Richmond City Council
February 25, 2025

February 25, 2025

Mayor's Office

DATE: February 25, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:

Reappointment of Valeria Serrano to the Richmond Youth
Council
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Valeria Serrano is reapplying to serve on the Richmond
Youth Council
RECOMMENDED ACTION: REAPPOINT Valeria Serrano to the Richmond Youth Council, term expires October 1, 2025 – Mayor’s Office
(Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

Valeria Serrano is an excellent candidate for reappointment to the Richmond Youth Council due to her dedication to public service and her deep interest in law and public policy. As a high school student in Richmond, Valeria has demonstrated exceptional AGENDA
REPORT
158

February 25, 2025
leadership skills and a passion for positively impacting her community. Reappointing Valeria will continue to benefit the Richmond Youth Council and provide her with invaluable experience as she studies for her future career in law and public policy.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Valeria Serrano’s redacted application

159
160

February 25, 2025

Police Department

DATE: February 25, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Bisa French, Chief of Police

Subject:

Contract Amendment No. 1 with Community Violence
Solutions
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The estimated expenditure of $85,000 is included in the Richmond Police Department’s Fiscal Year 2024-2025
approved budget and the remaining $119,000 will be
budgeted for in future years appropriately (Account String 01191021-400201).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

June 20, 2023

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Community Violence Solutions (CVS) is an organization
that works closely with victims of domestic violence and sexual assaults and provides access to the Child
Interview Center (CIC). The CIC provides the Richmond
Police Department’s Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault Units and victims of these crimes a safe place to provide emergency shelter and counseling services for
victims. CVS is the only California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) funded crisis center in
Contra Costa County.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE the first contract amendment with Community
Violence Solutions increasing the payment limit by
$204,000, for a total contract payment limit of $384,000, and extending the term from January 1, 2023, through
December 31, 2027, to provide to the Richmond Police
Department coordinated access and services at the Child Interview Center for victims of domestic violence and
AGENDA
REPORT
161

February 25, 2025
sexual assault – Police Department (Chief Bisa French
510-621-1802).

DISCUSSION:

Community Violence Solutions (CVS) is a rape crisis center serving Contra Costa County law enforcement agencies. CVS is the only California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) funded crisis center in Contra Costa County. They provide aid to victims of sexual assault related crimes which include human trafficking, regardless of age, to assist with the lifelong impact of the crime. Other services that CVS provides include counseling/therapy, shelter, relocation assistance and job search assistance. This service also directly assists in the overall criminal prosecution of cases.

CVS advocates will work closely with Richmond Police Department (RPD) detectives in the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Units to provide services in a timely fashion which include responding to calls to assist victims at all hours of the day and night if needed. CVS will also provide personnel for human trafficking operations in the City of Richmond. Their assistance has proven useful in gaining the cooperation of victims to end their abuse and prosecute the subjects who typically perpetrate these types of crimes against multiple victims, including juveniles.

In addition, CVS will provide the use of the Child Interview Center (CIC) which was previously billed to RPD by Contra Costa County. CVS now charges for this service directly which eliminates the need for a separate contract, but requires that the primary contract with CVS be amended to include the use and billing of the CIC. Also, RPD is assessed a standard fee like other partnering agencies for the utilization of the Child Interview Center (CIC). However, the RPD's usage of these services significantly exceeds that of other agencies, resulting in a cost that is more than equitable for the use of the center.

The CIC will also provide necessary space for forensic interviews of juvenile and developmentally disabled victims/witnesses. Interviews will be conducted in a private and secure facility with the cooperation of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office and Child & Family Services (CFS) for Contra Costa County. It not only directly leads to the successful prosecution of heinous crimes but also assists in making sure that the most vulnerable of victims are placed in a safe environment.

Finally, this contract will help cover expenses related to travel costs accessing shelters, court hearings, meals provided to victims, which has increased their effectiveness in helping the victims the City of Richmond serves.
162

February 25, 2025
The original contract budgeted $60,000 each year, for a contract total of $180,000. This first amendment is to add $204,000, which is to account for two additional annual payments, plus the addition of the CIC billing, which is a shared expense amongst the sharing jurisdictions and was previously paid for by RPD directly to the Contra Costa County. Estimated annual costs for the CIC portion are proposed at $25,000 due in 2025, $28,000 due in 2026, and $31,000 due in 2027. This contract is being requested using a three-year sole source authorization.

CVS Contract Cost History
Contract Year Start
date Amount
Est. CIC
portion
1/1/2023 $60,000.00 n/a* *Contra Costa County
was responsible for
billing RPD prior to
CVS taking over
management of the
Center 1/1/2024 $60,000.00 n/a*
1/1/2025 $60,000.00 $25,000.00
1/1/2026 $60,000.00 $28,000.00
1/1/2027 $60,000.00 $31,000.00

Contract Total $384,000.00
less (prev. contract amount) $180,000.00

Total Amendment
Requested $204,000.00

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – First Amendment
Attachment 2 – Original Contract

163

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.

164
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.

165
Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and

Amendment No. P.O./Contract No.

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (TERM, PAYMENT LIMIT 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. 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 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.”

3. 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

166
Contract No: ________ For the Contract between the City of Richmond and
_____________________________

SANCTUARY CITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
The undersigned, (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”). Contracto r 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.

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:
167

CITY OF RICHMOND

STANDARD CONTRACT
Department: Project Manager:

Project Manager E-mail: Project Manager Phone No:

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

Description of Services:

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

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

Company Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No: / Expiration Date:

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

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

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

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

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

Police
Sgt. Kristopher Tong
[email protected]
(510) 620-6668
1453
Community Violence Solutions (CVS) will provide assistance/services to the Richmond Police Department Domestic and Sexual Violence Unit (DVSU) and the victims of sexual related offenses.

Community Violence Solutions
2101 Van Ness Street
San Pablo, CA 94806
Cynthia Peterson
(510) 307-4121
[email protected]
4000-6144
December 31, 2023
January 1, 2023
December 31, 2025
180,000.00
✔
DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 168

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF RICHMOND CONTRACTOR:
a municipal corporation

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

Title: By:

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

Date Signed:

B y :

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

B y :

B y : T i t l e :

City Attorney
Date Signed:

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

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

Service Plan Exhibit A
Payment Provisions Exhibit B
Authorized Representatives and Notices Exhibit C
General Conditions Exhibit D
Special Conditions Exhibit E
Insurance Provisions Exhibit F
Standard Contract/EJ/TE 9-26-07
Community Violence Solutions
DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B Board Chair
6/21/2023
Mayor
169
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT A

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

Police Department
-The Community Violence Solutions advocate shall meet with victims of sexual assault crimes immediately following the patrol officers initial investigation at the Richmond Police Department (or the Family Justice Center) during regular business hours. -In the event of an after hours report/incident, the advocate shall meet with all victims of sexual assault related crimes who come to the Richmond Police Department (or the Family Justice Center) to report such a crime(s) as soon as possible.
-The advocate shall be available to support victims during the investigation interview upon request.
-The advocate shall assess safety with victims and will offer court accompaniment, entry into emergency shelter and/or safe lodging as well as access to support groups. -The advocate shall assist victims in filing for Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO) on days the TRO clinic in Richmond is not in operation.
-Community Violence Solutions will facilitate training for the Richmond Police Department as it relates to sexual assault related crimes (and victim/survivor resources) as reasonably requested.
-Community Violence Solutions will bill RPD for expenses directly related to advocate intervention or victim support with prior approval from the Chief of Police or their designee, no other services will be billed, including but not limited to, accounting services, food expenses, cell phone expenses, and/or lodging. In the event that a victim is in immediate need of food or lodging, an itemized receipt will be provided.
-Community Violence Solutions will provide payroll time sheets for advocates which will include hourly wage and benefit calculations.
-Community Violence Solutions will provide mileage records with to/from information and assigned case number, if available.
-Community Violence Solutions will provide quarterly reports regarding the total number of victims served.

Community Violence Solutions
DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 170
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT PROVISIONS
{PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY OF

RICHMOND SHALL NOT PAY FOR SERVICES

THAT EXCEED THE CONTRACT PA YMENT LIMIT UNLESS A CONTRACT

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

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

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

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

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

PO Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804-0046

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

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

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

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

Sgt. Kristopher Tong
Community Violence Solutions
Police
Sgt. Kristopher Tong
DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 171
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT C

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES

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

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

City of Richmond

Richmond, CA 94804-0046

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

Community Violence Solutions
Community Violence Solutions
Sgt. Kristopher Tong
1701 Regatta Blvd.

Cynthia Peterson
2101 Van Ness Street
San Pablo, CA 94806
DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 172
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 1 of 13

EXHIBIT D

GENERAL CONDITIONS

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

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

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

4. Patents, Trademarks, C opyrights and Rights in Data
. Contractor shall not
publish or transfer any materials, discoveries, developments, concepts, designs, ideas, know how, improvements, inventions and/or original works of authorship resulting from activities supported by this Contract without the express prior written consent of the City Manager. If anything resulting from activities supported by this Contract is patentable, trademarkable, copyrightable or otherwise legally protectable, City reserves the exclusive right to seek such intellectual property rights. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor may, after receiving City's prior written consent, seek patent, trademark, copyright or other intellectual property rights on anything resulting from activities supported by this Contract. However, City reserves, and Contractor irrevocably grants, a nonexclusive, fully paid-up, royalty-free, assumable, perpetual, worldwide license, with the right to transfer, sublicense, practice and exploit said license and the right to make, have made, copy, modify, make derivative works of, use, sell, DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 173
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 2 of 13

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

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

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

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

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 174
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 3 of 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 175
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 4 of 13

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

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

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

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

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

9. Additional Assistance
. If this Contract requires Contractor to prepare
plans and specifications, Contractor shall provide assistance as necessary to resolve any questions regarding such plans and specifications that may arise during the period of advertising for bids, and Contractor shall issue DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 176
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 5 of 13

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

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

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

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

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 177
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 6 of 13

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

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

15. Indemnification.

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

Liabilities subject to the duties to defend and indemnify include, without limitation, any and all claims, losses, damages, penalties, fines, and judgments; associated investigation and administrative expenses; defense costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees; court costs; and costs of alternative dispute resolution. Contractor’s obligation to DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 178
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 7 of 13

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

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

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

16. Safety
. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor shall perform all work hereunder in full compliance with applicable local, state and federal safety requirements including but not limited to Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, and shall assume sole and complete DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 179
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 8 of 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. Limitations upon Subcontracting and Assignment. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 180
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 9 of 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

24. Non-exclusivity. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the services provided by Contractor hereunder shall be non-exclusive, and DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 181
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 10 of 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 182
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 11 of 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Severability. In the event that any of the provisions or portions or applications thereof of this Contract are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, City and Contractor shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions of the Contract with a view DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 183
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 12 of 13

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

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

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

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

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

39. Performance and Final Acceptance.

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

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 184
General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 13 of 13

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

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

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 185
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):

41. 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 United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor must submit the Sanctuary City Compliance Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit H, prior to the execution of this Agreement.

42. City of Richmond and Community Violence Solutions will adhere to the Operational Agreements attached as Exhibit G-1 and Exhibit G-2.

Community Violence Solutions
DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 186
For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT F

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

Community Violence Solutions
DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 187
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services
Type
2 – Page 1 of 3
R
evised: September 2011
In all instances where CONTRACTOR or its representatives will provide professional services (architects, engineers, construction management, counselors, medical professionals, hospitals, clinics, attorneys, consultants, accountants, etc.) to the City of Richmond (City), the City requires the following MINIMUM insurance requirements and limits.

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

CONTRACTOR agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide Commercial General Liability insurance, CONTRACTOR shall look solely to its insurance for recovery.

CONTRACTOR hereby grants to CITY, on behalf of any insurer providing Commercial General Liability insurance to either CONTRACTOR or CITY with respect to the services of CONSULTANT herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said CONTRACTOR may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

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

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

Minimum coverage is detailed below. The policy limits of coverage shall be made available to the full limits of the policy. The minimum limits stated herein shall not serve to reduce the policy limits of coverage of CONTRACTOR.

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

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

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

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

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

5. O
riginal and Separate Waiver of Subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance.

6. Professi
onal Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability Insurance appropriate to the CONTRACTOR’s professi
on (if required.)
Required Coverage Minimum Limits
Workers’ Compensation and
Employers’ Liability
Statutory limits as required by the State of California including $1 million Employers’ Liability per accident, per employee for bodily injury or disease.

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

General Liability
(primary and excess limits
combined)
$2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If the policy includes a general aggregate, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this project, service or location or the minimum required aggregate limit shall be twice the per occurrence limit ($4 million aggregate limit).

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 188
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services
Type
2 – Page 2 of 3
R
evised: September 2011
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.

PROJECT COST REQUIRED LIMIT
$0 - $1 million $1 million p/o
$1 million - $5 million $2 million p/o
Over $5 million $5 million p/o
Professional Liability or Errors &
Omissions Liability –
Required for all professionals
including architects, engineers,
consultants, construction
management, counselors, medical
professionals, hospitals, clinics,
attorneys and accountants, & other
consultants as may be required by
the City.

Required Policy Conditions
Additional Insured Endorsement Applicable to General Liability coverage.

The City of Richmond, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds for all liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the named insured including bodily injury, deaths and property damage or destruction arising in any respect directly or indirectly in the performance of this contract.

ISO form CG 20 10 (11/85) or its equivalent is required. If the Contractor is supplying their product or providing a service then the endorsement must not
exclude products and completed operations
coverage. If it does, then CG 20 37 (10/01) is also required.

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61
.

Primary and Noncontributory The contractor’s insurance coverage must be primary coverage as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self insurance maintained by the City is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance.

Waiver of Subrogation
Endorsement Form
Contractor’s insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for Workers’ Compensation Insurance during the life of this contract.

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.

Deductibles and Self-Insured
Retentions
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retention as respects the City or the CONTRACTOR shall procure a financial guarantee in an amount equal to the deductible or self-insured retention guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense expenses.

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

A. M. Best Rating A:VII or Be tter. If the A.M. Best Rating falls below the required rating, CONT
RACTOR must replace coverage immediately and provide notice to City.

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 189
___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services
Type
2 – Page 3 of 3
R
evised: September 2011
Claims-Made Policies
If any insurance policy is written on a claims-made form: 1) the retroactive date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. 2) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work. 3) If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.

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

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

Verification of Coverage
All original certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work may begin.

The City of Richmond reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies including endorsements affecting the coverage at any time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 190
DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 191
DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 192

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

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

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

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

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:

Vendor SCCO Compliance Statement (Augt2020)

EXHIBIT H
DocuSign Envelope ID: 83F0A5FB-F67D-4B47-80A2-27E584B0933B 21st day
6/21/2023
Community Violence Solutions
Community Violence Solutions
June
Paul Graves
Martinez
Board Chair
2,023.00
193

February 25, 2025

Police Department

DATE: February 25, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bisa French, Chief of Police

Subject:

Purchase of Four Laser Tech LTI 20/20 Tr uVISION Lidar
Speed Guns with Digital Camera
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed expenditure of $27,635.05 is included in the Police Department’s approved Fiscal Year 2024-2025
budget – account string 01192021-400603.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Police Department is requesting approval to
purchase four (4) TruVISION lidar speed guns from Laser Tech Traffic Safety for effective and strategic traffic enforcement. The Police Department has historically
used radar technology, however, that technology is
outdated and less reliable. This purchase will allow for advance technology and enhanced tracking and safety.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE the purchase of four TruVISION lidar speed
guns from Laser Tech Traffic Safety at a cost of
$27,635.05 – Police Department (Chief Bisa French 510-
621-1802).

AGENDA
REPORT
194

February 25, 2025
DISCUSSION:

For years, Richmond Police Department (RPD) staff have utilized both radar and lidar guns to combat speed violators within the City of Richmond. Those devices have become outdated and less reliable. In December 2024 RPD staff initiated an informal solicitation and received three quotes and ultimately selected the lowest bidder Laser Tech (Attachment 1). With the purchase of the four (4) new and updated TruVision lidar speed guns from Laser Tech, the RPD will bring advanced technology needed to combat dangerous driving and enhance road and traffic safety.

Laser Tech’s TruVISION laser speed measurement device delivers the advanced technology necessary to gather and store evidence for speeding, tailgating and distracted driving violations. It also provides a high-resolution image of the license plate number and full-length video of the violation. Furthermore, the device can be used as a handheld device and mobile unit, or it can be mounted on a tripod for hands-free operation. Intuitive and color-coded graphical icons make the device easy to use without advanced training. The removable secure digital (SD) card allows for secure transfer of data to the office. With 128-bit secure data encryption, the chain of command is tamper-proof.

The device includes technology that measures the time and distance between vehicles, giving officers the capability to prove “following too closely” (i.e., tailgating) violations.

With several different modes available, Laser Tech’s solution gives officers the versatility to adjust and adapt as needed depending on the circumstances, including the following:

 Speed Mode – Within dense traffic, collect measurements and all pertinent data for oncoming or departing vehicle

 Auto Mode – Automatically capture images within a fixed distance, such as school and construction zones

 Rear-Plate Mode – Measure the speed and maintain a chain of evidence until the rear license plate is captured

City staff is recommending the purchase of four (4) TruVISION lidar speed guns from Laser Tech Traffic Safety for a total of $27,635.05 to ensure Richmond Traffic Officers are adequately equipped with advanced technology to safely and effectively conduct strategic traffic enforcement.

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment 1 – Quote Package

195
196
197
198

Richmond Police Department
Crime Report

Council Report February 2025

Mayor Martinez, Council and Community,

The Richmond Police Department's crime statistics for January 2025 show a mixed trend in both violent and property crimes compared to December 2024.

In terms of violent crime, there was no change in the number of homicides, which remained at zero. However, aggravated assaults increased by 14%, from 70 to 80 incidents. Robberies saw a significant decrease of 44%, dropping from 45 to 25 incidents. Sexual assaults, on the other hand, increased dramatically by 150%, rising from 2 to 5 incidents. Overall, the total number of violent crimes decreased by 6%, from 117 to 110 incidents.
.

For property crimes, there was a 33% increase in burglaries (excluding auto burglaries), with incidents rising from 21 to 28. Thefts, including auto burglaries, decreased by 6%, from 142 to 133 incidents. Vehicle thefts also saw a decline of 14%, dropping from 84 to 72 incidents. Arson incidents increased significantly by 300%, rising from 1 to 4 incidents. Overall, the total number of property crimes decreased by 4%, from 248 to 237 incidents.

In terms of reports and calls for service, there was a 43% increase in impounds, rising from 237 to 340. Collision-related calls for service decreased by 22%, from 189 to 148.

DUI-related traffic collisions increased by 25%, from 4 to 5 incidents, and DUI reports increased by 16%, from 19 to 22 incidents. Sideshow-related calls for service saw a significant increase of 133%, rising from 3 to 7 incidents. The total number of firearms recovered decreased by 52%, from 52 to 25.

These statistics provide a snapshot of the crime trends in Richmond for January 2025, highlighting areas of concern as well as improvements. Additional statistical data and historical data can be found on our website under the Crime Analysis page.

https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/1023/Crime-Analysis

Additionally, the following are a sampling of some significant incidents from January 2025:

1/28/25
Convicted felon in possession of a firearm

Officers observed a vehicle which failed to stop at a stop sign at Mills and Bell Dr. A traffic enforcement stop was conducted, and upon contact with the driver, the officer discovered he was on searchable probation.

199

The suspect was wearing a medium-sized cross-body bag. A search of the bag revealed a GLOCK .45 caliber handgun and illegal narcotics. The suspect was placed under arrest. The firearm and suspected methamphetamine were collected, processed, and booked into evidence. The suspect was determined to be a convicted felon.

1/25/25
Convicted felon possess firearm

Officers conducted a record check of a vehicle’s license plate which revealed the vehicle was associated with an armed robbery in Berkeley.

A traffic enforcement stop was conducted. During a search of the car, officers discovered two firearms hidden beneath the center console/gear shift. The suspects were placed under arrest, transported to RPD jail.

A records check revealed the suspects were convicted felons, and one of the firearms was reported stolen.

1/23/25
Vehicle vs Pedestrian Collision

Officers were flagged down regarding a person lying in the middle of Carlson Blvd. at S. 47th Street. Officers responded and located a pedestrian suffering from moderate injuries in the roadway. Officers learned the victim had been struck by a vehicle traveling on Carlson. A traffic officer responded and took over the investigation.

He learned the car traveling NB had a green light at the intersection. As it passed through the intersection, the pedestrian appeared from the darkness (probably through the fence leading from the train tracks) and was struck. The pedestrian sustained head trauma. The driver immediately pulled over and cooperated with the investigation. No alcohol or drug impairment is suspected.

1/23/25 10:31 am
Assault with deadly weapon

Officers were dispatched to Kennedy High School for a report of a fight. School officials reported four students were involved in a physical altercation, and one needed an ambulance. When officers arrived, two students were detained by security staff, and one student sustained a head injury and was not responding to questions appropriately (possible head injury).

Officers learned multiple students were involved in a physical fight. The victim was struck in the face with a closed fist by one of the suspects. Once on the ground, the victim was kicked multiple times in the face by another suspect and her sister. The sisters did not stop kicking the victim until she lost consciousness. Security staff came to the victim’s aide, called the police, and detained both suspects.

Both suspects were taken to juvenile hall. The victim was transported to a local hospital for medical care.

200

1/21/25
Mental Health Crisis

Officers responded to 36th / Clinton for a female climbing a telephone pole and yelling for help. Upon arrival, officers found the subject wearing a sweatshirt, shorts, and no shoes atop the telephone pole. She was animated, yelling and acting irrationally.

Officers requested that both PG&E and Richmond Fire Department (RFD) assist. RFD arrived and utilized their expanding hydraulic ladder. Various officers spoke with the subject, hoping to convince her to get down. They negotiated with her for roughly two hours before they were able to get close enough to grab her. Once they did, she fought and resisted. Officers were able to overpower her and handcuff her to the fire truck ladder, which was still over 15 ft in the air, to prevent her from jumping – which she tried to do several times.

Officers were able to safely get her down and she was sent to the hospital for mental health care.

1/14/25
Possession of drugs for sales

Officers developed information about a named suspect loitering in the area of 24th Street/ MacDonald Avenue for multiple days at a time, selling narcotics. Officers contacted and detained the suspect and upon search, located marijuana and over $1800 in cash. Officers arrested and transported the suspect to Richmond Police Department. At RPD, the suspect admitted to having more drugs inside his underwear.

The suspect removed the narcotics. In total, officers recovered two bags of marijuana (19.1 grams), 39 bindles of crack cocaine (10.2 grams), and nine bindles of crystal meth (9.1 grams).

Multiple Search Warrants Served

1/25/25
Various Drug and Illegal Weapons

Officers served search warrants after a four-month investigation that began in September 2024. Back in September, officers conducted a security check on an illegally parked vehicle in the 400 block of Duboce Ave. Prior to this, officers had received complaints from community members regarding drug sales occurring in this area.

Officers contacted four subjects as they exited the Jeep. They also located a subject concealed in the cargo area of the Jeep. They determined one subject was a juvenile in possession of marijuana (33 grams) and promethazine, one subject was on probation, and all had been in the process of smoking marijuana in the vehicle. Officers searched the vehicle and located two loaded firearms, one of which was reported stolen. All of the subjects were arrested. Four of the five subjects were known to officers for prior drug sales and firearm possession, as well as being associated with North Richmond criminal street gangs.

Officers did not end their investigation there. They conducted additional follow-up that resulted in a search warrant being issued for the home the vehicle was parked in front of. Officers served the search warrant the next day, resulting in the seizure of:
201

 One Glock handgun with an extended magazine
 One 50-round ammunition magazine/drum
 6.06 lbs. of marijuana
 2 pounds of concentrated cannabis wax
 29.5 grams of rock cocaine
 311 ecstasy pills
 120 oxycodone pills
 3 grams of heroin
 15.8 grams of methamphetamine
 $5,876.00 in currency

Officers continued to provide extra patrol to the area, resulting in an additional arrest of a suspect for possession of cocaine base (crack cocaine) for sale. They also responded to shots fired calls at the location in which numerous (36) shell casings were recovered, and it appears two groups engaged in a gun battle.

Officers continued investigating, which resulted in a judge signing an additional five search warrants for five homes in the 400-500 block of Duboce Ave. The Richmond PD SWAT team, with the assistance of Hercules PD, Brentwood PD, Contra Costa Sheriff, and Contra Costa District Attorney's Office, simultaneously served those search warrants. During the service of these warrants, three suspects were arrested for charges ranging from firearms possession, illegal possession of drugs with intent to sell, and being involved in a criminal street gang. We recovered:

 3 additional loaded firearms
 3 lbs of marijuana
 Approx. 2 lbs. total of cocaine base, cocaine powder, methamphetamine, concentrated cannabis, and various prescription pills.
 208 fl oz of promethazine
 $4,000.00 in currency

This investigation highlights the ongoing challenges that my officers encounter in their efforts to address crime in our city. My team and I are dedicated to thoroughly investigating these quality-of-life issues and ensuring that those responsible are held accountable.

In Service,

Bisa French
Chief of Police
Richmond Police Department

202
Richmond Police Department
Crime Statistics Report

1701 Regatta Blvd, Richmond CA 94804 February 4, 2025

** To provide crime stat data to the public as expeditiously as possible, the crime stats presented on this page are based on UNAUDITED RMS data gathered from police reports throughout all steps of the report writing process and are therefore subject to change until Records Audit and NIBRS validation is complete.

DATE: 1/1/25-1/31/25 (JANUARY 2025)

VIOLENT CRIME:

Offense Type December January % Change
Homicide 0 0 No Change
Aggravated Assault 70 80 +14%
Robbery 45 25 -44%
Sexual Assault 2 5 +150%
Violent Crime Total 117 110 -6%

PROPERTY CRIME:

Offense Type December January % Change
Burglary
(Excludes Auto Burg.) 21 28 +33%
Theft
(Includes Auto Burg.) 142 133 -6%
Vehicle Theft 84 72 -14%
Arson 1 4 +300%
Property Crime Total 248 237 -4%

REPORTS/CALLS FOR SERVICE:

Report/CFS Type December January % Change
Impounds 237 340 +43%
Collision – Calls for Service 189 148 -22%
DUI Related – Traffic Collisions 4 5 +25%
DUI Reports 19 22 +16%
Sideshow – Calls for Service 3 7 +133%
Total Firearms Recovered 52 25 -52%

203

ARRESTS WITH THEUSE OF LPR
RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENTAutomated License Plate Reader Statistics

VEHICLE RECOVERIESWITH USE OF LPR
Possess/PurchaseCocaine Base for Sale
10 DATE: 1/1/25 - 1/31/25
Feb 4, 2025
CASES ASSISTEDBY LPR(Identifying suspectvehicle/Location, History, etc.) 40 11

LICENSE PLATERECOVERIES WITHUSE OF LPR
1 OFFENSES ASSOCIATED WITH ARRESTS

LPR HOT LIST READS
Stolen Plate
Stolen Vehicle
Felony Vehicle
Total LPR Hot List Reads
Hot List Type Total Reads
9,315
155
23 14,263
2025 YEAR-TO-DATE STATISTICS
Vehicle Theft
Shoot at InhabitedDwelling/Vehicle Possession of StolenVehicle 204

February 25, 2025

Public Works

DATE: February 25, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Daniel Chavarria, PE, Director of Public Works
Robert Armijo, PE, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Hillal Hamdan, PE, Senior Civil Engineer

Subject:

Construction Agreement with Rapid Services LLC, dba,
Rapid Grading Services, for the 7th Street Bike Lane
Improvement Project
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for this project is available from the Clean California grant funding for construction in the amount of $322,800.00 [Account String: 10633031-400708-23030]

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City staff recommends City Council approval of a
resolution authorizing a construction agreement with
Rapid Services LLC, dba Rapid Grading Services, for the 7th Street Bike Lane Improvement Project to enhance
pedestrian accessibility and extend the existing Class IV bike lane infrastructure.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution approving a construction agreement
with Rapid Services LLC, dba Rapid Grading Services,
for the 7th Street Bike Lane Improvement Project in an
amount not to exceed $269,000, and AUTHORIZE the
Director of Public Works to approve change orders, if
necessary, up to a 20 percent contingency amount of
$53,800, for a total potential construction phase cost of $322,800 – Public Works Department (Hillal Hamdan
AGENDA
REPORT
205

February 25, 2025
621-1612/Robert Armijo 620-5477/Daniel Chavarria 620-
5478).

DISCUSSION:

The 7th Street Bike Lane Improvement Project is situated between Hensley Street and Lincoln Avenue, at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) grade-separated overpass in the Iron Triangle neighborhood. This initiative includes the extension of bike lanes, installation of signage and striping, sidewalk construction, curb and gutter improvements, driveway modifications, guardrail installations, asphalt concrete work, a 2-inch grind and inlay, base repairs, and the incorporation of bicycle safety features.

The introduction of Class IV bike lanes will help reduce vehicle speeds by narrowing travel lanes, while the new sidewalks will prioritize pedestrian movement.

The project is funded by the state through the Clean California grant program, which has an expiration date of June 30, 2025.

The City publicly solicited bids for the project via BidsOnline on November 21, 2024.

Bids were opened on December 17, 2024, with a total of nine (9) submissions. Below are the bid amounts from the nine (9) bidders.

Lowest
Bidders
Contractor Bid ($)
1 Rapid Grading Services LLC 269,000
2 FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc 337,481
3 W.R. Forde Associates, Inc 353,475
4 Maggiora & Ghilotti, Inc 386,800
5 Sposelo Engineering, Inc 397,011
6 Ghilotti Bros.,Inc 429,989
7 Calico California Constructores,Inc 522,317
8 BuildCorp, Inc 573,000
9 Kerex Engineering, Inc 597,350

Following a comprehensive review and analysis of all submissions, Rapid Services LLC was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The contractor’s bid meets all project requirements, as well as the terms and conditions set forth in the contract. Rapid Services LLC demonstrated the necessary qualifications, experience, reputation, facilities, and financial capacity to successfully complete the project.

Additionally, the firm is properly registered with the State of California’s Department of 206

February 25, 2025
Industrial Relations (License #1001011090) and holds an active contractor’s license with the Contractors State License Board (License #1101213).

The City has received a bid advisory notice from the non-government organization Foundation for Fair Contracting (Attachment 3). In response, the City conducted further information gathering and requested Rapid Services LLC submit a letter addressing the concerns raised in the notice (Attachment 4). Additionally, agencies that previously engaged Rapid Services LLC for their projects have confirmed that their construction management teams provided positive feedback on Rapid Services LLC’s administrative performance in contract compliance.

Based on staff analysis, Rapid Services LLC has been identified as the lowest responsible bidder. The nature of the ongoing investigation, along with Rapid Services LLC’s proactive approach in addressing the issue, demonstrates a good faith effort by the contractor to rectify concerns and prevent future issues. Therefore, City staff recommends proceeding to award the contract (Attachment 2).

City staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a construction agreement with Rapid Services LLC, dba Rapid Grading Services, in the amount of $269,000 for the 7th Street Bike Lane Improvement Project (Attachment 1). Additionally, staff requests authorization for the Director of Public Works to approve change orders, if necessary, up to a contingency amount of $53,800 (20% of the bid amount), bringing the total potential construction phase cost to $322,800.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION:

City staff has obtained a Notice of Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Construction Agreement
Attachment 3 – Foundation for Fair Contracting Bid Advisory Notice Attachment 4 – Rapid Services LLC Response Letter to the Bid Advisory

207

Reso. No. xx-25

DocID #36034v1

RESOLUTION NO. xx-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH RAPID GRADING SERVICES FOR THE 7TH STREET BIKE LANE IMPROVEMENT

PROJECT

WHEREAS, the 7th Street Bike Lane Improvement Project is situated between Hensley Street and Lincoln Avenue, at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) grade-separated overpass in the Iron Triangle neighborhood.

WHEREAS, this project includes the extension of bike lanes, installation of signage and striping, sidewalk construction, curb and gutter improvements, driveway modifications, guardrail installations, asphalt concrete work, a 2-inch grind and inlay, base repairs, and the incorporation of bicycle safety features; and

WHEREAS, the introduction of Class IV bike lanes will help reduce vehicle speeds by narrowing travel lanes, while the new sidewalks will prioritize pedestrian movement; and

WHEREAS, the project is funded by the state through the Clean California grant program, which has an expiration date of June 30, 2025.; and

WHEREAS, an invitation for bids was duly advertised on November 21, 2024, which were opened on December 16, 2024; and

WHEREAS, there was a total of nine (9) bid submissions. Below are the bid amounts from the nine (9) bidders; and

Lowest Bidders Contractor Bid ($)
1 Rapid Grading Services LLC 269,000
2 FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc 337,481
3 W.R. Forde Associates, Inc 353,475
4 Maggiora & Ghilotti, Inc 386,800
5 Sposelo Engineering, Inc 397,011
6 Ghilotti Bros.,Inc 429,989
7 Calico California Constructores,Inc 522,317
8 BuildCorp, Inc 573,000
9 Kerex Engineering, Inc 597,350

WHEREAS, it was determined that Rapid Services LLC is the lowest bidder. In addition, said contractor was deemed to be the best fit for the project as it is the most responsive and responsible bidder following a comprehensive review and analysis of the submissions; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Exemption for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a permit to begin construction activities through the BNSF Railway Company has been issued; and

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: The City Council hereby authorizes staff to enter into a construction agreement contract with Rapid Services LLC, dba, Rapid Grading Services for the 7th Street Bike Lane Improvement Project in the amount not to exceed $269,000.

208

Reso. No. xx-25

DocID #36034v1
Section 3: The Public Works Director is authorized to approve change orders, if necessary, for a contingency amount of up to $53,800 which is 20% of the bid amount, for a potential total construction phase cost of $322,800.

Section 4: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

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

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution of the City Council of the City of Richmond was duly passed and adopted at a meeting thereof held February ___, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

Mayor

Approved as to form:

City Attorney
209

1 CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT

This Construction Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of February 2025, by and between the City of Richmond, a municipal corporation and charter city (“City”) and Rapid Grading Services. (“Contractor”), with reference to the following facts. The parties may be referred to in this Agreement individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS

A. On November 21, 2024, the City circulated an Invitation for Bids seeking contractors willing to undertake the construction of 7th Street Bike Lane Improvement Project, located at Hensley Street and 7th Street at the Burlington North Sante Fe (BNSF) grade separate overpass crossing (the “Project”).

B. Contractor submitted the lowest responsive bid and has been determined to be responsible.

C. City now desires to contract with Contractor to furnish construction and related services for the Project.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and agreements hereinafter set forth, and intending to be bound hereby, the Parties agree as follows:

ARTICLE I

CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT

Section 1.1 Contract Documents.

Project Specifications – including the Notice to Prospective Bidders, Invitation for Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Special Provisions, Description of Work, Construction Details (including all plans and specifications), and Proposal Package, along with any Requests for Information (RFI), responses to RFI, and addenda issued prior to the deadline for submitting bids – Contractor’s Proposal attached as Exhibit A, and this Agreement, constitute the “Contract Documents.”

Section 1.2 Construction.

Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, methods, processes, implements, tools and machinery, within the time frames set, and do all the things necessary for the proper completion of the work shown and described in Contract Documents.

210
2 Section 1.3 Payments.

Contractor agrees to receive and accept the sums set forth in the Bid Schedule attached as part of the Proposal, as full compensation for furnishing all materials and doing all the work contemplated and required by this Agreement, and for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of the undertaking of the construction of the Project, or from the acts of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the construction of the Project until its completion and acceptance by the City, and for all expenses incurred by or in consequence of the suspension or discontinuance of the construction of the Project, and for well and faithfully performing the construction of the Project and the whole thereof, in the manner and according to the Contract Documents.

Section 1.4 Discovery of Hazardous Waste or Unusual Conditions.

(a) Promptly and before the following conditions are disturbed, the Contractor shall notify the City in writing of any:
(1) Material that the Contractor believes may be hazardous waste, as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safety Code, that is required to be removed to a Class I, Class II, or Class III disposal site in accordance with provisions of existing law.
(2) Subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated by information about the site made available to bidders prior to the deadline for submitting bids.
(3) Unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in this Agreement. (b) The City shall promptly investigate the conditions, and if it finds that the conditions do materially so differ, or do involve hazardous waste, and cause a decrease or increase in the Contractor's cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work shall issue a Change Order under the procedures described in this Agreement. (c) In the event that a dispute arises between the City and the Contractor whether the conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease or increase in the Contractor's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the work, the Contractor shall not be excused from any scheduled completion date provided for by this Agreement, but shall proceed with all work to be performed under this Agreement. The Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided either by contract or by law which pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the Parties.

Section 1.5 Laws and Regulations.

(a) The Project work shall proceed only after procurement of each permit, license, or other authorization that may be required by any governmental agency having jurisdiction, and Contractor shall be responsible to the City for the procurement and maintenance thereof.

211
3 (b) Contractor shall cause all work performed in connection with construction of the Project to be performed in compliance with (i) all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations now in force or that may be enacted hereafter; (ii) all conditions of Project approval and mitigation measures included in any adopted or certified environmental document prepared for the Project; and (iii) all directions, rules and regulations of any fire marshal, health officer, building inspector, or other officer of every governmental agency now having or hereafter acquiring jurisdiction, provided that such direction given during construction does not conflict with conditions of Project approval or mitigation measures.

(c) Contractor shall and shall cause its subcontractors to pay prevailing wages in the construction of the Project as those wages are determined pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq., and implementing regulations of the Department of Industrial Relations, and to comply with all other applicable federal, State and local laws, regulations and ordinances pertaining to labor standards insofar as those laws, regulations and ordinances apply to the performance of this Agreement, including any applicable City of Richmond employment requirements, including but not limited to the City's Living Wage Ordinance (Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.60), the City's Business Opportunity Ordinance (Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.50), and the City's Local Employment Program Ordinance (Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 2.56). During the construction of the Project, Contractor shall post at the construction site the applicable prevailing rates of per diem wages. Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend, (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City) the City against any claims for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of failure or alleged failure of any person or entity (including Contractor and its subcontractors) to pay prevailing wages in connection with construction of the Project. This Section 1.5(c) shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

(d) Contractor and all subcontractors shall maintain accurate payroll records showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker and others employed on the Project. Each payroll record shall contain or be verified by a written declaration made under penalty of perjury, stating both of the following: (1) the information contained in the payroll record is true and correct, and (2) the employer has complied with the requirements of Labor Code Section 1771 (prevailing wage provisions), Section 1811 (eight-hour day, forty-hour week provisions), and Section 1815 (overtime compensation) for any work performed by his or her employees on the Project. The Contractor shall provide certified payroll records to the City each week, no later than ten (10) days after the end of a weekly pay period. Pay records shall be maintained and made available in accordance with Labor Code Section 1776. In addition, Contractor shall and shall cause its subcontractors promptly to deliver to the City, upon request, documents verifying compliance with the Living Wage Ordinance, which include documents which evidence that each affected employee has been notified regarding the wages required to be paid pursuant to the Living Wage Ordinance.

Such wages shall also be posted at the construction site. This Section 1.5(d) shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

212
4 Section 1.6 Inspections.

Contractor shall permit and facilitate, and shall require its subcontractors to permit and facilitate, observation and inspection of the Project by the City and by public authorities at all times for the purposes of determining compliance with this Agreement and permits issued to perform the Project work. In so doing, Contractor shall provide access for testing and inspections. Contractor shall coordinate and schedule all testing and inspections required on the Project with the required advance notice as defined in the Project Specifications.

Section 1.7 Equal Opportunity.

(a) During the construction of the Project there shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, or disability in the hiring, firing, promoting, or demoting of any person engaged in the construction work.

(b) In addition, Contractor agrees to observe the provisions of Section 2.28.030 of the Richmond Municipal Code, obligating Contractor and its subcontractors to refrain from discriminatory employment or subcontracting practices on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential subcontractor.

Section 1.8 Working Hours.

Eight hours of labor is a legal day’s work. Any worker’s time of service is restricted to eight hours during any calendar day, and 40 hours during a calendar week, unless overtime compensation is paid at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay. The Contractor shall be assessed a penalty of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each day a worker is employed in violation of these requirements.

Section 1.9 Insurance and Bond Requirements.

(a) In accordance with California Labor Code Section 3700, Contractor must secure Workers’ Compensation coverage for its employees. Prior to performing any work, Contractor must execute a certification in the form set out at California Labor Code Section 1861. (b) Contractor shall submit to the City evidence of the insurance and payment and performance bond coverage meeting the requirements set forth in the Project Specifications. Proof of insurance and bonding related to the construction of the Project shall be provided to the City not more than (10) days after award of the contract. The City shall review and approve or disapprove of the evidence of insurance within twenty (20) days after submittal of complete information in the form required by the City. If the City disapproves the evidence of insurance, it shall specify in writing the reasons for such disapproval. Contractor shall resubmit the information required within ten (10) days. The review and submittal periods for resubmittals shall be reduced to a ten (10) day review period for the City and a five (5) day period for resubmittal by Contractor and shall continue to apply until the City approves the evidence of insurance coverage, but in no event shall the 213
5 submittal and review period continue for more than forty-five (45) days. If, after forty-five (45) days the Contractor has not provided evidence of insurance and bond coverage meeting the requirements of the City, the City shall terminate the contract and may either award the work to the next lowest responsive responsible bidder or issue a new request for bids. (If the City issues a new request for bids, the Contractor shall be disqualified from re-bidding the work because of the failure to provide timely proof of insurance and/or bond coverage.) No work shall be initiated on the Project prior to Contractor's receipt of the City's approval of evidence of insurance coverage related to the construction of the Project.
(c) Contractor shall have furnished the City with evidence of the insurance coverage meeting the insurance requirements set forth in Project Specifications for each subcontractor prior to initiating any work on the Project, including Builder's Risk insurance with appropriate coverage for the cost of construction. The periods for submittal, review and approval shall apply as stated in subparagraph (b) above.
(d) The Parties agree that notwithstanding the time requirements set forth in this subsection for submittal and resubmittal to the City by the Contractor of the evidence of insurance and review and approval of the evidence of insurance by the City, Contractor is responsible for ensuring that the evidence of insurance in approvable form is submitted to the City in a timely manner.

Section 1.10 Security In Lieu of Retention.

(a) The City shall retain five percent (5%) of the sum requested in each progress payment unless the Contractor elects to invoke the procedures set forth at California Public Contract Code 22300 to substitute securities to ensure performance under the contract.

1. At the request and the expense of the Contractor, securities equivalent to the amount withheld shall be deposited with the City, or with a state or federally chartered bank in the state as escrow agent, who shall then pay the retained funds to the Contractor. Upon satisfactory completion of the contract, the securities shall be returned to the Contractor.

2. Alternatively, the Contractor may request and the City shall make payment of retentions earned directly to the escrow agent at the expense of the Contractor. At the expense of the Contractor, the Contractor may direct the investment of the payments into securities and the Contractor shall receive the interest earned on the investments upon the same terms provided for in Public Contract Code 22300 for securities deposited by the Contractor. Upon satisfactory completion of this Agreement, the Contractor shall receive from the escrow agent all securities, interest, and payments received by the escrow agent from the owner, pursuant to the terms of this section.
(b) If the Contractor chooses to place securities in escrow, the escrow agreement to be used shall be substantially similar to the following form:

214
6 ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY DEPOSITS IN LIEU OF RETENTION This Escrow Agreement is made and entered into by and between _________________________________________________ whose address is ________________________________ hereinafter called "Owner," ___________ whose address is ________________________________ hereinafter called "Contractor" and ___________ whose address is ________________________________ hereinafter called "Escrow Agent."
For the consideration hereinafter set forth, the Owner, Contractor, and Escrow Agent agree as follows:
(1) Pursuant to Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code of the State of California, Contractor has the option to deposit securities with Escrow Agent as a substitute for retention earnings required to be withheld by Owner pursuant to the Construction Contract entered into between the Owner and Contractor for ____ in the amount of ____ dated ____ (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract"). Alternatively, on written request of the Contractor, the Owner shall make payments of the retention earnings directly to the Escrow Agent. When the Contractor deposits the securities as a substitute for Contract earnings, the Escrow Agent shall notify the Owner within 10 days of the deposit. The market value of the securities at the time of the substitution shall be at least equal to the cash amount then required to be withheld as retention under the terms of the Contract between the Owner and Contractor. Securities shall be held in the name of ____, and shall designate the Contractor as the beneficial owner. (2) The Owner shall make progress payments to the Contractor for those funds which otherwise would be withheld from progress payments pursuant to the Contract provisions, provided that the Escrow Agent holds securities in the form and amount specified above. (3) When the Owner makes payment of retentions earned directly to the Escrow Agent, the Escrow Agent shall hold them for the benefit of the Contractor until the time that the escrow created under this contract is terminated. The Contractor may direct the investment of the payments into securities. All terms and conditions of this agreement and the rights and responsibilities of the parties shall be equally applicable and binding when the Owner pays the Escrow Agent directly.
(4) Contractor shall be responsible for paying all fees for the expenses incurred by Escrow Agent in administering the Escrow Account and all expenses of the Owner. These expenses and payment terms shall be determined by the Owner, Contractor, and Escrow Agent. (5) The interest earned on the securities or the money market accounts held in escrow and all interest earned on that interest shall be for the sole account of Contractor and shall be subject to withdrawal by Contractor at any time and from time to time without notice to the Owner. (6) Contractor shall have the right to withdraw all or any part of the principal in the Escrow Account only by written notice to Escrow Agent accompanied by written authorization from the Owner to the Escrow Agent that Owner consents to the withdrawal of the amount sought to be withdrawn by Contractor.
(7) The Owner shall have a right to draw upon the securities in the event of default by the Contractor. Upon seven days' written notice to the Escrow Agent from the Owner of the default, the Escrow Agent shall immediately convert the securities to cash and shall distribute the cash as instructed by the Owner.
(8) Upon receipt of written notification from the Owner certifying that the Contract is final and complete, and that the Contractor has complied with all requirements and procedures applicable to the Contract, Escrow Agent shall release to Contractor all securities and interest on deposit 215
7 less escrow fees and charges of the Escrow Account. The escrow shall be closed immediately upon disbursement of all moneys and securities on deposit and payments of fees and charges. (9) Escrow Agent shall rely on the written notifications from the Owner and the Contractor pursuant to Sections (5) to (8), inclusive, of this Agreement and the Owner and Contractor shall hold Escrow Agent harmless from Escrow Agent's release and disbursement of the securities and interest as set forth above.
(10) The names of the persons who are authorized to give written notice or to receive written notice on behalf of the Owner and on behalf of Contractor in connection with the foregoing, and exemplars of their respective signatures are as follows:

On behalf of Owner: On behalf of Contractor:
_______________________ _________________________
Title Title
_______________________ _________________________
Name Name
_____________________ _________________________
Signature Signature
_______________________ _________________________
Address Address
On behalf of Escrow Agent:
_______________________
Title
_______________________
Name
_______________________
Signature
_______________________
Address

At the time the Escrow Account is opened, the Owner and Contractor shall deliver to the Escrow Agent a fully executed counterpart of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by their proper officers on the date first set forth above.

Owner Contractor
________________________ _________________________
Title Title
________________________ _________________________
Name Name
________________________ _________________________
Signature Signature

216
8 ARTICLE II

DEFAULT AND REMEDIES

2.1 Events of Default.

In addition the remedies set forth in Section 2.2, below, in the event of default the Department Head reserves the right to stop work immediately if any action or inaction by the Contractor or any subcontractor creates a risk of imminent harm to the public or property.

Each of the following shall constitute a "Default" by Contractor under this Agreement:
(a) Breach of Covenants. Failure by Contractor or any subcontractor to duly perform, comply with, or observe any of the conditions, terms, or covenants of any of the Contract Documents. The City shall give Contractor written notice of the breach and specify a time in which to cure the breach. If the Contractor cures the breach within the time specified in the notice or, if the breach cannot be cured in the time specified but the Contractor has diligently pursued measures to cure the breach and to keep the City informed of its progress, then the breach shall not constitute a default provided that the breach is cured within thirty (30) days from the date of the City’s last notice and demand to cure.
(b) Disregard of Laws. Disregard of laws, rules, regulations, directions or instructions of City by Contractor or any subcontractor with respect to the performance of work.

(c) Insolvency. A court having jurisdiction shall have made or entered any decree or order (i) adjudging Contractor to be bankrupt or insolvent, (ii) approving as properly filed a petition seeking reorganization of Contractor or seeking any arrangement for Contractor under the bankruptcy law or any other applicable debtor's relief law or statute of the United States or any state or other jurisdiction, (iii) appointing a receiver, trustee, liquidator, or assignee of Contractor in bankruptcy or insolvency or for any of their properties, (iv) directing the winding up or liquidation of Contractor if any such decree or order described in clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive, shall have continued unstayed or undischarged for a period of ninety (90) days; or (v) Contractor shall have admitted in writing its inability to pay its debts as they fall due or shall have voluntarily submitted to or filed a petition seeking any decree or order of the nature described in clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive.

(d) Suspension; Termination. Contractor shall have voluntarily suspended its business, or shall have voluntarily or involuntarily lost or terminated one or more of the licenses required to perform the work.

(e) Liens on Property and the Development. There shall be filed any claim of lien (other than liens approved in writing by the City) against the Project or the construction site or any part thereof, or any interest or right made appurtenant thereto and the continued maintenance of said claim of lien for a period of twenty (20) days without discharge or satisfaction thereof or provision therefore (including, without limitation, the posting of bonds) satisfactory to the City.

217
9 2.2 Remedies.

The occurrence of any Default hereunder following the expiration of all applicable notice and cure periods will, either at the option of the City or automatically where so specified, relieve the City of any obligation to make or continue payments and shall give the City the right to proceed with any and all remedies set forth in the Contract Documents, including but not limited to the following:

(a) Specific Performance. The City shall have the right to mandamus or other suit, action or proceeding at law or in equity to require Contractor to perform its obligations and covenants under this Agreement or to enjoin acts on things which may be unlawful or in violation of the provisions of this Agreement.

(b) Right of Contest. Contractor shall have the right to contest in good faith any claim, demand, levy, or assessment the assertion of which would constitute a Default hereunder.

Any such contest shall be prosecuted diligently and in a manner unprejudicial to the City or the rights of the City hereunder.

(c) Remedies Cumulative. No right, power, or remedy given to the City by the terms of the Contract Documents is intended to be exclusive of any other right, power, or remedy; and each and every such right, power, or remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to every other right, power, or remedy given to the City by the terms of any such instrument, or by any statute or otherwise against Contractor and any other person. Neither the failure nor any delay on the part of the City to exercise any such rights and remedies shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise by the City of any such right or remedy preclude any other or further exercise of such right or remedy, or any other right or remedy.

2.3 Waiver of Damages.

Contractor, in having tendered the Proposal, shall be deemed to have waived any and all claims for damages because of termination of this Agreement for any reason. Contractor shall not be entitled to any lost profit in the event of termination.

ARTICLE III

GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 3.1 Relationship of Parties.

Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be interpreted or understood by any of the Parties, or by any third persons, as creating the relationship of employer and employee, principal and agent, limited or general partnership, or joint venture between the City and Contractor or its agents, employees or subcontractors, and Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the manner in which it or its agents, or both, perform the services required of it by the terms of this Agreement. Contractor has and retains the right to exercise full control of employment, direction, compensation, and discharge of all 218
10 persons assisting in the performance of services under the Agreement. In regards to the construction of the Project, Contractor shall be solely responsible for all matters relating to payment of its employees, including compliance with Social Security, withholding, and all other laws and regulations governing such matters, and shall include requirements in each contract that subcontractors shall be solely responsible for similar matters relating to their employees.

Contractor shall be solely responsible for its own acts and those of its agents and employees.

Section 3.2 Change Orders.
(a) Changes affecting the time of performance, unit pricing, or total contract price shall be set forth in a written Change Order that shall specify:

1. The work performed in connection with the change to be made;

2. The amount of the adjustment to the Payment Limit, if any, and the basis for compensation for the work ordered; which adjustment may be a negotiated lump sum amount, agreed unit price, or paid under Section 9-1.04 “Force Account” of the 2010 State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications; and

3. The amount of time to be adjusted in the schedule for performance, if any. (b) A Change Order will become effective when signed by the Department Head, or his or her representative, notwithstanding that Contractor has not signed it. A Change Order will become effective without Contractor’s signature, provided the Department Head or his or her representative so indicates by noting thereon “unilateral change order.” (c) All changes in any plans and specification approved by any authority with jurisdiction over the Project may also require addenda or change orders approved by that authority.
(d) Where the City requests, a performance bond rider covering the changed work must be executed and delivered to the City before proceeding with the changed work, or shortly in time thereafter.
(e) The Department Head or his or her representative has the authority to approve Change Orders with a cumulative dollar value of up to ten percent (10%) of the contract price.

Section 3.3 Claims By Contractor.
(a) No Third-Party Claims. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create or justify any claim against the City by any person that Contractor may have employed or with whom Contractor may have contracted relative to the purchase of materials, supplies or equipment, or the furnishing or the performance of any work or services with respect to the construction of the Project, and Contractor shall include similar requirements in any contracts entered into for the construction of the Project.
(b) Obligation to File Claims for Disputed Work. Should it appear to the Contractor that the work to be performed or any of the matters relative to the Contract 219
11 Documents are not satisfactorily detailed or explained therein, or should any questions arise as to the meaning or intent of the Contract Documents, or should any dispute arise regarding the true value of any work performed, work omitted, extra work that the Contractor may be required to perform, time extensions, payment to the Contractor during performance of the work, construction of the Project, and/or compliance with procedures or standards set forth in the Contract Documents, or should Contractor otherwise seek extra time or compensation FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, then Contractor shall first follow the procedures set forth in this Agreement, including but not limited to Section 3.2, “Change Orders.” If a dispute remains, then Contractor shall give written notice to the City that expressly invokes this Section 3.3 and requests a determination of the issue. City shall decide the issue in writing within 15 days; City’s decision shall be final and the limitations period for the filing of a claim shall commence upon the City’s issuance of its decision. If Contractor disagrees with City’s decision, or if Contractor contends that City failed to provide a timely decision, then Contractor’s SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY is to file a written claim setting forth Contractor’s position as required herein.
(c) Form and Contents of Claim. The Claim shall be submitted to the City within thirty (30) days of receiving the City’s written decision regarding the dispute, or the date the Contractor contends such decision was due, and in no event later than the date of final payment.

Contractor’s written claim must identify itself as a “Claim” under this Section 3.3 and must include the following: (1) a narrative of pertinent events; (2) citation to contract provisions; (3) theory of entitlement; (4) complete pricing of all cost impacts; (5) a time impact analysis of all time delays that shows actual time impact on the critical path; (6) documentation supporting items 1 – 5; and (7) verification under penalty of perjury of the claim’s accuracy. The Claim shall be priced like a Change Order, and must be updated every thirty (30) days as to cost and entitlement if it remains a continuing Claim. Routine contract materials, for example, correspondence, RFI, Change Order requests, or payment requests shall not constitute a Claim.

Contractor shall bear all costs incurred in preparation, submittal, and administration of a Claim. (d) Administration After Claim Submittal.

1. City may render a final decision based solely on the materials submitted in support of the Claim or may in its sole discretion conduct an administrative hearing on the Claim, in which case Contractor shall appear, participate, answer inquiries, and present any further evidence or analysis requested by City. Should City take no action on the Claim within forty-five (45) days (if the Claim is for less than $50,000) or within sixty (60) days (if the Claim is for $50,000 or more) of submittal, it shall be deemed denied.

2. Notwithstanding and pending the resolution of any Claim or dispute, Contractor shall diligently perform the disputed work to final completion in accordance with the City’s direction.

3. After their submittal, claims less than $375,000 shall also be subject to Section 20104 of the Local Agency Public Construction Act.

220
12 (e) Compliance

1. The provisions of this Section 3.3 constitute a non-judicial claim settlement procedure that, pursuant to California Government Code Section 930.2, shall constitute a condition precedent to the submittal of a valid claim under the California Government Code. Any Government Code claims alleging disputed work must affirmatively indicate prior compliance with this Section 3.3. In accordance with Richmond Municipal Code Section 1.10.010(b), all Government Code claims must be presented no later than the 100th day after the earlier of (i) the date the City actively or passively denied the Claim, or (ii) substantial completion or termination of the contract.

2. Failure to submit and administer Claims as required in Section 3.3 shall waive Contractor’s right to compensation for any disputed work not included in a timely Claim. Disputes not raised in a timely protest and timely Claim submitted under this Section 3.3 may not be asserted in any subsequent Government Code claim, administrative hearing, or civil action.

3. City shall not be deemed to waive any provision under this Section 3.3 if, at City’s sole discretion, a Claim is administered in a manner not in accord with this Section 3.3. Waivers or modifications of this Section 3.3 may only be made by signed Change Order approved as to form by legal counsel for both City and Contractor. Oral or implied modifications shall be of no force or effect.

Section 3.4 Indemnification.
(a) To the fullest extent permissible by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, and require its subcontractors to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City, its elected and appointed officials, and all of its employees, volunteers and agents (the "Indemnified Parties"), from all liability, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims or judgments, including attorney's fees and other defense costs (collectively, "Claims"), resulting from injury to or death sustained by any person (including Contractor’s or any subcontractors' employees), or damage to property of any kind, or any other injury or damage whatsoever, which Claims arise out of or are in any way connected with the construction of the Project, regardless of Contractor's fault or negligence; provided, however, that Contractor's, and Contractor's subcontractors' indemnity obligations hereunder shall not apply to the extent any Claims are caused by the active negligence or willful act or omission of an Indemnified Party. The indemnification obligations of Contractor and its subcontractors shall extend to Claims asserted after termination of this Agreement for whatever reason. (b) In Claims against any person or entity indemnified under Section 3.4(a) above by an employee of Contractor or its subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any one of them or anyone for whose acts one of them may be liable, the indemnification obligation under Section 3.4(a) above shall not be limited by a limitation on amount or type of damages, compensation of benefits payable under workers' compensation acts, disability benefit acts or other employee benefit acts.
221
13 Section 3.5 Non-Liability of City Officials, Employees and Agents.

No member, official, employee or agent of the City shall be personally liable to Contractor in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to Contractor or its successor or on any obligation under the terms of this Agreement.

Section 3.6 No Third Party Beneficiaries.

There shall be no third party beneficiaries to this Agreement.

Section 3.7 Conflict of Interest.

(a) Except for approved eligible administrative or personnel costs, no person described in Section 3.7(b) below who exercises or has exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to the activities funded pursuant to this Agreement or who is in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest or benefit from the activity, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves or those with whom they have family or business ties, during, or at any time after, such person's tenure. Contractor shall exercise due diligence to ensure that the prohibition in this Section 3.7(a) is followed.

(b) The conflict of interest provisions of Section 3.7(a) above apply to any person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected or appointed official of the City of Richmond, and any immediate family member or dependent of such person.

Section 3.8 Notices, Demands and Communications.

If at any time after the execution of this Agreement it shall become necessary or convenient for one of the Parties hereto to serve any notice, demand or communication upon the other Party, such notice, demand or communication shall be in writing and shall be served personally or by depositing the same in the registered United States mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid or delivered by express delivery service, return receipt requested and

(1) if intended for the City shall be addressed to:

City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, California 94804
Attention: Hillal Hamdan

222
14 With copy to:

City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Attention: City Attorney

(2) if intended for Contractor shall be addressed to:

Rapid Grading Services
23842 Cabot Blvd
Hayward, CA 94545
Attn: Yadwinder Singh

Any notice, demand or communication shall be deemed given, received, made or communicated on the date personal delivery is affected or, if mailed in the manner herein specified, on the delivery date or date delivery is refused by the addressee, as shown on the return receipt. Any Party may change its address at any time by giving written notice of such change at least ten (10) days prior to the date such change is desired to be effective.

Section 3.9 Applicable Law.

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

Section 3.10 Parties Bound.

Except as otherwise limited herein, the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors, and assigns. Any reference in this Agreement to a specifically named Party shall be deemed to apply to any successor, heir, administrator, executor, successor, or assign of such Party who has acquired an interest in compliance with the terms of this Agreement or under law. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest, and assigns of each of the Parties.

Section 3.11 Severability.

If any term of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions shall continue in full force and effect unless the rights and obligations of the Parties have been materially altered or abridged by such invalidation, voiding or unenforceability.

Section 3.12 Force Majeure.

Performance by either Party shall not be deemed to be in default when delays in performance are due to war, insurrection, strikes, lock-outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, 223
15 quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, or court order, or any other similar causes (other than lack of funds of Contractor) beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time to perform (“Force-Majeure Delays”). In no event shall any extension of any period of time be deemed to have occurred unless the Party claiming the Force-Majeure Delay gives written notice to the other Party within ten (10) days following the commencement of any such delay, setting forth the facts giving rise to the Force-Majeure Delay request, the expected duration of the delay, and the steps the Party intends to take to minimize the Delay. During the Force-Majeure Delay, the Party whose performance is delayed shall keep the other Party reasonably informed of the situation and the steps taken by such Party to continue performance and minimize delay. After the Force-Majeure Delay is over, the Parties shall in good faith jointly prepare an accurate written record of the circumstances giving rise to delay, specifying the commencement date and duration of the Force-Majeure Delay and the cause thereof, which record shall be signed by each Party to confirm agreement with respect to its content. In no event shall the City be required to agree to cumulative Force-Majeure Delays in excess of sixty (60) days unless the City is the cause of such delay. In the event that the parties cannot agree upon a record of the circumstances giving rise to the Force-Majeure Delay, the procedures set forth in Section 3.3 of this Agreement shall apply.

Section 3.13 Waivers.

Any waiver by the City of any obligation or condition in this Agreement must be in writing. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure by the City to take action on any breach or default of Contractor or to pursue any remedy allowed under this Agreement or applicable law. Any extension of time granted to Contractor to perform any obligation under this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver or release from any of its obligations under this Agreement. Consent by the City to any act or omission by Contractor shall not be construed to be consent to any other or subsequent act or omission or to waive the requirement for the City's written consent to future waivers.

Section 3.14 Title of Parts and Sections.

Any titles of the sections or subsections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in interpreting any part of the Agreement's provisions.

Section 3.15 Entire Understanding of the Parties.

The Contract Documents – along with any written change orders and dispute determinations that may be issued by the City in the course of performance – shall constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties with respect to construction of the Project.

The Contract Documents, written change orders (if any), and dispute determinations (if any) are deemed complementary and should be interpreted together.

Section 3.16 Multiple Originals; Counterpart.

This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts. A facsimile or electronic signature to this Agreement shall be as valid as an ink signed original.
224
16 WHEREAS, this Agreement has been entered into by the undersigned as of the date first above written.

Reviewed By:

_______________________
City Attorney

ATTEST:

_______________________________
City Clerk

CITY:

CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal corporation and
charter city

By: _________________________________

Name: _________________________________

Its: __________________________________

CONTRACTOR:

Rapid Grading Services

By: _________________________________

Name: _________________________________

Its: _________________________________
225
17 Exhibit A
Proposal

226
18 227
19 228
20 229
21 230
22 231
23 232
24 233
25 234
26 235
27 236
28 237
29 238
30 239
31 240
32 241
33 242
34 243
35 244
36 245
37 246
38 247
39 248
40 249
41 250
42 251
43 252
44 253
45 254
46 255
47 256
48 257

VIA EMAIL – [email protected]

February 3, 2024

Robert Armijo
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor
Richmond, CA 94804

RE: BID ADVISORY
Low Bidder: Rapid Services LLC dba Rapid Grading Services Awarding Agency: City of Richmond
Project: 7th Street Bike Lane Improvement Project
FFC Case No.: 1172BA

Dear Mr. Armijo:

The Foundation for Fair Contracting (FFC) is a nonprofit organization serving the public interest since 1985. The objective of the FFC is to monitor compliance with prevailing wage laws pertaining to the construction industry, including informing and educating industry stakeholders.

Unbalanced bids raise questions in regard to performance and compliance with the rules and regulations for the payment of prevailing wages, and the safety and well-being of the workforce.

It further opens the question of excessive future change orders and the ultimate fairness to and rights of other bidders in the bidding process and the intent of the bidding process in general.

In deference to all bidders and in order for the public interest to best be served, please enter this formal bid advisory against the above-noted contractor as a matter of public record. We respectfully request that Rapid Services LLC dba Rapid Grading Services (Rapid) bid be rejected for the following reasons:

• FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH BID SPECIFICATIONS/UNFAIR COMPETITIVE

ADVANTAGE
Rapid’s bid is 20% - 55% lower than all other bidders on this project. A large bid variance commonly indicates a failure to bid in accordance with the plans and specifications and/or account for the proper prevailing wage rate – including travel and subsistence. If awarded the project, change orders would be inevitable to complete the project in accordance with the specifications and/or prevailing wage laws/standards. This gives Rapid an unfair advantage in its bidding practices against its competitors and puts the City of Richmond into a precarious legal position.

• ONGOING VIOLATIONS OF PREVAILING WAGE LAWS RESULTING IN WAGE THEFT
Rapid is currently under investigation by our offices and a complaint has been filed with the State of California, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), Labor Commissioner’s office in connection with the issues provided below. We have provided supporting documentation for your review.

▪ Misclassifications resulting in underpayments.
▪ Failure to comply with apprenticeship requirements.
258

Robert Armijo
City of Richmond
February 3, 2024

• FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND FORMAL

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS
Rapid has not made a good faith effort to participate and invest in local workforce development, nor have they participated in local hiring of workers in the community through formal and recognized pre-apprenticeship programs and formal apprenticeship programs for specific apprenticeable crafts. They have failed to request, employ, train, and pay the proper prevailing wages to apprentices.

Please contact our office with questions, comments, or clarifications.

Sincerely,

Jesse Jimenez
Executive Director

Case: 1172BA

cc: City of Richmond – Mayor and Councilmembers

Eduardo Martinez - [email protected]
Soheila Bana - [email protected]
Claudia Jimenez - [email protected]
Cesar Zepeda - [email protected]
Doria Robinson - [email protected]
Sue Wilson - [email protected]
Jamelia Brown - [email protected]

City of Richmond – Director of Public Works

Daniel Chavarria - [email protected]

259
Showing 9 Bid Results
Rapid Services LLC
23842 Cabot Blvd
Hayward, California 94545
Contact: Yadwinder Singh
Phone: 650-281-5495
MBE, CADIR, DBE, OSB $269,000.00
fbd vanguard
550 Greenville Road
Livermore, California 94550
Contact: Nick Ratto
Phone: 925-245-1300
$337,481.00
W.R. Forde Associates, Inc
984 Hensley Street
Richmond, California 94801
Contact: David Voorhis
Phone: 510-215-9338
Local $353,475.00
Maggiora & Ghilotti Inc.
555 Du Bois Street
San Rafael, California 94901
Contact: Gary Ghilotti
Phone: 415-459-8640
$386,800.00
SPOSETO ENGINNERING INC.
4558 CONTRACTORS PLACE
LIVERMORE, California 95111
Contact: DUY TRUONG
Phone: 924-443-4200
OSB, CADIR $397,050.70
Ghilotti Bros., Inc. $429,989.00
Vendor Type Bid Amount Responsive
7TH STREET BIKE LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CIP No. 23030
260
525 Jacoby Street
San Rafael, California 94901
Contact: David Cantor
Phone: 415-454-7011
California Constructores
1220 Marin Ave
san pablo, California 94806
Contact: CARLA DEL CARPIO
Phone: 510-932-9899
OSB $538,516.75
Buildcorp inc
666 Monterey Blvd
San Francisco, California 94127
Contact: Jay Zhong
Phone: 925-339-8607
$573,000.00
Kerex Engineering Inc
PO Box 23831
Pleasant Hill, California 94523
Contact: Patrick Madden
Phone: 925-457-7165
CADIR $597,350.00
Vendor Type Bid Amount Responsive
261

[This page intentionally left blank]
262
Labor Commissioner, State of California
Department of Industrial Relations
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
DIVISION USE ONLY:

TAKEN BY: CASE #
DATE TAKEN: ASSIGNED TO:

OFFICE: DATE RECEIVED:

DATE ASSIGNED:

PUBLIC WORKS – PUBLIC COMPLAINT
The following information is important and must be provided.

Complainant Information

1. FIRST NAME 2. LAST NAME 3. COMPANY NAME 4. WORK/CELLULAR NO

5. CONTACT ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE / ZIP CODE 8. EMAIL ADDRESS Project Information
Note: A separate form must be completed for each project in which you are alleging a violation of prevailing wages.

9. PROJECT NAME (If known)

10. LIST ADDRESS(ES) OF PROJECT WHERE WORK WAS PERFORMED:

Complaint Against

11. NAME OF BUSINESS/CONTRACTOR/EMPLOYER 12. CONTRACTOR’S STATE LIC.

NO

13. ADDRESS OF BUSINESS/CONTRACTOR/EMPLOYER (Include Zip Code) 14. BUSINESS TEL. NO

15. EMAIL ADDRESS 16. NAME OF PERSON IN CHARGE 17. TITLE Awarding Body

18. NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY/AWARDED CONTRACT ENTITY

19. ADDRESS OF AWARDING BODY 20. BUSINESS TEL. NO/

21. EMAIL ADDRESS 22. NAME OF PERSON IN CHARGE / TITLE 23. AMOUNT OF CONTRACT

24. FIRST BID AD DATE 25.DATE PROJECT BEGAN 26. PROPOSED FINISH DATE 27. DATE OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION General Contractor (Prime Contractor)

28. NAME OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR 29. CONTRACTOR’S STATE LIC.

30. ADDRESS 31. BUSINESS TEL. NO

32. EMAIL ADDRESS 33. NAME OF PERSON IN CHARGE 34. TITLE Prevailing Wage Issues (Attach statements substantiating the allegation)

35. BRIEF EXPLAINATION OF ISSUES: (Check all applicable boxes) Non-payment /Underpayment of wages Not paid travel and subsistence Under reporting of hours Unpaid overtime/Sat/Sun/Holiday rate Misclassification of worker Insufficient fund check Fringe benefits not paid Other

Apprentice Violations 1777.5 proceed to the next page
DLSEPW 1A (Rev 8.2012)
DIR #: FFC Case No.:
263

_______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________ _________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Apprentice Occupation

36. Trades and Classifications: _______________________________________________ Apprentice Violations 1777.5

37. If the contractor is approved to train- Name of the Apprenticeship Committee:

38. Was there a LABOR COMPLIANCE PROGRAM on this project? Yes No If Yes, Name of the LCP: LCP Telephone Number:

Apprentice Issues
( List any documentation attached substantiating the allegation)

39. BRIEF EXPLAINATION OF ISSUES: (Check all applicable boxes) Failed to provide Contract award information (DAS 140). California Code of Regulations 230 Failed to request dispatch of apprentices (DAS 142). California Code of Regulations 230.1 Failed to employ registered apprentices in the correct ratio or not at all. California Code of Regulations 230.1 Failed to make apprenticeship training fund contributions. California Code of Regulations 230.2 Other (give clear concise statement of the facts constituting the basis of your complaint) Proof of Service

40. Check the box if Proof of Service upon affected contractor and the General Contractor is attached.

I hereby certify that this is a true statement to the best of my knowledge and belief.

MY NAME MAY BE USED IN THIS INVESTIGATION. Yes No
Signature Date
DLSE PW 1A (Rev 8. 2012)
264
CONTRACTOR REVIEWED FFC CASE #

BID ADVERTISEMENT DATE COMPLETION DATE
N/A = NOT APPLICABLE S/R = SEE REMARKS CPR = CERTIFIED PAYROLL REPORTS

ITEM ITEM
NO. ITEM NO. ITEM

A GENERAL YES NO N/A S/R F PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS YES NO N/A S/R A1 Contractor Registered with State of CA F1 Funding - State Monies A2 CSLB in Good Standing F2 Funding - Federal Monies
A3 Workers Compensation in Good Standing F3 Special Provisions A4 Secretary of State in Good Standing F4 Special Single Shift A5 F5 Notice of Completion Filed

B PAYROLLS YES NO N/A S/R G CONCLUSIONS YES NO N/A S/R
B1 CPRs A-1-131 Submitted G1 Reviewed CPRs Okay
B2 Daily Logs/CPR Agree G2 Discrepancies Intentional
B3 Time Cards/CPR Agree G3
B4 Canceled Checks/CPR Agree H RECOMMENDATIONS YES NO N/A S/R B5 Photographic Evidence/CPR Agree H1 Com plaint to Awarding Body/Contractor B6 Wages Paid at/above Prevailing Rates H2 Complaint to DLSE B7 Complied with All OT/Holiday Rqmts H3 Complaint to CSLB B8 Check #s/Direct Deposit Info Available H4 Complaint to EDD B9 Employee Questionnaires to Workers H5
B10 Employee Interviews on File ITEM # REMARKS
B11 Employee Interview Reflects Problems Scope
B12 eCPRs Submitted

C BENEFITS YES NO N/A S/R
C1 Statement of Employer Payments PW 26 Submitted
C2 Fringes Paid in Cash
C3 Fringes Paid to Plans/Funds
C4 Plans/Funds Approved
C5 Plans/Funds Documents Available
C6 Plans/Funds Statements Available
C7 Statement Hours Match CPR Hours
C8
Canceled Checks for Payments Available
C9 Canceled Checks Agree with Statements
C10 Annualization Necessary
C11 Annualization Amounts Correct
C12 Employee Interviews on File
C13 Employee Interview Reflects Problems
C14

D APPRENTICESHIP/TRAINING YES NO N/A S/R
D1 Form DAS 140 Available
D2 Form DAS 142 Available
D3 Training Fund Paid to JAC
D4 Training Fund Paid to CAC
D5 Hours on CPR Agree with JAC Stmt
D6 Hours on CPR Agree with CAC Stmt
D7
Verified JAC Pymt with Cancelled Checks
D8 Verified CAC Pymt with Cancelled Checks
D9 Apprentices Registered with State of CA
D10 Employed/Trained Apprentices @ Rqd Ratio
D11

E TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE YES NO N/A S/R
E1 Complied with Travel/Subsistence Rqmts

NAME OF REVIEWER DATE

CHECKLIST
Source Document
265
266
267
268

February 25, 2025

City Council

DATE: February 25, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Councilmember Soheila Bana
Councilmember Doria Robinson
Councilmember Jamelia Brown

Subject:

Presentation and Proclamation Honoring the
Establishment of the Guardians of Justice and
Celebrating the Black Nine
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Black Nine were nine courageous Black officers of
the Richmond Police Department who, in 1968, filed the
first internal lawsuit in a police department in the United States to challenge racial discrimination. Their legal
victory in 1972 not only led to improved treatment of
Black officers in Richmond but also inspired the creation of advocacy groups for Black officers across the country.

Following their victory, they founded the Guardians of
Justice, which remains active today in fighting injustice and supporting underprivileged communities.

This presentation and proclamation honors and
celebrates the contributions to racial justice and equity made by these officers and the officers who followed in their footsteps in the City of Richmond.

AGENDA
REPORT
269

February 25, 2025
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a presentation from The Guardians of Justice
on the history and contributions of the officers from the Black Nine towards advancing civil rights and police
accountability, and PROCLAMATIONS recognizing the
members of the Black Nine - Arthur Johnson, Douglas
Ellison, Harold Redic, Marvin Smith, Michael Nichols,
Ollie Glover, Otis Timmons, Rudolph Johnson, and
Tecumseh "Danny" Nelson - Councilmembers Soheila
Bana (510-672-3490), Doria Robinson (510-620-6568),
and Jamelia Brown (510-412-2050).

DISCUSSION:

In 1968, the Black Nine filed a lawsuit against the Richmond Police Department (RPD) to challenge racial discrimination in hiring, assignments, and promotions. Despite the risks of retaliation, the Black Nine persisted in their fight for justice. Their courage was fueled by the 1968 Richmond uprisings following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., where they witnessed widespread racial profiling, unlawful detention, and police misconduct, particularly in Black neighborhoods like Parchester Village.

The Black Nine include:
 Arthur Johnson
 Douglas Ellison
 Harold Redic
 Marvin Smith
 Michael Nichols
 Ollie Glover
 Otis Timmons
 Rudolph Johnson
 Tecumseh "Danny" Nelson

Following their legal victory in 1972, the Black Nine founded the Guardians of Justice (Black Police Officers’ Association), an organization dedicated to fighting injustice and supporting underprivileged communities. The Guardians of Justice continue to be a voice for equity in law enforcement and serve as a bridge between the Richmond Police Department and the community.

The legacy of change remains especially today, with the Richmond Police Department Chief of Police, Bisa French. Chief French, a member of the Guardians of Justice, exemplifies the progress made within the RPD, and her leadership is reflective of the systemic change that the Black Nine inspired.

This proclamation celebrates the contribution to racial justice made by those officers and the officers who follow in their footsteps in the City of Richmond.

270

February 25, 2025
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Presentation from the Guardians of Justice Attachment 2 – Proclamations for the Black Nine (Arthur Johnson, Douglas Ellison, Harold Redic, Marvin Smith, Michael Nichols, Ollie Glover, Otis Timmons, Rudolph Johnson and Tecumseh "Danny" Nelson)
Attachment 3 – Black Nine/Guardians of Justice History [Excerpts from the autobiography of former Alameda County Judge Henry Ramsey Jr., The Life Story of Henry Ramsey Jr: An Autobiography (Self-published, 2008)]

271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284

Proclamation Honoring Harold Redic of the Black Nine for Courageous Leadership and Commitment to Justice WHEREAS, in 1968, amid widespread racial injustice and civil rights struggles, nine courageous Black officers of the Richmond Police Department, later known as the Black Nine, took a historic stand against racial discrimination by exposing and challenging police brutality, racial profiling, and systemic inequities within the department; and
WHEREAS their decision to file a formal complaint and lawsuit against the Richmond Police Department made history as the first internal lawsuit within a police department in the United States to challenge discrimination against Bl ack officers and police brutality towards residents of Richmond, setting a precedent for law enforcement reform nationwide; and WHEREAS, their courage was fueled by the 1968 Richmond uprisings following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., where they witnessed officers engaging in unjustified detentions, beatings, and unlawful conduct —particularly targeting Black men and youth, including in historically Black neighborhoods such as Parchester Village, where residents had long faced racial profiling and over-policing; and

WHEREAS, while the Black Nine faced significant resistance and retaliation for their stand against discrimina tion, they were also supported by some white officers within the Richmond Police Department who recognized the injustice and stood in solidarity with them, demonstrating that the fight for fairness and accountability in law enforcement was not solely a racial issue but a broader struggle for justice and institutional integrity; and WHEREAS the Black Nine initially sought to resolve these injustices internally by requesting a private meeting with Police Chief Robert Murphy and his command staff to name specific officers and report their misconduct, but their concerns were dismissed, leading them to take legal action; and
WHEREAS, despite the risks of retaliation, including potential job loss, career setbacks, and threats to their safety, the Black Nine remained steadfast in their pursuit of justice, and in 1972, after four years of legal battles, they won their lawsuit, proving that systemic change within law enforcement was possible; and
WHEREAS, their legal victory helped de -escalate tensions between law enforcement and the Black community in Richmond for a time, but did not fully resolve deep -seated issues within the police department, as evidenced by three subsequent la wsuits filed by Black officers and the emergence of the “Cowboys,” a violent, rogue group of Richmond police officers who engaged in extreme brutality, reinforcing the need for continued vigilance and reform; and

285

WHEREAS, following their victory, the Black Nine established the Guardians of Justice, an organization dedicated to fighting injustice, addressing workplace discrimination, and supporting underprivileged communities, ensuring that their struggle did not en d with their lawsuit but became an ongoing movement for equity and accountability; and WHEREAS, their courage and leadership inspired Black police officers across the country to form similar advocacy groups, leading to the creation of organizations such as the National Black Police Association and other minority law enforcement associations advocating for fairness, representation, and accountability in policing; and
WHEREAS, Judge Henry Ramsey Jr., a highly respected civil rights attorney and Alameda County Superior Court Judge, defined the Black Nine as “heroes” for their courage in standing against injustice within law enforcement, recognizing their sacrifice and unwavering commitment to justice as an example for future generations; and WHEREAS, while challenges persist, the presence of Bisa French as Richmond’s current Police Chief, a Black woman and a member of the Guardians of Justice , stands as a testament to the progress made within the Richmond Police Department. Her leadership reflects ho w far the department has come, and we affirm that it marks a major step toward systemic change within RPD, eliminating racial tensions and discrimination both within the department and in its interactions with the community; and
WHEREAS, let the legacy of the Black Nine serve as a beacon of courage, inspiring others to come forward and stand against injustice and discrimination, ensuring that their bravery continues to pave the way for accountability, fairness, and equality in all institutions; and WHEREAS, Harold Redic , as a member of the Black Nine, played a pivotal role in this movement, demonstrating extraordinary bravery, dedication to fairness, and an unwavering commitment to public service, paving the way for greater equity in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, Harold Redic continued their lifelong commitment to justice beyond their role as an officer, serving as a mentor, advocate, and leader in the Richmond community, ensuring that future generations benefit from their sacrifices and achievements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City of Richmond hereby honors and commemorates Harold Redic for their historic contributions to racial justice, police accountability, and community empowerment. Their legacy stands as a testament to the power of courage, collective action, and resilience in the face of adversity.

___________________________ ___________________________ Mayor Eduardo Martinez Councilmember Soheila Bana City of Richmond District 4 February 25, 2025

___________________________ ___________________________ Councilmember Doria Robinson Councilmember Jamelia Brown District 3 District 1

___________________________
Councilmember Cesar Zepeda
District 2

286

Proclamation Honoring Arthur Johnson of the Black Nine for Courageous Leadership and Commitment to Justice WHEREAS, in 1968, amid widespread racial injustice and civil rights struggles, nine courageous Black officers of the Richmond Police Department—later known as the Black Nine, took a historic stand against racial discrimination by exposing and challenging police brutality, racial profiling, and systemic inequities within the department; and
WHEREAS their decision to file a formal complaint and lawsuit against the Richmond Police Department made history as the first internal lawsuit within a police department in the United States to challenge discrimination against Bla ck officers and police brutality towards residents of Richmond, setting a precedent for law enforcement reform nationwide; and WHEREAS, their courage was fueled by the 1968 Richmond uprisings following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., where they witnessed officers engaging in unjustified detentions, beatings, and unlawful conduct —particularly targeting Black men and youth, including in historically Black neighborhoods such as Parchester Village, where residents had long faced racial profiling and over-policing; and

WHEREAS, while the Black Nine faced significant resistance and retaliation for their stand against discrimina tion, they were also supported by some white officers within the Richmond Police Department who recognized the injustice and stood in solidarity with them, demonstrating that the fight for fairness and accountability in law enforcement was not solely a racial issue but a broader struggle for justice and institutional integrity; and WHEREAS the Black Nine initially sought to resolve these injustices internally by requesting a private meeting with Police Chief Robert Murphy and his command staff to name specific officers and report their misconduct, but their concerns were dismissed, leading them to take legal action; and
WHEREAS, despite the risks of retaliation, including potential job loss, career setbacks, and threats to their safety, the Black Nine remain ed steadfast in their pursuit of justice, and in 1972, after four years of legal battles, they won their lawsuit, proving that systemic change within law enforcement was possible; and
WHEREAS, their legal victory helped de -escalate tensions between law enforcement and the Black community in Richmond for a time, but did not fully resolve deep -seated issues within the police department, as evidenced by three subsequent lawsuits filed by Black officers and the emergence of the “Cowboys,” a violent, rogue group of Richmond police officers who engaged in extreme brutality, reinforcing the need for continued vigilance and reform; and

287

WHEREAS, following their victory, the Black Nine established the Guardians of Justice, an organization dedicated to fighting injustice, addressing workplace discrimination, and supporting underprivileged communities, ensuring that their struggle did not end with their lawsuit but became an ongoing movement for equity and accountability; and WHEREAS, their courage and leadership inspired Black police officers across the country to form similar advocacy groups, leading to the creation of organizations such as the National Black Police Association and other minority law enforcement asso ciations advocating for fairness, representation, and accountability in policing; and
WHEREAS, Judge Henry Ramsey Jr., a highly respected civil rights attorney and Alameda County Superior Court Judge, defined the Black Nine as “heroes” for their courage in standing against injustice within law enforcement, recognizing their sacrifice and unwavering commitment to justice as an example for future generations; and WHEREAS, while challenges persist, the presence of Bisa French as Richmond’s current Police Chief, a Black woman and a member of the Guardians of Justice , stands as a testament to the progress made within the Richmond Police Department. Her leadership reflects how far the department has come, and we affirm that it marks a major st ep toward systemic change within RPD, eliminating racial tensions and discrimination both within the department and in its interactions with the community; and
WHEREAS, let the legacy of the Black Nine serve as a beacon of courage, inspiring others to come forward and stand against injustice and discrimination, ensuring that their bravery continues to pave the way for accountability, fairness, and equality in all institutions; and WHEREAS, Arthur Johnson , as a member of the Black Nine, played a pivotal role in this movement, demonstrating extraordinary bravery, dedication to fairness, and an unwavering commitment to public service, paving the way for greater equity in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, Arthur Johnson continued their lifelong commitment to justice beyond their role as an officer, serving as a mentor, advocate, and leader in the Richmond community, ensuring that future generations benefit from their sacrifices and achievements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City of Richmond hereby honors and commemorates Arthur Johnson for their historic contributions to racial justice, police accountability, and community empowerment. Their legacy stands as a testament to the power of courage, collective action, and resilience in the face of adversity.

___________________________ ___________________________ Mayor Eduardo Martinez Councilmember Soheila Bana City of Richmond District 4 February 25, 2025

___________________________ ___________________________ Councilmember Doria Robinson Councilmember Jamelia Brown District 3 District 1

___________________________
Councilmember Cesar Zepeda
District 2

288

Proclamation Honoring Douglas Ellison of the Black Nine for Courageous Leadership and Commitment to Justice WHEREAS, in 1968, amid widespread racial injustice and civil rights struggles, nine courageous Black officers of the Richmond Police Department—later known as the Black Nine, took a historic stand against racial discrimination by exposing and challenging police brutality, racial profiling, and systemic inequities within the department; and
WHEREAS their decision to file a formal complaint and lawsuit against the Richmond Police Department made history as the first internal lawsuit within a police department in the United States to challenge discrimination against Bla ck officers and police brutality towards residents of Richmond, setting a precedent for law enforcement reform nationwide; and WHEREAS, their courage was fueled by the 1968 Richmond uprisings following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., where they witnessed officers engaging in unjustified detentions, beatings, and unlawful conduct —particularly targeting Black men and youth, including in historically Black neighborhoods such as Parchester Village, where residents had long faced racial profiling and over-policing; and

WHEREAS, while the Black Nine faced significant resistance and retaliation for their stand against discrimina tion, they were also supported by some white officers within the Richmond Police Department who recognized the injustice and stood in solidarity with them, demonstrating that the fight for fairness and accountability in law enforcement was not solely a racial issue but a broader struggle for justice and institutional integrity; and WHEREAS the Black Nine initially sought to resolve these injustices internally by requesting a private meeting with Police Chief Robert Murphy and his command staff to name specific officers and report their misconduct, but their concerns were dismissed, leading them to take legal action; and
WHEREAS, despite the risks of retaliation —including potential job loss, career setbacks, and threats to their safety, the Black Nine remaine d steadfast in their pursuit of justice, and in 1972, after four years of legal battles, they won their lawsuit, proving that systemic change within law enforcement was possible; and
WHEREAS, their legal victory helped de -escalate tensions between law enfo rcement and the Black community in Richmond for a time, but did not fully resolve deep -seated issues within the police department, as evidenced by three subsequent lawsuits filed by Black officers and the emergence of the “Cowboys,” a violent, rogue group of Richmond police officers who engaged in extreme brutality, reinforcing the need for continued vigilance and reform; and

289

WHEREAS, following their victory, the Black Nine established the Guardians of Justice, an organization dedicated to fighting injustice, addressing workplace discrimination, and supporting underprivileged communities, ensuring that their struggle did not end with their lawsuit but became an ongoing movement for equity and accountability; and WHEREAS, their courage and leadership inspired Black police officers across the country to form similar advocacy groups, leading to the creation of organizations such as the National Black Police Association and other minority law enforcement associations advocating for fairness, representation, and accountability in policing; and
WHEREAS, Judge Henry Ramsey Jr., a highly respected civil rights attorney and Alameda County Superior Court Judge, defined the Black Nine as “heroes” for their courage in standing against injustice within law enforcement, recognizing their sacrifice and unwavering commitment to justice as an example for future generations; and WHEREAS, while challenges persist, the presence of Bisa French as Richmond’s current Police Chief, a Black woman and a member of the Guardians of Justice , stands as a testament to the progress made within the Richmond Police Department. Her leadership reflects how far the department has come, and we affirm that it marks a major st ep toward systemic change within RPD, eliminating racial tensions and discrimination both within the department and in its interactions with the community; and
WHEREAS, let the legacy of the Black Nine serve as a beacon of courage, inspiring others to come forward and stand against injustice and discrimination, ensuring that their bravery continues to pave the way for accountability, fairness, and equality in all institutions; and WHEREAS, Douglas Ellison, as a member of the Black Nine, played a pivotal rol e in this movement, demonstrating extraordinary bravery, dedication to fairness, and an unwavering commitment to public service, paving the way for greater equity in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, Douglas Ellison continued their lifelong commitment to justi ce beyond their role as an officer, serving as a mentor, advocate, and leader in the Richmond community, ensuring that future generations benefit from their sacrifices and achievements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City of Richmond hereby honors and commemorates Douglas Ellison for their historic contributions to racial justice, police accountability, and community empowerment. Their legacy stands as a testament to the power of courage, collective action, and resilience in the face of adversity.

___________________________ ___________________________ Mayor Eduardo Martinez Councilmember Soheila Bana City of Richmond District 4 February 25, 2025

___________________________ ___________________________ Councilmember Doria Robinson Councilmember Jamelia Brown District 3 District 1

___________________________
Councilmember Cesar Zepeda
District 2

290

Proclamation Honoring Michael Nichols of the Black Nine for Courageous Leadership and Commitment to Justice WHEREAS, in 1968, amid widespread racial injustice and civil rights struggles, nine courageous Black officers of the Richmond Police Department, later known as the Black Nine, took a historic stand against racial discrimination by exposing and challenging police brutality, racial profiling, and systemic inequities within the department; and
WHEREAS their decision to file a formal complaint and lawsuit against the Richmond Police Department made history as the first internal lawsuit within a police department in the United States to challenge discrimination against Bl ack officers and police brutality towards residents of Richmond, setting a precedent for law enforcement reform nationwide; and WHEREAS, their courage was fueled by the 1968 Richmond uprisings following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., where they witnessed officers engaging in unjustified detentions, beatings, and unlawful conduct particularly targeting Black men and youth, including in historically Black neighborhoods such as Parchester Village, where residents had long faced racial profiling and over-policing; and

WHEREAS, while the Black Nine faced significant resistance and retaliation for their stand against discrimina tion, they were also supported by some white officers within the Richmond Police Department who recognized the injustice and stood in solidarity with them, demonstrating that the fight for fairness and accountability in law enforcement was not solely a racial issue but a broader struggle for justice and institutional integrity; and WHEREAS the Black Nine initially sought to resolve these injustices internally by requesting a private meeting with Police Chief Robert Murphy and his command staff to name specific officers and report their misconduct, but their concerns were dismissed, leading them to take legal action; and
WHEREAS, despite the risks of retaliation, including potential job loss, career setbacks, and threats to their safety, the Black Nine remain ed steadfast in their pursuit of justice, and in 1972, after four years of legal battles, they won their lawsuit, proving that systemic change within law enforcement was possible; and
WHEREAS, their legal victory helped de -escalate tensions between law enforcement and the Black community in Richmond for a time, but did not fully resolve deep -seated issues within the police department, as evidenced by three subsequent lawsuits filed by Black officers and the emergence of the “Cowboys,” a violent, rogue group of Richmond police officers who engaged in extreme brutality, reinforcing the need for continued vigilance and reform; and

291

WHEREAS, following their victory, the Black Nine established the Guardians of Justice, an organization dedicated to fighting injustice, addressing workplace discrimination, and supporting underprivileged communities, ensuring that their struggle did not end with their lawsuit but became an ongoing movement for equity and accountability; and WHEREAS, their courage and leadership inspired Black police officers across the country to form similar advocacy groups, leading to the creation of organizations such as the National Black Police Association and other minority law enforcement associations advocating for fairness, representation, and accountability in policing; and
WHEREAS, Judge Henry Ramsey Jr., a highly respected civil rights attorney and Alameda County Superior Court Judge, defined the Black Nine as “heroes” for their courage in standing against injustice within law enforcement, recognizing their sacrifice and unwavering commitment to justice as an example for future generations; and WHEREAS, while challenges persist, the presence of Bisa French as Richmond’s current Police Chief, a Black woman and a member of the Guardians of Justice , stands as a testament to the progress made within the Richmond Police Department. Her leadership reflects how far the department has come, and we affirm that it marks a major step toward systemic change within RPD, eliminating racial tensions and discrimination both within the department and in its interactions with the community; and
WHEREAS, let the legacy of the Black Nine serve as a beacon of courage, inspiring others to come forward and stand against injustice and discrimination, ensuring that their bravery continues to pave the way for accountability, fairness, and equality in all institutions; and WHEREAS, Michael Nichols, as a member of the Black Nine, played a pivotal role in this movement, demonstrating extraordinary bravery, dedication to fairness, and an unwavering commitment to public service, paving the way for greater equity in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, Michael Nichols continued their lifelong commitment to justice beyond their role as an officer, serving as a mentor, advocate, and leader in the Richmond community, ensuring that future generations benefit from their sacrifices and achievements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City of Richmond hereby honors and commemorates Michael Nichols for their historic contributions to racial just ice, police accountability, and community empowerment. Their legacy stands as a testament to the power of courage, collective action, and resilience in the face of adversity.

___________________________ ___________________________ Mayor Eduardo Martinez Councilmember Soheila Bana City of Richmond District 4 February 25, 2025

___________________________ ___________________________ Councilmember Doria Robinson Councilmember Jamelia Brown District 3 District 1

___________________________
Councilmember Cesar Zepeda
District 2

292

Proclamation Honoring Marvin Smith of the Black Nine for Courageous Leadership and Commitment to Justice WHEREAS, in 1968, amid widespread racial injustice and civil rights struggles, nine courageous Black officers of the Richmond Police Department, later known as the Black Nine, took a historic stand against racial discrimination by exposing and challenging police brutality, racial profiling, and systemic inequities within the department; and
WHEREAS their decision to file a formal complaint and lawsuit against the Richmond Police Department made history as the first internal lawsuit within a police department in the United States to challenge discrimination against Bl ack officers and police brutality towards residents of Richmond, setting a precedent for law enforcement reform nationwide; and WHEREAS, their courage was fueled by the 1968 Richmond uprisings following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., where they witnessed officers engaging in unjustified detentions, beatings, and unlawful conduct —particularly targeting Black men and youth, including in historically Black neighborhoods such as Parchester Village, where residents had long faced racial profiling and over-policing; and

WHEREAS, while the Black Nine faced significant resistance and retaliation for their stand against discrimina tion, they were also supported by some white officers within the Richmond Police Department who recognized the injustice and stood in solidarity with them, demonstrating that the fight for fairness and accountability in law enforcement was not solely a racial issue but a broader struggle for justice and institutional integrity; and WHEREAS the Black Nine initially sought to resolve these injustices internally by requesting a private meeting with Police Chief Robert Murphy and his command staff to name specific officers and report their misconduct, but their concerns were dismissed, leading them to take legal action; and
WHEREAS, despite the risks of retaliation, including potential job loss, career setbacks, and threats to their safety, the Black Nine remain ed steadfast in their pursuit of justice, and in 1972, after four years of legal battles, they won their lawsuit, proving that systemic change within law enforcement was possible; and
WHEREAS, their legal victory helped de -escalate tensions between law enforcement and the Black community in Richmond for a time, but did not fully resolve deep -seated issues within the police department, as evidenced by three subsequent lawsuits filed by Black officers and the emergence of the “Cowboys,” a violent, rogue group of Richmond police officers who engaged in extreme brutality, reinforcing the need for continued vigilance and reform; and

293

WHEREAS, following their victory, the Black Nine established the Guardians of Justice, an organization dedicated to fighting injustice, addressing workplace discrimination, and supporting underprivileged communities, ensuring that their struggle did not end with their lawsuit but became an ongoing movement for equity and accountability; and WHEREAS, their courage and leadership inspired Black police officers across the country to form similar advocacy groups, leading to the creation of organizations such as the National Black Police Association and other minority law enforcement associations advocating for fairness, representation, and accountability in policing; and
WHEREAS, Judge Henry Ramsey Jr., a highly respected civil rights attorney and Alameda County Superior Court Judge, defined the Black Nine as “heroes” for their courage in standing against injustice within law enforcement, recognizing their sacrifice and unwavering commitment to justice as an example for future generations; and WHEREAS, while challenges persist, the presence of Bisa French as Richmond’s current Police Chief, a Black woman and a member of the Guardians of Justice , stands as a testament to the progress made within the Richmond Police Department. Her leadership reflects how far the department has come, and we affirm that it marks a major st ep toward systemic change within RPD, eliminating racial tensions and discrimination both within the department and in its interactions with the community; and
WHEREAS, let the legacy of the Black Nine serve as a beacon of courage, inspiring others to come forward and stand against injustice and discrimination, ensuring that their bravery continues to pave the way for accountability, fairness, and equality in all institutions; and WHEREAS, Marvin Smith , as a member of the Black Nine, played a pivotal role i n this movement, demonstrating extraordinary bravery, dedication to fairness, and an unwavering commitment to public service, paving the way for greater equity in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, Marvin Smith continued their lifelong commitment to justice beyond their role as an officer, serving as a mentor, advocate, and leader in the Richmond community, ensuring that future generations benefit from their sacrifices and achievements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City of Richmond hereby honors and commemorates Marvin Smith for their historic contributions to racial justice, police accountability, and community empowerment. Their legacy stands as a testament to the power of courage, collective action, and resilience in the face of adversity.

___________________________ ___________________________ Mayor Eduardo Martinez Councilmember Soheila Bana City of Richmond District 4 February 25, 2025

___________________________ ___________________________ Councilmember Doria Robinson Councilmember Jamelia Brown District 3 District 1

___________________________
Councilmember Cesar Zepeda
District 2

294

Proclamation Honoring Ollie Glover of the Black Nine for Courageous Leadership and Commitment to Justice WHEREAS, in 1968, amid widespread racial injustice and civil rights struggles, nine courageous Black officers of the Richmond Police Department, later known as the Black Nine, took a historic stand against racial discrimination by exposing and challenging police brutality, racial profiling, and systemic inequities within the department; and
WHEREAS their decision to file a formal complaint and lawsuit against the Richmond Police Department made history as the first internal lawsuit within a police department in the United States to challenge discrimination against Bl ack officers and police brutality towards residents of Richmond, setting a precedent for law enforcement reform nationwide; and WHEREAS, their courage was fueled by the 1968 Richmond uprisings following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., where they witnessed officers engaging in unjustified detentions, beatings, and unlawful conduct , particularly targeting Black men and youth , including in historically Black neighborhoods such as Parchester Village, where residents had long faced racial profiling and over-policing; and

WHEREAS, while the Black Nine faced significant resistance and retaliation for their stand against discrimin ation, they were also supported by some white officers within the Richmond Police Department who recognized the injustice and stood in solidarity with them, demonstrating that the fight for fairness and accountability in law enforcement was not solely a racial issue but a broader struggle for justice and institutional integrity; and WHEREAS the Black Nine initially sought to resolve these injustices internally by requesting a private meeting with Police Chief Robert Murphy and his command staff to name specific officers and report their misconduct, but their concerns were dismissed, leading them to take legal action; and
WHEREAS, despite the risks of retaliation, including potential job loss, career setbacks, and threats to their safety, the Black Nine remai ned steadfast in their pursuit of justice, and in 1972, after four years of legal battles, they won their lawsuit, proving that systemic change within law enforcement was possible; and
WHEREAS, their legal victory helped de -escalate tensions between law enforcement and the Black community in Richmond for a time, but did not fully resolve deep -seated issues within the police department, as evidenced by three subsequent lawsuits filed by Black officers and the emergence of the “Cowboys,” a violent, rogue group of Richmond police officers who engaged in extreme brutality, reinforcing the need for continued vigilance and reform; and

295

WHEREAS, following their victory, the Black Nine established the Guardians of Justice, an organization dedicated to fighting injustice, addressing workplace discrimination, and supporting underprivileged communities, ensuring that their struggle did not end with their lawsuit but became an ongoing movement for equity and accountability; and WHEREAS, their courage and leadership inspired Black police officers across the country to form similar advocacy groups, leading to the creation of organizations such as the National Black Police Association and other minority law enforcement associations advocating for fairness, representation, and accountability in policing; and
WHEREAS, Judge Henry Ramsey Jr., a highly respected civil rights attorney and Alameda County Superior Court Judge, defined the Black Nine as “heroes” for their courage in standing against injustice within law enforcement, recognizing their sacrifice and unwavering commitment to justice as an example for future generations; and WHEREAS, while challenges persist, the presence of Bisa French as Richmond’s current Police Chief, a Black woman and a member of the Guardians of Justice , stands as a testament to the progress made within the Richmond Police Department. Her leadership reflects how far the department has come, and we affirm that it marks a major step toward systemic change within RPD, eliminating racial tensions and discrimination both within the department and in its interactions with the community; and
WHEREAS, let the legacy of the Black Nine serve as a beacon of courage, inspiring others to come forward and stand against injustice and discrimination, ensuring that their bravery continues to pave the way for accountability, fairness, and equality in all institutions; and WHEREAS, Ollie Glover , as a member of the Black Nine, played a pivotal role in this movement, demonstrating extraordinary bravery, dedication to fairness, and an unwavering commitment to public service, paving the way for greater equity in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, Ollie Glover continued their lifelong commitment to justice beyond their role as an officer, serving as a mentor, advocate, and leader in the Richmond community, ensuring that future generations benefit from their sacrifices and achievements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City of Richmond hereby honors and commemorates Ollie Glover for their historic contributions to racial justice, police accountability, and community empowerment. Their legacy stands as a testament to the power of courage, collective action, and resilience in the face of adversity.

___________________________ ___________________________ Mayor Eduardo Martinez Councilmember Soheila Bana City of Richmond District 4 February 25, 2025

___________________________ ___________________________ Councilmember Doria Robinson Councilmember Jamelia Brown District 3 District 1

___________________________
Councilmember Cesar Zepeda
District 2

296

Proclamation Honoring Otis Timmons of the Black Nine for Courageous Leadership and Commitment to Justice WHEREAS, in 1968, amid widespread racial injustice and civil rights struggles, nine courageous Black officers of the Richmond Police Department, later known as the Black Nine, took a historic stand against racial discrimination by exposing and challenging police brutality, racial profiling, and systemic inequities within the department; and
WHEREAS their decision to file a formal complaint and lawsuit against the Richmond Police Department made history as the first internal lawsuit within a police department in the United States to challenge discrimination against Bl ack officers and police brutality towards residents of Richmond, setting a precedent for law enforcement reform nationwide; and WHEREAS, their courage was fueled by the 1968 Richmond uprisings following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., where they witnessed officers engaging in unjustified detentions, beatings, and unlawful conduct , particularly targeting Black men and youth , including in historically Black neighborhoods such as Parchester Village, where residents had long faced racial profiling and over-policing; and

WHEREAS, while the Black Nine faced significant resistance and retaliation for their stand against discrimin ation, they were also supported by some white officers within the Richmond Police Department who recognized the injustice and stood in solidarity with them, demonstrating that the fight for fairness and accountability in law enforcement was not solely a racial issue but a broader struggle for justice and institutional integrity; and WHEREAS the Black Nine initially sought to resolve these injustices internally by requesting a private meeting with Police Chief Robert Murphy and his command staff to name specific officers and report their misconduct, but their concerns were dismissed, leading them to take legal action; and
WHEREAS, despite the risks of retaliation, including potential job loss, career setbacks, and threats to their safety, the Black Nine remai ned steadfast in their pursuit of justice, and in 1972, after four years of legal battles, they won their lawsuit, proving that systemic change within law enforcement was possible; and
WHEREAS, their legal victory helped de -escalate tensions between law enforcement and the Black community in Richmond for a time, but did not fully resolve deep -seated issues within the police department, as evidenced by three subsequent lawsuits filed by Black officers and the emergence of the “Cowboys,” a violent, rogue group of Richmond police officers who engaged in extreme brutality, reinforcing the need for continued vigilance and reform; and

297

WHEREAS, following their victory, the Black Nine established the Guardians of Justice, an organization dedicated to fighting injustice, addressing workplace discrimination, and supporting underprivileged communities, ensuring that their struggle did not end with their lawsuit but became an ongoing movement for equity and accountability; and WHEREAS, their courage and leadership inspired Black police officers across the country to form similar advocacy groups, leading to the creation of organizations such as the National Black Police Association and other minority law enforcement associations advocating for fairness, representation, and accountability in policing; and
WHEREAS, Judge Henry Ramsey Jr., a highly respected civil rights attorney and Alameda County Superior Court Judge, defined the Black Nine as “heroes” for their courage in standing against injustice within law enforcement, recognizing their sacrifice and unwavering commitment to justice as an example for future generations; and WHEREAS, while challenges persist, the presence of Bisa French as Richmond’s current Police Chief, a Black woman and a member of the Guardians of Justice , stands as a testament to the progress made within the Richmond Police Department. Her leadership reflects how far the department has come, and we affirm that it marks a major st ep toward systemic change within RPD, eliminating racial tensions and discrimination both within the department and in its interactions with the community; and
WHEREAS, let the legacy of the Black Nine serve as a beacon of courage, inspiring others to come forward and stand against injustice and discrimination, ensuring that their bravery continues to pave the way for accountability, fairness, and equality in all institutions; and WHEREAS, Otis Timmons , as a member of the Black Nine, played a pivotal role i n this movement, demonstrating extraordinary bravery, dedication to fairness, and an unwavering commitment to public service, paving the way for greater equity in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, Otis Timmons continued their lifelong commitment to justice beyond their role as an officer, serving as a mentor, advocate, and leader in the Richmond community, ensuring that future generations benefit from their sacrifices and achievements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City of Richmond hereby honors and commemorates Otis Timmons for their historic contributions to racial justice, police accountability, and community empowerment. Their legacy stands as a testament to the power of courage, collective action, and resilience in the face of adversity.

___________________________ ___________________________ Mayor Eduardo Martinez Councilmember Soheila Bana City of Richmond District 4 February 25, 2025

___________________________ ___________________________ Councilmember Doria Robinson Councilmember Jamelia Brown District 3 District 1

___________________________
Councilmember Cesar Zepeda
District 2

298

Proclamation Honoring Rudolph Johnson of the Black Nine for Courageous Leadership and Commitment to Justice WHEREAS, in 1968, amid widespread racial injustice and civil rights struggles, nine courageous Black officers of the Richmond Police Department, later known as the Black Nine, took a historic stand against racial discrimination by exposing and challenging police brutality, racial profiling, and systemic inequities within the department; and
WHEREAS their decision to file a formal complaint and lawsuit against the Richmond Police Department made history as the first internal lawsuit within a police department in the United States to challenge discrimination against Bl ack officers and police brutality towards residents of Richmond, setting a precedent for law enforcement reform nationwide; and WHEREAS, their courage was fueled by the 1968 Richmond uprisings following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., where they witnessed officers engaging in unjustified detentions, beatings, and unlawful conduct, particularly targeting Black men and youth , including in historically Black neighborhoods such as Parchester Village, where residents had long faced racial profiling and over-policing; and

WHEREAS, while the Black Nine faced significant resistance and retaliation for their stand against discrimin ation, they were also supported by some white officers within the Richmond Police Department who recognized the injustice and stood in solidarity with them, demonstrating that the fight for fairness and accountability in law enforcement was not solely a racial issue but a broader struggle for justice and institutional integrity; and WHEREAS the Black Nine initially sought to resolve these injustices internally by requesting a private meeting with Police Chief Robert Murphy and his command staff to name specific officers and report their misconduct, but their concerns were dismissed, leading them to take legal action; and
WHEREAS, despite the risks of retaliation, including potential job loss, career setbacks, and threats to their safety, the Black Nine remai ned steadfast in their pursuit of justice, and in 1972, after four years of legal battles, they won their lawsuit, proving that systemic change within law enforcement was possible; and
WHEREAS, their legal victory helped de -escalate tensions between law enforcement and the Black community in Richmond for a time, but did not fully resolve deep -seated issues within the police department, as evidenced by three subsequent lawsuits filed by Black officers and the emergence of the “Cowboys,” a violent, rogue group of Richmond police officers who engaged in extreme brutality, reinforcing the need for continued vigilance and reform; and

299

WHEREAS, following their victory, the Black Nine established the Guardians of Justice, an organization dedicated to fighting injustice, addressing workplace discrimination, and supporting underprivileged communities, ensuring that their struggle did not end with their lawsuit but became an ongoing movement for equity and accountability; and WHEREAS, their courage and leadership inspired Black police officers across the country to form similar advocacy groups, leading to the creation of organizations such as the National Black Police Association and other minority law enforcement associations advocating for fairness, representation, and accountability in policing; and
WHEREAS, Judge Henry Ramsey Jr., a highly respected civil rights attorney and Alameda County Superior Court Judge, defined the Black Nine as “heroes” for their courage in standing against injustice within law enforcement, recognizing their sacrifice and unwavering commitment to justice as an example for future generations; and WHEREAS, while challenges persist, the presence of Bisa French as Richmond’s current Police Chief, a Black woman and a member of the Guardians of Justice , stands as a testament to the progress made within the Richmond Police Department. Her leadership reflects how far the department has come, and we affirm that it marks a major step toward systemic change within RPD, eliminating racial tensions and discrimination both within the department and i n its interactions with the community; and
WHEREAS, let the legacy of the Black Nine serve as a beacon of courage, inspiring others to come forward and stand against injustice and discrimination, ensuring that their bravery continues to pave the way for accountability, fairness, and equality in all institutions; and WHEREAS, Rudolph Johnson, as a member of the Black Nine, played a pivotal role in this movement, demonstrating extraordinary bravery, dedication to fairness, and an unwavering commitment to public service, paving the way for greater equity in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, Rudolph Johnson continued their lifelong commitment to justice beyond their role as an officer, serving as a mentor, advocate, and leader in the Richmond community, ensuring that future generations benefit from their sacrifices and achievements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City of Richmond hereby honors and commemorates Rudolph Johnson for their historic contributions to racial justice, police accountability, and community empowerment. Their legacy stands as a testament to the power of courage, collective action, and resilience in the face of adversity.

___________________________ ___________________________ Mayor Eduardo Martinez Councilmember Soheila Bana City of Richmond District 4 February 25, 2025

___________________________ ___________________________ Councilmember Doria Robinson Councilmember Jamelia Brown District 3 District 1

___________________________
Councilmember Cesar Zepeda
District 2

300

Proclamation Honoring Tecumseh “Danny” Nelson of the Black Nine for Courageous Leadership and Commitment to Justice WHEREAS, in 1968, amid widespread racial injustice and civil rights struggles, nine courageous Black officers of the Richmond Police Department, later known as the Black Nine, took a historic stand against racial discrimination by exposing and challenging police brutality, racial profiling, and systemic inequities within the department; and
WHEREAS their decision to file a formal complaint and lawsuit against the Richmond Police Department made history as the first internal lawsuit within a police department in the United States to challenge discrimination aga inst Black officers and police brutality towards residents of Richmond, setting a precedent for law enforcement reform nationwide; and WHEREAS, their courage was fueled by the 1968 Richmond uprisings following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., where they witnessed officers engaging in unjustified detentions, beatings, and unlawful conduct —particularly targeting Black men and youth, including in historically Black neighborhoods such as Parchester Village, where residents had long faced racial profiling and over-policing; and

WHEREAS, while the Black Nine faced significant resistance and retaliation for their stand against discrimina tion, they were also supported by some white officers within the Richmond Police Department who recognized the injustice and stood in solidarity with them, demonstrating that the fight for fairness and accountability in law enforcement was not solely a racial issue but a broader struggle for justice and institutional integrity; and WHEREAS the Black Nine initially sought to resolve these injustices internally by requesting a private meeting with Police Chief Robert Murphy and his command staff to name specific officers and report their misconduct, but their concerns were dismissed, leading them to take legal action; and
WHEREAS, despite the risks of retaliation, including potential job loss, career setbacks, and threats to their safety, the Black Nine remain ed steadfast in their pursuit of justice, and in 1972, after four years of legal battles, they won their lawsuit, proving that systemic change within law enforcement was possible; and
WHEREAS, their legal victory helped de -escalate tensions between law enforcement and the Black community in Richmond for a time, but did not fully resolve deep -seated issues within the police department, as evidenced by three subsequent lawsuits filed by Black officers and the emergence of the “Cowboys,” a violent, rogue group of Richmond police officers who engaged in extreme brutality, reinforcing the need for continued vigilance and reform; and

301

WHEREAS, following their victory, the Black Nine established the Guardians of Justice, an organization dedicated to fighting injustice, addressing workplace discrimination, and supporting underprivileged communities, ensuring that their struggle did not end with their lawsuit but became an ongoing movement for equity and accountability; and WHEREAS, their courage and leadership inspired Black police officers across the country to form similar advocacy groups, leading to the creation of organizations such as the National Black Police Association and other minority law enforcement associations advocating for fairness, representation, and accountability in policing; and
WHEREAS, Judge Henry Ramsey Jr., a highly respected civil rights attorney and Alameda County Superior Court Judge, defined the Black Nine as “heroes” for their courage in standing against injustice within law enforcement, recognizing their sacrifice and unwavering commitment to justice as an example for future generations; and WHEREAS, while challenges persist, the presence of Bisa French as Richmond’s current Police Chief, a Black woman and a member of the Guardians of Justice , stands as a testament to the progress made within the Richmond Police Department. Her leadership reflects how far the department has come, and we affirm that it marks a major st ep toward systemic change within RPD, eliminating racial tensions and discrimination both within the department and in its interactions with the community; and
WHEREAS, let the legacy of the Black Nine serve as a beacon of courage, inspiring others to come forward and stand against injustice and discrimination, ensuring that their bravery continues to pave the way for accountability, fairness, and equality in all institutions; and WHEREAS, Tecumseh “Danny” Nelson, as a member of the Black Nine, played a pivotal role in this movement, demonstrating extraordinary bravery, dedication to fairness, and an unwavering commitment to public service, paving the way for greater equity in law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, Tecumseh “Danny” Nelson continued their lifelong commitment to justice beyond their role as an officer, serving as a mentor, advocate, and leader in the Richmond community, ensuring that future generations benefit from their sacrifices and achievements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City of Richmond hereby honors and commemorates Tecumseh “Danny” Nelson for their historic contributions to racial justice, police accountability, and community empowerment. Their legacy stands as a testament to the power of courage, collective action, and resilience in the face of adversity.

___________________________ ___________________________ Mayor Eduardo Martinez Councilmember Soheila Bana City of Richmond District 4 February 25, 2025

___________________________ ___________________________ Councilmember Doria Robinson Councilmember Jamelia Brown District 3 District 1

___________________________
Councilmember Cesar Zepeda
District 2

302

BLACK NINE / GUARDIANS OF JUSTICE HISTORY
Excerpts from the autobiography of former Alameda County Judge Henry Ramsey Jr., The Life Story of Henry Ramsey Jr: An Autobiography (Self-published, 2008).

Judge Ramsey provided legal counsel for the Black Nine and the Guardians of Justice, documenting their courageous battle for justice in the City of Richmond. ______________________________________________________________________________

Black Police Officers of Richmond, California

Excessive use of force by police officers has been a source of distress for the black community for well over a century. But rarely are police officers, black or white, willing to stand up and be counted by publicly naming fellow officers who engage in such improper and unlawful conduct.

As I began writing this section in 2003, a criminal trial known as the Riders case had just concluded in the Alameda County Superior Court. It involved three Oakland police sergeants being tried "on criminal charges that they abused and framed suspected drug dealers in a conspiracy to obstruct justice." The case was triggered when Keith Batt, a rookie Caucasian Oakland police officer, resigned from the department immediately after telling his police superiors that he had observed officers responsible for his training "[beat] people or [plant drugs on them, then [fabricate] reports to cover their tracks." An internal departmental investigation of Batt's allegations resulted in the accused officers being fired and subjected to criminal prosecution.

The Riders case ended in a mistrial after the jury, on Tuesday, September 30, 2003, returned verdicts of acquittal on eight of the 35 charges against the accused officers but were unable to agree on unanimous verdicts concerning the other 27 counts. The case was then re-filed, and a second criminal jury trial commenced on November 1, 2004. That jury was unable to achieve a unanimous verdict on any of the counts, and the charges were later dismissed by the district attorney of Alameda County, At the least, however, rookie Keith Batt's courageous action brought the issue to public attention.

I cite the Riders case as backdrop for an even more extraordinary chain of events 35 years before. In 1968, nine black Richmond, California police officers took the unprecedented action of telling then Police Chief Robert Murphy that a significant number of sworn officers within the Richmond Police Department were regularly engaging in unlawful acts including illegal detentions and arrests, beatings, and unjustified verbal abuse. These observed acts of police misconduct had been committed largely by white officers and directed primarily against black young adult males.

The nine informing black officers were: Douglas L. Ellison, Sergeant, age 44; Ollie Sylvester Glover, patrolman, age 30; Lee Arthur Johnson, patrolman, age 31; Rudolph Johnson, patrolman, age 32; Tecumsch "Danny" Nelson, patrolman, age 31;" Michael 303
Nichols, patrolman, age 29; Harold Redic, patrolman, age 29, Marvin Richard Smith, patrolman, age 27; and Otis Timmons Jr., patrolman, age 27.

Each of those officers had observed serious misconduct by other sworn officers (including sergeants) since being hired as members of the Richmond P.D. The officers who became informants had for some time been talking among themselves about their personal observations of police brutality and other forms of misconduct by Richmond police officers. They sincerely wanted to take concrete action to address this issue and to bring about positive change within the department.

At the time there were approximately 150 sworn officers in the department. The nine black officers constituted 90 percent of the sworn black officers then on the force. Andrew Pringle, patrolman, was the one other black officer at that time, but he was a recent hire and was still on probation. The nine protesting black officers had permanent employment status and could be fired only for cause. They felt that Pringle should not risk almost certain loss of employment by making what would certainly be a controversial claim of police brutality against other officers within the department." They might have also thought that his testimony wouldn't have been so valuable as to risk his career. He would only have been able to testify about what had happened in the months he had been there, whereas the other nine could testify that the behavior had been going on for years.

The black officers' first collective action after informing Police Chief Robert Murphy about their area of concern was to request a private, confidential meeting with Murphy and his captains for the purpose of providing specific and detailed information about their observations of police misconduct. The officers asked that the requested informal meeting with Chief Murphy be limited to just him and his four captains because they intended to name not only patrolmen but also lieutenants and sergeants, and to provide details about each named person's misconduct.

In retrospect, one can see that they-I suppose I should say we-were somewhat naive in thinking that a matter of such magnitude would be acknowledged by the chief and effectively addressed within the department. That would have been a tacit admission by the chief and his command staff that sworn officers had been regularly engaging in unrestrained racist conduct without the police leadership having done anything meaningful to stop it. Naive or not, those mostly young black officers hoped that the matter could be resolved within the department.

Chief Murphy's response was that he would "not meet with a delegation of black officers." After receiving legal counsel, the officers then made a formal written request for a meeting with the chief and the four police captains, and a meeting was scheduled by the chief's office. The black officers thought that their request for a private meeting with only the chief and the four police captains had been granted and that it would be held in the chief's office at police headquarters.

But when the officers arrived for the meeting, they were for the first time told that the meeting would not be held in the chief's office but downstairs in the much larger Civil Defense Room.

They were next advised that lieutenants and sergeants would also be present and would participate in the meeting. It was the black officers' unanimous view that they had been deceived and that the chief had broken his word. They remain convinced, even today, that Chief Murphy and his command officers believed that the nine black officers would be intimidated in this open 304
and broader setting and would be afraid to provide specific information about the police brutality charges previously disclosed to the chief in private.

The curve thrown by the chief served only to unity and strengthen the group. In the downstairs meeting room, each black officer looked those present in the eye, named names, and candidly described specific acts of brutality and other misconduct he had observed since being hired as a member of the Richmond Police Department. The chief, captains, lieutenants, and sergeants were astonished that Sergeant Douglas Ellison was an active participant in this protest action.

One would have to know Doug Ellison to appreciate how unsettling it must have been for those white officers to hear and see him take what, by any measure then and now, was a strikingly militant stand.

Doug had once been a very good prizefighter, but he was also a particularly quiet person and usually had very little to say. Until that occasion, he had always been moderate in his rarely expressed comments concerning race relations. One of the first black police officers hired in the city of Richmond, he was now a 44-year-old sergeant-indeed, the only black police officer in Contra Costa County above the rank of patrolman, and had been on the Richmond force long enough to qualify for his retirement pension. In other words, he had a great deal to lose in joining this protest with the eight other black officers.

Doug had to have been viewed by white people as a "good Negro," one who was not a "troublemaker" and who was not subject to influence from "outside agitators." White police officers who knew and worked with him probably assumed Doug would agree with them that race relations within the Richmond Police Department, while not perfect, were pretty good, and that substantial progress between blacks and whites in Richmond had been made since he had joined the force.

They certainly would not have expected him to speak out about or accuse any of his fellow officers of any form of racist behavior. The older black officers at the meeting said the white officers were truly shocked
when Sergeant Douglas Ellison spoke up, described specific incidents, and named names.

The primary catalyst for the brave actions of those black Richmond police officers was the June 25-July 2, 1968, riots in Richmond, California, that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

Dr. King was shot to death on April 4, 1968, while standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. Almost immediately, angry protests erupted in many cities throughout the United States. In California, riots were expected in Oakland as a consequence of Dr. King's assassination but did not occur there. Riots were not expected in nearby Richmond but did occur there. The Richmond riots were of such intensity and magnitude that mutual aid pacts with police departments in several nearby communities were invoked. Unlike the Richmond Police Department, those departments were composed totally or almost totally of white personnel.

Several of the black officers shared with me various experiences that led to their taking action.

Marvin Smith told me that he was particularly offended by comments he heard from a white 305
officer from the Walnut Creek Police Department. The officer said that shooting at and thumping black suspects was his first opportunity "to do real police work." As already stated, Doug Ellison was one of Richmond's first black police officers and the first and only black sergeant. As Ollie Glover later recalled, Sergeant Ellison saw two white patrolmen engaging in unprofessional conduct while on patrol in Parchester Village, a black Richmond neighborhood, during the riots and ordered them to return to the police station. Glover reported, "The two white officers told Doug he could not tell them what to do."

Ollie also recalled for me an incident in which a black preacher from Marin City was stopped by a squad of 16 officers (four police cars with four officers in each car) and told to get out of his car. The preacher was told that it was unlawful for him to be on the streets after curfew (declared because of the riots). He was thoroughly thumped by some of the officers and told to get back in his automobile and get out
of Richmond. I do not know if those specific incidents were shared with the chief and other white officers at the meeting held in the Civil Defense Room. I assume they were.

With the exception of Marvin Smith, all of Richmond's black officers were assigned to the patrol division at the time of those unlawful events. Nearly all enjoyed excellent relations with the community, especially the black community. Marvin Smith was the department's community relations officer and had especially good rapport with the black community.

But it was the observations by all of the black officers of frequent inappropriate use of force by police officers during the 1968 riots that brought matters to a head. The black officers all decided that something beyond talk was required before the department would confront and eliminate the serious police misconduct they had observed in Richmond before and during the riot. They therefore decided to take the matter to the chief.

The black officers were intelligent and well educated. In 1968, the great majority of San Francisco Bay Area police officers were high school graduates, but with the possible exception of the officers of the Berkeley P.D., most had not earned any college credits. Those nine Richmond black officers not only were high school graduates but also had an average of at least two years of college. In addition, Marvin Smith had two and one-half years' experience as a military policeman in the U.S. Army when he joined the Richmond Police Department on August 1, 1962.

They all knew that disclosing their observations of police brutality by their white colleagues would be both controversial and divisive within the Richmond Police Department and the city.

They knew, or at least believed, that every white officer, even the sergeants and command officers, would deny their charges and make a determined effort to have them removed from the force. They also knew there was a significant risk that some of the white officers would attempt to retaliate further against them and that they, the black officers, would be vulnerable to such retaliatory tactics. One obvious risk was that some white officers would fail to respond promptly to a black officer’s call for desperately needed assistance. Another risk was that white supervisory officers, sergeants and lieutenants, would make unwarranted accusations of poor, cowardly, or incompetent performance by black officers. 306

A more immediate problem they had to face was that one of their own, one of the nine-had engaged in brutality. They knew that the obvious charge many white officers would make in response to their claims of white police officer brutality would be the old "pot calling the kettle black" claim. That accusation could cause confusion and might very well distract from any meaningful consideration of the real issue of police brutality within the department and how to eliminate it.

The other eight black officers knew that it was a big mistake for anyone, particularly a suspected criminal offender, to call Ollie Glover an Uncle Tom. When that happened, there was significant risk that Ollie would go ballistic and beat the hell out of the person. I gained personal knowledge of how Ollie would respond if called a Tom when I represented a defendant at a jury trial who was accused of resisting arrest and misdemeanor battery on a police officer. The officer was Ollie Glover. The case was tried twice, before two different juries, with the first trial resulting in a hung jury and the second in conviction.

My client had been arrested outside Cutting Liquors, a popular liquor store on Cutting Boulevard in the city of Richmond, for disturbing the peace and being intoxicated in public. Ollie Glover initially responded to the call for police assistance. By all accounts, when he arrived at the scene and first spoke with my client, Glover had tried to be helpful and even offered to call a taxi so that my client could be safely transported to his home. My client, however, was highly intoxicated, belligerent, and verbally abusive. He ultimately made the grave mistake of calling Glover an Uncle Tom, and not only a Tom, but "a handker-chiefhead Tom." My client later told me that at the time of the incident, his J&B had told him that he "didn't have to do anything [he] didn't want to do."

Glover arrested my client, who was placed in another officer's patrol car for transport to the city jail. At the jail, my client, still very belligerent, was booked and then taken by Glover to his cell.

My client testified at trial that Glover declined an offer from another officer to assist him in taking the prisoner to a cell because "the presence of a second officer might upset the prisoner." There, according to my client (and years later confirmed by Glover in a private admission to me), Glover beat my client badly.

Privately, my client and I acknowledged that he had behaved terribly and, in the culture of the street, probably deserved a whipping. Nevertheless, Glover's conduct was illegal and constituted police brutality. In court, my client and I were adamant that the criminal charges of resisting arrest and battery on a police officer were false and totally unwarranted. The misdemeanor charges were simply a cover for the illegal beating administered by Officer Glover.

Notwithstanding the probability that Ollie's personal history of misconduct would be disclosed and used by the departmental leadership and other white officers in an attempt to obfuscate the issues of generalized police misconduct, the black officers, with Glover's acquiescence, decided to proceed, a decision that was another measure of their extraordinary courage. The nine officers found that they now "were of one mind and had to do something beyond talk." 307

From the outset, the nine officers appreciated the gravity of the situation and concluded that they needed legal counsel. I was then in private practice in Richmond and had developed a reputation as a competent lawyer who was intensely committed to justice and fairness for everyone. I think I was also a member of the city of Richmond's Human Relations Commission. Hence, it was a logical choice for them to consider me for service as their legal adviser. (To tell the truth, I was probably their only choice in Contra Costa County, because the chance of getting another lawyer in the county to represent them was between slim and none.)

I had gotten to know Marvin Smith pretty well when I was in the Contra Costa County DA's Office and he was working as an evidence technician in the Patrol Division of the Richmond P.D. We had become acquaintances and lived in the same Richmond neighborhood (Plaza II).

Marvin clearly was a leader among the nine black officers, and it was he who suggested to the others that I be asked to serve as legal adviser for the group. My involvement with the officers came well before their initial contacts with the chief's office. At first, I worked mostly behind the scenes, providing legal counsel and other advice concerning various strategies they were considering.

Later, when the officers' charges and their dispute with the police chief became public, my role became public as well. The officers have often said that they were successful in their effort to make public the police misconduct they had observed because, in significant measure, my advice and counsel was always "one and, sometimes, two steps ahead of the chief of police and his advisers."

Whether or not that statement is true, I do know that representing those officers was one of my proudest achievements as a member of the legal profession. And if the statement is true, it is because I was committed to thorough preparation. As a lawyer, it was my experience that poor preparation was a certain formula for failure. While thorough preparation could not guarantee victory in litigation, it clearly was an essential element if victory was to be achieved.

Nothing significant happened in the department, nor was any meaningful action taken by the police chief, mayor, or city manager after the meeting between the black officers and the police chief, captains, lieutenants, and sergeants. As a consequence, the nine black officers decided to draft a protest document to be signed by each and presented to the chief of police and the Richmond City Council.

Initially, Marvin Smith was to sign the document on behalf of the nine, but the black officers decided by consensus that all nine should sign. They were convinced that for the document to have a real effect each of them needed to sign it and that Doug's signature was especially vital.

On the occasion when they discussed among themselves the importance of Doug's signature, Doug himself reminisced that when he was hired as a police officer he was not specifically told that his authority was less than that of a white officer, particularly concerning arresting White people or patrolling in white neighborhoods, but that he "knew there was an understanding." 308

The young officers reminded Doug that he had paved the way for each of them to become Richmond police officers. And while that path had been difficult for him and sometimes even demeaning, now times were different and he "did not have to take it anymore." It was a very dramatic and poignant moment when Doug declared in a forceful voice, "Hand me the board!" and unhesitatingly signed his name.

The black officers held a press conference a day or two later at the local Holiday Inn to make their concerns public. I was also present. Captain Lourne Phelps later had a "speak freely discussion" within the department. A couple of the black officers' white colleagues said to them privately, "I appreciate what you are doing, although I cannot come out and support you publicly."

Soon after receipt of the black officers' written complaint by the city, the matter was scheduled for an evening session of the Richmond City Council on Tuesday, February 3, 1969. At about 6:00 a.m. the day before the scheduled council meeting, each of the black officers was personally served at home by a Richmond police officer with a letter from Chief Robert Murphy. The chief's letter, on department letterhead, was concise and to the point. It was a written order not to appear before the city council, with the threat that an appearance at the city council meeting would constitute cause for discharge from the Richmond police force.

Eight of the nine black officers, dressed in civilian clothes, appeared in the council chambers the next evening at the time for the regularly scheduled meeting. The chambers were packed with citizens of Richmond, members of the press, and interested individuals from nearby communities. The black community was well represented by a substantial number of Richmond residents. I served as spokesperson for the Richmond Nine and introduced each officer individually to the assembled members of the city council.

Doug, the ninth officer, was not present because he was on duty. When advised of this, the mayor and council members directed the city manager to order Sergeant Ellison to report immediately to the council chambers from wherever he was at the time.

It was a dramatic moment when, a very short time after the city manager had been directed to summon him, Sergeant Ellison proudly walked down the center aisle of the council chambers in full police uniform and joined the other protesting officers. As many of today's young black males would say, "The Black Nine was in the house."

Each officer candidly described the problems about which he was concerned and the need for change in the department if those problems were to be corrected. When I advised the council of the threatening letter that each officer had received from the chief, we were told not to be concerned, because all nine were present at the meeting at the direction of the city manager and the council.

309

I wish I could report that meaningful and lasting positive change in the Richmond Police Department resulted from the courageous action of those black officers. Perhaps there was superficial change for a limited time. It may be that offending white officers curbed their behavior when a black officer was their partner or present at the detention or arrest of a black person. But it is now known that substantive and long-lasting positive change did not occur.

Approximately 10 years later three lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging a practice and pattern of brutality directed at blacks by a group of Richmond police officers.

The lead attorney in the three consolidated cases was Oliver Jones, Esq., a 1973 Boalt Hall graduate and, at the time of this litigation, counsel for the Western Division of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) since 1976." The offending officers were described in the press as "cowboys," an image intended to convey that the officers were wild and out of control. The behavior they were accused of was appallingly similar to that complained about years earlier by the Richmond Nine. The claims complained the Richmond Police Department routinely harassed and beat black residents and then groundlessly charged the victims with offenses such as resisting arrest or interfering with the official lawful duties of an officer.

The NAACP played a significant role in the filing of these three cases." The City of Richmond, on or about August 6, 1981, accepted a consent decree in the three cases and subsequently paid the plaintiffs an undisclosed amount to settle the federal police brutality lawsuits. Under the leadership of Ollie Glover, Art Johnson, and Harold Redic, black officers in the Richmond Police Department formed an association in 1972 named the Guardians of Justice.

Its mission statement reads:

We, the members of the Guardians of Justice Black Police Officer Association of the Richmond Police Department, are committed to professional law enforcement; to represent the association members in maintaining the health and welfare of its membership, address work related problems and morale issues; to promote fairness and justice and encourage the membership to work closely together in a spirit of mutual cooperation; to encourage and promote good citizenship in the youth of our community; and strive to enhance the quality of life in our community through support of various community events and organizations each year.

We strive to assist the Richmond Police Department in continuing to provide the service that citizens of Richmond have come to expect.

In 1971, Ollie Glover traveled to Boston, Massachusetts, to attend a meeting of black police officers from all over the United States. This first meeting led to formation of the National Black Police Association, a membership organization, at a meeting the next year in St Louis, Missouri.

Black police officer associations now exist in most major cities in the United States, along with Hispanic associations and a few Asian associations. In the early 1970s, there was extreme polarization between black and mainstream (mostly white) police associations, but thanks in 310
substantial measure to the efforts of black and other minority police associations, there is far less polarization now.

Today's popular notions in the United States of who is a hero or what is a heroic act tend to differ dramatically from my personal conception of heroism. It is not unusual for an athlete who demonstrates exceptional ability in professional sports to be characterized in the media as a "hero." People who are unfortunate victims of highly publicized events are sometimes described as heroes. I view people as heroes who are consciously aware of a clear, present, and significant risk of material harm to themselves or a loved one if they engage in conduct or behavior intended to assist or save another and who still act notwithstanding that known risk.

During the civil rights movement, ordinary people in the southern United States sought to vote when they knew that their behavior would put them at significant risk of being fired from their jobs, being denied a loan (which they may have needed to purchase a home, seeds for planting a crop, or essential farm equipment), being subjected to acceleration of a mortgage payment if just one payment was late, or even suffering grievous bodily harm or death. Their efforts to secure civil and political rights for others, as well as themselves, made them heroes in my estimation.

The firefighters, police officers, and other emergency workers who voluntarily put themselves in harm's way by entering the burning Twin Towers in New York on "9/11" in a brave effort to save others are also heroes.

In my mind, the nine young black Richmond police officers who took the extraordinary action of confirming the existence of significant police brutality by their white peers were heroes. They acted to help others notwithstanding their awareness of a clear, present, and substantial risk of significant harm to themselves. With one exception, these Were not senior officers or people with established rights of retirement.

At the time, except for Sergeant Douglas L. Ellison, none of the nine has been on the police force longer than six years, and yet they took this substantial risk in an effort to bring better police service to their community and to stop the unlawful abuse of black men, particularly black youth, who were the usual targets of unlawful police violence.

The courage of those young officers has inspired me when I have had to decide whether to act to help others, knowing that to do so would place me in serious economic or physical jeopardy.

Many men and women have risked their economic and physical well-being for others, many times for people they didn't even know personally.

Individuals such as Frederick Douglass, Charles Hamilton Houston, Robert "Bob" Carter, Fannie Lou Hamer, Medgar Evers, Robert "Bob" Moses, Leonard "Len" Holt, Constance Baker Motley, and Clinton Wayne White, to name just a few, have all served as role models for me in those circumstances.

I place the nine black Richmond police officers in the same category as those other role models.

Their conduct in 1968 was truly heroic.

311

You may be wondering what happened to the nine black officers:

DOUGLAS L. ELLISON, SERGEANT.

Doug retired from the Richmond Police Department on January 30, 1973, and soon went to work as a police officer for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). He retired as a BART police sergeant in March 1983. He received two retired sergeant badges. Douglas L. Ellison died in Richmond on Saturday, May 6, 2006, at the age of 81.

OLLIE SYLVESTER GLOVER, SERGEANT.

Ollie later became a helicopter pilot for the Richmond Police Department. He resigned from the department as a sergeant in December 1976 in order to pursue a Ph.D. in psychology, which he received from the Wright Institute, Berkeley, California, in April 1980. For the past 25 years, he has worked as a practicing clinical and forensic psychologist.

LEE ARTHUR JOHNSON, CAPTAIN.

Art continued as a member of the Richmond Police Department and retired as a captain of police in November 1992. Art was the first black captain for the Richmond Police Department.

RUDOLPH JOHNSON, SERGEANT.

Rudy took a lateral transfer from the Richmond Police Department to the BART Police Department in 1972. He retired as a BART police sergeant in 1988.

TECUMSEH "DANNY" NELSON, CHIEF OF POLICE.

Danny was the first black promoted to lieutenant in the history of the Richmond Police Department. Danny left the Richmond P.D. as a lieutenant in 1984, when he went to East Palo Alto, California, as that city's first chief of police. There he organized and started a totally new police department. When Danny arrived in East Palo Alto, the police department had no police cars and only one officer-him. Danny left the East Palo Alto Police Department in 1992, when he was appointed chief of police of Salinas, California, the position from which he retired in 1999.

MICHAEL NICHOLS, PATROLMAN.

Mike Nichols transferred to the San Jose Police Department and retired as a motorcycle patrolman with that department.

312

HAROLD REDIC, SERGEANT.

Harold Redic succeeded Marvin R. Smith in the Police Community Relations Unit of the Richmond Police Department. He left the Richmond P.D. in 1974 as a sergeant and went to work as a civil rights investigator at the San Francisco office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Harold retired from HUD in 1996. He is currently working with the Contra Costa County Probation Department as a probation counselor.

MARVIN RICHARD SMITH, PATROLMAN.

Marvin was an evidence technician in the Richmond Police Department when we first met in 1964. "Smitty," as he is called by his friends, was assigned to the Police Community Relations Unit, where he worked until resigning from the Richmond P.D. in early 1970 to accept a position with the San Francisco office of HUD as an investigator and conciliator. At the end of his first year with HUD, Marvin was appointed acting director of the Housing Opportunity Division. He later became director of the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Compliance Division of that office. Marvin left HUD in December 1977 to accept a position as the equal opportunity administrator for the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. He retired from the "Lab" on February 1, 2001. Marvin Smith died on January 29, 2006, within days of his 65th birthday, in Oakland, California.

OTIS TIMMONS JR., PATROLMAN.

Otis left the Richmond Police Department in 1969 to accept a position with the New York Life Insurance Company as an insurance agent. One year later, he returned to police work as a sworn officer with the El Cerrito Police Department. He was seriously injured in 1981 in an on-duty automobile accident and subsequently resigned after receiving a settlement. He later opened Raphael's Shutter Café & Espresso Bar (serving breakfast and lunch) at 10064 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA, 94530, a business that has been quite successful.

313

February 25, 2025

City Council

DATE: February 25, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Council Member Claudia Jimenez

Subject:

Presentation from the United Teachers of Richmond on
West Contra Costa Unified School District’s (WCCUSD)
Fiscal Crisis
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The West Contra Costa Unified School District claims
financial calamity despite having three hundred percent the amount required by the state of California.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a presentation from the United Teachers of
Richmond on West Contra Costa Unified School District’s Manufactured Fiscal Crisis and to review the financial
practices of West Contra Costa Unified School District’s and to discuss recommendations on how to better
support Richmond students and families - Council
Member Claudia Jimenez (510-620-6565).

DISCUSSION:

The West Contra Costa Unified School District’s school board approved a plan in February 2025 that will cut educator and administrative positions and reduce funds for programs and supplies so it can stay fiscally solvent and avoid a state takeover.

AGENDA
REPORT
314

February 25, 2025

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Presentation from the United Teachers of Richmond on West Contra Costa Unified School District’s (WCCUSD) Fiscal Crisis
315
WCCUSD’s Manufactured Fiscal Crisis
And their real recruitment and retention crisis
In the past 3 years: 561 educators have left
316
In the last 5 years:

16.5% increase in educators’ pay

32.8 % WCCUSD’s increase in
overall revenue!
317
CDE Average California Teacher
23-24: $101,084
WCCUSD Average 23-24: $91,374
318
Contra Costa County Above Average
Costs
Out of Reach Report 2024
National Low Income Housing Coalition
11th most expensive county in CA

29.9% more expensive than average of all counties
Founded in 1974 by Cushing N. Dolbeare, the National Low Income Housing Coalition is dedicated to achieving racially and socially equitable public policy that ensures people with the lowest incomes have quality homes that are accessible and affordable in communities of their choice.

NLIHC provides up-to-date information, formulates policy, and educates the public on housing needs and the strategies for solutions. Permission to reprint portions of this report or the data therein is granted, provided appropriate credit is given to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Additional copies of Out of Reach are available from NLIHC.

Self-Sufficiency Standard 2024
University of Washington’s Center for Women’s Welfare
9th most expensive county in CA

43.2% more expensive than average of all counties
A project of the Center for Women’s Welfare (CWW), the Self-Sufficiency Standard is a budget-based, living wage measure that defines the real cost of living for working families at a minimally adequate level. The Standard is an affordability measure and an alternative to the official poverty measure.

The Self-Sufficiency Standard determines the amount of income required for working families to meet basic needs at a minimally adequate level, taking into account family composition, ages of children, and geographic differences in costs. 319
320
It isn't enough for us to be
average. Teacher Salaries need
to be commensurate with the
cost of living in Contra Costa
County and
non-teacher college graduates to
recruit and retain educators in
this district and this profession
321
322
WCCUSD Revenues: Chronic Error or
Educational Misfeasance?
323
Ending Fund Balance
After we were told there was no money for raises or
improvements to our meager healthcare benefits, WCCUSD ended 23-24 with 10% more revenue (an extra $50 million) than it had projected:

Unrestricted $61.8M ($37.6 in Fund 17) -11.56% of total outgo Restricted $101M-19% of total outgo
324
No, Chicken Little, the Sky is not Falling.

Even Fund 17 Never Goes Down!
325
Currently: 1478 FTE, 129 vacancies
Estimate $145,000 per member x 129 = 18,705,000
Total District FTE: 3,596
Filled FTE: 3,098
Vacant FTE: 498
We’re not the only bargaining unit they are saving on
326
WCCUSD
Fiscal
Solvency
Plan
Ratified
2/5/25
327
WCCUSD did not invest the required 55% of its current cost of education in classroom compensation. It only spent 51.34%, which is $11,391,200 less. This includes teachers and
instructional aides salary and benefits.

In September 2024 WCCUSD claimed to have met the
requirement despite not meeting it in the unaudited actuals.

Our District has not met this minimum for the past 4 school years, but our anti-student County Superintendent Lynn Mackey has given WCCUSD a waiver, year after year.
328

35.2% of total outgo = State average for districts our size (20k-30k ADA) spent on Certificated Bargaining unit salaries for 23-24, even after implementing our 7.5% raise,
WCCUSD spent a paltry 29.8%
We know we can do better because in 19-20 WCCUSD
spent 35.6% on Bargaining unit salaries
for 23-24 WCCUSD spent 13% of outgo on
Professional/Consulting services, compared to 9% in 19-20 329
330
331

02/25/2025

Mayor's Office

DATE: February 25, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez

Subject:

Presentation from AC Transit: Macdonald Ave nue and
Cutting Boulevard Transit Improvement Update
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Macdonald Avenue and Cutting Boulevard Transit
Improvement Project will include the design and
implementation of transit operations, access and safety improvements along Macdonald Avenue between and
including Richmond Parkway and Wilson Avenue. A
Traffic Study will be prepared to assess a variety of
impacts related to Del Norte BART Station improvement
projects and to identify improved operation
recommendations for Alameda Contra-Costa Transit
District(AC Transit), Golden Gate Transit, Napa Valley
TA, Soltrans and WestCat bus services.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE a presentation by Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) – Mayor’s Office (Mayor
Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

The Macdonald Avenue and Cutting Boulevard Transit Improvement Project will focus on designing and implementing enhancements to transit operations, accessibility, and safety along Macdonald Avenue, spanning from Richmond Parkway to Wilson Avenue.

AGENDA
REPORT
332

02/25/2025
As part of this effort, a traffic study will be conducted to evaluate potential impacts associated with Del Norte BART Station improvement projects. The study will also provide recommendations for optimizing operations for Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), Golden Gate Transit, Napa Valley Transportation Authority, SolTrans, and WestCAT bus services.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Presentation

333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358

February 25, 2025

City Council

DATE: February 25, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda
Subject:

Discuss and Provide Direction on Future City Council
Meeting Start Times
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Discuss options of changing the time of City Council
meetings, on a trial basis. To allow for more community participation.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

DISCUSS and PROVIDE DIRECTION to the City Clerk
on the time of City Council meetings - Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda (510-685-5002).

DISCUSSION:

Discuss options related to changing the time of City Council meetings, on a trial basis.

Many times, City Council meetings go till past midnight and many community members AGENDA
REPORT
359

February 25, 2025
are not able to participate because the agenda goes very late. Moving the time to start earlier might allow for the meeting to be done earlier, and hopefully more community members can participate on items later in the agenda. However, this can also be a challenge for community members to participate early, since many might still be at work.

Options should be discussed and allow the public to provide their input.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

None
360