and
WHEREAS, the City ’s local economy is significantly dependent on fossil fuel s, including the Chevron refinery (Refinery) and related local industry, importation of cars through the port, and residents’ current dependence on combustion engine cars for transportation; and
WHEREAS, it is inevitable that the Refinery will cease to operate or significantly scale back operations in the foreseeable future as California transitions to a clean energy economy, causing significant financial harm to the City if it has not transitioned to an economy that is less dependent upon the Refinery; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the community members advocating for the Ballot Measure aimed to increase revenue for the City, with the possibility to then provide additional funds to assist the City in a transition to a healthy and diversified economy that does not depend on the operation of the Refinery and other fossil fuel -related business, and to improve public health and the environment in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has already begun developing plans to build out a resilient and just local economy, through the Climate Action plan and General Plan Climate Element, the Blue- Green New Deal planning process, and the work of community stakeholders involved in California’s Regional Investment Initiative and other planning initiatives; and
WHEREAS, inadequate or deteriorated infrastructure is an obstacle to economic development in key parts of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council favors a “Complete Streets” approach to transportation infrastructure, meaning an approach to transportation policy and design that requires streets to be planned, designed, operated and maintained to enable safe, convenient and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities regardless of their mode of transportation; ensures environmental sustainability of transportation infrastructure; and allows for safe travel by those 626
walking, cycling, driving automobiles, riding in public transportation, or delivering goods; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to allocate Settlement Funds to projects that will improve the quality of life for the City’s residents without exacerbating the City’s economic dependence on a fossil fuel economy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that all decisions concerning expenditure of the Settlement Funds are made in a manner that is open and democratic, and empowers Richmond residents to oversee and make decisions concerning Settleme nt Fund expenditures to the maximum extent possible consistent with the City charter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks in this Resolution to declare its intention concerning future action it will take in supporting the allocation and expenditure of the Settlement Funds and governance of such expenditure,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richmond declares its intention that, to the maximum extent legally and economically possible, it will implement the following actio ns in its future decisions concerning expenditure of the Settlement Funds and associated preparation for the City’s transition away from dependence upon the Refinery and the fossil fuel economy:
SECTION 1. INTENDED DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE
(a) The City Council intends to e stablish one or more separate funds to hold and disburse Settlement Funds. Such funds shall be used for the purposes defined in Section 2 and other purposes that the City Council, in consultation with City residents, determines will fur ther the goal of preparing for the City’s transition away from dependence upon the Refinery and the fossil fuel economy. (b) The City Council further intends to evaluate means for expenditures from the fund or funds to be governed in a manner that is fully transparent and democratic, implementing community-led decision making to the maximum extent allowable under the City Charter.
SECTION 2. INTENDED EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES
The City Council intends to ensure that Settlement Funds, to the maximum extent possible, are allocated to the following or substantially similar purposes:
a) Specific expenditures as shall be directed by the City Council to improve public infrastructure, help ensure healthy communities, and otherwise improve quality of life, benefitting all sectors of the City but particularly in fenceline communities most heavily impacted by the Refinery . These expendures shall address such needs as improvements to recreational facilities , sustainable housing and abatement of the unhoused crisis, transportation improvements using a Complete Streets approach , improvements to neighborhood parks, and support for programs for youth. b) Specific expenditures as shall be directed by the City Council to improve the City’s 627
environment and climate resiliency, make available renewable energy and efficiency upgrades, remediate contaminated sites, and develop open space and public access to it, particularly in Refinery fenceline communities.
c) Planning and investigation for eventual remediation of the Refinery site. d) Promoting development of a local economy and workforce that is less dependent upon the Refinery and the fossil fuel industry through strategies such as community- led finance, land leased for below market rates, studies on how to transition sectors of the local economy, contracting with local green businesses, and study and planning of investment strategies and other means to reduce dependence of the City’s budget on fossil fuel-derived revenues.
e) Establishment of funds to be set aside for future uses, including potentially funds to cover environmentally-related legal expenses and to cushion the impact of reduced tax revenue from the Refinery, either at the end of the 10 -year period in which Settlement Funds will be paid or upon downsizing or closure of the Refinery. f) Ensuring the availability of robust and fully supported City infrastructure and personnel resources, essential to carry out the objectives of this section. g) No expenditure of Settlement Funds should increase the City’s or residents’ dependence on fossil fuels. By way of example, if the Settlement Funds are used to upgrade city streets, the projects must enhance infrastructure for non -fossil fuel transportation such as cycling, electric vehicles, and pedestrian use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City employees shall collaborate and assist the City Council in the study and development of resolutions and other actions to implement the intent expressed herein, and shall cooperate to the maximum extent practicable as assisting in that effort; and to that effect, City employees shall not make alternative plans or commitments of the Settlement Funds without first obtaining City Council consent.
***************
628
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a special meeting thereof held September 24, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
PAMELA CHRISTIAN
_________________________________
CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:
EDUARDO MARTINEZ
Mayor
Approved as to form:
DAVE ALESHIRE
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 Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on September 24, 2024.
_______________________________________
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
629
September 24, 2024
Library and Community Services
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager, Community
Services
Nickie Mastay, Deputy City Manager, Internal Services
Lori Reese-Brown, Project Manager
Hope Lattell, Finance Manager
Subject:
Receive Performance Improvement Plan for the Measure
J funded R-Transit Program and Lower the Cost Pool Rate for R-Transit
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Lowering the cost pool rate for the Measure J funded R- Transit Program will reduce the Program’s administrative cost by the amount of the reduction, and increase the
cost to the City’s General Fund. Limiting Richmond’s
overhead rate to 20% would reduce the cost of general
administration from $490,000 to $139,000. The difference of $351,000 would increase the net cost to the City’s
General Fund by the same amount.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The administrator of the Measure J funds for paratransit services, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA) finds that Richmond’s overhead rate is exorbitant when compared to other recipients of the paratransit fund and are withholding their approval of the City’s FY 2024- 25 claim of $1.23 Million until the City addresses this issue, as well as other concerns identified in the
Authority’s audit of the R-Transit program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE a presentation regarding the Richmond Paratransit Audit commissioned by the Contra Costa
AGENDA
REPORT
630
September 24, 2024
Transportation Authority; APPROVE the City of
Richmond’s responses to the Audit and the Performance
Improvement Plan; and AUTHORIZE the reduction of the
cost pool amount allocated to the Richmond Paratransit
Program by $351,000 in Fiscal Year 2024-25 which
would increase the General Fund’s obligation by
$351,000 – Community Services Department (LaShonda
White 510-620-6828).
DISCUSSION:
Richmond’s Transit Services
For nearly ½ century the City of Richmond has provided paratransit services for seniors and mobility impaired adults. The service has evolved into three programs that serve the residents of Richmond and surrounding unincorporated areas. For the users who require assistance there is the R-Transit program - a door-to-door demand responsive service using the City’s specialty equipped vehicles operated by trained City staff. A second program, launched in 2018, serves all seniors via an app that provides on demand curb-to-curb trips. Operations is provided through a contract with Lyft with the cost of each trip subsidized by the City. A third program is a door-to-door demand responsive service provided by a City contractor, TransMetro. It was created to be the back-up to the City’s paratransit service and thereby ensure that R-Transit clients are always served. Funding is provided from the Environmental and Community Investment Agreement (ECIA) with Chevron.
The City provides a fourth transit program called Richmond Moves. It was launched in 2022 and provides on demand shuttle service for all City residents from and to predetermined origins and destinations. Since it is available to all residents it is referred to as a micro-mobility service versus a paratransit service. Operations is provided by Nomad Transit, a wholly owned subsidiary of Via Transportation (Via). Funding is provided from the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), along with a 50 percent match from the ECIA.
A summary of the City’s transit services is shown in the below chart.
Program Service Provider Eligibility Funding
Source
R-Transit Door-to-door City staff 55+
18-54 disabled
Measure J
R-Transit with
Lyft
Curb-to-curb
Lyft vehicle
Lyft 55+
18-54 disabled
Measure J
R-Transit with
TransMetro
Door-to-door TransMetro 55+
18-54 disabled
ECIA
Richmond
Moves
Corner-to-
corner
Nomad Transit
(aka Via)
All Residents TIRCP and
ECIA
631
September 24, 2024
The service area for the R-Transit services is shown below:
Measure J Fund
In 2004 the Contra Costa voters approved Measure J, which extended the half-cent local transportation sales tax, first established by Measure C, for another 25 years. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority administers Measure J funds. Program 15 of Measure J is dedicated to transportation for seniors and people with disabilities, commonly referred to as paratransit. Individuals with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (or ADA), must be served; and services not required by law, but reflect local community interests, such as non-ADA seniors, may be served.
The total amount of Program 15 funds and the set aside for each of the 7 eligible providers are calculated annually by the CCTA. The eligible providers are shown below.
1. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (aka County Connection)
2. East Bay Paratransit Consortium
3. Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (aka Tri Delta Transit)
4. West Contra Costa Transit Authority (aka WestCAT)
5. City of El Cerrito
6. City of San Pablo
7. City of Richmond
Program 20 of Measure J is dedicated for additional transportation services for seniors and people with disabilities. For the West Contra Costa Subregion, of which Richmond is a part of, these funds may be used, but not limited, for vehicle replacements, the subsidy of sedan/taxi services, new services, an increase in demand, an increase in 632
September 24, 2024
costs, and a decline in revenues. The total amount of Program 20 funds and the set aside for each of the eligible providers are calculated annually by the CCTA.
As earlier mentioned, two of three paratransit services provided by the City of Richmond are funded through Measure J. To receive the annual funds the provider must submit a CCTA claim form. The claim includes information about the program’s previous, current, and next year’s performance and finances. The review and approval of the claim has four steps involving the CCTA staff; a subcommittee of the Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC); the PCC; and the CCTA Board.
In FY 2019-20 Richmond’s claim was approved and Measure J funding was dispersed for FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20. In FY 2020-21 and again in FY 2021-22 the claim process was suspended due to COVID, but Richmond, like the other providers, received Measure J funds. In FY 2022-23 the City prepared a claim but according to the CCTA was not received. The issue of the missing claim was not resolved and that resulted in the loss of Measure J funding for that year. In FY 2023-24 the City filed a claim but it was deemed to be incomplete. For a 2nd year the issue was not resolved that resulted in the loss of Measure J funding. In February 2024, the CCTA Board authorized an audit of the Richmond paratransit program for the five-year period from FY 2018-19 through FY 2023-24. The audit was completed in June 2024.
What Happened Between 2022 and 2024
The workload of the staff in the Transportation Division in Community Services exceeded staff’s capacity. The manager of the Division spends less than 50 percent of their time overseeing paratransit services with the remainder of their time allocated to micromobility services (i.e. Richmond Moves, bikeshare, and car share programs), expanding EV charging systems, parking, transportation demand management, and regional transportation coordination. While more attention to the gathering and analysis of accurate performance and financial data could have occurred, the attention of staff was on the operations of the paratransit services, the expansion of the Lyft program and the development of the Richmond Move program. It is noted that the Lyft program, advocated by the Division manager, grew its ridership to be 10 times larger than the original paratransit service.
When the City was notified of the CCTA audit, City staff from Community Services and Finance, including both Deputy City Managers worked collaboratively to prepare for and respond to the audit findings. In addition, the Deputy City Manager of Community Services retained the services of a consultant with MRG to assist in effectively responding to the audit findings.
The transfer of the Transportation Division from the Community Services Department to the Public Works Department was envisioned to occur in 2022, at the time the current Community Services Department was being constituted. That transfer, however, was delayed due to a change in leadership in Public Works and the need for the new Director to focus on his existing cadre of services.
What is Happening Now
633
September 24, 2024
The formal transfer of the Transportation Division from Community Services to Public Works is scheduled to occur in FY 2024-25. In anticipation of the official transfer, vacant positions in Community Services - Transportation have been repurposed in Public Works, which has enabled Public Works to begin to build a comprehensive transportation division. The division will be engaged not only in transit services, but it will also be the lead in traffic calming, safety improvements, micromobility services, EV charging systems, parking, transportation demand management, and regional transportation coordination.
The Transportation Division will be led by a new Transportation Manager, funded by the salary savings from the deletion of the existing division manager position of Project Manager II, who is before the end of the calendar year 2024. The new position is subject to the approval by Richmond’s Personnel Board and the salary range approved by the City Council. The Public Works Department is planning to establish the position before transferring the Transportation Division to Public Works.
In addition, through collaboration with Human Resources, the position of Paratransit Coordinator or similar classification will be created subject to the constraints of the Measure J funded annual budget. The new position is also subject to the approval by Richmond’s Personnel Board and the salary range approved by the City Council. The Community Services Department is planning to establish the position before transferring the Transportation Division to Public Works.
Performance Improvement Plan
The Measure J Audit produced 29 recommendations. All recommendations are addressed in the Performance Improvement Plan (Plan), which was collaboratively and thoughtfully developed with the consultant and City staff. The following chart shows the Plan’s desired outcomes, its relationship to audit recommendations, and the schedule to develop and utilize the outcomes. Additional information regarding the 13 outcomes are described in the August 19, 2024 transmittal to the CCTA attached to this report. City staff is recommending that City Council approve City staff’s responses to the CCTA Audit findings and the proposed plans for implementing the audit findings. The consultant from MRG will support City staff in operationalizing the audit findings. The City’s responses to the Plan, along with the CCTA Audit and other relevant documents, are included in Attachment 1.
634
September 24, 2024
Cost Pool (Overhead)
The Audit highlighted that a significant portion of Richmond’s Measure J Paratransit Program is budgeted for administrative costs (aka overhead). The FY 2024-25 Measure J Claim includes $489,624 for administrative costs and $695,352 for operating costs, excluding the Lyft subsidy. That means that for every $7 spent to operate the paratransit service, another $5 is spent on overhead. This equates to an overhead rate of approximately 70%. In comparison the overhead rates for the Measure J providers that comprise the West Contra Costa County Subregion is shown below.
Desired Outcome
& Audit Recommendation #
2024 2025
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May Jun
e
1 Accurate performance and
financial data
1, 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, 20, 23
2 Continuous monitoring, evaluation,
& incremental improvements
3, 4
3 Functional paratransit vehicles
16 4 Capable paratransit drivers
17,21,22
5 Lower administrative cost (cost
pool allocation)
7, 8, 9
6 Measure J funding for FY 2024-25
Approved
1,2,5,6,9
7 Resolution of Measure J funding in
previous fiscal years
5, 6
8 Transfer paratransit program to
Public Works
5 9 Increase # of clients and # trips
15, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
10 Increase customer satisfaction
29 11 Reduce cost/trip – ambulatory and
non-ambulatory
10, 11
12 Assessment of service delivery
options for FY 2025-26
13 Measure J funding for FY 2025-26
Approved
2 635
September 24, 2024
Program Expenditures West Contra Costa County Subregion Providers City of
Richmond
City of San
Pablo
City of El
Cerrito
West Contra
Costa Transit
Authority
General Administration $489,624 $61,800 $33,295 $222,334 Paratransit & Excursion
Operations $695,352 $273,500 $138,671 $1,845,153
Overhead Rates
(Admin/Operations)
70.4% 22.6% 24.0% 12.0%
Source: FY 2024-25 Measure J Claim Forms
The reduction in the cost of overhead would increase the amount of Measure J funds available for operations that could be used to expand services and/or address unmet needs. For this reason, the CCTA strongly recommends that Richmond lower its overhead cost.
The administrative cost of the Richmond R-Transit program consists entirely of the City’s cost pool. The cost pool is a proportionate share of expenses by the City’s internal services and the general liability expense that supports the delivery of direct city services. Examples of internal services include legal, financial and human resources.
Council Options
The Administration has identified three options for the consideration of the City Council.
The options and the consequences are shown below:
1. Limit Richmond’s overhead rate to 20 percent (Staff’s Current Recommendation) - This proposed amount is comparable to other Measure J claimants. For FY 2024-25 Richmond’s ratio of administrative costs to operating costs is 70.4%. The average ratio of the other claimants in the West Contra Costa County Subregion is approximately 20%. Limiting Richmond’s overhead rate to 20% would reduce the cost of general administration from $490,000 to $139,000. The difference of $351,000 would increase the net cost to the City’s General Fund by the same amount. On the other hand, the reduction in overhead costs would increase the likelihood that the Measure J claim for FY 2024-25 would be approved, thereby avoiding the possible loss of $1.23 million in the General Fund if the claim was denied. The “savings” to the paratransit program of $351,000 could be budgeted to increase services and/or address unmet needs.
2. No change – The Measure J funded paratransit program would not deviate from the City’s existing allocation of the Cost Pool. The current citywide allocation already reflects a reduction in the full recovery of overhead charges. Lowering the cost pool allocation further for the paratransit program will negatively impact the City General 636
September 24, 2024
Fund by the amount of the reduction. For example, lowering the recovery of administrative costs by $350,000 would increase the net cost to the City’s General Fund by the same amount. However, if the City’s decision to not lower its administrative charges resulted in the loss of Measure J funds, the impact on the General Fund would be the loss, in FY 2024-25, of $1.23 million.
3. Full exemption from Cost Pool allocation – The exemption of the Measure J funded paratransit program from the Cost Pool would increase the net cost to the City’s General Fund by $490,000. The “savings” to the paratransit program of $490,000 could be budgeted to increase services and/or address unmet needs. Richmond, however, would stand alone out of the 7 claimants for Measure J paratransit funds, to forgo any funding for the organization’s administrative costs.
Option 1, limiting Richmond’s overhead rate to 20 percent, is recommended because it is responsive to the recommendations of the Audit, it is in-line with the overhead rates of the other providers in the West Contra Costa County Subregion, and it results in additional funds being available to expand paratransit services and/or address unmet needs.
NEXT STEPS
City staff continues to meet collaboratively with CCTA staff to discuss the implementation of the R-Transit audit to ensure successful service delivery for patrons.
A focus on work will include but is not limited to the development of a paratransit rider's guide, standard operating procedures, improved outreach, increase in ridership, and implementation of customer satisfaction surveys. The City will continue to work with Human Resources on staffing needs. In addition, the City is working with CCTA staff to resolve and receive outstanding Measure J funding revenue from FY 2021-22 to FY 2024-25 to substantially reduce or remove the current negative fund balance.
The City presented an update to the CCTA Paratransit Coordinating Committee on September 16, 2024, and there are plans for a presentation and update to the CCTA Board in October or November 2024. The CCTA Board will be charged with deciding regarding if Richmond’s Performance Improvement Plan is sufficient to allow Richmond to keep its Paratransit program or if a decision will be made to transfer Richmond’s program to another jurisdiction. If the City is unable to retain the paratransit program, City staff will return to City Council as soon as feasible to discuss next steps. City staff is optimistic that Richmond’s Performance Improvement Plan demonstrates Richmond’s dedication to continuous improvement and serving the residents that use paratransit services.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Transmittal to CCTA Regarding the FY 2024-25 Draft Paratransit Performance Improvement Plan including CCTA Audit
637
September 24, 2024
Attachment 2 – Draft Paratransit Performance Improvement Plan Slide Deck
638
450 C
ivic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804-1630
Telephone: (510) 620-6512 Fax: (510) 620-6542 www.ci.richmond.ca.us CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
A
ugust 19, 2024
Ne
well Arnerich, Chair
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
S
ubject: City of Richmond Paratransit Service Measure J Audit Program 15 – Commitment and Performance Improvement Plan
De
ar Newell Arnerich:
T
his letter is in response to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) letter dated June 20, 2024, pertaining to the City of Richmond’s Paratransit Service Measure J Audit Program 15. Per the letter, on July 20, 2024, the City submitted a Letter of Intent to CCTA stating the City’s interest and intent to continue operating its paratransit program and indicating that a subsequent letter would be submitted by August 19, 2024, containing the City’s plans to improve performance of the paratransit plan.
T
his letter is to confirm that the City intends to deliver its existing paratransit services during Fiscal Year 2024-25. To move the program forward and to address the findings and recommendations in the 2024 CCTA Audit, we developed a Performance Improvement Plan (“Plan”) that includes the desired outcomes and a schedule. The Draft Plan is attached. In September 2024, the Richmond City Council will consider the Plan and address policy issues such as proposed staffing changes and the Cost Pool allocation for the Measure J funded paratransit program. The final Plan will reflect the direction of the City Council. Richmond’s pending claim for FY 2024-25 Measure J funding will be updated to reflect the final Plan in hopes that it will be considered by the Paratransit Coordinating Council in October 2024.
W
e would like to acknowledge and express our appreciation for the professionalism and support of CCTA staff, its consultants, and the Paratransit Coordinating Council throughout the course of this audit process. The City of Richmond looks forward to continuing to work collaboratively with CCTA to make needed improvements.
I
f you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to me at [email protected] and/or LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager – Community Services, at [email protected] or 510-620-6828. 639
640
1 Draft FY 2024-25 Performance Improvement Plan
City of Richmond Paratransit Services
Background
The 2024 Measure J Audit (“Audit”) of the City of Richmond Paratransit Program recommended that the C ontra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) develop a Performance Improvement Plan (Plan) for the City of Richmond ’s paratransit program. The CCTA staff indicated that the City and not CCTA should develop that Plan and that the Plan should reflect the Audit’s findings and recommendations. In adherence to CCTA’s requests, the City is submitting a Plan which includes the chart below summarizing the Plan’s desired outcomes, relationship to CCTA audit recommendations, and the schedule to develop and operationalize the outcomes. Additional details for each of the 13 outcomes are described following the chart. The CCTA letter, CCTA Paratransit Audit, and the City’s initial response are attached for reference.
Desired Outcome
& Audit Recommendation #
2024 2025
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June
1 Accurate performance and financial
data
1, 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, 20, 23
2 Continuous monitoring, evaluation, &
incremental improvements
3, 4
3 Functional paratransit vehicles
16 4 Paratransit staffing
17,21,22
5 Lower administrative cost (cost pool
allocation)
7, 8, 9
6 Measure J funding for FY 2024-25
Approved
1,2,5,6,9
7 Resolution of Measure J funding for
previous fiscal years
5, 6
8 Transfer paratransit program to
Public Works
5 9 Increase # of clients and # trips
15, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
10 Increase customer satisfaction
29 11 Reduce cost/trip – ambulatory and
non-ambulatory
10, 11
12 Assessment of service delivery
options for FY 2025-26
13 Measure J funding for FY 2025-26
Approved
2 641
2 Two of the 29 Audit recommendations are not referenced in the Plan for the reasons described below:
• Recommendation #14 is for the CCTA – To revise the Measure J Claims forms to clarify terms. Recommendation #14 has been completed.
• Recommendation #18 states that the Richmond Rider ID Card serves no useful purpose and should be sunset. Recommendation #18 has been completed.
It is important to note that the City provides a micro -mobility service, called Richmond Moves, that does not receive any Measure J funding, and is therefore not included in the Plan.
Richmond Moves is operated by a company called Nomad, LLC (dba as Via). Via also owns Richmond paratransit’s new routing and data management system.
The draft proposed Plan and tim eline may be revised b ased on additio nal information received regarding the paratransit program, direction from Richmond City Council, and/or discussions with CCTA staff/Board.
Desired Outcome 1: Accurate Performance and Financial Data ➢ Corresponding CCTA Audit Recommendations: 1, 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, 20, 23
CCTA Audit Language: The Audit found errors, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the FY 23/24 Claim Forms. The Audit concluded that City staff do not understand the relevancy of performance metrics; have different understandings of terms such as trip and fare revenues; different ways of accounting for fees ; and use different calculations for on -time performance. These differences contribute to lapses in detecting obvious errors in data. The Audit noted that the City does not maintain a record of all customer calls. It recommended that a log be instituted that includes a checkbox for each of the categories of Unmet Needs identified in the Claims Forms. It is recommended that add itional training and support be provided for the new Via software ; that qualified staff ensure the accuracy of data; that the Via program is set-up to optimize its utility; and that all program staff understand the utility of performance metrics and levels of service. In the alternative, replace City staff by outsourcing the service. It is further recommended that an ongoing internal audit of various reports be done and that a quality assessment of supporting reports and documentation used for Measure J Claims be completed prior to the submittal of a Claim.
City’s Corrective Actions:
A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Richmond’s paratransit services will be created by the Community Services Department . The SOP will include but is not limited to information regarding paratransit industry service standards, staff training for dispatchers and drivers , customer service standards, as well as the collection, entering, use and analysis of performance and financial data for the Measure J funded services. It will include all forms of input (i.e. electronic and phone calls). In addition, the definition of all terms will be included in the SOP . The City currently has a consultant onboard that is prepared to assist with SOP development and other paratransit-related tasks, if necessary. 642
3 The City is working with Via to update the routing and data management system as needed to ensure the appropriate data is collected . Paratransit and City staff currently meet bi - weekly with Via staff which allows for training , information sharing, and review of ridership data. Staff will continue to receive training on the use and capabilities of the Via system. To optimize the benefits of the data systems , the existing bi-weekly meetings with Via will be memorialized with the preparation and review of monthly reports. Each report will be reviewed by the paratransit team for completeness and accuracy.
The City currently utilizes two additional services to support the traditional paratransit van service – Lyft and TransMetro. Lyft is a ride share service that is under contract with the City of Richmond to provide an option for ambulatory paratransit customers. The City has seen major annual increases in Lyft ridership reaching over 17,000 rides provided in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 -24. City staff also receives monthly raw data for all Lyft rides which is disaggregated for increased analysis and reporting. More information regarding Lyft services can be found at: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3747/R-Transit-with-Lyft.
In addition, the City has a contract with TransMetro to provide back-up van service when City’s 2 paratransit drivers are unable to meet service needs. The City sends daily manifests to TransMetro for rides, as needed, and inputs data from TransMetro rides into the existing Via data system. The City is working with TransMetro and Via to ensure all relevant data is collected for Measure J reporting.
The information collected may include but not necessarily be limited to the following:
• # distinct clients served by City Paratransit, TransMetro, and Lyft services by clients’ residency (e.g. City of Richmond, unincorporated area)
• # boardings on City Paratransit, TransMetro, and Lyft services by passenger’s residency (e.g. City of Richmond, unincorporated area). The attendants and guests of a disabled client are counted as separate boardings. (e.g. a disabled client, her attendant and son count as 3 boardings)
• # wheelchair passenger boardings on City Paratransit, TransMetro, and Lyft • # boardings with attendants by City Paratransit and TransMetro • # revenue service hours for City Paratransit
• # revenue service miles for City Paratransit
• # no-shows by City Paratransit, TransMetro, and Lyft
• # cancellations by City Paratransit, TransMetro, and Lyft • # trips denied by City Paratransit, TransMetro, and Lyft • # multi-agency trips by City Paratransit
• # accidents by City Paratransit, TransMetro, and Lyft • % of on-time performance by City Paratransit, TransMetro, and Lyft • # Lyft boardings provided outside of paratransit hours of operations • # Lyft boardings to destinations not provided by City Paratransit services • $ fares collected by City Paratransit and TransMetro services 643
4 • $ invoices received from TransMetro and Lyft services • $ payments to TransMetro and Lyft services
• $ Measure J invoices sent
• $ Measure J payments received
Desired Outcome 2: Continuous Monitoring, Evaluation, and Incremental Improvements
➢ Corresponding CCTA Audit Response: 4
CCTA Audit Language: The Audit did not include specific recommendations regarding the City’s paratransit level of service, because there is no agreement between the CCTA and the Measure J fund recipients to institute such a performance measurement system.
City’s Corrective Actions:
The paratransit team members will meet at least monthly to review and analyze the performance and financial data from outcome #1 and, as the information becomes available, from outcomes #9, #10, and #11. The actual results will be used to develop quarterly pr ojections and be used to update the annual objectives for the performance indicators. The team will address all anomalies in data and unmet needs. It will search for opportunities and process improvements to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of operations. Key performance indicators used to measure the success of the paratransit services will include number of unique riders, number of registered clients, the cost/subsidy per passenger trip, on -time performance, and customer satisfaction. The ver ified information will be used in the pending FY 2024-25 Claim for Measure J funding, as described in #5, below . Community Services will lead this effort , with the assistance of an existing consultant, and provide the system to Public Works when the program is transferred as described in #8, below.
Desired Outcome 3: Functional Vehicles
➢ Corresponding CCTA Audit Recommendation: 16
CCTA Audit Language: The Audit concluded that the existing paratransit vans are in poor condition and that two replacement electric v ans are not in use due to lack of adequate charging facilities. It recommended that the City prioritize the deployment of the new paratransit vans. However, during a n inspection of the new vans, CCTA staff identified concerns such as the side doorsteps are too high, and handrails are missing.
City’s Corrective Action:
The Community Services staff is working with the Public Works Department to ensure that the new vehicles are placed in service as soon as possible and that the existing vehicles, while they are being utilized, are given priority attention.
CCTA conducted an inspection of the new vans in July 2024 and shared a few concerns regarding the specifications of the new vehicles. City staff noted those concerns and plans 644
5 to work with paratransit drivers and Public Works staff to determine if modifications can be made to the new vans to make them more functional for seniors. It is City’s staff understanding that there are no industry best practices and/or CCTA specifications for paratransit vehicles. Therefore, City staff worked closely with the vehicle manufacturer to build the new vans based on client needs. Since the City did not utilize Measure J funds to purchase the new vans, the City is amenable to working with CCTA staff to build the specifications for new vans for purchase using future Measure J funds.
Desired Outcome 4: Paratransit Staffing
➢ Corresponding CCTA Audit Recommendation: 17,21, 22
CCTA Audit Language : The Audit recommended the City hire a full -time paratransit coordinator to oversee its programs. In addition, they pointed out that one of the two paratransit drivers has restrictions due to a disability accommodation. Since the driver is not able to assist non-ambulatory riders, she functions as a part-time employee (about ½ FTE) with duties that include driving, dispatching and office work . The Audit reported that the drivers want clients to have personal care attendants (PCA) to assist them load and unload non-ambulatory riders. Richmond already has a relatively high PCA to non-ambulatory rider ratio of 2 to 3. According to the Audit, however, a PCA is not a substitute for the driver under any circumstances. It is recommended that the City assess the fitness of its existing drivers to perform the duties of the job . It is further recommended that a training program be implemented that includes defensive driver training with a refresher every three years; mobility device training; working with riders with physical and cognitive disabilities. Another recommendation is p re-employment and accident/incident drug testing and random drug testing.
City’s Corrective Actions:
Community Services Department will work with t he Richmond Human Resource Department to develop the appropriate job description for a Paratransit Coordinator or similar position, if directed. This position will have to be approved by Richmond’s Personnel Board and the salary range approved by City Council before the recruitment process can commence.
It is noted that the job classification of Paratransit Driver was modified when the position was classified to R -Transit Paratransit Driver with the addition under working conditions as “Medium Work” . If major changes are required for drivers, City staff will work with Human Resources to identify feasible options to ensure that the rights of the drivers are maintained, while also meeting service needs for the community. Community Services will work with the drivers to schedule training including, but not limited to defensive driver training, the use of mobility devices, and working with riders with physical and cognitive disabilities. Additional trainings, some of which have already been implemented, include writing and editing (to assist with completing Measure J narratives ), CPR and First Aid training, and customer service training. Random d rug and alcohol testing will be conducted consistent with City 645
6 policies. The above issue will be resolved, and the full training program will commence prior to the paratransit program being transferred to the Public Works Department (see #8 below).
Desired Outcome 5: Lower Cost Pool Allocation
➢ Corresponding CCTA Audit Recommendation(s): 7,8, 9
CCTA Audit Language: The Audit highlighted that a significant portion of Richmond’s Measure J Program 15 budget is used for administrative costs, that the amount is exorbitant, and strongly recommends that the rate be reduced.
City’s Corrective Action:
The administrative cost shown in the City’s Measure J budget consists of the City’s Cost Pool allocation. The Cost Pool is the collection of expenses by the City’s internal services and the general liability program that are needed to support the delivery of direct city services.
Examples of internal services include information technology, legal, financ e and human resources. The total cost of the pool expenses is prorated among the programs that use these services. For the Measure J funded paratransit services, the ratio of the City’s Cost Pool to operating cost is high. The FY 2024 -25 Measure J Claim includes $489,624 for administrative costs and $695,352 for operating costs, excluding the Lyft subsidy. The City’s ratio of administrative cost/operating cost of 70% is much higher than the roughly 20% rate of similar Measure J funded paratransit programs. The City’s administration is reviewing the Cost Pool allocation for paratransit and will provide options for the consideration of the City Council at a meeting in September 2024. Making changes to the C ost Pool allocation is a City Council and not a City staff decision. The City Council’s decision will be reflected in the City’s pending FY 2024-25 Measure J Claim.
Desired Outcome 6: Measure J Program 15/20 Funding for FY 2024-25 Approved ➢ Corresponding CCTA Audit Recommendation(s): 1,2,5,6,9
CCTA Audit Language: The Audit pointed out that Richmond’s Measure J claim needed to address the errors, inconsistencies and contradictions of earlier claims ; that the cost of administrative be reduced; that the claim is complete, and that the cost of the paratransit and Lyft services is broken out.
City’s Corrective Actions:
Due to the flaws in gathering and recording performance data , it is not possible to provide data that was not gathered, and /or not accurately recorded. Going forward, the new Via data management system described in Desired Outcome #1 will be used to revise the estimates in the City’s pending Measure J Claim Form (s). In addition, t he administrative costs will reflect the decision by the City Council regarding Cost Pool allocat ions as described in Desired Outcome #5.
As stated, the City receives monthly raw data from Lyft that can be analyzed and reported as part of the Measure J claims. To-date, the City has provided Lyft data for FY 21/22, FY 22/23 646
7 and FY 23/24. The Community Services Department will manage the effort s to obtain approval of the Claim.
Desired Outcome 7: Resolution of Previously Denied Measure J Program 15/20 Claims ➢ Corresponding CCTA Audit Recommendation(s): 5, 6
CCTA Audit Language: The Audit documented that the status of the Richmond claims are as shown below:
• FY 19/20 Claim accepted: Allocated two fiscal years funding of $1.7 million • FY 20/21 Claim process suspended due to COVID: Allocated $698 K • FY 21/22 Claim process suspended due to COVID: Allocated $326 K • FY 22/23 No claim received (but City prepared incomplete claim) Allocated $0 • FY 23/24 Claim denied: Audit triggered: Allocated $0
During the Audit, the City provided the program budgets for the each of the above fiscal years but did not provide sufficient back-up documentation to confirm what was spent and that direct costs cited were spent on the program. Additionally, because only two complete Claims were submitted for the five fiscal years of review, and they represent the first and last years, there is no way to track the flow of the expenditures to budget or to follow that reserve balance.
City’s Corrective Action:
While it is not possible to recreate data to replace the missing performance data for FY s 21/22, 22/23 and 23/24 , it is possible to provide the requested financial records such as invoices, expense reports, receipts, and expenditures. If requested, the Community Services Department will lead this effort through fruition. Since the publishing of the Audit, the City submitted the FY 22 /23 Measure J claim forms with the best information available , and submitted the additional information requested by CCTA required to receive the remaining FY 21/22 Measure J payments. The City submitted the FY 23/24 claim form on-time but due to on-going concerns from CCTA, the audit commenced, and no funds were received. City staff will revise and resubmit past Measure J claim forms to incorporate any direction by Richmond City Council, as well as future recommendations by CCTA.
Desired Outcome 8: Transfer Paratransit Program to Public Works ➢ Corresponding CCTA Audit Recommendation(s): 5
CCTA Audit Language: The Audit concluded that if the service were to remain under the auspices of the City, a new, full-time administrator should be put in charge of the program to prioritize corrections, focusing first on issues of safety and customer care. The positions should report directly to senior management. That person should have experience in the delivery of transit services for seniors and persons with disabilities.
647
8 City’s Corrective Actions:
The transfer of the Transportation Division from the Community Services Department to the Public Works Department is currently scheduled to occur in late 2024 . Based on existing information, the current program manager within the Transportation Division in Community Services plans on retiring in 2024 , prior to the transfer of the Division to Public Works. The current manager spends less than 50 percent of their time overseeing paratransit services with the remainder of their time spread between micromobility services, electric vehicle charging systems , p arking, transportation demand management, regional transportation coordination, and other duties . The Public Works Department is aware of the CCTA Audit and this Performance Improvement Plan. When the transfer occurs (projected in December 2024), the Transportation D ivision’s new manager will report directly to the City Engineer/Deputy Director of Public Works. The new division manager will be capable of effectively managing the paratransit program . The Transportation Division will include or have access to staff such as engineers that can coordinate other transportation needs, administrative staff to assist with contract oversight, bilingual staff that can support paratransit riders, along with the paratransit staff. Additional staff are being considered but are subject to the determination of both needs and availability of funding. If appropriate and directed for continued management of the paratransit program, City staff is prepared to develop and release a job description for a full -time Paratransit Coordinator or similar position. The transition of the paratransit program from Community Services to Public Works will be done in a thoughtful manner that will ensure paratransit staff are suppo rted and community members continue to receive seamless services.
Desired Outcome 9: Increase Number of Clients and Number Trips ➢ Corresponding CCTA Audit Recommendation(s): 15, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
CCTA Audit Language: The Audit reported that the total ridership for both the Paratransit and Lyft programs is in the range of 2,800-3,000/year. This was based on incomplete information provided by the City. The updated ridership for FY 23/24 is 1,676 for paratransit , approximately 600 rides by TransMetro, and 17,442 for Lyft – a total of nearly 20,000/year.
Even with the incomplete information t he Audit concluded that the Lyft program has the greatest potential with unlimited capacity to increase ridership at the lowest cost. It recommended that the Lyft program be promoted. In terms of the City paratransit service, it is not clear if there is an unmet need, because the TransMETRO service is used to provide any trip that cannot be provided by City paratransit. The Audit recommended a number of specific actions including updating the City’s paratransit website; providing a translation service to provide over the phone; and providing print material in Spanish, in large print, Braille, and audio. It recommended that the Lyft brochure and the Client Orientation Guide be updated.
City’s Corrective Actions:
A greater focus on increasing the number of clients and ridership is planned to occur after the paratransit program is transferred to Public Works and the paratransit program is under a new management team. The City is in the process of u pdating the City’s website, as well 648
9 as the paratransit webpages . P rint material was previously updated and is being widely distributed at public facilities, posted on social media platforms, and shared at community events. City staff agrees that information and services should be available in other languages, such as Spanish, and will continue to implement this recommendation. City staff is currently working on translating relevant materials to Spanish. Other actions will be considered based on the review and assessment of the monthly performance reports , and the determination of unmet needs. Any additional staff, such as a new Transportation Manager in Public Works and/or a Paratransit Coordinator, will support the ongoing outreach to recruit and retain clients and increase trips. It is important to note that Lyft trips have steadily increased since City staff have begun analyzing and reporting data in FY 21/22, with over 17,000 trips reported in FY 23/24.
Desired Outcome 10: Increase Customer Satisfaction
➢ Corresponding CCTA Audit Recommendation: 29
CCTA Audit Language: The Audit acknowledged the City’s Paratransit Survey on its website.
But noted that the feedback included 10 responses in 9 years, with no responses in the past 5 years. It is recommended that all clients be contacted annually to solicit feedback. The information should be analyzed to determine how to improve the customer experience. All client comments should be maintained.
City’s Corrective Actions:
The City’s existing Paratransit Survey will be updated and promoted , for both the City paratransit and the Lyft paratransit programs. This should be added to the monthly performance and financial reports as part of the on-going evaluation of paratransit services.
A standard operating procedure will be developed and adhered to for the gathering, storage, and use of information related to customer satisfaction. The new Transportation Manager will expand the program’s existing efforts of Community Services.
Desired Outcome 11: Reduce Cost Per Trip
➢ Corresponding CCTA Audit Recommendation(s): 10, 11
CCTA Audit Language: The Audit pointed out that the cost per trip is high and recommended that the City work to lower cost and increas e ridership. It pointed out that the benefits to salary ratio is higher for this program than the City average. While this may be true the benefits of each employee was reviewed and confirmed to be accurate.
City’s Corrective Actions:
A greater focus on reducing cost per trip is planned to occur after the paratransit services are transferred to Public Works and under a new management team. It is important to remember that the Richmond paratransit service consists of three programs. The paratransit service is expensive at a projected cost per trip for FY 2024 /25 of $658. The TransMETRO service provides paratransit service when City vehicles/drivers are not available. The City pays a fixed rate of $750 per day per vehicle . This service can be a s low as $100/trip 649
10 depending upon the number of rides provided by the vehicle per day. The Lyft paratransit service is the most economical at a projected City cost per trip for FY 2024/25 of $10 per trip.
Collectively the cost of the three paratransit programs is less than $70/trip. In comparison the cost per trip for the San Pablo service is $79; for El Cerrito the cost is $89; and for WestCAT the cost is $103.
The new Transportation Manager and/or Paratransit Coordinator will oversee the analysis of the Richmond paratra nsit’s cost per trip including the potential of increasing ridership, reducing operating costs, improving vehicle reliability, adjusting usage of TransMETRO or other supplemental van service providers , and outsourcing van service if this is a direction deemed feasible and necessary by CCTA and/or City Council.
Desired Outcome 12: Assessment of Service Delivery Options ➢ Corresponding CCTA Audit Recommendation: N/A
CCTA Audit Language: The Audit concluded that if the City is unable to address the issues identified in the Audit, a complete shift in the delivery of paratransit services is warranted.
The City should turn over the program management to another public agency, and ideally, it would be the West Contra Costa Technical Advisory Committee (WCCTAC). In response, the WCCTAC indicated that it is neither set -up nor interested in delivering paratransit services.
The Audit also concluded that the City should assess the cost and potential benefits of transitioning its paratransit service delivery to a contracted vendor.
City’s Corrective Actions:
Based on the outcomes of the meetings with Richmond City Council in September 2024 and CCTA Board in October 2024, the existing and future delivery of services will be evaluated by the City of Richmond (Human Resources, Community Services and Public Works Departments) in early 2025. If changes are warranted and direction is provided by the CCTA Board and City Council, the City will assess contracting out services currently provided by City employees and/or turning over all or a portion of the City’s Measure J Funded paratransit services to another public agency. Ultimately, the City Council will decide on any changes in the delivery of services. Outsourcing is a sensitive and complicated topic that the City takes seriously. Conversations with appropriate unions, City staff and departments, as well as City Council would have to occur, and various steps would be taken before a decision can be made to move in that direction.
Desired Outcome 13: Measure J Program 15/20 Funding for FY 2025-26 Approved ➢ Corresponding CCTA Audit Recommendation(S): 2, 5, 6
CCTA Audit Language: The Audit noted that the City has not successfully filed a Measure J Claim for the past several years. It recommends that the City prioritize filing an annual Claim.
650
11 City’s Corrective Actions:
The filing of an annual Claim should not be an end of year effort. It is part of the on-going process to continuously improve the City’s paratransit services. The new transportation management team in the Public Works Department is looking forward to submitting the Measure J Claim for FY 25/26 in compliance with all CCTA provisions.
651
Richmond Paratransit Additional Documents:
• CCTA Letter dated June 20, 2024
• City of Richmond’s Letter of Intent dated July 20, 2024 • Richmond Paratransit Measure J Audit received May 7, 2024 • City of Richmond Responses to Richmond Paratransit Measure J Audit dated May 9, 2024
652
COMMISSIONERS
Newell Arnerich,
Chair
Lamar Hernandez-
Thorpe, Vice Chair
Ken Carlson
Paul Fadelli
Federal Glover
Loella Haskew
Chris Kelley
Aaron Meadows
Sue Noack
Scott Perkins
Renata Sos
Timothy Haile,
Executive Director
2999 Oak Road
Suite 100
Walnut Creek
CA 94597
PHONE:
925.256.4700
FAX: 925.256.4701
www.ccta.net
June 20, 2024
Shasa Curl
City Manager
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Subject: City of Richmond Paratransit Service Measure J Audit Dear Shasa Curl,
At its June 12, 2024 meeting, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Board unanimously approved the Draft Report and recommendations from the Measure J Audit of the City of Richmond’s (City) Paratransit Program (Program). The two key recommendations from the audit report are as follows:
- The City should assign a new, full-time Program administrator to prioritize and implement recommended corrections; and
o Authority staff should consider establishing a Corrective Action Plan for the City’s Program; and
o As part of these Program corrections, the City should assess the costs and potential benefits of transitioning its Paratransit service delivery to a contracted vendor; or
- Alternatively, a new West County entity could take over the Program.
As a next step in the process, CCTA asks the City to confirm, in writing, its intent and interest in continuing to operate West County senior and paratransit services by implementing recommended improvements from the audit report and CCTA staff. Please notify CCTA of your intent by July 20, 2024.
If the City indicates it will not continue West County senior and paratransit operations for a period in excess of 12 months from the date of this letter, CCTA will request the City enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to keep the existing services operating during a transition to a new managing entity.
If the City indicates its intention to continue West County senior and paratransit operations for longer than 12 months, then the City is to submit, no later than August 19, 2024, a letter of commitment outlining the City’s plan and timeline for making improvements to the Program, including the assignment of a new, full-time Program administrator at the City; plans to assess contracted service delivery; and immediate resolution of the Cost Pool expense to the Program.
653
Shasa Curl
City of Richmond
June 20, 2024
https://cctauthority.sharepoint.com/sites/Common/09Correspondences/Misc. Correspondence/2024/Admin/Richmond Audit City Letter_20240620_Final.docx
Please be advised that the CCTA Board is adamant the City take immediate and effective steps to improve the Program following the results of the audit. CCTA acknowledges and appreciates the cooperation of City staff throughout the course of the audit process and is confident that we can continue to work collaboratively to ensure that Measure J funds are being used to best serve those West County residents that rely on lifeline transit services.
Sincerely,
Newell Arnerich
Chair, CCTA Board
CC: Timothy Haile, Executive Director, CCTA
Rashida Kamara, Accessibility & Equity Programs Manager, CCTA LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager of Community Services, City Lori-Reese Brown, Project Manager II, City
John Nemeth, Executive Director, WCCTAC
654
655
656
Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit - DRAFT
May 2024
657
2 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
Table of Contents
Background & Overview ...................................................................................................................... 3 Data Assessed ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Key Audit Takeaways .......................................................................................................................... 9 Current State of the R-Transit Program ........................................................................................ 11 Areas of Audit Review........................................................................................................................ 14 Summary & Key Recommendation ................................................................................................ 33 Attachments ........................................................................................................................................ 35
658
3 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
Background & Overview
Measure J General Overview
In November 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J to provide for the continuation of the county’s half-cent transportation sales tax. Tax revenues are used for a variety of programs and projects, including Measure J Program 15 (MJ15), which funds Countywide Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities. The City of Richmond (City) is a recipient of Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) MJ15 funds as a provider of transit services for seniors and people with disabilities.
Program 15 funds include a Measure C guarantee and built in growth from Measure J. The growth portion of the funds is programmed to operators by West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC). Sub-regional program 20B funds are also programmed by WCCTAC, and under the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) are to provide for an expansion of MJ15 funded services.
The City receives MJ15 funding for the county’s unincorporated communities of North Richmond, Kensington, and El Sobrante based on a long-standing agreement between the County, City, and WestCAT. The funding allocation is based on a weighted percentage of seniors, people with disabilities, and low income in each community. WestCAT serves the other unincorporated communities in the area not served by the City.
Measure J revenues are limited to what the TEP directs. They are not intended to fully fund a city or other entity’s transportation services.
Measure J Claims Requirements & Process
Requests for Measure J funds are made annually through a Claims (Claim) process. A Claim is both a request for funding and a reporting of prior years’ projects. The Claim fund request is for the upcoming fiscal year. Reporting is for the latest closed fiscal year, period-to-date for the current fiscal year, and projections for the funding request year. The claimant’s process should be to collect project data, translate it into the requested metrics, and use it to make a case for continued funding.
The City has been presumed eligible for the last five fiscal years, but their requests for funds have been inconsistent and the FY23/24 Claim submitted by the City was rejected by CCTA’s Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC), which reviews annual Claims and recommends award.
Following an initial review, the City was asked to submit a corrected Claim. The corrected form was denied, and the PCC requested an audit of the City’s program. The table below shows the status of the City’s Claims for the five-year audit review period as of mid-April 2024.
659
4 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
FISCAL
YEAR CLAIM STATUS
FY19/20 FY18/19 and FY19/20 approved by CCTA following request for revisions and resubmittal. Funds allocated for multiple years by CCTA to City: Total for multiple years $1,720,241
FY20/21 CCTA suspends Claim submittal due to Covid. Funds allocated by CCTA to City:
$697,973
FY21/22 Short-answer Claim response required by CCTA due to Covid. Claim submitted by City. Funds allocated by CCTA to City: $326,468
FY22/23 No Claim filed by City. No funds allocated by CCTA to City.
FY23/24 Claim submitted by City. Issues with Claim triggered audit. No funds allocated by CCTA to City.
Richmond Paratransit Services
The City offers two transit services for residents of Richmond, North Richmond, El Sobrante, and Kensington. Eligible clients include seniors 55+ and people ages 18 to 54 with a qualifying disability. Clients must apply in advance showing proof of eligibility. Once determined eligible, clients can access both services.
R-Transit Paratransit
Per the City’s website, R-Transit Paratransit demand-response service has been offered since 1976. It currently makes pick-ups weekdays between 8:45am and 4:15pm with trips scheduled by advance reservation. Customers can request a ride 1 to 30 days in advance for a $4 one-way fare. Requests for same-day trips are accommodated on a case-by-case basis for a $5 one-way fare. Fares are payable by ticket coupon which must be purchased in advance. Ticket books sell for $20 each.
Door-to-door service is provided in a service area that includes Richmond, North Richmond, El Cerrito, Kensington, El Sobrante, San Pablo, and Pinole. R-Transit can accommodate clients using mobility devices and requiring the assistance of drivers to board. Clients can schedule unlimited trips.
Required Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit service in West County is provided by AC Transit as part of the East Bay Paratransit Consortium. As the City’s R-Transit program is not an ADA paratransit program, ADA paratransit requirements do not apply. However, for the senior and disability populations they serve, and because the program is funded with public tax dollars, the City should be mindful of its obligations under ADA Title II which requires state/local governments to give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services, and activities.
660
5 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
Lyft Service
Lyft service was added in July 2018. Service is provided by Lyft drivers as part of their normal operations and the City pays a subsidy for the cost of the trip. Clients pay through the Lyft app for the first $3 of the trip cost and any trip costs over $20. Tips are paid at the discretion and expense of the client. Trips can be requested on demand, at any time or day, with no advance reservation required.
Per the City website, service is curb-to-curb and can accommodate mobility device users who are ambulatory, in that they are able to fold and store their device without assistance and can enter and exit the vehicle without assistance. The service area mirrors that of the R-Transit program with the addition of trips to the Veterans Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Martinez. Clients are limited to 40 subsidized trips per month.
Other agencies have grappled with the issue of providing a level of service to ambulatory clients that is not matched for clients requiring mobility assistance. For parity, the City’s service, either operated with their resources, or by a third-party contractor, would need to provide wheelchair and other mobility-aid passengers with the same level of service as the Lyft program. ADA Title II prohibits discrimination based on disability. Again, the City’s R-Transit program is not an ADA paratransit service, but that will not stop potential clients from requesting parity or filing a complaint for non-parity in services.
Other Services in West County
Other senior and disability transit services are available in West Contra Costa County:
• East Bay Paratransit serves ADA eligible riders, seven days a week with longer service hours and for a similar trip cost ($4 minimum-distance based). It does not cover the entire Richmond Paratransit service area.
• WestCAT Paratransit is also limited to ADA eligible riders and overlaps a portion of the Richmond Paratransit service area at a lower fare ($1.25 local/$3 regional) six days a week.
• El Cerrito Easy Ride and San Pablo Senior & Disabled Transportation have the same client eligibility and service structure as Richmond Paratransit, and both also receive Measure J funding. They operate more limited days and hours, but at the same or lower fare ($2 or $4). Each is limited to operating within their city limits. • Richmond Moves is an on-demand, app-based service open to the general public including seniors, within the Richmond city limits. Rides are free for seniors and students.
• Mobility Matters is a private non-profit that provides free rides from volunteer drivers to seniors and veterans without other transportation options.
Richmond R-Transit Paratransit service fills a need in the Richmond area, both geographically and with their eligible client base. They provide rides for seniors and those who may not meet eligibility requirements for East Bay or WestCAT Paratransit. They also cover areas of West 661
6 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
County not covered by other services. The City Lyft rides add another layer of service that would not otherwise be available by providing coverage on all days and hours, with no advance reservation. It is limited, however, to clients who do not need mobility assistance.
As the services closest in structure to the City of Richmond Paratransit, the City of El Cerrito and the City of San Pablo Measure J funded Paratransit services are used for comparison in this report.
Audit Overview
General Overview
• Purpose
o The purpose of the City of Richmond Paratransit audit is to review the City’s service and to understand anomalies and inconsistencies in past fiscal year Claims, triggered by concerns with the FY23/24 Claim. The audit was recommended by the PCC.
• Time frame
o The audit was scheduled for a 90-day period from initial Kick-off to Final Report, dependent on the City providing the needed documentation for an appropriate assessment.
• Audit Scope
o Review of annual Claims for a period of five fiscal years o Presentation of findings associated with non-compliance with the funding agreement.
o Recommendations to address non-compliance findings as well as operational management recommendations.
• Areas of Review
o Claims Submittal & Compliance
o Budget
o Key Performance Indicators
o Program Design & Delivery
o Marketing, Outreach & Feedback
Partners
CCTA Staff & Role
CCTA is responsible for the allocation and oversight of Measure J funds, the annual Claim process, and the audit process. Rashida Kamara, Accessibility and Equity Program Manager, led the audit effort for CCTA.
Audit Team Role – Advanced Mobility Group Staff
The Audit Team was led by Laurie Talbert. Laurie has 30 years’ experience in public transit, including in the provision of Paratransit services. Kirsten Riker focused on the outreach and promotion overview of Richmond’s service. Rose Quiroga-Clement offered administrative 662
7 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
support and as a native Spanish speaker, made inquiries to the City to assess their support of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) clients. Mike Meuller assessed the budget documents provided. Christian Kent, a well-known and respected Paratransit Consultant who trains agencies in providing services, joined the team to lend his professional expertise.
City of Richmond Role
The City was asked to cooperate with the audit by supplying requested documentation, attending meetings, including a Working Group Call to respond to questions, and accommodating the Audit Team for a Site Visit. The primary staff involved in the delivery of service and contributing to the audit included Lori Reese-Brown (Program Manager), Mary Cummings (full-time program administration), Hope Lattell (Finance), and LaShonda White (Community Services).
Audit Timeline & Steps
Kick-off Meeting and Data Request. March 4, 2024. Introductions were made and a data request list was reviewed. Data was requested to be uploaded to a provided Dropbox no later than March 15, 2024. Meeting notes are available as Attachment 1. Meeting attendees included:
• CCTA: Rashida Kamara
• Audit Team: Laurie Talbert
• City of Richmond: LaShonda White, Deborah Dabbs, Hope Lattell, Mary Cummings, Lori Reese-Brown, Nickie Mastay.
• WCCTAC: John Nemeth, Coire Reilly
Initial Document Review and Follow-Up Questions. March 16 to early April. The Audit Team reviewed the documentation provided and sent a list of questions regarding the budget documentation. City Finance and Community Services staff were responsive in providing answers. The Audit Team also made a follow-up request for program documentation that had not yet been provided for all fiscal years.
Marketing Audit - Richmond Locations. March 26, 2024. Kirsten Riker from the Audit Team visited five locations in Richmond, including two senior centers, the library, a community care and resource center, and a medical facility to look for outreach or promotional materials about the City’s transit services and to ask facility staff what they knew about the programs. Notes are available as Attachment 2.
Working Group Call. April 9, 2024: The Audit Team provided the City a list of questions in advance of the meeting. The questions followed the flow of the City entries on the FY23/24 Claims Form. The City was again asked to provide the missing documentation that had not been uploaded to Dropbox by the original deadline. A new deadline of April 16 was established, and the Audit Team stated that they would start their analysis after that date. The City completed the upload of all prior year’s Claims Forms but did not upload any other missing documentation. Meeting notes are available as Attachment 3. Meeting attendees:
663
8 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
• Audit Team: Laurie Talbert, Christian Kent
• City of Richmond: Lori Reese-Brown, LaShonda White, Hope Lattell, and Mary Cummings
Site Visit to City of Richmond. April 16, 2024. Laurie Talbert from the Audit Team visited the City of Richmond to observe the administrative and dispatch functions of the service, ride along with passengers, and ask additional follow-up questions about the service. LaShonda White and Debbie Dabbs were available for questions at the beginning of the visit and a ride- along was arranged with the part-time driver. Following the ride, Debbie answered additional questions. Mary Cummings, the full-time administrative staffer, called out sick that day and the Program Manager, Lori Reese-Brown, was not present. Following the visit, three additional budget questions were forwarded to LaShonda and Hope and they provided the requested information. Site Visit notes are available as Attachment 4.
Data Assessed
The Audit Team requested that the City provide the following for FY19/20 through FY23/24:
• Claims Forms
o Submitted Claims – initial and revised
o Explanation for years when a Claim was not made, for Covid or other cause • Budget detail
o Cost allocation by program
• Ridership detail – O&D pairs, days, and hours
o Route Match ridership reporting
o Explanation of what manual work is needed to provide detailed information • Paratransit Survey results
• Write-up of City Cost Pool as it relates to program
• Public-facing materials for riders
The Audit Team received the following information and reports from the City as of the final April 16, 2024 deadline:
664
9 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
While the Audit Team did not receive all the documentation requested, CCTA agreed that what was collected and reviewed was sufficient to assess the City’s program.
Key Audit Takeaways
The Audit Team identified the key takeaways from the Audit. A more thorough assessment of individual review elements is included in this report.
• City documentation is filled with errors and contradictory information. There is data contained within Claims Forms that is contradictory to other notes within the same Claim. Claims include calculations that are illogical and were obvious within a few minutes to even those members of the Audit Team without direct transportation services experience. These issues should have been spotted and corrected before Claims were submitted. The review of Claims alongside other supporting documents and reports shows inconsistencies across multiple reports and data sets and across the five years of review.
• The same issues of inconsistencies and contradictory information can also be an indicator of a lack of understanding of the basic metrics of the program the City is operating. The audit indicates that a lack of understanding of the system is a contributing factor to the inconsistent and incorrect data and a failure to spot these issues by City staff. These issues made it difficult to assess the budget or program metrics, because the Audit Team had little confidence that reported data was accurate.
• City management is not actively engaged in leading the staff or program.
Administrative service delivery and program management staff disagreed on answers to some questions posed on the Working Group Call about daily operations and service metrics. Service-delivery staff could not answer questions about important program elements such as the status of new vehicles. Newer Finance and Community Services Documents Provided
by City
FY20: July 1, 2019 -
June 30, 2020
FY21: July 1, 2020 -
June 30, 2021
FY22: July 1, 2021 -
June 30, 2022
FY23: July 1, 2022 -
June 30, 2023
FY24: July 1, 2023 -
YTD (varied by report)
Detailed C ustomer Trips X X -Thru 4/23 only
Mobility Kind Trip C ount X X X
Vehicle Productivity Report X X X
Vehicle Productivity by Mileage X X -Thru 4/23 only
Operating Statistics X X X X X
Trips By Service Report X
Lyft Service Ridership X - 6 months only
X - 4 months only
in password
protected files
C laims Forms or
Explanation of no C laim X X X X X
Budget Detail X X X X X
Public Materials: Brochure and
C lient Orientatin G uide Received
665
10 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
staff seem to recognize the Claims trouble spots and understand the budget and flow of funds best. The full-time administrative employee knows the day-to-day system best but doesn’t appear to have the authority to make cultural shifts or functional corrections to the program or service. No one person has the full picture or understanding of the program, or how it operates.
• Positive Client Interactions. The service delivery staff know their riders well and serve them with care. Similarly, the riders engage with the drivers in a positive and familiar way and express the importance and value of the service the City provides for them.
• CCTA Forms and Oversight Needs Improvement. The Claims Forms do not request all the detail that would be used to calculate other inputs within the form. The descriptions of requested data were unclear to the City in some cases. The questions listed in the Project Description Narrative are not sufficient to identify deficiencies in a transit operation. The Coop Agreement and Measure J Strategic Plan do not lay out service expectations or standards that a program must meet for continued funding.
Oversight from CCTA has not been consistent over the last five fiscal years, but the addition of the Accessibility & Equity Program Manager role at CCTA should lend the process the needed leadership and expertise in paratransit operations going forward.
• Administrative costs are out of alignment with program costs and other, like programs. This is due in part to the assignment of indirect Cost Pool Administrative and Liability expenses that are equal to, or greater than, the cost of staff actively engaged in the program. Additionally, the cost of benefits as a ratio of the cost of payroll for those actively engaged in the program is high.
• Lack of Customer Feedback. The City is not actively soliciting feedback from customers, or seeking to understand the needs of those who are not riding. As a result, they are not mining opportunities to improve the customer experience or to solicit new riders.
• Value of Service. The service can fill a hole in West County by providing trips that are both needed and valued by its customers. It serves a vulnerable population with personalized service. The staff know their clients well and provide a measure of social interaction and sense of community that is also of value.
• Lack of Promotion. Given the gap that could be filled in the service market, and the rides available with their low-cost Lyft service, the City should be serving more passengers. The City is not actively promoting their service. While citing lack of resources as a limit to active promotion of their service, the City is also not maintaining low cost, passive forms of promotion such as their website and print materials.
666
11 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
• Costs Limiting Growth. Program expenditures shown in the FY23/24 Claim for the 3- year reporting period indicate no service or program growth, despite the noted increase in available funding each year. The City is currently operating with just 1.5 drivers and around eight one-way trips per day. While there is room in the full-time driver’s manifest to make a few more daily trips to increase ridership, the projected spend of the program in the Claim does not support another full-time driver or any expansion of services.
Current State of the R-Transit Program
Using primarily the Site Visit, but also review of documents and the Working Group Call, the Audit Team’s assessment of the current state of the City’s R-Transit program is as follows:
Vehicles
The service operates with two 7-seat vans. The configuration of the vans has the tie-down for mobility devices in the center, in front of a two-seat jump seat and limiting access to one of the remaining three seats in the rear of the van. When a mobility aid passenger is aboard with their device, only one other person can comfortably ride. Most trips are single-client trips with room for an attendant. The front passenger seat can also be used, but the client or attendant would need to be physically able to step up into that seat or maneuver to it from the back of the van.
The mobility device ramp on the passenger side of the vans is manually engaged by the driver by pulling up and out on the ramp handle. It requires some strength to engage.
One of the vans is prioritized as the daily trip van with the full-time driver. The second van is used only when needed by the part-time driver.
Mechanical Issues: The part-time van would not shift into Drive for the ride-along trip during the Audit Team’s Site Visit. It was known to the driver that the passenger-side sliding door had to be closed with a certain pressure for the vehicle to register that the door was closed. The van would not shift from Park to Drive if the door was not closed with enough force. It took about 15 minutes, but the driver and Audit Team member managed to correct the issue to travel to the first pick up, arriving at 10:25am for the 10:00am scheduled pick-up. The problem recurred at the client’s home. Efforts to reset the door failed this time and the trip could not be completed. A tow truck was sent for the van and the client’s trip cancelled. The other van picked up the stranded driver and Audit Team staff for a ride-along then returned to the base.
New Vehicles: Two new, larger electric R-Transit vans with rear wheelchair loading were parked at the City lot. The purchase of the vans was approved by the City in September 2023 with
$268,861.76 in anticipated FY23/24 Measure J funds. Additional documentation notes that three Level 2 and one DC fast charger would be installed at the City’s Corporation Yard to support the fleet.
667
12 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
According to the administrative staff and drivers present for the Site Visit, the new electric vans have not been put in service and cannot be used because the charging system is not compatible, and the vans can’t be charged. It is not known if the noted charging equipment has been installed as indicated. Staff also stated that the van step is too high for seniors to board and there are no handrails to assist in boarding. Nobody that was asked during the Site Visit knew the status of the vans or who was responsible for getting the issues corrected so that the vans could be put into service.
Contracted Services
City staff stated that they are contracting with TransMETRO to provide trips when they don’t have an accessible vehicle and/or driver to operate a trip and for same-day trip requests. In September 2023 the City approved a one-year $250,000 contract with TransMETRO to expand
R-Transit service and conduct outreach with an anticipated 40% increase in ridership as a result. The contract outlines that costs are billed at $92/hour for 8.5 hours per day, or $782 per day for as-needed transportation plus outreach and marketing services of up to $49,808. The Audit Team did not see any indication of active outreach for the R-Transit program performed by TransMETRO or the City. There’s also no indication of an increase in Paratransit ridership.
As no invoices were provided that would confirm how the City is being billed, it is not known if TransMETRO has billed the City for any outreach efforts, or how they are billing for rides.
Staff
The City’s FY23/24 Claim form lists the following staff:
• 2 full-time drivers
• 1 part-time dispatcher
• 1 full-time administrative office staff
• 1 part-time administrative staff: Program Manager
Currently, one of the drivers is working under disability accommodation and drives only part- time. The vehicle records attachment for the same FY23/24 Claim Form indicates there were only 12 days YTD that both vans logged miles, so the part-time driver is rarely on the road. Per staff, the part-time driver has three roles and does administrative work in the AM if they don’t have clients to drive, then takes over for the part-time dispatcher in the afternoon. Therefore, the current day-to-day staffing, confirmed by City staff at the Site Visit, is:
• 1 full-time driver
• 1 part-time driver: limited days AM trips
• 2 part-time dispatchers: including driver
• 1 full-time administrative staff
• 2 part-time administrative staff: Program Manager and driver
On the Working Group Call, staff indicated that the part-time administrative Dispatcher may also drive a van if a driver is not available.
668
13 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
Per the Site Visit, the office staff and drivers appear to be a close-knit group who communicate well with each other, using work-provided cell phones to manage changes in rides and to handle issues.
Clients and Trips
On the day of the Site Visit, Audit Team staff noted a total of nine one-way trips between the two driver manifests. City staff also shared manifest copies with the Audit Team. A copy of a driver manifest for the primary van from March 26, 2024, showed six one-way passenger trips.
For March 27, 2024, seven one-way passenger rides. It is unknown if AM trips were made with the second van on those days. An evaluation of R-Transit ridership for FY21/22 (the only year that a full 12-months of data was shared) shows the Paratransit service ran 2,042 one-way passenger trips for 59 unique clients. In a 250 service-day year, the average would be eight one-way passenger trips per day between both vans, which aligns with the trips scheduled on the day of the Site Visit.
The drivers indicated during the Site Visit that passengers want to use the Lyft service because they can ride any day or time and it is less expensive at just $3. The Lyft service cannot accommodate users who need mobility assistance, so the Paratransit service is largely operating for wheelchair and other mobility aid users who require assistance. The clients who spoke with Audit Team staff on the day of the Site Visit said they rely heavily on the Paratransit service for their transportation. They love the service, and they love their drivers.
The only Lyft service passenger count documents uploaded by the City that the Audit Team could access were for six months of FY19/20. That data was insufficient to accurately quantify how many clients are currently using the Lyft service, and because the Lyft ridership data includes just customer ID and not names, it cannot be discerned how many Lyft riders also use the Paratransit service. Like the Paratransit ridership that shows a small number of clients using the service actively, during the six months of Lyft ridership provided, the program delivered 657 trips to 77 unique clients.
Systems
Despite having a software system, all the actions witnessed on the Site Visit were performed manually. The service had just switched from Route Match to Via and the staff was still trying to learn the new software. The part-time driver who drove for the first attempted ride-along could not get her tablet operating. It did not accept her known log-in credentials. The driver stopped at the IT office for assistance. IT staff hit the ‘temporary password’ button which gave them a message to get their temporary password from their ‘Dispatch Manager.’ The driver did not know who that was so began service without the tablet using a paper manifest.
The second driver had access to the Via service on their tablet, but Audit Team staff did not witness the driver using it to record any information about the trip. The tablet appeared only to provide navigation between pick-up and drop-off points. The driver turned the volume down on the tablet because they didn’t like the navigation it provided, preferring to drive a familiar route instead. This driver also had a paper manifest.
669
14 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
The paper manifests require that the drivers write in their run start time, first pick-up time, last drop-off time, and run end time as well as all break start and stop times. They also write in each client pick-up time, drop-off time and start and end odometer reading. Per City staff, this detail is turned in at the end of the day and manually keyed into the software system.
Also, per staff, the new Via program optimizes trip plans based on scheduling of one full-time and one part-time AM van. Because of the disability accommodation of the part-time driver, they do not transport wheelchairs, so the office staff manually overrides the software to move wheelchair riders to the primary driver.
Cited Needs
The administrative staff and drivers interviewed during the Site Visit all answered the same way when asked what they would improve about their own services. They all cited the need for more drivers, access to the new vehicles, and better training on the new Via software system.
Areas of Audit Review
Claims Submittal & Compliance _________________________________________________ Review Items:
City-provided Claims Form, PCC meeting minutes, City-provided Route Match reports
Identified Issue #1:
Errors, inconsistencies, and contradictions in Claims Forms. A simple review of the FY23/24 Claim submitted by the City revealed a list of issues, some of which were highlighted by the PCC. Issues in that FY23/24 Claim include:
• The titled service area map inserted in two locations of the Project Description Narrative is not a map of the service area, but instead, a map of the city block of the Civic Center in Richmond. This is a simple error to spot and should have been corrected before submittal.
• The narrative cites ‘1,770 active clients presently registered in the database’. Table C lists FY22/23 Projected at 3,720 registered clients. Administrative staff explained on the Working Group Call that 1,770 was the more recent and accurate number, but there was no further explanation for the discrepancy.
• Table C asks for an average passenger trip distance. The City instead lists a range of 3- 6 miles. As noted in the Claim Form, the average should be calculated as Revenue Miles divided by passenger trips. Using the YTD FY22/23 Revenue Miles total from the attached Vehicle Productivity by Mileage report would put the average trip distance at 438 miles which is clearly incorrect, and nowhere near the 3-6 mile range cited. It is unclear how the City generated the range reported in the Claim. • Van vehicle mileage (odometer) reported on Table D doesn’t match end odometer numbers on attached Vehicle Productivity by Mileage reports. 670
15 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
• Table A Fare Revenues for FY21/22 Actual were $92,001, but Projected FY22/23 revenues were $20,000. Staff could not explain the unusually high fare revenue for the reported 2,787 passenger trips ($33 per ride), or why the figure was lowered so significantly for the next year’s projections.
• As the City does not pay a subsidy for paratransit fares, the figure listed as Paratransit Fare Subsidy on Table A, should in fact, be the TNC subsidy for the Lyft service.
However, the total value listed of $132,914 Actual for FY21/22 does not make sense.
The highest rate the City would pay for a Lyft ride is $17 (The rider pays the first $3 and the City pays the remainder to $20). At that highest possible per-ride subsidy cost they would have carried 7,881 Lyft passengers. Total ridership between the two services was 2,787. It is unknown what other costs are being accounted for in this line item.
• The Table C-provided definition of Revenue Service Hours, and the industry standard, is ‘Total Hours that a vehicle is available to pick up passengers”. The City Claim cites a
7.5-hour service day (9am – 4:30pm) and offers service approximately 250 days per year. For single-van service, the annual hours would be 1,875. Table C reports 1,200 Projected FY22/23 Revenue Service Hours for both vans.
• At the cited FY22/23 Projected Passenger Trips per Revenue Service Hour of 430 and Projected Revenue Service Hours of 1,200, the City would carry 516,000 passengers.
The Claim cites 2,900 projected passenger trips. Conversely, if the projected passenger trips of 2,900 were divided by the Projected Passenger Trips per Revenue Service Hours of 430, the City would have offered just 6.7 hours of service for the year. The 430 figure is an obvious error and the disparity in total passengers that figure reflects should have been easily spotted and corrected before the Claim was submitted. • Table C includes ‘Fare Subsidy: Number of Tickets Sold’ for the three reported years.
City staff could not provide an explanation for the figures or what they represented during the Working Group Call. City Finance staff cited that the figures were a mistake and should not be there.
• The Vehicle Productivity by Mileage Reports attached with the Claim showed three occasions when impossible mileage was reported to a van. These were 18,936 miles, 595,039 miles, and 650,053 miles travelled, each by a single van in a single day. The total was 1,272,448 miles for the two vans YTD, which is clearly not possible. Based on daily odometer reads in the reports, the correct total is 8,551 miles. An obvious error such as this should have been spotted and corrected before the Claim was submitted. • Additionally, the same reports showed one van operating 51 days YTD and the other 154 days with just 12 days overlapping. The staff chart in the narrative showed 2 full- time drivers, but two drivers would only have been needed on 12 days. • The Project Description Narrative cites that “All Measure J Program 15 funds were expended in the past 3 years (2019-2022)”, but Table A shows a FY21/22 Actual ending reserve balance of $103,759.
671
16 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
Recommendation:
The fact that many of the contradictions and errors in the FY23/24 Claims Form were easy to spot, and that even after being called out, weren’t corrected in subsequent submissions, indicates a lack of oversight, understanding of system metrics, and QA review. City staff either don’t have the experience or understanding of their program to accurately report on it or they are not applying their experience to this process. As the source of revenue for their program, the City must prioritize Claim submittals. It may be necessary to engage new staff, or a third-party contractor, experienced in service delivery and program metrics, to manage the Claims process.
Identified Issue #2:
Failure to File Claims or Make Corrections. While citing a lack of resources as a reason for their limited promotion or limited services, the City has missed years of filing a Claim, has not submitted Claims in a timely manner, or has submitted Claims with data that the PCC has noted as inconsistent or incomplete, requiring resubmittal.
Recommendation:
The City must prioritize filing a Claim every year and addressing all issues noted in the Claims expeditiously.
Identified Issue #3:
Non-Compliance with Coop Agreement. While neither the Coop Agreement nor cited Measure J Expenditure and Strategic Plans address level of service, service quality, or performance expectations for Measure J funded programs, the PCC, per their bylaws, has the duty to ‘Review annual claims for Measure C and Measure J funds, applications … and make recommendations regarding these claims and applications as appropriate.’ The PCC has made a recommendation for this audit based on the contents of Claims Forms and in response to questions about service quality and performance. Their request for an audit is their authority to question the City’s compliance with the Coop Agreement.
Recommendation:
CCTA’s Coop Agreement with Measure J fund recipients should include language that addresses minimum standards of service and performance expectations or should expressly cite the PCC’s duty to determine if the transit entity is meeting performance expectations, and thereby the agreement. The consequences for failing to meet performance expectations should also be addressed.
Identified Issue #4:
Unmet Needs – The only record of Table E Unmet Needs reported in the FY23/24 Claim was for ”Patrons outside your service area requesting rides”. City staff identified this as callers who ask about service who do not reside in the service area. They also cite not keeping a log of calls 672
17 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
received. It is unclear how this Unmet Need is being recorded, if not through a call log. Other Table E categories not completed by the City include “Patrons inside your service area requesting rides outside of your service area” and “Number of same-day ride denials due to capacity.” No numbers were added for these categories, though City staff noted during the Site Visit that they get requests for trips to Oakland and the City notes in their Claim narrative that ‘…same-day service is limited due to high demand if a same day appointment is scheduled.’
Recommendation:
The City should keep a log of all customer calls. That log can include checkboxes for each of the categories of Unmet Needs identified in the Claims Form. That information could prove valuable in assessing program needs and future changes or expansion.
Budget ________________________________________________________________________ Review Items: City provided budget documentation, Claims Forms
Identified Issue #5:
Lack of Budget Detail for Review. A Claim was filed by the City and accepted by CCTA for FY19/20. For FY20/21 and FY21/22, the Claim submittal process was suspended, or only a brief narrative was requested due to Covid. The City failed to submit a Claim for FY22/23, though they provided a Claim Form for that year to the Audit Team. The provided form is not complete and shows no program costs. A Claim was filed by the City for FY23/24 which includes program costs. The only complete Budget Detail to Claim comparison for reported Actuals is for FY21/22.
The City provided the full five years of program budgets, but invoices, expense reports, and receipts would all be required to do a full fiscal audit of program expenses. There is not sufficient back-up documentation to confirm what was spent and that direct costs cited were spent on the program. Additionally, because only two complete Claims were submitted for the five fiscal years of review, and they represent the first and last years, there is no way to track the flow of the expenditures to budget or to follow reserve balance.
Recommendation:
Future years’ Claims must be complete so that true program costs can be understood, to allow for a rolling assessment of expenditures and reserves, and so CCTA can follow Claims against budget if needed.
673
18 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
Identified Issue #6:
Limited Detail Available Shows Inconsistencies. The two Claims years with program cost detail noted above do not match the budget detail provided by the City for the same year.
While not all totals represent actuals, they are inconsistent enough to point them out. • The FY19/20 Claim provided by the City to the Audit Team was not complete, but the CCTA approved version dated May 8, 2019, put the Estimated program year expenditures at $1,110,000 while the same budget year detail showed an Actual program cost of $687,134.26. The difference could reflect the first four months of the Covid pandemic that closed out the fiscal year.
• The FY23/24 Claim put FY21/22 Actual expenditures at $959,525.00 but the same budget year detail showed Actual program expenditures of $813,881.05. • For FY22/23 the Projected program cost cited in the FY23/24 Claim was $960,405.00 while the budget Actual put it at $854,769.37.
And, as cited earlier, the FY23/24 Project Description Narrative cites that “All Measure J Program 15 funds were expended in the past 3 years (2019-2022),” but Table A shows a $103,759 ending reserve balance for FY21/22.
Recommendation:
Future years’ Claims must be complete so that true program costs can be understood, to allow for a rolling assessment of expenditures and reserves, and so CCTA can follow Claims against budget if needed.
Identified Issue #7:
Cost Pool Indirect Costs Burden the Program. The City is charging an administrative and liability expense to the program as part of a Cost Pool distribution. The Cost Pool memos provided by the City as Attachment 5 indicate that the City has earmarked a much higher total Cost Pool expense to the program than they are charging against it. For FY22/23 the City consultant calculated an Indirect Administrative Charges Cost Pool expense to the “1003 Transportation Operation”, which includes only the Paratransit/Lyft services, of $744,016, but charged $220,202 to the service. They consider the $523,814 difference a subsidy to the program. An additional $41,058 was charged to the program for General Liability Cost Pool in the same fiscal year. If charged at the fully calculated administrative rate, the City would be burdening the program with a total of $785,074 in indirect costs – 82% of the total Projected program expenditures for that year. It is unfathomable that the City’s calculations would result in that percentage of a program’s funding to an expense that does not directly deliver service or impact customers. The fact that the City lowered that value to 27% of projected program expenditures is a reasonable course of action, but the percentage burden against a program that provides services to a vulnerable population is still too high.
674
19 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
Recommendation:
The City’s Paratransit program should request an exemption from City Cost Pool expenses or CCTA should set a limit on the percentage of indirect costs that can be charged against a Measure J funded project.
Identified Issue #8:
Imbalance in administration costs to operations costs. It is not clear from the Claim Form or the City-provided budget detail how they assign program costs to the Operations and General Administration categories in Table A of the Claims Form. The ratio they show is high, however, compared to the other West County services. For FY21/22 Actuals the General Administration Expenditure was $465,066 and Paratransit Operations Expenditures plus the TNC Fare Subsidy cost was $494,459, putting admin at 48% and operations at 52% of the total program cost.
Comparatively, the City of El Cerrito Paratransit was 21% to General Administration and the City of San Pablo shows 9% to General Administration.
Recommendation:
As already noted, the Cost Pool indirect cost is putting a burden on the program and should be eliminated or limited to free up funds for the direct delivery of service.
Assuming the Cost Pool expense is included in the General Administration Expenditure, pulling it from the program total and administrative expenditures would result in Administration Expenditures of 30% of the total program cost.
Identified Issue #9:
No cost allocation by program. The City budget does not breakdown costs by the R-Transit and Lyft programs. The Lyft program subsidy has been confirmed by City staff as the Professional Services line item in their budget, and easy to pull out. Other items such as Paratransit Scrip Books (Fare Revenue), payroll and benefits for drivers, and operator uniform costs can also be pulled into the Paratransit side, but other budget line items cannot easily be allocated to the two programs.
Recommendation:
To understand the true costs of the two programs and assess if contracted services are providing an overall lower cost ride, the two programs should be assigned percentages of shared costs to determine an estimated program allocation for future year Claims.
Identified Issue #10:
Balance of payroll to benefits. Per City response to cite their average ratio of benefits to payroll, they cited a City standard calculation of 85% of salary costs for benefits. For the five fiscal years of audit review, the Paratransit program benefits were higher than the City average, ranging from 92% for FY23/24 YTD, to a high of 118% for FY20/21. 675
20 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
Recommendation:
It is unclear why the benefits to salary ratio is higher for this program unless the longevity of staff – some noted being with the program for 25 years – is impacting costs with legacy or length-of-service benefits. The City should assess the issue to understand and validate the higher benefits cost ratio.
Identified Issue #11:
Cost per Passenger. The cost per passenger is high and is out of line with other, similar programs. The FY21/22 actual program cost was $813,881.05 per the provided City budget detail. The FY23/24 Claim Form showed Actual FY21/22 passenger trips of 2,787 for a cost per passenger of $292.03. By comparison, the City of El Cerrito Paratransit had a $100 cost per passenger from expected revenue and the City of San Pablo’s cost per passenger was $83 for the same fiscal year. County Connection’s National Transit Database records for 2022 show a $79 cost per Paratransit rider.
Recommendation:
Again, the Cost Pool expense, as well as the higher-than-average benefits costs, are impacting overall program cost and the cost per passenger. However, removal of Cost Pool costs would only lower the FY21/22 cost per passenger to $202.75, still well above the other services. The City must work from both sides to reduce the cost per passenger by lowering costs and increasing riders.
Key Performance Indicators ___________________________________________________ Review Items:
City-submitted Claims Forms, Working Group Call, Site Visit, City-provided Route Match reports
Identified Issue #12:
Lack of understanding of program metrics. City staff has relied on reporting from Route Match, but that information is inconsistent from report to report and staff is not always clear on what the information represents. Lack of understanding of metrics means staff have no way to recognize errors in them, so they are reporting out with errors and inconsistencies. This was clear on the Working Group Call. Staff could not agree on the definition or reporting of a trip, how fare revenue was defined across documentation, the existence of a mandatory $2.50 annual client ID or how those funds were being accounted for, or how the % on-time performance was calculated, among other things.
The City provided six unique Route Match reports in response to the audit data request. Those reports were scattered over the five fiscal years requested, with no complete set of reports for any one year. The City was emailed a table of missing reports and asked to send the 676
21 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
documentation, then reminded on the Working Group Call to supply at least one full fiscal year of reports by the extended April 16 deadline. No additional reports were received. The most complete reporting year is FY21/22. See table below for an example of inconsistencies in the reporting provided by the City for that fiscal year. Only ‘Guests’, ‘No Shows’, and ‘Cancels’ match from across the five Route Match reports provided. Figures for all other metrics were different for each report provided for the same fiscal year. For Total Paratransit Passengers, for example, Route Match reporting varies from a low of 2,042 passengers to a high of 3,309 - a variance of 62% for the same fiscal year metric.
Recommendation:
Manual keying of handwritten manifest times and numbers is likely contributing to the errors seen on the Claims Forms, as well as inconsistencies in Route Match reports.
Without a QA review by staff who understand the metrics being reported and the knowledge needed to make corrections, errors will persist. City staff need to work with Via to ensure that the system is set up in a way that lets them take the best advantage of any automated data logging. City staff also need training specific to the provision of paratransit services to understand performance metrics and standards of service, or a new staff person needs to be pulled into the program to provide the needed experience. Alternatively, service delivery could be contracted to an experienced vendor.
Identified Issue #13:
Lack of oversight and review of program reports. As the table above demonstrates, City staff are pulling Route Match reports with clear inconsistencies in metrics for the same time period.
The FY23/24 Claims Form review demonstrates similar inconsistencies in reporting within the Claim and to supporting Route Match documentation. If someone is reviewing these documents, they are missing the obvious or they see the issues but are not correcting them before CCTA review. Administrative staff are not being held by management to a standard of report reviews, reconciliation, or quality, and thus a standard of service review and quality.
Route Match Reports FY21/22
Total
Paratransit
Passengers
Paratransit:
Wheelchair
Paratransit:
Ambulatory Attendants Guests
Revenue
Miles
Revenue
Hours
Revenue/Fare
Revenue
No
Shows Cancels
Mobility Kind Trip Count 434 1,336
Vehicle Productivity by Mileage 16,349
Vehicle Productivity Report 3,309 467 1,420 1,272 150 3,878,655 815.62 7,910.00 $ 36 Operating Statistics 3,178 1,250 150 984,591 1,452.35 676.00 $ 36 252 Trips By Service Report - Did not
receive for FY21/22
Detailed Customer Trips 2,042
FY23/24 Claims Form data for
FY21/22 Actuals
2,787
(includes TNC) 763 990.42 $92,001.00 36 252
Service Metric
677
22 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
Recommendation:
City staff either need training specific to the provision of paratransit services to understand performance metrics and standards of service, or a new staff person or third-party contractor needs to be pulled into the program to provide the needed experience. An ongoing internal audit of various reports should be done, and a QA review of all supporting reports and documentation used for Claims Forms reporting must be completed before Claims submittal to CCTA.
Identified Issue #14:
Metrix requested in Claim submittal. The definitions of some metrics in the Claims Form confused City staff. For example:
• In the Claims Form, ‘Total Passenger Trips’ was defined as the ‘...movement of a person on a vehicle...’, but per City staff, Route Match reports a single vehicle movement as one trip, regardless of the number of passengers on board. In the Claims Form, this is intended to be total passenger boardings, but staff were confused by the contradiction with internal reports using the word ‘trip.’ • Average Trip Distance is requested but the total Revenue Miles is not part of the reporting, so there is no easy way for reviewers to validate the response given. • There is no call-out for the unique service passenger totals, service hours, or miles.
Reporting from the Lyft program does not include actual trip miles or duration, but claimants could be using the combined service total passenger number from the Claim Form to calculate metrics when the other side of the data set is not a factor ( i.e. calculating total of passengers from multiple different services against Revenue Miles for just one service program).
Additionally, data that could prove helpful in assessing successful programs and those in need of assistance, is not being requested.
Recommendation:
The Audit Team provided recommended revisions to the Claims Form tables and Project Description Narrative to CCTA. The revisions should clear up data requests by claimants and help the PCC and CCTA more easily see highlights and deficiencies in funded programs.
Program Design & Delivery ____________________________________________________ Review Items:
Working Group Call, Site Visit
Identified Issue #15:
Low Ridership. Program ridership reported in Claims and cited in Route Match reports is low for the cost of the program and potential client pool. While data on total boardings is 678
23 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
inconsistent across reports, a total ridership for both the Paratransit and Lyft program in the range of 2,800-3,000/year is a fair assessment. In FY23/24 projections for El Sobrante Paratransit ridership were 2,080 and for San Pablo, 4,200. Both serve smaller geographic areas, have shorter service hours, and receive substantially less Measure J funding.
Recommendation:
The current state of the program, with the number and condition of operating vehicles and 1.5 drivers, limits the City’s ability to carry more Paratransit riders with City resources. The provided manifests show multiple driver breaks and gaps between picks-ups for the primary van and driver where additional trips could be operated, but demand may not be there to fill those spots. The City is also contracting TransMETRO which would also increase their capacity, but again, demand may not be there. To increase demand, the City needs to commit to promoting its service and implementing a service plan to add drivers and vehicles, or contract more trips to TransMETRO.
Additionally, the City needs to more precisely define and confirm Unmet Needs.
The limited Lyft program data received shows an average trip subsidy cost to the City of $8.73. Staff time dedicated to assisting Lyft riders appears to be minimal. This program has the greatest potential with unlimited capacity, to increase ridership at the lowest cost. Robust promotion of this service could have an immediate impact on increasing overall program ridership.
Identified Issue #16:
Vehicles. The two current 2011 vans are in poor condition. One stopped operating properly during a client pick-up on the day of the Site Visit and was towed. The demonstrated need to force the door closed on the day of the ride-along is a safety concern. If the door is not stable, it could open mid-trip. The City has recognized the age and condition of the vehicles and purchased two new all-electric vans as replacements. However, according to City staff at the Site Visit, and evidenced by the fact that the service is still being operated with the two older vans, the new vans are not being used. Staff cited that they couldn’t be charged. It is unknown what the exact issue is regarding charging of the vehicles. Staff also cited that the new electric vans weren’t appropriately outfitted to board passengers at the side door because the step is too high and there are no handrails for support.
Recommendation:
To avoid cancellations or limiting trip scheduling, the City must prioritize issues that are preventing the new vans from being put into service. An examination of the maintenance program is also warranted to understand who is responsible for maintenance, the inspection and service maintenance regimen, and maintenance standards. If not done recently, the fleet should be inspected with respect to current condition and useful life.
679
24 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
Identified Issue #17:
Drivers. While the City’s Paratransit drivers are both full-time employees, one drives only part- time due to a cited disability accommodation. They spend the remainder of their full-time hours assisting with dispatch functions and office duties. Vehicle logs for FY23/24 showed only 12 days YTD that both vans operated, so the part-time driver is not driving often. City staff also stated that they manually adjust daily ride scheduling to avoid including a wheelchair passenger on their manifest on the days they do drive.
Whether the limitation of 1.5 drivers is impacting ridership, or the daily ridership needs don’t necessitate two full-time drivers is unclear.
Recommendation:
If they have not done so, the City should assess the fitness of its existing drivers to perform the duties of the job. Per the Audit Team Paratransit Consultant, paratransit drivers are typically expected to be able to lift 40 lbs. to be considered fit for duty. If it is not already, this qualification should be included in the job description and verified in the hiring process for any future drivers. The City should also assess if the dispatch and administrative needs require the extra time that the 2nd full-time driver is dedicating to them. At a minimum, the City should report on Claims Form the staffing that represents the day-to-day contribution of employees to the operation, rather than their official classification.
Identified Issue #18:
Rider ID Card. The Client Guide and City staff indicate that an Identification Card is required for all qualifying clients. City administrative staff on the Working Group Call were not in agreement over the need to renew the card annually and Finance staff were not aware that a card was required or that $2.50 is charged per card. Nobody was aware of how the revenue for the cards was being reported. They did agree, however, that the card is not, in fact, required at the time of a trip or to purchase ride coupons, in contradiction to print materials. Instead, it appeared to be a way to requalify passengers as eligible for service based on their address.
Recommendation:
As the card appears to have no use to clients, and the revenue is not accounted for, the City should reconsider the need for the card. As an extra step to receive services with a $2.50 fee, it is a barrier to onboarding new clients. If the card is being used only for requalifying clients based on address, the City should develop a simple, annual address verification process for clients.
680
25 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
Identified Issue #19:
Clients in Unincorporated Areas. As noted earlier, the City receives Measure J funding to provide service in the county’s unincorporated communities of North Richmond, Kensington, and El Sobrante. The Measure J Claims Form requests detail on registered clients in unincorporated areas to validate the availability of service. City staff cited that that data must be manually culled from Route Match and that the effort is labor intensive. The two March manifests provided by the City included pick-ups and drops-offs at home addresses in unincorporated areas, so it is clear that a level of service is being provided. While there is no documentation to support the FY21/22 entry of 416 clients in unincorporated areas, the provided manifests support that they have clients registered outside of city limits.
While City staff indicated that Via will allow for this reporting, the Via contract provided by the City as Attachment 6 defines the data sets it provides, and there is no indication that it will provide that client detail.
Recommendation:
If Via does not, in fact, include that information, the City should inquire if a field can be added in the client database to indicate if the client’s home address is in an unincorporated area. A simple Google map search of the address would show the administrative support staff if they should note an unincorporated address in that new field. Once the manual work is done to assess its existing client database, doing that search for each new client would take just a few minutes.
Identified Issue #20:
Fare Revenue. Fares of $4/$5 are in line with other Paratransit services in the area and higher than the average fare paid by a Lyft service rider. Per City staff, Fare Revenue is reported in Claim Forms as the value of ticket books sold, not the value of tickets collected from riders for the reported fiscal year. Other reporting for ‘Fare Revenue’ or ‘Revenue’ appears to be for the tickets collected, but staff could not confirm that on the Working Group Call. They were unaware that Fare Revenue was appearing in other report locations and weren’t certain what it represented. That would explain why the Claims Form doesn’t match the reports. However, the Route Match reports also don’t match each other, as the earlier table shows. It also explains why a simple calculation of the total Fare Revenue does not equal an average $4.50 rider fare multiplied by the number of passenger boardings.
Additionally, anomalies in the value of Fare Revenue in the Claims Form make no sense: a high of $92,001 Actual fare revenue for FY21/22 to a low of $0 Actual fare revenue reported collected for FY20/21 and FY22/23 in the budget detail provided. When asked about the high $92,001 fare revenue year, City staff stated that they must have anticipated a service increase or other issue that would result in more riders. However, the $92,001 was a fiscal year Actual value, not a Projected value.
681
26 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
Because Fare Revenue is for tickets sold, the City should have a liability record for tickets sold but not used. According to the Finance staff, they do not track that liability.
Additionally, all staff were unaware of where the $2.50 per client annual Rider ID Card cost was being included as revenue – in the City general fund or to the Paratransit Fare Revenue.
Finance staff were not even aware that an ID fee was being charged.
Recommendation:
The City needs to have a clear understanding of how Fare Revenue is defined for both the budget and in system reporting. If two unique values are used, they should be named differently and reported as ‘Ticket Sale Revenue’ and ‘Fare Revenue’. A record of liability should be maintained for the outstanding value of tickets sold but not collected and if the required ID card is maintained, and used only for the Paratransit and Lyft service, it should be considered as program revenue. If, in fact, the 1,770 noted active clients are each required to obtain a new ID annually at a cost of $2.50, it represents more than $4,300 in revenue.
Identified Issue #21:
Staff & Driver Training. Per staff on the Working Group Call, driver training isn’t needed. The reason seemed to be that because a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) is not required for vehicles with their passenger-carrying capacity, no special training was deemed necessary. The Audit Team confirmed that a CDL is not required. City staff instead noted that pre-Covid, an administrative employee with the program would ride along every six months or so to check that the drivers were operating the vehicle appropriately. In cases where a driver is not available, staff cited that an administrative employee would drive the van and that they could use training because ‘...she’s not a driver’, but she’s pretty good.’
Per the Site Visit, drivers say that they need to turn in a photo of their valid driver’s license annually and maintain CPR First Aid certification through the City. They stated that they receive no other training. Drivers cited that vans have insurance cards and accident kits on board, and they were confident that they knew the procedures to handle an accident.
When asked about drug testing, administrative staff didn’t know if testing was done. The drivers are part of a union, but it is an administrative, not a drivers’ union. All staff said they have no regular interaction or communication with the union; they just pay their dues. It appears that the union contract does not hold the drivers accountable to drug testing.
Recommendation:
At a minimum, and per basic program needs, any driver transporting members of the public, regardless of vehicle size, should have Defensive Driving Training with a 682
27 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
refresher every three years. The Audit Team’s Paratransit Consultant noted that the ADA has a list of requirements for employees who work with customers with disabilities to be ‘trained to proficiency’ to include use and care of accessibility equipment; securement of mobility devices; sensitivity training; and understanding disability in general. While not an ADA paratransit service, given the specialized population they serve, drivers should, at a minimum, have mobility device training and training for working with riders with physical and cognitive disabilities. A training program should be implemented and maintained. Pre-employment and accident/incident drug testing should be required if it is not, and random drug testing implemented.
Identified Issue #22:
Personal Care Attendants (PCA). The City is carrying a high number of free PCAs compared to client passengers considering that they carry seniors in addition to passengers with disabilities.
While inconsistent across the unique Route Match reports, for FY21/22, as the earlier chart shows, reported attendant numbers were around 1,250 compared to total Paratransit passengers of around 1,850 (approximately 1,400 ambulatory and 450 wheelchair). Based on these figures, two-thirds of riders are boarding with an attendant. City staff stated on the Working Group Call that they want clients to have a free attendant for all rides, and two if they need it. They don’t certify or verify attendants, saying instead, that whoever can help them load is the attendant.
Recommendation:
Encouraging the use of Paratransit service PCAs can be beneficial in reducing customer incidents. However, the PCA is not a substitute for the driver, and the operator should not be delegating safety-related or rider loading responsibilities to PCAs under any circumstances. A transit entity cannot require that a rider be accompanied by a PCA and the ADA states that transit entity personnel must assist individuals with disabilities with the use of ramps, lifts, and securement systems. The possibility that attendants are being encouraged to ride with a client because of a driver limitation or other reason is concerning.
The Audit Team’s Paratransit Consultant identified that in their experience, for ADA paratransit services, the percentage of clients bringing a free attendant is generally 14%-16%. As the City is around 67%, they should assess both the abilities of the current drivers to assist riders, make it clear to passengers that PCA’s are welcome but not required, and that only one PCA is allowed per customer.
Identified Issue #23:
Software systems and data handling. Staff noted that they were no longer paying a fee to Route Match for the software. They cited purchasing the software ‘5-7 years ago’ and no longer had any interaction, training, or support from Route Match. They recognized the software’s 683
28 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
limitations and incompatibility with other IT services within the city, and had, at the time of the audit, secured a new software system with Via. It was expected to roll out on April 11, 2024.
On the day of the Site Visit the Via software was not working properly. One of the drivers could not log into their tablet, and IT was unable to help. The driver proceeded on route without using the tablet. The second driver had their tablet operating but turned the sound down because it was giving audio driving directions that were not their preferred driving route. The driver didn’t engage with the tablet for the ride-along trip.
As the Route Match costs would not have been included in recent year’s budgets, the new Via contract cost will be an add-on to the existing program costs, which will have an impact on overall cost and cost per passenger.
Recommendation:
Per staff, the Via training crew visited twice, but they moved too quickly and didn’t give time for City staff to understand the system. Staff need additional training and support for the new Via software. They need a clear understanding of the system automation options, and how to make best use of the program, not only with their current limited capacity, but if the program can be grown. While City management staff seemed confident that new software would be a valuable tool in addressing program issues, they must also recognize that software is not a substitute for good program management, and both are needed to realize the full advantages of a software system.
Marketing, Outreach & Feedback ______________________________________________ Review Items:
City-provided Lyft Brochure and Client Orientation Guide, program website, other entity websites, Marketing Audit
Identified Issue #24:
Website. The Richmond Paratransit website should be the primary source of public information for the R-Transit and Lyft services. It is presented on the City’s website under a ‘Transportation’ parent page which also highlights biking, commuter resources, and other public transit services.
The Audit Team reviewed the website and found it to include basic information in English about the two programs, including service area, fares, and steps to apply. The information, however, is not current. The landing page for the Paratransit service includes a notice from 2018 stating that the office is relocating and a Holiday Service Schedule from 2019. Other pages within the program site also reference meetings to be held in 2019. Visitors to the page may question if the program is actively operating.
684
29 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
The Lyft brochure provided to the Audit Team does not list the website as a resource. Contrary to information submitted in Claims, no other link to the website was found on the websites of other municipalities or WCCTAC. Additionally, an incorrect link to the website is printed on the front of the Client Orientation Guide.
Recommendation:
The program website should be updated regularly. A website is the most basic information a program can offer, and the City is not taking advantage of what can be their most valuable information and promotional tool. As the program pages already exist, keeping them active and updated should cost the City very little.
685
30 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
The website should offer information in Spanish, or at a minimum, it should include a statement, in Spanish, citing a phone number to call for assistance. If the City has not already done so, the website should be made screen-reader compatible.
A QR code and short URL leading to the program website should be generated and added to print materials. City staff should reach out to jurisdictions, senior resources, and centers for independent living to request that a link to the pages be added to their websites.
Identified Issue #25:
Equity for Limited English Proficiency (LEP). A native Spanish speaker from the Audit Team contacted the primary information number, 510-307-8026, which appears on the website and Lyft brochure, and requested assistance in Spanish on two different occasions. In both instances, she was told “No Habla Espanol” by the person answering the phone who then terminated the call. The Audit Team member was not given the option to speak to someone in Spanish.
On the Working Group Call staff cited that they don’t have regular Spanish language assistance, but that the part-time driver is a native speaker. The budget detail cites an annual staff supplement for bilingual services. Per the Finance response to questions, the payroll supplement is paid to the part-time driver of the Paratransit service, so limited translation would be available only to riders of that driver’s vehicle or over the phone in instances where they are providing administrative support.
Recommendation:
This and lack of printed materials in Spanish is contrary to requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act specifically, as failing to accommodate LEP persons is akin to discrimination on the basis of national origin. The City should connect with a translation services line such as AT&T, to provide consistent assistance in other languages over the phone. Print materials and website information should be available in Spanish or at a minimum, include a Spanish language statement with detail on how to receive language assistance. All materials should be made available, upon request, in large print, Braille, audio, or a digitally accessible format per the ADA.
Identified Issue #26:
Program Brochure. The City references a Lyft brochure in their annual Claims to CCTA. The brochure was provided to the Audit Team. The brochure is in English, and no Spanish language version appears to exist. No accompanying brochure specific to the Paratransit service appears to exist.
686
31 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
The Audit Team reviewed the Lyft brochure and found it to include basic information about the Lyft program, including trip cost, and steps to apply. It does not include a website address. The information, again, is not current, as the back panel of the brochure encourages potential users to attend 2019 workshops. As with the website, potential clients looking at the brochure may question if the program is actively operating. Additionally, the information blends promotion of the Lyft service with ‘Hours of Operation’ of the Paratransit service, confusing readers about when the Lyft service is available. The Claims Forms indicate that the Lyft brochures are available at ‘…senior centers, government offices, senior housing complexes, doctor/dental offices and anywhere seniors travel.’ The Audit Team visited five senior and medical centers in Richmond on March 26, 2024, but did not find Lyft brochures to be available at any of the locations. A listing of the sites visited, and the Audit Team experience at these locations is available in Attachment 2.
Recommendation:
Ideally, the City should develop a new brochure with promotional information about both the Paratransit and Lyft services. The brochure should be available in English and Spanish, or at a minimum, it should include a statement, in Spanish, citing a phone number to call for assistance. The existing Lyft brochure should be updated, and the most valued attributes of the service highlighted. The brochure should include a QR code leading to the service website. The brochures should be delivered in inexpensive plexiglass holders to all the locations cited in the Claims Form and a business card or note added to the back of the racks citing who to contact to refill the rack. Printing costs should be minimal, and as a passive form of promotion, once new brochures have been delivered, staff time to restock should be minimal.
Identified Issue #27:
Client Orientation Guide. The City provided the Audit Team with a Client Orientation Guide during the Site Visit, and another was offered by senior center staff on an Audit Team visit to locations in Richmond. One Guide was dated 2020-2021 and the second was dated 2021 and included a 2021 Holiday Schedule. Both include a web address on the front: www.rtransit.com
that opens to a site offering to sell the URL. The actual City site is https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2880/R-Transit-Paratransit.
The Guide includes information that does not align with information given by the City on the Working Group Call or at the Site Visit. For example:
• Clients are told in the Guide that No Shows or Late Cancellations will result in a charge equal to the fare. On the Working Group Call, staff said this is not their practice.
• One of the two Guides states that reservations can be made up to 10 days in advance while the other Guide, the website, City staff, and Claims submittals cite that reservations can be made 30 days in advance.
687
32 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
• The Guide outlines the need for an Identification Card, renewed annually, that must be shown to receive services or purchase ride coupons. Staff on the Working Group Call said that the ID is required but is never requested from a client. During the Site Visit ride along, the Audit Team staff witnessed riders boarding and purchasing ticket books and an ID was never requested.
• The Guide states that ‘one certified’ PCA will be allowed. Staff have stated that they do not ask for any certification and allow two attendants in some cases.
Recommendation:
Errors in the Client Orientation Guide should be corrected, and the booklet updated annually so that new clients receive accurate information. Updated Guides should be distributed to centers for independent living, senior centers, and other sites that are able to promote and share information about the City’s services.
Identified Issue #28:
Client and Ridership Opportunities. Data from the City’s FY23/24 Claim Form cites 1,770 active registered clients in Richmond’s R-Transit program. According to the United States Census Bureau, Richmond had a population of approximately 114,000 in 2022, with 14% aged 65 or older, representing approximately 16,000 residents. Richmond’s R-Transit program is open to all residents ages 55+, which means more than 16,000 seniors are eligible for the R- Transit and Lyft services. As much of Richmond is an Equity Priority Community with a higher- than-average rate of poverty, access to low cost, on-demand transportation should attract a much larger user base than currently exists. The lack of users can be attributed, in part, to poor outreach and promotion.
Additionally, for the 2020 period that the City provided Lyft data, the average total one-way trip cost was $11.85. After the subsidy, riders paid an average of $3.12 per one-way trip. Less costly than the Paratransit service, and available all hours and seven days a week, there should be a significant untapped market for the program.
Recommendation:
Given the previously noted low cost of subsidized Lyft rides, the limited staff time needed to support the Lyft program, and the extended hours and days of operation it affords clients, the City should focus on robust promotion of the Lyft program to increase its client base and ridership. However, the City should also assess if the existing Lyft service must also be supplemented to provide parity in programs to accommodate customers in need of mobility assistance.
Identified Issue #29:
Customer Feedback. The City offers a Paratransit Survey on its website soliciting ratings on a variety of elements of its service including the reservation process, drivers, vehicles, and trip 688
33 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
delivery. The City provided the Audit Team with all survey submissions. Since 2015, they have received a total of 10 individual survey responses. The most recent was from 2018.
All surveys fall outside of the five-year window of audit review, and at just 10 total responses, are an insufficient data set to be used to assess the City’s service. What is relevant, however, is that the survey is not being used.
Additionally, when asked if they kept a log of client feedback received via the phone, they said they do not.
Recommendation:
The City should contact all clients once per year, via mail or email, for the express purpose of soliciting feedback on their service. The survey should be featured prominently on the website in English and Spanish, and an option to call the City to complete the survey over the phone should be provided. Responses should be analyzed each year for ways to improve the customer experience. Third-party contractors are often used to manage and implement surveys for transit agencies, which not only saves staff time but also adds a measure of objectivity.
A log of all client comments, complaints, and commendations should be maintained and the information used to evaluate and improve the program.
Summary & Key Recommendation
The condition of the City of Richmond’s Claims and their program have been an item for discussion at PCC meetings going back to 2019. In the last five years, no marked improvements are apparent in their Claims submittals. While Covid had an impact on all transit operations, other entities have demonstrated success in their recovery efforts and have stabilized their programs.
The City has made efforts to improve their transportation program, namely, its Lyft service, new vehicles, and updated software. For the service gap it fills, the City of Richmond’s Lyft program has added value and new client options to their program, but without data from the City for ridership, or cost allocation for just the Lyft program, it is difficult to assess the program’s quantitative success.
The two new electric vans would be very beneficial, but as noted in this report, they are not currently operational. Additionally, without two full-time drivers to operate the new vans, or outreach to attract new riders, the vehicles will continue to carry the same low number of daily passengers.
689
34 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
The impact of replacing Route Match with Via software has yet to be realized, as the system was new to staff at the time of the audit. As noted in this report, the manual entry of data, lack of understanding of metrics, and an unengaged management and unempowered staff are preventing the City from making the best use of the new software.
A senior and paratransit operation is needed to serve residents in this area of West County. The City of Richmond R-Transit program provides a valued service to a small, vulnerable population and the dedication of the drivers and administrative support staff to those clients is clear.
However, the potential demand is not being realized due to the various issues documented in this report. The City’s service is suffering from low ridership, high costs, and mismanagement.
As described in this report, identified issues touch every aspect of the City’s transportation operation, and for the five years of review. As such, a complete shift is warranted. In this complete shift, the City will be required to turn over the program management to a separate public agency or new entity. An organization with an understanding of service metrics and standards, and an understanding of the needs of West County residents, such as WCCTAC, would be ideal.
If the service were to remain under the auspices of the City, a new, full-time administrator should be put in charge of the program to prioritize corrections, focusing first on issues of safety and customer care. The position should report directly to senior/executive management in the City. That person should have experience in the delivery of transit services for seniors and persons with disabilities. The service will be monitored and evaluated regularly by CCTA and other agencies, such as WCCTAC.
To enhance CCTA’s responsibilities of the Measure J Sales Tax authority, it should develop a performance improvement plan for the City and schedule regular reviews of the program changes. The PCC should assume the role of monitoring the City’s performance improvements. The City should also assess the cost and potential benefits of transitioning Paratransit service delivery to a contracted vendor.
690
35 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit
Attachments
1. Kick-off Meeting and Data Request Notes. March 4, 2024
2. Marketing Audit Notes. March 26, 2024
3. Working Group Call Notes. April 9, 2024
4. Site Visit Notes. April 16, 2024
5. Cost Pool Memos provided by City
6. Via Contract provided by City
691
Atachment 1
Richmond Paratransit Audit Kick-Off
Monday, March 4, 10:30am
AGENDA + NOTES
Invitees/Atended:
CCTA:
Rashida Kamara
AMG:
Laurie Talbert
City of Richmond:
Lori Reese-Brown
LaShonda Wilson
Hope Latell
Deborah Habbs
Mary Cummings
John Nemeth
Coire Reilly
Nickie Mastay
Cher-Lor Arce
Agenda:
• Introduc�ons of teams
a. Richmond staff role in program
i. Lori – PM for program
ii. La Shonda – Deputy City Manager – Transporta�on/community services iii. Hope-Finance Manager
iv. Cher & Nickie – Financial
v. Mary & Deborah- Clients
vi. John & Coire - WCCTAC
b. Iden�fy project contacts
i. Lori/LaShonda – Program Administra�on
ii. Hope – Finance Contact
iii. John/Coire (WCCTAC) – Programming-Funding
• Project Intro and Background
a. CCTA overview
• Next Steps – through end of March/early April
a. Data – documenta�on collec�on
b. Working mee�ng with Richmond staff
c. On-site observa�ons
• Expecta�ons for documenta�on – FY19/20 to FY23/24
692
Per PM - City can provide documenta�on by end of next week. Audit Team will set up Dropbox. a. Claims reports – or no claim explana�on
i. City - No claims in Covid year
b. Budget detail
i. City - Budget detail available end of next week
c. Ridership detail – O&D pairs, days and hours
i. City - Requires manual work + Route Match. Select a sampling? ii. CCTA – manual work not needed at this point
d. Paratransit Survey results
e. Write up of City Cost Pool as it relates to program
i. City – Total document available. Write up may take longer. • Ongoing
a. Bi-weekly check ins
b. Ongoing Q&A
693
Attachment 2
City Of Richmond MJ15 Marketing Audit
March 26, 2024
Audit Team staff Kirsten Riker visited five locations in Richmond on March 26, 2024 to verify that reported marketing efforts were valid. The assessment was performed in a ‘mystery shopper’ format posing as a member of the public gathering information for a family member.
Details of the site visits are listed below:
• Richmond Senior Annex, 5801 Huntington Avenue
Audit Team staff found no R-Transit, Lyft brochures, or other information on display at the Senior Annex. Annex staff was friendly, helpful, and complementary of senior transit services in Richmond, though unclear on service details of R-Transit and the Lyft program.
Senior Center staff used her computer to print a three-page application packet and told Audit Team staff that it could be turned in or mailed to the Civic Center Plaza for enrollment. While not sure of exact costs, she said some of the people who use the Annex also use the Lyft program and commented that she “doesn’t think a lot of people know about it.”
• Richmond Library – Main Branch, 325 Civic Center Plaza The Richmond library had no brochures about R-Transit and staff suggested I visit the nearby senior center for more information. The library displays AC Transit schedules.
• Richmond Senior Center, 2525 Macdonald Avenue
Senior Center staff was friendly and helpful. R-Transit Orientation Guides (9 pages, stapled, in English, dated 2021 with a 2021 Holiday Schedule) were displayed on a resources table, along with color brochures for Richmond Moves (which were available in English and Spanish). No information about the R-Transit-LYFT program was on display. Senior Center staff mentioned a LYFT component but could not find any brochures.
Senior Center staff looked up information on her computer and provided three printed/stapled pages of information about it. While looking at the website she noted the outdated “upcoming workshop” (listed as November 18, 2019) on the program website and suggested to “just ignore that!” Staff could not say when the next workshop would be but said, “there should be more workshops set up to teach people all the ins and outs of this service.” Staff indicated familiarity with at least one of the R-Transit drivers who apparently stops in every day for ice/water.
• North Richmond Center for Health / Community Resource Center, 1501 Fred Jackson Way
No information was available about senior transportation services. Staff was helpful and looked online for paratransit information and wrote down phone numbers for two paratransit operators (Richmond Paratransit and East Bay Paratransit). She also started to mention Richmond R-Transit, but then said, “Oh wait, no, that’s just a center. These are the ones to call [indicating the paratransit services she had already written down].”
694
• Richmond Care Center / Family Medicine (Sutter East Bay Medical Foundation), 2970 Hilltop Mall Road, #304
The Richmond Care Center is a large, multi-story medical office building with various medical/dental offices. Audit Team staff visited the Sutter medical office as it appeared to have the largest practice on the directory. No brochures, posters, or other information was displayed in the main Care Center lobby or in the Sutter office/waiting room.
695
Attachment 3
City Of Richmond MJ15 Working Group Call
April 9, 2024
Present:
Audit Team: Laurie Talbert (Audit Lead), Christian Kent (Paratransit Consultant) City of Richmond: LaShonda (Community Services-CS), Lori (PM), Hope (Finance), Mary (Admin Staff)
Introductions and Coordination of April 16 Visit
Introduced Paratransit Consultant. For visit on 16th, City staff cited that 8:45am is first possible trip out, but Driver 2 has a trip starting later, so come after 9am. Send Admin staff cell number so they can update the time if needed. Riding with Driver 1. Second driver is part-time limited.
Status of Data Request
Acknowledge receipt of survey and Cost Pool detail. We still need the items in the table that were requested by the original deadline of March 15 and listed in a March 25 via email. Priority is for the Claims Forms. We need to complete our evaluation and start on the report. We need all remaining data by the day of the Site Visit, April 16.
Questions for City
Questions are based on FY23/24 Claims Form. One version comes from the CCTA PCC meeting minutes, the other uploaded by the City. They are not the same. These questions follow the PCC version. Note¿ Questions sent to City in advance. Not able to cover all questions. Notes include only those covered from the original list and follow-up questions asked on the call. • PARATRANSIT FARES:
o What is cost to rider per one-way trip?
City: $4 one-way in advance $5 same-day.
o How many same-day trips do you take @ $5?
City: Once a day or every other.
o Are all passengers boarding the vehicle charged? - attendants, guests, guardians 696
PM: Attendants are free – there can be more than one. Paratransit Consultant: ADA allows one free attendant. PM: We want them to have an attendant for all rides. If they need two attendants, we allow it.
Paratransit Consultant: Understandably, two attendants may serve different purposes
PM: Guests pay. I don’t know what a ‘guardian’ is – maybe caregiver. Audit Lead: It is referenced on one of your Route Match reports. PM: I’m not sure.
o How is fare payable?
Admin staff: Pay with a ticket. Driver sells them by check - no cash - and turn it into office. Also, can buy at the office and cashier window too. They collect $20 per book.
o Is the fare revenue based on tickets sold or tickets collected at the time of the ride? PM: I believe Fare Revenue on Claim Form is tickets sold – not collected. Paratransit Consultant: Is there any other way to pay? City: No.
Audit Lead: How is the difference reconciled? You could sell $1M in tickets and only $500k have been used. Is this recorded as liability? • Finance: No. The liability is not recorded anywhere.
o Is the same definition of ‘revenue’ used on all data where ‘revenue’ is reported? The numbers don’t match Route Match reports.
PM: Not sure why those numbers wouldn’t match. Not sure where the information comes from. Admin staff draws up the report. It could be based on what the manifest says is owed from riders – and they input what riders pay, so fare collected not tickets sold.
• HOURS: Please confirm hours for passenger contacts:
o Service hours for first p/u time to last drop/off time City: 8:45am/4:15pm last pick up – last drop-off could be 4:30pm. PM: We contract to a supplemental van service, TransMETRO. If we can’t meet schedule, then we engage TransMETRO.
o Reservation days/hours that a rider can call to request ride and # City: 24/7 and leave message 510-307-8026. In person from 8:30am - 5 o General information/customer support days/hours and # City: 8:30am-5pm 510-307-8026. They only have a ½ time person – then Admin staff takes over. Admin staff and Dispatcher do it. PM: We formerly had a staff of 14, had to scale back.
o What days/hours are Lyft users supported with ride scheduling assistance? PM: Can call anytime to 510-307-8026. Admin staff has given their personal cell to assist people.
o What do ‘business hours’ and ‘office hours’ represent? Both mentioned in claim form.
PM: 8:30am – 5pm They are the same thing. 510-307-8026 o Is language translation offered on all these lines for all days/hours? 697
Admin staff: We call HR and they will put someone on to translate. PM: No. Right now it is only the part-time driver. They speak Spanish. o What languages are supported?
Admin staff: Not sure.
PM: Right now it is limited Spanish only.
• STAFFING:
o Two full-time drivers are noted in Claims Form, but for FY24, claim vehicle logs show just 13 days when both vehicles recorded service miles. With just one vehicle operating most of the time, what does second driver do when not on the road? PM: At the time we had two FT drivers. One driver’s schedule was reassessed. They have a disability and can’t lift things – restrictions.
Sometime Dispatcher goes out to drive, that’s why the two drivers are listed PM: One part-time Dispatch, One full-time Admin, and PM is part time Admin as management.
• OPPORTUNITIES FOR FEEDBACK
o Besides the online survey, what personal opportunities are there for client feedback?
PM: We work through the Commission on Aging and WCCTAC. o Do you keep a log of feedback you receive via phone?
Admin staff: No. Phone log for feedback is not kept.
o When did staff last attend a Commission on Aging monthly meeting? PM: In the last few weeks.
• ROUTE MATCH SOFTWARE
o Does the city use software system independently? ie. generate all reports and do all data entry?
Admin staff: We generate everything and enter information o Does Route Match provide software support and/or training? Can you call with issues?
PM: Route Match has glitches. We had a contract, then we bought their software, but it is not compatible with City systems. Route Match does nothing for us now. We stopped paying for Route Match 5-7 years ago. New software from Via, based in Route Match reporting. More fields for clarity.
Rolls out this week. They are doing training on 4/10. Needed new tablets – working with IT.
• CLIENTS
o FY23/24 claim lists both ‘Active Clients’ (1,770) and ‘Registered Clients’ (FY2023 Projected 3,720). What is the difference between the two? City: Active is the more current as active clients.
Admin staff: I look at obituaries and see when they stopped riding and remove them. We don’t have as many active clients.
o Is there a fee to register as a client?
Admin staff: They purchase an ID annually. $2.50 each year. Audit Lead: Do they show it to the driver when they ride? 698
Admin staff: No. It has always been in place, but they don’t need it to ride. If they don’t get an ID they aren’t eligible to ride.
Audit Lead: And they have to get a new one every year? PM: No
Admin staff: Yes, we have them do it every year for $2.50. o How does that cost factor into the budget or revenue? PM: The money is City funds, but I don’t know how it is accounted for. Finance: I didn’t know there was an ID or $ collected for it Admin staff: I’m not sure why we still do this.
o Do clients ever have to reapply – proving continued eligibility? Admin staff: Annually when they do the ID card.
o Claim narrative states that Route Match doesn’t provide a breakdown of people registered by incorporated and unincorporated. One version of claim form breaks it out – how were the numbers generated for the table?
PM: Route Match doesn’t give us that. The new Via software will let us. Audit Lead: What would it take from the City to be able to do this now with Route Match?
PM: Admin staff did it manually for the Claim Form and it took her a week. • FARE REVENUE
o Fare Revenue FY22 was $92,001 actual but FY23 is $20k projected. Why such a significant change?
PM: I don’t know. With the supplemental service TransMETRO they were trying to serve more people, we must have figured we’d get a lot more riders. Audit Lead: This was actual reported revenue, not a projection (Post meeting note – TransMETRO wasn’t contacted until October, 2023 and would not have been a factor for FY22 revenue)
PM: Not sure. For the $20K we didn’t think we’d have the service. Not sure about the $92k in fares.
o How do you calculate projected fare revenue? What rider cost are you using? PM: We look at how many people we might carry plus internal challenges.
We thought we could use ECIA money, but could only be used inside Richmond.
o Have there been any periods of time over the last five claim years when fares were not collected? If so, when?
PM: We never stopped collecting fares during Covid
o If you had two full-time drivers, could you fill the vans? PM: We want the option for 2 full-time van drivers so the passengers have options. It could be Lyft, Paratransit or TransMETRO. Union drivers – just 1.5 now, and only drivers for the city. They are part of the General Admin union. • PASSENGER TRIPS
o When did Lyft service start?
Admin staff: July, 10th 2018.
o For ‘Total Passenger Trips’ on the Claims Form are you recording total Passenger Boarding counts?
699
PM: Yes
Admin staff: No. It is the trip we count, not how many are on board-just the trip.
PM: No, we include both. It is everyone who boards a vehicle that is included.
Audit Lead: How does Route Match define a ‘trip’ then and what do you think the Claim Form is asking for with ‘trip’?
• PM: They are asking for trips
• Admin staff: A trip is a single trip from one place to the other with a registered client – not all who board. Route Match gives us this. o Do ‘Total Passenger Trips’ on Table C include both Paratransit and Lyft rides? PM: Yes.
o Does number of Wheelchair Passengers on claims form represent total WC trips given or number of clients in database that use a WC?
Admin staff: Not sure. It should be total clients in wheelchairs. o Do clients declare their PCA? Is the need verified by their Dr.? Both disability qualified and seniors? Is their name part of the manifest so driver knows who is eligible?
Admin staff: Yes, or they just show up. They cite an attendant when they are eligible. Self-declared for an attendant.
Audit Lead: So, no certification or check with doctor? • PM: Whoever can help them load is the attendant
o Are they each counted in passenger trip total?
Yes.
o Do they each pay a fare?
City: Attendants No. Guest Yes. Don’t know what a guardian is. o Can you confirm that reported trips are one-way trips? PM: Yes.
o How are you calculating Revenue Service Hours?
PM: Route Match tells us what it is.
Audit Lead: Are Lyft hours included anywhere?
• PM: No.
o How are you calculating Passenger trips per Revenue Service Hours. Are LYFT passengers included, but hours aren’t?
City: We use total passengers from both services to do the calculation. o How do you define a No-Show?
Admin staff: We get there and there’s no answer.
o What if a passenger has repeated no shows? Do you have rider policies? Admin staff: Policy was that you had to pay for the trip anyway, but we don’t do that anymore. Repeated no shows are rare.
o How do you define a cancellation?
Admin staff: When they call in and cancel or do it at the door when we go to pick them up. No time frame for a cancel.
o Does the city ever cancel a ride for any reason?
700
PM: Nope. If a driver calls in sick, they divide rides between the part-time driver and Dispatcher. Or contact TransMETRO. (Follow-up Note: On the day of the Site Visit, two one-way rides were cancelled by the City after a client had been loaded because the van would not operate.) o What training do drivers get?
Admin staff: Pre-covid I rode with them every 6 months, to do a driver check and make sure they follow traffic rules. They don’t need training. Deborah is the only one who would need training because she’s not a driver, but she’s pretty good.
PM: They just need a state DL. Class B isn’t required by the number of seats. o How do you calculate % on-time performance
PM: That comes from Route Match
Admin staff: Not sure what it means.
Audit Lead: Could it be for adherence to your pick-up window? PM: That’s it. From the scheduled pick-up time.
o What are your service standards and goals for no-shows, cancellations, and on-time performance?
PM: We have goals that we report out. It is in the City-wide budget. We have a goal of no cancellations.
Audit Lead: It would be nice to see a copy of that.
PM: We can send it. (Note: information not received) • FARE SUBSIDY
o What does the $44 represent in the FY23/24 claim?
CS: This doesn’t make sense. It must be a mistake. We are trying to correct that stuff to help us clean things up.
• VEHICLE PRODUCTIVITY
o There are days when no vehicle is operating in FY23/24 claim. What reasons would there be?
PM: TransMETRO is new – just this year. If it shows no operation then a van was out of service or no available driver. The rides go to TransMETRO and that info is recorded in Route Match. Just no vehicle records from them.
They bill us every month.
Admin staff: TransMETRO does not give that information to us. PM: They give it to us in our invoices, but it doesn’t go to Admin staff. Route Match won’t capture mileage because we don’t put it in. TransMETRO sells the ticket books and it gets counted in Fare Revenue. TransMETRO invoices per trip – at a cost based on vehicles and the trip. Cost shows up in the budget, but not sure where. Not sure the basis for the charges either – per rider?
• UNMET NEEDS
o How are ‘outside the service area’ requests recorded – both from patrons outside? and for trips outside? What detail do you keep?
Admin staff: They are callers who want to be riders but aren’t eligible because of where they live.
701
Attachment 4
City Of Richmond MJ15 Site Visit
April 16, 2024
Present:
Audit Team: Laurie (Audit Lead)
City of Richmond: LaShonda (Community Services – CS), Deborah (Dispatcher), Drivers 1 (full-time) and Driver 2 (part-time)
Vehicles in Lot
There were three R-Transit vehicles in the lot. Van 1927 and two Electric vehicles. Van 1922 was already out on the road. Per drivers, it is the primary vehicle. 1927 is the back up because it is in worse shape. Richmond Moves had 12 vehicles in the lot in a variety of sizes, both electric and hybrid. Per Driver 2, the vehicles aren’t shared and Richmond Moves uses Via contracted drivers.
Audit Lead spoke with a Via driver who said that charging is tough as the chargers in the City lot are also used by the public and sometimes when he returns, they are full and he has no spot to charge.
He has to take a chance on charging the next morning.
Per both drivers and Dispatcher: The new vehicles were secured by a former Transportation Department employee, and they cannot be used yet. They are intended to replace the two older vans. All three cited the same issues:
1. The charging system was incompatible with the charging units at the City, so they can’t b
e charged.
2. The vehicles have a lift for WC, but don’t accommodate seniors well. The first step is to
o high and there are no rails to hold onto for support when climbing the steps.
3. The vans aren’t registered yet.
All three also stated they don’t know who is managing the issues, how or when the problems will be resolved.
Office Visit Pre-Ride
The office was hard to find. Audit Lead didn’t find the Cashier’s Desk while they were there.
CS, Dispatcher and Driver 2 were there. Because full-time Admin Staff was sick, Dispatcher was at the phones. Driver 2 had two AM trips (a round-trip for a single rider) then would relieve Dispatcher when they left at 12:30pm. Driver 2 acts in an admin capacity when not driving. Driver 2 is a full- time employee but does primarily admin work as they only run extra AM trips that are not WC. They have a disability accommodation and admin does not book trips for them for WC passengers.
Dispatcher gave Audit Lead a manifest sample. They are printed with the ride pick-up info, but the driver enters all times and odometer readings. Those are manually entered into the system the following day.
Asked CS if ‘Transportation Services’ is R-Transit only. Per CS, as long as it is coded for 1003, it includes only Paratransit. Audit Lead requested a TransMETRO invoice, additional information about the Cost Pool General Liability charge that was not addressed in the Cost Pool Memo, and 702
detail about how they were paying for the Via system – a one-time cost or a monthly SaaS. (Audit Lead followed-up with an email the next day detailing the request and received the additional Cost Pool and Via information)
Via rollover: It was the first week. They couldn’t get the tablets operating – they would not accept the passwords. Via came only twice for training, and they moved too fast and didn’t give time for notes. The staff needs more help.
Ride along with Driver 2
Driver 2 and Audit Lead started by going to the IT office because the driver tablet would not let them log in with their password. IT could not help them. The ‘forgot password’ gave a response saying to get your temporary password from the ‘Dispatch Manager’ , but neither knew who that was. They opted to proceed without the tablet, as driver knew the client well and knew where she lived. Driver 2 and Audit Lead went to van 1927. Driver 2 had a single round-trip rider pick up for the day. The van was stuck in Park and would not shift into Drive. Driver 2 cited that if the door is not closed properly, the van won’t shift into Drive. They opened and closed the right-side slider, pushing on it to close it tight. It still would not come out of Park. As staff had already identified that the driver had a disability accommodation, Audit Lead was not comfortable with the force they needed to use to try to get the back side of the door latched. Audit Lead tried with the same result then circled the van and saw a seatbelt sticking out of the left sliding door. Audit Lead opened the door, cleared the seatbelt then closed it and the van released from Park. Driver 2 noted that they would not stop the van at the first pick up, as they were afraid it would lock up again.
Arrived to pick up the passenger at 10:25am for her scheduled 10am pick up. She had a walker and boarded independently. Driver 2 secured her lap belt, then the walker. The passenger was out of ride coupons and gave a check for $20 to purchase a new book. Driver 2 took four, $2 tickets from the book to pay for both trip directions, as they would be waiting at the drop off location to return the client back home. The client acknowledged that the van was late but praised the service and drivers.
Ticket System
The drivers have a stack of books, numbered, and a sign-out sheet in the glove compartment. Checks are returned to the office at the end of the day, but the sign-out sheet which logs the rider, ticket book number, and total collected, remains in the van until all coupon books have been sold.
At the end of the shift the drivers turn in their pre and post ride checklist, their manifest, any checks they received and the ticket sign-out sheet if it is full.
Driver 2 had, in fact, shut off the van upon arrival, and the van would not shift out of Park again.
Both the driver and Audit Lead tried opening and closing the two doors, pushing hard to lock them in place, but could not get the van to release from Park. Driver 2 called Dispatcher who cancelled the rider trip and called to have the Maintenance Yard pick up the van with a tow truck. They also arranged for Driver 1 to pick them up before their next client trip.
After the passenger was deboarded Audit Lead asked Driver 2 about the service and what changes are needed while waiting for Driver 1. They said, ‘We need help’. They need training in the new Via 703
system, they need the new vehicles to be outfitted properly and working, and they need more drivers. They said they don’t get enough money to run the service – they ‘need more money’ . They said it is a good service, and the riders like the drivers. They are sending trips to TransMETRO because of the van issues, and Driver 2 limitations, but the riders don’t want to ride with TransMETRO and will often change their trip time to one where they are sure the City van can pick them up. Driver 2 said they were fearful that the audit will shut down the Paratransit service.
Per Driver 2, more passengers want to use Lyft because of the hours and because it is just $3, but only the ambulatory can ride. And they don’t understand that they have to apply for R-Transit first to use it. ‘People just don’t understand. ’ Driver 2 also cited that if a rider makes less than 50k/year they get the trip free. (Audit Team could find no information about a low-income program) The drivers have City-provided cell phones to speak to each other and the Dispatcher.
Per Driver 2 – Pre-Covid they may have multiple riders at a time, but now it is mostly just one at a time. The set up of the WC area appears to comfortably only allows for one WC passenger with one ambulatory at the same time – could be an attendant.
Driver 2 insisted that they drive the van regularly, but Dispatcher indicated (and vehicle records support) that they only drive occasionally.
Ride along with Driver 1
Driver 1 arrived at the inoperative van and was able to shut the door to allow the vehicle out of Park.
Says they ‘knows the magic trick’ to closing it. They advised Driver 2 to cancel the tow and drive directly to the Maintenance Yard. Driver 2 called Dispatcher who said Maintenance wanted it towed. Driver 2 moved the van out of the lot where it was blocking cars and onto the street. They were advised to leave the key under the mat and the door unlocked. Driver 2 was fearful after the van drove away that the ticket books and check they had received would be stolen from the van.
Driver 1 drove to their pickup for a wheelchair client. It was an 11am pick up. On the way, their tablet was giving driving directions. They turned the volume down saying they like their route better.
Because they had assisted Driver 2, they arrived at 11:15am. They said they have a 15-minute window (On the Working Group Meeting, City staff cited 20-minute.) Driver 1 loaded the client, she moved to the seat, and they secured her wheelchair. Driver 2 belted her in. They collected four $2 tickets for both directions of her trip, as the same driver would be taking her home later. Driver 1 did not use the tablet for any part of the trip, instead recording rider pick up time on a paper manifest.
Her drop off was at the city, so the group returned to the office and Driver 1 took their lunch. Driver 2 confirmed that the tow was complete and drove their car to the Maintenance Yard to recover the tickets and check.
When asked about training, both drivers said they receive no special training. They have to keep a valid license and give a photo of it each year. They also maintain CPR/First aid, attending City classes to keep renewed. When asked, Driver 1 cited that onboard they have their insurance card and an accident kit and that they were comfortable with knowing how to handle an accident.
Audit Lead asked Driver 1 what they would improve in the service:
- They need more drivers, and should stop using TransMETRO for trips 704
- They need new vehicles, but not those new electric vans – gas vans. They think charging will be too hard and they already have a key to fill up at any of the City fuel spots. T hey also said they didn’t know what was happening with the new vehicles and why they weren’t being fixed.
- If Via was working it would be okay. One complaint is that it gives out loud driving directions, but drivers know better how to get there. Also, the mapping doesn’t include points of interest so they can’t use location name for pick-up and drop-off – it has to be a street address.
O
ffice Visit Post-Ride
Audit Lead spoke with Dispatcher, asking follow-up questions:
1. Do you have a rider guide or info you give them?
a. Yes. Gave a copy (dated 2020/2021)
2. How many days in advance can a rider reserve?
a. They prefer 3-4. One day isn’t enough time because it is harder to schedule in a
nd TransMETRO needs their trip info the day before if possible. They can take up to 30 days ahead.
b. Appointment returns are scheduled the same time as the pick-up, so the only same-day requests they receive are for entirely new trips. If they are AM they can sometimes work them into the Driver 2 schedule. It doesn’t work for Tr
ansMETRO because they send the manifest the day before. (Note: this does no
t align with statements by staff on Working Group Call that TransMETRO is used for same-day trips)
3. Will the Via system involve any other system changes? a. Not sure. The system has an ‘optimize’ feature that schedules the ride but they don’t use it because it gives wheelchairs to Driver 2, and they can’t take them, so they still manually schedule.
b. They need more training on Via to know it better. They came just twice and it was m
any months apart. They printed out their guide and are trying to train themselves.
4. Drug testing of drivers/union?
a. They know they are part of the union because they pay dues, but otherwise they don’t really know anything about it. No random drug testing – they have never been tested or the drivers either that they know of.
5 . What would you improve about the service?
a. Want more drivers
b. Need resolution to the vehicles. Why don’t they have them to use? c. Otherwise, things are running smoothly.
d. They didn’t understand why they couldn’t serve other people – they get calls s
ometimes and they have to turn them down. They get lots of ride requests to Oakland.
705
450 C
ivic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804
Telephone: (510) 620-6869 Fax: (510) 620-6542 www.ci.richmond.ca.us
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Transportation Division
A
pril 4, 2024
RE
: Cost Pool
T
he following is a brief explanation of our cost pool provided by the Deputy Director of Finance, Mubeen Qadar in the draft budget staff report pages 10 and 11 on June 7,2022. While the Cost Pool allocations are significant, the City’s General Fund subsidy to Transportation Operations for FY2022-23 was $523,814.
Attachment 5
706
450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804
Telephone: (510) 620-6869 Fax: (510) 620-6542 www.ci.richmond.ca.us
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Transportation Division
April 22, 2024
RE: Cost Pool – General Liability
The following is a brief explanation of our General Liability portion of the cost pool provided by the Deputy Director of Finance, Mubeen Qadar in the draft budget staff report page 9 on June 7,2022.
Workers Compensation and General Liability: Rates are generally derived from the Actuarial report that factors in several drivers around the number of existing claims and expected claims depending on the existing risk and targeted confidence level of the Risk Reserve. The initial rates, in the proposed draft budget presented on May 3, 2022, were to achieve 65 percent confidence Risk Reserve level, resulting in significant increases in charges from the current year budget level. To avoid drastic budget increases to the City departments, the City staff proposes that the increase in the confidence level should be implemented gradually over several years. Until the City develops a formal plan for the Confidence Level increment, the proposed draft budget for FY 2022-2023 is set to increase the General Liability Charges by five percent city-wide from the FY 2021-2022 budget level.
Workers Compensation charges are only increasing by one percent in each category listed in Table 7 below.
707
CITY OF RICHMOND
CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Department: Project Manager:
Project Manager E-mail: Project Manager Phone No:
P.R. No: Vendor No: P.O./Contra ct 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.
Transportation
Denée Evans
[email protected]
621-1718
15056
5755
TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY ENABLED INTEGRATED SERVICES FOR ON DEMAND LOCAL ELECTRIC SHUTTLE ✔
2 NOMAD TRANSIT, LLC
10 CROSBY STREET, FLOOR 2
NEW YORK, NY 10013
GARRETT BRINKER
(574) 286-4710
[email protected]
✔
Delaware, LLC.
October 19, 2021
October 1, 2021
July 7, 2024
1,000,000.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 Attachment 6
708
Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 09-26-07
4. Amendment Provisions. This Contract Amendment is subject to the Amendment Provisions attached here
to, 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. Amend ment 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.
NOMAD TRANSIT, LLC
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 Mayor
709
Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and
Amendme
nt 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 Amend
ment 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 f
ollowing tasks and/or services:
Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 9-26-07
NOMAD TRANSIT, LLC
2 5755
312,500.00
1,650,731.00
See attachments for:
i. Additional TaaS vehicle hours to the current contract and ii. SaaS paratransit service order that outlines the project scope for our paratransit software DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 710
Amendment #2
to the
City of Richmond Standard Contract
Nomad Transit, LLC (“Via”) and the City of Richmond (“Customer” and, together with Via, the “Parties”) have entered into that certain agreement titled City of Richmond Standard Contract (the “Agreement”), dated October 1, 2021. Upon execution of this Amendment #2 (the “Amendment”), the Parties agree to modify the Agreement as follows:
1. Pa
ragraph 3 (Payment Limit) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to increase the payment limit by $139,128.00. Paragraph 3 of the Original Contract is amended to read as follows:
“3. P
ayment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract Amendment shall not exceed $1,477,359.00. including expenses.”
2. Section 3 of the Transit- as-a-Service (TaaS) Service order of the Agreement is hereby revised by adding the following language and attached pricing table” “For the duration of the contract term, 1762 vehicle hours will be added at the current rate of $78.96.”
3. Conf
licts, Use of Terms, Governing Law. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. Except as expressly provided herein, the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged. This Amendment #2 will be governed by the same law as the Agreement.
This Amendment #2 is effective as of March 1, 2023
Nomad Transit, LLC City of Richmond
By:
By:
Nam
e: Name:
Title
: Title:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF Manager
Alex Lavoie
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 Mayor
Eduardo Martinez
711
Richmond, CA DEPLOYMENT SERVICE ORDER
By this service order (the “Order”), Nomad Transit LLC, a Delaware company with its principal office located at 10 Crosby Street, Floor 2, New York, New York 10013 (“ Via”), and the customer identified below (“Customer”) agree to collaborate towards the operation by Customer of the deployment (the “Deployment”) in Richmond, CA Customer Name: City of Richmond
Customer Entity Type / State of Incorporation: City
Customer Notice Address: 440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Customer Email: [email protected]
Term: The duration of the Deployment shall last until the last day of the calendar month during which a period of 60 months following Launch expires, subject to extension by mutual agreement of the parties on terms to be agreed (including any increase in monthly fees for additional months).
Services: Customer will receive access to the standard Via Solution and automatic software updates, comprised of:
(a) Fully localized proprietary routing and matching algorithms that analyze all trip requests, assign riders dynamically to the best-suited vehicle, and group passengers headed in the same direction into efficient shared rides powered by Via’s patented technology;
(b) Integrated reservation system to accept and schedule trips booked in real time, in advance, or on a recurring basis; (c) Downloadable iOS and Android rider apps that allow customers to book rides, track vehicles in real time, pay for trips, and troubleshoot any issues. The rider apps shall be dedicated to this Deployment. For the avoidance of doubt, the rider apps used in connection with the Transit- as a-Service (TAAS) SERVICE ORDER will not be utilized in connection with this Deployment ;
(d) A web-based booking portal to book trips;
(e) Downloadable driver app that provides efficient turn-by-turn directions; the app allows drivers to start and end driving time, schedule breaks, and contact live support; and (f) Access to the Via Operations Console (“VOC”), which allows administrators to perform a variety of functions, including booking trips, checking trip details, adjusting account information, and providing customer support, and accessing reports, as provided for in Appendix 1.
(g) Access to the data reporting set out in Appendix 1, made available via the VOC.
Support Services – Installation. Via provides installation support for up to four weeks after the Deployment begins serving Riders, consisting of:
(a) Localization for the Deployment Zone (defined below), including optimizing the algorithm, configuring back -end, and defining acceptable pick-up and drop off points;
(b) Testing and quality assurance;
(c) Helping Customer to build a launch plan and rider acquisition strategy; and (d) Instruction for drivers, dispatchers, and managers on Via’s best practices as remote launch support Support Services – Ongoing. The following services are included in the fees up to the number of hours per month identified below:
(a) Operational support and system adjustments: Includes algorithm adjustments and changes to virtual bus stops / pickup points at request of Customer: up to 10 hours per month (b) Expert consulting: up to 5 hours per month
● Marketing and growth: help setting up complex promotions, review and assistance for third party tools that can integrate into Via’s tech
● Operations: Including supply optimization analysis, payment & fraud investigation, and business case/unit economics analysis
● Service expansion: Including feasibility analysis for service expansions or additional projects (c) Tech Support: Dedicated Via point of contact will use commercially reasonable efforts to respond within one business day for non-critical issues (upon receipt of a detailed description of the issue as requested by Via) and to ensure that assistance is provided within a reasonable time frame. Via will also provide Customer with an appropriate channel for alerting Via to system outages or other critical issues, with respect to which Via will provide emergency assistance.
Via will notify Customer if Customer is within 1 hour of exceeding the capped hourly limit on Operational Support and System Adjustments and/or Consulting Services. If requested, hours beyond those set out above will be charged on an hourly rate.
(d) Additional Services. Via can provide optional add-on services, including consulting, fixed route referral, live agent support, multi-modal or third-party trip planner integrations, media and advertising services, marketing support, or access to our Remix® transit planning software for an additional fee. More details available upon request.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 712
Customer Responsibilities.
(a) General. Customer will operate and manage the Deployment as set forth in the Terms, Customer shall cooperate with Via as necessary for the purpose of setting up the Deployment and its specifications, including by providing prompt feedback to Via’s inquiries and providing local insights, in order to meet mutually agreed upon deadlines. (b) Launch. Within one week of signing this Order, the Parties will mutually agree on the targeted launch date of the Deployment (“Launch”). Launch shall be no fewer than 12 weeks following execution of this Order. In the event that the Launch date is moved at Customer’s request or delayed due to Customer’s inaction, Customer will be charged a Technology Fee (as defined in Section “Fees” below) to accommodate hosting and other direct IT costs.
(c) Zone: Customer and Via will agree at least three months prior to launch on the exact geographical scope for the Deployment zone (“Deployment Zone”). Any changes or expansions to the Deployment Zone may result in additional fees.
(d) Support Requests. At the start of the project, Via will direct Customer towards the relevant CRM tools to log requests. In order to trigger a Product Maintenance request, requests for product maintenance must contain detailed information about the nature of the request. Requests for additional features may be subject to additional fees.
(e) Payment Processing. The fees set forth above do not include any owed to the third-party payment processor. Via will facilitate an introduction to its recommended payment processor and Custo mer is responsible for entering an agreement with such payment processor in order to be able to process credit card payments.
Fees.
Customer shall pay Via the following Fees for the Term, subject always to the Minimum Monthly Fee set out below:
Fee Category Amount Invoicing Terms
Installation Fee $30,000 Payable upon signing of this Order
Monthly Fees
Year 1 per-vehicle fees ● For 1-3 vehicles: $1,000 per vehicle per calendar month with a minimum of
$2,000 per month (i.e., 2-vehicle
minimum)
● For 4-10 vehicles: $400 per vehicle per
calendar month
● For 11-15 vehicles: $350 per vehicle per
calendar month
Subject to a minimum of $1,000 per month (i.e a
2-vehicle minimum) (the “Minimum Monthly
Fee”)
Advance Annual Payment in
accordance with paragraph 1
below
Year 2 per-vehicle fees ● For 1-3 vehicles: $1,050 per vehicle per calendar month with a minimum of
$2,200 per month (i.e., 2-vehicle
minimum)
● For 4-10 vehicles: $420 per vehicle per
calendar month
● For 11-15 vehicles: $370 per vehicle per
calendar month
Advance Annual Payment in
accordance with paragraph 1
below
Year 3 per-vehicle fees ● For 1-3 vehicles: $1,105 per vehicle per calendar month with a minimum of
$2,210 per month (i.e., 2-vehicle
minimum)
● For 4-10 vehicles: $440 per vehicle per
calendar month
● For 11-15 vehicles: $390 per vehicle per
calendar month
Advance Annual Payment in
accordance with paragraph 1
below
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 713
Year 4 per-vehicle fees ● For 1-3 vehicles: $1,160 per vehicle per calendar month with a minimum of
$2,320 per month (i.e., 2-vehicle
minimum)
● For 4-10 vehicles: $460 per vehicle per
calendar month
● For 11-15 vehicles: $410 per vehicle per
calendar month
Advance Annual Payment in
accordance with paragraph 1
below
Year 5 per-vehicle fees ● For 1-3 vehicles: $1,220 per vehicle per calendar month with a minimum of
$2,440 per month (i.e., 2-vehicle
minimum)
● For 4-10 vehicles: $485 per vehicle per
calendar month
● For 11-15 vehicles: $430 per vehicle per
calendar month
Advance Annual Payment in
accordance with paragraph 1
below
Total Minimum Amount
for 60 Months
$162,840 assuming 2 vehicles (excluding additional vehicles in excess of the minimum and any Fees for any Additional Services)
The Customer agrees to pay the Minimum Monthly Fee ( i.e., the monthly vehicle minimum fees set out in the table above) for a period of 12 months in advance and annually thereafter (the "Advance Annual Fee"). Via will submit an invoice for Advance Annual Fee upon signature of this Order payment due in accordance with the Terms. For the avoidance of doubt, the first Advance Annual Fee is due in advance of Launch. Via will invoice the Advance Annual Fee annually thereafter for the remainder of the Term .
In the event that the per -vehicle-fees incurred for a given month exceed the Minimum Monthly Fee, Customer shall be responsible for paying the difference for each such month (“Monthly True-Up”) within 15 days of the date of such invoice.
Via will calculate any fees due as Monthly True Up each month and provide Customer with an invoice calculating the per- vehicle fees actually incurred based on the actual number of active vehicles used during the previous month.
The Customer agrees that the sample invoice set out in Appendix 2 is satisfactory to Customer, both in substance and format.
Via shall calculate the Fees due. For the avoidance of doubt, (i ) the number of vehicles per month for purposes of the above fees shall be the maximum number of distinct vehicles input by Customer that use the Via Solution on any given day over the course of the applicable calendar month and (i i) in the event the duration of the Deployment does not exactly match calendar months, monthly fees will be prorated for the first and/or last calendar months of the Deployment, as applicable, so that Customer will only be charged for the portion of such months during which the Via Solution was available to be used for the Deployment.
Customer shall reimburse all travel expenses of Via personnel for purposes of the Deployment. Installation-related services described above will initially be performed remotely, and if Via deems it necessary, in person by Via personnel for a limited period around launch. Thereafter, services will continue to be performed remotely as applicable, provided that Via personnel can be sent to Customer’s location for additional trips upon reasonable request.
Twilio. Price includes our generic package for Twilio cost for 4 SMS notifications and 1.25 minutes of Twilio voice time per ride, at a maximum of $0.05 per ride on average for all rides completed within each calendar month. Any costs associated with Twilio in excess of $0.05 per ride will be billed to the Customer as at cost plus 10% on a monthly basis.
Launch Delay. If the Launch Date is delayed for more than a calendar month by Customer for any reason, Customer shall be responsible for paying Via for a $1,000 monthly technology fee for the cost of maintaining the technology infrastructure for Customer’s deployment during the period of delay (the “ Technology Fee”). The Technology Fee shall be payable monthly at the beginning of the month in which it is incurred. In the event that the duration of the delay does not exactly match calendar months, the Technology Fee will be prorated for the relevant month in which Launch occurred.
Branding. The Deployment will be branded as R-Transit powered by Via. The “powered by Via” banner must be used only in the exact format provided by Via and will be prominent on all assets promoting the Deployment, including (but not limited to) printed collateral, digital materials, websites, and any vehicle wraps. The “powered by Via” banner will have equal prominence on all marketing materials to any additional partner logos or trademarks. Via may provide pre -approved brand assets and guidelines that must be complied with in all marketing communications distributed by the Customer.
Additional Terms.
1. Use Rights.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 714
(a) Use Rights. Subject to the terms and conditions herein, Via will provide the Services, as defined herein . The Services will include all related services, functions or responsibilities not specifically described in this Agreement, but that are required or reasonably necessary for the proper performance of the Via Solution in connection with the Customer trans portation service. Via will grant Customer subscription, access, and use rights (“Use Rights”) for the specific applications and deployment types identified in this Order.
(b) License to the Applications. In connection with the provision of the Via Solution, Via provides a limited, non -exclusive license during the Term to Customer to the applications for use with the devices for the Customer transportation service and sublicense to riders, drivers and local operators, subject to the term s set out in Via’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Customer shall be solely responsible for displaying a privacy policy to riders and ensuring it contains terms that are both compliant with applicable law, and sufficient to permit Via and its agents to la wfully perform hereunder.
2. Disclaimer. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary express or implied in in this Agreement, Via shall have no liability to Customer or any passenger (including no duty to defend, indemnify or hold Customer harmless) for any Transport Incident where “Transport Incident” means any accident, incident or other situation involving any Passenger (including negligent, willful and/or criminal acts and omissions), Device, vehicle or equipment employed by Customer in the use, provision or servicing of the Customer Transportation Service and/or any employee or agent of Customer operating such vehicle, Device or equipment or otherwise acting on behalf of Customer (including the acts and omissions of such employees or age nts while using the Application or viewing or using any device from which the Application is displayed). Transport Incidents include actual or alleged violations of Applicable Laws and the Transportation Law components thereof.
3. Compliance with Applicable Laws. Prior to launch of the Deployment, the parties will work together to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including The California Consumer Privacy Act.
This Order shall be governed by the terms and conditions set forth in the City of Richmond Standard Contract signed between the parties, as of October 1, 2021 (the “Terms”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning in the Terms. By signing below, the parties agree to the Terms.
NOMAD TRANSIT LLC CITY OF RICHMOND
By: By:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF 3/1/2023
Manager
Alex Lavoie
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 Eduardo Martinez
4/11/2023
Mayor
715
Appendix 1 to Service Order
VOC use and Data Sharing
Authorized Users
The below exhibit sets forth the members of the Customer’s “Core Team” of personnel who are designated authorized users of the VOC including access to the data detailed below (the “ Core Team”). Access to the VOC is conditional upon Customer notifying Via with reasonable advance notice of the name, title, email address and any other details Via may reasonably require of the members o f the Customer Core Team. The Core Team may be updated during the Term subject to Via’s consent.
Exhibit 1.
Core Team
Title: Transportation Services Project Manager Name: Denee Evans Name: Mary Cummings
Name: Deborah Dabbs
Customer to provide details no later than one month prior to Launch
Customer to provide details no later than one month prior to Launch
Customer Core Team will be granted suitable permissions to allow them to manage and authorize access of additional Customer personnel as secondary users (“ Secondary Users”) to the VOC. All Core Team and Secondary Users will be subject to Customer’s confidentiality and non -disclosure obligations, as described in the Terms. For the avoidance of any doubt, Customer’s Core Team responsibility includes granting permissions to S econdary Users only to the extent such permission is needed for the Customer’s operation of the Deployment and in compliance with applicable privacy legislation and removing any Secondary User access once it is no longer needed. Via retains the right to deny or revoke any Core Team or Secondary User access if Via suspects that such access may be causing or have caused a breach of the Terms, or any user guidance Via issues from time to time.
Authorized Operators
Customer may not provide access to the Via Solution to any third party except with Via’s prior written consent. In the event that Customer wishes to engage a third -party operator (“Operator”) to operate the Deployment, Customer shall provide Via a copy of an Operator Acknowledgement Form in the form required by Via, duly executed by such Operator, as a prerequisite for Via’s allowing the Operator access to the Via Solution. For the avoidance of doubt, no Operator will be allowed access to the Via Solution witho ut having signed the Operator Acknowledgement Form. Customer Core Team will be responsible for grant of VOC permissions to the Operator’s team, which will be considered Secondary Users for all purposes. As between Customer and Via, Customer shall remain responsible for acts and omissions of any Operator as it relates to Operator's access to the Via Solution.
Data Sharing Plan
As part of the Deployment, and as detailed below, Via will make access to data available to members of the Customer’s Core Te am, and any above-authorized Customer’s Secondary User(s) and/or Operator(s), for the purpose of research and program evaluation for the duration of the Term. The data will be accessible in the VOC and may not be shared through any other method unless otherwise authorized in writing by Via. Any and all data made available under this Order are trade secrets of Via, and subject to the confidentiality and other protective provisions set forth in the Terms at all times. Customer may not share any such data with anyone not aut horized in accordance with this Appendix 1.
To protect Via’s Intellectual Property Rights and the privacy of ride rs, Via will provide the following data tables and dashboards in the form of aggregated reports and data tables to Customer through VOC:
● Service KPI Dashboards: Visualized dashboards and graphs of Key Performance Indicators. These dashboards provide a high- level view of the overall service performance across a number of metrics and periods of time. Dashboards are available for download as .jpeg files or in raw form as excel spreadsheets. ● Data Generator: Set of tables with granular raw data about the servic e that are available for download as excel or csv spreadsheets.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 716
The reports will be refreshed daily. The reports are aggregated and any information about individual riders is de-identified. [Additional off-the-shelf reporting may be made available to Customer upon request at Via’s discretion. Custom reports will need to be scoped and may come at additional cost.]
SERVICE KPI DASHBOARD
Dashboard Report Metrics
Service Operations
Metrics & Graphs
● Total ride requests
● Requests during service hours
● Met Demand
● Met Demand Rate
● Completed rides
● Completed Rides Rate
● Detailed Ride Requests Status
● Active Riders
● Driver Hours
● Utilization
Rider Experience
Metrics & Graphs
● Average Ride Duration
● Average Ride Rating
● Average Pickup Walking Distance (corner-to-corner services only) ● Aggregation Rate
● Average ETA
● Dropoff Time Requested vs. Scheduled*
● Dropoff Time Scheduled vs. Actual*
● Pickup Time Requested vs. Scheduled*
● Pickup Time Scheduled vs. Actual*
*Pre-booked rides only
Rider Growth
Metrics & Graphs
● Accounts Created
● Active Riders
● Total Riders Who Requested a Ride
● Total Riders Who Completed a Ride
● Completed Rides Per Rider
Ride Rating
Metrics and Graphs
● Avg. Ride Rating
● Total Bookings with Ratings
● Percent Bookings with Ratings
● Total Five Star Ratings
● Percent Five Star Ratings
● Label per Rating
● Rating Distribution
Advanced
Prebooking Metrics
& Graphs
(prebooking only)
● Request Source
● Recurring Type
● Hours Booked in Advance
● Hours Canceled in Advance
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 717
DATA GENERATOR
Table Data Columns
Ride Request Table
● Request Creation Date & Time
● Request ID
● Request Status
● Rider ID
● Wheelchair Accessible
● Booking Method
● Number of Passengers
● Booking type (PB+OD only)
● Origin Address
● Origin Lat + Long
● Destination Address
● Destination Lat + Long
● Actual Pickup Time
● Cancelation Time
● No Show Time
● Ride Price
● Ride Distance
● Ride Duration (min)
● Ride Rating
Rider Activities
Table
● Rider ID
● Account Creation Date
● Total Requests
● Total Completed Rides
● Total Cancellations
● Total No Shows
Drivers Table
● Drive ID
● Driver Name
● Driver Email
● Active Status
● Total Shift Hours
● Avg. Shift Hours Per Day
● Avg. Shift Hours from First Assignment Per Day
● Avg. Break Hours Per Day
● Total Accepted Rides
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 718
● Avg. Rating From Riders
Vehicles Table
● Vehicle ID
● Active Status
● Visual ID
● Short Visual Identifier
● Maker
● Color
● Vehicle Capacity
● Max Capacity
● Wheelchair Capacity
NTD S-10 Report
Available upon
request for required
reporting to the
FTA. (United States
only)
● Service Date
● Day of the Week
● Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service (VOMS)
● Actual Vehicle Hours
● Actual Vehicle Miles
● Vehicle Revenue Hours
● Vehicle Revenue Miles
● Unlinked Passenger Trips
● Passenger Miles Traveled
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 719
Appendix 2 to the Service Order
Sample Invoice
CONFIDENTIAL
[VIA ENTITY NAME]
Via Transportation, Inc.
10 Crosby Street, Floor 2
New York NY 10013 United States
Bill To
[Partner] [Address]
Invoice
Date
Invoice #
Terms Net 15
Due Date
PO #
Billing Period
Description Rate Quantity Amount
[Description of the Fee: Vehicle Fees, Ride Fees and/or Total Vehicle Hours]
Tax Code Summary
Please make checks payable to:
[__]
P.O. Box 7410493
Chicago, IL 60674-0493
Wire Instructions:
Bank of America, N.A.
222 Broadway,
New York, NY 10038
Wire Routing # - 026009593
ACH Routing # - 021000322
Account # - 483065995955
Swift Code - BOFAUS3N
Total
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 720
CCPA and CPRA Service Provider Addendum
This CCPA and CPRA Addendum (this “Addendum”), effective as of [Date], is incorporated into and forms part of City of Richmond Standard Contract signed between the parties, as of October 1, 2021, as well as all subsequent service orders, renewals, and amendments (collectively, the “Agreement”), entered into by and between City of Richmond (“Customer”) and Nomad Transit LLC (“Service Provider”).
The parties acknowledge and agree that Service Provider is a service provider for the purposes of the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”) and California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”). Service Provider certifies that it (i) understands the rules, restrictions, requirements, and definitions of the CCPA and CPRA, and (ii) understands and will comply with the restrictions set forth in the CCPA, CPRA, and this Addendum.
With respect to personal information collected and processed by Service Provider pursuant to the Agreement (the “Personal Information”), Service Provider shall not:
(a) Sell the Personal Information;
(b) Share the Personal Information for cross-context behavioral advertising purposes; (c) Retain, use, or disclose the Personal Information, except as necessary for the specific business purposes listed in (i) to (vi) below or any other business purposes specified in the Parties’ Agreement or as otherwise permitted by the CCPA or CPRA:
i. Performing the services described in the Agreement, which include but are not limited to the maintenance and servicing of user accounts, provision of customer service and support, processing of transactions and payments, verification o f user information, provision of analytics services, data storage, training, and the fulfillment of similar services on behalf of the Customer; ii. Ensuring security and integrity of services, including but not limited to debugging and otherwise repairing the services to restore intended service functionality; iii. Undertaking internal research for technological development and demonstration; iv. Undertaking activities to improve, upgrade, or enhance the services; v. Short-term transient uses, provided that personal information is not disclosed to third parties (i.e., parties that are not themselves service providers or con tractors) and is not used to build a consumer’s profile or otherwise alter the consumer’s experience outside their current interactions with the business; and
vi. Advertising and marketing services, including the auditing of such services, as authorized or directed by the Customer, and as permitted under the CCPA or CPRA. (d) Engage in any activity prohibited by any other provision of the CCPA and CPRA currently in effect.
Service Provider claims no ownership or other proprietary r ights in any of the Personal Information. Customer grants Service Provider the right to access, modify, and use the Customer Data for the purpose of performing Service Provider’s obligations under the Agreement, including to provide the Services and incidental to providing the Services, to improve the DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 721
Services, and to create derivative works, including aggregate consumer information and deidentified data, to the extent such uses are permitted by the CCPA and CPRA.
Service Provider shall notify Customer if it determines that it can no longer meet its obligations under the CCPA or CPRA.
Customer has the right, upon notice of at least sixty (60) days, to take reasonable and appropriate steps to stop and remediate any unauthorized use of Personal Information.
For purposes of this Addendum, the terms “personal information,” “service provider,” “third party,” “contractor,” “business purpose,” “commercial purpose,” “cross-context behavioral advertising,” “deidentified,” “sell,” and “share” are as defined in the CCPA and CPRA. “CCPA” and “CPRA” refer to both the statutes and any implementing regulations that are in effect.
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Addendum and the Agreement, the provisions of this Addendum shall control.
NOMAD TRANSIT LLC CITY OF RICHMOND
By:
By:
Name:
Name:
Title:
Title:
Date:
Date:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF 3/1/2023
Manager
Alex Lavoie
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 4/11/2023
Eduardo Martinez
Mayor
722
Date: Date:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 723
Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and
Amendme
nt No. P.O./Contract No.
AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (AMENDMENT HISTORY)
The first Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.
Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________
Service Plan
The second Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.
Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________
Service Plan
The third Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.
Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________
Service Plan
The fourth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.
Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________
Service Plan
The fifth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):
Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.
Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________
Service Plan
NOMAD TRANSIT, LLC
2 5755
May 7, 2022
338,231.00
1,338,231.00
✔
✔
✔
Decemeber 6, 2022
312,500.00
1,650,731.00
1,650,731.00
1,650,731.00
1,650,731.00
✔
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 724
450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804-1630
Telephone: (510) 620-6512 Fax: (510) 620-6542 www.ci.richmond.ca.us
COMMUNITY SERVICES - TRANSPORTATION
May 9, 2024
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Re: City of Richmond Draft Responses to Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Measure J15 Audit (May 2024)
To CCTA Staff:
On May 7, 2024, the City of Richmo nd received a Draft Measure J 15 Audit regarding the City of Richmond’s Paratransit Program. City staff responses to the issues identified in the audit and recommendations were due on May 9, 2024. For ease off reading, City staff created a matrix to combine the language from the audit (identified issue s and recommendations) with responses from the City. Given the time constraints to review the audit and provide responses, the attached represents a draft and the City reserves the right to update its responses after further review of the audit.
As we continue to provide services to the community, here are a few things we are excited about:
• Vehicles: Recently received two (2) new R -Transit vehicles that are electric and have more space to allow for more passengers. The City Council authorized use of ECIA funds for the purchase of the vehicles since we are operating R -Transit at a deficit and Measure J were unavailable. If this wasn’t the case, the City should have had sufficient Measure J funds available in the fund balance to purchase new vehicles.
• Software: Authorized the purchase of new tablets to enable the download of new route management software. This new software will allow us to collect and disseminate better information for reporting purposes. Our previous software was unable to collect the type of data often requested by PCC and CCTA, and via claim forms. We are also working with LYFT to see if we can collect the information requested.
• Outreach: Created new R -Transit outreach materials, attended more community events (including the El Sobrante stroll event and passed out dozens of flyers to residents informing them of R -Transit/LYFT services in their community), and hired a consultant to help do community outreach in Richmond and unincorporated areas. We are open to attend meetings, events, etc. within Richmond or unincorporated areas. Please invite us and help us share information!!
725
City of Richmond – Paratransit Audit
May 9, 2024